On May 13, 6:36*pm, "Simple Simon" wrote:
"kenseto" wrote in message

...



On May 13, 6:47 am, PD wrote:
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. 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

I just want to add at this point that, while the discussion has moved
to whether you have adequately staffed to perform an experiment to
test your theory, your original post shows that you find special
relativity to be just as confusing as it ever was to you, and that all
of the classic teaching examples are still self-contradictions to you.
You haven't learned one thing in over a decade about this subject. Not
one thing. I suppose it hasn't occurred to you that you're going about
learning it the wrong way.

The SR contradictions are as follows:
1. Nothing physically is happening to the moving longer pole but both
ends of the longer pole can fit into a physically shorter barn for a
very brief instant of time.

Here is a concrete example of how to fit that pole into that barn within a
single inertial frame of reference without special relativity or the
isotropy of light:http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...rowse_thread/t...

You are missing the point with this example. The concept of physical
length contraction says that the train is completely within the tunnel
briefly when both doors of the tunnel are closed. This means that the
train is physically contracted according to the track frame observer.
Your example uses the bogus concept of relativity of simultaneity to
assert that the exit door and the entrance door are opened and closed
at different times. This is not fitting the longer train into a
shorter tunnel.


2. The passage of a clock second in the stay-at-home clock corresponds
to the passage of less than a clock second in the traveling twin's
clock. However the traveling clock second can compare directly with
the stay at home clock second to reach the conclusion that the
traveling clock is younger.

Do you see that the length contraction and time dilation of special
relativity are equivalent to "optical illusions"?

How can it be equivalent to optical illusions when the traveling clock
accumulated less elapsed time????? Also if length contraction is
optical illusion then both ends of the longer pole cannot fit into the
shorter barn briefly when both doors are closed simultaneously.


3. Einstein asserted that the train observer is rushing toward the
light front from the front and receding away from the light front from
the rear.
These assertions means that the light front from the front
will take less transit time to reach the train observer and that the
light front from the rear will take more transit time to reach the
train observer.

Obviously (assuming that the specificity that you omit has the observers and
events at the same times and locations as the classic thought experiment
does).

No I didn't assume anything of the sort. Einstein's assertion implies
that the light front from the front will take less transit time to
reach the train observer and the light front fron the rear will take
longer transit time to reach the train observer. This can only mean
one thing: Einstein's assertion violates the isotropy of the speed of
light in the train.


That means that Einstein's assertion destroys the
isotropy of the speed of light in the train.

Not at all. It is exactly because of the isotropy of the speed of light that
the above is true!

How can that Be? Einstein's assertion the two light fronts takes
different transit times to reach the train observer and both of these
light fronts were generated at equal distance from the train observer
originally. Do you understand what isotropy of the speed of light
mean????

Ken Seto

Also that means that the
concept of relativity of simultaneity violates the postulates of SR.

The relativity of simultaneity is a direct and necessary consequence of the
postulates of SR and the definition of simultaneous.



I rest my case.

Congratulations. The breadth and depth of your misunderstanding is truly
awesome.





Ken Seto- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -