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: Michael Moroney on 11 Jun 2010 14:15

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

>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
^^^^^^
That word indicates two events involved (specifically their time order).

>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
^^^^^^
Again, indicating there are two events involved.

>the wall of the hole. These are the valid SR predictions.

So there are two events. The order they happen depend on the reference
frame.

>> 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?

No comment on this? Which star went nova first? No SR involved other
than a finite speed of light.

From: Sam Wormley on 11 Jun 2010 14:42

On 6/11/10 1:00 PM, kenseto wrote:
> On Jun 11, 9:07 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 6/11/10 7:36 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Pick on perspective or the other, Seto. You can't have both!
>
> Wormy the bug cannot be both alive and dead at the moment when the
> head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole....both observers must
> agree on whether the bug is alive or dead but not both.

The perspective of the bug is different yet. Seto, pick ONE
perspective... it will be valid. But you can only pick one.

From: PD on 11 Jun 2010 16:52

On Jun 11, 1:00 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
> On Jun 11, 9:07 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 6/11/10 7:36 AM, kenseto wrote:
>
> > > 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.
>
> > Pick on perspective or the other, Seto. You can't have both!
>
> Wormy the bug cannot be both alive and dead at the moment when the
> head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole....both observers must
> agree on whether the bug is alive or dead but not both.

No, Ken.
The order of events is frame dependent.
It is not true that both observers must agree on the state of the bug
*when* the rivet head hits.
The "when" is the part that trips you up.

From: PD on 11 Jun 2010 16:54

On Jun 11, 1:13 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
> On Jun 11, 11:14 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 10, 9:01 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > 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.
>
> > No, Ken. You do not understand what an event is. An event is a
> > happenstance that is labeled by a particular location and a particular
> > time. The bug dying and the rivet head hitting the wall occur at
> > different locations and different times. They are separate events. The
> > sequence of events depends on reference frame.
>
> Hey idiot.....the time of the event is not changed....the bug id dead
> or the bug is still alive but not both before the head of the rivet
> hits the wall of the hole. The hole observer must agree with the rivet
> observer that the bug is already dead before the head of the rivet
> hits the wall of the hole.

No, the two observers do NOT have to agree on the sequence of events.
Two observers do NOT have to agree that event A has occurred or not
occurred *when* event B has happened.

>...what this means is that length
> contraction is not material or physical as you claimed. BTW that's why
> the more learned SRians such as Tom Roberts said that length
> contraction in SR is not physical (or material)....it is an apparant
> effect.
>
>
>
> > > 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.
>
> > No, Ken, that is NOT what SR says. Stop making stuff up.
>
> > > 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 -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
>

From: Vinyl on 11 Jun 2010 17:05

On Jun 11, 10:52 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 11, 1:00 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 11, 9:07 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 6/11/10 7:36 AM, kenseto wrote:
>
> > > > 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.
>
> > > Pick on perspective or the other, Seto. You can't have both!
>
> > Wormy the bug cannot be both alive and dead at the moment when the
> > head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole....both observers must
> > agree on whether the bug is alive or dead but not both.
>
> No, Ken.
> The order of events is frame dependent.

absolutely not true !!!

let me know when you manage to
reverse the order of events in
any frame you want

> It is not true that both observers must agree on the state of the bug
> *when* the rivet head hits.
> The "when" is the part that trips you up.

what about where-when?

good bye