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 8 Jun 2010 09:35
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.

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.

Ken Seto
From: Robert Higgins on 8 Jun 2010 10:16
On Jun 8, 9:35 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Ken Seto

Hi Ken,

When is your next "lecture" online? We had so much fun with the
last one.
From: PD on 8 Jun 2010 11:29
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.

>
> 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.

>
> 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.

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
From: Sam Wormley on 8 Jun 2010 11:42
On 6/8/10 8:35 AM, 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Ken Seto

Since these events are perspective dependent, there are no
contradictions, Ken. You can only have one perspective. For each
observer the physics is right on. Relativity predictions are
verified by observation every time.

There has never been an observation that contradicts a prediction
of relativity theory.

You, Ken, continue to be confused thinking you can have more than
one perspective simultaneously. You cannot!


From: Inertial on 8 Jun 2010 11:14


"kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message
news:38d0468d-40ca-4b34-97c8-87c342214d65(a)w31g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> Some Contradictory Claims of SR:

There are none

{snip same old lies that ken deceitfully keep spreading .. he is a fraud]


 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
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