Some Contradictory Claims of SR.
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: ben6993 is a LIAR.
Next: Light wave is immaterial
From: Inertial on 9 Jun 2010 20:39 "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message news:153e43b7-366d-4a12-a6a2-8b6a801d7c18(a)a30g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 8, 1:29 pm, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote: >> kenseto wrote: >> > Some Contradictory Claims of SR: 1. In the bug and >> > the rivet paradox: From the hole point of view the >> > bug is still alive just before the rivet head hits >> > the wall of the hole. From the rivet point of view >> > the bug is already dead just before the head of the >> > rivet hits the wall of the hole. >> >> > 2. In the barn and the pole paradox: From the barn >> > point of view an 80 ft pole can fit into a 40 ft. >> > barn with both doors close simultaneously. From the >> > pole point of view an 80 ft. pole cannot fit into a >> > 40 ft barn with both doors close simultaneously. >> >> At first, the scientists, and I presume Lorentz and >> Fitzgerald, thought that the relativistic effects were >> only apparent. Not real for both observers. Later, when >> relativity became more entrenched, it was tought that >> the effects were mutual, real for both observers. > > The PoR of SR allows every SR observer to assume that he is in a > preferred frame Only in the sense of 'the frame he wants to use' > and that's why every SR observer ClAIMS THE EXCLUSIVE > PROPERTIES OF THE PREFERRED FRAME There is no 'the' preferred frames. just 'a' preferred frame for a particular observer > ....namely that all the clocks moving > wrt every SR observer are running slow you mean are measured as running slow. there is no intrinsic change to the clocks > and all the meter sticks moving > wrt every Sr observer are contracted. you mean are measured as contracted. there is no intrinsic change to the rulers > These assumptions gives rise to > the bogus concept of mutual time dilation. You mean the time dilation that we observe experimentally? >> Suppose relativity works absolute after all, and that >> the preferred frame is the average mass distribution of >> the universe. > > SR has a limited domain of applicability....it works OK if the > observed clock is in a higher state of absolute motion than the > observer. Wrong .. it works regardless > that's why SR is valid for accelerator desogn > applications....where the accelerated particles are in a higher state > of absolute motion. How do you KNOW that they are. DO you KNOW what the absolute frame is? >> The barn is at rest wrt this frame, so it does not have >> any real length contraction. > > No the barn is not at rest in the preferred frame. There is no 'the' preferred frame .. only the rest frame of the observer (the one he prefers to work with). The barn is at rest in that frame > The PoR allows the > barn observer to assume that he is at rest in a preferred frame. Yes it does > In > any case there is no physical length contraction in SR... There is no intrinsic change to the objects. The measured length is contracted, however, when measured by a relatively moving observer > that's why > the SRians came up with the new interpretation that the geometric > projection of a moving meter stick is foreshortened....much like I see > you to be shorter from a distance. Not like that at all ,really >> The pole flies by at high speed and has length >> contraction. The barn puts light signals at both >> doors when the tail of the pole passes at the back door >> and when the front of the pole passes at the front door. > > No...the barn observer predicts that the doors can close > simultaneously briefly with the pole inside the barn. That is correct .. and so the pole is inside the barn. So it must be at least as short as the barn. It cannot be longer or the doors could not shut. Glad you finally admit it. > The pole > observer predicts that the doors cannot be closed simultaneously > because the physical length of the pole is longer than the physical > length of the barn. That is correct .. though don't use the word physical .. it confuses people (mostly you). 'Measured' is better.
From: Inertial on 9 Jun 2010 20:41 "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message news:b9a8ea71-50d5-42c7-bf78-0f0552c48a5a(a)c10g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 9, 8:24 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> > On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 09:36:28 +0200, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> >> > wrote: >> >> >>PD wrote: >> >>> On Jun 8, 12:29 pm, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote: >> >>>> kenseto wrote: >> >>>>> Some Contradictory Claims of SR: 1. In the bug and >> >>>>> the rivet paradox: From the hole point of view the >> >>>>> bug is still alive just before the rivet head hits >> >>>>> the wall of the hole. From the rivet point of view >> >>>>> the bug is already dead just before the head of the >> >>>>> rivet hits the wall of the hole. >> >>>>> 2. In the barn and the pole paradox: From the barn >> >>>>> point of view an 80 ft pole can fit into a 40 ft. >> >>>>> barn with both doors close simultaneously. From the >> >>>>> pole point of view an 80 ft. pole cannot fit into a >> >>>>> 40 ft barn with both doors close simultaneously. >> >>>> At first, the scientists, and I presume Lorentz and >> >>>> Fitzgerald, thought that the relativistic effects were >> >>>> only apparent. Not real for both observers. Later, when >> >>>> relativity became more entrenched, it was tought that >> >>>> the effects were mutual, real for both observers. >> >> >>>> Suppose relativity works absolute after all, and that >> >>>> the preferred frame is the average mass distribution of >> >>>> the universe. >> >> >>>> The barn is at rest wrt this frame, so it does not have >> >>>> any real length contraction. >> >> >>> Hmmm... This seems to be a bit artificial to assume the barn is in >> >>> the >> >>> preferred frame. >> >>> Suppose neither the barn nor the pole are at rest relative to the >> >>> average mass distribution of the universe. Then how would you >> >>> describe >> >>> things? >> >> >>Then, part of the effects will be real, and part of them >> >>apparent, but to both observers, things will look the >> >>same as either of them would be in rest wrt to the >> >>preferred frame. This is the argument of the relativists >> >>against the preferred frame, but that does not mean it >> >>is not there, it is useful for understanding how it all >> >>works, and this absolute view also eliminates the twin >> >>paradox. >> >> There is no paradox. You get the same unintuitive result in both LET and >> SR. An absolute / preferred frame or an aether doesn't change anything >> anything about it. > > Then why does every SR observer claims the exclusive properties of the > absolute rest frame?? There is no 'the absolute rest frame' so it does not have any properties to claim. Every inertial observer can claim their inertial frame has the same physics as any other inertial frame. For some weird reason you give the label 'the exclusive properties of absolute rest frame' for the properties that are NOT exclusive to any frame. Your choice of working is at best poor.
From: Inertial on 9 Jun 2010 20:43 "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message news:72a1a6b2-d3d4-4882-a4b1-f1572fff511b(a)b35g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 9, 5:12 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Hayek" <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message >> >> news:4c0f53b4$0$22940$e4fe514c(a)news.xs4all.nl... >> >> > Inertial wrote: >> >> "eric gisse" <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >>news:humico$6dk$2(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> >>> kenseto wrote: >> >>> [...] >> >> >>> What's this supposed to accomplish, Ken? >> >> >> To let us all know that after many years (if not decade) he still >> >> doesn't >> >> understand SR or what it predicts. I guess his argument then is >> >> (speaking as Ken): " if even *I* cannot understand SR, then it must be >> >> wrong .. as clearly it could NOT be *MY* failing". >> >> > But you are saying that you accept the fact that if a spaceship leaves >> > the >> > earth at close to light speed, clocks on Earth really slow down ? >> >> I didn't say anything of the sort .. where do you see me saying that >> above? >> >> In SR (and LET) nothing intrinsic changes in the clock rate on earth. >> >> In LET, something happens to the clocks in the spaceship (but not in SR) >> compared to when they were at rest on the earth. > > Then how come the clock in the spaceship shows less elapsed seconds > when it returns to earth? Difference in clock sync >> However, in both LET and SR, observers at rest in the spaceship frame >> will >> calculate/measure the clock rate on the earth to be slower. And >> observers >> at rest in the earth frame will calculate/measure the clock rate of the >> spaceship to be slower > > Hey idiot when comparing two clocks A and B Please specify how you are comparing them > the following possibilites > exist: > 1. A runs fast compared to B. > 2. Then B runs slow compared to A. Who is doing the comparison? > At no time that A sees B runs slow and B sees A runs slow Wrong >....this > bogus SR assertion is based on the bogus SR assumption that every SR > observer assumes that exclusive properties of the preferred frame. That is bogus.
From: Inertial on 9 Jun 2010 20:45 "Hayek" <hayektt(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message news:4c0fc88c$0$22944$e4fe514c(a)news.xs4all.nl... > PD wrote: >> On Jun 9, 2:36 am, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> >> wrote: >>> PD wrote: >>>> On Jun 8, 12:29 pm, Hayek >>>> <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote: >>>>> kenseto wrote: >>>>>> Some Contradictory Claims of SR: 1. In the >>>>>> bug and the rivet paradox: From the hole >>>>>> point of view the bug is still alive just >>>>>> before the rivet head hits the wall of the >>>>>> hole. From the rivet point of view the bug is >>>>>> already dead just before the head of the rivet hits the wall of the >>>>>> hole. 2. In the >>>>>> barn and the pole paradox: From the barn point of view an 80 ft pole >>>>>> can fit into a 40 >>>>>> ft. barn with both doors close >>>>>> simultaneously. From the pole point of view >>>>>> an 80 ft. pole cannot fit into a 40 ft barn >>>>>> with both doors close simultaneously. >>>>> At first, the scientists, and I presume Lorentz >>>>> and Fitzgerald, thought that the relativistic >>>>> effects were only apparent. Not real for both >>>>> observers. Later, when relativity became more >>>>> entrenched, it was tought that the effects were >>>>> mutual, real for both observers. Suppose >>>>> relativity works absolute after all, and that the preferred frame is >>>>> the average mass >>>>> distribution of the universe. The barn is at >>>>> rest wrt this frame, so it does not have any >>>>> real length contraction. >>>> Hmmm... This seems to be a bit artificial to >>>> assume the barn is in the preferred frame. Suppose neither the barn nor >>>> the pole are at rest >>>> relative to the average mass distribution of the >>>> universe. Then how would you describe things? >>> Then, part of the effects will be real, and part of >>> them apparent, >> >> Does the above make any sense to you at all? > > motion wrt to preferred frame -> real gamma increase. > > relative motion only -> only apparant effects, for the > other observer. > > I cannot make it any simpler. You are talking LET .. not SR. There is no preferred frame in SR .. all effects are measured only. In LET there is a combination of measured and phsycial effects that end up with the same results as the measured-only effects of SR. LET is more complicated.
From: Inertial on 9 Jun 2010 20:59
"PD" <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:23253c7c-31b3-43f5-a6eb-93d3f79c402c(a)i28g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 9, 2:36 am, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote: >> PD wrote: >> > On Jun 8, 12:29 pm, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote: >> >> kenseto wrote: >> >>> Some Contradictory Claims of SR: 1. In the bug and >> >>> the rivet paradox: From the hole point of view the >> >>> bug is still alive just before the rivet head hits >> >>> the wall of the hole. From the rivet point of view >> >>> the bug is already dead just before the head of the >> >>> rivet hits the wall of the hole. >> >>> 2. In the barn and the pole paradox: From the barn >> >>> point of view an 80 ft pole can fit into a 40 ft. >> >>> barn with both doors close simultaneously. From the >> >>> pole point of view an 80 ft. pole cannot fit into a >> >>> 40 ft barn with both doors close simultaneously. >> >> At first, the scientists, and I presume Lorentz and >> >> Fitzgerald, thought that the relativistic effects were >> >> only apparent. Not real for both observers. Later, when >> >> relativity became more entrenched, it was tought that >> >> the effects were mutual, real for both observers. >> >> >> Suppose relativity works absolute after all, and that >> >> the preferred frame is the average mass distribution of >> >> the universe. >> >> >> The barn is at rest wrt this frame, so it does not have >> >> any real length contraction. >> >> > Hmmm... This seems to be a bit artificial to assume the barn is in the >> > preferred frame. >> > Suppose neither the barn nor the pole are at rest relative to the >> > average mass distribution of the universe. Then how would you describe >> > things? >> >> Then, part of the effects will be real, and part of them >> apparent, > > Does the above make any sense to you at all? I understand what he's saying .. maybe not the best choice of words for 'real' and 'apparent'. In SR clocks are not affected by the motion of the observers (nor what observers measure the clock's motion to be), nor are ruler affected. There is no physical intrinsic change to the clocks or the rulers (what Hayek called 'real') However, the clock rate and ruler length a moving observer will measure (including measurements like whether a pole will fit in a barn) are affected. (what Hayek called 'apparent') In LET you have similar relationships with measured values EXCEPT that, in addition, clock ticking rates and ruler lengths ARE physically and intrinsically affected by their ABSOLUTE motion in the aether. The combined effect of physical intrinsic effect and measured values in LET is EXACTLY the same as what the measured values are in SR |