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 3 Jul 2010 11:56

On Jul 2, 9:55 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

Hey idiot professor....there is no closing speed inside 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 -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

From: kenseto on 3 Jul 2010 12:00

On Jul 2, 9:56 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

Hey idiot...SR predicts that the tip of the rivet squishes the bug to
death at two different times.
>
>
>
> > 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 -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

From: kenseto on 3 Jul 2010 12:02

On Jul 2, 10:00 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

Hey idiot....SR predicts that the tip of the rivet suqishes the bug to
death at two different times.

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

From: kenseto on 3 Jul 2010 12:04

On Jul 2, 10:07 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

Hey idiot professor SR predicts that the tip of the rivet squishes the
bug to death at two different times.

Ken Seto

>
> Don't be an idiot.
>
> Whoops, too late.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

From: Robert Higgins on 3 Jul 2010 13:48

On Jul 3, 12:04 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
> On Jul 2, 10:07 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > 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.
>
> Hey idiot professor SR predicts that the tip of the rivet squishes the
> bug to death at two different times.

Of course - DUH!
My typing this sentence happens at two different times, too - one time
from a clock in the Eastern U.S., and one in Amsterdam. The clock in
Amsterdam registers a time 6 hours later than the time in U.S. No big
deal - and this isn't SR.

Are you one of those people who gets confused by TIME ZONES? Are you
Y. Porat?

>
> Ken Seto
>
>
>
> > Don't be an idiot.
>
> > Whoops, too late.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -