Some Contradictory Claims of SR.
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: ben6993 is a LIAR.
Next: Light wave is immaterial
From: Sam Wormley on 2 Jul 2010 09:37 On 7/2/10 8:16 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Jul 1, 11:49 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On 7/1/10 9:38 PM, Michael Moroney wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> kenseto<kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: >> >>>> On Jun 30, 4:02 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >>>> wrote: >>>>> kenseto<kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: >>>>>> On Jun 29, 2:27 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>> Your assertion the GPS sees the ground clock running fast doesn't make >>>>>>> it true. Your claim "confirmed by experiments" is false. >>>>>> Hey idiot it is not an assertion....they use the SR eqations to >>>>>> calculate the SR effect and use the gravitational potential effect >>>>>> equation to calculate the gravitational effect. The combination of >>>>>> these two effect is the GR effect. >> >>>>> Yes it is an assertion. You assert that SR equations calculate that from >>>>> the satellite point of view, the SR effect on the ground clock is ~7us/day >>>>> running *fast*. SR does no such thing, if you do the math you'll see the >>>>> SR effect will have the satellite clock seeing the ground clock as running >>>>> *slow*. Of course, as Sam Wormley will point out, you have to use GR >>>>> because of the gravitational effect. I pointed out in the past the motion >>>>> part of GR means the ground clock is slowed by ~7 uS/day as far as the >>>>> satellite clock is concerned, and the ground clock is slowed by another >>>>> ~45uS/day due to gravitational effects adding to ~52 uS/day running slow >>>>> but Wormley doesn't like me doing that. (I'm ignoring second order effects >>>>> and assuming the eccentricity of the orbit is 0) >> >>>> Hey idiot we cover this before.... >> >>> Yet you still haven't learned yet. >> >>>> even wormy disagree with you. >> >>> He disagrees with you much more, and he certainly doesn't agree that SR >>> motion makes a clock run fast. I'm sure he'll agree with me that that is >>> an (incorrect) assertion of yours. >> >> But, of course. Seto, listen up, I have no qualms with Michael's >> postings. He is just trying to get you to examine the folly of your >> misunderstandings about relativity theory. > > So you now agree with him that the satllite sees the ground clock > running 53us/day running slow??? Do you realize that this disagree > with actual observation? > Seto do you have any idea how to calculate the time dilation as seen from the surface of the earth of a satellite clock in a circular orbit at an orbital altitude of 202 km? Relativistic Effects on Satellite Clocks http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=node5.html shows you how. You couldn't get the right answer if your life depended on it!
From: Sam Wormley on 2 Jul 2010 09:54 On 7/2/10 8:12 AM, kenseto wrote: > 2. SR predicts that the bug dies at two different instants of time. > > Ken Seto > Wrong, Seto -- One observer. SR is correct every time!
From: PD on 2 Jul 2010 09:55 On Jul 1, 8:32 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Jun 30, 1:08 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 6/30/10 8:49 AM, kenseto wrote: > > > > No RoS is a bogus concept. It requires that M' moves wrt the light > > > fronts from the ends of the train and thus violates the isotropy of > > > the speed of light in the train. > > > Ken, the following article addresses the very misunderstandings > > you have about relativity. > > Hey idiot RoS violate the isotropy of the speed of light in the train. No it doesn't, Ken. The only thing that is not isotropic is the closing speed. That's not the speed of light. > > > > > > > >> Student understanding of time in special relativity: > > >> simultaneity and reference frames > > > >> Rachel E. Scherr, Peter S. Shaffer, and Stamatis Vokos > > >> Department of Physics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA > > > >> This article reports on an investigation of student understanding of the concept of > > >> time in special relativity. A series of research tasks are discussed that illustrate, > > >> step-by-step, how student reasoning of fundamental concepts of relativity was > > >> probed. The results indicate that after standard instruction students at all academic > > >> levels have serious difficulties with the relativity of simultaneity and with the role > > >> of observers in inertial reference frames. Evidence is presented that suggests > > >> many students construct a conceptual framework in which the ideas of absolute > > >> simultaneity and the relativity of simultaneity harmoniously co-exist. > > > >http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0207109 > > > > VII. CONCLUSION > > > This investigation has identified widespread difficulties that > > > students have with the definition of the time of an event and > > > the role of intelligent observers. After instruction, more than > > > 2/3 of physics undergraduates and 1/3 of graduate students in > > > physics are unable to apply the construct of a reference frame > > > in determining whether or not two events are simultaneous. Many > > > students interpret the phrase relativity of simultaneity as > > > implying that the simultaneity of events is determined by an > > > observer on the basis of the reception of light signals. They > > > often attribute the relativity of simultaneity to the > > > difference in signal travel time for different observers. In > > > this way, they reconcile statements of the relativity of > > > simultaneity with a belief in absolute simultaneity and fail > > > to confront the startling ideas of special relativity.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 2 Jul 2010 09:56 On Jul 1, 8:49 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Jun 30, 3:21 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > wrote: > > > > > > > kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > > >On Jun 29, 2:22 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > > >wrote: > > >> >> >A and B sees the stars go nova at > > >> >> >different times because they are at different distances from the > > >> >> >stars. > > > >> >> Exactly. The order of events depends on the frame, when and where the > > >> >> observer is in spacetime. > > >> >No....not exactly....your gedanken is meaningless. > > > >> It's not meaningless. It's just that you simply can't (won't) understand > > >> it. You need to listen to PD and Wormley. You need to open a book and > > >> actually learn SR. > > >It is meaningless because all you are saying is that if you stand > > >closer to a light source A than light source B then you will see A's > > >light before B's light. > > > So, if a second observer is closer to B than A in this gedanken, then > > the second observer will see B's light first? Agreed? > > > Therefore, the two observers will disagree whether A or B happened first. > > One saw A happen first, the other saw B happen first. > > Agreed? > > > > BTW PD and wormy are idiots. > > > Why not disprove their claims rather than attacking them? Because you > > can't, right? > > > >> This is mostly gibberish. However, just like the star example, the > > >> order of events depend on the observers' reference frame and their > > >> position in spacetime. The two stars/two observers is pretty much the > > >> simplest example of this. Two observers disagree on the order of two > > >> events due only to their locations. > > >Hey idiot there is no order of event in this case. There is only one > > >event....the bug dies at the instant when the tip of the rivet hits it > > >and both frame must agre to that. > > > Two events. The rivet head hitting the wall is an event. > > You are correct in that both frames agree that the bug dies when the > > rivet head strikes it. > > That's the only event that's relevant....but SR predicts that that the > bug dies at two different instants of time No it doesn't. The bug dies at ONE instant of time, when the rivet tip hits it. What you're confused about is the OTHER event, which might be before or after this instant, depending on reference frame. > due to length contraction > and that is the source of contradiction. > > Ken Seto > > > > >The question isn't that, but whether that takes > > place before or after the second event, which is the rivet head hitting > > the wall. > > > If this will help you understand that there are two events, add a second > > bug, on the wall at the edge of the hole. The shaft misses it, the head > > of the rivet squishes it. Which bug dies first? > > > > The paradox is: the rivet frame > > >claims that the bug dies before the head of the rivet hits the wall of > > >the hole and the hole frame claims that the bug dies after the rivet > > >head hits the wall of the hole. This means that one of these claim is > > >false....my money is on the hole frame's claim because there is no > > >phyiscal length contraction. > > > So you have no math to support your claims. You're simply betting on > > one of them, apparently as a hunch. > > > That's not how science works.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 2 Jul 2010 10:00
On Jul 1, 8:25 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Jun 30, 12:18 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 30, 9:26 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > Sure there is contradiction as follows: > > > 1. You agree that the bug dies in both frames at the same instant of > > > time when the tip of the rivet hits it. > > > 2. You made the assertion that the bug dies beforew the head of the > > > rivet hit the wall of the hole and then made the contradictory > > > assertion that the bug dies after the head of the rivet hits the wall > > > of the hole....these are two different instants of time. > > > No, they are not. You have this mistaken notion that "an instant of > > time" has a common meaning for all spatially separate events, > > regardless of reference frame. This is- Hide quoted text - > > Hey idiot both frame must agree that the bug die at the instant when > the tip of the rivet hits it. But SR predicts that it dies at two > different instants of time No, Ken, the bug dies at ONE instant of time. That's when the rivet tip hits the bug. Likewise, the head of the rivet hitting the wall happens at ONE instant of time. What is frame-dependent is which instant precedes the other instant. > dues to length contraction and that's a > contradiction....the way to resolve this contradiction is that length > conraction is an apparent or geometric projection effect.....not a > physical/material effect as you asserted. You attempt to have it both > way by insisting that length contraction in SR is physical but not > material is laughablely stupid. Length contraction IS physical and it is NOT material. That's because "physical" and "material" do not mean the same thing. They might to you, but that's because you don't learn the meaning of terms as used in physics. > Ken Seto > > > - Show quoted text -... > > > read more » |