In article
,
Mike wrote:

On May 2, 10:35*am, kenseto 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

On May 2, 3:26Â*pm, xxein wrote:
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: Â*You screwed it up. Â*The last word should be "train".- Hide quoted text -

- 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

In article
,
kenseto wrote:

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

***{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}***

************************************************** ***************
If I seem to be ignoring you, consider the possibility
that you are in my killfile. --MJ

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.
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.

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 -

- Show quoted text -

On May 3, 12:13Â*pm, rbwinn wrote:
On May 2, wrote:





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: Â*You screwed it up. Â*The last word should be "train".- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No, the word should be track. Â*We already know what the distance
between the marks on the train is. Â*It is the length of the train.
Robert B. Winn- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

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?

On May 3, 4:29Â*pm, xxein wrote:
On May 3, 12:13Â*pm, rbwinn wrote:





On May 2, wrote:

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: Â*You screwed it up. Â*The last word should be "train".- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No, the word should be track. Â*We already know what the distance
between the marks on the train is. Â*It is the length of the train.
Robert B. Winn- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

xxein: Â*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. Â*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 -

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.

Mike wrote:
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

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??

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

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.

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

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?





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