Re: The differences between LET, SRT and IRT

On Apr 21, 10:25 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 21, 9:28 am, kenseto <kens...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Apr 19, 5:48 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 19, 9:09 am, kenseto <kens...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 18, 5:23 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 18, 2:41 pm, kenseto <kens...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 18, 2:20 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 18, 9:45 am, kenseto <kens...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 17, 1:32 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

It's not. I don't know where you get the idea that it is.

Sure it is. You and I are standing side by side with no relative
motion between us. Relative motion between us can occur only if:
1. I started moving individually.
2. You started moving individually.
3. both of us started moving individually.

That's not the case. Note that you and I could BOTH be moving side by
side with no relative motion. Then relative motion can occur if:
1. You changed either the magnitude (either up or down) OR direction
of your motion.

Hey idiot this means that I started moving individually.

No, you were moving before. It could mean that you STOPPED moving.
Notice that either would result in nonzero relative motion. Moreover,
there's NO WAY to determine from what you did that you are now moving
or not moving.

Hey idiot that still mean that relative motion between you and I is
due to that I stopped moving or I started moving individually.

2. I changed either the magnitude (either up or down) OR direction of
my motion.

Hey idiot this means that you started moving individually.

No, you were moving before. It could mean that I STOPPED moving.

Hey idiot that still meas that relative motion between you and I is
due you and I moving individually.

3. You and I changed both changed either the magnitude OR direction of
our motions, just not in the same way.

Note that there's no way to tell from relative motion which one of
these occurred.

SO what? It still means that one of us have to move individually in
order to have relative motion between us.

No, you have to ACCELERATE or DECELERATE. Notice that you have no way
of telling in either of those cases whether the result is motion where
before there was no motion, or no motion where before there was
motion. All you know is acceleration or deceleration (and in physics,
both are accelerations).

So what??? One of us have to move indidvidaully before we can have
relative motion between us.

I'll repeat: All you know is that an interaction occurred and there
was an acceleration. There is no way to tell if the result of that
acceleration was the *start* of motion where before there was none, or
the *stopping* of motion where before there was some (or neither).

You are an idiot. It is a waste of time
talking to you.

Well, you say that every time I point out that some long-cherished
simple notion you have held for a decade is simply wrong.

You find anyone that does agree with what you consider to be common

Typo. Should read: You find anyone that does not agree with what you
consider to be common

sense to be a waste of time. Unfortunately, Ken, common sense is a
blind liar, and it tries to convince you of things that are simply not
true, and their falsity is demonstrated in *experiment*. Scientists,
when confronted with experimental results that conflict with their
common sense, re-examine their common sense notions and *discard*
those that seem to conflict with data. You, on the other hand, have a
very difficult time discarding common sense notions that are in
conflict with data. This is what separates you from scientists. You
might sound pretty impressive at the dinner table among those who
don't know what you're talking about, but among those who *do* know
what you're talking about, the brain impediment is pretty obvious.



Ken Seto

There's not a single paradox that stems from relativity. What paradox
do you have in mind?
Keep in mind what a paradox is. A paradox is NOT something you do not
understand. A paradox is something that looks to be self-
contradictory.
Now, what do you think is self-contradictory in relativity?

The paradoxes are:
1. From the GPS point of view the ground clock is approx 7 us/day
running fast.

Sorry, what's self-contradictory about that?

It is self contradictory because SR claims that from the GPS point of
view the SR effect on the earth clock should be 7 us/day running slow
but it is not.

SR does NOT claim the earth clock should be 7 us/day running slow.
Where on earth did you get the idea that SR claims the earth clock
should be running slow?

So you are now saying that an SR observer at the GPS location doesn't
say that the SR effect on the ground clock is that it is running slow?

The SR effect on the earth clock is approx. 7 us/day
running fast.

2. The twin paradox.

That's a teaching puzzle. There's no paradox. What's self-
contradictory in the twin paradox?

It's not a teachimg puzzle. It is a real paradox.

Sorry, where's the contradiction?

3. The pole and the barn paradox.

That's another teaching puzzle. There's no paradox. What's self-
contradictory in the pole and barn paradox?

It's not a teaching puzzle. It is a real paradox. SR claims that
nothing happens to the pole physically and yet at the same time it can
be fitted into a shorter barn physically is a paradox.

That is not a contradiction. Notice that SR does not claim that
something physical has to happen to the pole for it to be physically
shorter. That is YOUR insistence, and it is wholly outside of SR, and
moreover it is WRONG. There is no SELF-contradiction here. There is
only something that conflicts with your common sense (and your common
sense tells you that something physical has to happen to the pole for
it to be physically shorter) -- and your common sense here is simply
wrong.

But the rules he discovered requires physicists to modify the
measuring units to fit those rules.

It required no such thing. Relativity would be alive today if the
definition of the meter had never changed.

It would not be alive if the physical meter length is used to measure
the one-way speed of light directly.

You have zero evidence of that.

The evidence is that you physicists refuse to determine the one-way
speed of light directly even though SR is based on the postulate that
the one-way speed of light is isotropic c.

Ken, they also refuse to send cameras to Venus to see if there are
purple Venusian elephants with guns pointed at us. The fact that they
refuse to do so does not prove that there are purple Venusian
elephants with guns pointed at us.

However, the standard for
the meter suffered already from the difficulties of not being as
precise, as durable, or as replicable as was required.

Any theory that posits that the one-way speed of light is isotropic c
and refuse to measure the one-way speed of light directly is
questionable.

I disagree. It's been demonstrated that measuring isotropy and 2-way
speed of light is sufficient and that measuring the one-way speed of
light is therefore unnecessary and squandering of valuable resources.
You are free to squander as you wish.

Disagee all you want. There is a reason why physicists refuse to make
any attempt to test the one-way speed of light directly.

Yes, and I've already told you the DOCUMENTED reason. It is a *waste*
of a substantial (more than $100,000) amount of money.

For that
matter no two way speed of light had been measured directly with
physical ruler.

That's because using a physical ruler produces too many sources of
experimental error. Let's have a contest, Ken. We'll get two USGS
landmarks, and you'll measure the distance with a physical ruler, and
I'll measure with optical survey equipment, and we'll see who gets the
more accurate distance.

You have NO IDEA how to manage experimental sources of error. People
who are experimentalists do. This is why they choose ways of doing
things that are different than the bonehead way you would go about
them. Your way would produce crappy results full of experimental
error.

Besides, a clock second to measure the speed of light is
a rubber second. It has different duration in different frames.

Yes, and there's nothing wrong with that. The kinetic energy of a
bullet is different in different frames. That doesn't mean there's
anything wrong with the definition of the joule.

Sure there is something wrong with that. It means that different
observer using different standard for time.

The standard of time is only defined for local usage. Says so in the
manual. There is nothing wrong with it.

You may DESIRE that all observers use a common standard of time, but
to do so turns out to be counter to the laws of physics. There is a
tire salesman who visits this group who claims that there ought to be
a way to design a clock synch procedure that DOES produce a common
standard of time, but he's yet to make it work. If you can make it
work, then do it, and win a Nobel prize. But you have to do it.

Ken Seto

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The differences between LET, SRT and IRT
    ... Relative motion between us can occur only if: ... You started moving individually. ... All you know is acceleration or deceleration (and in physics, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Before the nonsense breaks out
    ... give him the idea for planetary motion and the 'theory of gravity' and ... force impressed upon the body moved; but relative motion may be ... true motion suffers always some change from any force ... astronomy is that the reader must become insane and this has continued ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Before the nonsense breaks out
    ... give him the idea for planetary motion and the 'theory of gravity' and ... force impressed upon the body moved; but relative motion may be ... true motion suffers always some change from any force ... astronomy is that the reader must become insane and this has continued ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: The differences between LET, SRT and IRT
    ... Relative motion between us can occur only if: ... All you know is acceleration or deceleration (and in physics, ... common sense, re-examine their common sense notions and *discard* ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: What is the " ACTUAL " length ?
    ... gave you an example that even there is no relative motion between two ... they still can have a different state of absolute motion. ... there is no relative motion between the cars (but they still have ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Quantcast