On May 5, 8:43*am, kenseto wrote:
On May 4, 10:43*pm, PD wrote:



On May 3, 10:03*am, kenseto wrote:

On May 2, 1:45*pm, PD wrote:

On May 2, 9:35*am, kenseto 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?

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.


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.

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.

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.

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 »