Some Contradictory Claims of SR.
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: ben6993 is a LIAR.
Next: Light wave is immaterial
From: PD on 23 Jun 2010 12:32 On Jun 23, 9:32 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Jun 12, 1:21 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 12, 9:07 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 11, 4:52 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 11, 1:00 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jun 11, 9:07 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 6/11/10 7:36 AM, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > No from the hole point of view the bug is still alive just before the > > > > > > > head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole. However from the rivet > > > > > > > point of view the bug is already deadat the just before the head of > > > > > > > the rivet hit the wall of the hole. > > > > > > > Pick on perspective or the other, Seto. You can't have both! > > > > > > Wormy the bug cannot be both alive and dead at the moment when the > > > > > head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole....both observers must > > > > > agree on whether the bug is alive or dead but not both. > > > > > No, Ken. > > > > The order of events is frame dependent. > > > > It is not true that both observers must agree on the state of the bug > > > > *when* the rivet head hits. > > > > The "when" is the part that trips you up. > > > > Hey idiot... the bug is dead or alive is an absolute event > > > "Absolute event" is a term you made up, and has no meaning in physics. > > The word "event" has a specific meaning in physics, even if you're > > unaware of it. > > The order of spacelike-separated events depends on the frame. > > > > The hole > > > clock and the rivet clock are running at different rates give you the > > > two perspective. When you corrected for the rate difference you will > > > see that the rivet's perspective is the correct perspective. > > > In physics, Ken, it is important that one not favor one reference > > frame over another as being "the correct one". Physical laws are the > > same in all reference frames, though the quantities in the laws will > > vary frame to frame and the description of events will be different in > > two different frames. > > I am not favoring one perspective over the other. Both the hole > observer and the rivet observer agree that the bug dies at the same > instant of time. No, they do not. This is an error on your part. Your crappy attempt to save face is an embarrassment. >...but they have different clock readings when that > event took place because their clocks are running at different rates. > > > > > > > > Ken Seto- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 23 Jun 2010 14:03 On Jun 23, 9:22 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Jun 22, 11:34 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 22, 10:28 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > The normal usage of the word physical is material related. > > > No, it is not, Ken. That is YOUR usage. It is not the usage that > > physicists use. > > Yes it is....it is in the dictionary. You boneheaded physicists need > to change. > > Ken Seto > No, Ken. Physicists are the ones who *rightfully* own what "physical" means. Not ordinary folks, not a dictionary of common usage. If you as an ordinary folk think "physical" means "material", then physicists do NOT need to conform to your meaning of the word. This is not a battle of wills. It is just an act of stupidity if you do not let doctors determine what "medicine" means, architects determine what "architecture" means, biologists determine what "biological life" means, and physicists determine what "physical" means. This is not unfair. It is a fact of life. Suck it up. No physicist would ever agree that "physical" means material and frame- dependent. This is YOUR meaning, and only yours. Stick to it, and you will NEVER get off square one with your ideas. PD
From: Peter Webb on 23 Jun 2010 23:40 "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message news:1d4da9f5-45bf-4840-8098-e746d4d98a13(a)u26g2000yqu.googlegroups.com... On Jun 22, 11:15 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > It is a real physical contraction of spatial length that is described by > > a > > geometric projection. > > If it is real physical then why do you have to invent the term > geometrical projection??? > > ________________________________ > He is not inventing a term. It is a standard term. And similar concepts > are > used in Newtonian mechanics. For example, people talk about the "height" > of > a ladders. But their height is not fixed; it is not an invariant. What is > fixed (with your basic ladder) is its length. Its height is determined by > a > geometric projection of it length on to the vertical axis. Do you > understand > this? If you do, you also understand the role of length in SR; there is an > invariant which corresponds to "length" in ladder and a term which depends > upon the geometry which corresponds to "height" in ladders. If you don't, > maybe you should try measuring the height of different ladders as you > change > their angle with the ground. So geometric projection is not physical....then why do you claim that length contraction in SR is physical?? _____________________________ No, that doesn't follow. Geometric projections can and do measure physical parameters. The "height" of a ladder is a geometric projection of its length onto a vertical line. It is not an invariant, as it depends upon the angle of the ladder to the ground. But it certainly is a measurable, physical characteristic of the ladder; it tells you the height of one end of the ladder above the ground. As I said before, if you don't understand this, draw some diagrams of ladders of fixed length at different angles to the ground and see how the "height" is related to the angle the ladder forms with the ground. Contemplate the fact that the height is *not* an invariant, is a result of a geometric projection, yet is physical and measurable. If you can understand this, you can easily follow the directly analogous arguments in SR. If you can't follow this, I would suggest that you avoid careers which involve using SR (eg physicist) or ladders (eg roof repairer).
From: Inertial on 23 Jun 2010 23:47 "Peter Webb" <webbfamily(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:4c22d406$0$17172$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... [snip] > If you can understand this, you can easily follow the directly analogous > arguments in SR. If you can't follow this, I would suggest that you avoid > careers which involve using SR (eg physicist) or ladders (eg roof > repairer). Love it :)
From: G. L. Bradford on 24 Jun 2010 13:47
"PD" <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:35ea3a23-6e3c-4019-8c63-a032da45138d(a)20g2000vbi.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 23, 9:22 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: >> On Jun 22, 11:34 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > On Jun 22, 10:28 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: >> >> > > The normal usage of the word physical is material related. >> >> > No, it is not, Ken. That is YOUR usage. It is not the usage that >> > physicists use. >> >> Yes it is....it is in the dictionary. You boneheaded physicists need >> to change. >> >> Ken Seto >> > > No, Ken. Physicists are the ones who *rightfully* own what "physical" > means. Not ordinary folks, not a dictionary of common usage. If you as > an ordinary folk think "physical" means "material", then physicists do > NOT need to conform to your meaning of the word. This is not a battle > of wills. It is just an act of stupidity if you do not let doctors > determine what "medicine" means, architects determine what > "architecture" means, biologists determine what "biological life" > means, and physicists determine what "physical" means. > =========================== Now you've reached far, far, into Orwellian stupidity. Pure unadulterated 'totalitarian state' guild isolationisms, absolutisms, tyrannies and arrogances. You've arrogantly bulled around in everyone's (I mean EVERYONE'S!) local and cosmological china shops as if you owned every definition there is without exception, owning everything and everyone, then like the [narrow minded] utterly arrogant cowards you are you cry that you are only human like everyone else when you get caught in arrogance's catastrophes, when the many get their back up, getting ragingly angrily into your faces. You don't own the universe, nor do you own the cosmology (the cosmologies) and definitions. Not a one of them do you own! Ken may be persistent in his ignorance, but you've just proved once more who's truly stupid. GLB =========================== |