Education Forums
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
kenseto
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 2:03 pm Post subject: Re: The SR definition led physicists to a 100 years of wild |
 |
|
On Jun 16, 2:30 pm, Bryan Olson <fakeaddr...@nowhere.org> wrote:
| Quote: |
kenseto wrote:
"Spirit of Truth" <junehar...@prodigy.net> wrote:
"kenseto" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote in message
No its not the LET interpretation. The LET interpretation place the
observer's clock in the rest frame of the ether. My interpretation
says that the observer's clock is in a state of absolute motion in the
ether. That's why every IRT observer does not claim that his clock is
the fastest running clock in the universe. He claims that some clocks
moving wrt him are running slow and some are running fast.
Ken Seto
.......................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................
Ken, does IRT get rid of lack of simultaneity (Einstein's train
experiement)?
Yes....in IRT simultaneity is absolute as follows:
1. The speed of light is isotropic in the track frame and the train
frame.
2. In the track frame the lightning strikes occur simultaneously at
time 0.5L/c where L is the length of the train.
3. From the track observer's point of view the strikes also occur
simultaneously in the train as follows:
The light path length in the train = 0.5L*gamma
Therefore the strike will arrive at the train observer simultaneously
at time 0.5L*gamma/c.
Light from the strike at the rear has to pass the track-fixed
observer before reaching the train-rinding observer.
|
Sure that's why the light fronts takes a longer time of 0.5L*gamma/c
seconds to reach the train observer simultaneously.
| Quote: |
Light from
the strike at the front has to pass the train-riding observer
before reaching the track-fixed observer.
|
No...this naive assertion is wrong. The speed of light is isotropic in
the train. That means that the light fronts must arrive at the train
observer simultaneously to maintain the isotropy of the speed of light
in the train.
| Quote: |
Ken Seto's theory has
light from both ends reaching each observer simultaneously, which
doesn't work. Theory flushed.
|
Your brain is flushed.
Ken Seto |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
kenseto
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 2:09 pm Post subject: Re: The SR definition led physicists to a 100 years of wild |
|
|
On Jun 16, 3:13 pm, Bryan Olson <fakeaddr...@nowhere.org> wrote:
| Quote: |
Spaceman wrote:
Bryan Olson wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Yes....in IRT simultaneity is absolute as follows:
1. The speed of light is isotropic in the track frame and the train
frame.
2. In the track frame the lightning strikes occur simultaneously at
time 0.5L/c where L is the length of the train.
3. From the track observer's point of view the strikes also occur
simultaneously in the train as follows:
The light path length in the train = 0.5L*gamma
Therefore the strike will arrive at the train observer simultaneously
at time 0.5L*gamma/c.
Light from the strike at the rear has to pass the track-fixed
observer before reaching the train-rinding observer. Light from
the strike at the front has to pass the train-riding observer
before reaching the track-fixed observer. Ken Seto's theory has
light from both ends reaching each observer simultaneously, which
doesn't work. Theory flushed.
Then you better flush Relativity too,
Relativity has no such contradictions.
It says lightspeed is constant,
the only way Ken could be wrong is if lightspeed is not constant.
LOL
You guys are a hoot.
|
You are a runt of the SRians.
Definition for a runt of the SRians:
A moron who thinks that SR is a religion. An idiot who doesn't
know the limitations of SR. A mental midget who can't comprehend
beyond what he was taught in school. An imbecile who follows
the real experts around like a puppy and eats up their shit like
gourmet puppy chow. An Asshole who will attack anybody who
disagrees with SR
Ken Seto |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
kenseto
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 2:41 pm Post subject: Re: The SR definition led physicists to a 100 years of wild |
|
|
On Jun 17, 4:38 am, bz <bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote:
| Quote: |
"Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote innews:w8qdnVe2wqGaKsvVnZ2dnUVZ_h7inZ2d@comcast.com:
Then you better flush Relativity too,
It says light-speed is constant,
No. It says that a moving observer and a stationary observer both
_measure_ light as moving at c, _in_their_own_frame_of_reference. That
does NOT imply that they both see the lighting flashes as simultaneous.
|
Yes it does. At the time the strikes occur simultaneously both the
terain observer and the track observer are at equal distance from the
strikes. The strikes must arrive to both observers simultaneously to
maintian the isotropy of the speed of light in both frames. The train
observer sees the strikes to be simultaneous at a later time because
the light path length in the train frame is longer.
| Quote: |
As Bryan correctly points out, the light from the rear strike must pass
the stationary observer before it can reach the moving observer.
As Bryan
correctly points out, the light from the front strike must pass the moving
observer before it can reach the stationary observer. This forces a 'non
simultaneous' judgement on the moving observer while the track side
observer sees the strikes as simultaneous.
If the strikes are 'simultaneous' in the track frame, taking place as the
observers pass, then the moving observer must see the strike on the engine
before he sees the strike on the rear of the train.
|
This conclusion is based on the erroneous model for the propagation of
light from the track observer's point of view. The train observer must
reach his own conclusion whether the strikes are simultaneous.
Ken Seto |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Sue...
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 3:15 pm Post subject: Re: The SR definition led physicists to a 100 years of wild |
|
|
On Jun 17, 10:30 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote:
[...]
| Quote: |
Actually there is no way all observers could see the light flashes
as simultaneous unless all were
lined up on one axis that both lights are equal distance from all.
|
A moving media model permits both observers to see two
flashes, one simultaneous and one skewed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau_experiment
Einstein's so-called "thought experiment" has insufficient
detail about the dielectric structure of the paths
to produce any real-world prediction. Its basis is
a propagation model that, to this day, has not been
demonstrated to exist.
~Wave and particle light~
http://nobelprize.org/physics/articles/ekspong/index.html
So the aerodynamics of a frog's wings have about the same
relevance to real world physics.
Sue...
| Quote: |
Did you ever understand that the earth's axial tilt makes the seasons?
Did you ever understand how they are not needed just to make seasons?
And it just makes seasons shift and enhance.
Probably not..
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
bz
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 4:13 pm Post subject: Re: The SR definition led physicists to a 100 years of wild |
|
|
"Spaceman" <spaceman@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in
news:aKidne8PXOtXV8rVnZ2dnUVZ_sjinZ2d@comcast.com:
| Quote: |
bz wrote:
"Spaceman" <spaceman@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in
news:w8qdnVe2wqGaKsvVnZ2dnUVZ_h7inZ2d@comcast.com:
Then you better flush Relativity too,
It says light-speed is constant,
No. It says that a moving observer and a stationary observer both
_measure_ light as moving at c, _in_their_own_frame_of_reference. That
does NOT imply that they both see the lighting flashes as
simultaneous.
bz, you don't get it.
In the inertial frame it can be "simultaneous" and
if not, then lightspeed is not constant.
|
Both the train and the track constitute [approximately] inertial frames.
Observers in either frame [according to SR] will measure the speed of light
to be c.
This fact [experimentally verified to the level of accuracy of all equipment
available] is due to [according to SR] "apparent" changes in the length of
rulers and the rate of time as measured by clocks so that measurement of the
speed of the SAME ray of light, when made from two iFoRs that are in motion
wrt each other, will both yield the identical value for the speed of the
'ray' of light.
| Quote: |
In the exact middle of a vacuum filled room a light is turned on,
which wall would it hit first?
north, south, east, or west?
|
If it is in the exact middle of a perfectly square room, it hits the center
of each of the six walls at the same instant.
| Quote: |
If lightspeed is constant, it hits all walls simultaneously.
If it does not do such. lightspeed is not constant.
|
Right.
| Quote: |
From another frame of course it would not be simultaneous but
that is simply because of the different distances of each
light wrt the other frames observer.
|
How do you know when the light hits the wall?
Put a photocell in the center of each wall?
Run the [equal length] cables from the photocells to a scope that displays
all 6 traces.
That works fine for "in the room's FoR" measurement [even though it is really
a two way measurement of the speed of light].
| Quote: |
(the "non simultaneous" the other frame sees is merely an illusion
of the distance.)
|
It is a matter of space-time perspective. It is NOT the kind of 'illusion'
that optical illusions consist of. It is a '4-D illusion'.
It has to do with the fact that in 'our' frame of reference, both the source
and the walls are in motion. Light traveling toward the 'front wall' must
travel further in our FoR, so it arrives after the light that travels toward
the 'back wall'. Oh, which wall the light hits first doesn't depend on the
distance between US and the wall, nor whether the room is approaching us or
going away from us.
| Quote: |
go to the frame and you would find out the light hit equally.
|
of course.
| Quote: |
As Bryan correctly points out, the light from the rear strike must
pass the stationary observer before it can reach the moving observer.
again, you are adding the second frame observer and not accounting
for the distance change that makes the light non simultaneous.
|
Einstein added the second frame, second observer and accounted for the
distant change.
| Quote: |
There IS one way that both observers could see the flashes at the same
time. If the train carried it's own lightning machine that, in the
trains frame, fired a flash at the front and rear of the train at the
right time for the flashes to appear "simultaneously" just as the
train passed the track side observer, both observers would see the
flashes as simultaneous.
Actually there is no way all observers could see the light flashes
as simultaneous unless all were
lined up on one axis that both lights are equal distance from all.
|
That is exactly the condition I set up. That axis passes through track side
and train board observers at the instant they are adjacent to each other.
The conditions I set forth would have both the train and track observers
seeing the flashes as simultaneous.
The 'magic' is worked by making sure that they are 'at the same place' at the
instant that the flashes arrive.
The trigger to fire the flashes, however, would occur at different times on
the track side and train observer's clocks.
The trackside observer says that the front flash must have been fired after
the back flash in order for them to arrive at his location at the same time.
He also observed that the front flash is red shifted and the back is blue
shifted due to the doppler effect. The observer on the train, of course, sees
no doppler shift and thinks the flashes were triggered at the same time.
| Quote: |
Did you ever understand that the earth's axial tilt makes the seasons?
Did you ever understand how they are not needed just to make seasons?
|
It would NOT be needed if our orbit were much more eccentric.
But our orbit is very close to a circle.
The fact that the earth is closest to the sun in the middle of 'our' [the
northern hemisphere] winter is ample proof that the orbital eccentricity has
no great 'seasonal effects'.
| Quote: |
And it just makes seasons shift and enhance.
Probably not..
|
You really need to make a model to get an idea of the perspective and
relative effects of the tilt and variation in distance from the sun. We are
talking about something that makes a 100% difference in solar illumination
[at the poles] where the difference is huge vs a very small (3.4%) difference
in distance from the sun.
You still haven't taken that 3 inch diameter ball[earth model] and the 8.4
meter ball[sun model], 896 meters away [average sun-earth distance model]
and then 912 meters and 881 meters [furthest and nearest approach models].
You would quickly see that a 24 degree tilt in the axis of rotation makes a
big difference in illumination, whereas the small difference in earth-sun
distance makes very little difference.
Try it. You can't see any difference in size of the 8.4 meter diameter sun
model when you move from 912 meters away to 881 meters away from it.
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz+spr@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
jem
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 6:14 pm Post subject: Re: The SR definition led physicists to a 100 years of wild |
|
|
Spirit of Truth wrote:
| Quote: |
Again I missed a hypotenuse
Corrected 2nd time, should have said hypotenuse...
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message news:%zt5k.455$rH1.47@newsfe20.lga...
kenseto wrote:
On Jun 14, 8:37 am, jem <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
kenseto wrote:
No, Jem, Ken's stuff IS different from LET and SR.
Look, you are good at math and physics, please study the following
to see what he is actually saying and let us know what you find is
incorrect in your opinion:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2007IRT.pdf
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Cosmology.pdf
|
Seto lives in a fantasy world, Spirit, and that's the world his
"theory" describes. Take a look down Main Street in Setoland:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/e8fbc46337b1c0b6?hl=en
| Quote: |
In the second one he specifically lays out the idea in
the section under 'Proposed Experiments To Detect
Absolute Motions' where he discusses the light clock experiment
that the first and subsequent correct interpretation
of the travelling light particles is that the light travels vertically
NOT on the hypotenuse.You may recall I questioned you a
long time ago on why one would have to consider
it on a hypotenuse path as if affected by the moving system
when the moving system does not affect the the horizontal
light path at all.
|
I recall. The focussed light in the light clock travels along the
hypotenuse, Spirit, because if it didn't, the light clock wouldn't be
a /functioning/ light clock (i.e. the light wouldn't be reflecting
back and forth between two specific points on its two mirrors).
Picture a child bouncing a ball in the aisle of a uniformly moving
train. What's the path of the ball as described by someone watching
the train pass by?
OTOH, perhaps you're thinking about what happens when a vertically
oriented light clock gets /accelerated/ horizontally. That's a
different situation, and if the acceleration were sufficiently large,
the light clock would break (i.e. the light from the lower mirror
would miss the upper mirror entirely).
You're welcome. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Sue...
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 6:55 pm Post subject: Re: The SR definition led physicists to a 100 years of wild |
|
|
On Jun 17, 12:13 pm, bz <bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote:
| Quote: |
"Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote innews:aKidne8PXOtXV8rVnZ2dnUVZ_sjinZ2d@comcast.com:
bz wrote:
"Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in
news:w8qdnVe2wqGaKsvVnZ2dnUVZ_h7inZ2d@comcast.com:
Then you better flush Relativity too,
It says light-speed is constant,
No. It says that a moving observer and a stationary observer both
_measure_ light as moving at c, _in_their_own_frame_of_reference. That
does NOT imply that they both see the lighting flashes as
simultaneous.
bz, you don't get it.
In the inertial frame it can be "simultaneous" and
if not, then lightspeed is not constant.
Both the train and the track constitute [approximately] inertial frames.
Observers in either frame [according to SR] will measure the speed of light
to be c.
This fact [experimentally verified to the level of accuracy of all equipment
available] is due to [according to SR] "apparent" changes in the length of
rulers and the rate of time as measured by clocks so that measurement of the
speed of the SAME ray of light, when made from two iFoRs that are in motion
wrt each other, will both yield the identical value for the speed of the
'ray' of light.
|
I can change the flux of near luminal cosmic particles and my rulers
don't seem to pay any attention. Can you post a picture of
your rulers shrinking and expanding and whatnot when you shield
them from cosmic particles?  )
| Quote: |
In the exact middle of a vacuum filled room a light is turned on,
which wall would it hit first?
north, south, east, or west?
If it is in the exact middle of a perfectly square room, it hits the center
of each of the six walls at the same instant.
|
If gas is moving through the room as gas moves
past a railcar, that won't be the case.
The thought experiment is ambiguous in this
regard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau_experiment
http://www-ssg.sr.unh.edu/ism/what.html
| Quote: |
If lightspeed is constant, it hits all walls simultaneously.
If it does not do such. lightspeed is not constant.
Right.
From another frame of course it would not be simultaneous but
that is simply because of the different distances of each
light wrt the other frames observer.
How do you know when the light hits the wall?
Put a photocell in the center of each wall?
Run the [equal length] cables from the photocells to a scope that displays
all 6 traces.
That works fine for "in the room's FoR" measurement [even though it is really
a two way measurement of the speed of light].
|
Whether the dielectric is moving or not, the
constancy of "c" can be confirmed between
the inertial frames of reference.
<< According to electromagnetic theory, the speed
of propagation of a light wave through a vacuum is
c= (equation 1323)
where $\epsilon_0$ and $\mu_0$ are physical constants
which can be evaluated by performing two simple experiments
which involve measuring the force of attraction between two
fixed changes and two fixed parallel current carrying wires.
According to the relativity principle, these experiments
must yield the same values for
$\epsilon_0$ and $\mu_0$ in all inertial frames.
Thus, the speed of light must be the same in all inertial frames. >>
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html
[...]
For the macroatomic case of the thought experiment, the inertial
frames of reference has nothing to do with the light path.
<<A Lorentz transformation or any other coordinate transformation
will convert electric or magnetic fields into mixtures of electric
and magnetic fields, but no transformation mixes them with the
gravitational field. >>
http://scitation.aip.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_58/iss_11/31_1.shtml
That would not have been a convincing argument against Newton's
inertial ether in Einstein's time but it seems more than adaquate
today where most physicists are well versed in electromagnetism.
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html
Sue...
| Quote: |
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Spaceman
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 7:30 pm Post subject: Re: The SR definition led physicists to a 100 years of wild |
|
|
bz wrote:
| Quote: |
"Spaceman" <spaceman@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in
news:w8qdnVe2wqGaKsvVnZ2dnUVZ_h7inZ2d@comcast.com:
Then you better flush Relativity too,
It says light-speed is constant,
No. It says that a moving observer and a stationary observer both
_measure_ light as moving at c, _in_their_own_frame_of_reference. That
does NOT imply that they both see the lighting flashes as
simultaneous.
|
bz, you don't get it.
In the inertial frame it can be "simultaneous" and
if not, then lightspeed is not constant.
In the exact middle of a vacuum filled room a light is turned on,
which wall would it hit first?
north, south, east, or west?
If lightspeed is constant, it hits all walls simultaneously.
If it does not do such. lightspeed is not constant.
From another frame of course it would not be simultaneous but
that is simply because of the different distances of each
light wrt the other frames observer.
(the "non simultaneus" the other frame sees is merely an illusion
of the distance.)
go to the frame and you would find out the light hit equally.
| Quote: |
As Bryan correctly points out, the light from the rear strike must
pass the stationary observer before it can reach the moving observer.
|
again, you are adding the second frame observer and not accounting
for the distance change that makes the light non simultaneous.
| Quote: |
There IS one way that both observers could see the flashes at the same
time. If the train carried it's own lightning machine that, in the
trains frame, fired a flash at the front and rear of the train at the
right time for the flashes to appear "simultaneously" just as the
train passed the track side observer, both observers would see the
flashes as simultaneous.
|
Actually there is no way all observers could see the light flashes
as simultaneous unless all were
lined up on one axis that both lights are equal distance from all.
| Quote: |
Did you ever understand that the earth's axial tilt makes the seasons?
|
Did you ever understand how they are not needed just to make seasons?
And it just makes seasons shift and enhance.
Probably not..
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
kenseto
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 11:31 pm Post subject: Re: The SR definition led physicists to a 100 years of wild |
|
|
On Jun 17, 6:47 pm, Bryan Olson <fakeaddr...@nowhere.org> wrote:
| Quote: |
Spaceman wrote:
bz wrote:
As Bryan correctly points out, the light from the rear strike must
pass the stationary observer before it can reach the moving observer.
again, you are adding the second frame observer and not accounting
for the distance change that makes the light non simultaneous.
Wrong. We consider the track-fixed observer stationary, and the
train-rider moving away from the light front, or we consider the
rider stationary, and the track-fixed observer moving toward the
light-front. Either way, light from the rear strike must pass
the track-fixed observer before it can reach the train-riding
observer
|
Sr says that the speed of light is isotropic in the train and track
frame. What you said here is that the speed of light is not isotropic
in the train frame because the train observer is moving wrt the light
fronts. Is there no limit to your stupidity???
Ken Seto |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
kenseto
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 11:52 pm Post subject: Re: The SR definition led physicists to a 100 years of wild |
|
|
On Jun 17, 5:19 pm, Bryan Olson <fakeaddr...@nowhere.org> wrote:
| Quote: |
kenseto wrote:
Bryan Olson wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Yes....in IRT simultaneity is absolute as follows:
1. The speed of light is isotropic in the track frame and the train
frame.
2. In the track frame the lightning strikes occur simultaneously at
time 0.5L/c where L is the length of the train.
3. From the track observer's point of view the strikes also occur
simultaneously in the train as follows:
The light path length in the train = 0.5L*gamma
Therefore the strike will arrive at the train observer simultaneously
at time 0.5L*gamma/c.
Light from the strike at the rear has to pass the track-fixed
observer before reaching the train-rinding observer.
Sure that's why the light fronts takes a longer time of 0.5L*gamma/c
seconds to reach the train observer simultaneously.
Light from
the strike at the front has to pass the train-riding observer
before reaching the track-fixed observer.
No...this naive assertion is wrong.
What could be going on in your head? Between the times when
the light starts from the front of the train to the time it
reaches the track-fixed observer, the train riding observer
is between the two locations. How does the light get from
one place to another without passing a point in between?
|
Sigh....the lightning strikes occur as a light sphere. These light
spheres will meet simultaneously at infinite number of locations. For
the track observer the spheres meet simultaneously at time 0.5L/c. For
the train observer the light spheres meet at a later time of
0.5L*gamma/c.
Your naive concept how light propagate is laughable.
| Quote: |
The speed of light is isotropic in
the train. That means that the light fronts must arrive at the train
observer simultaneously to maintain the isotropy of the speed of light
in the train.
While the paths of the observers the arrivals of the lights
from the front and rear cannot be simultaneous for both
observers. Contradictory outcomes from Seto-theory.
|
No ....light does not propagate as you described above. It appears
that it is your naive understanding of physics is the problem. What
you said violates the isotropy of the speed of light in the train or
the track. What you said is based on the erroneous assumption that the
strikes have only one light path length and that the train observer is
moving wrt these light fronts. <shrug>
Ken Seto
| Quote: |
Ken Seto's theory has
light from both ends reaching each observer simultaneously, which
doesn't work. Theory flushed.
Your brain is flushed.
Same thing, over and over. They say they've found some refutation
of relativity, then show that they'd get a big red X in sophomore
physics. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
paparios@gmail.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 12:00 am Post subject: Re: The SR definition led physicists to a 100 years of wild |
|
|
On 17 jun, 19:31, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jun 17, 6:47 pm, Bryan Olson <fakeaddr...@nowhere.org> wrote:
Spaceman wrote:
bz wrote:
As Bryan correctly points out, the light from the rear strike must
pass the stationary observer before it can reach the moving observer.
again, you are adding the second frame observer and not accounting
for the distance change that makes the light non simultaneous.
Wrong. We consider the track-fixed observer stationary, and the
train-rider moving away from the light front, or we consider the
rider stationary, and the track-fixed observer moving toward the
light-front. Either way, light from the rear strike must pass
the track-fixed observer before it can reach the train-riding
observer
Sr says that the speed of light is isotropic in the train and track
frame. What you said here is that the speed of light is not isotropic
in the train frame because the train observer is moving wrt the light
fronts. Is there no limit to your stupidity???
Ken Seto
|
For Christ sake...read Einstein's paper clown and learn what SR really
says...What a joke you are!.
Oh...I forgot..., my bad, you are bigger than Einstein right?
Miguel Rios |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
paparios@gmail.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 12:12 am Post subject: Re: The SR definition led physicists to a 100 years of wild |
|
|
On 17 jun, 19:52, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jun 17, 5:19 pm, Bryan Olson <fakeaddr...@nowhere.org> wrote:
Sigh....the lightning strikes occur as a light sphere. These light
spheres will meet simultaneously at infinite number of locations. For
the track observer the spheres meet simultaneously at time 0.5L/c. For
the train observer the light spheres meet at a later time of
0.5L*gamma/c.
Your naive concept how light propagate is laughable.
While the paths of the observers the arrivals of the lights
from the front and rear cannot be simultaneous for both
observers. Contradictory outcomes from Seto-theory.
No ....light does not propagate as you described above. It appears
that it is your naive understanding of physics is the problem. What
you said violates the isotropy of the speed of light in the train or
the track. What you said is based on the erroneous assumption that the
strikes have only one light path length and that the train observer is
moving wrt these light fronts. <shrug
Ken Seto
|
Says the clown that does not know any mathematics or physics, or
English by the way.
What in the world means "the lightning strikes occur as a light
sphere"? Can you make even a diagram of what that mean? Are you
suggesting that the back strike is like a big balloon that finds the
train observer in a point where the front strike is now a smaller
balloon?
According to your funny and ridiculous IRT those light strokes suffer
from Doppler shift or not?
Can you explain what in the world is for you the meaning of "violates
the isotropy of the speed of light"?
Miguel Rios |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Bryan Olson
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 2:19 am Post subject: Re: The SR definition led physicists to a 100 years of wild |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
| Quote: |
Bryan Olson wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Yes....in IRT simultaneity is absolute as follows:
1. The speed of light is isotropic in the track frame and the train
frame.
2. In the track frame the lightning strikes occur simultaneously at
time 0.5L/c where L is the length of the train.
3. From the track observer's point of view the strikes also occur
simultaneously in the train as follows:
The light path length in the train = 0.5L*gamma
Therefore the strike will arrive at the train observer simultaneously
at time 0.5L*gamma/c.
Light from the strike at the rear has to pass the track-fixed
observer before reaching the train-rinding observer.
Sure that's why the light fronts takes a longer time of 0.5L*gamma/c
seconds to reach the train observer simultaneously.
Light from
the strike at the front has to pass the train-riding observer
before reaching the track-fixed observer.
No...this naive assertion is wrong.
|
What could be going on in your head? Between the times when
the light starts from the front of the train to the time it
reaches the track-fixed observer, the train riding observer
is between the two locations. How does the light get from
one place to another without passing a point in between?
| Quote: |
The speed of light is isotropic in
the train. That means that the light fronts must arrive at the train
observer simultaneously to maintain the isotropy of the speed of light
in the train.
|
While the paths of the observers the arrivals of the lights
from the front and rear cannot be simultaneous for both
observers. Contradictory outcomes from Seto-theory.
| Quote: |
Ken Seto's theory has
light from both ends reaching each observer simultaneously, which
doesn't work. Theory flushed.
Your brain is flushed.
|
Same thing, over and over. They say they've found some refutation
of relativity, then show that they'd get a big red X in sophomore
physics.
--
--Bryan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
kenseto
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 2:29 am Post subject: Re: The SR definition led physicists to a 100 years of wild |
|
|
On Jun 17, 8:24 pm, Bryan Olson <fakeaddr...@nowhere.org> wrote:
| Quote: |
kenseto wrote:
Bryan Olson wrote:
Spaceman wrote:
bz wrote:
As Bryan correctly points out, the light from the rear strike must
pass the stationary observer before it can reach the moving observer.
again, you are adding the second frame observer and not accounting
for the distance change that makes the light non simultaneous.
Wrong. We consider the track-fixed observer stationary, and the
train-rider moving away from the light front, or we consider the
rider stationary, and the track-fixed observer moving toward the
light-front. Either way, light from the rear strike must pass
the track-fixed observer before it can reach the train-riding
observer
Sr says that the speed of light is isotropic in the train and track
frame. What you said here is that the speed of light is not isotropic
in the train frame because the train observer is moving wrt the light
fronts.
No Ken, I did not say that. Just because *your* theory comes
out contradictory doesn't mean that no consistent theory can
describe light moving at the same speed in all inertial frames.
|
Hey idiot....you said: "the track-fixed observer moving toward the
light-front. Either way, light from the rear strike must pass
the track-fixed observer before it can reach the train-riding
observer". This assertion means that the speed of light in the track
frame is not isotropic. Isotropy means that the observer is NOT moving
wrt the light fronts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
kenseto
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 2:36 am Post subject: Re: The SR definition led physicists to a 100 years of wild |
|
|
On Jun 17, 8:35 pm, Bryan Olson <fakeaddr...@nowhere.org> wrote:
| Quote: |
kenseto wrote:
On Jun 17, 5:19 pm, Bryan Olson <fakeaddr...@nowhere.org> wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Bryan Olson wrote:
Light from
the strike at the front has to pass the train-riding observer
before reaching the track-fixed observer.
No...this naive assertion is wrong.
What could be going on in your head? Between the times when
the light starts from the front of the train to the time it
reaches the track-fixed observer, the train riding observer
is between the two locations. How does the light get from
one place to another without passing a point in between?
Sigh....the lightning strikes occur as a light sphere. These light
spheres will meet simultaneously at infinite number of locations.
In the train-and-embankment thought experiment, the y and z
axises are uninteresting.
|
The each lightning strike is not a single light ray as depicted by the
gedanken. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
97 Attacks blocked
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
