 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / July 2008The Correct Solution to the Pole and the Barn Paradox
Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) provides the following correct solutions to the Pole and the Barn Paradox: 1. The physical length of the pole = 80 meters. This length is the same as the proper length of the pole in the frame of the pole. The physical length of the pole will remain the same in all frames as predicted by all observers. In other words, the physical length of the pole is observer independent. 2. The physical length of the barn = 40 maters. This length is the proper length of the barn in the frame of the barn. The physical length of the barn will remain the same in all frames as predicted by all observers. In other words, the physical length of the barn is observer independent. 3. That means that the physical length of the pole will not be able to fit into the physical length of the barn no matter how fast it is moving wrt the barn. 4. From the barn frame's point of view the light path length of the pole is (80/gamma) m and if gamma = 2 then the light path length of the pole is 80/2=40 m. Therefore the light path length of the pole can fit into the physical length of the barn briefly. 5. From the pole frame's point of view the light path length of the barn is (40*gamma) m and if gamma = 2 then the lighht path length of the barn is 40*2=80 m. Therefore the light path length of the barn is as long as the physical length of the pole. A paper on IRT entitled "Improved Relativity Theory and Doppler Theory of Gravity" is available in my website: http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm Ken Seto > Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) provides the following correct > solutions to the Pole and the Barn Paradox: [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Ken Seto Of course your solution is wrong, and the SRT solution is right, as it is explained in http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/polebarn.html Miguel Rios On Jun 24, 9:57 pm, "papar...@gmail.com" <papar...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) provides the following correct > > solutions to the Pole and the Barn Paradox: [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Of course your solution is wrong, and the SRT solution is right, as it > is explained inhttp://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/polebarn.html Imagine an APDSFS with size "length of tank barrel + 1" entering a tank barrel. Could a wicked person close barrel to increase explosive force on inside of tank before explosion occurs? Lets assume it must be done before the front of APDSFS hits its target, for safety of said person. Lets assume, the APDSFS is made from non Lorentz material, and has been fired from a FTL moving ship. It has slowed down to some speed to be able to interact with real space. As far I look at it, it looks like the APDSFS would need to be compressed by push, to permit the said person to apply the lid. However the compression might cause collapse in the non Lorentz material, and disappearance from the real space. (which would result in relativistic hot air moving into the barrel, which might be enough to vaporize the tank anyway.) So could the wicked person accomplish that feat without push, or not? > On Jun 24, 9:57 pm, "papar...@gmail.com" <papar...@gmail.com> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > > So could the wicked person accomplish that feat without push, or not? ROFLOL! I love it! We should ask the goverment for a grant to test it. :)  SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman :) > On Jun 24, 9:57 pm, "papar...@gmail.com" <papar...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > tank barrel. Could a wicked person close barrel to increase explosive > force on inside of tank before explosion occurs? Yes. > Lets assume it must > be done before the front of APDSFS hits its target, for safety of said > person. Ah, well, here's where the impracticality starts to rear. > Lets assume, the APDSFS is made from non Lorentz material, and has > been fired from a FTL moving ship. It has slowed down to some speed to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > So could the wicked person accomplish that feat without push, or not? paparios@gmail.com <paparios@gmail.com> wrote in message da383643-122b-4006-a7ae-a9c44d7e3d81@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com >> Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) provides the following correct >> solutions to the Pole and the Barn Paradox: [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Of course your solution is wrong, and the SRT solution is right, as it > is explained in http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/polebarn.html You don't have to tell him. *We* all know this and *he* doesn't understand the first word of it. And of course *nobody* understand the first word of what he is trying to say. Forget it. Dirk Vdm > Miguel Rios On 24 jun, 16:45, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO- SperM.hotmail.com> wrote: > papar...@gmail.com <papar...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > > Miguel Rios you are right....too much free time on my office. Miguel On Jun 24, 3:57 pm, "papar...@gmail.com" <papar...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) provides the following correct > > solutions to the Pole and the Barn Paradox: [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Of course your solution is wrong, and the SRT solution is right, as it > is explained inhttp://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/polebarn.html No the SR solution is not right. It requires the bogus concept of RoS to explain from the pole point of view. I already showed you that RoS violates the SR postulate that the speed of light in the train is isotopic whereas RoS says that the speed of light in the train is anisotropic. Ken Seto > On Jun 24, 3:57 pm, "papar...@gmail.com" <papar...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > Ken Seto No Seto you have proved nothing. Assertion, as you say, is not a prove. Use mathematics!!! Miguel Rios On Jun 26, 9:50 am, "papar...@gmail.com" <papar...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Jun 24, 3:57 pm, "papar...@gmail.com" <papar...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > No Seto you have proved nothing. Assertion, as you say, is not a > prove. Use mathematics!!! You are a f.cking idiot runt of the SRians. > Miguel Rios- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - > On Jun 26, 9:50 am, "papar...@gmail.com" <papar...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > > - Show quoted text - Yeah...you too.....moron Miguel Rios In sci.physics.relativity, paparios@gmail.com <paparios@gmail.com> wrote on Thu, 26 Jun 2008 14:23:30 -0700 (PDT) <9ee6a33e-1c1d-41f3-a5c9-0040af253284@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>: >> On Jun 26, 9:50 am, "papar...@gmail.com" <papar...@gmail.com> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > Yeah...you too.....moron No, he's not an idiot runt of the SRians (whatever *that* is; I'm one too). ;-) He's just a ... how does one put it delicately? Anyway, let's just say that he doesn't quite understand the point, especially since in SR, the clock near one's elbow is indeed running the fastest according to one's elbow, but one cannot directly ascertain the speed of the other clocks as the Doppler gets in the way, yielding a few interesting results if the other clock is approaching one's own clock. Red shift, blue shift. And of course another clock is running the fastest of all clocks according to *its* owner. This is regardless of whether the other clock's owner is a human elbow, someone or something from the planet Zenobia (or an appendage or joint thereof), or a wayward high-energy pion. As for the pole and the barn...like I said in my other post, one is going to face a tremendous explosion if one's not very careful, and even if one can set up the problem without taking out most of the surrounding state, or vaporizing the pole from the atmospheric shock wave, the velocity is about .866 c anyway, meaning that one end of the pole will transit the 80m doorway in about 300 nanoseconds anyway and after a couple of seconds the pole will be past the Moon and well on its way to interstellar, if not intergalactic, oblivion. Don't blink; you'll miss it. ;-) > Miguel Rios Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net Conventional memory has to be one of the most UNconventional architectures I've seen in a computer system. ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** | In sci.physics.relativity, paparios@gmail.com | <paparios@gmail.com> [quoted text clipped - 84 lines] | | Don't blink; you'll miss it. ;-) No way, but you might face a tremendous theoretical explosion. Open your mind and you might see it. On Jun 28, 12:02 am, The Ghost In The Machine <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote: > In sci.physics.relativity, papar...@gmail.com > <papar...@gmail.com> [quoted text clipped - 83 lines] > will be past the Moon and well on its way to interstellar, > if not intergalactic, oblivion. Again you missed the point of the paradox. The point is: before the pole hit the front door is the pole completely inside the barn? Ken Seto In sci.physics.relativity, kenseto <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote on Sat, 28 Jun 2008 05:57:29 -0700 (PDT) <ba111e3e-dc9d-42a7-b964-2d831adcb5d8@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>: > On Jun 28, 12:02 am, The Ghost In The Machine > <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 88 lines] > Again you missed the point of the paradox. The point is: before the > pole hit the front door is the pole completely inside the barn? Well, lessee. Door endpoints position (frame D): (0,t) (80,t) Pole endpoints position (Frame P): (0,t') -> (vt'g, t'g) (80,t") -> (80g-vt"g, t"g-80vg/c^2) If we assume t = t' = 0, and we want t'g = t"g-80vg/c^2 we must have t" = 80v/c^2 and the pole's two endpoints are at (0,0), (80g-80gv^2/c^2,0) = (80/g,0) According to the door, the pole fits nicely, since g > 1. We now redo the problem from the pole's point of view, remembering that we need to invert the transform. Door endpoints position (frame D): (0,0) -> (0,0) (80,t3) -> (80g+vt3g, t3g+80vg/c^2) We must have t3 = -80v/c^2 again, and therefore the doorframe is at (80g-80gv^2/c^2, 0) = (80/g,0). According to the pole, the door is not wide enough. Classic paradox, but that doesn't invalidate SR any more than rotating a ladder so that it fits through a door invalidates Newton. At most, it points up a problem in thinking this way. Were the pole actually going through the door one would have to take a y component into consideration and use either a 3- or 4-element Lorentz instead of the standard 2. > Ken Seto Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net Windows. Because it's not a question of if. It's a question of when. ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** > On Jun 28, 12:02 am, The Ghost In The Machine > [quoted text clipped - 89 lines] > Again you missed the point of the paradox. The point is: before the > pole hit the front door is the pole completely inside the barn? In the barn frame, yes. > Ken Seto > Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) provides the following correct > solutions to the Pole and the Barn Paradox: > 1. The physical length of the pole = 80 meters. This length is the > same as the proper length of the pole in the frame of the pole. The > physical length of the pole will remain the same in all frames as > predicted by all observers. Already wrong. And boring. And posted from Google. > > Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) provides the following correct > > solutions to the Pole and the Barn Paradox: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Already wrong. And boring. And posted from Google. Idiot. > Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) provides the following correct > solutions to the Pole and the Barn Paradox: [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Ken Seto Well, that's lovely, but it's inconsistent with other experimental evidence. Moreover, here you have two interesting statements: 3. There is no way the physical length of the pole can fit into the physical length of the barn briefly. 4. There is a way for the light path length of the pole can fit into the light path length of the barn briefly. "Fitting into the barn" can be experimentally determined without any nuances about what kind of length you're talking about. It isn't about the comparison of two numbers. It's about an experimental event that will leave a mark that you can go up to and look at whenever you want. It's simple, really. If the pole can *really* fit into the barn, then it is possible to shut both doors of the barn at the same time and then open them a moment later, and the pole will touch neither door. If the pole cannot fit into the barn, then it will not be possible for the doors to be shut and open like this without there being a mark on at least one door where the pole touched that door. Thus the experimental evidence doesn't have anything to do with what kind of length we're talking about, or comparing two calculated lengths. It has to do with whether we can walk up to the barn doors after everything is said and done and find marks or not. Experimental evidence elsewhere says that this length contraction is real, by virtue of analogous "marks", lending support for SR. SR also says the doors can be shut at the same time in such a way that no marks will be left on the doors by the pole. PD > Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) provides the following correct > solutions to the Pole and the Barn Paradox: [...] Where do you get your equations, Ken? > On Jun 24, 10:22 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:> Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) provides the following correct > > solutions to the Pole and the Barn Paradox: > > [...] > > Where do you get your equations, Ken? They are IRT equations. In IRT: gamma=F_aa/F_ab and 1/gamma=F_ab/F_aa The barn frame use the Doppler factor of F_aa/F_ab to determine the light path length of the pole because the pole is in a higher state of absolute motion than the barn. The pole frame use the inverse doppler factor of F_ab/F_aa to determine the light path length of the barn becausethe barn frame is in a lower state of absolute motion than the pole. Look up the paper entitled "Improved Relativity Theory" in my website: http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm Ken Seto > > On Jun 24, 10:22 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:> Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) provides the following correct > > > solutions to the Pole and the Barn Paradox: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Ken Seto Look some of Seto nonsense: "The pole frame use the inverse doppler factor of F_ab/F_aa to determine the light path length of the barn becausethe barn frame is in a lower state of absolute motion than the pole." Now we can understand why he uses the y coordinate in the train example.....For Seto higher or lower state of absolute motion means moving higher or lower into the y axis and that way light strikes arrive simultaneously to the train observer. This is very simple...or not? What a wacko! Miguel Rios On Jun 26, 9:55 am, "papar...@gmail.com" <papar...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 24, 10:22 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:> Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) provides the following correct > > > > solutions to the Pole and the Barn Paradox: [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > arrive simultaneously to the train observer. This is very simple...or > not? f.cking idiot....there is no y-coordinate. There is the x' coordinate and that coordinate is x'=x(gamma)=x(F_aa/F_ab) Ken Seto > What a wacko! > > Miguel Rios- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - > > On Jun 24, 10:22 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:> Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) provides the following correct > > > solutions to the Pole and the Barn Paradox: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Ken Seto As expected, a spray of bullshit. You can't say where you get them because we both know all you do is relabel SR equations and call them your own. > > > On Jun 24, 10:22 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:> Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) provides the following correct > > > > solutions to the Pole and the Barn Paradox: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > because we both know all you do is relabel SR equations and call them > your own. f.cking idiot...SR copied LET math. IRT have some different equations that were converted from LET or SR equations. But IRT also have some original equations that are account for the some observed clocks are running slow and some moving rods have longer light path length than the observer's rod. You are so f.cking stupid. In addition IRT has the correct equation for gravity. Ken Seto > > > > On Jun 24, 10:22 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:> Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) provides the following correct > > > > > solutions to the Pole and the Barn Paradox: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > f.cking idiot...SR copied LET math. [snip whatever] Nope, Ken. Your lying does not excuse your blatant plagiarism. How about the bug and rivet paradox? Does the bug get squished or not? (for those unfamiliar with it: There's a bug in a hole. There is a rivet which in the frame of the bug/hole fits in the hole but the stem is a little short so when the rivet's head is at the top of the hole, there's space for the bug. Someone fires the rivet at/into the the hole at relativistic velocity. From the reference frame of the bug, the rivet's stem is even shorter than in the rest frame so the bug is not squished. But from the reference frame of the rivet, the hole depth is shortened, and its stem is long enough to reach the bottom, so the bug is squished.) On 26 jun, 15:32, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > How about the bug and rivet paradox? Does the bug get squished or not? > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > But from the reference frame of the rivet, the hole depth is shortened, > and its stem is long enough to reach the bottom, so the bug is squished.) Put sizes and masses to the bug and the rivet and then compute the energy. Then answer yourself. Miguel Rios > How about the bug and rivet paradox? Does the bug get squished or not? > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > But from the reference frame of the rivet, the hole depth is shortened, > and its stem is long enough to reach the bottom, so the bug is squished.) That's it! If I didn't think relativity was a crock before, I do now with that ridiculous example. | > How about the bug and rivet paradox? Does the bug get squished or not? | > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] | That's it! If I didn't think relativity was a crock before, I do now with | that ridiculous example. How very sensible of you. Why did Einstein say the speed of light from A to B is c-v, the speed of light from B to A is c+v, the "time" each way is the same? 1/2[tau(A)+tau(A')]= tau(B) where A = (0,0,0,t) A' =(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v) +x'/(c+v)) B = (x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v)) x' = x-vt Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif "Easy: he did NOT say that." - cretin harald.vanlintelButNotThis@epfl.ch According to moron van lintel, Einstein did not write the equation he wrote. According to xxein: It is an artefactual/superficially imposed yin-yang of sorts. 'we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO and you have to agree because I'm the great genius, STOOOPID, don't you dare question it. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/tAB=tBA.gif > | > How about the bug and rivet paradox? Does the bug get squished or not? > | > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/tAB=tBA.gif xxein: No. YOU establish that. Not me. How does light curve in gravity if it is coming directly at you? I get f-ing sick of all this non-logical thinking process. You are the monkey that evolved in shape but not in mind. And to be so persistent about it. You remind me of the neighbor's dog that only comes in the hope of having it's tummy rubbed. Like that is your universal joy and everyone else should feel that this is a final physic. You are pathetically lost into your own world of thought. But if I may, I think I can say that most people and scientists are as thoroughly confused as you are. Physics is fairly discernable. The physic is not. (thx TR). The difference is between a subjective measurement and the actual objective physic. It may take a lot of time for you to digest this, but at least try. On Jun 26, 5:39 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote: > "Dave Jenkins" <jenk...@mailinator.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/tAB=tBA.gif xxein: No. Yes, the artefactual/superficially imposed yin-yang of sorts is all yours, cretin. > > How about the bug and rivet paradox? Does the bug get squished or not? > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > That's it! If I didn't think relativity was a crock before, I do now with > that ridiculous example. Why? The bug gets squished in both reference frames, and that's completely consistent with the laws of physics. Do you understand why? >> How about the bug and rivet paradox? Does the bug get squished or >> not? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > That's it! If I didn't think relativity was a crock before, I do now > with that ridiculous example. Yup, length contraction is one of the rubber ruler factors. When the rubber ruler factor does nto work alone, they need to include the malfunctioning clock factor and of course.. the fix all factor of both of those.. the Lorentz Transform factor that is basically just self limiting math to make sure you can only see at the speed of light But .. don't egt me wrong about the Lorentz factor. It is true for "observation" of objects from the other frames. but as any smart person knows.. observation is also the base of illusion. So Lorentz is the best for illusion factoring. :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman On Jun 26, 3:32 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > How about the bug and rivet paradox? Does the bug get squished or not? The bug get squished all the time. There is no physical length contraction in IRT. Strangely enough if SR stick with the concept that length contraction is merely a perspective effect that would agree with what IRT is saying. Ken Seto > (for those unfamiliar with it: There's a bug in a hole. There is a rivet > which in the frame of the bug/hole fits in the hole but the stem is a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > But from the reference frame of the rivet, the hole depth is shortened, > and its stem is long enough to reach the bottom, so the bug is squished.) > On Jun 26, 3:32 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > length contraction is merely a perspective effect that would agree > with what IRT is saying. Sorry I meant to say the the bug does not get squished at all time because there is no physical length contraction. Ken Seto > Ken Seto > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > > On Jun 26, 3:32 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Sorry I meant to say the the bug does not get squished at all time > because there is no physical length contraction. Does that mean the bug gets squished some of the time? Which times does it get squished? > Ken Seto > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > > - Show quoted text - >On Jun 26, 3:32 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >length contraction is merely a perspective effect that would agree >with what IRT is saying. But, in its ignorance and hypocrisy, SR DOES just that. For any change in speed of a particular object, the CHANGE in SR's 'gamma' has an infinite number of +ve and -ve values, depending on the infinite number of relative speeds (v) of the infinite number of observers. Obviously no object can physically both increase and decrease in length simultaneously. SR is crap from start to finish. >Ken Seto >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> But from the reference frame of the rivet, the hole depth is shortened, >> and its stem is long enough to reach the bottom, so the bug is squished.) Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm ..Einstein created a brilliant and consistent theory about space and time. Unfortunately it was based on completely wrong principles. > But, in its ignorance and hypocrisy, SR DOES just that. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > SR is crap from start to finish. And just like the supporters think in real life. Thier own frame has the longest rod of all. :) So it is most definitely bunk and nothing more than such. SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman From http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Special_Relativity/Simultaneity,_time_dilation_and_ length_contraction "The pole-barn paradox states the following: suppose a superhero running at 0.75c and carrying a horizontal pole 15 m long towards a barn 10m long, with front and rear doors. When the runner and the pole are inside the barn, a ground observer closes and then opens both doors (by remote control) so that the runner and pole are momentarily captured inside the barn and then proceed to exit the barn from the back door. One may be surprised to see a 15-m pole fit inside a 10-m barn. But the pole is in motion with respect to the ground observer, who measures the pole to be contracted to a length of 9.9 m (check using equations). The “paradox” arises when we consider the runner’s point of view. The runner sees the barn contracted to 6.6 m. Because the pole is in the rest frame of the runner, the runner measures it to have its proper length of 15 m. Now, how can our superhero make it safely through the barn? The resolution of the “paradox” lies in the relativity of simultaneity. The closing of the two doors is measured to be simultaneous by the ground observer. However, since the doors are at different positions, the runner says that they do not close simultaneously. The rear door closes and then opens first, allowing the leading edge of the pole to exit. The front door of the barn does not close until the trailing edge of the pole passes by." Miguel Rios > From http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Special_Relativity/Simultaneity,_time_dilation_and_ length_contraction > "The pole-barn paradox states the following: suppose a superhero > running at 0.75c and carrying a horizontal pole 15 m long towards a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > measures the pole to be contracted to a length of 9.9 m (check using > equations). Only when the ground observer is using a rubber ruler to measure the pole. :) > The “paradox” arises when we consider the runner’s point of view. The > runner sees the barn contracted to 6.6 m. Because the pole is in the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > the leading edge of the pole to exit. The front door of the barn does > not close until the trailing edge of the pole passes by." Oh man, and you call relativity OK. relativity can not even tell when a simultaneous occurance actually occurs. LOL that is such a bunch of bunk, it is amazing anyone can believe it at all. ROFLOL SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman On Jun 28, 9:36 pm, "papar...@gmail.com" <papar...@gmail.com> wrote: > Fromhttp://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Special_Relativity/Simultaneity,_time_di... > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > the leading edge of the pole to exit. The front door of the barn does > not close until the trailing edge of the pole passes by." Relativity of simultaneity has been refuted. It violates the isotropy of the speed of light in the pole frame. Ken Seto > On Jun 28, 9:36 pm, "papar...@gmail.com" <papar...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > Relativity of simultaneity has been refuted. It violates the isotropy > of the speed of light in the pole frame. It does no such thing. You look at c+v and c-v and thing this implies anisotropy of the speed of light. It does no such thing. You don't know the meaning of the terms you are using. > Ken Seto > > On Jun 28, 9:36 pm, "papar...@gmail.com" <papar...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > anisotropy of the speed of light. It does no such thing. You don't > know the meaning of the terms you are using. Hey idiot.... 1. c+v and c-v are closing speeds from the track frame's point of view. 2. Closing speeds have no effect on the simultaneity of events in the train frame. 3. The train observer must determine if the strikes are simultaneous. 4. The strikes are at equal distance from the strikes when they occur simultaneously. 5. The speed of light in the train is isotropic. In case you are too stupid to understand isotropy means that light from different directions at equal distance will arrive to the train observer simultaneously. 6. These points refute the the bogus concept of relativity of simultaneity. 7. You are a runt of the SRians. Ken Seto > > Ken Seto- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - > Hey idiot.... > 1. c+v and c-v are closing speeds from the track frame's point of [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Ken Seto Hey Seto, would you kindly review two episode of The Mechanical Universe They show quite nicely as an animation in the Mechanical Universe series--Albert and Henry with their light clocks. http://www.learner.org/resources/series42.html 42. The Lorentz Transformation If the speed of light is to be the same for all observers, then the length of a meter stick, or the rate of a ticking clock, depends on who measures it. 43. Velocity and Time Einstein is motivated to perfect the central ideas of physics, resulting in a new understanding of the meaning of space and time. Perhaps you can show us errors in these presentations. > 42. The Lorentz Transformation > If the speed of light is to be the same for all observers, then > the length of a meter stick, or the rate of a ticking clock, > depends on who measures it. the Lorentz transform is a nice little math trick that mathematically forces 186,000 mps to ignore/adjust relative speed differences. How silly, a "speed" not being relative yet all "other speeds" must be relative. :) It is a great curtain pulled over the eyes of the audience. :) > 43. Velocity and Time > Einstein is motivated to perfect the central ideas of physics, > resulting in a new understanding of the meaning of space and > time. Rubber rulers and mafunctioning clocks and ignorance of physical causes that change the periodic rate of the clock. Nothing more than such. It is simply a total violation of the science of measurement. Sad,, real sad. SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman >From http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Special_Relativity/Simultaneity,_time_dilation_and_ length_contraction > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >the leading edge of the pole to exit. The front door of the barn does >not close until the trailing edge of the pole passes by." Any rigid 'pole' can be used to define an absolute, invariant and universal spatial length. Neither the pole nor the barn change their lengths no matter how they move. The pole never fits inside the barn.....end of story... >Miguel Rios Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm ..Einstein created a brilliant and consistent theory about space and time. Unfortunately it was based on completely wrong principles. > On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 18:36:38 -0700 (PDT), "papar...@gmail.com" > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > The pole never fits inside the barn.....end of story... Inconsistent with experimental results. But then again, experimental results don't mean anything to you. > >Miguel Rios > > Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > > ..Einstein created a brilliant and consistent theory about space and time. Unfortunately it was based on completely wrong principles. >> On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 18:36:38 -0700 (PDT), "papar...@gmail.com" >> [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] >Inconsistent with experimental results. But then again, experimental >results don't mean anything to you. The only experimental results that support SR exist solely in your head Draper. Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm ..Einstein created a brilliant and consistent theory about space and time. Unfortunately it was based on completely wrong principles. > >> On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 18:36:38 -0700 (PDT), "papar...@gmail.com" > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > The only experimental results that support SR exist solely in your head Draper. And in thousands of copies of published articles in libraries everywhere. I know you don't believe any of them, Hank. That's because experimental science doesn't mean anything to you. Didn't I just say that? PD >> >> On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 18:36:38 -0700 (PDT), "papar...@gmail.com" >> [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] >And in thousands of copies of published articles in libraries >everywhere. ....all put out by self-proclaimed idiots like you, Draper.... ...and only idiots like you read them.... >I know you don't believe any of them, Hank. That's because >experimental science doesn't mean anything to you. Didn't I just say >that? > >PD Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm ..Einstein created a brilliant and consistent theory about space and time. Unfortunately it was based on completely wrong principles. > >> >> On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 18:36:38 -0700 (PDT), "papar...@gmail.com" > [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > ...and only idiots like you read them.... Well, that's what you choose to call reality and those who live in it -- idiots. You, on the other hand, are safely cocooned in your private little fantasy not far from the sea, and you have arranged that you don't have to pay any mind to reality. You've retired from it, and you don't like it anymore. And if you want to read something, you can write it for yourself. And if you want to hear something, then you can say it for yourself. The range of drugs for this condition range from antidepressants through antipsychotics to anticonvulsants. Have you tried any of them? Or are you happy where you are? > >I know you don't believe any of them, Hank. That's because > >experimental science doesn't mean anything to you. Didn't I just say [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > ..Einstein created a brilliant and consistent theory about space and time. Unfortunately it was based on completely wrong principles. the barn does >> >> >> >not close until the trailing edge of the pole passes by." >> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >through antipsychotics to anticonvulsants. Have you tried any of them? >Or are you happy where you are? I'm quite happy where I am , knowing I'm not in a state of self delusion like the religious cranks here. Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm ..Einstein created a brilliant and consistent theory about space and time. Unfortunately it was based on completely wrong principles. > the barn does > >> >> >> >not close until the trailing edge of the pole passes by." [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > I'm quite happy where I am , knowing I'm not in a state of self delusion like > the religious cranks here. And you "know" this because you were "born with a scientific mind". > Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > > ..Einstein created a brilliant and consistent theory about space and time. Unfortunately it was based on completely wrong principles. > The only experimental results that support SR exist solely in your head... Here you go Henri... I thought with your education you would have studied these references: Physics FAQ: What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity? http://edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html >> The only experimental results that support SR exist solely in your >> head... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Physics FAQ: What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity? > http://edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html Here we read: 7. Tests of Length Contraction At this time there are no direct tests of length contraction, as measuring the length of a moving object to the precision required has not been feasible. There is, however, a demonstration that it occurs: etc The same opinion is also expressed in the book "Was Einstein right" by Clifford M. Will at page 273. Any comments ? Nicolaas Vroom >>> The only experimental results that support SR exist solely in your >>> head... [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Any comments ? Sure, The physical length does not change unless a physical reason is given, not one single physical reason has been given. Speed alone is not a physical reason for a "meter" to shrink. nor a foot nor a mile etc.. Speed with a medium that tears away at the object would be a physical reason for shrinking but of course, the rod would be permanantly shorter. Length contraction is complete utter bullshit and simply another trick of the multiple standards used in relativity. :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman On Jul 6, 10:25 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > >>> The only experimental results that support SR exist solely in your > >>> head... [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > The physical length does not change unless a physical reason is > given, not one single physical reason has been given. Sorry, no, that doesn't work. You don't issue a decree and demand that denial of the decree must take the form that you desire. But actually, a physical reason HAS been given, just not the one you expected. Physical length is intrinsically dependent on simultaneity by definition. So because simultaneity is frame-dependent, so is physical length. If you'd like to understand the details of this better, we could go into it... The fact that you think that length change can ONLY come from erosion or physical squeezing indicates only that your repertoire of physical effects is severely limited. (Seto, for another example, thinks that freezing is the only possible physical way to shorten a rod.) > Speed alone is not a physical reason for a "meter" to shrink. > nor a foot nor a mile etc.. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > James M Driscoll Jr > Spaceman > On Jul 6, 10:25 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Sorry, no, that doesn't work. You don't issue a decree and demand that > denial of the decree must take the form that you desire. I did not issue the decree, The science of measurement did. I see you still don't know how to use that bit of science huh? > But actually, a physical reason HAS been given, just not the one you > expected. Physical length is intrinsically dependent on simultaneity > by definition. So because simultaneity is frame-dependent, so is > physical length. If you'd like to understand the details of this > better, we could go into it... Simultaneity is not dependant on frame. The observation of such is dependant on the view. Not the simultaneity itself. You truly think when an atomic bomb goes boom, the observer that was in motion can prove that the simultaneous explosions that are needed to do such did not occur? LOL You are so freakin lost in rubber ruler land you could not even make good fireworks. LOL > The fact that you think that length change can ONLY come from erosion > or physical squeezing indicates only that your repertoire of physical > effects is severely limited. (Seto, for another example, thinks that > freezing is the only possible physical way to shorten a rod.) No, It only means I like to use real world facts and not observational illusions for the physical reality that surrounds us. :) On Jul 6, 10:25 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > Nicolaas Vroom wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > The physical length does not change unless a physical reason is > given, not one single physical reason has been given. Sorry, no, that doesn't work. You don't issue a decree and demand that denial of the decree must take the form that you desire. But actually, a physical reason HAS been given, just not the one you expected. Physical length is intrinsically dependent on simultaneity by definition. So because simultaneity is frame-dependent, so is physical length. If you'd like to understand the details of this better, we could go into it... The fact that you think that length change can ONLY come from erosion or physical squeezing indicates only that your repertoire of physical effects is severely limited. (Seto, for another example, thinks that freezing is the only possible physical way to shorten a rod.) > Speed alone is not a physical reason for a "meter" to shrink. > nor a foot nor a mile etc.. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > James M Driscoll Jr > Spaceman > On Jul 6, 10:25 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >> The physical length does not change unless a physical reason is >> given, not one single physical reason has been given. You do not have to give a reason to explain physical effects. Heating a rod increases the length of a rod. Period. There exists no reason why this happens. On the other hand if you can not measure this change directly than you have to indicate the principles how this conclusion is reached. > Sorry, no, that doesn't work. You don't issue a decree and demand that > denial of the decree must take the form that you desire. > > But actually, a physical reason HAS been given, just not the one you > expected. Physical length is intrinsically dependent on simultaneity > by definition. I expect simultaneity has nothing to do with this. I expect the principle is that the speed of light is the same for an observer at rest versus a moving observer. > So because simultaneity is frame-dependent, so is > physical length. If you'd like to understand the details of this > better, we could go into it... Please Go ahead > The fact that you think that length change can ONLY come from erosion > or physical squeezing indicates only that your repertoire of physical > effects is severely limited. (Seto, for another example, thinks that > freezing is the only possible physical way to shorten a rod.) Nicolaas Vroom http://users.pandora.be/nicvroom/ >>> The only experimental results that support SR exist solely in your >>> head... [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >Any comments ? Yes, the proof that a physical contraction does not occur is trivial. Consider this: A--------------------|rod|--------------------B->v In the computer screen frame, observer A and a rod are at rest whilst B moves right at speed v. According to SR, the rod appears shortened in B's frame. Next, the rod is accelerated to v. A--------------------|rod|->v-------------------B->v According to SR, the rod has now SHORTENED in A's frame but LENGTHENED in B's. It obviously cannot become 'physically' both shorter and longer in the same action. >Nicolaas Vroom Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm ..Einstein created a brilliant and consistent theory about space and time. Unfortunately it was based on completely wrong principles. There are two weak points in this From http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Special_Relativity/Simultaneity,_time_dilation_and_ length_contraction "The pole-barn paradox states the following: suppose a superhero running at 0.75c and carrying a horizontal pole 15 m long towards a barn 10m long, with front and rear doors. When the runner and the pole are inside the barn, a ground observer closes and then opens both doors (by remote control) so that the runner and pole are momentarily captured inside the barn and then proceed to exit the barn from the back door. One may be surprised to see a 15-m pole fit inside a 10-m barn. But the pole is in motion with respect to the ground observer, who measures the pole to be contracted to a length of 9.9 m (check using equations). The “paradox” arises when we consider the runner’s point of view. The runner sees the barn contracted to 6.6 m. Because the pole is in the rest frame of the runner, the runner measures it to have its proper length of 15 m. Now, how can our superhero make it safely through the barn? The resolution of the “paradox” lies in the relativity of simultaneity. The closing of the two doors is measured to be simultaneous by the ground observer. However, since the doors are at different positions, the runner says that they do not close simultaneously. The rear door closes and then opens first, allowing the leading edge of the pole to exit. The front door of the barn does not close until the trailing edge of the pole passes by." Miguel Rios | There are two weak points in this | | From http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Special_Relativity/Simultaneity,_time_dilation_and_ length_contraction | "The pole-barn paradox states the following: suppose a superhero | running at 0.75c and carrying a horizontal pole 15 m long towards a [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] | The “paradox” arises when we consider the runner’s point of view. The | runner sees the barn contracted to 6.6 m. No he doesn't. You claiming he does is what creates the paradox. Because the pole is in the | rest frame of the runner, the runner measures it to have its proper | length of 15 m. Now, how can our superhero make it safely through the | barn? Like this: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Intersection.mpg | The resolution of the “paradox” lies in the relativity of | simultaneity. No it doesn't. | The closing of the two doors is measured to be | simultaneous by the ground observer. Nonsense. | However, since the doors are at | different positions, the runner says that they do not close | simultaneously. The ground observer is situated midway between the doors. The runner is situated midway between the doors. Both agree Einstein was an idiot. | The rear door closes and then opens first, No it doesn't, they open and close simultaneously even if the observers have their stupid eyes closed. allowing | the leading edge of the pole to exit. The front door of the barn does | not close until the trailing edge of the pole passes by." | | Miguel Rios You are really a fuckin' idiot. (Correct solution to the pole and barn paradox). > There are two weak points in this > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > the leading edge of the pole to exit. The front door of the barn does > not close until the trailing edge of the pole passes by." Relativity of Simultaneity has been refuted. It violates the istropy of the speed of light in all inertial frames. Ken Seto > > There are two weak points in this > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > Ken Seto No it does not violate the isotropy of the speed of light. The speed of light measured both in the track and in the train frames is always equal to c. The observers do not and can not change the speed of light. However, the train observer is moving fast so the back light takes longer to reach him, while the front light takes shorter. Miguel Rios > No it does not violate the isotropy of the speed of light. The speed > of light measured both in the track and in the train frames is always > equal to c. > The observers do not and can not change the speed of light. However, > the train observer is moving fast so the back light takes longer to > reach him, while the front light takes shorter. It violates the standard of measurement of distance. It is just another deviersion tactic to make you forget that the pole does not shrink physically from speed alone at all. :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman >> No it does not violate the isotropy of the speed of light. The speed >> of light measured both in the track and in the train frames is always [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > the pole does not shrink physically from speed alone at all. > :) >> No it does not violate the isotropy of the speed of light. The speed >> of light measured both in the track and in the train frames is always [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > the pole does not shrink physically from speed alone at all. > :) On Jul 3, 10:04 am, "papar...@gmail.com" <papar...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > There are two weak points in this > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > of light measured both in the track and in the train frames is always > equal to c. Yes indeed the speed of light in the train as measured by M' is isotropic c....but the RoS claims that the speed of light in the train as measured by the train observer M' is not isotropic because the M' is rushing to meet the light front from the front of the train and receding away from the light front from the rear. Case close. Ken Seto > The observers do not and can not change the speed of light. However, > the train observer is moving fast so the back light takes longer to > reach him, while the front light takes shorter. So that means that according to the train observer the speed of light is not isotropic. Ken Seto > On Jul 3, 10:04 am, "papar...@gmail.com" <papar...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > is rushing to meet the light front from the front of the train and > receding away from the light front from the rear. Case close. More nonsense, as Einstein claims or says nothing of that! Again the light moves at c away FROM ITS SOURCES A and B. What the train observer does is to move towards B and away from A at v, while the light is moving isotropically away from its sources at c. Are you so stupid to not understand that the movement of the train observer can't affect the movement of the light, and that if you are rushing away from one of the sources the light will, while moving at c, take longer to reach the train observer. This is no longer funny Seto...you are way pass human logic normality. > > The observers do not and can not change the speed of light. However, > > the train observer is moving fast so the back light takes longer to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Ken Seto More nonsense. It appears that you are considering that strike points A and B were also moving at speed v. If that is the case, then the train observer will see the light as simultaneous but, as it should be, now the track observer will see first the light from A and later the light from B. In both cases the observers disagree about the simultaneity. Miguel Rios On Jul 3, 1:23 pm, "papar...@gmail.com" <papar...@gmail.com> wrote: [...] Put Ken into context. He has been arguing about relativity - on this newsgroup - for the better part of 15 years. He still does not understand relativity, and makes the same mistakes now as he did ten years ago. There is no point in arguing with him. Just point and laugh, and let him idle away his retirement years. On Jul 3, 5:23 pm, "papar...@gmail.com" <papar...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Jul 3, 10:04 am, "papar...@gmail.com" <papar...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > More nonsense. It appears that you are considering that strike points > A and B were also moving at speed v. No I was not considering that at all. Einstein said that the train observer is rushing to meet the light front from the front (c+v) and receding away from the light front from the rear (c-v). These assertions means that the speed of light in the train is not isotropic. Also these assertion means that relative velocity can affect the speed of light in the train. Ken Seto >If that is the case, then the > train observer will see the light as simultaneous but, as it should [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Miguel Rios > On Jul 3, 5:23 pm, "papar...@gmail.com" <papar...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > assertions means that the speed of light in the train is not > isotropic. It says no such thing. You do not comprehend what you are reading. > Also these assertion means that relative velocity can > affect the speed of light in the train. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > > Miguel Rios > > On Jul 3, 5:23 pm, "papar...@gmail.com" <papar...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > It says no such thing. You do not comprehend what you are reading. Hey idiot so Einstein didn't say that the train observer rush toward the light from the front and reced away from the light from the rear? You are so stupid. Ken Seto > > Also these assertion means that relative velocity can > > affect the speed of light in the train. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > > > On Jul 3, 5:23 pm, "papar...@gmail.com" <papar...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > Hey idiot so Einstein didn't say that the train observer rush toward > the light from the front and reced away from the light from the rear? Yes, he said that. The statement that follows, that "these assertions means that the speed of light in the train is not isotropic" is NOT what Einstein said or meant or implied. That is wholly due to your inability to comprehend what you're reading. This may have something to do with your weakness with the English language. > You are so stupid. > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > > - Show quoted text - > On Jul 3, 5:23 pm, "papar...@gmail.com" <papar...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > Ken Seto Again Seto, it appears that your English comprehension is very poor. First, nowhere in the document http://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html it appears the terms c+v or c-v, you dishonestly are, again and again, putting these lies. How many times we have to tell you that the speed of light both at the track and at the train observer is c? IT IS NOT c +v or c-v and, again, nowhere in that document says anything close to what you make up. Secondly, and because the speed of light is isotropic in both frames WITH RESPECT TO ITS SOURCE, the observers play no role whatsoever in its behavior. Like a car, the light from A is going at 300000 km/s, while the train observer is going away from A, say, at 180000 km/s. That clearly means the light front will eventually reach the position of the train observer...nothing more and nothing else. Miguel Rios >> On Jul 3, 5:23 pm, "papar...@gmail.com" <papar...@gmail.com> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] >putting these lies. How many times we have to tell you that the speed >of light both at the track and at the train observer is c? ...in fairyland.... >IT IS NOT c >+v or c-v and, again, nowhere in that document says anything close to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >the light front will eventually reach the position of the train >observer...nothing more and nothing else. Light moves at c wrt its source, c+v wrt a moving observer. Simultaneity is absolute and universal when the speed of communication is corrected out. End of story. >Miguel Rios Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm ..Einstein created a brilliant and consistent theory about space and time. Unfortunately it was based on completely wrong principles. On Jul 4, 10:07 am, "papar...@gmail.com" <papar...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Jul 3, 5:23 pm, "papar...@gmail.com" <papar...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > First, nowhere in the documenthttp://www.bartleby.com/173/9.htmlit > appears the terms c+v or c-v, So the train observer rush toward the light from the front is not (c +v) and the train observer reced away from the light from the rear is not (c-v)???? You are an idiot runt. you dishonestly are, again and again, > putting these lies. How many times we have to tell you that the speed > of light both at the track and at the train observer is c? So that's what SR said and I agree. But in order to get RoS he siad that the train observer is moving wrt the light fronts and thus assertiing that the speed of light is not c. You can't have it both ways. To me the speed of light is a constant c is more important and thus the bogus concept of RoS have to be discarded. Ken Seto IT IS NOT c > +v or c-v and, again, nowhere in that document says anything close to > what you make up. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > On Jul 4, 10:07 am, "papar...@gmail.com" <papar...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > IT IS NOT c Do you read what you write? How can you assert that saying the train observer moves with respect to the light front implies the speed of light is not c? What kind of logic is that? Listen one more time: The photons resulting from the strikes move at c in both frames with respect to their sources (those are points A and B, which ARE NOT MOVING with the train!!!!) Independently of that situation, the train observer is moving at v towards B and away from A. So for every t'>0, his distance x_b' to B will be shorter than his distance x_a' from A, and since the light from A, in the train frame, can only cover distances according to the equation x'=ct' (in the train frame), then it is evident that as x_a' > x_b' then t_b' < t_a'. Miguel Rios >> On Jul 4, 10:07 am, "papar...@gmail.com" <papar...@gmail.com> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > observer moves with respect to the light front implies the speed of > light is not c? What kind of logic is that? If one frame moves with a lightfront, that frame will read a 0 speed for the lightfront. (known as inertial "at rest") Lightspeed can not be constant to all. The End. Close the book and place it in the Scifi section. It states bullshit that lightspeed is constant to all frames. It no longer belongs in science. :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman On Jul 5, 2:18 pm, "papar...@gmail.com" <papar...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Jul 4, 10:07 am, "papar...@gmail.com" <papar...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > observer moves with respect to the light front implies the speed of > light is not c? What kind of logic is that? Listen idiot....the speed of light in the train is postulated and measured to be isotropic c. This means that the observer cannot be moving wrt the light fronts in order to maintain the isotropy. So when the train observer moves wrt the light fronts as asserted by Einstein the isotropy of the speed of light is not maintained. Ken Seto > Listen one more time: The photons resulting from the strikes move at c > in both frames with respect to their sources (those are points A and [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > - Show quoted text - On 5 jul, 18:03, "kens...@erinet.com" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote: > On Jul 5, 2:18 pm, "papar...@gmail.com" <papar...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > > > - Show quoted text - No imbecile, it is nothing like that. You insist in mixing the observer with the light. You can't do that!! Light is moving on its own. The observer is moving on his own. Neither the light affects the observer nor the observer affect the light. It is exactly like the case of the car going on a highway at speed c, chasing another car who is going at speed v. Where is your graphical description with vectors and all that? Miguel Rios |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message