On May 4, 2:10Â*am, rbwinn wrote:
On May 3, 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. Â*I would expect that the
marks on the track would be the length of the train apart. Â*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. Â*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. Â*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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

xxein: "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." That part is right. One clock is slower. Simultaneity
involves a bit more than that, though.

It is not measured as simultaneous from the central observer on the
train. It is time for you to understand the one-way speed of light.
If you had initiated the strikes from your central position, you would
have TWLS to make it true. But this was an extraneous event. It was
caused from another frame of reference. Now you have to incorporate
OWLS.

As the lightning struck, your forward movement would allow you to see
the front strike before the back strike. This fake math that 'puts it
all together' is just like believing 'the man behind the curtain'.

While I admire the math of Einstein, it is only math. It has little
to do with the actual physic. It misrepresents it. Yet, it is still
is very useful for our place in measurement and how it affects us.

That is what 'relativity' is and does to support our understanding.
But there is QM. Many more support it than relativity. Guess what.
They are incompatible. We don't know a physic. Why we pretend we do
is just a stupid choice based upon some belief.

A 'real' physic might never be understandable to us. It's inner
complexities may not be measurable. It's sort of like we can make
fire with flint sparks and dry grass. Repeatable and documented to
some degree and call it a science. Yeah, we know more than that by
now, but we are still mystified by what we CAN observe. What of
things we can't observe?

But we haven't yet explained what we CAN observe as a unified physics
or the physic. It is only a belief prospect for now.

Think with a logic of a physic and not with a logic of getting a
pretty girl you just saw.

kenseto wrote:
Bryan Olson wrote:
kenseto wrote:
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.

ROTFLOL....it is you runts of the SRians don't understand SR. The
reason why SR says that S sees the S' clock run slow and S' sees the S
clock runs slow is because an observer does not know whose clock is
really running slow.

Well, that's not SR. That's Ken Seto theory, and so far it seems
to apply only in its author's head.

This way it covers all the possibilities. BTW an
IRT observer also does not know whose clock is really running slow.
IRT covers both possibilities by haveing two sets of equations one for
the observed clock is really running slow and the other for the
observed clock is really running fast.

Ken, how's the experiment going? Putting that funding to good use?
Shouldn't you hold off on the proclamations until you have the
experimental evidence?

BTW what you said that an SR observer sees all clocks moving wrt him
are running slow are contradicted by experiment and observations. From
the grou8nd clock's point of view the SR effect on the GPS clock is 7
us/day running slow. But from the GPS point of view the SR effect on
the ground clock is approx. 7 us/day running fast. So you see the
assertion that an SR observer sees all the clocks moving wrt him are
running slow is a bogus assertion.

It's a bogus assertion because Ken made it up. My version, still
quoted above, included, "while the twins' clocks are in uniform
motion (with no significant gravitational effects)..."

I also said, "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." Nice of Ken to follow up with a demo
of just that.


--
--Bryan

kenseto wrote:
On May 6, 10:58 am, jem wrote:
kenseto wrote:
On May 5, 10:46 am, " wrote:
This is what Einstein exactly said in "Albert Einstein (1879-1955).
Relativity: The Special and General Theory. 1920.", chapter 9.
"Up to now our considerations have been referred to a particular body
of reference, which we have styled a "railway embankment." We suppose
a very long train travelling along the rails with the constant
velocity v and in the direction indicated in Fig. 1. People travelling
in this train will with advantage use the train as a rigid reference-
body (co-ordinate system); they regard all events in reference to the
train. Then every event which takes place along the line also takes
place at a particular point of the train. Also the definition of
simultaneity can be given relative to the train in exactly the same
way as with respect to the embankment. As a natural consequence,
however, the following question arises:
Are two events (e.g. the two strokes of lightning A and B) which are
simultaneous with reference to the railway embankment also
simultaneous relatively to the train? We shall show directly that the
answer must be in the negative.
V - ‡ M' ‡ / Train
----==========================---------
A M B Embankment
When we say that the lightning strokes A and B are simultaneous with
respect to the embankment, we mean: the rays of light emitted at the
places A and B, where the lightning occurs, meet each other at the mid-
point M of the length A -- B of the embankment.
Right that's because Einstein stipulated that M is at equal distance
from the strikes and that the speed of light is isotropic in the track
frame. These stipulations automatically specfied that the strikes were
simultaneous to begin with. Otherewise the track observer will not be
able to sees the strikes to be simultaneous.
But the events A and B
also correspond to positions A and B on the train. Let M' be the mid-
point of the distance A -- B on the travelling train. Just when the
flashes of lightning occur, this point M' naturally coincides with the
point M, but it moves towards the right in the diagram with the
velocity v of the train. If an observer sitting in the position M' in
the train did not possess this velocity, then he would remain
permanently at M, and the light rays emitted by the flashes of
lightning A and B would reach him simultaneously, i.e. they would meet
just where he is situated. Now in reality (considered with reference
to the railway embankment) he is hastening towards the beam of light
coming from B, whilst he is riding on ahead of the beam of light
coming from A. Hence the observer will see the beam of light emitted
from B earlier than he will see that emitted from A.
This point of view of the track observer by Einstein is wrong and
bogus.....it appears that Einstein didn't fully understand his own
theory and postulates. What he said above violates the isotropy of the
speed of light in the train and it violates the PoR. The track
observer must use the postulates to predict what the train observer
will see. According to SR the speed of light in the train is isotropic
and the laws of physics in the train is the same as in the track. From
these two postulates the track observer predicts what the train
observer will see as follows:
1/2 the length of the train = L
Therefore at the time of the strikes both M and M' are at equal
distance fron the strikes.
The light path length for the each light front to reach the M'
observer = gamma*L
The transit time for the light fronts to reach M'= gamma*l/c
Therefore the train observer will sees the strikes to be simultaneous
at time = gamma*L/c according to the track clock.
The track observer will see that he sees the strikes to be
simultaneous at time L/c according to the track clock.
What this means is that the strikes in the track frame occur
simultaneously at an earlier time of L/c and the strikes occur
simultaneously at a later time of (gamma*L/c) in the train.
This arguement preserve the isotropy of the speed of light and the PoR
in the train.
The argument, Seto, preserves the general consensus that you have the
mind of a 4-year old.

The argument jem made preserves the general consensus that he has the
mind of a runt of the SRians.

Here's another opportunity to confirm it.

Here's a picture showing 2 lightning strikes L1 and L2, with light
fronts from the strikes traveling toward 2 observers, one of whom (O2)
is moving to the right relative to the other (O1).

L1...).........O1...O2.....(...L2

Here's where your runtiness comes in. It is irrelevant how O1 and O2
move wrt each other. The postulates of SR says that the speed of light
is isotropic in O1 and O2....period.
Here's a later picture showing the light fronts just reaching O1
simultaneously.

L1............)O1(.....O2......L2

If the light fronts reach O1 simultaneously then the strikes were
simultaneous to begin with. Otherwise O1 will not be able to see them
to be simultaneous. Again it is irrelatevant how O2 moves wrt O1. What
O2 sees depends on:
1. were the strikes simultaneous to begin with?
2. was he at equal distance from the strikes?
3. is the speed of light isotropic in the train?

The answers to all these questions are YES. Therefore the train
observer will also see the strikes to be simutaneous.
Challenging questions for 4-year olds:

In the second picture, has the light from either lightning strike
reached O2? Has the light from either lightning strike not reached O2?

Bonus teaching for a runt of the SRians: The second picture is wrong.
Relative motion and direction of relative motion has no effect on the
isotropy of the speed of light in the train. The track observer sees
the strikes to be simultaneous at time L/c according to the track
clock. The train observer sees the strikes to be simultaneous at time
gamma*L/c according to the track clock.
Bonus question:

Does the light from both lightning strikes reach O2 simultaneously?- Hide quoted text -

Bous teaching for a runt of the SRians: The light fronts from both
strikes reach O2 simultaneously at time gamma*L/c according to the
track clock. The light fronts from both strikes reach O1
simultaneously at time L/c according to the train clock. What this
means is that a train clock is running at a slower rate than the track
clock....in other words the train clock second contains gamma second
of track time. This agrees with the SR math completely. Also this
analysis eliminates the need for the bogus concept of relativity of
simultaneity which BTW violates both postulates of SR.

Ken Seto

I take it back, Seto - you don't have the mind of a 4-year old, and my
apologies to 4-year olds for having suggested that you did.

On May 6, 11:00 am, rbwinn wrote:
On May 6, 7:58 am, jem wrote:



kenseto wrote:
On May 5, 10:46 am, " wrote:
This is what Einstein exactly said in "Albert Einstein (1879-1955).
Relativity: The Special and General Theory. 1920.", chapter 9.
"Up to now our considerations have been referred to a particular body
of reference, which we have styled a "railway embankment." We suppose
a very long train travelling along the rails with the constant
velocity v and in the direction indicated in Fig. 1. People travelling
in this train will with advantage use the train as a rigid reference-
body (co-ordinate system); they regard all events in reference to the
train. Then every event which takes place along the line also takes
place at a particular point of the train. Also the definition of
simultaneity can be given relative to the train in exactly the same
way as with respect to the embankment. As a natural consequence,
however, the following question arises:
Are two events (e.g. the two strokes of lightning A and B) which are
simultaneous with reference to the railway embankment also
simultaneous relatively to the train? We shall show directly that the
answer must be in the negative.
V - ‡ M' ‡ / Train
----==========================---------
A M B Embankment
When we say that the lightning strokes A and B are simultaneous with
respect to the embankment, we mean: the rays of light emitted at the
places A and B, where the lightning occurs, meet each other at the mid-
point M of the length A -- B of the embankment.
Right that's because Einstein stipulated that M is at equal distance
from the strikes and that the speed of light is isotropic in the track
frame. These stipulations automatically specfied that the strikes were
simultaneous to begin with. Otherewise the track observer will not be
able to sees the strikes to be simultaneous.
But the events A and B
also correspond to positions A and B on the train. Let M' be the mid-
point of the distance A -- B on the travelling train. Just when the
flashes of lightning occur, this point M' naturally coincides with the
point M, but it moves towards the right in the diagram with the
velocity v of the train. If an observer sitting in the position M' in
the train did not possess this velocity, then he would remain
permanently at M, and the light rays emitted by the flashes of
lightning A and B would reach him simultaneously, i.e. they would meet
just where he is situated. Now in reality (considered with reference
to the railway embankment) he is hastening towards the beam of light
coming from B, whilst he is riding on ahead of the beam of light
coming from A. Hence the observer will see the beam of light emitted
from B earlier than he will see that emitted from A.
This point of view of the track observer by Einstein is wrong and
bogus.....it appears that Einstein didn't fully understand his own
theory and postulates. What he said above violates the isotropy of the
speed of light in the train and it violates the PoR. The track
observer must use the postulates to predict what the train observer
will see. According to SR the speed of light in the train is isotropic
and the laws of physics in the train is the same as in the track. From
these two postulates the track observer predicts what the train
observer will see as follows:
1/2 the length of the train = L
Therefore at the time of the strikes both M and M' are at equal
distance fron the strikes.
The light path length for the each light front to reach the M'
observer = gamma*L
The transit time for the light fronts to reach M'= gamma*l/c
Therefore the train observer will sees the strikes to be simultaneous
at time = gamma*L/c according to the track clock.
The track observer will see that he sees the strikes to be
simultaneous at time L/c according to the track clock.
What this means is that the strikes in the track frame occur
simultaneously at an earlier time of L/c and the strikes occur
simultaneously at a later time of (gamma*L/c) in the train.
This arguement preserve the isotropy of the speed of light and the PoR
in the train.
The argument, Seto, preserves the general consensus that you have the
mind of a 4-year old. Here's another opportunity to confirm it.
Here's a picture showing 2 lightning strikes L1 and L2, with light
fronts from the strikes traveling toward 2 observers, one of whom (O2)
is moving to the right relative to the other (O1).
L1...).........O1...O2.....(...L2
Here's a later picture showing the light fronts just reaching O1
simultaneously.
L1............)O1(.....O2......L2
Challenging questions for 4-year olds:
In the second picture, has the light from either lightning strike
reached O2? Has the light from either lightning strike not reached O2?
Bonus question:
Does the light from both lightning strikes reach O2 simultaneously?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Ken Seto is right about this. A photon in S is traveling at 186,000
miles per second as measured by a cesium clock in that frame of
reference. A photon in S' is traveling at 186,000 miles per second as
measured by a cesium clock in that frame of reference. What is
occuring is called relativity of time.
With regard to your little diagrams, suppose that the bolts of
lightning strike the front and rear of a train, leaving marks on the
train and on the railroad track. In the frame of reference of the
track, photons are emitted at the two marks on the track and proceed
to the observer midway between them, reaching him in a time of .5L/c,
where L is the length of the train. In the frame of reference of the
train photons are emitted at the points where lightning struck in that
frame of reference, the two marks left on the train. The photons
proceed to the observer in the middle of the train, reaching him in a
time of .5L/c as measured by the cesium clock on the train.

Do you feel the need to demonstrate that you're as smart as 4-year
old, Bobby? Well, you're not off to a very good start, since you
haven't even properly read the questions. There are no photons, nor
clocks, nor trains, nor tracks, nor marks, nor middles mentioned or
implied in the challenging questions for 4-year olds, and the answers
are just "yes" or "no". Try again if you want to, but I suspect
challenging questions for 3-year olds may be more your speed.

On May 7, 8:34*am, jem wrote:
kenseto wrote:
On May 6, 10:58 am, jem wrote:
kenseto wrote:
On May 5, 10:46 am, " wrote:
This is what Einstein exactly said in "Albert Einstein (1879-1955).
Relativity: The Special and General Theory. *1920.", chapter 9.
"Up to now our considerations have been referred to a particular body
of reference, which we have styled a "railway embankment." We suppose
a very long train travelling along the rails with the constant
velocity v and in the direction indicated in Fig. 1. People travelling
in this train will with advantage use the train as a rigid reference-
body (co-ordinate system); they regard all events in reference to the
train. Then every event which takes place along the line also takes
place at a particular point of the train. Also the definition of
simultaneity can be given relative to the train in exactly the same
way as with respect to the embankment. As a natural consequence,
however, the following question arises:
Are two events (e.g. the two strokes of lightning A and B) which are
simultaneous with reference to the railway embankment also
simultaneous relatively to the train? We shall show directly that the
answer must be in the negative.
V - * * ‡ * * * M' * * *‡ * */ Train
----==========================---------
* * * * *A * * * M * * * B * * *Embankment
When we say that the lightning strokes A and B are simultaneous with
respect to the embankment, we mean: the rays of light emitted at the
places A and B, where the lightning occurs, meet each other at the mid-
point M of the length A -- B of the embankment.
Right that's because Einstein stipulated that M is at equal distance
from the strikes and that the speed of light is isotropic in the track
frame. These stipulations automatically specfied that the strikes were
simultaneous to begin with. Otherewise the track observer will not be
able to sees the strikes to be simultaneous.
But the events A and B
also correspond to positions A and B on the train. Let M' be the mid-
point of the distance A -- B on the travelling train. Just when the
flashes of lightning occur, this point M' naturally coincides with the
point M, but it moves towards the right in the diagram with the
velocity v of the train. If an observer sitting in the position M' in
the train did not possess this velocity, then he would remain
permanently at M, and the light rays emitted by the flashes of
lightning A and B would reach him simultaneously, i.e. they would meet
just where he is situated. Now in reality (considered with reference
to the railway embankment) he is hastening towards the beam of light
coming from B, whilst he is riding on ahead of the beam of light
coming from A. Hence the observer will see the beam of light emitted
from B earlier than he will see that emitted from A.
This point of view of the track observer by Einstein is wrong and
bogus.....it appears that Einstein didn't fully understand his own
theory and postulates. What he said above violates the isotropy of the
speed of light in the train and it violates the PoR. The track
observer must use the postulates to predict what the train observer
will see. According to SR the speed of light in the train is isotropic
and the laws of physics in the train is the same as in the track. From
these two postulates the track observer predicts what the train
observer will see as follows:
1/2 the length of the train = L
Therefore at the time of the strikes both M and M' are at equal
distance fron the strikes.
The light path length for the each light front to reach the M'
observer = gamma*L
The transit time for the light fronts to reach M'= gamma*l/c
Therefore the train observer will sees the strikes to be simultaneous
at time = gamma*L/c according to the track clock.
The track observer will see that he sees the strikes to be
simultaneous at time L/c according to the track clock.
What this means is that the strikes in the track frame occur
simultaneously at an earlier time of L/c and the strikes occur
simultaneously at a later time of (gamma*L/c) in the train.
This arguement preserve the isotropy of the speed of light and the PoR
in the train.
The argument, Seto, preserves the general consensus that you have the
mind of a 4-year old. *

The argument jem made preserves the general consensus that he has the
mind of a runt of the SRians.

Here's another opportunity to confirm it.

Here's a picture showing 2 lightning strikes L1 and L2, with light
fronts from the strikes traveling toward 2 observers, one of whom (O2)
is moving to the right relative to the other (O1).

L1...).........O1...O2.....(...L2

Here's where your runtiness comes in. It is irrelevant how O1 and O2
move wrt each other. The postulates of SR says that the speed of light
is isotropic in O1 and O2....period.
Here's a later picture showing the light fronts just reaching O1
simultaneously.

L1............)O1(.....O2......L2

If the light fronts reach O1 simultaneously then the strikes were
simultaneous to begin with. Otherwise O1 will not be able to see them
to be simultaneous. Again it is irrelatevant how O2 moves wrt O1. What
O2 sees depends on:
1. were the strikes simultaneous to begin with?
2. was he at equal distance from the strikes?
3. is the speed of light isotropic in the train?

The answers to all these questions are YES. Therefore the train
observer will also see the strikes to be simutaneous.
Challenging questions for 4-year olds:

In the second picture, has the light from either lightning strike
reached O2? *Has the light from either lightning strike not reached O2?

Bonus teaching for a runt of the SRians: The second picture is wrong.
Relative motion and direction of relative motion has no effect on the
isotropy of the speed of light in the train. The track observer sees
the strikes to be simultaneous at time L/c according to the track
clock. The train observer sees the strikes to be simultaneous at time
gamma*L/c according to the track clock.
Bonus question:

Does the light from both lightning strikes reach O2 simultaneously?- Hide quoted text -

Bous teaching for a runt of the SRians: The light fronts from both
strikes reach O2 simultaneously at time gamma*L/c according to the
track clock. The light fronts from both strikes reach O1
simultaneously at time L/c according to the train clock. What this
means is that a train clock is running at a slower rate than the track
clock....in other words the train clock second contains gamma second
of track time. This agrees with the SR math completely. Also this
analysis eliminates the need for the bogus concept of relativity of
simultaneity which BTW violates both postulates of SR.

Ken Seto

I take it back, Seto - you don't have the mind of a 4-year old, and my
apologies to 4-year olds for having suggested that you did.- Hide quoted text -


ROTFLOL...this runt of the SRians failed to come up with a valid
argument so he back paddled.

On May 6, 11:00*pm, Bryan Olson wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Bryan Olson wrote:
kenseto wrote:
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.

ROTFLOL....it is you runts of the SRians don't understand SR. The
reason why SR says that S sees the S' clock run slow and S' sees the S
clock runs slow is because an observer does not know whose clock is
really running slow.

Well, that's not SR. That's Ken Seto theory, and so far it seems
to apply only in its author's head.

Hey idiot that's the correct interpretation of SR. When you compare
two clocks A and B that has different elapsed time the possibilities
exist are as follows:
1. "A" runs at a slower rate than B. That means that B is running at a
faster rate than A. The SR observer takes the B position.
2. "A" runs at a faster rate than B. That means that A is running at a
faster rate than B. In this case the SR observer takes the A position.
As you can see the position of the SR observer only cover 1/2 of the
possibilities and that's why SR is incomplete.

Ken Seto

This way it covers all the possibilities. BTW an
IRT observer also does not know whose clock is really running slow.
IRT covers both possibilities by haveing two sets of equations one for
the observed clock is really running slow and the other for the
observed clock is really running fast.

Ken, how's the experiment going? Putting that funding to good use?
Shouldn't you hold off on the proclamations until you have the
experimental evidence?

BTW what you said that an SR observer sees all clocks moving wrt him
are running slow are contradicted by experiment and observations. From
the grou8nd clock's point of view the SR effect on the GPS clock is 7
us/day running slow. But from the GPS point of view the SR effect on
the ground clock is approx. 7 us/day running fast. So you see the
assertion that an SR observer sees all the clocks moving wrt him are
running slow is a bogus assertion.

It's a bogus assertion because Ken made it up. My version, still
quoted above, included, "while the twins' clocks are in uniform
motion (with no significant gravitational effects)..."

I also said, "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." *Nice of Ken to follow up with a demo
of just that.

--
--Bryan- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On May 6, 4:11*pm, PD wrote:
On May 6, 2:45*pm, kenseto wrote:

On May 6, 11:18*am, PD wrote:

[Not going to respond to the rest of this, since it is clear that Ken
is completely and utterly beyond hope. But I'll focus on one point
that appears to be new.]

ROTFLOL....you are not responding because you don't have a valid
argument. I am not going to respond the rest of your post until you
admit that Einstein did stipulate that the lightning strikes occur
simultaneously and that:
1. the track observer sees them to be simultaneous because he is not
moving wrt the light fronts.
2. the train observer sees them to be not simultaneous because he is
moving wrt the light fronts.

Ken Seto


Yes, it is really physically contracted. This does NOT mean that
something physical had to happen to the pole to make that happen.

Sure it does mean that. Both ends of the pole cannot be inside the
barn if the pole did not under go physical change.

Note
that I didn't have to do ANYTHING to the rock to have its kinetic
energy be different in different reference frames. You seem to have
difficulty accepting this reality. You have an assumption that you
simply cannot let go of.

Energy is not physical.

Now, THAT's a remarkable statement, Ken.

Interestingly, linear momentum of an object can also be different in
different reference frames, without doing anything to the object, in
exactly the same way this is true for kinetic energy.
I suppose you're going to tell me that linear momentum is not
physical, either, which would be an equally remarkable statement.

Don't you find it interesting, Ken, that two of the most important
laws of physics are conservation of energy and conservation of linear
momentum, and yet you regard these as being unphysical quantities?

Isn't it interesting that you consider length to be more physical
(where is there a conservation of length law?) than momentum and
energy? I wonder on what basis you make that statement.

Would you like to go back home to fetch your copy of Halliday and
Resnick and see what they say about the physicality of momentum and
energy?

Isn't it interesting, Ken, that in the last few months, you've
asserted that not only did Einstein get it wrong, but Halliday and
Resnick have it all wrong, Newton had it wrong, Galileo had it wrong
-- and in fact there is NOTHING that any of these people have said
that you accept as true? Isn't it interesting that there isn't ONE
THING that you can claim you understand and agree with from the world
of physics?

PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

kenseto a écrit :
ROTFLOL....you are not responding because you don't have a valid
argument. I am not going to respond the rest of your post until you
admit that Einstein did stipulate that the lightning strikes occur
simultaneously and that:
1. the track observer sees them to be simultaneous because he is not
moving wrt the light fronts.
2. the train observer sees them to be not simultaneous because he is
moving wrt the light fronts.

In SR, "not moving with respect to a light front" makes no sense.

On May 7, 8:37*am, kenseto wrote:
On May 6, 4:11*pm, PD wrote:

On May 6, 2:45*pm, kenseto wrote:

On May 6, 11:18*am, PD wrote:

[Not going to respond to the rest of this, since it is clear that Ken
is completely and utterly beyond hope. But I'll focus on one point
that appears to be new.]

ROTFLOL....you are not responding because you don't have a valid
argument.

No, I'm not responding because you have looped back into the same
idiocies without learning a thing.

I am not going to respond the rest of your post until you
admit that Einstein did stipulate that the lightning strikes occur
simultaneously

He did NOT. When presented with the text of what Einstein wrote, you
saw yourself that he made no such stipulation and in fact you yourself
said that he must not have known what he was talking about.

I'm not going to respond to you if you are going to continue to delude
yourself with repeated lies, constructed so that you won't have to
face the truth.

and that:
1. the track observer sees them to be simultaneous because he is not
moving wrt the light fronts.
2. the train observer sees them to be not simultaneous because he is
moving wrt the light fronts.

Ken Seto

Now, about energy (or momentum) being not physical...




Yes, it is really physically contracted. This does NOT mean that
something physical had to happen to the pole to make that happen.

Sure it does mean that. Both ends of the pole cannot be inside the
barn if the pole did not under go physical change.

Note
that I didn't have to do ANYTHING to the rock to have its kinetic
energy be different in different reference frames. You seem to have
difficulty accepting this reality. You have an assumption that you
simply cannot let go of.

Energy is not physical.

Now, THAT's a remarkable statement, Ken.

Interestingly, linear momentum of an object can also be different in
different reference frames, without doing anything to the object, in
exactly the same way this is true for kinetic energy.
I suppose you're going to tell me that linear momentum is not
physical, either, which would be an equally remarkable statement.

Don't you find it interesting, Ken, that two of the most important
laws of physics are conservation of energy and conservation of linear
momentum, and yet you regard these as being unphysical quantities?

Isn't it interesting that you consider length to be more physical
(where is there a conservation of length law?) than momentum and
energy? I wonder on what basis you make that statement.

Would you like to go back home to fetch your copy of Halliday and
Resnick and see what they say about the physicality of momentum and
energy?

Isn't it interesting, Ken, that in the last few months, you've
asserted that not only did Einstein get it wrong, but Halliday and
Resnick have it all wrong, Newton had it wrong, Galileo had it wrong
-- and in fact there is NOTHING that any of these people have said
that you accept as true? Isn't it interesting that there isn't ONE
THING that you can claim you understand and agree with from the world
of physics?

PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On May 7, 5:47*am, jem wrote:
On May 6, 11:00 am, rbwinn wrote:
On May 6, 7:58 am, jem wrote:

kenseto wrote:
On May 5, 10:46 am, " wrote:
This is what Einstein exactly said in "Albert Einstein (1879-1955).
Relativity: The Special and General Theory. *1920.", chapter 9.
"Up to now our considerations have been referred to a particular body
of reference, which we have styled a "railway embankment." We suppose
a very long train travelling along the rails with the constant
velocity v and in the direction indicated in Fig. 1. People travelling
in this train will with advantage use the train as a rigid reference-
body (co-ordinate system); they regard all events in reference to the
train. Then every event which takes place along the line also takes
place at a particular point of the train. Also the definition of
simultaneity can be given relative to the train in exactly the same
way as with respect to the embankment. As a natural consequence,
however, the following question arises:
Are two events (e.g. the two strokes of lightning A and B) which are
simultaneous with reference to the railway embankment also
simultaneous relatively to the train? We shall show directly that the
answer must be in the negative.
V - * * ‡ * * * M' * * *‡ * */ Train
----==========================---------
* * * * *A * * * M * * * B * * *Embankment
When we say that the lightning strokes A and B are simultaneous with
respect to the embankment, we mean: the rays of light emitted at the
places A and B, where the lightning occurs, meet each other at the mid-
point M of the length A -- B of the embankment.
Right that's because Einstein stipulated that M is at equal distance
from the strikes and that the speed of light is isotropic in the track
frame. These stipulations automatically specfied that the strikes were
simultaneous to begin with. Otherewise the track observer will not be
able to sees the strikes to be simultaneous.
But the events A and B
also correspond to positions A and B on the train. Let M' be the mid-
point of the distance A -- B on the travelling train. Just when the
flashes of lightning occur, this point M' naturally coincides with the
point M, but it moves towards the right in the diagram with the
velocity v of the train. If an observer sitting in the position M' in
the train did not possess this velocity, then he would remain
permanently at M, and the light rays emitted by the flashes of
lightning A and B would reach him simultaneously, i.e. they would meet
just where he is situated. Now in reality (considered with reference
to the railway embankment) he is hastening towards the beam of light
coming from B, whilst he is riding on ahead of the beam of light
coming from A. Hence the observer will see the beam of light emitted
from B earlier than he will see that emitted from A.
This point of view of the track observer by Einstein is wrong and
bogus.....it appears that Einstein didn't fully understand his own
theory and postulates. What he said above violates the isotropy of the
speed of light in the train and it violates the PoR. The track
observer must use the postulates to predict what the train observer
will see. According to SR the speed of light in the train is isotropic
and the laws of physics in the train is the same as in the track. From
these two postulates the track observer predicts what the train
observer will see as follows:
1/2 the length of the train = L
Therefore at the time of the strikes both M and M' are at equal
distance fron the strikes.
The light path length for the each light front to reach the M'
observer = gamma*L
The transit time for the light fronts to reach M'= gamma*l/c
Therefore the train observer will sees the strikes to be simultaneous
at time = gamma*L/c according to the track clock.
The track observer will see that he sees the strikes to be
simultaneous at time L/c according to the track clock.
What this means is that the strikes in the track frame occur
simultaneously at an earlier time of L/c and the strikes occur
simultaneously at a later time of (gamma*L/c) in the train.
This arguement preserve the isotropy of the speed of light and the PoR
in the train.
The argument, Seto, preserves the general consensus that you have the
mind of a 4-year old. *Here's another opportunity to confirm it.
Here's a picture showing 2 lightning strikes L1 and L2, with light
fronts from the strikes traveling toward 2 observers, one of whom (O2)
is moving to the right relative to the other (O1).
L1...).........O1...O2.....(...L2
Here's a later picture showing the light fronts just reaching O1
simultaneously.
L1............)O1(.....O2......L2
Challenging questions for 4-year olds:
In the second picture, has the light from either lightning strike
reached O2? *Has the light from either lightning strike not reached O2?
Bonus question:
Does the light from both lightning strikes reach O2 simultaneously?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Ken Seto is right about this. *A photon in S is traveling at 186,000
miles per second as measured by a cesium clock in that frame of
reference. *A photon in S' is traveling at 186,000 miles per second as
measured by a cesium clock in that frame of reference. *What is
occuring is called relativity of time.
With regard to your little diagrams, suppose that the bolts of
lightning strike the front and rear of a train, leaving marks on the
train and on the railroad track. *In the frame of reference of the
track, photons are emitted at the two marks on the track and proceed
to the observer midway between them, reaching him in a time of .5L/c,
where L is the length of the train. *In the frame of reference of the
train photons are emitted at the points where lightning struck in that
frame of reference, the two marks left on the train. *The photons
proceed to the observer in the middle of the train, reaching him in a
time of .5L/c as measured by the cesium clock on the train.

Do you feel the need to demonstrate that you're as smart as 4-year
old, Bobby? * Well, you're not off to a very good start, since you
haven't even properly read the questions. *There are no photons, nor
clocks, nor trains, nor tracks, nor marks, nor middles mentioned or
implied in the challenging questions for 4-year olds, and the answers
are just "yes" or "no". *Try again if you want to, but I suspect
challenging questions for 3-year olds may be more your speed.- Hide quoted text -

You appear to be a college graduate. College graduates have been
trained to attack persons rather than to address problems. If you
have some questions you want to ask me, go ahead and ask them.
Otherwise, we were discussing relativity, which is what this newsgroup
is about. There are some nice psychology newsgroups that might be
more to your liking.
Robert B. Winn