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: Michael Moroney on 30 Jun 2010 16:02

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

>On Jun 29, 2:27 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
>wrote:
>> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes:

>> >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.
>>
>> Your assertion the GPS sees the ground clock running fast doesn't make
>> it true. Your claim "confirmed by experiments" is false.

>Hey idiot it is not an assertion....they use the SR eqations to
>calculate the SR effect and use the gravitational potential effect
>equation to calculate the gravitational effect. The combination of
>these two effect is the GR effect.

Yes it is an assertion. You assert that SR equations calculate that from
the satellite point of view, the SR effect on the ground clock is ~7us/day
running *fast*. SR does no such thing, if you do the math you'll see the
SR effect will have the satellite clock seeing the ground clock as running
*slow*. Of course, as Sam Wormley will point out, you have to use GR
because of the gravitational effect. I pointed out in the past the motion
part of GR means the ground clock is slowed by ~7 uS/day as far as the
satellite clock is concerned, and the ground clock is slowed by another
~45uS/day due to gravitational effects adding to ~52 uS/day running slow
but Wormley doesn't like me doing that. (I'm ignoring second order effects
and assuming the eccentricity of the orbit is 0)

From: Sam Wormley on 30 Jun 2010 17:08

On 6/30/10 9:14 AM, kenseto wrote:
> Hey idiot it is not an assertion....they use the SR eqations to
> calculate the SR effect and use the gravitational potential effect
> equation to calculate the gravitational effect. The combination of
> these two effect is the GR effect.
>
> Ken Seto

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: kenseto on 1 Jul 2010 21:25

On Jun 30, 12:18 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> 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- Hide quoted text -

Hey idiot both frame must agree that the bug die at the instant when
the tip of the rivet hits it. But SR predicts that it dies at two
different instants of time dues to length contraction and that's a
contradiction....the way to resolve this contradiction is that length
conraction is an apparent or geometric projection effect.....not a
physical/material effect as you asserted. You attempt to have it both
way by insisting that length contraction in SR is physical but not
material is laughablely stupid.
Ken Seto

>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more »

From: artful on 1 Jul 2010 21:30

On Jul 2, 11:25 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
> On Jun 30, 12:18 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 30, 9:26 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
[snip for brevity]
> > > 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- Hide quoted text -
>
> Hey idiot both frame must agree that the bug die at the instant when
> the tip of the rivet hits it.

They do

> But SR predicts that it dies at two
> different instants of time

Wrong. Both frame (all frames) agree that the bug die at the instant
when the tip of the rivet hits it. One instant of time.

The head of the rivet also hits the hole at one instant of time. All
frames agree on that

What they do NOT all necessarily agree with is the order of those two
separate instances at separate locations .. the order depends on the
frame of reference.

[snip more lies from Ken]

From: kenseto on 1 Jul 2010 21:30

On Jun 30, 12:19 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

That's not right. both frames must agree that the bug dies at the
instant when the tip of the rivet hits it. The math cannot cause the
bug to die.