Some Contradictory Claims of SR.
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: ben6993 is a LIAR.
Next: Light wave is immaterial
From: Robert Higgins on 4 Jul 2010 11:33 On Jul 4, 9:08 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > 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. Maybe if you understood time zones, you'd be better prepared for physics. > > > > > 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: PD on 4 Jul 2010 15:00 On Jul 4, 8:25 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > 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. And that's ridiculous, Ken. Light speed is isotropic, closing speed is not. Those are two completely separate things. I would help if you knew what the terms mean. > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Michael Moroney on 6 Jul 2010 15:52 kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes: >On Jul 1, 10:29 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >wrote: >> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: >> >> >but SR predicts that that the >> >bug dies at two different instants of time due to length contraction >> >and that is the source of contradiction. >> >> No it doesn't. Both observers agree that the bug dies, just once. >Hey idiot.... Since it is you who is having such a tough time understanding this problem yet you continue to refuse to learn SR, I'd say that you're the idiot around here. >1. both observers must agree that the bug dies at the instant when the >tip of the rivet hits it. Exactly correct. >2. SR predicts that the bug dies at two different instants of time. Wrong. SR predicts the bug dies when the rivet tip hits it, which happens exactly once.
From: Michael Moroney on 6 Jul 2010 15:55 kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes: >On Jul 1, 11:49 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> 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? WHAT "actual observation" ? Give references. Remember, your assertions are just assertions, not facts.
From: Michael Moroney on 6 Jul 2010 16:01
Sam Wormley <swormley1(a)gmail.com> writes: >On 7/2/10 8:16 AM, kenseto wrote: >> >> 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! Ken is actually asking about the reverse. What is the speed of the ground clock as seen by an observer on a GPS satellite. But you're correct, the math is beyond him. |