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: kenseto on 1 Jul 2010 21:32

On Jun 30, 1:08 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

Hey idiot RoS violate the isotropy of the speed of light in the train.

>
>
>
> >> 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.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

From: kenseto on 1 Jul 2010 21:34

On Jun 30, 1:17 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

Hey idiot....the time dilation on the satellite clock is a combined SR
effect and gravitational potential effect.

>
> http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=node5.....- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

From: kenseto on 1 Jul 2010 21:49

On Jun 30, 3:21 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
wrote:
> kenseto <kens...(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.

That's the only event that's relevant....but SR predicts that that the
bug dies at two different instants of time due to length contraction
and that is the source of contradiction.

Ken Seto

>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.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

From: kenseto on 1 Jul 2010 21:50

On Jun 30, 4:02 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
wrote:
> kenseto <kens...(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)

Hey idiot we cover this before....even wormy disagree with you.

From: Michael Moroney on 1 Jul 2010 22:29

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

>On Jun 30, 3:21 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)

>> >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.

>That's the only event that's relevant....

The rivet hitting the wall event seems quite relevant to you, since you've
spent weeks arguing about your inability to understand the order of these
two events.

>but SR predicts that that the
>bug dies at two different instants of time due to length contraction
>and that is the source of contradiction.

No it doesn't. Both observers agree that the bug dies, just once.

>> 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?

Why not discuss this minor variation? Perhaps it will help you
understand.