Re: Some Contradictory Claims in SR:

From: kenseto (kenseto_at_erinet.com)
Date: 02/10/05 

Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 15:50:27 GMT

"PD" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1107972609.661893.315380@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> kenseto wrote:
> > "PD" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1107896444.321874.134250@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > kenseto wrote:
> > > > "PD" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:1107877538.139492.70170@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > kenseto wrote:
> > > > > > "PD" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:1107808520.313350.112270@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > kenseto wrote:
> > > > > > > > "PD" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > > >
> news:1107796347.465574.181600@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > kenseto wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > "PD" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > news:1107793720.605793.78390@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > kenseto wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > "PD" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > news:1107786964.640625.245050@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > For example, how would you measure with a physical non-rubber ruler
> the
> > > length of a stick flying by at 20 m/s? Be careful here. I'm asking
> you
> > > do define length measurement.
> >
> > Sigh....you don't and can't *measure* the length of a moving ruler.
> You
> > *predict* its length using IRT or LT. In the case of IRT it posits
> that the
> > physical length of a moving ruler is the same as that of the
> observer's
> > ruler. However, the light path length of a moving ruler is longer or
> shorter
> > than the observer's light path length.
> > In the case of SR (LT) it posits that the goemetrical projection of
> the
> > moving rod in the observer's frame is contracted. This prediction
> also
> > assumes that the ruler is not physically contracted. This prediction
> is the
> > same as the IRT prediction that the moving ruler has a longer light
> path
> > length.
>
> If all you can do is *predict* the length of a moving ruler, but you
> can't measure it, then you can't test the prediction, and it becomes an
> empty theory.
> There MUST be a way to measure a moving ruler, to test the theory. What
> is that way?

So how do you *MEASURE* the length of a moving ruler??
The way to test any theory is to see if the observations match the
predictions of a theory. This certainly does not mean that the observer do a
physical measurement the length of a moving ruler.
>
> >
> > >
> > > > For that matter a rubber ruler also measures
> > > > only an approximation to that length because a light second (a
> rubber
> > > > ruler) varies in universal time content in different part of the
> > > earth.
> > > >
> > > > >and a clock second measures only an
> > > > > approximation to that duration.
> > > >
> > > > True and that's why a clock second is a rubber second.
> > > >
> > > > >The approximation works reasonably
> > > > > well, but it is still an approximation. The abandonment is not
> only
> > > > > justified but REQUIRED once it is seen the approximation fails.
> > > >
> > > > It is not justified and it is not required.
> > >
> > > If the approximation fails experimentally, would you then recant?
> >
> > There is no experiment that could fail a difinition for physical
> length
> > measurement from which the definition for length measurement using
> > light-second to measure length was born.
>
> I'm sorry. Rewrite that sentence. I can't parse it accurately enough to
> be sure what you said.

The metal bar in Paris was used to establish the speed of light. That means
that a light-second for length was born from the metal bar.
>
> > > > > not correspond to a meter in another frame.
> > > >
> > > > I do have a choice. Calibrating in physical meter is better.
> > >
> > > Why??? How do you know that calibrating length is easier than
> > > calibrating time? Define length. Carefully. I've asked you to do
> this
> > > repeatedly.
> >
> > Length is the length of a metal bar in Paris.
>
> This is not true anymore, by the way. Did you know that?

It is still true even through physicists claim a light-second is more
accurate.
>
> Moreover, it makes the meter no more special than the definition of the
> second, which is:
> "The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation
> corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the
> ground state of the caesium 133 atom."

The problem with this definition is that the term *duration* is not defined.
For example: they redefine a second of time up at the GPS location to have
9,192,631,774.15 period of the radiation. This re-defined second at the
satellite location has the same universal time content as the earth clock
second. If you use this new definition for a second to test for the speed of
light up at the satellite location the result is not c.

>
> If you tell me, "But the second is not the same duration in all
> inertial frames", then I will respond as surely as there is rain, "But
> the length of the metal bar in Paris is not the same in all inertial
> frames."

In both IRT and SR the physical length of a metal bar doesn't change. In IRT
the light path lkength of a metal bar changes, In SR the projected length of
a moving metal bar changes.
>
> What makes the meter more special than the second?

Because we don't observe a metal bar changes in length after a journey and
we observe that a clock records different elapsed time after a journey.
>
> > The difinition of light-second
> > for length is born from this length. However, a light-second will
> represent
> > different length in different frames. Why? Because a clock second
> contains a
> > different amount of universal time in different frames. That's why
> using
> > physical rod length to measure length is better. Remember that both
> SR and
> > IRT agree that the physical length of a rod remains the same in all
> frames
> > of reference.
> > >
> > > > It is
> > > > irrelevant what SR asserts. Furthermore, that assertion of SR can
> be
> > > > replaced by a different assertion: mainly that the light-path
> length
> > > of a
> > > > physical meter stick is lengthen when it is in a state of
> > > moiton.....this is
> > > > the same as length contraction in SR.
> > > >
> > > > >There IS NO ruler that is
> > > > > free from this problem. There is therefore no reason to not
> > > calibrate
> > > > > in rubber units, since there is no choice in the matter.
> > > >
> > > > I don't understand: Why is there no choice?
> > >
> > > The meter is just as rubber as the second. You don't have nonrubber
> > > units to calibrate against.
> >
> > No the length of a metal bar is not rubberry. Both SR and IRT psoit
> that the
> > length of a metal bar do not change physically in different frames.
>
> Let's be careful here. SR posits that neither the metal bar nor a clock
> change physically in different frames.

Right....IRT posits the same.

>SR *does* posit that the length
> of the metal bar and the duration of a tick of the clock are different
> in different frames. Did you think not?

SR posits the projections of the length of a metal bar and the tick rate of
a clock are different in different frames. SR also posits that the projected
length of a metal bar is always shorter than the physical length of a metal
bar in the observer's frame and that the projected tick rate of a clock is
always run slow compared to the observewr's clock.
IRT posits the the light path length of a metal bar and the tick rate of a
cl*** are different in different frame. IRT also posits that the light path
length of a metal bar can be shorter or longer than the observer's light
path length. IRT also posits that the tick rate of a moving clock can be
running faster or slower compared to the observer's cl***.
>
> > >
> > > You did not answer this. I can't tell you how crucial this is!
> >
> > The definition for a meter is the length of a metal bar in Paris.
>
> OK, so tell me how I use this bar to measure the length of another
> object. Be as precise as you can.

You place the bar next to the object of course.
>
> > >
> > > The hell it is.
> >
> > The hell it isn't. SR says that a clock second in one frame does not
> > correspond to a clock second in another frame. This means that the
> passage
> > of a clock second in one frame does not correspond to the passage of
> a clock
> > second in another frame. This means that these clock seconds contains
> a
> > different amount of universal time. This also means that a clock
> second
> > represents a rubber (a different) interval of universal time in
> different
> > frames.
>
> That's not what I was objecting to. You said that the invariance of
> Maxwell's equations was DUE to the rubber second. The hell it is.

The hell it isn't. If you use a defined universal second instead of a rubber
second to formulate Maxwell's equations then Maxwell's equations are NOT
invariance.
>
> >
> > >Maxwell knew nothing about rubber seconds. Nor did he
> > > say, "These laws only work in the earth's frame of reference." The
> PoR
> > > *precedes* any understanding of how rubber seconds and meters are.
> >
> > Both Maxwell and the PoR use *clock second* to formulate physical
> laws. A
> > *clock second* is a rubber second.
>
> That has nothing to do with its invariance. The invariance is displayed
> in the law, regardless of the clock second.

Sigh...the invariance is acheived because a clock second is a rubber second.
A rubber second is defined as a clock second that has a different amount of
universal time content in different frames.
>
> > >
> > > > second????
> > >
> > > Not what I said. I said none of these laws presume that distance is
> > > measured with a clock, which if you look, is what you said.
> >
> > Right but the formulator assumed that the light path length of his
> ruler is
> > the same as the physical length of his ruler. This is true only if
> the
> > formulator is at absolute rest. Since the formulator is in a state of
> motion
> > this assumption is wrong. Also this is why SR is incomplete and
> that's why I
> > invented the IRT.
>
> And this is patently false. In a two-body collision, momentum is
> conserved whether the value of the individual momenta are measured by
> someone at rest or moving. NO ASSUMPTION of absolute rest is required,
> nor is there any assumption about the equivalence of light-path length
> or physical length.

Sigh....IRT 's first two postulates is SR so the law of conservation of
momentum is predicted by IRT.
>
> > >
> > >
> > > Whaaaattt? What does "absolute" mean to you? You are using the term
> > > differently than just about everybody else. Certainly SR does NOT
> says
> > > that all inertial observers are at absolute rest. It says EXACTLY
> the
> > > opposite. It says there is NO inertial observer at absolute rest.
> >
> > In SR an observer assumes all clocks moving wrt him are running slow.
> This
> > assumption is valid only if the observer is in a state of absolute
> rest and
> > all the observed clock are doing the moving..
>
> No, you are running in circles. Where (please cite a reference) does
> SR, any reference at all, say that the observer is at absolute rest??
> If you can't do this, you're just making it up.

Sigh....SR says that all clocks moving wrt the observer are running slow and
all rod moving wrt the observer are contracted. This is valid only if the
observer is in a state of absolute rest.
>
> > >
> > > No, it is NOT. This is *completely* contrary to what SR says. It
> says
> > > that NO observer is in an absolute rest frame, because there IS NO
> > > absolute rest frame.
> >
> > NO it is not contrary to what SR says. SR says at the rest frame of
> the
> > observer, he assumes that all clocks moving wrt to him are running
> slow.
>
> 1. He doesn't ASSUME. He FINDS.

This is false. This is true only if a clock is started from the observer's
frame. SR can't say anything about the rate a clock whose history is not
known.

>
> > This assumption is valid only if the rest frame of the observer is
> truly an
> > absolute rest frame.
>
> 2. No, this is YOUR conclusion, not SR's. SR says the opposite. If you
> say SR does say this, prove it with a citation.

Answer this: Why does SR assumes that all clcoks moving wrt the observer are
running slow??
>
> >
> > >Nevertheless, the PoR is assumed to hold in all
> > > inertial frames (NONE of them at absolute rest), that the physical
> laws
> > > are invariant regardless.
> >
> > So??/ The PoR is based on a rubber second and that why it hold in all
> > inertial frames. IRT agrees to that. In fact the first postulate of
> IRT is
> > the PoR.
> > >
> > > > >
> >
> > > >
> > > > No I am not.
> > >
> > > Umm, you say about a dozen lines below that IRT doesn't agree with
> > > Galilean relativity. Are you agreeing or not?
> >
> > IRT is an expanded version of SR. It does not agree with Galilean
> > relativity.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >who said that the PoR DOES hold
> > > > > if we use an absolute second to measure time and a non-rubber
> ruler
> > > to
> > > > > measure length.
> > > >
> > > > This statement disagrees with IRT. IRT says that PoR does NOT
> hold if
> > > we use
> > > > an absolute second to measure time and a non-rubber ruler to
> measure
> > > length.
> > >
> > > Then your claim that SR is subsumed as a subset of IRT is bogus,
> > > because SR *assumes* that the PoR holds for all inertial frames.
> >
> > Sigh....the first postulate of IRT is the PoR. PoR hold if time
> measurement
> > is based on a clock second (a rubber second).
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >That's Galilean invariance, by the way. I'm not saying
> > > > > that Galileo was right, by the way, I just want to get clear on
> > > what
> > > > > you're saying.
> > > >
> > > > IRT doesn't agree with Galilean relativity either.
> > >
> > > OK, just checking.
> > >
> > > > >
> > > You betcha. And this is what I want you to be absolutely rock solid
> > > about, because it's an extraordinary claim.
> >
> > It is not an extraordinary claim at all. Using a define absolute
> second to
> > do physics will result different physical laws for different frames.
>
> And naturally, I want an illustration of this.

Here's an illustration:
1. Using a clock second (a rubber second) the speed of light is a constant c
in all inertial frames.
2. using a define absolute second the speed of light is different in
different inertial frames. Why? Because a defined absolute second will have
different clock time value in different inertial frame.
>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have no idea what you are trying to say.
> > > > >
> > > > > You are saying the laws of physics based on an absolute second
> and
> > > a
> > > > > physical length of a rod differ in different reference frames.
> I
> > > gave
> > > > > you a physical law and asked you to show me how it changes in a
> > > > > different reference frame. If it's different, HOW is it
> different?
> > > > > Explicitly.
> > > >
> > > > If you use a "defined absolute second" in place of a regular
> clock
> > > second in
> > > > all the SR equations you will find that the laws of physics is
> not
> > > the same
> > > > in different inertial frames.
> > >
> > > No, you do it. One simple example, is all I'm asking. Take
> conservation
> > > of momentum in one frame where it appears to hold, and then show me
> > > what the new law looks like in a different frame. Or another
> example of
> > > your choosing. But since you are making this claim, you need to
> show
> > > how it works out.
> >
> > No you do it. Can't you read what the #3 postulate says? It says that
> the
> > laws of physics based on a defined absolute second is different is
> different
> > in different frames (that includes conservation of momentum).
>
> Your model, bub. You can't say, "It's just different" without showing
> HOW it's different. An illustration, please. Otherwise what you're
> doing is crap science.

Hey idiot I showed you many times. Beside you are a runt of the SRians. You
are not qualified to judge the validity of my theory.
>
> > >
> > > > >
> > )?
> > > OK, now I'm confused. I didn't ask you about a clock second, I
> asked
> > > you about an earth clock second. You say that the clock second is
> > > different than the defined absolute second, and then you say the
> > > defined absolute second is equal to an earth clock second. (Read
> your
> > > own writing above.)
> >
> > Any clock second at any location can be used as a defined absolute
> second.
> > Once this is established you can use SR/GR or IRT to determine the
> clock
> > time value for a defined absolute second in any other frame.
> >
> > >
> > > You say the clock second is different at the equator than it is
> near
> > > the pole.
> >
> > No I didn't say that. I said that a clock second at the equator
> contains a
> > different amount of universal time than a clock second at the pole.
> >
> > >Is the defined absolute second (the earth clock second)
> > > different at the equator than it is near the pole?
> >
> > If you established that the defined absolute second is located on the
> > equator then you use SR/GR or IRT to determine the clock time value
> for this
> > defined absolute second at the pole.
>
> So do it. Define the absolute second to be at the equator, and
> determine the clock second at the pole.

You do it using. The procedure is as follows: If you defined the equator
clock second is also an defined absolute second all you need to do is to use
SR/GR to determine the clock time value at the pole for an equator defined
absolute second. That calculated clock time value at the pole is a defined
absolute second at the pole.

Ken Seto