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 10:01

On Jun 9, 12:34 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 9, 9:15 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 8, 11:29 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 8, 8:35 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> 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.
>
> > > This is not a contradiction. The sequence of events is something that
> > > depends on the frame, and this is experimentally confirmed. Nothing
> > > that actually is observed to happen in nature can be considered to be
> > > contradictory. Insisting that the sequence of events SHOULD be
> > > something that is independent of frame, in the face of experimental
> > > evidence to the contrary, is simply detachment from reality.
>
> > Yes it is a contradiction. The bug cannot be both dead and alive when
> > the head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole.
>
> The "when the head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole" depends on
> the frame of reference.

No it doesn't....it is only one event. If you insist that the
observers disagree the time of the event then it is because their
clocks are running at different rates. But this will not make the bug
is dead and alive at the same time....at the instant when the rivet
head hits the wall of the hole.

> As I said, the sequence of events depends on the frame.
> In one frame, the bug dies before the head of the rivet strikes.
> In another frame, the bug dies after the head of the rivet strikes.
> You have taken this to mean that the bug is both dead and alive when
> the rivet strikes. This is, of course, a stupid conclusion to draw.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > 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.
>
> > > This is not a contradiction. The simultaneity of the doors closing is
> > > something hat depends on the frame, and this is experimentally
> > > confirmed. Nothing that actually is observed to happen in nature can
> > > be considered to be contradictory. Insisting that the simultaneity of
> > > events SHOULD be something that is independent of frame, in the face
> > > of experimental evidence to the contrary, is simply detachment from
> > > reality.
>
> > Yes it is a contradiction. The pole can fit into the barn with both
> > doors close simultaneously and the poles cannot fit into the barn with
> > both doors close simultaneously.
>
> No, SR does not make the second statement, because in the pole frame,
> the doors do not close simultaneously AT ALL.

Yes SR makes such statement....the longer pole cannot fit into the
barn and that's why the doors cannot be closed simultaneously.

Ken Seto

>So it would be an
> incorrect statement to say that the pole does not fit in the barn when
> the two doors close simultaneously.
>
> There is no contradiction.
>
> You are an idiot.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > 3. In Einstein's train gedanken: Two lightning strikes hit the ends of
> > > > the train simultaneously.....the track observer sees the light fronts
> > > > arrive at him simultaneously but the train observer M' will not see
> > > > the light fronts arrive at him simultaneously...according to SR, M'
> > > > is moving with respect to the light fronts (closing velocities) and
> > > > thus give different arriving velocities of the light fronts. This
> > > > assertion violates the SR postulate that the speed of light in the
> > > > train is isotropic.
>
> > > This is not contradictory. SR says that the RELATIVE speed of light in
> > > any frame is isotropic, but it does NOT say that the CLOSING speed of
> > > light in any frame is isotropic, and in fact SR says that the closing
> > > speed of light in any frame may well be anisotropic. Confusing
> > > RELATIVE speed and CLOSING speed in what SR actually says is an error
> > > on Seto's part and no one else's.
>
> > Yes it is a contradiction. M' cannot measure the speed of light to be
> > isotropic if he has different closing speeds wrt the light fronts from
> > the ends of the train.
>
> Yes, he can. Light speed is not closing speed. They are two completely
> different quantities. Light speed can be isotropic and closing speed
> be anisotropic, BECAUSE THEY ARE DIFFERENT THINGS. Only you do not
> understand this, and get the two confused.
>
> This is because you are confused in general.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Ken Seto
>
> > > OK, so there are no contradictions in SR after all.
> > > All Seto has discovered is that his expectations about what should be
> > > frame-independent are not correct, according to experiment, and that
> > > he is confusing two completely different terms.
>
> > > PD- 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: Inertial on 10 Jun 2010 10:09

"kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message
news:0ea1e38a-c1d6-4162-856d-76e758ba55e7(a)e5g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 9, 12:34 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 9, 9:15 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jun 8, 11:29 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Jun 8, 8:35 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> 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.
>>
>> > > This is not a contradiction. The sequence of events is something that
>> > > depends on the frame, and this is experimentally confirmed. Nothing
>> > > that actually is observed to happen in nature can be considered to be
>> > > contradictory. Insisting that the sequence of events SHOULD be
>> > > something that is independent of frame, in the face of experimental
>> > > evidence to the contrary, is simply detachment from reality.
>>
>> > Yes it is a contradiction. The bug cannot be both dead and alive when
>> > the head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole.
>>
>> The "when the head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole" depends on
>> the frame of reference.
>
> No it doesn't....it is only one event.

And that one event happens in all frames of reference .. as does the other
interesting event, the bug dying

That gives two distinct events at two distinct locations.

The order of those two distinct events depends on the frame of reference, if
you are using SR or LET

From: Michael Moroney on 10 Jun 2010 17:29

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

>Assertion is not a valid arguement.

So why do you continue to assert that there is an absolute reference
frame, and that "every SR observer claims the exclusive properties of the
absolute rest frame" ?

SR has no absolute rest frame whatsoever.

From: Michael Moroney on 10 Jun 2010 17:42

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

>On Jun 9, 12:34 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>> The "when the head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole" depends on
>> the frame of reference.

>No it doesn't....it is only one event.

Two events. The head of the rivet hits the wall, and the shaft of the
rivet squishes the bug. The question is the order of these events.

> If you insist that the
>observers disagree the time of the event then it is because their
>clocks are running at different rates. But this will not make the bug
>is dead and alive at the same time....at the instant when the rivet
>head hits the wall of the hole.

You don't even need to invoke SR to have ambiguous order of events.
Consider two stars A and B, and two observers, a and b. All four
(stars and observers) are stationary w/respect to each other.
Observer a is 1 light year from Star A and 10 light years from Star B.
Observer b is 1 light year from Star B and 10 light years from Star A.
Observer a sees Star A go nova, then 9 years later sees Star B go nova.
Observer b sees Star B go nova, then 9 years later sees Star A go nova.
Which star went nova first?

The bug/rivet is more complex but the order of events depends on whether
you are in the reference frame of the wall/bug or that of the rivet.

From: eric gisse on 10 Jun 2010 21:18

kenseto wrote:
[...]

> 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.

So every inertial frame is at absolute rest?

One would think that after 15 years of practice you'd be better at this.

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