Prev: 9-11 Kooks - * Hates US * still afraid to post one single thing in his physically impossible claims that he wants to defend -- he can't and he won't because they're all lies
Next: Cosmic Blackbody Microwave Background Radiation proves Atom Totality and dismisses Big Bang Chapt 3 #149; ATOM TOTALITY
From: Hayek on 8 Jun 2010 13:29
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.

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.

The observer at the barn sees the rear light first, and
some time later the front light, concludes the pole has
shrunk, because of relativistic effects.

The back of the pole passes the rear door first, but
since the pole is traveling at close the speed of
light, the light from the back door has trouble catching
up with the pole. The front of the pole has reached the
front door, and the observer at the pole sees the front
light first, then the back light, thus concludes that
the barn must have shrunk.

The effects seem to be mutual, but in case of the pole,
only apparent.

Uwe Hayek.


>
> 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.
>
> Ken Seto


--
We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate
inversion : the stage where the government is free to do
anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by
permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of
human history. -- Ayn Rand

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can
prevent the government from wasting the labors of the
people under the pretense of taking care of them. --
Thomas Jefferson.

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of
ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue
is the equal sharing of misery. -- Winston Churchill.
From: PD on 8 Jun 2010 17:02
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?

>
> 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.
>
> The observer at the barn sees the rear light first, and
> some time later the front light, concludes the pole has
> shrunk, because of relativistic effects.
>
> The back of the pole passes the rear door first, but
> since the pole is traveling at close the speed of
> light, the light from the back door has trouble catching
> up with the pole. The front of the pole has reached the
> front door, and the observer at the pole sees the front
> light first, then the back light, thus concludes that
> the barn must have shrunk.
>
> The effects seem to be mutual, but in case of the pole,
> only apparent.
>
> Uwe Hayek.
>
>
>
> > 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.
>
> > Ken Seto
>
> --
> We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate
> inversion : the stage where the government is free to do
> anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by
> permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of
> human history. -- Ayn Rand
>
> I predict future happiness for Americans if they can
> prevent the government from wasting the labors of the
> people under the pretense of taking care of them. --
> Thomas Jefferson.
>
> Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of
> ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue
> is the equal sharing of misery. -- Winston Churchill.

From: BURT on 8 Jun 2010 17:13
On Jun 8, 2:02 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> 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?
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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.
>
> > The observer at the barn sees the rear light first, and
> > some time later the front light, concludes the pole has
> > shrunk, because of relativistic effects.
>
> > The back of the pole passes the rear door first, but
> > since the pole is traveling at close the speed of
> > light, the light from the back door has trouble catching
> > up with the pole. The front of the pole has reached the
> > front door, and the observer at the pole sees the front
> > light first, then the back light, thus concludes that
> > the barn must have shrunk.
>
> > The effects seem to be mutual, but in case of the pole,
> > only apparent.
>
> > Uwe Hayek.
>
> > > 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.
>
> > > Ken Seto
>
> > --
> > We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate
> > inversion : the stage where the government is free to do
> > anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by
> > permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of
> > human history. -- Ayn Rand
>
> > I predict future happiness for Americans if they can
> > prevent the government from wasting the labors of the
> > people under the pretense of taking care of them. --
> > Thomas Jefferson.
>
> > Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of
> > ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue
> > is the equal sharing of misery. -- Winston Churchill.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

what about energy flowing in gravity field?
When energy stops moving in gravity field it aquires weight.
Einstein's geometry has a center of mass. That would be the center of
the Earth.

So if you can be still in gravity you can also move in it relative to
its geometric energy center. This is the gravity frame center of mass
and geometry.

Mitch Raemsch; energy flowing in space flow
From: eric gisse on 8 Jun 2010 19:05
kenseto wrote:
[...]

What's this supposed to accomplish, Ken?
From: Hayek on 9 Jun 2010 03:36
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.

It is not because the physics conspire to hide the
preferred frame, that it is not there. Atoms and
molecules were hidden from us until before 100 years,
but that does not mean that their discovery and study is
not useful.

Uwe Hayek.





--
We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate
inversion : the stage where the government is free to do
anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by
permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of
human history. -- Ayn Rand

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can
prevent the government from wasting the labors of the
people under the pretense of taking care of them. --
Thomas Jefferson.

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of
ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue
is the equal sharing of misery. -- Winston Churchill.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Prev: 9-11 Kooks - * Hates US * still afraid to post one single thing in his physically impossible claims that he wants to defend -- he can't and he won't because they're all lies
Next: Cosmic Blackbody Microwave Background Radiation proves Atom Totality and dismisses Big Bang Chapt 3 #149; ATOM TOTALITY