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 7 Jul 2010 10:26

On Jul 6, 3:55 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
wrote:
> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes:
> >On Jul 1, 11:49 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> But, of course. Seto, listen up, I have no qualms with Michael's
> >> postings. He is just trying to get you to examine the folly of your
> >> misunderstandings about relativity theory.
> >So you now agree with him that the satllite sees the ground clock
> >running 53us/day running slow??? Do you realize that this disagree
> >with actual observation?
>
> WHAT "actual observation" ? Give references. Remember, your assertions
> are just assertions, not facts.

They set the GPS second to have N+4.15 periods of Cs 133 radiation.
This setting would not agree with your assertion that the ground clock
is 53us/day running slow.

From: kenseto on 7 Jul 2010 10:33

On Jul 6, 5:33 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/3/10 10:53 AM, kenseto wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> So you keep saying, Seto. However, I suspect this document
> cited below is relevant to your misunderstandings concerning
> relativity theory.
>
> Student understanding of time in special relativity:
> simultaneity and reference frames

Assertion is not a valid arguement....the defintion of time in SR,
that time is what the clock measure, is wrong. It suggest that a clock
second is a universal interval of time is wrong. Also comparing a
traveling clock second directly with a stay at home clock second to
reach the conclusion that a traveling clock is younger is wrong.

>
> 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 ï¿½relativity of simultaneityï¿½ 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.

From: Sam Wormley on 7 Jul 2010 11:04

On 7/7/10 9:33 AM, kenseto wrote:
> Assertion is not a valid arguement....the defintion of time in SR,
> that time is what the clock measure, is wrong.

All you ever do, Seto, is make assertions. You have never presented
empirical evidence in support of you arguments. Not once!

From: Michael Moroney on 7 Jul 2010 11:56

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

>On Jul 6, 3:52 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
>wrote:
>> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes:
>> >Hey idiot....
>>
>> Since it is you who is having such a tough time understanding this problem
>> yet you continue to refuse to learn SR, I'd say that you're the idiot
>> around here.

>Hey idiot I am not trying to learn SR.

And here is the underlying problem. You refuse to learn SR, so you keep
arguing the wrong arguments, for some 15 years now.

>> >1. both observers must agree that the bug dies at the instant when the
>> >tip of the rivet hits it.
>>
>> Exactly correct.
>>
>> >2. SR predicts that the bug dies at two different instants of time.
>>
>> Wrong. SR predicts the bug dies when the rivet tip hits it, which happens
>> exactly once.

>Wron....the rivet frame claims that the bug dies before the head of
>the rivet hits the wall of the hole and the hole frame calaims that
>the bug dies after the head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole.

Again, the bug dies exactly once. Where the two observers disagree is
the order of the two events. Just like the two observers and the two
stars going nova. Both observers agree the two stars go nova once each.
They disagree on the order.

Now, if you'd bother to actually sit down with a good book on SR, you
might actually learn something. Too bad you refuse to do so.

From: Michael Moroney on 7 Jul 2010 12:06

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

>On Jul 6, 3:55 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
>wrote:
>> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes:
>> >So you now agree with him that the satllite sees the ground clock
>> >running 53us/day running slow??? Do you realize that this disagree
>> >with actual observation?
>>
>> WHAT "actual observation" ? Give references. Remember, your assertions
>> are just assertions, not facts.

>They set the GPS second to have N+4.15 periods of Cs 133 radiation.

That's not a reference to an actual observation. An observation is a
description of how something (receiver) on the GPS sees the ground
clock. What you mention is an engineering change to the GPS transmitter
signal so that the ground receiver has compensation for GR effects.

In other words, I am asking how the GPS sees the ground clock. You
answered with an engineering change to compensate for how the ground
receiver sees the GPS clock.

>This setting would not agree with your assertion that the ground clock
>is 53us/day running slow.

That setting has *nothing to do* with how the GPS sees the ground clock.
It's there so that the ground receiver sees the GPS clock correctly!