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 2 Jul 2010 09:55

On Jul 1, 8:32 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
> 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.

No it doesn't, Ken. The only thing that is not isotropic is the
closing speed. That's not the speed of light.

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

From: PD on 2 Jul 2010 09:56

On Jul 1, 8:49 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
> 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

No it doesn't. The bug dies at ONE instant of time, when the rivet tip
hits it. What you're confused about is the OTHER event, which might be
before or after this instant, depending on reference frame.

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

From: PD on 2 Jul 2010 10:00

On Jul 1, 8:25 pm, 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:

> > > 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

No, Ken, the bug dies at ONE instant of time. That's when the rivet
tip hits the bug.
Likewise, the head of the rivet hitting the wall happens at ONE
instant of time.
What is frame-dependent is which instant precedes the other instant.

> 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.

Length contraction IS physical and it is NOT material. That's because
"physical" and "material" do not mean the same thing.
They might to you, but that's because you don't learn the meaning of
terms as used in physics.

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

From: PD on 2 Jul 2010 10:07

On Jul 1, 8:30 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
> 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.

It is right, Ken. The math doesn't cause anything. The rivet tip
causes the bug to die. All the math does is show that the laws of
physics are consistent with what happens.

Don't be an idiot.

Whoops, too late.

From: kenseto on 3 Jul 2010 11:53

On Jul 2, 9:54 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/2/10 8:12 AM, kenseto wrote:
>
> > 2. SR predicts that the bug dies at two different instants of time.
>
> > Ken Seto
>
> Wrong, Seto -- One observer. SR is correct every time!

ROTFLOL....wormy is an idiot runt of the SRians.