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

Ken Seto

"kenseto" wrote in message ...
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

On May 2, 10:35*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. 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

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.

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

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.


[...]

No point in responding.


Tom Roberts

On May 2, 3:15*pm, Tom Roberts 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

kenseto wrote in message

On May 2, 3:15 pm, Tom Roberts 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?

He we go!

Dirk Vdm

On May 2, 10:13�am, Mike wrote:
On May 2, 10:35�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. 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

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

kenseto wrote:
On May 2, 3:15 pm, Tom Roberts 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.

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

On May 2, 3:06*pm, kenseto wrote:
On May 2, 3:15*pm, Tom Roberts 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, 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