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 11 Jun 2010 08:36

On Jun 10, 10:09 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> "kenseto" <kens...(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

No from the hole point of view the bug is still alive just before the
head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole. However from the rivet
point of view the bug is already deadat the just before the head of
the rivet hit the wall of the hole.

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

From: kenseto on 11 Jun 2010 08:40

On Jun 10, 5:42 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
wrote:
> kenseto <kens...(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.

No....from the hole point of view the bug is still alive just before
the head of the rivet 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. These are the valid SR predictions.

Ken Seto

>
> > 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: kenseto on 11 Jun 2010 08:57

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 such measurement ever been made.....SR predicts the same way as LET
predicts.

Ken Seto

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

From: whoever on 11 Jun 2010 09:05

"kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message
news:f9b35fa2-4f57-47cd-9e30-4a7667cd64b8(a)w31g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 10, 10:09 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>> "kenseto" <kens...(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
>
> No

WRONG

> from the hole point of view the bug is still alive just before the
> head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole. However from the rivet
> point of view the bug is already deadat the just before the head of
> the rivet hit the wall of the hole.

So what? It doesn't change anything .. only the relative order of the
events according to different observers. The same events still occur, so no
contradiction.

>> 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

As I said

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---

From: kenseto on 11 Jun 2010 09:06

On Jun 10, 9:41 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> "kenseto" <kens...(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.

The reason why SR predictions agree with measurements in limited cases
is because these are the predictions of the absolute rest frame.

Ken Seto

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