What's wrong with these pictures???
kenseto
1. In the twin paradox scenario SR claims that the traveling clock is
running at slower rate than the stay-at-home clock. This means that
the passage of a stay at home clock second corresponds to the passage
of less than a clock second on the traveling clock. However when the
traveling clock rejoins the stay-at-home clock, the traveling clock
second is compared with the stay-at-home clock second directly to
reach the conclusion that the traveling clock is younger. It seems
that SR is making the contradictory claims that: (a) the passage of a
traveling clock second does not correspond to the passage of a stay-at-
home clock second. (b) the passage of a traveling clock second does
correspond to the passage of a stay-at-home clock second.
2. In the pole and the barn paradox scenario:
SR claims that a physically longer pole can fit into a physically
shorter barn for a brief instant. However SR also claims that nothing
is physically happening to the pole. The question is: If nothing is
physically happening to the pole how can a physically longer pole can
fit into a physically shorter barn? Also, what about from the pole's
point of view? How can it fit into an already physically shorter barn
when the barn is under go further physical contraction?
Again it seems that SR is making contradictory claims.
3. The SR concept of Relativity of Simultaneity: Einstein used the
train and lightning strikes example to derive his concept of RoS. He
said that the track observer sees the strikes to be simultaneous
because the speed of light is isotropic in the track frame and the
track observer is located at equal distance from the strikes when the
strikes occur simultaneously. Also the track observer is not moving
wrt the light fronts from the strikes.
OTOH he also claimed that the train observer is moving wrt the light
fronts from the strikes....the light front from the front of the train
will reach the train observer before the light front from the rear of
the train. This is why the train observer will not see the light
fronts to be simultaneous. However Einstein failed to realize that his
explanation violates his postulate that the speed of light is also
isotropic in the train.....at the time the strikes occur
simultaneously the trian observer is also at equal distance from the
strikes. Therefore the train observer must also sees the strikes to be
simultaneous.
Again it seems that SR is making contradictory claims.
All these contradictory claim can be resolved by an Improved
Relaitivity Theory (IRT). A paper on IRT entitled "Improved Relativity
Theory and Doppler Theory of Gravity" is availble in my website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto
Dirk Van de moortel
"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message news:68b3b5a9-f17b-45a0...@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> What's wrong with these pictures???
The imbecile who pulled them out his nose.
Here we go for another never ending treat of
"I Bet I Can Educate This Imbecile!"
Dirk Vdm
Sam Wormley
> What's wrong with these pictures???
>
Special relativity has yet to have one of its predictions
contradicted by an observation.
On the other hand.. Seto has never understood relativity
and, given the content of his posting record, probably
never will.
Mike
> What's wrong with these pictures???
>
> 1. In the twin paradox scenario SR claims that the traveling clock is
> running at slower rate than the stay-at-home clock. This means that
> the passage of a stay at home clock second corresponds to the passage
> of less than a clock second on the traveling clock. However when the
> traveling clock rejoins the stay-at-home clock, the traveling clock
> second is compared with the stay-at-home clock second directly to
> reach the conclusion that the traveling clock is younger. It seems
> that SR is making the contradictory claims that: (a) the passage of a
> traveling clock second does not correspond to the passage of a stay-at-
> home clock second. (b) the passage of a traveling clock second does
> correspond to the passage of a stay-at-home clock second.
Sounds pretty good to me.
>
> 2. In the pole and the barn paradox scenario:
> SR claims that a physically longer pole can fit into a physically
> shorter barn for a brief instant. However SR also claims that nothing
> is physically happening to the pole. The question is: If nothing is
> physically happening to the pole how can a physically longer pole can
> fit into a physically shorter barn? Also, what about from the pole's
> point of view? How can it fit into an already physically shorter barn
> when the barn is under go further physical contraction?
> Again it seems that SR is making contradictory claims.
The bug-rivet paradox was resolved by a bug but we do not know the
answer because it was killed by the rivet.
>
> 3. The SR concept of Relativity of Simultaneity: Einstein used the
> train and lightning strikes example to derive his concept of RoS. He
> said that the track observer sees the strikes to be simultaneous
> because the speed of light is isotropic in the track frame and the
> track observer is located at equal distance from the strikes when the
> strikes occur simultaneously. Also the track observer is not moving
> wrt the light fronts from the strikes.
> OTOH he also claimed that the train observer is moving wrt the light
> fronts from the strikes....the light front from the front of the train
> will reach the train observer before the light front from the rear of
> the train. This is why the train observer will not see the light
> fronts to be simultaneous. However Einstein failed to realize that his
> explanation violates his postulate that the speed of light is also
> isotropic in the train.....at the time the strikes occur
> simultaneously the trian observer is also at equal distance from the
> strikes. Therefore the train observer must also sees the strikes to be
> simultaneous.
> Again it seems that SR is making contradictory claims.
It does. So does the only barber in your town who shaves all men that
do not shave themselves:
(1) If he shaves himself then he does not shave himself
(2) If he does not shave himself then he does shave himself
What is wrong with that you kenseto kind of thing? You find sole
barbers in many small villages around the world.
>
> All these contradictory claim can be resolved by an Improved
> Relaitivity Theory (IRT). A paper on IRT entitled "Improved Relativity
> Theory and Doppler Theory of Gravity" is availble in my website:http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
So do you kill the bug or not? Does the barber in your tiny village
shaves himself or not?
Do you have an inconsistent but complete theory or a complete theory
but inconsistent.
Mike
>
> Ken Seto
PD
> What's wrong with these pictures???
>
> 1. In the twin paradox scenario SR claims that the traveling clock is
> running at slower rate than the stay-at-home clock.
SR makes no such claim. Where are you reading such crap?
What SR tells you is precisely what will be *measured* -- that is, how
much time each twin will say has elapsed between the time of their
departure and the time of their reunion. SR does NOT make a claim
about which clock is running faster or slower in between.
> This means that
> the passage of a stay at home clock second corresponds to the passage
> of less than a clock second on the traveling clock. However when the
> traveling clock rejoins the stay-at-home clock, the traveling clock
> second is compared with the stay-at-home clock second directly to
> reach the conclusion that the traveling clock is younger. It seems
> that SR is making the contradictory claims that: (a) the passage of a
> traveling clock second does not correspond to the passage of a stay-at-
> home clock second. (b) the passage of a traveling clock second does
> correspond to the passage of a stay-at-home clock second.
>
> 2. In the pole and the barn paradox scenario:
> SR claims that a physically longer pole can fit into a physically
> shorter barn for a brief instant. However SR also claims that nothing
> is physically happening to the pole. The question is: If nothing is
> physically happening to the pole how can a physically longer pole can
> fit into a physically shorter barn?
And the reverse question to you is: Why would you think that something
physical MUST happen to an object for its length to be different?
After all, I can record the kinetic energy of a rock from two
different reference frames and will have different answers for the
same rock, even though I never did anything physical to the rock to
add energy to it. The same thing is true for length.
> Also, what about from the pole's
> point of view? How can it fit into an already physically shorter barn
> when the barn is under go further physical contraction?
The answer to this question has to do with what "being inside the
barn" means. What does it mean for the pole to be inside the barn for
an instant in the barn frame?
> Again it seems that SR is making contradictory claims.
>
> 3. The SR concept of Relativity of Simultaneity: Einstein used the
> train and lightning strikes example to derive his concept of RoS.
No, not to derive it. He used it as a teaching example to explain it,
but the RoS lives independently of this example.
> He
> said that the track observer sees the strikes to be simultaneous
> because the speed of light is isotropic in the track frame and the
> track observer is located at equal distance from the strikes when the
> strikes occur simultaneously.
No, that is NOT what he said. What he said is that BECAUSE the track
observer sees the strikes to be simultaneous and because the speed of
light is isotropic in the track frame and because the track observer
is located at equal distances from the strikes, THEN the strikes are
simultaneous.
You have it backwards. Where are you reading such crap?
> Also the track observer is not moving
> wrt the light fronts from the strikes.
Of course he is. If the train observer were not moving relative to the
light fronts, they'd never reach him.
> OTOH he also claimed that the train observer is moving wrt the light
> fronts from the strikes....
No, he didn't. Where are you reading such crap?
> the light front from the front of the train
> will reach the train observer before the light front from the rear of
> the train. This is why the train observer will not see the light
> fronts to be simultaneous.
No, that's how the track observer makes physical sense (that is,
consistency) from his CONCLUSION that the strikes are simultaneous and
the FACT that the train observer does not see the strikes
simultaneously.
> However Einstein failed to realize that his
> explanation violates his postulate that the speed of light is also
> isotropic in the train.....at the time the strikes occur
> simultaneously
But they don't strike simultaneous in the train frame. They only
strike simultaneously in the track frame.
> the trian observer is also at equal distance from the
> strikes. Therefore the train observer must also sees the strikes to be
> simultaneous.
> Again it seems that SR is making contradictory claims.
>
> All these contradictory claim can be resolved by an Improved
> Relaitivity Theory (IRT). A paper on IRT entitled "Improved Relativity
> Theory and Doppler Theory of Gravity" is availble in my website:http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
All these apparently contradictory claims can be resolved by reading
some better teaching materials about relativity, rather than wasting
years on inventing a different theory that is based on a poor
understanding of what relativity says.
>
> Ken Seto
Tom Roberts
> What's wrong with these pictures???
Your personal misunderstandings.
> 1. In the twin paradox scenario SR claims that the traveling clock is
> running at slower rate than the stay-at-home clock. [...]
SR simply does NOT claim that. You REALLY need to learn about SR before
attempting to discuss it.
> [...]
No point in responding.
Tom Roberts
kenseto
> kenseto wrote:
> > What's wrong with these pictures???
>
> Your personal misunderstandings.
>
> > 1. In the twin paradox scenario SR claims that the traveling clock is
> > running at slower rate than the stay-at-home clock. [...]
>
> SR simply does NOT claim that. You REALLY need to learn about SR before
> attempting to discuss it.
So ACCORDING TO YOU: the traveling clock has less elapsed time when it
rejoins the stay-at-home clock is not because it was running at slower
rate than the stay-at-home clock....right? Question: what is the cause
that the traveling clock shows less elapsed time?
Ken Seto
Dirk Van de moortel
He we go!
Dirk Vdm
rbwinn
Well, then you have the scientists who get money for research from the
government because they are going to find out more about the theory of
relativity. Are they going to say that someone has found an
inconsistency in the theory they are using to get research money? Are
they going to get money if an inconsistency is found?
Maybe the best thing to do would be to say that no one can understand
the theory except a few individuals who should be given money for
reasearch. Then if anyone claims to have found an inconsistency, they
can be called names.
Here is a little problem that the few individuals might want to
work. Lightning strikes both ends of a moving train simultaneously as
seen by an observer by the track who is at the middle of the train
when the lightning strikes. The lightning makes marks on the front
and back of the train and on the railroad track. The observer
measures the distance between the marks on the track. What is the
distance between the marks on the track?
Robert B. Winn
Tom Roberts
> On May 2, 3:15 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> kenseto wrote:
>>> What's wrong with these pictures???
>> Your personal misunderstandings.
>>
>>> 1. In the twin paradox scenario SR claims that the traveling clock is
>>> running at slower rate than the stay-at-home clock. [...]
>> SR simply does NOT claim that. You REALLY need to learn about SR before
>> attempting to discuss it.
>
NONSENSE! You must learn to read what is written, not what you
personally want the writing to say.
Your complete and utter inability to actually understand anything about
SR is a long-standing feature around here. It seems likely to me that it
is related to your very poor reading comprehension, as illustrated by
your COMPLETE AND UTTER misunderstanding of what I wrote above.
Tom Roberts
PD
Your questions, Ken, would be answered if you would start reading real
books about relativity, rather than your strategy so far which has
been a) read something lightweight and extrapolate (incorrectly), b)
spend years on your own "theory" that makes more sense to you, c)
pushing your "theory" on the web, and d) using the critiques of your
"theory" as an opportunity to ask questions about relativity.
PD
Mike
>
> - Show quoted text -
I do nto udnerstand the flaming.
If you think he is crazy, do not respond at all. This si what sensible
men will do.
If you respond, provide something of value. He asked three questions.
I gave my answers to him. Why don't you give yours.
I think you shy from giving answers because you have reasons for that.
Not because he is right or wrong, you got reasons.
Go ahead and answer, show the man where he is wrong. First fo all,
thye paradoxes of SR (twin, bug-rivet, polr-barn, and all variation
thereof) are paradoxes that cannot be resolved in the context of the
theory.
Maybe you have resolve them, have ya?
Mike
Martin Hogbin
> What's wrong with these pictures???
Where are the pictures?
Martin Hogbin
xxein
>
> - Show quoted text -
xxein: You screwed it up. The last word should be "train".
hanson
"rbwinn" <rbw...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:de00ac45-4d28-407c...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Lightning strikes both ends of a moving train simultaneously as
seen by an observer by the track who is at the middle of the train
when the lightning strikes. The lightning makes marks on the front
and back of the train and on the railroad track. The observer
measures the distance between the marks on the track. What is
the distance between the marks on the track?
Robert B. Winn
>
You screwed it up. The last word should be "train".
>
ahahaha... no dude,Winn did not screw up, but you gave
the first argument about the inner workings of Einstein's
theory of relativity which is truly a theory for everybody &
everything since, as history shows, everybody accuses
everybody else of being wrong, which makes everybody,
relatively speacking, also right and in a round about way
validates Einstein's crap to be true... even if only in their
own minds... ahahahahaha. ....
Thanks for the laughs! ... ahahaha.... ahahahanson
kenseto
> On May 2, 3:06 pm, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 2, 3:15 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > > kenseto wrote:
> > > > What's wrong with these pictures???
>
> > > Your personal misunderstandings.
>
> > > > 1. In the twin paradox scenario SR claims that the traveling clock is
> > > > running at slower rate than the stay-at-home clock. [...]
>
> > > SR simply does NOT claim that. You REALLY need to learn about SR before
> > > attempting to discuss it.
>
> > So ACCORDING TO YOU: the traveling clock has less elapsed time when it
> > rejoins the stay-at-home clock is not because it was running at slower
> > rate than the stay-at-home clock....right? Question: what is the cause
> > that the traveling clock shows less elapsed time?
>
> > Ken Seto
>
> Your questions, Ken, would be answered if you would start reading real
> books about relativity,
This is a bunch of bull shit. You don't have a good answer to my
question so you sent me off to read a bunch of books??
My question: What is the cause for the traveling clock shows less
elapsed time than the stay-at-home clock? This question arises because
you and Roberts denied that the traveling clock shows less elapsed
time because it is running at a slower rate.
Also do you now deny that every SR observer claims that all clocks
moving wrt him are running slow?
Ken Seto
> rather than your strategy so far which has
> been a) read something lightweight and extrapolate (incorrectly), b)
> spend years on your own "theory" that makes more sense to you, c)
> pushing your "theory" on the web, and d) using the critiques of your
> "theory" as an opportunity to ask questions about relativity.
>
> PD- Hide quoted text -
kenseto
> kenseto wrote:
> > On May 2, 3:15 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> kenseto wrote:
> >>> What's wrong with these pictures???
> >> Your personal misunderstandings.
>
> >>> 1. In the twin paradox scenario SR claims that the traveling clock is
> >>> running at slower rate than the stay-at-home clock. [...]
> >> SR simply does NOT claim that. You REALLY need to learn about SR before
> >> attempting to discuss it.
>
> > So ACCORDING TO YOU: the traveling clock [...]
>
> NONSENSE! You must learn to read what is written, not what you
> personally want the writing to say.
The nonsense is on your part.
Seto said:
In the twin paradox scenario SR claims that the traveling clock is
running at slower rate than the stay-at-home clock.
Roberts said:
SR simply does NOT claim that. You REALLY need to learn about SR
before attempting to discuss it.
Seto said:
So ACCORDING TO YOU: the traveling clock has less elapsed time when it
rejoins the stay-at-home clock is not because it was running at slower
rate than the stay-at-home clock....right? Question: what is the cause
that the traveling clock shows less elapsed time?
Roberts said:
NONSENSE! You must learn to read what is written, not what you
personally want the writing to say.
I asked you a civilized question you refused to answer it. What part
of my question is nonsense??
____________________________________________________________________
>
> Your complete and utter inability to actually understand anything about
> SR is a long-standing feature around here. It seems likely to me that it
> is related to your very poor reading comprehension, as illustrated by
> your COMPLETE AND UTTER misunderstanding of what I wrote above.
>
What you wrote above is completely void of substance. You just gave me
a bunch of bull shit that I don't understand what SR says. But you
refused to tell me what SR is really saying.
Ken Seto
Dirk Van de moortel
The part that formulated the question.
Dirk Vdm
jem
> On May 2, 5:00 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 2, 3:06 pm, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On May 2, 3:15 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>> kenseto wrote:
>>>>> What's wrong with these pictures???
>>>> Your personal misunderstandings.
>>>>> 1. In the twin paradox scenario SR claims that the traveling clock is
>>>>> running at slower rate than the stay-at-home clock. [...]
>>>> SR simply does NOT claim that. You REALLY need to learn about SR before
>>>> attempting to discuss it.
>>> So ACCORDING TO YOU: the traveling clock has less elapsed time when it
>>> rejoins the stay-at-home clock is not because it was running at slower
>>> rate than the stay-at-home clock....right? Question: what is the cause
>>> that the traveling clock shows less elapsed time?
>>> Ken Seto
>> Your questions, Ken, would be answered if you would start reading real
>> books about relativity,
>
> This is a bunch of bull shit. You don't have a good answer to my
> question so you sent me off to read a bunch of books??
> My question: What is the cause for the traveling clock shows less
> elapsed time than the stay-at-home clock? This question arises because
> you and Roberts denied that the traveling clock shows less elapsed
> time because it is running at a slower rate.
This has been explained to you so many times, Seto, that a rock would
understand by now.
According to the Uncertainty Principle, the initial photons misses the
target in the vertical direction so the light path length of the rod are
shorter, so the traveling twins clock are less.
> Also do you now deny that every SR observer claims that all clocks
> moving wrt him are running slow?
The rock's way ahead of you on this one too, Seto.
According to the Uncertainty Principle, the initial photons misses the
target in the vertical direction so the light path length of the rod are
shorter, so all the clocks is less.
kenseto
> On May 2, 9:35 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > What's wrong with these pictures???
>
> > 1. In the twin paradox scenario SR claims that the traveling clock is
> > running at slower rate than the stay-at-home clock.
>
> SR makes no such claim. Where are you reading such crap?
> What SR tells you is precisely what will be *measured* -- that is, how
> much time each twin will say has elapsed between the time of their
> departure and the time of their reunion. SR does NOT make a claim
> about which clock is running faster or slower in between.
So you are now saying that the SR stay-at-home observer doesn't claim
that the traveling clock is running at a slower rate....right??
Previously you admitted that every SR observer claims that all clocks
moving wrt him are running slow. Is this not a valid claim anymore?
>
>
>
>
>
> > This means that
> > the passage of a stay at home clock second corresponds to the passage
> > of less than a clock second on the traveling clock. However when the
> > traveling clock rejoins the stay-at-home clock, the traveling clock
> > second is compared with the stay-at-home clock second directly to
> > reach the conclusion that the traveling clock is younger. It seems
> > that SR is making the contradictory claims that: (a) the passage of a
> > traveling clock second does not correspond to the passage of a stay-at-
> > home clock second. (b) the passage of a traveling clock second does
> > correspond to the passage of a stay-at-home clock second.
>
> > 2. In the pole and the barn paradox scenario:
> > SR claims that a physically longer pole can fit into a physically
> > shorter barn for a brief instant. However SR also claims that nothing
> > is physically happening to the pole. The question is: If nothing is
> > physically happening to the pole how can a physically longer pole can
> > fit into a physically shorter barn?
>
> And the reverse question to you is: Why would you think that something
> physical MUST happen to an object for its length to be different?
Because you said that the physically longer pole can fit into a
physically shorter barn.
I have no problem with the SR explanation if you say that length
contraction is just a perspective geometric projection effect. But you
also insisted that the contraction of the pole is physically real.
That where the problem comes in.
> After all, I can record the kinetic energy of a rock from two
> different reference frames and will have different answers for the
> same rock, even though I never did anything physical to the rock to
> add energy to it. The same thing is true for length.
>
> > Also, what about from the pole's
> > point of view? How can it fit into an already physically shorter barn
> > when the barn is under go further physical contraction?
>
> The answer to this question has to do with what "being inside the
> barn" means. What does it mean for the pole to be inside the barn for
> an instant in the barn frame?
It means that the physical length of the pole is really shorter than
the physical length of the barn in the barn frame.
>
> > Again it seems that SR is making contradictory claims.
>
> > 3. The SR concept of Relativity of Simultaneity: Einstein used the
> > train and lightning strikes example to derive his concept of RoS.
>
> No, not to derive it. He used it as a teaching example to explain it,
> but the RoS lives independently of this example.
>
> > He
> > said that the track observer sees the strikes to be simultaneous
> > because the speed of light is isotropic in the track frame and the
> > track observer is located at equal distance from the strikes when the
> > strikes occur simultaneously.
>
> No, that is NOT what he said. What he said is that BECAUSE the track
> observer sees the strikes to be simultaneous and because the speed of
> light is isotropic in the track frame and because the track observer
> is located at equal distances from the strikes, THEN the strikes are
> simultaneous.
NO....the strikes are stipulated to be simultaneous before the track
observer can see them to be simultaneous.
>
> You have it backwards. Where are you reading such crap?
No you are the one who has it backward. If the strikes were not
stipulated to be simultaneous no observer at equal distance from the
strikes can see them to be simultaneous.
>
> > Also the track observer is not moving
> > wrt the light fronts from the strikes.
>
> Of course he is. If the train observer were not moving relative to the
> light fronts, they'd never reach him.
Hey idiot I said that the track observer is not moving wrt the light
fronts. Do you have a reading comprehension problem?
>
> > OTOH he also claimed that the train observer is moving wrt the light
> > fronts from the strikes....
>
> No, he didn't. Where are you reading such crap?
Hey idiot.... are you saying that Einstein didn't say that the train
observer is rushing toward the light front from the front of the train
and receding from the light front from the rear of the train and thus
he will see that light front from the front before he sees the light
front from the rear? You are so stupid.
>
> > the light front from the front of the train
> > will reach the train observer before the light front from the rear of
> > the train. This is why the train observer will not see the light
> > fronts to be simultaneous.
>
> No, that's how the track observer makes physical sense (that is,
> consistency) from his CONCLUSION that the strikes are simultaneous and
> the FACT that the train observer does not see the strikes
> simultaneously.
Sigh the train observer must make his own conclusion whether the
strikes are simultaneous. The track observer cannot make that decision
for him. However the track observer can predict what the train
observer will see as follows:
The light path length from both strikes in the train = gamma*L
The transit time in the train for both light fronts to reach the train
observer = gamma*L/c
Therefore the train observer will see the strikes to be simultaneous
at a later time of (gamma*L/c).
>
> > However Einstein failed to realize that his
> > explanation violates his postulate that the speed of light is also
> > isotropic in the train.....at the time the strikes occur
> > simultaneously
>
> But they don't strike simultaneous in the train frame. They only
> strike simultaneously in the track frame.
Assertion is not a valid argument. The strikes are stipulated to be
simultaneous to be with.
Ken Seto
kenseto
ROTFLOL...you are an Idiot runt of the SRians.
Mitchell Jones
<23ce4f1f-7045-4cd0...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
Mike <ele...@yahoo.gr> wrote:
> On May 2, 10:35 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
[snip]
> > Again it seems that SR is making contradictory claims.
>
> It does. So does the only barber in your town who shaves all men that
> do not shave themselves:
>
> (1) If he shaves himself then he does not shave himself
***{That is incorrect. If he shaves himself, he does not fall under the
heading of "all men who do not shave themselves." Result: he can claim
to shave all those who do not shave themselves, and he can do so without
contradiction. --MJ}***
> (2) If he does not shave himself then he does shave himself
***{If he does not shave himself, he falls under the heading of "all men
who do not shave themselves." Result: if he claims to shave all men who
do not shave themselves, we would conclude that he has made a false
statement. --MJ}***
> What is wrong with that you kenseto kind of thing? You find sole
> barbers in many small villages around the world.
***{Nothing is wrong with it. The law of contradiction holds that no
statement can be simultaneously true and false--which means: the
situation described by a self-contradictory statement cannot exist in
reality. Note very explicitly that the law of contradiction does not
hold that people cannot construct statements that are either explicitly
or implicitly self-contradictory. All it indicates is that such
statements cannot be true--which means: they cannot correspond to
reality. --MJ}***
[snip]
> Does the barber in your tiny village
> shave himself or not?
***{If the barber is shaved by another, yet claims to shave himself, his
statement is false. If he is shaved by another, yet claims to shave all
those who do not shave themselves, his statement is false by
implication. How do we know that? We know it because contradictions
cannot exist in reality. The law of contradiction tells us that.
Is the law of contradiction refuted by the existence of a
self-contradictory statement? No, because it does not hold that such
statements cannot exist, only that their claims cannot be an accurate
description of reality.
Bottom line: if a person makes a claim which, either explicitly or
implicitly, is self-contradictory, his statement is false. It doesn't
matter whether the person in question is Albert Einstein or someone
else. This is one of those very rare instances in which all men (and
women) are truly equal.
--Mitchell Jones
[snip]
> Mike
>
>
>
>
> >
> > Ken Seto
*****************************************************************
If I seem to be ignoring you, consider the possibility
that you are in my killfile. --MJ
rbwinn
>
> - Show quoted text -
No, the word should be track. We already know what the distance
between the marks on the train is. It is the length of the train.
Robert B. Winn
Mitchell Jones
<c4c5b95f-ec87-4c77...@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
kenseto <ken...@erinet.com> wrote:
***{You have fallen prey to a very bad fallacy vis-a-vis "relativity,"
Ken. Here is your error: you expect to grab a relativist by the balls,
squeeze as hard as you can, and get "substance" back from him, rather
than very loud screeching and howling. Do you now see where you went
astray in your thinking? :-) --MJ}***
Mike
of SR, which deals at the macro level where events are kinematics are
deterministic. In other words, h = 0 in SR, as well as G =0.
> > Also do you now deny that every SR observer claims that all clocks
> > moving wrt him are running slow?
>
> The rock's way ahead of you on this one too, Seto.
>
> According to the Uncertainty Principle, the initial photons misses the
> target in the vertical direction so the light path length of the rod are
> shorter, so all the clocks is less.
You are probably joking. If you are not, you are an idiot. The
undertainty principle does not state that any quantity misses any
targets. It just states that both position and momentum cannot be
measured at arbitrary accuracy due to the fact that observation
affects the measurement at the microcosmic level of particle motion.
IT HAS NOTHING TO DO with theories at the macrocosmic level, as
nothing like that has been oibserved or measured at that level to at
least 1 part in many trillions.
But you are maybe joking, I hope you are not an idiot.
Mike
>
>
>
>
>
> > Ken Seto
>
> >> rather than your strategy so far which has
> >> been a) read something lightweight and extrapolate (incorrectly), b)
> >> spend years on your own "theory" that makes more sense to you, c)
> >> pushing your "theory" on the web, and d) using the critiques of your
> >> "theory" as an opportunity to ask questions about relativity.
>
> >> PD- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
xxein
xxein: The way you put words to it, I thought that the track was just
measured because of the lightning strike and that we were waiting to
measure the train, when it stopped, for comparison. Sorry.
So we expect to see a ratio of the lengths as given by Lorentz for
when the train has stopped, right?
rbwinn
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well, I would not, but scientists would. I would expect that the
marks on the track would be the length of the train apart. Scientists
say that the distance between the marks on the track would be L/sqrt(1-
v^2/c^2), where L is the length of the train.
I figure the problem differently. If the marks on the track are the
length of the train apart, which they are, then there is no relativity
of simultaneity, the observer on the ground sees the two flashes of
light at a time of .5L/c in his frame of reference, and the observer
at the middle of the train sees the two flashes of light at a time of .
5L/c in his frame of reference. A clock on the train is running
slower than a clock on the ground, so the observer on the ground sees
the two flashes of light first.
Bryan Olson
> jem wrote:
>> kenseto wrote:
>>> My question: What is the cause for the traveling clock shows less
>>> elapsed time than the stay-at-home clock? This question arises because
>>> you and Roberts denied that the traveling clock shows less elapsed
>>> time because it is running at a slower rate.
>> This has been explained to you so many times, Seto, that a rock would
>> understand by now.
>>
>> According to the Uncertainty Principle, the initial photons misses the
>> target in the vertical direction so the light path length of the rod are
>> shorter, so the traveling twins clock are less.
> You are probably joking because the uncertainty principle is not part
> of SR, which deals at the macro level where events are kinematics are
> deterministic. In other words, h = 0 in SR, as well as G =0.
It's a joke in the sense of being laughable, but "jem" is not the
origin. Try a Google advanced group search for "uncertainty principle"
with author Kenseto.
--
--Bryan
Bryan Olson
> On May 2, 1:45 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 2, 9:35 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> What's wrong with these pictures???
>>> 1. In the twin paradox scenario SR claims that the traveling clock is
>>> running at slower rate than the stay-at-home clock.
>> SR makes no such claim. Where are you reading such crap?
>> What SR tells you is precisely what will be *measured* -- that is, how
>> much time each twin will say has elapsed between the time of their
>> departure and the time of their reunion. SR does NOT make a claim
>> about which clock is running faster or slower in between.
>
> So you are now saying that the SR stay-at-home observer doesn't claim
> that the traveling clock is running at a slower rate....right??
Wrong. Why not look at what he did in fact say, instead of making
up statements and asking him if that's what he's saying?
> Previously you admitted that every SR observer claims that all clocks
> moving wrt him are running slow. Is this not a valid claim anymore?
The problem, Ken, is that you dumb down the correct statements to
match your insufficient understanding, or maybe just because you
are not honest, and from the compromised versions you draw false
conclusions. While the twins' clocks are in uniform motion (with
no significant gravitational effects) one clock is running slower
in coordinate system S; the other is running slower in coordinate
system S', where S and S' are the rest frames of the two twins.
I am *not* saying the dumbed-down version that the stay-at-home
twin's clock is running faster.
Try raising your game to the level where you can understand SR
for what it actually says. Trying to bring SR down to the level
of your current understanding has proven worse than useless.
--
--Bryan
PD
> On May 2, 1:45 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 2, 9:35 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > What's wrong with these pictures???
>
> > > 1. In the twin paradox scenario SR claims that the traveling clock is
> > > running at slower rate than the stay-at-home clock.
>
> > SR makes no such claim. Where are you reading such crap?
> > What SR tells you is precisely what will be *measured* -- that is, how
> > much time each twin will say has elapsed between the time of their
> > departure and the time of their reunion. SR does NOT make a claim
> > about which clock is running faster or slower in between.
>
> So you are now saying that the SR stay-at-home observer doesn't claim
> that the traveling clock is running at a slower rate....right??
Read what I said.
> Previously you admitted that every SR observer claims that all clocks
> moving wrt him are running slow.
I said no such thing. In fact, the last time you said it, I corrected
you.
What I said is that an *inertial* observer will claim that all clocks
moving *inertially* with respect to him are running slow. This doesn't
apply to the traveling twin, which is precisely the pedagogical point
of the twin puzzle to begin with. This seems to elude you and has
eluded you for a dozen years or more.
> Is this not a valid claim anymore?
>
>
>
>
>
> > > This means that
> > > the passage of a stay at home clock second corresponds to the passage
> > > of less than a clock second on the traveling clock. However when the
> > > traveling clock rejoins the stay-at-home clock, the traveling clock
> > > second is compared with the stay-at-home clock second directly to
> > > reach the conclusion that the traveling clock is younger. It seems
> > > that SR is making the contradictory claims that: (a) the passage of a
> > > traveling clock second does not correspond to the passage of a stay-at-
> > > home clock second. (b) the passage of a traveling clock second does
> > > correspond to the passage of a stay-at-home clock second.
>
> > > 2. In the pole and the barn paradox scenario:
> > > SR claims that a physically longer pole can fit into a physically
> > > shorter barn for a brief instant. However SR also claims that nothing
> > > is physically happening to the pole. The question is: If nothing is
> > > physically happening to the pole how can a physically longer pole can
> > > fit into a physically shorter barn?
>
> > And the reverse question to you is: Why would you think that something
> > physical MUST happen to an object for its length to be different?
>
> Because you said that the physically longer pole can fit into a
> physically shorter barn.
But it's not physically longer. The pole is physically shorter, which
is why it fits in the barn.
> I have no problem with the SR explanation if you say that length
> contraction is just a perspective geometric projection effect. But you
> also insisted that the contraction of the pole is physically real.
Yes. This doesn't mean that something physical had to happen to the
pole to make it shorter.
> That where the problem comes in.
No problem.
>
> > After all, I can record the kinetic energy of a rock from two
> > different reference frames and will have different answers for the
> > same rock, even though I never did anything physical to the rock to
> > add energy to it. The same thing is true for length.
>
> > > Also, what about from the pole's
> > > point of view? How can it fit into an already physically shorter barn
> > > when the barn is under go further physical contraction?
>
> > The answer to this question has to do with what "being inside the
> > barn" means. What does it mean for the pole to be inside the barn for
> > an instant in the barn frame?
>
> It means that the physical length of the pole is really shorter than
> the physical length of the barn in the barn frame.
I think you can do better than that.
Here, let me give you a hint: The ends of the pole are both inside the
barn at the same moment. Right?
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Again it seems that SR is making contradictory claims.
>
> > > 3. The SR concept of Relativity of Simultaneity: Einstein used the
> > > train and lightning strikes example to derive his concept of RoS.
>
> > No, not to derive it. He used it as a teaching example to explain it,
> > but the RoS lives independently of this example.
>
> > > He
> > > said that the track observer sees the strikes to be simultaneous
> > > because the speed of light is isotropic in the track frame and the
> > > track observer is located at equal distance from the strikes when the
> > > strikes occur simultaneously.
>
> > No, that is NOT what he said. What he said is that BECAUSE the track
> > observer sees the strikes to be simultaneous and because the speed of
> > light is isotropic in the track frame and because the track observer
> > is located at equal distances from the strikes, THEN the strikes are
> > simultaneous.
>
> NO....the strikes are stipulated to be simultaneous before the track
> observer can see them to be simultaneous.
Not so. Where are you reading such crap? Cite the reference.
>
>
>
> > You have it backwards. Where are you reading such crap?
>
> No you are the one who has it backward. If the strikes were not
> stipulated to be simultaneous no observer at equal distance from the
> strikes can see them to be simultaneous.
>
>
>
> > > Also the track observer is not moving
> > > wrt the light fronts from the strikes.
>
> > Of course he is. If the train observer were not moving relative to the
> > light fronts, they'd never reach him.
>
> Hey idiot I said that the track observer is not moving wrt the light
> fronts. Do you have a reading comprehension problem?
Sorry, I mistyped. If the track observer were not moving relative to
the light fronts, they'd never reach him.
>
>
>
> > > OTOH he also claimed that the train observer is moving wrt the light
> > > fronts from the strikes....
>
> > No, he didn't. Where are you reading such crap?
>
> Hey idiot.... are you saying that Einstein didn't say that the train
> observer is rushing toward the light front from the front of the train
> and receding from the light front from the rear of the train and thus
> he will see that light front from the front before he sees the light
> front from the rear?
Yes, he did say this, and this is what the *track* observer says about
the light and the train observer. This is *not* what the train
observer would say is happening, of course.
> You are so stupid.
>
>
>
> > > the light front from the front of the train
> > > will reach the train observer before the light front from the rear of
> > > the train. This is why the train observer will not see the light
> > > fronts to be simultaneous.
>
> > No, that's how the track observer makes physical sense (that is,
> > consistency) from his CONCLUSION that the strikes are simultaneous and
> > the FACT that the train observer does not see the strikes
> > simultaneously.
>
> Sigh the train observer must make his own conclusion whether the
> strikes are simultaneous.
And he concludes they are not. The track observer concludes they are.
> The track observer cannot make that decision
> for him. However the track observer can predict what the train
> observer will see as follows:
> The light path length from both strikes in the train = gamma*L
> The transit time in the train for both light fronts to reach the train
> observer = gamma*L/c
> Therefore the train observer will see the strikes to be simultaneous
> at a later time of (gamma*L/c).
That is certainly not what the train observer sees. Moreover, that is
not what the track observer predicts the train observer will see in
Einstein's writings.
>
>
>
> > > However Einstein failed to realize that his
> > > explanation violates his postulate that the speed of light is also
> > > isotropic in the train.....at the time the strikes occur
> > > simultaneously
>
> > But they don't strike simultaneous in the train frame. They only
> > strike simultaneously in the track frame.
>
> Assertion is not a valid argument. The strikes are stipulated to be
> simultaneous to be with.
Cite the reference. Title, publisher, page number, quotation, please.
>
> Ken Seto
kenseto
> On May 3, 10:03 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 2, 1:45 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 2, 9:35 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > What's wrong with these pictures???
>
> > > > 1. In the twin paradox scenario SR claims that the traveling clock is
> > > > running at slower rate than the stay-at-home clock.
>
> > > SR makes no such claim. Where are you reading such crap?
> > > What SR tells you is precisely what will be *measured* -- that is, how
> > > much time each twin will say has elapsed between the time of their
> > > departure and the time of their reunion. SR does NOT make a claim
> > > about which clock is running faster or slower in between.
>
> > So you are now saying that the SR stay-at-home observer doesn't claim
> > that the traveling clock is running at a slower rate....right??
>
> Read what I said.
>
> > Previously you admitted that every SR observer claims that all clocks
> > moving wrt him are running slow.
>
> I said no such thing. In fact, the last time you said it, I corrected
> you.
> What I said is that an *inertial* observer will claim that all clocks
> moving *inertially* with respect to him are running slow. This doesn't
> apply to the traveling twin, which is precisely the pedagogical point
> of the twin puzzle to begin with. This seems to elude you and has
> eluded you for a dozen years or more.
But no clock is in a state of inertial motion (including any Sr
observer's clock).....so are you saying that SR is not valid because
it is based on inertially moving clocks?
>
>
>
>
>
> > Is this not a valid claim anymore?
>
> > > > This means that
> > > > the passage of a stay at home clock second corresponds to the passage
> > > > of less than a clock second on the traveling clock. However when the
> > > > traveling clock rejoins the stay-at-home clock, the traveling clock
> > > > second is compared with the stay-at-home clock second directly to
> > > > reach the conclusion that the traveling clock is younger. It seems
> > > > that SR is making the contradictory claims that: (a) the passage of a
> > > > traveling clock second does not correspond to the passage of a stay-at-
> > > > home clock second. (b) the passage of a traveling clock second does
> > > > correspond to the passage of a stay-at-home clock second.
>
> > > > 2. In the pole and the barn paradox scenario:
> > > > SR claims that a physically longer pole can fit into a physically
> > > > shorter barn for a brief instant. However SR also claims that nothing
> > > > is physically happening to the pole. The question is: If nothing is
> > > > physically happening to the pole how can a physically longer pole can
> > > > fit into a physically shorter barn?
>
> > > And the reverse question to you is: Why would you think that something
> > > physical MUST happen to an object for its length to be different?
>
> > Because you said that the physically longer pole can fit into a
> > physically shorter barn.
>
> But it's not physically longer. The pole is physically shorter, which
> is why it fits in the barn.
This is an assertion. No moving pole is measured directly to be
shorter.
>
> > I have no problem with the SR explanation if you say that length
> > contraction is just a perspective geometric projection effect. But you
> > also insisted that the contraction of the pole is physically real.
>
> Yes. This doesn't mean that something physical had to happen to the
> pole to make it shorter.
Yes it does.
>
> > That where the problem comes in.
>
> No problem.
Yes there is problem.
>
> > > After all, I can record the kinetic energy of a rock from two
> > > different reference frames and will have different answers for the
> > > same rock, even though I never did anything physical to the rock to
> > > add energy to it. The same thing is true for length.
>
> > > > Also, what about from the pole's
> > > > point of view? How can it fit into an already physically shorter barn
> > > > when the barn is under go further physical contraction?
>
> > > The answer to this question has to do with what "being inside the
> > > barn" means. What does it mean for the pole to be inside the barn for
> > > an instant in the barn frame?
>
> > It means that the physical length of the pole is really shorter than
> > the physical length of the barn in the barn frame.
>
> I think you can do better than that.
> Here, let me give you a hint: The ends of the pole are both inside the
> barn at the same moment. Right?
Right ....that's what you claimed and that's real physical
contraction.
>
>
> > > > Again it seems that SR is making contradictory claims.
>
> > > > 3. The SR concept of Relativity of Simultaneity: Einstein used the
> > > > train and lightning strikes example to derive his concept of RoS.
>
> > > No, not to derive it. He used it as a teaching example to explain it,
> > > but the RoS lives independently of this example.
>
> > > > He
> > > > said that the track observer sees the strikes to be simultaneous
> > > > because the speed of light is isotropic in the track frame and the
> > > > track observer is located at equal distance from the strikes when the
> > > > strikes occur simultaneously.
>
> > > No, that is NOT what he said. What he said is that BECAUSE the track
> > > observer sees the strikes to be simultaneous and because the speed of
> > > light is isotropic in the track frame and because the track observer
> > > is located at equal distances from the strikes, THEN the strikes are
> > > simultaneous.
>
> > NO....the strikes are stipulated to be simultaneous before the track
> > observer can see them to be simultaneous.
>
> Not so. Where are you reading such crap? Cite the reference.
The stipulation that the track observer are at equal distance and the
speed of light is isotropic automatically stipulates that the strikes
are simultaneous.
Besides the RoS violates the PoR. Why? Because RoS means that the laws
of physics are different in the train than in the track.....in the
track frame the speed of light is isotropic and RoS says that the
speed of light in the train is anisotropic.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > You have it backwards. Where are you reading such crap?
>
> > No you are the one who has it backward. If the strikes were not
> > stipulated to be simultaneous no observer at equal distance from the
> > strikes can see them to be simultaneous.
>
> > > > Also the track observer is not moving
> > > > wrt the light fronts from the strikes.
>
> > > Of course he is. If the train observer were not moving relative to the
> > > light fronts, they'd never reach him.
>
> > Hey idiot I said that the track observer is not moving wrt the light
> > fronts. Do you have a reading comprehension problem?
>
> Sorry, I mistyped. If the track observer were not moving relative to
> the light fronts, they'd never reach him.
Sigh....the light fronts are doing the moving isotropically. That's
why that speed of light is isotropic in the track frame.
>
>
>
> > > > OTOH he also claimed that the train observer is moving wrt the light
> > > > fronts from the strikes....
>
> > > No, he didn't. Where are you reading such crap?
>
> > Hey idiot.... are you saying that Einstein didn't say that the train
> > observer is rushing toward the light front from the front of the train
> > and receding from the light front from the rear of the train and thus
> > he will see that light front from the front before he sees the light
> > front from the rear?
>
> Yes, he did say this, and this is what the *track* observer says about
> the light and the train observer. This is *not* what the train
> observer would say is happening, of course.
This is where you gone wrong. What you said is based on the bogus
assertion that the RoS is correct. It is not. The correct SR
interpretation by the track observer on what the train observer will
see is as follows:
1/2 of the train = L
The light path length from the strikes in the train = L*gamma
Therefore the transit time for the light fronts to arrive at the train
observer = L*gamma/c
Therefore the track observer predicts that the train observer will see
the strikes to be simultaneous at a later time of (L*gamma/c)
>
>
>
>
>
> > You are so stupid.
>
> > > > the light front from the front of the train
> > > > will reach the train observer before the light front from the rear of
> > > > the train. This is why the train observer will not see the light
> > > > fronts to be simultaneous.
>
> > > No, that's how the track observer makes physical sense (that is,
> > > consistency) from his CONCLUSION that the strikes are simultaneous and
> > > the FACT that the train observer does not see the strikes
> > > simultaneously.
>
> > Sigh the train observer must make his own conclusion whether the
> > strikes are simultaneous.
>
> And he concludes they are not. The track observer concludes they are.
Your assertion is based on the bogus concept of RoS. The train
observer makes no such conclusion. He concludes that the strikes are
stipulated to be simultaneous and the speed of light in his frame is
isotropic and therfore he too will see the strikes to be simultaneous.
>
> > The track observer cannot make that decision
> > for him. However the track observer can predict what the train
> > observer will see as follows:
> > The light path length from both strikes in the train = gamma*L
> > The transit time in the train for both light fronts to reach the train
> > observer = gamma*L/c
> > Therefore the train observer will see the strikes to be simultaneous
> > at a later time of (gamma*L/c).
>
> That is certainly not what the train observer sees. Moreover, that is
> not what the track observer predicts the train observer will see in
> Einstein's writings.
That is certainly what the train observer will see. Otherwise the
speed of light in the train is not isotropic. Of course this disagrees
with what Einstein said because he bogusly believed that the train
observer is moving wrt the simultaneous light fronts.
>
> > > > However Einstein failed to realize that his
> > > > explanation violates his postulate that the speed of light is also
> > > > isotropic in the train.....at the time the strikes occur
> > > > simultaneously
>
> > > But they don't strike simultaneous in the train frame. They only
> > > strike simultaneously in the track frame.
>
> > Assertion is not a valid argument. The strikes are stipulated to be
> > simultaneous to be with.
>
> Cite the reference. Title, publisher, page number, quotation, please.
That's what Einstein said in his book. That's what the text book "The
Fundamental of Physics" by Resnick and Holliday said. The strikes are
stipulated to be simultaneous to begin with. One oberver sees the
strikes to be simultaneous because he is not moving wrt the light
fronts and the other observer sees the strikes to be not simultaneous
because he is moving wrt the light fronts.
Ken Seto
PD
SR is certainly valid where the variation from inertial motion is
below experimental resolution. However, this doesn't mean that SR
analysis doesn't apply in cases where there is non-inertial motion.
It's just that statements like "an SR observer will claim that all
clocks moving wrt him are running slow" don't apply in cases of non-
inertial motion. You have this bonehead notion that SR makes this
claim unilaterally for all cases where SR is valid. That isn't the
case, though I can imagine how you might have gotten this notion by
reading coffee-table books. If you would start reading *real* books
about relativity, they would help dispel some of these bonehead
notions you've been laboring under for a decade.
Of course it is. See the description of being "inside the barn"
below. If both ends of the pole are inside the barn at the same moment
in the barn frame, then this is a measurement that the pole is
physically shorter than the barn.
>
> > > I have no problem with the SR explanation if you say that length
> > > contraction is just a perspective geometric projection effect. But you
> > > also insisted that the contraction of the pole is physically real.
>
> > Yes. This doesn't mean that something physical had to happen to the
> > pole to make it shorter.
>
> Yes it does.
No, Ken, it does not. Nothing physical has to happen to a rock to have
its kinetic energy be different in two different reference frames.
No, Ken, it does not. Your inability to grasp this basic thing is a
severe stumbling block for you.
>
> > > That where the problem comes in.
>
> > No problem.
>
> Yes there is problem.
>
> > > > After all, I can record the kinetic energy of a rock from two
> > > > different reference frames and will have different answers for the
> > > > same rock, even though I never did anything physical to the rock to
> > > > add energy to it. The same thing is true for length.
>
> > > > > Also, what about from the pole's
> > > > > point of view? How can it fit into an already physically shorter barn
> > > > > when the barn is under go further physical contraction?
>
> > > > The answer to this question has to do with what "being inside the
> > > > barn" means. What does it mean for the pole to be inside the barn for
> > > > an instant in the barn frame?
>
> > > It means that the physical length of the pole is really shorter than
> > > the physical length of the barn in the barn frame.
>
> > I think you can do better than that.
> > Here, let me give you a hint: The ends of the pole are both inside the
> > barn at the same moment. Right?
>
> Right ....that's what you claimed and that's real physical
> contraction.
Yes, that's right, it is. But nothing physical has to happen to the
pole to make that happen.
So where's the problem? Where's the contradiction?
>
> > > > > Again it seems that SR is making contradictory claims.
>
> > > > > 3. The SR concept of Relativity of Simultaneity: Einstein used the
> > > > > train and lightning strikes example to derive his concept of RoS.
>
> > > > No, not to derive it. He used it as a teaching example to explain it,
> > > > but the RoS lives independently of this example.
>
> > > > > He
> > > > > said that the track observer sees the strikes to be simultaneous
> > > > > because the speed of light is isotropic in the track frame and the
> > > > > track observer is located at equal distance from the strikes when the
> > > > > strikes occur simultaneously.
>
> > > > No, that is NOT what he said. What he said is that BECAUSE the track
> > > > observer sees the strikes to be simultaneous and because the speed of
> > > > light is isotropic in the track frame and because the track observer
> > > > is located at equal distances from the strikes, THEN the strikes are
> > > > simultaneous.
>
> > > NO....the strikes are stipulated to be simultaneous before the track
> > > observer can see them to be simultaneous.
>
> > Not so. Where are you reading such crap? Cite the reference.
>
> The stipulation that the track observer are at equal distance and the
> speed of light is isotropic automatically stipulates that the strikes
> are simultaneous.
No, it certainly does not. Don't be an idiot.
I can have the speed of light be isotropic and an observer watching a
thunderstorm with a strike 3 miles away in one direction and another
strike 3 miles away in another direction, and this *certainly* doesn't
demand that the thunderstorm strikes all happen at the same time.
You haven't cited the reference. Where are you reading such crap?
> Besides the RoS violates the PoR. Why? Because RoS means that the laws
> of physics are different in the train than in the track.....in the
> track frame the speed of light is isotropic
Yes. And in the train frame the speed of light is isotropic. No
violation of the PoR.
> and RoS says that the
> speed of light in the train is anisotropic.
No, it doesn't. Where on earth do you get that idea?
>
>
> > > > You have it backwards. Where are you reading such crap?
>
> > > No you are the one who has it backward. If the strikes were not
> > > stipulated to be simultaneous no observer at equal distance from the
> > > strikes can see them to be simultaneous.
>
> > > > > Also the track observer is not moving
> > > > > wrt the light fronts from the strikes.
>
> > > > Of course he is. If the train observer were not moving relative to the
> > > > light fronts, they'd never reach him.
>
> > > Hey idiot I said that the track observer is not moving wrt the light
> > > fronts. Do you have a reading comprehension problem?
>
> > Sorry, I mistyped. If the track observer were not moving relative to
> > the light fronts, they'd never reach him.
>
> Sigh....the light fronts are doing the moving isotropically. That's
> why that speed of light is isotropic in the track frame.
There is still relative motion between the light fronts and the track
observer, which you earlier denied.
The track observer is also moving. The track orbits the axis of the
earth and the earth revolves around the sun. Where did you get the
notion that the track observer is assumed to be absolutely at rest?
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > OTOH he also claimed that the train observer is moving wrt the light
> > > > > fronts from the strikes....
>
> > > > No, he didn't. Where are you reading such crap?
>
> > > Hey idiot.... are you saying that Einstein didn't say that the train
> > > observer is rushing toward the light front from the front of the train
> > > and receding from the light front from the rear of the train and thus
> > > he will see that light front from the front before he sees the light
> > > front from the rear?
>
> > Yes, he did say this, and this is what the *track* observer says about
> > the light and the train observer. This is *not* what the train
> > observer would say is happening, of course.
>
> This is where you gone wrong. What you said is based on the bogus
> assertion that the RoS is correct.
No, it is NOT based on any assumption. It is based on OBSERVATION.
This is where you repeatedly make the same mistake, thinking that
relativity is all assumption and argument. It's not. It is validated
by *experiment*. Relativity of simultaneity is validated by
*experiment*. It is NOT an assumption. It is NOT a conclusion based on
an assumption. It is a measured FACT.
But that's not what he SEES in EXPERIMENT.
Ken, you are denying REALITY. What the train observer sees is what he
SEES. You cannot deny what he SEES by saying, "But the strikes are
*stipulated* to be simultaneous, period, and therefore you MUST see
them to be simultaneous." That is incompatible with observation. Read
the passage again, from a real book. What the FACT is, is that the
train observer sees the flashes arrive at DIFFERENT times -- this is
experimental FACT, not assumption, not conclusion from assumption.
Your presumption that the strikes are *stipulated* to be simultaneous
is incompatible with OBSERVATION. The inconsistency of your
presumption when confronted with observation, plus the fact that there
is no such stipulation that was ever made in the reference if you'll
look again, SHOULD tell you that there is something wrong with your
presumed stipulation.
>
>
>
> > > The track observer cannot make that decision
> > > for him. However the track observer can predict what the train
> > > observer will see as follows:
> > > The light path length from both strikes in the train = gamma*L
> > > The transit time in the train for both light fronts to reach the train
> > > observer = gamma*L/c
> > > Therefore the train observer will see the strikes to be simultaneous
> > > at a later time of (gamma*L/c).
>
> > That is certainly not what the train observer sees. Moreover, that is
> > not what the track observer predicts the train observer will see in
> > Einstein's writings.
>
> That is certainly what the train observer will see. Otherwise the
> speed of light in the train is not isotropic. Of course this disagrees
> with what Einstein said because he bogusly believed ...
>
> read more »
PD
I don't think so. Cite the reference:
Title, publisher, edition, page number, quotation.
I want to hammer down this bonehead misconception of yours, so I need
to know EXACTLY what you are reading.
You surely still have the books. I have them too. Point to the pages
where this is said, and type the lines where you think this is being
papa...@gmail.com
Relativity: The Special and General Theory. 1920.", chapter 9.
"Up to now our considerations have been referred to a particular body
of reference, which we have styled a "railway embankment." We suppose
a very long train travelling along the rails with the constant
velocity v and in the direction indicated in Fig. 1. People travelling
in this train will with advantage use the train as a rigid reference-
body (co-ordinate system); they regard all events in reference to the
train. Then every event which takes place along the line also takes
place at a particular point of the train. Also the definition of
simultaneity can be given relative to the train in exactly the same
way as with respect to the embankment. As a natural consequence,
however, the following question arises:
Are two events (e.g. the two strokes of lightning A and B) which are
simultaneous with reference to the railway embankment also
simultaneous relatively to the train? We shall show directly that the
answer must be in the negative.
V -> ┤ M' ┤ / Train
----==========================---------
A M B Embankment
When we say that the lightning strokes A and B are simultaneous with
respect to the embankment, we mean: the rays of light emitted at the
places A and B, where the lightning occurs, meet each other at the mid-
point M of the length A --> B of the embankment. But the events A and B
also correspond to positions A and B on the train. Let M' be the mid-
point of the distance A --> B on the travelling train. Just when the
flashes of lightning occur, this point M' naturally coincides with the
point M, but it moves towards the right in the diagram with the
velocity v of the train. If an observer sitting in the position M' in
the train did not possess this velocity, then he would remain
permanently at M, and the light rays emitted by the flashes of
lightning A and B would reach him simultaneously, i.e. they would meet
just where he is situated. Now in reality (considered with reference
to the railway embankment) he is hastening towards the beam of light
coming from B, whilst he is riding on ahead of the beam of light
coming from A. Hence the observer will see the beam of light emitted
from B earlier than he will see that emitted from A. Observers who
take the railway train as their reference-body must therefore come to
the conclusion that the lightning flash B took place earlier than the
lightning flash A. We thus arrive at the important result:
Events which are simultaneous with reference to the embankment are not
simultaneous with respect to the train, and vice versa (relativity of
simultaneity). Every reference-body (co-ordinate system) has its own
particular time; unless we are told the reference-body to which the
statement of time refers, there is no meaning in a statement of the
time of an event.
Now before the advent of the theory of relativity it had always
tacitly been assumed in physics that the statement of time had an
absolute significance, i.e. that it is independent of the state of
motion of the body of reference. But we have just seen that this
assumption is incompatible with the most natural definition of
simultaneity; if we discard this assumption, then the conflict between
the law of the propagation of light in vacuo and the principle of
relativity (developed in Section VII) disappears.
We were led to that conflict by the considerations of Section VI,
which are now no longer tenable. In that section we concluded that the
man in the carriage, who traverses the distance w per second relative
to the carriage, traverses the same distance also with respect to the
embankment in each second of time. But, according to the foregoing
considerations, the time required by a particular occurrence with
respect to the carriage must not be considered equal to the duration
of the same occurrence as judged from the embankment (as reference-
body). Hence it cannot be contended that the man in walking travels
the distance w relative to the railway line in a time which is equal
to one second as judged from the embankment.
Moreover, the considerations of Section VI are based on yet a second
assumption, which, in the light of a strict consideration, appears to
be arbitrary, although it was always tacitly made even before the
introduction of the theory of relativity."
Miguel Rios
harry
"Mitchell Jones" <mjo...@21cenlogic.com> wrote in message
news:mjones-2ADD59....@news.thundernews.com...
Yes indeed! Ken, for once you hit the nail on the head. Note that he
answered such questions in the past, for example:
"I conclude that the intrinsic clock rates remain unchanged, but
that the total elapsed time shown on each clock was determined by its
path through spacetime."
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_thread/thread/c686fac1177c659c/44a058ffa9430c42?lnk=st&q=#44a058ffa9430c42
He also added that "That is how SR interprets this" - but in fact SR does
not interpret but predicts; different people formulated and explained it
differently over the time. For example, Einstein wrote before developing GRT
(thus ignoring effects from gravitation):
"Thence we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly,
by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of
the poles under otherwise identical conditions. " - Einstein 1905.
Harald
harry
> What's wrong with these pictures???
>
> running at slower rate than the stay-at-home clock.
On the average, yes (taking any inertial frame as reference).
> This means that
> the passage of a stay at home clock second corresponds to the passage
> of less than a clock second on the traveling clock.
Too simple, see above - the travelling clock is not a reference system, nor
is it all the time at rest in a valid reference system.
> However when the
> traveling clock rejoins the stay-at-home clock, the traveling clock
> second is compared with the stay-at-home clock second directly to
> reach the conclusion that the traveling clock is younger. It seems
> that SR is making the contradictory claims that: (a) the passage of a
> traveling clock second does not correspond to the passage of a stay-at-
> home clock second. (b) the passage of a traveling clock second does
> correspond to the passage of a stay-at-home clock second.
No, it does not even seem like that! BTW, do you know the meaning of
"paradox"?
> 2. In the pole and the barn paradox scenario:
> SR claims that a physically longer pole can fit into a physically
> shorter barn for a brief instant.
"Physically longer"? No. Of course, it depends what you mean with that word,
but Einstein stated the contrary:
"Physical Meaning [...] A rigid body which, measured in a state of rest, has
the form of a sphere, therefore has in a state of motion--viewed from the
stationary system--the form of an ellipsoid "
> However SR also claims that nothing
> is physically happening to the pole.
Some people may make such claims but not SR. For the claims by Einstein see
above; others such as Lorentz claimed that the length contraction of SR is
"real". But in fact, SR only states what will be observed.
> The question is: If nothing is
> physically happening to the pole how can a physically longer pole
> fit into a physically shorter barn?
Well seen. :-)
> Also, what about from the pole's
> point of view? How can it fit into an already physically shorter barn
> when the barn is under go further physical contraction?
That's easy - did nobody tell you? As seen in standardized co-moving frame,
the back door closes after the front door. And if a crash is avoided by
opening the front door, this also happens before the back door closes.
> Again it seems that SR is making contradictory claims.
That's why it's called a paradox. ;-)
> 3. The SR concept of Relativity of Simultaneity: Einstein used the
> train and lightning strikes example to derive his concept of RoS.
Which was already an old concept, but not perfected until 1905.
> He
> said that the track observer sees the strikes to be simultaneous
> because the speed of light is isotropic in the track frame
I'm afraid you did not read it well...
> and the
> track observer is located at equal distance from the strikes when the
> strikes occur simultaneously. Also the track observer is not moving
> wrt the light fronts from the strikes.
> OTOH he also claimed that the train observer is moving wrt the light
> fronts from the strikes....
That is so according to the track observer...
> the light front from the front of the train
> will reach the train observer before the light front from the rear of
> the train. This is why the train observer will not see the light
> fronts to be simultaneous.
You should say: " This is why the train observer will not see the light
fronts to be simultaneous ACCORDING TO THE TRACK OBSERVER".
> However Einstein failed to realize that his
> explanation violates his postulate that the speed of light is also
> isotropic in the train.....
No, Einstein DID state that as well as elaborate on it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity
> at the time the strikes occur
> simultaneously the trian observer is also at equal distance from the
> strikes. Therefore the train observer must also sees the strikes to be
> simultaneous.
No, your argument is faulty. Why should he claim that the strikes are
simultaneous?
> Again it seems that SR is making contradictory claims.
In this case you simply missed the argument and failed to copy the
calculation...
[...]
Harald
PD
Exactly. Notice that nowhere is it *stipulated* that the strikes occur
simultaneously.
Ken is out to lunch.
I await his quotation from Halliday and Resnick.
PD
kenseto
Right that's because Einstein stipulated that M is at equal distance
from the strikes and that the speed of light is isotropic in the track
frame. These stipulations automatically specfied that the strikes were
simultaneous to begin with. Otherewise the track observer will not be
able to sees the strikes to be simultaneous.
>But the events A and B
> also correspond to positions A and B on the train. Let M' be the mid-
> point of the distance A --> B on the travelling train. Just when the
> flashes of lightning occur, this point M' naturally coincides with the
> point M, but it moves towards the right in the diagram with the
> velocity v of the train. If an observer sitting in the position M' in
> the train did not possess this velocity, then he would remain
> permanently at M, and the light rays emitted by the flashes of
> lightning A and B would reach him simultaneously, i.e. they would meet
> just where he is situated. Now in reality (considered with reference
> to the railway embankment) he is hastening towards the beam of light
> coming from B, whilst he is riding on ahead of the beam of light
> coming from A. Hence the observer will see the beam of light emitted
> from B earlier than he will see that emitted from A.
This point of view of the track observer by Einstein is wrong and
bogus.....it appears that Einstein didn't fully understand his own
theory and postulates. What he said above violates the isotropy of the
speed of light in the train and it violates the PoR. The track
observer must use the postulates to predict what the train observer
will see. According to SR the speed of light in the train is isotropic
and the laws of physics in the train is the same as in the track. From
these two postulates the track observer predicts what the train
observer will see as follows:
1/2 the length of the train = L
Therefore at the time of the strikes both M and M' are at equal
distance fron the strikes.
The light path length for the each light front to reach the M'
observer = gamma*L
The transit time for the light fronts to reach M'= gamma*l/c
Therefore the train observer will sees the strikes to be simultaneous
at time = gamma*L/c according to the track clock.
The track observer will see that he sees the strikes to be
simultaneous at time L/c according to the track clock.
What this means is that the strikes in the track frame occur
simultaneously at an earlier time of L/c and the strikes occur
simultaneously at a later time of (gamma*L/c) in the train.
This arguement preserve the isotropy of the speed of light and the PoR
in the train.
>Observers who
> take the railway train as their reference-body must therefore come to
> the conclusion that the lightning flash B took place earlier than the
> lightning flash A. We thus arrive at the important result:
This is a bogus conclusion. It violates the isotropy of the speed of
light in the train.
Ken Seto
kenseto
ROTFLOL....it is you runts of the SRians don't understand SR. The
reason why SR says that S sees the S' clock run slow and S' sees the S
clock runs slow is because an observer does not know whose clock is
really running slow. This way it covers all the possibilities. BTW an
IRT observer also does not know whose clock is really running slow.
IRT covers both possibilities by haveing two sets of equations one for
the observed clock is really running slow and the other for the
observed clock is really running fast.
BTW what you said that an SR observer sees all clocks moving wrt him
are running slow are contradicted by experiment and observations. From
the grou8nd clock's point of view the SR effect on the GPS clock is 7
us/day running slow. But from the GPS point of view the SR effect on
the ground clock is approx. 7 us/day running fast. So you see the
assertion that an SR observer sees all the clocks moving wrt him are
running slow is a bogus assertion.
Ken Seto
papa...@gmail.com
You do not have the slightest idea of what "isotropy of the speed of
light in the train" means.
Light is a signal that communicates the occurrence of one given event
and has a maximum value (velocity of propagation of the interaction).
That maximum value is measured as c and it is independent of the speed
of the event that created the light. So once generated (for instance
after a lightning strike) the information will travel at the same
speed in all FOR.
Miguel Rios
kenseto
But the math of SR certainly says that all the clocks moving wrt the
observer are running slow. This is not from a coffee table book. It is
from Einstein's book and from any text book. This makes your arguement
weak and bogus.
>
>
>
> > > But it's not physically longer. The pole is physically shorter, which
> > > is why it fits in the barn.
>
> > This is an assertion. No moving pole is measured directly to be
> > shorter.
>
> Of course it is. See the description of being "inside the barn"
> below. If both ends of the pole are inside the barn at the same moment
> in the barn frame, then this is a measurement that the pole is
> physically shorter than the barn.
Sigh....your assertion that both ends of the poles are inside the barn
at the same moment is bogus and has not been proven experimentally.
>
>
> > > Yes. This doesn't mean that something physical had to happen to the
> > > pole to make it shorter.
>
> > Yes it does.
>
> No, Ken, it does not. Nothing physical has to happen to a rock to have
> its kinetic energy be different in two different reference frames.
>
> No, Ken, it does not. Your inability to grasp this basic thing is a
> severe stumbling block for you.
No it doesm't. If both ends of the longer poles are within the shorter
barn for an instant then the poles are really physically contracted.
> > > No problem.
>
> > Yes there is problem.
>
> > > > > After all, I can record the kinetic energy of a rock from two
> > > > > different reference frames and will have different answers for the
> > > > > same rock, even though I never did anything physical to the rock to
> > > > > add energy to it. The same thing is true for length.
>
> > > > > > Also, what about from the pole's
> > > > > > point of view? How can it fit into an already physically shorter barn
> > > > > > when the barn is under go further physical contraction?
>
> > > > > The answer to this question has to do with what "being inside the
> > > > > barn" means. What does it mean for the pole to be inside the barn for
> > > > > an instant in the barn frame?
>
> > > > It means that the physical length of the pole is really shorter than
> > > > the physical length of the barn in the barn frame.
>
> > > I think you can do better than that.
> > > Here, let me give you a hint: The ends of the pole are both inside the
> > > barn at the same moment. Right?
>
> > Right ....that's what you claimed and that's real physical
> > contraction.
>
> Yes, that's right, it is. But nothing physical has to happen to the
> pole to make that happen.
> So where's the problem? Where's the contradiction?
Sure there is something physically happened to the pole....the fact
that both ends of the ;onger pole are within the shorter barn means
that the pole is really physically contracted due to relative motion.
>
> > > Not so. Where are you reading such crap? Cite the reference.
>
> > The stipulation that the track observer are at equal distance and the
> > speed of light is isotropic automatically stipulates that the strikes
> > are simultaneous.
>
> No, it certainly does not. Don't be an idiot.
> I can have the speed of light be isotropic and an observer watching a
> thunderstorm with a strike 3 miles away in one direction and another
> strike 3 miles away in another direction, and this *certainly* doesn't
> demand that the thunderstorm strikes all happen at the same time.
But if you said that you see the strikes occur simutlaneously then the
strikes must happen at the same time if the speed of light in your
frame is isotropic.
>
> You haven't cited the reference. Where are you reading such crap?
>
> > Besides the RoS violates the PoR. Why? Because RoS means that the laws
> > of physics are different in the train than in the track.....in the
> > track frame the speed of light is isotropic
>
> Yes. And in the train frame the speed of light is isotropic. No
> violation of the PoR.
>
> > and RoS says that the
> > speed of light in the train is anisotropic.
>
> No, it doesn't. Where on earth do you get that idea?
Read my respond to Migual's post.
Ken Seto
> > > > he will see that light front from the front before he sees the- 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 -...
>
> read more »
jem
The argument, Seto, preserves the general consensus that you have the
mind of a 4-year old. Here's another opportunity to confirm it.
Here's a picture showing 2 lightning strikes L1 and L2, with light
fronts from the strikes traveling toward 2 observers, one of whom (O2)
is moving to the right relative to the other (O1).
L1...).........O1...O2.....(...L2
Here's a later picture showing the light fronts just reaching O1
simultaneously.
L1............)O1(.....O2......L2
Challenging questions for 4-year olds:
In the second picture, has the light from either lightning strike
reached O2? Has the light from either lightning strike not reached O2?
Bonus question:
Does the light from both lightning strikes reach O2 simultaneously?
PD
That's correct. Notice these are the ONLY TWO stipulations. There IS
NO stipulation that the strikes are simultaneous. You can look all you
want in this passage. It isn't there.
What he DOES say is this: What we *mean* by the two strikes being
simultaneous is that
1. The observer is equidistant between the strikes.
2. The speed of light is isotropic.
3. The observer SEES the light arriving simultaneously from the two
strikes.
If ANY of these conditions is not met, then the strikes are not
simultaneous.
You have a tendency to read into material that which isn't there, Ken.
> These stipulations automatically specfied that the strikes were
> simultaneous to begin with.
In the track frame, that's the proper conclusion. It isn't for the
train frame, however. Repeat: There IS NO stipulation that the strikes
are simultaneous. That is something you made up in your own head and
cannot seem to remove it.
> Otherewise the track observer will not be
> able to sees the strikes to be simultaneous.
>
> >But the events A and B
> > also correspond to positions A and B on the train. Let M' be the mid-
> > point of the distance A --> B on the travelling train. Just when the
> > flashes of lightning occur, this point M' naturally coincides with the
> > point M, but it moves towards the right in the diagram with the
> > velocity v of the train. If an observer sitting in the position M' in
> > the train did not possess this velocity, then he would remain
> > permanently at M, and the light rays emitted by the flashes of
> > lightning A and B would reach him simultaneously, i.e. they would meet
> > just where he is situated. Now in reality (considered with reference
> > to the railway embankment) he is hastening towards the beam of light
> > coming from B, whilst he is riding on ahead of the beam of light
> > coming from A. Hence the observer will see the beam of light emitted
> > from B earlier than he will see that emitted from A.
>
> This point of view of the track observer by Einstein is wrong and
> bogus.....it appears that Einstein didn't fully understand his own
> theory and postulates.
Well, when you say SR (which is what Einstein was describing) says
something other than what is WRITTEN in black and white, Ken, then it
should serve as a suggestion that you do not understand what is
WRITTEN.
> What he said above violates the isotropy of the
> speed of light in the train and it violates the PoR.
It does no such thing. The speed of light is still isotropic in the
train frame. This preserves both the isotropy of the speed of light
and the PoR.
> The track
> observer must use the postulates to predict what the train observer
> will see. According to SR the speed of light in the train is isotropic
> and the laws of physics in the train is the same as in the track.
Correct.
> From
> these two postulates the track observer predicts what the train
> observer will see as follows:
> 1/2 the length of the train = L
> Therefore at the time of the strikes
Careful, the strikes do not happen at the same time in the train
frame.
> both M and M' are at equal
> distance fron the strikes.
> The light path length for the each light front to reach the M'
> observer = gamma*L
Sorry, the above sentence is not a postulate of SR, nor is it one of
the things the train observer observes.
> The transit time for the light fronts to reach M'= gamma*l/c
> Therefore the train observer will sees the strikes to be simultaneous
> at time = gamma*L/c according to the track clock.
>
> The track observer will see that he sees the strikes to be
> simultaneous at time L/c according to the track clock.
That would be inconsistent with the laws of physics as seen by the
track observer. Moreover, it is inconsistent with the *OBSERVATION*
that the train observer actually makes. You continue to deny the
reality that this has been OBSERVED in experiment.
>
> What this means is that the strikes in the track frame occur
> simultaneously at an earlier time of L/c and the strikes occur
> simultaneously at a later time of (gamma*L/c) in the train.
Note that this claim is yours and yours alone, and should NOT be
ascribed to SR, because Einstein wrote (in the above) the DIRECT
OPPOSITE of what you claim.
>
> This arguement preserve the isotropy of the speed of light and the PoR
> in the train.
>
> >Observers who
> > take the railway train as their reference-body must therefore come to
> > the conclusion that the lightning flash B took place earlier than the
> > lightning flash A. We thus arrive at the important result:
>
> This is a bogus conclusion. It violates the isotropy of the speed of
> light in the train.
It does no such thing.
OK, Ken, here is the bottom line. You have asserted that Einstein made
a statement that he clearly did not make. You have further asserted
that Halliday and Resnick have made a statement, and you have yet to
provide the citation you claim from that book.
I am happy to do the same thing that Miguel did, typing in the
relevant passage from Halliday and Resnick under fair use rules. You
will find, as a result of that exercise, that Halliday and Resnick do
not say what they think you say, either.
This means that NO ONE agrees with you about what SR says. This means
that you have misunderstood what little you have read about SR, in a
book for the lay public by Einstein and a freshman physics textbook.
As far as I know, you have read nothing else about SR other than these
two sources, since they are the only two you ever even vaguely
reference. Moreover, I don't think you even have these books handy
anymore, and you're operating only on dim memory. When the facts are
laid out in front of you, you refuse to acknowledge that your memory
or understanding of what is actually WRITTEN was wrong.
Ken, I don't know when you're going to muster the courage to say
"oops". It appears that you are mentally incapable of acknowledging a
mistake. Is your self-esteem so low that you cannot tolerate that
possibility? Are you *so* desperate to improve your self-image that
this is an unacceptable step?
PD
>
> > Miguel Rios
PD
No, it doesn't. The math ONLY applies to inertial motion, NOT to all
motion. Understanding why the time dilation math formula should NOT be
used in the twin puzzle is one of the key points to the puzzle in the
first place.
> This is not from a coffee table book. It is
> from Einstein's book
Einstein's book is a coffee-table book. It is meant for lay public
consumption.
> and from any text book.
This you claim, but you've only ever read one -- Fundamentals of
Physics, by Halliday and Resnick -- and you cannot properly quote what
that textbook says.
> This makes your arguement
> weak and bogus.
I know you'd like to think so, Ken, but it's plain that you do not
remember clearly what Einstein wrote and what Halliday and Resnick
wrote. You *claim* that this is what Einstein wrote, but when
confronted with what Einstein *actually* wrote, you then say, "Well,
then Einstein didn't know what he was talking about."
There is NO ONE that has ever written that SR means what you say it
means. Your memory is faulty and your understanding is simply wrong.
It is not a matter of argument being weak or bogus. It is a matter of
looking at the FACTS staring at you in the face. If you are unwilling
to accept FACTS staring at you in the face, then you have simply
detached from reality, Ken.
>
>
>
> > > > But it's not physically longer. The pole is physically shorter, which
> > > > is why it fits in the barn.
>
> > > This is an assertion. No moving pole is measured directly to be
> > > shorter.
>
> > Of course it is. See the description of being "inside the barn"
> > below. If both ends of the pole are inside the barn at the same moment
> > in the barn frame, then this is a measurement that the pole is
> > physically shorter than the barn.
>
> Sigh....your assertion that both ends of the poles are inside the barn
> at the same moment is bogus and has not been proven experimentally.
Why, yes, yes it has, in an equivalent experiment.
>
>
>
> > > > Yes. This doesn't mean that something physical had to happen to the
> > > > pole to make it shorter.
>
> > > Yes it does.
>
> > No, Ken, it does not. Nothing physical has to happen to a rock to have
> > its kinetic energy be different in two different reference frames.
>
> > No, Ken, it does not. Your inability to grasp this basic thing is a
> > severe stumbling block for you.
>
> No it doesm't. If both ends of the longer poles are within the shorter
> barn for an instant then the poles are really physically contracted.
Yes, it is really physically contracted. This does NOT mean that
something physical had to happen to the pole to make that happen. Note
that I didn't have to do ANYTHING to the rock to have its kinetic
energy be different in different reference frames. You seem to have
difficulty accepting this reality. You have an assumption that you
simply cannot let go of.
Yes, it is physically shorter. Nothing physical happened to the rod to
make that happen. See above.
> due to relative motion.
>
>
>
> > > > Not so. Where are you reading such crap? Cite the reference.
>
> > > The stipulation that the track observer are at equal distance and the
> > > speed of light is isotropic automatically stipulates that the strikes
> > > are simultaneous.
>
> > No, it certainly does not. Don't be an idiot.
> > I can have the speed of light be isotropic and an observer watching a
> > thunderstorm with a strike 3 miles away in one direction and another
> > strike 3 miles away in another direction, and this *certainly* doesn't
> > demand that the thunderstorm strikes all happen at the same time.
>
> But if you said that you see the strikes occur simutlaneously then the
> strikes must happen at the same time if the speed of light in your
> frame is isotropic.
Yes, and in the frame where that happens, then the strikes are
simultaneous. However, in any other frame, where the strikes are NOT
seen to occur simultaneously (and this is seen in EXPERIMENT), then
the same two strikes are NOT simultaneous in that frame.
This is the experimental FACT:
1. Light speed is isotropic in both frames A and B.
2. The strikes are equidistant from the observer in both frames A and
B.
and this is the clincher, but is EXPERIMENTALLY VERIFIED:
3. The light arrives simultaneously at the observer in frame A and NOT
simultaneously at the observer in frame B.
I know you have a hard time accepting the possibility of this outcome,
but it is experimentally verified. It therefore really happens that
way. Therefore any presumption that says this cannot happen must be
WRONG.
>
>
>
> > You haven't cited the reference. Where are you reading such crap?
>
> > > Besides the RoS violates the PoR. Why? Because RoS means that the laws
> > > of physics are different in the train than in the track.....in the
> > > track frame the speed of light is isotropic
>
> > Yes. And in the train frame the speed of light is isotropic. No
> > violation of the PoR.
>
> > > and RoS says that the
> > > speed of light in the train is anisotropic.
>
> > No, it doesn't. Where on earth do you get that idea?
>
> Read my respond to Migual's post.
I did. It's wrong.
>
> Ken Seto
>
rbwinn
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ken Seto is right about this. A photon in S is traveling at 186,000
miles per second as measured by a cesium clock in that frame of
reference. A photon in S' is traveling at 186,000 miles per second as
measured by a cesium clock in that frame of reference. What is
occuring is called relativity of time.
With regard to your little diagrams, suppose that the bolts of
lightning strike the front and rear of a train, leaving marks on the
train and on the railroad track. In the frame of reference of the
track, photons are emitted at the two marks on the track and proceed
to the observer midway between them, reaching him in a time of .5L/c,
where L is the length of the train. In the frame of reference of the
train photons are emitted at the points where lightning struck in that
frame of reference, the two marks left on the train. The photons
proceed to the observer in the middle of the train, reaching him in a
time of .5L/c as measured by the cesium clock on the train.
Now you want us to consider what photons emitted at the two
points on the track are doing, and how one reaches the observer on the
train before the other. It does not happen. In the frame of
reference of the train, the first photons emitted are emitted at the
points where the lightning left marks on the train. Any marks left on
the track where made afterward. Consequently, any photons emitted
from the two marks on the track will reach the observer at the middle
of the train after the photons emitted at the points where the
lightning struck the train. What about the track moving relative to
the train?
Any photons emitted after the marks on the track move away from
the front and rear of the train will reach the observer at the middle
of the train after the photons emitted where the lightning struck the
front and rear of the train. The train is traveling slower than the
speed of light. The observer on the train sees the two flashes of
lightning at the same time, the same as the observer on the ground.
He sees them after the observer on the ground sees them because his
clock is slower.
Robert B. Winn
PD
Everything you've said up until this point is fine.
So let's call the time the rear strike hits (and leaves marks on track
and train) Tr (in the track frame) and Tr' (in the train frame). The
time the front strike hits (and leaves marks on track and train) Tf
(in the track frame) and Tf' (in the train frame). We don't know
anything about those times just yet; we've just given them labels.
And given your prescription, then, the track observer can expect to
see flashes from the two strikes at times
(Tr + 0.5L/c) and (Tf + 0.5L/c)
and the train observer can expect to see flashes from the two strikes
at the times
(Tr' + 0.5L/c) and (Tf' + 0.5L/c).
Now, these times in parentheses are what the observers actually see,
and so we can then *deduce* something from those *observed* times
about the nature of the *unobserved* times Tr, Tf, Tr', Tf'.
Interestingly, what happens (in real life, as measured in experiment)
is that the times of the flashes the track observer sees are the same:
(Tr + 0.5L/c) = (Tf + 0.5L/c)
and that the times of the flashes the train observer sees are not the
same:
(Tr' + 0.5L/c) =/= (Tf' + 0.5L/c).
Now, what one naturally concludes from this observation is that
Tr = Tf, that is, the strikes themselves were simultaneous in the
track frame,
and
Tr' =/= Tf', that is, the strikes themselves were not simultaneous in
the train frame.
On the other hand, Seto is of the opinions that
a) Einstein wrote his example with the explicit set-up (he calls it a
stipulation) that Tr=Tf AND Tr' = Tf'. Of course, when shown what
Einstein really wrote, there is no such explicit set-up at all, and
this flummoxes Seto.
b) Even if Einstein didn't write down his example this way, if Tr =
Tf, then it MUST be that Tr' = Tf' (for whatever reason Seto thinks
this is so), and that to hell what the train observer *actually* sees,
one would *logically* demand that (Tr' + 0.5L/c) = (Tf' + 0.5L/c).
c) The truth, according to Seto, is determined by argument and not by
experiment, and so what the train observer *actually* sees is
irrelevant. Seto thinks that he can *logically conclude* what the
train observer MUST see, based on what he thinks is a superior
assumption (that Tr' = Tf' because Tr = Tf), and he further thinks
that the *conclusion* that the train observer sees (Tr' + 0.5L/c) =/=
(Tf' + 0.5L/c) is based on a circular assumption that Tr' =/= Tf' and
doesn't see why one would assume that to begin with. He doesn't get
that what the train observer sees is not a *conclusion* but an
observational *fact* from which we *start*, not where we end up.
kenseto
The argument jem made preserves the general consensus that he has the
mind of a runt of the SRians.
>Here's another opportunity to confirm it.
>
> Here's a picture showing 2 lightning strikes L1 and L2, with light
> fronts from the strikes traveling toward 2 observers, one of whom (O2)
> is moving to the right relative to the other (O1).
>
> L1...).........O1...O2.....(...L2
Here's where your runtiness comes in. It is irrelevant how O1 and O2
move wrt each other. The postulates of SR says that the speed of light
is isotropic in O1 and O2....period.
>
> Here's a later picture showing the light fronts just reaching O1
> simultaneously.
>
> L1............)O1(.....O2......L2
If the light fronts reach O1 simultaneously then the strikes were
simultaneous to begin with. Otherwise O1 will not be able to see them
to be simultaneous. Again it is irrelatevant how O2 moves wrt O1. What
O2 sees depends on:
1. were the strikes simultaneous to begin with?
2. was he at equal distance from the strikes?
3. is the speed of light isotropic in the train?
The answers to all these questions are YES. Therefore the train
observer will also see the strikes to be simutaneous.
>
> Challenging questions for 4-year olds:
>
> In the second picture, has the light from either lightning strike
> reached O2? Has the light from either lightning strike not reached O2?
Bonus teaching for a runt of the SRians: The second picture is wrong.
Relative motion and direction of relative motion has no effect on the
isotropy of the speed of light in the train. The track observer sees
the strikes to be simultaneous at time L/c according to the track
clock. The train observer sees the strikes to be simultaneous at time
gamma*L/c according to the track clock.
>
> Bonus question:
>
> Does the light from both lightning strikes reach O2 simultaneously?- Hide quoted text -
Bous teaching for a runt of the SRians: The light fronts from both
strikes reach O2 simultaneously at time gamma*L/c according to the
track clock. The light fronts from both strikes reach O1
simultaneously at time L/c according to the train clock. What this
means is that a train clock is running at a slower rate than the track
clock....in other words the train clock second contains gamma second
of track time. This agrees with the SR math completely. Also this
analysis eliminates the need for the bogus concept of relativity of
simultaneity which BTW violates both postulates of SR.
Ken Seto
kenseto
What you wrote above is a bunch of bull you made up. I did not say any
of the thing you said above.
Ken Seto
>
>
>
> > Now you want us to consider what photons emitted at the two
> > points on the track are doing, and how one reaches the observer on the
> > train before the other. It does not happen. In the frame of
> > reference of the train, the first photons emitted are emitted at the
> > points where the lightning left marks on the train. Any marks left on
> > the track where made afterward. Consequently, any photons emitted
> > from the two marks on the track will reach the observer at the middle
> > of the train after the photons emitted at the points where the
> > lightning struck the train. What about the track moving relative to
> > the train?
> > Any photons emitted after the marks on the track move away from
> > the front and rear of the train will reach the observer at the middle
> > of the train after the photons emitted where- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more »
Eric Gisse
Once again Ken Seto proves he does not understand SR. Should we throw
a celebration when you reach 20 years of not understanding SR on
USENET?
>
> Ken Seto
Sam Wormley
>
> ROTFLOL....it is you runts of the SRians don't understand SR. The
> reason why SR says that S sees the S' clock run slow and S' sees the S
> clock runs slow is because an observer does not know whose clock is
> really running slow. This way it covers all the possibilities. BTW an
> IRT observer also does not know whose clock is really running slow.
> IRT covers both possibilities by haveing two sets of equations one for
> the observed clock is really running slow and the other for the
> observed clock is really running fast.
>
> BTW what you said that an SR observer sees all clocks moving wrt him
> are running slow are contradicted by experiment and observations. From
> the grou8nd clock's point of view the SR effect on the GPS clock is 7
> us/day running slow. But from the GPS point of view the SR effect on
> the ground clock is approx. 7 us/day running fast. So you see the
> assertion that an SR observer sees all the clocks moving wrt him are
> running slow is a bogus assertion.
>
> Ken Seto
>
SR doesn't cut it for satellite clocks Seto... use GTR.
Relativistic Effects on Satellite Clocks
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=node5.html
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/frctfrq.png
Take some time to learn what really happens.
kenseto
Why not? They use the SR equation to calculate the velocity effect on
the GPS clock. GR combines the SR effect along with the gravity
potential effect to yield th efinal effect. It appears that it is you
who understand the point of SR.
>
> > This is not from a coffee table book. It is
> > from Einstein's book
>
> Einstein's book is a coffee-table book. It is meant for lay public
> consumption.
>
> > and from any text book.
>
> This you claim, but you've only ever read one -- Fundamentals of
> Physics, by Halliday and Resnick -- and you cannot properly quote what
> that textbook says.
I am not at home. But from what I can remember they gave a similar
example as Einstein's train gedanken. They made the same mistake as
Einstein that relative motion and direction of relative motion will
affect the simultaneity of the two strikes.
>
> > This makes your arguement
> > weak and bogus.
>
> I know you'd like to think so, Ken, but it's plain that you do not
> remember clearly what Einstein wrote and what Halliday and Resnick
> wrote. You *claim* that this is what Einstein wrote, but when
> confronted with what Einstein *actually* wrote, you then say, "Well,
> then Einstein didn't know what he was talking about."
You are trying to twist what I said. I said:
1. The speed of light is isotropic in the track.
2. The track observer is at equal distance from the strikes.
3. These two stipulations require that the strikes to be simultaneous
to begin with if the track observer was to see them to be
simultaneous.
Einstein's reasons why the train observer will not see the strikes to
be simultaneous are based on the following bogus arguments:
1. Relative motion and the direction of relative motion between the
track and train observers will affect the isotropy of the speed of
light in the train.
2. The track observer is not moving wrt the simultaneous light fronts
and thus he will see the strikes to be simultaneous.
3. The train oberver is moving wrt the simultaneous light fronts and
thus he will not see the strikes to be simultaneous.
>
> There is NO ONE that has ever written that SR means what you say it
> means. Your memory is faulty and your understanding is simply wrong.
Of course not....this is because I came up with a better
interpretations of the SR postulates that eliminates all the paradoxes
of SR.
>
> It is not a matter of argument being weak or bogus. It is a matter of
> looking at the FACTS staring at you in the face. If you are unwilling
> to accept FACTS staring at you in the face, then you have simply
> detached from reality, Ken.
Your fact is based on the bogus assumption that relative motion and
direction of relative motion between the train and the track observers
will affect the simultaneity of events.
>
>
>
> > > Of course it is. See the description of being "inside the barn"
> > > below. If both ends of the pole are inside the barn at the same moment
> > > in the barn frame, then this is a measurement that the pole is
> > > physically shorter than the barn.
>
> > Sigh....your assertion that both ends of the poles are inside the barn
> > at the same moment is bogus and has not been proven experimentally.
>
> Why, yes, yes it has, in an equivalent experiment.
No it hasn't. There is no physical contraction if you understand SR
correctly. Both ends of a longer pole cannot be inside the shorter
barn at the same time.
>
>
> > > No, Ken, it does not. Nothing physical has to happen to a rock to have
> > > its kinetic energy be different in two different reference frames.
>
> > > No, Ken, it does not. Your inability to grasp this basic thing is a
> > > severe stumbling block for you.
>
> > No it doesm't. If both ends of the longer poles are within the shorter
> > barn for an instant then the poles are really physically contracted.
>
> Yes, it is really physically contracted. This does NOT mean that
> something physical had to happen to the pole to make that happen.
Sure it does mean that. Both ends of the pole cannot be inside the
barn if the pole did not under go physical change.
>Note
> that I didn't have to do ANYTHING to the rock to have its kinetic
> energy be different in different reference frames. You seem to have
> difficulty accepting this reality. You have an assumption that you
> simply cannot let go of.
Energy is not physical.
>
>
> > > Yes, that's right, it is. But nothing physical has to happen to the
> > > pole to make that happen.
> > > So where's the problem? Where's the contradiction?
>
> > Sure there is something physically happened to the pole....the fact
> > that both ends of the ;onger pole are within the shorter barn means
> > that the pole is really physically contracted
>
> Yes, it is physically shorter. Nothing physical happened to the rod to
> make that happen. See above.
That's a bunch of bull shit.
>
>
> > > No, it certainly does not. Don't be an idiot.
> > > I can have the speed of light be isotropic and an observer watching a
> > > thunderstorm with a strike 3 miles away in one direction and another
> > > strike 3 miles away in another direction, and this *certainly* doesn't
> > > demand that the thunderstorm strikes all happen at the same time.
>
> > But if you said that you see the strikes occur simutlaneously then the
> > strikes must happen at the same time if the speed of light in your
> > frame is isotropic.
>
> Yes, and in the frame where that happens, then the strikes are
> simultaneous. However, in any other frame, where the strikes are NOT
> seen to occur simultaneously (and this is seen in EXPERIMENT), then
> the same two strikes are NOT simultaneous in that frame.
No experiment confirm what you said.
>
> This is the experimental FACT:
> 1. Light speed is isotropic in both frames A and B.
> 2. The strikes are equidistant from the observer in both frames A and
> B.
> and this is the clincher, but is EXPERIMENTALLY VERIFIED:
> 3. The light arrives simultaneously at the observer in frame A and > Not simultaneously at the observer in frame B.
No experiment verify that. Let me ask you this question: How did
REinstein arrived at the conclsuion that the train observer will not
see the strikes to be simultaneous? The answer:
1. He assumed that the strikes were simultaneous to begin with. If he
didn't assume that there is no point for the argument he made in item
#2.
2. the M' rush toward the light front from the front and recedes from
the light front from the rear of the train.
3. That's the reason why the train observer will not see the strikes
to be simultaneous.
>
> I know you have a hard time accepting the possibility of this outcome,
> but it is experimentally verified. It therefore really happens that
> way. Therefore any presumption that says this cannot happen must be
> WRONG.
What you said is a bunch of bull shit. There is no experimental
confirmation of RoS. If there is you would have refuted the postulates
of SR.
Ken Seto
PD
> On May 6, 11:18 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
[Not going to respond to the rest of this, since it is clear that Ken
is completely and utterly beyond hope. But I'll focus on one point
that appears to be new.]
> > > > No, Ken, it does not. Nothing physical has to happen to a rock to have
> > > > its kinetic energy be different in two different reference frames.
>
> > > > No, Ken, it does not. Your inability to grasp this basic thing is a
> > > > severe stumbling block for you.
>
> > > No it doesm't. If both ends of the longer poles are within the shorter
> > > barn for an instant then the poles are really physically contracted.
>
> > Yes, it is really physically contracted. This does NOT mean that
> > something physical had to happen to the pole to make that happen.
>
> Sure it does mean that. Both ends of the pole cannot be inside the
> barn if the pole did not under go physical change.
>
> >Note
> > that I didn't have to do ANYTHING to the rock to have its kinetic
> > energy be different in different reference frames. You seem to have
> > difficulty accepting this reality. You have an assumption that you
> > simply cannot let go of.
>
> Energy is not physical.
Now, THAT's a remarkable statement, Ken.
Interestingly, linear momentum of an object can also be different in
different reference frames, without doing anything to the object, in
exactly the same way this is true for kinetic energy.
I suppose you're going to tell me that linear momentum is not
physical, either, which would be an equally remarkable statement.
Don't you find it interesting, Ken, that two of the most important
laws of physics are conservation of energy and conservation of linear
momentum, and yet you regard these as being unphysical quantities?
Isn't it interesting that you consider length to be more physical
(where is there a conservation of length law?) than momentum and
energy? I wonder on what basis you make that statement.
Would you like to go back home to fetch your copy of Halliday and
Resnick and see what they say about the physicality of momentum and
energy?
Isn't it interesting, Ken, that in the last few months, you've
asserted that not only did Einstein get it wrong, but Halliday and
Resnick have it all wrong, Newton had it wrong, Galileo had it wrong
-- and in fact there is NOTHING that any of these people have said
that you accept as true? Isn't it interesting that there isn't ONE
THING that you can claim you understand and agree with from the world
of physics?
PD
xxein
> On May 3, 4:29 pm,xxein<xxe...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 3, 12:13 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 2, 3:26 pm,xxein<xxe...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 2, 4:27 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On May 2, 10:13�am, Mike <elea...@yahoo.gr> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On May 2, 10:35�am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > What's wrong with these pictures???
>
> > > > > > > 1. In the twin paradox scenario SR claims that the traveling clock is
> > > > > > > the passage of a stay at home clock second corresponds to the passage
> > > > > > > of less than a clock second on the traveling clock. However when the
> > > > > > > traveling clock rejoins the stay-at-home clock, the traveling clock
> > > > > > > second is compared with the stay-at-home clock second �directly to
> > > > > > > reach the conclusion that the traveling clock is younger. It seems
> > > > > > > that SR is making the contradictory claims that: (a) the passage of a
> > > > > > > traveling clock second does not correspond to the passage of a stay-at-
> > > > > > > home clock second. (b) the passage of a traveling clock second does
> > > > > > > correspond to the passage of a stay-at-home clock second.
>
>
> > > > > > > 2. In the pole and the barn paradox scenario:
> > > > > > > SR claims that a physically longer pole can fit into a physically
> > > > > > > shorter barn for a brief instant. However SR also claims that nothing
> > > > > > > is physically happening to the pole. The question is: If nothing is
> > > > > > > physically happening to the pole how can a physically longer pole can
> > > > > > > point of view? How can it fit into an already physically shorter barn
> > > > > > > when the barn is under go further physical contraction?
>
> > > > > > answer because it was killed by the rivet.
>
> > > > > > > 3. The SR concept of Relativity of Simultaneity: Einstein used the
> > > > > > > said that the track observer sees the strikes to be simultaneous
> > > > > > > because the speed of light is isotropic in the track frame and the
> > > > > > > track observer is located at equal distance from the strikes when the
> > > > > > > wrt the light fronts from the strikes.
> > > > > > > will reach the train observer before the light front from the rear of
> > > > > > > the train. This is why the train observer will not see the light
> > > > > > > explanation violates his postulate that the speed of light is also
> > > > > > > isotropic in the train.....at the time the strikes occur
> > > > > > > simultaneous.
> > > > > > > Again it seems that SR is making contradictory claims.
>
> > > > > > do not shave themselves:
>
> > > > > > (1) If he shaves himself then he does not shave himself
>
> > > > > > (2) If he does not shave himself then he does shave himself
>
> > > > > > What is wrong with that you kenseto kind of thing? You find sole
> > > > > > barbers in many small villages around the world.
>
> > > > > > > All these contradictory claim can be resolved by an Improved
> > > > > > > Relaitivity Theory (IRT). A paper on IRT entitled "Improved Relativity
> > > > > > > Theory and Doppler Theory of Gravity" is availble in my website:http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
>
> > > > > > So do you kill the bug or not? Does the barber in your tiny village
> > > > > > shaves himself or not?
>
> > > > > > Do you have an inconsistent but complete theory or a complete theory
> > > > > > but inconsistent.
>
> > > > > > Mike
>
> > > > > Well, then you have the scientists who get money for research from the
> > > > > government because they are going to find out more about the theory of
> > > > > relativity. Are they going to say that someone has found an
> > > > > inconsistency in the theory they are using to get research money? Are
> > > > > they going to get money if an inconsistency is found?
> > > > > Maybe the best thing to do would be to say that no one can understand
> > > > > the theory except a few individuals who should be given money for
> > > > > reasearch. Then if anyone claims to have found an inconsistency, they
> > > > > can be called names.
> > > > > Here is a little problem that the few individuals might want to
> > > > > work. Lightning strikes both ends of a moving train simultaneously as
> > > > > seen by an observer by the track who is at the middle of the train
> > > > > when the lightning strikes. The lightning makes marks on the front
> > > > > and back of the train and on the railroad track. The observer
> > > > > measures the distance between the marks on the track. What is the
> > > > > distance between the marks on the track?
> > > > > Robert B. Winn- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > between the marks on the train is. It is the length of the train.
> > > Robert B. Winn- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > measured because of the lightning strike and that we were waiting to
> > measure the train, when it stopped, for comparison. Sorry.
>
> > So we expect to see a ratio of the lengths as given by Lorentz for
> > when the train has stopped, right?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> marks on the track would be the length of the train apart. Scientists
> say that the distance between the marks on the track would be L/sqrt(1-
> v^2/c^2), where L is the length of the train.
> I figure the problem differently. If the marks on the track are the
> length of the train apart, which they are, then there is no relativity
> of simultaneity, the observer on the ground sees the two flashes of
> light at a time of .5L/c in his frame of reference, and the observer
> at the middle of the train sees the two flashes of light at a time of .
> 5L/c in his frame of reference. A clock on the train is running
> slower than a clock on the ground, so the observer on the ground sees
> the two flashes of light first.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
xxein: "A clock on the train is running slower than a clock on the
ground, so the observer on the ground sees the two flashes of light
first." That part is right. One clock is slower. Simultaneity
involves a bit more than that, though.
It is not measured as simultaneous from the central observer on the
train. It is time for you to understand the one-way speed of light.
If you had initiated the strikes from your central position, you would
have TWLS to make it true. But this was an extraneous event. It was
caused from another frame of reference. Now you have to incorporate
OWLS.
As the lightning struck, your forward movement would allow you to see
the front strike before the back strike. This fake math that 'puts it
all together' is just like believing 'the man behind the curtain'.
While I admire the math of Einstein, it is only math. It has little
to do with the actual physic. It misrepresents it. Yet, it is still
is very useful for our place in measurement and how it affects us.
That is what 'relativity' is and does to support our understanding.
But there is QM. Many more support it than relativity. Guess what.
They are incompatible. We don't know a physic. Why we pretend we do
is just a stupid choice based upon some belief.
A 'real' physic might never be understandable to us. It's inner
complexities may not be measurable. It's sort of like we can make
fire with flint sparks and dry grass. Repeatable and documented to
some degree and call it a science. Yeah, we know more than that by
now, but we are still mystified by what we CAN observe. What of
things we can't observe?
But we haven't yet explained what we CAN observe as a unified physics
or the physic. It is only a belief prospect for now.
Think with a logic of a physic and not with a logic of getting a
pretty girl you just saw.
Bryan Olson
> Bryan Olson wrote:
>> kenseto wrote:
>>> So you are now saying that the SR stay-at-home observer doesn't claim
>>> that the traveling clock is running at a slower rate....right??
>> Wrong. Why not look at what he did in fact say, instead of making
>> up statements and asking him if that's what he's saying?
>>> Previously you admitted that every SR observer claims that all clocks
>>> moving wrt him are running slow. Is this not a valid claim anymore?
>> The problem, Ken, is that you dumb down the correct statements to
>> match your insufficient understanding, or maybe just because you
>> are not honest, and from the compromised versions you draw false
>> conclusions. While the twins' clocks are in uniform motion (with
>> no significant gravitational effects) one clock is running slower
>> in coordinate system S; the other is running slower in coordinate
>> system S', where S and S' are the rest frames of the two twins.
>>
>> I am *not* saying the dumbed-down version that the stay-at-home
>> twin's clock is running faster.
>>
>> Try raising your game to the level where you can understand SR
>> for what it actually says. Trying to bring SR down to the level
>> of your current understanding has proven worse than useless.
>
> ROTFLOL....it is you runts of the SRians don't understand SR. The
> reason why SR says that S sees the S' clock run slow and S' sees the S
> clock runs slow is because an observer does not know whose clock is
> really running slow.
Well, that's not SR. That's Ken Seto theory, and so far it seems
to apply only in its author's head.
> This way it covers all the possibilities. BTW an
> IRT observer also does not know whose clock is really running slow.
> IRT covers both possibilities by haveing two sets of equations one for
> the observed clock is really running slow and the other for the
> observed clock is really running fast.
Ken, how's the experiment going? Putting that funding to good use?
Shouldn't you hold off on the proclamations until you have the
experimental evidence?
> BTW what you said that an SR observer sees all clocks moving wrt him
> are running slow are contradicted by experiment and observations. From
> the grou8nd clock's point of view the SR effect on the GPS clock is 7
> us/day running slow. But from the GPS point of view the SR effect on
> the ground clock is approx. 7 us/day running fast. So you see the
> assertion that an SR observer sees all the clocks moving wrt him are
> running slow is a bogus assertion.
It's a bogus assertion because Ken made it up. My version, still
quoted above, included, "while the twins' clocks are in uniform
motion (with no significant gravitational effects)..."
I also said, "the problem, Ken, is that you dumb down the correct
statements to match your insufficient understanding, or maybe
just because you are not honest, and from the compromised versions
you draw false conclusions." Nice of Ken to follow up with a demo
of just that.
--
--Bryan
jem
I take it back, Seto - you don't have the mind of a 4-year old, and my
apologies to 4-year olds for having suggested that you did.
jem
Do you feel the need to demonstrate that you're as smart as 4-year
old, Bobby? Well, you're not off to a very good start, since you
haven't even properly read the questions. There are no photons, nor
clocks, nor trains, nor tracks, nor marks, nor middles mentioned or
implied in the challenging questions for 4-year olds, and the answers
are just "yes" or "no". Try again if you want to, but I suspect
challenging questions for 3-year olds may be more your speed.
kenseto
>
ROTFLOL...this runt of the SRians failed to come up with a valid
argument so he back paddled.
kenseto
Hey idiot that's the correct interpretation of SR. When you compare
two clocks A and B that has different elapsed time the possibilities
exist are as follows:
1. "A" runs at a slower rate than B. That means that B is running at a
faster rate than A. The SR observer takes the B position.
2. "A" runs at a faster rate than B. That means that A is running at a
faster rate than B. In this case the SR observer takes the A position.
As you can see the position of the SR observer only cover 1/2 of the
possibilities and that's why SR is incomplete.
Ken Seto
>
> > This way it covers all the possibilities. BTW an
> > IRT observer also does not know whose clock is really running slow.
> > IRT covers both possibilities by haveing two sets of equations one for
> > the observed clock is really running slow and the other for the
> > observed clock is really running fast.
>
> Ken, how's the experiment going? Putting that funding to good use?
> Shouldn't you hold off on the proclamations until you have the
> experimental evidence?
>
> > BTW what you said that an SR observer sees all clocks moving wrt him
> > are running slow are contradicted by experiment and observations. From
> > the grou8nd clock's point of view the SR effect on the GPS clock is 7
> > us/day running slow. But from the GPS point of view the SR effect on
> > the ground clock is approx. 7 us/day running fast. So you see the
> > assertion that an SR observer sees all the clocks moving wrt him are
> > running slow is a bogus assertion.
>
> It's a bogus assertion because Ken made it up. My version, still
> quoted above, included, "while the twins' clocks are in uniform
> motion (with no significant gravitational effects)..."
>
> I also said, "the problem, Ken, is that you dumb down the correct
> statements to match your insufficient understanding, or maybe
> just because you are not honest, and from the compromised versions
> you draw false conclusions." Nice of Ken to follow up with a demo
> of just that.
>
> --
> --Bryan- Hide quoted text -
kenseto
> On May 6, 2:45 pm, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 6, 11:18 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [Not going to respond to the rest of this, since it is clear that Ken
> is completely and utterly beyond hope. But I'll focus on one point
> that appears to be new.]
ROTFLOL....you are not responding because you don't have a valid
argument. I am not going to respond the rest of your post until you
admit that Einstein did stipulate that the lightning strikes occur
simultaneously and that:
1. the track observer sees them to be simultaneous because he is not
moving wrt the light fronts.
2. the train observer sees them to be not simultaneous because he is
moving wrt the light fronts.
Ken Seto
> PD- Hide quoted text -
YBM
> ROTFLOL....you are not responding because you don't have a valid
> argument. I am not going to respond the rest of your post until you
> admit that Einstein did stipulate that the lightning strikes occur
> simultaneously and that:
> 1. the track observer sees them to be simultaneous because he is not
> moving wrt the light fronts.
> 2. the train observer sees them to be not simultaneous because he is
> moving wrt the light fronts.
In SR, "not moving with respect to a light front" makes no sense.
PD
> On May 6, 4:11 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 6, 2:45 pm, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 6, 11:18 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > [Not going to respond to the rest of this, since it is clear that Ken
> > is completely and utterly beyond hope. But I'll focus on one point
> > that appears to be new.]
>
> ROTFLOL....you are not responding because you don't have a valid
> argument.
No, I'm not responding because you have looped back into the same
idiocies without learning a thing.
> I am not going to respond the rest of your post until you
> admit that Einstein did stipulate that the lightning strikes occur
> simultaneously
He did NOT. When presented with the text of what Einstein wrote, you
saw yourself that he made no such stipulation and in fact you yourself
said that he must not have known what he was talking about.
I'm not going to respond to you if you are going to continue to delude
yourself with repeated lies, constructed so that you won't have to
face the truth.
> and that:
> 1. the track observer sees them to be simultaneous because he is not
> moving wrt the light fronts.
> 2. the train observer sees them to be not simultaneous because he is
> moving wrt the light fronts.
>
> Ken Seto
Now, about energy (or momentum) being not physical...
rbwinn
You appear to be a college graduate. College graduates have been
trained to attack persons rather than to address problems. If you
have some questions you want to ask me, go ahead and ask them.
Otherwise, we were discussing relativity, which is what this newsgroup
is about. There are some nice psychology newsgroups that might be
more to your liking.
Robert B. Winn
PD
>
>
> ROTFLOL...this runt of the SRians failed to come up with a valid
> argument so he back paddled.
So, Ken, let's recap your position for a moment.
- You are no longer living at your own home, so you don't have access
to the few references you own (Einstein's book on relativity and your
copy of Halliday and Resnick) to check what was actually written. So
you are relying on your own dim memory and your own writings as a
reference for all the physics you know.
- You no longer have access to a car, and so you cannot drive to the
library or a nearby university to check on references that are
supplied to you. You are therefore completely dependent on free
resources on the internet.
- You claim to have independent, private funding to perform
experiments to test your theories, but you lack experimental know-how
to actually design the experiment, acquire necessary equipment,
construct the apparatus, perform the data collection, or analyze the
results without consultative help. So far, you have not been able to
acquire the services of any help or acquire any equipment or get
started in general.
- You are desperate to make a name for yourself, for whatever reason,
in your old age, and so any prospect of having to back up *at all* and
rethink anything is simply not an option for you. After all, you've
been at this for a dozen years and haven't made any significant
progress since your initial concept, and time is running short.
- You are laboring under the burden of being completely unfamiliar
with the body of experimental evidence and also being unversed in the
basic laws of mechanics and electrodynamics, as well as being
unfamiliar with the meaning of basic terms like "vector component".
Despite this, you claim to be sufficiently equipped to revolutionize
physics.
Do I have that captured about right?
PD
rbwinn
> kenseto a �crit :
I have a question, YBM. Whether you talk about photons or light
fronts, in the frame of reference of the train, the light is traveling
at a speed of c from the two points where light was emitted in the
frame of reference of the train. Those two points remain exactly
where they were relative to the frame of reference of the train, and
the movement of the track relative to the train changes nothing. How
do you get that the observer on the train is moving wrt the light
fronts in his frame of reference?
The observer on the train is not moving in his frame of
reference. The train is not moving in the frame of reference of the
train, and the observer is at the middle of the train the entire
time. The two light fronts are moving with a speed of c toward the
observer. The track is moving toward the rear of the train. What the
track does is irrelevant because the light travels with a speed of c
in the frame of reference of the train, regardless of the motion of
the source of light. Since the track is moving toward the rear of the
train at a speed less than the speed of light, any photons emitted in
the frame of reference of the train after the first photons emitted
will still reach the observer at the middle of the train after the
first ones emitted.
What you and Einstein and all other believers in relativity of
simultaneity are doing is clinging to some beliefs that pertain to
absolute time by making the frame of reference of the track a
preferred frame of reference as far as transmission of light is
concerned. According to you, the train moves toward the source of
light at the front of the train, so that light reaches the observer
first. Wrong. The train is not moving in its own frame of
reference. The track is moving toward the rear of the train. That is
entirely irrelevant as far as when the light will reach the observer
at the middle of the train. You scientists have faithfully copied
Einstein's mistake for more than 100 years. Don't you think it might
be time to think about it?
Robert B. Winn
YBM
> [complete nonsense]
> Don't you think it might
> be time to think about it?
It definitely is... for you.
rbwinn
> rbwinn a �crit :
I already thought about it. If scientists want to stay back in the
past with ideas taken from the concept of absolute time, it seems to
me we should not bother them in their worship of the distance
contraction. Let them worship how, when, or what they may. Their
form of idol worship is no different from any other.
Robert B. Winn
PD
> On May 7, 6:48�am, YBM <ybm...@nooos.fr> wrote:
>
> > kenseto a �crit :
>
> > > ROTFLOL....you are not responding because you don't have a valid
> > > argument. I am not going to respond the rest of your post until you
> > > admit that Einstein did stipulate that the lightning strikes occur
> > > simultaneously and that:
> > > 1. the track observer sees them to be simultaneous because he is not
> > > moving wrt the light fronts.
> > > 2. the train observer sees them to be not simultaneous because he is
> > > moving wrt the light fronts.
>
> > In SR, "not moving with respect to a light front" makes no sense.
>
> I have a question, YBM. Whether you talk about photons or light
> fronts, in the frame of reference of the train, the light is traveling
> at a speed of c from the two points where light was emitted in the
> frame of reference of the train. Those two points remain exactly
> where they were relative to the frame of reference of the train, and
> the movement of the track relative to the train changes nothing. How
> do you get that the observer on the train is moving wrt the light
> fronts in his frame of reference?
The light fronts are not the points where the light was emitted, any
more than ripples are the same as the spot in the pond where the
pebble was dropped. The points on the train where the light was
emitted are stationary relative to the train. The light fronts are
moving relative to the train.
> The observer on the train is not moving in his frame of
> reference. The train is not moving in the frame of reference of the
> train, and the observer is at the middle of the train the entire
> time. The two light fronts are moving with a speed of c toward the
> observer.
Yes, read your own previous sentence again. The light fronts are
moving relative to the observer on the train.
> The track is moving toward the rear of the train. What the
> track does is irrelevant because the light travels with a speed of c
> in the frame of reference of the train, regardless of the motion of
> the source of light. Since the track is moving toward the rear of the
> train at a speed less than the speed of light, any photons emitted in
> the frame of reference of the train after the first photons emitted
> will still reach the observer at the middle of the train after the
> first ones emitted.
> What you and Einstein and all other believers in relativity of
> simultaneity are doing is clinging to some beliefs that pertain to
> absolute time by making the frame of reference of the track a
> preferred frame of reference as far as transmission of light is
> concerned. According to you, the train moves toward the source of
> light at the front of the train, so that light reaches the observer
> first. Wrong. The train is not moving in its own frame of
> reference. The track is moving toward the rear of the train. That is
> entirely irrelevant as far as when the light will reach the observer
> at the middle of the train. You scientists have faithfully copied
> Einstein's mistake for more than 100 years. Don't you think it might
> be time to think about it?
There is no mistake and there is no preferred frame. Here is what
happens.
1. The strikes occur simultaneously in the track frame.
2. The same strikes occur non-simultaneously in the train frame.
3. Because (2), the light arrives at the train observer at different
times -- which is exactly what the train observer reports.
4. The track observer ALSO says that the light from the rear strike
will arrive at the train observer after the light from the front
strike, even though (1) -- which is exactly what the train observer
reports.
To choose (1) or (2) as being more "real" than the other would be to
choose a preferred frame. But relativity declines to do that, and it
simply notes that the simultaneity of the strikes (even after taking
into account transit times) is frame-dependent.
> Robert B. Winn
papa...@gmail.com
> On May 7, 6:48�am, YBM <ybm...@nooos.fr> wrote:
>
> > kenseto a �crit :
>
> > > ROTFLOL....you are not responding because you don't have a valid
> > > argument. I am not going to respond the rest of your post until you
> > > admit that Einstein did stipulate that the lightning strikes occur
> > > simultaneously and that:
> > > 1. the track observer sees them to be simultaneous because he is not
> > > moving wrt the light fronts.
> > > 2. the train observer sees them to be not simultaneous because he is
> > > moving wrt the light fronts.
>
> > In SR, "not moving with respect to a light front" makes no sense.
>
> I have a question, YBM. Whether you talk about photons or light
> fronts, in the frame of reference of the train, the light is traveling
> at a speed of c from the two points where light was emitted in the
> frame of reference of the train. Those two points remain exactly
> where they were relative to the frame of reference of the train, and
> the movement of the track relative to the train changes nothing. How
> do you get that the observer on the train is moving wrt the light
> fronts in his frame of reference?
Your mistake is treating the points where the information (light) was
generated the same as the information.
They are quite different!
> The observer on the train is not moving in his frame of
> reference. The train is not moving in the frame of reference of the
> train, and the observer is at the middle of the train the entire
> time. The two light fronts are moving with a speed of c toward the
> observer. The track is moving toward the rear of the train. What the
> track does is irrelevant because the light travels with a speed of c
> in the frame of reference of the train, regardless of the motion of
> the source of light. Since the track is moving toward the rear of the
> train at a speed less than the speed of light, any photons emitted in
> the frame of reference of the train after the first photons emitted
> will still reach the observer at the middle of the train after the
> first ones emitted.
The light carrying the information is moving isotropically from the
points where it was generated. So the train observer will receive
first the front light signal and later the back light signal.
> What you and Einstein and all other believers in relativity of
> simultaneity are doing is clinging to some beliefs that pertain to
> absolute time by making the frame of reference of the track a
> preferred frame of reference as far as transmission of light is
> concerned. According to you, the train moves toward the source of
> light at the front of the train, so that light reaches the observer
> first. Wrong. The train is not moving in its own frame of
> reference. The track is moving toward the rear of the train. That is
> entirely irrelevant as far as when the light will reach the observer
> at the middle of the train. You scientists have faithfully copied
> Einstein's mistake for more than 100 years. Don't you think it might
> be time to think about it?
> Robert B. Winn
Nonsense
Miguel Rios
rbwinn
OK, so you do not want to think about it. What a surprise.
Robert B. Winn
papa...@gmail.com
Not more than you are willing even to read all the responses and
information provided to you, as the previous post clearly shows.
That is the typical crackpot behavior.
Miguel Rios
rbwinn
At a speed of c. You seem to have actually pictured this in your
mind.
Well, no, if lightining strikes the front and rear of a moving train,
leaving marks on the train and the track, the marks on the track will
be the length of the train apart, which relativity of simultaneity
cannot explain. According to mathematics, if the bolts of lightning
are simultaneous in the frame of reference of the track, the marks on
the track will be closer together than the length of the train; if the
bolts of lightning are simultaneous in the frame of reference of the
train, the marks on the track are further apart than the length of the
train. Reality shows that the marks on the track will be the length
of the train apart, disproving this false teaching of Einstein.
Robert B. Winn
PD
Sure, it explains it.
Here's how:
The track observer goes back after the train has passed and notes that
the marks on the track are 400 m apart. Remember that, for the track
observer, the strikes hit simultaneously. Since the marks are also on
the train, the track observer correctly notes that the train is 400 m
long. (This is what a length measurement entails anyway: marking the
locations of the ends of an object at the same time.)
Now the train observer goes back after the strikes have hit and notes
that the marks on the train are 500 m apart. But it's also true that
this observer saw the front strike happen before the rear strike ---
the strikes are not simultaneous in this frame. So it doesn't bother
this observer at all that the track observer sees the marks 400 m
apart. That's exactly what you'd expect if you marked the location of
the front of a moving object before you marked the location of the
rear of the moving object -- and that's exactly what the train
observer is sure happened.
The length of the train is frame-dependent. Whether the marks at the
end of the train were made at the same time, is also frame-dependent.
Does this help you understand?
papa...@gmail.com
Nonsense. That is a bunch of words salad. What in the world those
marks you mention have to do with relativity of simultaneity?
This shows you have not read anything about SR. What does it mean
"according to mathematics"? And where does Einstein say the nonsense
of the marks on the track?
There are two events (the strikes) and two observers. What these
observers see is the light signal information that tells them about
the occurrence of those strikes. That is the reason one of them can
certify "I saw both strikes to be simultaneous", while the second
certify "I saw the front strike occurring before the back strike".
Miguel Rios
rbwinn
lightning. He did not fully consider the mathematics of the situation
he described. Einstein did not say anything about marks on the track,
but I did. The marks on the track prove that relativity of
simultaneity cannot exist in reality. Lightning hits the front and
rear of the train simultaneously as seen by an observer by the track,
leaving marks on the front and rear of the train and marks on the
railroad track. The distance between the marks on the train is the
length of the train. The distance between the marks on the track is
the length of the train. In order for relativity of simultaneity to
exist, the marks on the track would have to be closer together than
the length of the train. Conversely, if the bolts of lightning are
seen simultaneously by the observer on the train, in order for
relativity of simultaneity to exist, the marks on the track would have
to be further apart than the length of the train. Reality shows that
the marks on the track are the length of the train apart.
Robert B. Winn
rbwinn
The train has an actual length. You are going to have to decide
whether you want it to be 400 m or 500m. If you run this experiment
as I have described it, the marks on the railroad track are going to
be the length of the train apart.
Robert B. Winn
kenseto
This bogus assertion is based on the bogus assumption that the speed
of light is anisotropic in the train.
Ken Seto
>
> > What you and Einstein and all other believers in relativity of
> > simultaneity are doing is clinging to some beliefs that pertain to
> > absolute time by making the frame of reference of the track a
> > preferred frame of reference as far as transmission of light is
> > concerned. According to you, the train moves toward the source of
> > light at the front of the train, so that light reaches the observer
> > first. Wrong. The train is not moving in its own frame of
> > reference. The track is moving toward the rear of the train. That is
> > entirely irrelevant as far as when the light will reach the observer
> > at the middle of the train. You scientists have faithfully copied
> > Einstein's mistake for more than 100 years. Don't you think it might
> > be time to think about it?
> > Robert B. Winn
>
> Nonsense
>
> Miguel Rios- Hide quoted text -
papa...@gmail.com
The only person making bogus assertions here is you.
Check your dictionary for the meaning of isotropy.
If you do not have one, here is the definition:
Isotropy is uniformity in all directions. The word is made up from
Greek iso (equal) and tropos (direction).
Miguel Rios
kenseto
> On May 7, 8:16 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > ROTFLOL...this runt of the SRians failed to come up with a valid
> > argument so he back paddled.
>
> So, Ken, let's recap your position for a moment.
Lets capture your position: Apparently you are so desperate that you
tried to swindle $22,000 from me!!!!!
Ken Seto
kenseto
But that's what Einstein assumed for the track observer. The
simultaneous light fronts are moving isotropically c toward him and he
is not moving wrt these simultaneous light fronts. That's why he sees
the strikes to be simultaneous. OTOH, the train observer is rushing
toward the front light front and receding away from the rear light
front and that's why the train observer does not see the strikes to be
simultaneous.
papa...@gmail.com
That is complete nonsense. What Einstein wrote about this subject,
just for people like you, can be seen in http://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html
Observers do not have to measure any length (actually it would be very
tough to measure a 200000km train, not speaking of how to build it and
how to place the tracks). The only requirement is for the observers to
coincide at t=0 at x=0, that the strikes occurred at x=-X0 and at x=
+X0 and that the train with its observer is moving at a speed v into
the +x direction.
The observations consist of both observers receiving the light signals
that communicate them of the strikes occurrence. Where in the world
are you seeing something related to measuring lengths?
Miguel Rios
PD
No, actually, it does not. Length is a frame-dependent quantity. The
value in one frame is no more "actual" than the value in another
frame. Now, there is a "rest length" which is the length measured in
the frame in which the train just happens to be at rest, but there is
nothing preferential about this frame.
PD
I don't need your money, Ken, so desperation has nothing to do with
it. I offered you a fair price for the services I quoted you. The fact
that you think this is way out of line indicates to me that you don't
know what's involved in the performance of an experiment like this.
However, as I told you, you certainly should shop around and try to do
better.
Tell me, Ken, how's that working for you?
PD
>
> Ken Seto
kenseto
Right....so when Einstein asserted that the train observer rush toward
the light front from the front and receding from the light front from
the rear he is describing a scenario that destroys the isotropy of the
speed of light in the train.
So I guess it is you runt of the SRians failed to comprehend this
simple fact.
Ken Seto
papa...@gmail.com
On the contrary, light signals from both strokes are precisely
isotropically propagating (in a spherical growing at c shape) from
their origin, which is exactly what isotropy propagation means. When
that sphere finds an eye (either the track or the train observer eyes)
the observers will say "hey I have detected a strike!".
So how you explain this nonsense of "destroying the isotropy of the
speed of light". Do you understand English at all?
Miguel Rios
PD
Why no, Ken, isotropy is still the same.
The track observer notes:
The light from the front of the train is heading backwards at c, while
the train observer rushes toward that light at v.
The light from the back of the train is heading forwards at c, while
the train observer is receding from it at v.
The speed of light is c in both cases. It is still isotropic in the
track frame.
The train observer notes:
The light from the front of the train is heading backwards at c.
The light from the back of the train is heading forwards at c.
The speed of light is c in both cases. It is still isotropic in the
train frame.
Perhaps you don't know what isotropic means.
After all, you don't know what "vector component" means.
rbwinn
> Observers do not have to measure any length (actually it would be very
> tough to measure a 200000km train, not speaking of how to build it and
> how to place the tracks). The only requirement is for the observers to
> coincide at t=0 at x=0, that the strikes occurred at x=-X0 and at x=
> +X0 and that the train with its observer is moving at a speed v into
> the +x direction.
> The observations consist of both observers receiving the light signals
> that communicate them of the strikes occurrence. Where in the world
> are you seeing something related to measuring lengths?
>
the train is also measured in units of length divided by time. In
addition to that, the train has a length that is measured in units of
length.
Robert B. Winn
rbwinn
Well, no, length is not a frame dependent quantity. Length is
length. There is no distance contraction.
Robert B. Winn
papa...@gmail.com
Says who?
And what does that have to do with relativity of simultaneity?
Einstein is quite specific in describing the situation in his book:
"Are two events (e.g. the two strokes of lightning A and B) which are
simultaneous with reference to the railway embankment also
simultaneous relatively to the train? We shall show directly that the
answer must be in the negative."
So you see, he is talking there about time relations of events, not
about length contraction. And sure enough length contraction is quite
real and measurable.
Miguel Rios
papa...@gmail.com
And what are you trying to say with that?.
We are talking about the relativity of simultaneity, and that refers
to time relations, not to length contraction.
The whole point of this train thought experiment is to prove that time
is not absolute.
Miguel Rios
rbwinn
No, sorry. I say. And I can prove it. There is no relativity of
simultaneity, and there is no distance contraction. The Galilean
transformation equations show that both of these concepts exist only
in the imaginations of scientists. Scientists claim that they have a
clock in the frame of reference fo the train, which has a rate of
t'=(t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
Now with regard to the Galilean transformation equations, the variable
t' is already used in the equation, t'=t. So to use this value that
scientists say is the time of the clock on the train, we have to
change the variable from t' to n'.
n'=(t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
t=sqrt(1-v2/c^2)n' + vx/c^2
Now, as you may recall, t'=t, so
x'=x-vt
x'= x - v[sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)n' + vx/c^2]
All you have is a clock running at a different rate than the clock in
the frame of reference of the track. Other than that, the train,
bolts of lightning, and motion of the train happen the same as shown
by these equations.
x'=x-vt
y'=y
z'=z
t'=t
The bolts of lightning strike simultaneously in both frames of
reference. The flashes of lightning are seen at the same time by the
observer by the track. The flashes of lightning are seen at the same
time by the observer on the train.
The transmission of the light happens according to these
equations:
x=ct, in the frame of reference of the track
x'=cn' in the frame of reference of the train.
The value of n' is actually n'=t(1-v/c), not t' from the Lorentz
equations, but we were using the Lorentz equations value so that
scientists could see them used with reality for the first time in more
than 100 years. A clock running at the rate of the Lorentz equation
value is running slightly faster than a clock which shows light to be
traveling at c in the frame of reference of the train.
Robert B. Winn
rbwinn
>
> - Show quoted text -
Relativity of simultaneity, as explained by Einstein, is dependent on
length contraction. If lightning strikes both ends of a train,
leaving marks on the ends of the train and marks on the track, the
only way the marks can be closer together than the length of the
train, as is required if the lightning at the front strikes first, is
if there is a distance contraction, as seen from the frame of
reference of the track.
Robert B. Winn
PD
That is at variance with experimental observation. Nice conjecture,
though.
How's that working for ya?
PD
Actually, no it's not. You'll notice that the relativity of
simultaneity is established without needing to reference the distance
between the marks. However, you brought up the *additional*
information about the distance between the marks. In so doing, you
find out that there is a *consequence* of relativity of simultaneity:
relativity of length.
rbwinn
>
Well, the Galilean transformation equations indicate otherwise. So
what was the experiment you claim proved that length is a frame
dependent quantity?
Robert B. Winn
rbwinn
>
exists. I believe the Galilean transformation equations which
indicate that relativity of simultaneity and distance contraction do
not exist.
Robert B. Winn
PD
The Galilean transformation equations are also at variance with
experimental observation. That's why they've been dropped. You can do
that with mathematics that doesn't model reality well.
Nice conjecture, though. How's that working for ya?
PD
rbwinn
equations not so well, but they give a fairly close approximation. So
when are you going to tell us what the experiment was that proved the
Galilean transformation equations wrong?
Robert B. Winn
kenseto
Hey idiot....do you have reading comprehension problem???
According to Einstein: When the train observer rushes toward the light
front from the front the transit time is less for that light front to
reach him. When the train observer receding away from the light front
from the rear the transit time is more for that light front to reach
him. This means that different arrival times for the two light fronts
that were generated at the same distance from the train observer and
thus what Einstein asserted destroyed the SR postulate that the speed
of light is isotropic in the train. Are you too stupid to understand
that???????
kenseto
Hey idiot....that's not what Einstein said. He said that:
1. the train observer rushes toward the light front from the front and
thus it takes less time for that light front to reach him.
2. the train observer recedes away from the light front from the rear
and thus it takes more time for that light front to reach him.
This means that two different transit times for two light fronts
generated at the same distance from the train observer and thus the
isotropy of the speed of light is not preserved by Einstein's
assertion.
Ken Seto
>
> The train observer notes:
> The light from the front of the train is heading backwards at c.
> The light from the back of the train is heading forwards at c.
> The speed of light is c in both cases. It is still isotropic in the
> train frame.
>
> Perhaps you don't know what isotropic means.
> After all, you don't know what "vector component" means.
>
>
>
> > So I guess it is you runt of the SRians failed to comprehend this
> > simple fact.
>
> > Ken Seto- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
papa...@gmail.com
You are the moron with comprehension problems. What the heck has the
transit time to do with the isotropy of the light?. Again you have to
go back to elementary school and learn to read and write.
The information carried by the light signals is moving at c
isotropically in both the track and the train frame.
The difference in arrival times is not produced by how the light is
moving, but because the train observer is moving relatively to the
light signals.
What drugs are you taken that make you think you know something about
physics?
You have provided substantial evidence that you do not have the
slightest idea of what you are talking, like your famous and hilarious
theory about the Sodium.
Miguel Rios