Some Contradictory Claims of SR.
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: ben6993 is a LIAR.
Next: Light wave is immaterial
From: kenseto on 10 Jun 2010 09:47 On Jun 9, 8:43 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "kenseto" <kens...(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? It doesn't matter who is doing the comparison. > > > At no time that A sees B runs slow and B sees A runs slow > > Wrong Assertion is not a valid arguement.....the bogus concept of mutual time dilation is based on the bogus assumption of the PoR that asserts that all frames are equaivalent (including the absolute rest frame) and this bogus assumption allows every SR observer to use the absolute rest frame to derive its math. That's why SR and LET have the same math. > > >....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. How can the truth be bogus???? Ken Seto - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: kenseto on 10 Jun 2010 10:01 On Jun 9, 12:34 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 9, 9:15 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 8, 11:29 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 8, 8:35 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> 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. > > > > This is not a contradiction. The sequence of events is something that > > > depends on the frame, and this is experimentally confirmed. Nothing > > > that actually is observed to happen in nature can be considered to be > > > contradictory. Insisting that the sequence of events SHOULD be > > > something that is independent of frame, in the face of experimental > > > evidence to the contrary, is simply detachment from reality. > > > Yes it is a contradiction. The bug cannot be both dead and alive when > > the head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole. > > The "when the head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole" depends on > the frame of reference. No it doesn't....it is only one event. If you insist that the observers disagree the time of the event then it is because their clocks are running at different rates. But this will not make the bug is dead and alive at the same time....at the instant when the rivet head hits the wall of the hole. > As I said, the sequence of events depends on the frame. > In one frame, the bug dies before the head of the rivet strikes. > In another frame, the bug dies after the head of the rivet strikes. > You have taken this to mean that the bug is both dead and alive when > the rivet strikes. This is, of course, a stupid conclusion to draw. > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > This is not a contradiction. The simultaneity of the doors closing is > > > something hat depends on the frame, and this is experimentally > > > confirmed. Nothing that actually is observed to happen in nature can > > > be considered to be contradictory. Insisting that the simultaneity of > > > events SHOULD be something that is independent of frame, in the face > > > of experimental evidence to the contrary, is simply detachment from > > > reality. > > > Yes it is a contradiction. The pole can fit into the barn with both > > doors close simultaneously and the poles cannot fit into the barn with > > both doors close simultaneously. > > No, SR does not make the second statement, because in the pole frame, > the doors do not close simultaneously AT ALL. Yes SR makes such statement....the longer pole cannot fit into the barn and that's why the doors cannot be closed simultaneously. Ken Seto >So it would be an > incorrect statement to say that the pole does not fit in the barn when > the two doors close simultaneously. > > There is no contradiction. > > You are an idiot. > > > > > > > > > > > 3. In Einstein's train gedanken: Two lightning strikes hit the ends of > > > > the train simultaneously.....the track observer sees the light fronts > > > > arrive at him simultaneously but the train observer M' will not see > > > > the light fronts arrive at him simultaneously...according to SR, M' > > > > is moving with respect to the light fronts (closing velocities) and > > > > thus give different arriving velocities of the light fronts. This > > > > assertion violates the SR postulate that the speed of light in the > > > > train is isotropic. > > > > This is not contradictory. SR says that the RELATIVE speed of light in > > > any frame is isotropic, but it does NOT say that the CLOSING speed of > > > light in any frame is isotropic, and in fact SR says that the closing > > > speed of light in any frame may well be anisotropic. Confusing > > > RELATIVE speed and CLOSING speed in what SR actually says is an error > > > on Seto's part and no one else's. > > > Yes it is a contradiction. M' cannot measure the speed of light to be > > isotropic if he has different closing speeds wrt the light fronts from > > the ends of the train. > > Yes, he can. Light speed is not closing speed. They are two completely > different quantities. Light speed can be isotropic and closing speed > be anisotropic, BECAUSE THEY ARE DIFFERENT THINGS. Only you do not > understand this, and get the two confused. > > This is because you are confused in general. > > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > OK, so there are no contradictions in SR after all. > > > All Seto has discovered is that his expectations about what should be > > > frame-independent are not correct, according to experiment, and that > > > he is confusing two completely different terms. > > > > PD- 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: Inertial on 10 Jun 2010 10:09 "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message news:0ea1e38a-c1d6-4162-856d-76e758ba55e7(a)e5g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 9, 12:34 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Jun 9, 9:15 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Jun 8, 11:29 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > On Jun 8, 8:35 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> 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. >> >> > > This is not a contradiction. The sequence of events is something that >> > > depends on the frame, and this is experimentally confirmed. Nothing >> > > that actually is observed to happen in nature can be considered to be >> > > contradictory. Insisting that the sequence of events SHOULD be >> > > something that is independent of frame, in the face of experimental >> > > evidence to the contrary, is simply detachment from reality. >> >> > Yes it is a contradiction. The bug cannot be both dead and alive when >> > the head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole. >> >> The "when the head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole" depends on >> the frame of reference. > > No it doesn't....it is only one event. And that one event happens in all frames of reference .. as does the other interesting event, the bug dying That gives two distinct events at two distinct locations. The order of those two distinct events depends on the frame of reference, if you are using SR or LET
From: Michael Moroney on 10 Jun 2010 17:29 kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes: >Assertion is not a valid arguement. So why do you continue to assert that there is an absolute reference frame, and that "every SR observer claims the exclusive properties of the absolute rest frame" ? SR has no absolute rest frame whatsoever.
From: Michael Moroney on 10 Jun 2010 17:42
kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes: >On Jun 9, 12:34 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> The "when the head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole" depends on >> the frame of reference. >No it doesn't....it is only one event. Two events. The head of the rivet hits the wall, and the shaft of the rivet squishes the bug. The question is the order of these events. > If you insist that the >observers disagree the time of the event then it is because their >clocks are running at different rates. But this will not make the bug >is dead and alive at the same time....at the instant when the rivet >head hits the wall of the hole. You don't even need to invoke SR to have ambiguous order of events. Consider two stars A and B, and two observers, a and b. All four (stars and observers) are stationary w/respect to each other. Observer a is 1 light year from Star A and 10 light years from Star B. Observer b is 1 light year from Star B and 10 light years from Star A. Observer a sees Star A go nova, then 9 years later sees Star B go nova. Observer b sees Star B go nova, then 9 years later sees Star A go nova. Which star went nova first? The bug/rivet is more complex but the order of events depends on whether you are in the reference frame of the wall/bug or that of the rivet. |