Some Contradictory Claims of SR. [Physics]

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: Sam Wormley on 11 Jun 2010 17:59

On 6/11/10 4:05 PM, Vinyl wrote:
>> The order of events is frame dependent.

> absolutely not true !!!

Perhaps you the kind of bloke that can learn from a lay
audience video presentation.

The Mechanical Universe series.
http://www.learner.org/resources/series42.html

42. The Lorentz Transformation
If the speed of light is to be the same for all observers, then
the length of a meter stick, or the rate of a ticking clock,
depends on who measures it.

From: Vinyl on 11 Jun 2010 18:12

On Jun 11, 11:59 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/11/10 4:05 PM, Vinyl wrote:
>
> >> The order of events is frame dependent.
> > absolutely not true !!!
>
> Perhaps you the kind of bloke that can learn from a lay
> audience video presentation.

read the argument cretin, why snip

>
> The Mechanical Universe series.
> http://www.learner.org/resources/series42.html
>
> 42. The Lorentz Transformation
> If the speed of light is to be the same for all observers, then
> the length of a meter stick, or the rate of a ticking clock,
> depends on who measures it.

this has nothing to do with the
order of events in a frame,

what part of the order of events you in
a frame you dont understand???

learn physics from a book

From: Hayek on 11 Jun 2010 20:19

Inertial wrote:
>> On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 09:36:28 +0200, Hayek <hayektt(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.

I beg to differ.

With an absolute frame, the travelling twin stays
younger. Also only the pole gets shorter.
With an absolute frame the moving objects undergo real
effects, the stationary ones only apparent. Intuition is
restored, paradoxes removed.

With an absolute frame you do not have to resort to
"breaking the symmetry" by "accelerating", which is
nonsense imnsho, as the counterargument of
pre-accelerated spaceships is a valid one. The
accelerating argument is a hidden re-introduction of the
absolute frame, as accelerations are absolute.

Also with an absolute frame, it becomes clear that for
two way trips, special relativity always gives valid
results, but clocks can run faster on one leg of the
trip, probably giving a more correct prediction if ever
it becomes measurable.

Indeed, we do not need the absolute frame for our
calculations, but we do not only do calculations, in
more enlightened times physics was practiced for
obtaining an understanding how nature works.

The mathematically inclined physicists should not forget
that one answer to the question "which function works
both relative and absolute?" is the gamma function or
factor.

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.

From: Sam Wormley on 11 Jun 2010 22:05

On 6/11/10 5:12 PM, Vinyl wrote:
> On Jun 11, 11:59 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 6/11/10 4:05 PM, Vinyl wrote:
>>
>>>> The order of events is frame dependent.
>>> absolutely not true !!!
>>
>> Perhaps you the kind of bloke that can learn from a lay
>> audience video presentation.
>
> read the argument cretin, why snip
>
>>
>> The Mechanical Universe series.
>> http://www.learner.org/resources/series42.html
>>
>> 42. The Lorentz Transformation
>> If the speed of light is to be the same for all observers, then
>> the length of a meter stick, or the rate of a ticking clock,
>> depends on who measures it.
>
> this has nothing to do with the
> order of events in a frame,
>

The above link, specifically, demonstrates order of events being
observer dependent... which is the same as in the textbooks. Try
reading one.

Physics FAQ: Are There Any Good Books on Relativity Theory?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Administrivia/rel_booklist.html

From: eric gisse on 12 Jun 2010 00:16

Hayek wrote:
[...]

> I beg to differ.

Its' pretty easy to guess at physics when you know no math, isn't it?

[...]