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: PD on 30 Jun 2010 12:18

On Jun 30, 9:26 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
> On Jun 29, 1:46 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 29, 12:17 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 28, 10:23 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 27, 9:24 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 26, 10:54 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jun 26, 9:38 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Jun 25, 10:59 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Jun 25, 8:11 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Jun 23, 12:31 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Jun 23, 9:22 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 22, 11:34 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 22, 10:28 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 22, 10:00 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 22, 8:04 am, "kens...(a)erinet.com" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 21, 5:58 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 13, 8:38 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 12, 1:21 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 12, 9:07 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 11, 4:52 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 11, 1:00 pm, kenseto <kens....(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 11, 9:07 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 6/11/10 7:36 AM, kenseto wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No from the hole point of view the bug is still alive just before the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole. However from the rivet
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > point of view the bug is already deadat the just before the head of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the rivet hit the wall of the hole.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pick on perspective or the other, Seto. You can't have both!
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wormy the bug cannot be both alive and dead at the moment when the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole....both observers must
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > agree on whether the bug is alive or dead but not both.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, Ken.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The order of events is frame dependent.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is not true that both observers must agree on the state of the bug
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *when* the rivet head hits.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The "when" is the part that trips you up.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey idiot... the bug is dead or alive is an absolute event
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Absolute event" is a term you made up, and has no meaning in physics.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The word "event" has a specific meaning in physics, even if you're
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unaware of it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The order of spacelike-separated events depends on the frame.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The hole
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clock and the rivet clock are running at different rates give you the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > two perspective. When you corrected for the rate difference you will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > see that the rivet's perspective is the correct perspective.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In physics, Ken, it is important that one not favor one reference
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > frame over another as being "the correct one". Physical laws are the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > same in all reference frames, though the quantities in the laws will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vary frame to frame and the description of events will be different in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > two different frames.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure there is the correct perspective. The following will demonstrate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that clearly:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The hole is 1.2 ft long at its rest frame..
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The bug is 0.1 ft tall.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The rivet length is 2 ft. long at its rest frame.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Gamma is 2.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From the hole point of view just before the rivet head hits the wall
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of the hole:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the length of the rivet is: 2/2=1 ft.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Therefore if length contraction is physical or material the bug is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > still alive just before the head of the rivet hits the wall of the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hole.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From the rivet point of view the length of the hole is: 1.2/2=0.6 ft
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and the length of the rivet remains 2 ft. Therefore the bug is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dead way before the head of the rivet hit the wall of the hole.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What this mean is that you cannot claim both perspectives at the same
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > time.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course you can. One is the perspective in one frame, the other is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the perspective in the other frame. At the same time.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No you can't....they must agree whether the bug is already dead or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > still alive when the head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, they don't "must" agree. They don't. I don't know where you got
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the impression they do.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes they have to agree...just as that they have to agree that the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > speed of light is a constant ratio.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > No, they do not. Different frames have different accounts for events
> > > > > > > > > > > > transpiring. Sorry, Ken, this is just a fact of life.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > The fact of life is this clocks in relative motion are running at
> > > > > > > > > > > different rates and thus the different perspectives are not real when
> > > > > > > > > > > it is corrected for the different rates of the clocks..
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > The bug die or alive at a certain
> > > > > > > > > > > > > instant of time is not frame dependent.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, it is, Ken. Your assertion is not an argument.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > No it is not ....your assertion is not a valid arguement.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Ken, no one is ever going to get anywhere with you pushing assertions
> > > > > > > > > > against your assertions.
>
> > > > > > > > > Hey idiot the bug dies requires that the rivet squish it to
> > > > > > > > > death.
>
> > > > > > > > Yes.
>
> > > > > > > > >...both frames must agree that it occurs at the same instant of
> > > > > > > > > time.
>
> > > > > > > > No. There is no need for both frames to agree that the rivet squish it
> > > > > > > > to death at the same time.
>
> > > > > > > Sure there is a need. The bug dies at the instant when the end of the
> > > > > > > rivet hits it. Both frames must agree to that.
>
> > > > > > Of course. But whether the head of the rivet has already hit the wall
> > > > > > or has yet to hit the wall, which is an event that occurs in a
> > > > > > *different location*, will depend on the reference frame, and two
> > > > > > observers in those frames need not agree. Nor do they agree.
>
> > > > > Hey idiot you are putting up straw-men. Both frames agree that the bug
> > > > > dies at the instant when the end of the rivet hits the bug. Thereore
> > > > > your claim that from the hole point of view the bug is still alive due
> > > > > to length contraction of the rivet is bogus.
>
> > > > I never said that the bug was alive when the end of the rivet hits the
> > > > bug. I never said that.
>
> > > Yes both frames agree that the bug dies at the same instant when the
> > > tip of the rivet hits it. But you also claimed that from the hole
> > > point of view the tip of the rivet hits the bug at a different instant
> > > of time than from
> > > the rivet point of view. That is a contradiction.
>
> > No, I did NOT say that. You seriously cannot read a sentence from
> > beginning to end and understand it. It's no wonder you do not read,
> > and it's no wonder you do not understand relativity.
>
> > I claimed the bug dies when the tip of the rivet hits it, and that is
> > true in both frames. However, in one frame the head of the rivet has
> > already made contact with the wall, and in another frame the head of
> > the rivet has not yet hit the wall. There is no contradiction in that.
>
> Sure there is contradiction as follows:
> 1. You agree that the bug dies in both frames at the same instant of
> time when the tip of the rivet hits it.
> 2. You made the assertion that the bug dies beforew the head of the
> rivet hit the wall of the hole and then made the contradictory
> assertion that the bug dies after the head of the rivet hits the wall
> of the hole....these are two different instants of time.

No, they are not. You have this mistaken notion that "an instant of
time" has a common meaning for all spatially separate events,
regardless of reference frame. This is precisely what is disproven by
experiment.

The order of spatially separated events is frame-dependent, as
confirmed by measurements.

Your insistence that this cannot be is simply denial of experimental
reality.

Next you will say that there are no such experimental results, just
because you're not aware of them. You, Ken, are a bonehead.

>
> Ken seto
>
>
>
>
>
> > In reality, Ken, events that happen in two different locations (the
> > tip of the rivet killing the bug, and the head of the rivet hitting
> > the wall are two events that happen in different locations) have
> > different sequences in different frames. There is no contradiction in
> > that.
>
> > > Ken Seto
>
> > > > I said that in one frame the bug dies before the head of the rivet
> > > > hits the wall, and in another frame the bug dies after the head of the
> > > > rivet
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

From: PD on 30 Jun 2010 12:19

On Jun 29, 6:58 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> "Ann O'Nymous" <nob...(a)nowhere.com> wrote in message
>
> news:i0di3v$kpr$1(a)speranza.aioe.org...
>
>
>
>
>
> > References:
> > <958cf824-148b4091-9603d97d9d83a...(a)d16g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
>
> > PD wrote:
>
> > >On Jun 25, 4:02 pm, Ann O'Nymous <nob...(a)nowhere.com> wrote:
> > >> One thing I don't understand is this: Assume the hole is 1 light
> > >> second
> > >> long, and the rivet shaft (in the rest frame) is 0.75 light seconds
> > >> long, and it's approaching the hole at a speed such that gamma=2.
>
> > >> As far as the bug is concerned, when the rivet is approaching, its
> > >> shaft
> > >> is 0.375 light seconds long and it can't reach the bottom of the hole.
> > >> Even when the shoulder of the rivet hits, the now stationary shaft is
> > >> 0.75 light seconds long so it still doesn't reach the bottom of the
> > >> hole, so the bug lives.
>
> > > No it doesn't. You are assuming the rivet is infinitely stiff and that
> > > when the shoulder of the rivet stops, then the tip of the rivet stops
> > > at the same time. But the tip of the rivet cannot possibly know about
> > > what's happened to the shoulder of the rivet until 0.375 seconds later
> > > at the *earliest*, because no signal can travel faster than c.
>
> > >One of the important outcomes of relativity is that there is no such
> > > thing as an infinitely stiff object, even in principle. To suppose it
> > > is to suppose the existence of an object that violates the laws of
> > > nature.
>
> > > That's like asking what the 2nd law of thermodynamics would predict if
> > > there were an engine that could violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics..
>
> > OK, you are correct about the speed of light. Yet, what about a
> > "maximally stiff" rivet where the speed of sound(?) through it equals
> > the speed of light. As far as the bug is concerned, the shaft is 0.375
> > light-seconds long when the rivet head hits the wall. The tip keeps
> > approaching since it takes time for that information to propagate. It
> > takes 0.375 seconds to move to the tip which means the top approaches
> > another 0.375 light-seconds before it stops. Therefore it's 0.75 light
> > seconds long when it stops so the bug doesn't get squished. What's wrong
> > with this?
>
> The math. It will take longer than 0.375 light seconds for the information
> to arrive because the tip is moving in that frame .. the information has to
> 'chase' the tip.

That's right.

From: Sam Wormley on 30 Jun 2010 13:08

On 6/30/10 8:49 AM, kenseto wrote:
> No RoS is a bogus concept. It requires that M' moves wrt the light
> fronts from the ends of the train and thus violates the isotropy of
> the speed of light in the train.
>
>

Ken, the following article addresses the very misunderstandings
you have about relativity.

>> Student understanding of time in special relativity:
>> simultaneity and reference frames
>
>> Rachel E. Scherr, Peter S. Shaffer, and Stamatis Vokos
>> Department of Physics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
>
>> This article reports on an investigation of student understanding of the concept of
>> time in special relativity. A series of research tasks are discussed that illustrate,
>> step-by-step, how student reasoning of fundamental concepts of relativity was
>> probed. The results indicate that after standard instruction students at all academic
>> levels have serious difficulties with the relativity of simultaneity and with the role
>> of observers in inertial reference frames. Evidence is presented that suggests
>> many students construct a conceptual framework in which the ideas of absolute
>> simultaneity and the relativity of simultaneity harmoniously co-exist.
>
> http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0207109
>
> VII. CONCLUSION
> This investigation has identified widespread difficulties that
> students have with the definition of the time of an event and
> the role of intelligent observers. After instruction, more than
> 2/3 of physics undergraduates and 1/3 of graduate students in
> physics are unable to apply the construct of a reference frame
> in determining whether or not two events are simultaneous. Many
> students interpret the phrase �relativity of simultaneity� as
> implying that the simultaneity of events is determined by an
> observer on the basis of the reception of light signals. They
> often attribute the relativity of simultaneity to the
> difference in signal travel time for different observers. In
> this way, they reconcile statements of the relativity of
> simultaneity with a belief in absolute simultaneity and fail
> to confront the startling ideas of special relativity.

From: Sam Wormley on 30 Jun 2010 13:17

On 6/30/10 9:08 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On Jun 29, 1:41 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 6/29/10 12:02 PM, kenseto wrote:
>>
>>> That's not mistaken view. It been confirmed by experiments and the
>>> GPS. From the ground clock point of view the SR effect on the GPS is 7
>>> us/day running slow and from the GPS point of view the SR effect on
>>> the ground clock is ~7us/day running fast.
>>
>>> Ken Seto
>>
>> Neither of your numbers is correct, Seto, as you MUST take the
>> difference in gravitational potential into account. See
>> Relativistic Effects on Satellite Clocks
>
> Hey idiot... my numbers on the SR effect from the ground clock point
> of view and from the GPS point of view are correct.

Seto, why are you making up this "SR effect"? The correct tool
for the time dilation experienced by satellite clocks is general
relativity. I implore you to read, "Relativistic Effects on
Satellite Clocks" by Ashby.

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=node5.html

From: Michael Moroney on 30 Jun 2010 15:21

kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes:

>On Jun 29, 2:22 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
>wrote:

>> >> >A and B sees the stars go nova at
>> >> >different times because they are at different distances from the
>> >> >stars.
>>
>> >> Exactly. The order of events depends on the frame, when and where the
>> >> observer is in spacetime.
>> >No....not exactly....your gedanken is meaningless.
>>
>> It's not meaningless. It's just that you simply can't (won't) understand
>> it. You need to listen to PD and Wormley. You need to open a book and
>> actually learn SR.

>It is meaningless because all you are saying is that if you stand
>closer to a light source A than light source B then you will see A's
>light before B's light.

So, if a second observer is closer to B than A in this gedanken, then
the second observer will see B's light first? Agreed?

Therefore, the two observers will disagree whether A or B happened first.
One saw A happen first, the other saw B happen first.
Agreed?

> BTW PD and wormy are idiots.

Why not disprove their claims rather than attacking them? Because you
can't, right?

>> This is mostly gibberish. However, just like the star example, the
>> order of events depend on the observers' reference frame and their
>> position in spacetime. The two stars/two observers is pretty much the
>> simplest example of this. Two observers disagree on the order of two
>> events due only to their locations.

>Hey idiot there is no order of event in this case. There is only one
>event....the bug dies at the instant when the tip of the rivet hits it
>and both frame must agre to that.

Two events. The rivet head hitting the wall is an event.
You are correct in that both frames agree that the bug dies when the
rivet head strikes it. The question isn't that, but whether that takes
place before or after the second event, which is the rivet head hitting
the wall.

If this will help you understand that there are two events, add a second
bug, on the wall at the edge of the hole. The shaft misses it, the head
of the rivet squishes it. Which bug dies first?

> The paradox is: the rivet frame
>claims that the bug dies before the head of the rivet hits the wall of
>the hole and the hole frame claims that the bug dies after the rivet
>head hits the wall of the hole. This means that one of these claim is
>false....my money is on the hole frame's claim because there is no
>phyiscal length contraction.

So you have no math to support your claims. You're simply betting on
one of them, apparently as a hunch.

That's not how science works.