On May 2, 5:00*pm, PD wrote:
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- Hide quoted text -

- 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

On May 2, 4:27Â*pm, rbwinn wrote:
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. Â*Are they going to say that someone has found an
inconsistency in the theory they are using to get research money? Â*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. Â*Then if anyone claims to have found an inconsistency, they
can be called names.
Â* Â* Here is a little problem that the few individuals might want to
work. Â*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. Â*The lightning makes marks on the front
and back of the train and on the railroad track. Â*The observer
measures the distance between the marks on the track. Â*What is the
distance between the marks on the track?
Robert B. Winn- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

xxein: You screwed it up. The last word should be "train".

kenseto wrote:
What's wrong with these pictures???

Where are the pictures?

Martin Hogbin

"rbwinn" wrote in message
...
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

"xxein" wrote
You screwed it up. The last word should be "train".

hanson wrote:
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

On May 2, 5:00*pm, PD wrote:
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,

This is a bunch of bull ****. 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 -

- Show quoted text -

On May 2, 4:32*pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
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.
__________________________________________________ ___________
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 **** that I don't understand what SR says. But you
refused to tell me what SR is really saying.

Ken Seto

kenseto wrote in message

On May 2, 4:32 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
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.
__________________________________________________ ___________
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??

The part that formulated the question.

Dirk Vdm

kenseto wrote:
On May 2, 5:00 pm, PD wrote:
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,

This is a bunch of bull ****. 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.


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 -

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??
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

On May 3, 11:00*am, jem wrote:
kenseto wrote:
On May 2, 5:00 pm, PD wrote:
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,

This is a bunch of bull ****. 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.


ROTFLOL...you are an Idiot runt of the SRians.