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: Sue... on 9 Jun 2010 05:21
On Jun 8, 9:35 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.
>
> 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.

=====

>
> 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.

I hear they are adding a special wing on to
Hell for talented politicians, oil executives
and armchair theorists who can bend a statement
beyond all recognition.

<<There is only one demand to be made of the
definition of simultaneity, namely, that in
every real case it must supply us with an
empirical decision as to whether or not the
conception that has to be defined is fulfilled.
That my definition satisfies this demand is
indisputable. That light requires the same time
to traverse the path A —> M as for the path B —> M
is in reality neither a supposition nor a hypothesis
about the physical nature of light, but a stipulation
which I can make of my own freewill in order
to arrive at a definition of simultaneity.”>>
http://www.bartleby.com/173/8.html

<<Pseudoscience argues from alleged exceptions,
errors, anomalies, strange events,
and suspect claims—rather than from
well-established regularities of nature.
The experience of scientists over the past
400 years is that claims and reports that
describe well-understood objects behaving in
strange and incomprehensible ways tend to reduce
upon investigation to deliberate frauds, honest
mistakes, garbled accounts, misinterpretations,
outright fabrications, and stupid blunders. It is
not wise to accept such reports at face value,
without checking them. Pseudoscientists always
take such reports as literally true, without
independent verification.>>
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html

Sue...


>
> Ken Seto

From: Surfer on 9 Jun 2010 08:14
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.
>

That seems a very reasonable argument.



From: Inertial on 9 Jun 2010 08:24
> 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.

From: kenseto on 9 Jun 2010 10:15
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.
>
>
>
> > 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.
>
>
>
> > 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.

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

From: Sam Wormley on 9 Jun 2010 10:43
On 6/9/10 9:15 AM, kenseto 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.

One can't have both perspectives simultaneously, Ken. Pick one or
the other and the physics correctly predicts the observation.

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
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