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 10 Jun 2010 09:27

On Jun 9, 8:41 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message
>
> news:b9a8ea71-50d5-42c7-bf78-0f0552c48a5a(a)c10g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 9, 8:24 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> >> > On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 09:36:28 +0200, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl>
> >> > wrote:
>
> >> >>PD wrote:
> >> >>> On Jun 8, 12:29 pm, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote:
> >> >>>> kenseto wrote:
> >> >>>>> Some Contradictory Claims of SR: 1. In the bug and
> >> >>>>> the rivet paradox: From the hole point of view the
> >> >>>>> bug is still alive just before the rivet head hits
> >> >>>>> the wall of the hole. From the rivet point of view
> >> >>>>> the bug is already dead just before the head of the
> >> >>>>> rivet hits the wall of the hole.
> >> >>>>> 2. In the barn and the pole paradox: From the barn
> >> >>>>> point of view an 80 ft pole can fit into a 40 ft.
> >> >>>>> barn with both doors close simultaneously. From the
> >> >>>>> pole point of view an 80 ft. pole cannot fit into a
> >> >>>>> 40 ft barn with both doors close simultaneously.
> >> >>>> At first, the scientists, and I presume Lorentz and
> >> >>>> Fitzgerald, thought that the relativistic effects were
> >> >>>> only apparent. Not real for both observers. Later, when
> >> >>>> relativity became more entrenched, it was tought that
> >> >>>> the effects were mutual, real for both observers.
>
> >> >>>> Suppose relativity works absolute after all, and that
> >> >>>> the preferred frame is the average mass distribution of
> >> >>>> the universe.
>
> >> >>>> The barn is at rest wrt this frame, so it does not have
> >> >>>> any real length contraction.
>
> >> >>> Hmmm... This seems to be a bit artificial to assume the barn is in
> >> >>> the
> >> >>> preferred frame.
> >> >>> Suppose neither the barn nor the pole are at rest relative to the
> >> >>> average mass distribution of the universe. Then how would you
> >> >>> describe
> >> >>> things?
>
> >> >>Then, part of the effects will be real, and part of them
> >> >>apparent, but to both observers, things will look the
> >> >>same as either of them would be in rest wrt to the
> >> >>preferred frame. This is the argument of the relativists
> >> >>against the preferred frame, but that does not mean it
> >> >>is not there, it is useful for understanding how it all
> >> >>works, and this absolute view also eliminates the twin
> >> >>paradox.
>
> >> There is no paradox. You get the same unintuitive result in both LET and
> >> SR. An absolute / preferred frame or an aether doesn't change anything
> >> anything about it.
>
> > Then why does every SR observer claims the exclusive properties of the
> > absolute rest frame??
>
> There is no 'the absolute rest frame' so it does not have any properties to
> claim.

Assertion is not a valid arguement.

> Every inertial observer can claim their inertial frame has the same
> physics as any other inertial frame.

Here you claimed that an inertial observer is the absolute rest
observer and then proceed to claim the exclusive properties of the
absolute rest frame....which are all the clocks in the universe moving
wrt every SR observer are running slow.

>For some weird reason you give the
> label 'the exclusive properties of absolute rest frame' for the properties
> that are NOT exclusive to any frame.

ROTFLOL....so every SR observer claims the exclusive properties of the
absolute rest frame then that mean that the absolute rest frame
doesn't exist???? You are truly a runt of the SRians.

Ken Seto

Your choice of working is at best
> poor.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

From: kenseto on 10 Jun 2010 09:32

On Jun 9, 8:45 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> "Hayek" <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message
>
> news:4c0fc88c$0$22944$e4fe514c(a)news.xs4all.nl...
>
>
>
>
>
> > PD wrote:
> >> On Jun 9, 2:36 am, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl>
> >> wrote:
> >>> PD wrote:
> >>>> On Jun 8, 12:29 pm, Hayek
> >>>> <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote:
> >>>>> kenseto wrote:
> >>>>>> Some Contradictory Claims of SR: 1. In the
> >>>>>> bug and the rivet paradox: From the hole
> >>>>>> point of view the bug is still alive just
> >>>>>> before the rivet head hits the wall of the
> >>>>>> hole. From the rivet point of view the bug is
> >>>>>> already dead just before the head of the rivet hits the wall of the
> >>>>>> hole. 2. In the
> >>>>>> barn and the pole paradox: From the barn point of view an 80 ft pole
> >>>>>> can fit into a 40
> >>>>>> ft. barn with both doors close
> >>>>>> simultaneously. From the pole point of view
> >>>>>> an 80 ft. pole cannot fit into a 40 ft barn
> >>>>>> with both doors close simultaneously.
> >>>>> At first, the scientists, and I presume Lorentz
> >>>>> and Fitzgerald, thought that the relativistic
> >>>>> effects were only apparent. Not real for both
> >>>>> observers. Later, when relativity became more
> >>>>> entrenched, it was tought that the effects were
> >>>>> mutual, real for both observers. Suppose
> >>>>> relativity works absolute after all, and that the preferred frame is
> >>>>> the average mass
> >>>>> distribution of the universe. The barn is at
> >>>>> rest wrt this frame, so it does not have any
> >>>>> real length contraction.
> >>>> Hmmm... This seems to be a bit artificial to
> >>>> assume the barn is in the preferred frame. Suppose neither the barn nor
> >>>> the pole are at rest
> >>>> relative to the average mass distribution of the
> >>>> universe. Then how would you describe things?
> >>> Then, part of the effects will be real, and part of
> >>> them apparent,
>
> >> Does the above make any sense to you at all?
>
> > motion wrt to preferred frame -> real gamma increase.
>
> > relative motion only -> only apparant effects, for the
> > other observer.
>
> > I cannot make it any simpler.
>
> You are talking LET .. not SR. There is no preferred frame in SR .. all
> effects are measured only.

NO....no such measurements ever been made....you call predictions as
measurements.

>In LET there is a combination of measured and
> phsycial effects that end up with the same results as the measured-only
> effects of SR. LET is more complicated.

No...the reasoon why SR and LET have the same math is because both use
the absolute rest frame to derive their math. SR calls the absolute
rest frame as an inertial frame while LET acknowledges that the
absolute rest frame exists an duses it to derive its math.

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

From: kenseto on 10 Jun 2010 09:41

On Jun 9, 8:59 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> "PD" <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:23253c7c-31b3-43f5-a6eb-93d3f79c402c(a)i28g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 9, 2:36 am, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote:
> >> PD wrote:
> >> > On Jun 8, 12:29 pm, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote:
> >> >> kenseto wrote:
> >> >>> Some Contradictory Claims of SR: 1. In the bug and
> >> >>> the rivet paradox: From the hole point of view the
> >> >>> bug is still alive just before the rivet head hits
> >> >>> the wall of the hole. From the rivet point of view
> >> >>> the bug is already dead just before the head of the
> >> >>> rivet hits the wall of the hole.
> >> >>> 2. In the barn and the pole paradox: From the barn
> >> >>> point of view an 80 ft pole can fit into a 40 ft.
> >> >>> barn with both doors close simultaneously. From the
> >> >>> pole point of view an 80 ft. pole cannot fit into a
> >> >>> 40 ft barn with both doors close simultaneously.
> >> >> At first, the scientists, and I presume Lorentz and
> >> >> Fitzgerald, thought that the relativistic effects were
> >> >> only apparent. Not real for both observers. Later, when
> >> >> relativity became more entrenched, it was tought that
> >> >> the effects were mutual, real for both observers.
>
> >> >> Suppose relativity works absolute after all, and that
> >> >> the preferred frame is the average mass distribution of
> >> >> the universe.
>
> >> >> The barn is at rest wrt this frame, so it does not have
> >> >> any real length contraction.
>
> >> > Hmmm... This seems to be a bit artificial to assume the barn is in the
> >> > preferred frame.
> >> > Suppose neither the barn nor the pole are at rest relative to the
> >> > average mass distribution of the universe. Then how would you describe
> >> > things?
>
> >> Then, part of the effects will be real, and part of them
> >> apparent,
>
> > Does the above make any sense to you at all?
>
> I understand what he's saying .. maybe not the best choice of words for
> 'real' and 'apparent'.
>
> In SR clocks are not affected by the motion of the observers (nor what
> observers measure the clock's motion to be), nor are ruler affected. There
> is no physical intrinsic change to the clocks or the rulers (what Hayek
> called 'real')
>
> However, the clock rate and ruler length a moving observer will measure
> (including measurements like whether a pole will fit in a barn) are
> affected. (what Hayek called 'apparent')
>
> In LET you have similar relationships with measured values EXCEPT that, in
> addition, clock ticking rates and ruler lengths ARE physically and
> intrinsically affected by their ABSOLUTE motion in the aether. The combined
> effect of physical intrinsic effect and measured values in LET is EXACTLY
> the same as what the measured values are in SR-

The reason why SR and LET have the same math is becasue they used the
absolute rest frame to derive such math. SR calls the absolute rest
frame as an inertial frame....that's all.

Ken Seto

Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

From: Inertial on 10 Jun 2010 09:41

"kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message
news:2c6773a3-cdc8-4cb9-b42e-872b3bc7a4ba(a)q12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 9, 8:45 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>> "Hayek" <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message
>>
>> news:4c0fc88c$0$22944$e4fe514c(a)news.xs4all.nl...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > PD wrote:
>> >> On Jun 9, 2:36 am, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>> PD wrote:
>> >>>> On Jun 8, 12:29 pm, Hayek
>> >>>> <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote:
>> >>>>> kenseto wrote:
>> >>>>>> Some Contradictory Claims of SR: 1. In the
>> >>>>>> bug and the rivet paradox: From the hole
>> >>>>>> point of view the bug is still alive just
>> >>>>>> before the rivet head hits the wall of the
>> >>>>>> hole. From the rivet point of view the bug is
>> >>>>>> already dead just before the head of the rivet hits the wall of
>> >>>>>> the
>> >>>>>> hole. 2. In the
>> >>>>>> barn and the pole paradox: From the barn point of view an 80 ft
>> >>>>>> pole
>> >>>>>> can fit into a 40
>> >>>>>> ft. barn with both doors close
>> >>>>>> simultaneously. From the pole point of view
>> >>>>>> an 80 ft. pole cannot fit into a 40 ft barn
>> >>>>>> with both doors close simultaneously.
>> >>>>> At first, the scientists, and I presume Lorentz
>> >>>>> and Fitzgerald, thought that the relativistic
>> >>>>> effects were only apparent. Not real for both
>> >>>>> observers. Later, when relativity became more
>> >>>>> entrenched, it was tought that the effects were
>> >>>>> mutual, real for both observers. Suppose
>> >>>>> relativity works absolute after all, and that the preferred frame
>> >>>>> is
>> >>>>> the average mass
>> >>>>> distribution of the universe. The barn is at
>> >>>>> rest wrt this frame, so it does not have any
>> >>>>> real length contraction.
>> >>>> Hmmm... This seems to be a bit artificial to
>> >>>> assume the barn is in the preferred frame. Suppose neither the barn
>> >>>> nor
>> >>>> the pole are at rest
>> >>>> relative to the average mass distribution of the
>> >>>> universe. Then how would you describe things?
>> >>> Then, part of the effects will be real, and part of
>> >>> them apparent,
>>
>> >> Does the above make any sense to you at all?
>>
>> > motion wrt to preferred frame -> real gamma increase.
>>
>> > relative motion only -> only apparant effects, for the
>> > other observer.
>>
>> > I cannot make it any simpler.
>>
>> You are talking LET .. not SR. There is no preferred frame in SR .. all
>> effects are measured only.
>
> NO....

WRON

> no such measurements ever been made....

LIAR

> you call predictions as
> measurements.

SR predicts what would be measured, experiments measure, and are found to
agree with the predicted measurement.

You continual lies to the contrary do not constitute an argument

>>In LET there is a combination of measured and
>> phsycial effects that end up with the same results as the measured-only
>> effects of SR. LET is more complicated.
>
> No...

WRONG

> the reasoon why SR and LET have the same math is because both use
> the absolute rest frame to derive their math.

WRONG. SR has no absolute rest frame

> SR calls the absolute
> rest frame as an inertial frame

WRONG. SR has no absolute rest frame

> while LET acknowledges that the
> absolute rest frame exists an duses it to derive its math.

That is correct. Hence the difference. No absolute rest frame in SR .. all
inertial frames are equivalent and there are no exclusive properties. In
LET there IS an absolute aether frame which has exclusive properties .. all
frames are not equivalent in LET, but appear equivalent when measured due to
distortions in rulers and clocks.

You may not agree with either SR or LET, but please do not embarrass
yourself by blatantly lying about what they say.

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

From: Inertial on 10 Jun 2010 09:43

"kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message
news:7ffef744-992c-4677-9a42-1e7a4c0c5042(a)k39g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 9, 8:59 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>> "PD" <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:23253c7c-31b3-43f5-a6eb-93d3f79c402c(a)i28g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jun 9, 2:36 am, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote:
>> >> PD wrote:
>> >> > On Jun 8, 12:29 pm, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote:
>> >> >> kenseto wrote:
>> >> >>> Some Contradictory Claims of SR: 1. In the bug and
>> >> >>> the rivet paradox: From the hole point of view the
>> >> >>> bug is still alive just before the rivet head hits
>> >> >>> the wall of the hole. From the rivet point of view
>> >> >>> the bug is already dead just before the head of the
>> >> >>> rivet hits the wall of the hole.
>> >> >>> 2. In the barn and the pole paradox: From the barn
>> >> >>> point of view an 80 ft pole can fit into a 40 ft.
>> >> >>> barn with both doors close simultaneously. From the
>> >> >>> pole point of view an 80 ft. pole cannot fit into a
>> >> >>> 40 ft barn with both doors close simultaneously.
>> >> >> At first, the scientists, and I presume Lorentz and
>> >> >> Fitzgerald, thought that the relativistic effects were
>> >> >> only apparent. Not real for both observers. Later, when
>> >> >> relativity became more entrenched, it was tought that
>> >> >> the effects were mutual, real for both observers.
>>
>> >> >> Suppose relativity works absolute after all, and that
>> >> >> the preferred frame is the average mass distribution of
>> >> >> the universe.
>>
>> >> >> The barn is at rest wrt this frame, so it does not have
>> >> >> any real length contraction.
>>
>> >> > Hmmm... This seems to be a bit artificial to assume the barn is in
>> >> > the
>> >> > preferred frame.
>> >> > Suppose neither the barn nor the pole are at rest relative to the
>> >> > average mass distribution of the universe. Then how would you
>> >> > describe
>> >> > things?
>>
>> >> Then, part of the effects will be real, and part of them
>> >> apparent,
>>
>> > Does the above make any sense to you at all?
>>
>> I understand what he's saying .. maybe not the best choice of words for
>> 'real' and 'apparent'.
>>
>> In SR clocks are not affected by the motion of the observers (nor what
>> observers measure the clock's motion to be), nor are ruler affected.
>> There
>> is no physical intrinsic change to the clocks or the rulers (what Hayek
>> called 'real')
>>
>> However, the clock rate and ruler length a moving observer will measure
>> (including measurements like whether a pole will fit in a barn) are
>> affected. (what Hayek called 'apparent')
>>
>> In LET you have similar relationships with measured values EXCEPT that,
>> in
>> addition, clock ticking rates and ruler lengths ARE physically and
>> intrinsically affected by their ABSOLUTE motion in the aether. The
>> combined
>> effect of physical intrinsic effect and measured values in LET is EXACTLY
>> the same as what the measured values are in SR-
>
> The reason why SR and LET have the same math is becasue they used the
> absolute rest frame to derive such math.

WRONG. Only LET does

> SR calls the absolute rest
> frame as an inertial frame....that's all.

WRONG. SR never calls any frame 'the absolute rest frame' because there is
no absolute rest frame with exclusive properties in SR. Why do you fail to
understand this most basic concept of SR? Is it because the onle way you
can have something to say is to lie?