Some Contradictory Claims of SR.
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: ben6993 is a LIAR.
Next: Light wave is immaterial
From: kenseto on 3 Jul 2010 12:04 On Jul 2, 10:07 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 1, 8:30 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 30, 12:19 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 29, 6:58 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > "Ann O'Nymous" <nob...(a)nowhere.com> wrote in message > > > > >news:i0di3v$kpr$1(a)speranza.aioe.org... > > > > > > References: > > > > > <958cf824-148b4091-9603d97d9d83a...(a)d16g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> > > > > > > PD wrote: > > > > > > >On Jun 25, 4:02 pm, Ann O'Nymous <nob...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > > > > > >> One thing I don't understand is this: Assume the hole is 1 light > > > > > >> second > > > > > >> long, and the rivet shaft (in the rest frame) is 0.75 light seconds > > > > > >> long, and it's approaching the hole at a speed such that gamma=2. > > > > > > >> As far as the bug is concerned, when the rivet is approaching, its > > > > > >> shaft > > > > > >> is 0.375 light seconds long and it can't reach the bottom of the hole. > > > > > >> Even when the shoulder of the rivet hits, the now stationary shaft is > > > > > >> 0.75 light seconds long so it still doesn't reach the bottom of the > > > > > >> hole, so the bug lives. > > > > > > > No it doesn't. You are assuming the rivet is infinitely stiff and that > > > > > > when the shoulder of the rivet stops, then the tip of the rivet stops > > > > > > at the same time. But the tip of the rivet cannot possibly know about > > > > > > what's happened to the shoulder of the rivet until 0.375 seconds later > > > > > > at the *earliest*, because no signal can travel faster than c. > > > > > > >One of the important outcomes of relativity is that there is no such > > > > > > thing as an infinitely stiff object, even in principle. To suppose it > > > > > > is to suppose the existence of an object that violates the laws of > > > > > > nature. > > > > > > > That's like asking what the 2nd law of thermodynamics would predict if > > > > > > there were an engine that could violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. > > > > > > OK, you are correct about the speed of light. Yet, what about a > > > > > "maximally stiff" rivet where the speed of sound(?) through it equals > > > > > the speed of light. As far as the bug is concerned, the shaft is 0.375 > > > > > light-seconds long when the rivet head hits the wall. The tip keeps > > > > > approaching since it takes time for that information to propagate.. It > > > > > takes 0.375 seconds to move to the tip which means the top approaches > > > > > another 0.375 light-seconds before it stops. Therefore it's 0.75 light > > > > > seconds long when it stops so the bug doesn't get squished. What's wrong > > > > > with this? > > > > > The math. It will take longer than 0.375 light seconds for the information > > > > to arrive because the tip is moving in that frame .. the information has to > > > > 'chase' the tip. > > > > That's right. > > > That's not right. both frames must agree that the bug dies at the > > instant when the tip of the rivet hits it. The math cannot cause the > > bug to die. > > It is right, Ken. The math doesn't cause anything. The rivet tip > causes the bug to die. All the math does is show that the laws of > physics are consistent with what happens. Hey idiot professor SR predicts that the tip of the rivet squishes the bug to death at two different times. Ken Seto > > Don't be an idiot. > > Whoops, too late.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Robert Higgins on 3 Jul 2010 13:48 On Jul 3, 12:04 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Jul 2, 10:07 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 1, 8:30 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 30, 12:19 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 29, 6:58 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > > "Ann O'Nymous" <nob...(a)nowhere.com> wrote in message > > > > > >news:i0di3v$kpr$1(a)speranza.aioe.org... > > > > > > > References: > > > > > > <958cf824-148b4091-9603d97d9d83a...(a)d16g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> > > > > > > > PD wrote: > > > > > > > >On Jun 25, 4:02 pm, Ann O'Nymous <nob...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > > > > > > >> One thing I don't understand is this: Assume the hole is 1 light > > > > > > >> second > > > > > > >> long, and the rivet shaft (in the rest frame) is 0.75 light seconds > > > > > > >> long, and it's approaching the hole at a speed such that gamma=2. > > > > > > > >> As far as the bug is concerned, when the rivet is approaching, its > > > > > > >> shaft > > > > > > >> is 0.375 light seconds long and it can't reach the bottom of the hole. > > > > > > >> Even when the shoulder of the rivet hits, the now stationary shaft is > > > > > > >> 0.75 light seconds long so it still doesn't reach the bottom of the > > > > > > >> hole, so the bug lives. > > > > > > > > No it doesn't. You are assuming the rivet is infinitely stiff and that > > > > > > > when the shoulder of the rivet stops, then the tip of the rivet stops > > > > > > > at the same time. But the tip of the rivet cannot possibly know about > > > > > > > what's happened to the shoulder of the rivet until 0.375 seconds later > > > > > > > at the *earliest*, because no signal can travel faster than c.. > > > > > > > >One of the important outcomes of relativity is that there is no such > > > > > > > thing as an infinitely stiff object, even in principle. To suppose it > > > > > > > is to suppose the existence of an object that violates the laws of > > > > > > > nature. > > > > > > > > That's like asking what the 2nd law of thermodynamics would predict if > > > > > > > there were an engine that could violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. > > > > > > > OK, you are correct about the speed of light. Yet, what about a > > > > > > "maximally stiff" rivet where the speed of sound(?) through it equals > > > > > > the speed of light. As far as the bug is concerned, the shaft is 0.375 > > > > > > light-seconds long when the rivet head hits the wall. The tip keeps > > > > > > approaching since it takes time for that information to propagate. It > > > > > > takes 0.375 seconds to move to the tip which means the top approaches > > > > > > another 0.375 light-seconds before it stops. Therefore it's 0.75 light > > > > > > seconds long when it stops so the bug doesn't get squished. What's wrong > > > > > > with this? > > > > > > The math. It will take longer than 0.375 light seconds for the information > > > > > to arrive because the tip is moving in that frame .. the information has to > > > > > 'chase' the tip. > > > > > That's right. > > > > That's not right. both frames must agree that the bug dies at the > > > instant when the tip of the rivet hits it. The math cannot cause the > > > bug to die. > > > It is right, Ken. The math doesn't cause anything. The rivet tip > > causes the bug to die. All the math does is show that the laws of > > physics are consistent with what happens. > > Hey idiot professor SR predicts that the tip of the rivet squishes the > bug to death at two different times. Of course - DUH! My typing this sentence happens at two different times, too - one time from a clock in the Eastern U.S., and one in Amsterdam. The clock in Amsterdam registers a time 6 hours later than the time in U.S. No big deal - and this isn't SR. Are you one of those people who gets confused by TIME ZONES? Are you Y. Porat? > > Ken Seto > > > > > Don't be an idiot. > > > Whoops, too late.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 3 Jul 2010 16:57 On Jul 3, 10:56 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Jul 2, 9:55 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > Hey idiot professor....there is no closing speed inside the train. Don't be an idiot, Ken. Of COURSE there is closing speed inside the train. Whatever gives you the notion you can just say it doesn't exist? You don't even know what closing speed MEANS. > > > > > > > > > >> 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -
From: kenseto on 4 Jul 2010 09:08 On Jul 3, 1:48 pm, Robert Higgins <robert_higgins...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 3, 12:04 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 2, 10:07 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 1, 8:30 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 30, 12:19 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jun 29, 6:58 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > > > "Ann O'Nymous" <nob...(a)nowhere.com> wrote in message > > > > > > >news:i0di3v$kpr$1(a)speranza.aioe.org... > > > > > > > > References: > > > > > > > <958cf824-148b4091-9603d97d9d83a...(a)d16g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> > > > > > > > > PD wrote: > > > > > > > > >On Jun 25, 4:02 pm, Ann O'Nymous <nob...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > > > > > > > >> One thing I don't understand is this: Assume the hole is 1 light > > > > > > > >> second > > > > > > > >> long, and the rivet shaft (in the rest frame) is 0.75 light seconds > > > > > > > >> long, and it's approaching the hole at a speed such that gamma=2. > > > > > > > > >> As far as the bug is concerned, when the rivet is approaching, its > > > > > > > >> shaft > > > > > > > >> is 0.375 light seconds long and it can't reach the bottom of the hole. > > > > > > > >> Even when the shoulder of the rivet hits, the now stationary shaft is > > > > > > > >> 0.75 light seconds long so it still doesn't reach the bottom of the > > > > > > > >> hole, so the bug lives. > > > > > > > > > No it doesn't. You are assuming the rivet is infinitely stiff and that > > > > > > > > when the shoulder of the rivet stops, then the tip of the rivet stops > > > > > > > > at the same time. But the tip of the rivet cannot possibly know about > > > > > > > > what's happened to the shoulder of the rivet until 0.375 seconds later > > > > > > > > at the *earliest*, because no signal can travel faster than c. > > > > > > > > >One of the important outcomes of relativity is that there is no such > > > > > > > > thing as an infinitely stiff object, even in principle. To suppose it > > > > > > > > is to suppose the existence of an object that violates the laws of > > > > > > > > nature. > > > > > > > > > That's like asking what the 2nd law of thermodynamics would predict if > > > > > > > > there were an engine that could violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. > > > > > > > > OK, you are correct about the speed of light. Yet, what about a > > > > > > > "maximally stiff" rivet where the speed of sound(?) through it equals > > > > > > > the speed of light. As far as the bug is concerned, the shaft is 0.375 > > > > > > > light-seconds long when the rivet head hits the wall. The tip keeps > > > > > > > approaching since it takes time for that information to propagate. It > > > > > > > takes 0.375 seconds to move to the tip which means the top approaches > > > > > > > another 0.375 light-seconds before it stops. Therefore it's 0.75 light > > > > > > > seconds long when it stops so the bug doesn't get squished. What's wrong > > > > > > > with this? > > > > > > > The math. It will take longer than 0.375 light seconds for the information > > > > > > to arrive because the tip is moving in that frame .. the information has to > > > > > > 'chase' the tip. > > > > > > That's right. > > > > > That's not right. both frames must agree that the bug dies at the > > > > instant when the tip of the rivet hits it. The math cannot cause the > > > > bug to die. > > > > It is right, Ken. The math doesn't cause anything. The rivet tip > > > causes the bug to die. All the math does is show that the laws of > > > physics are consistent with what happens. > > > Hey idiot professor SR predicts that the tip of the rivet squishes the > > bug to death at two different times. > > Of course - DUH! > My typing this sentence happens at two different times, too - one time > from a clock in the Eastern U.S., and one in Amsterdam. The clock in > Amsterdam registers a time 6 hours later than the time in U.S. No big > deal - and this isn't SR. ROTFLOL....you are a runt of the SRians. > > Are you one of those people who gets confused by TIME ZONES? Are you > Y. Porat? > > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > Don't be an idiot. > > > > Whoops, too late.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: kenseto on 4 Jul 2010 09:25
On Jul 3, 4:57 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 3, 10:56 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 2, 9:55 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > Hey idiot professor....there is no closing speed inside the train. > > Don't be an idiot, Ken. Of COURSE there is closing speed inside the > train. Whatever gives you the notion you can just say it doesn't > exist? You are an idiot...if there is a difference in closing speeds between light and the train observer then the train observer would not be able to measure the speed of light in the train to be isotropic. Ken Seto > You don't even know what closing speed MEANS. > > > > > > > > > > >> 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |