Some Contradictory Claims of SR.
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: ben6993 is a LIAR.
Next: Light wave is immaterial
From: PD on 24 Jun 2010 15:14 On Jun 24, 12:47 pm, "G. L. Bradford" <glbra...(a)insightbb.com> wrote: > "PD" <thedraperfam...(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! I disagree. Definitions are indeed owned by the people who use the words to communicate with them. In a field such as physics where there are terms that are important for clear communication, such as "experimental control", "theory", "physical", "momentum", "spin", "energy", "quantum", and so on, then the meaning of those terms is set by those people who use them most. Now, lay people may use the same words in a *different context* and have them carry a different meaning. Thus "momentum" means something completely different to a sportscaster or a business analyst than it does to a physicist. "Spin" means something completely different to a dancer or a politician than it does to a physicist. But if you're going to engage in a discussion about *physics*, and it is your intent to communicate effectively, then you are obligated to use the term *as it is used in physics*. People do NOT have the right to tell physicists, "This term that you use -- 'physical'. You use it in a funny way, and you should change your meaning of the word to mean the same thing it does to nonphysicists." To do so would be totalitarianism and tyranny of its own sort. Specialized groups have the right to develop their own jargon, and virtually EVERY group does so, as a natural social phenomenon. Yes, this means that if you want to actually *participate* in the activities of the specialized group or even communicate with them effectively, you will have to adapt and learn the jargon that is used. This is not an unreasonable expectation. No one gets excluded. Asking lay people to do a little work to become conversant in an area is not exclusionary. Refusal to do a little work to become conversant is often the product of cowardice or laziness. No excuses, no shortcuts. Suck it up. PD > > Ken may be persistent in his ignorance, but you've just proved once more > who's truly stupid. > > GLB > > ===========================- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: whoever on 24 Jun 2010 20:13 "PD" <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:64aa5520-7600-4d3e-9f38-51466dd9872d(a)k39g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 24, 12:47 pm, "G. L. Bradford" <glbra...(a)insightbb.com> wrote: >> "PD" <thedraperfam...(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! > > I disagree. Definitions are indeed owned by the people who use the > words to communicate with them. > > In a field such as physics where there are terms that are important > for clear communication, such as "experimental control", "theory", > "physical", "momentum", "spin", "energy", "quantum", and so on, then > the meaning of those terms is set by those people who use them most. > > Now, lay people may use the same words in a *different context* and > have them carry a different meaning. Thus "momentum" means something > completely different to a sportscaster or a business analyst than it > does to a physicist. "Spin" means something completely different to a > dancer or a politician than it does to a physicist. > > But if you're going to engage in a discussion about *physics*, and it > is your intent to communicate effectively, then you are obligated to > use the term *as it is used in physics*. > > People do NOT have the right to tell physicists, "This term that you > use -- 'physical'. You use it in a funny way, and you should change > your meaning of the word to mean the same thing it does to > nonphysicists." To do so would be totalitarianism and tyranny of its > own sort. Specialized groups have the right to develop their own > jargon, and virtually EVERY group does so, as a natural social > phenomenon. > > Yes, this means that if you want to actually *participate* in the > activities of the specialized group or even communicate with them > effectively, you will have to adapt and learn the jargon that is used. > This is not an unreasonable expectation. No one gets excluded. Asking > lay people to do a little work to become conversant in an area is not > exclusionary. Refusal to do a little work to become conversant is > often the product of cowardice or laziness. No excuses, no shortcuts. > Suck it up. > > PD Well said, PD. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: G. L. Bradford on 25 Jun 2010 06:00 "PD" <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:64aa5520-7600-4d3e-9f38-51466dd9872d(a)k39g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... On Jun 24, 12:47 pm, "G. L. Bradford" <glbra...(a)insightbb.com> wrote: > "PD" <thedraperfam...(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! I disagree. Definitions are indeed owned by the people who use the words to communicate with them. In a field such as physics where there are terms that are important for clear communication, such as "experimental control", "theory", "physical", "momentum", "spin", "energy", "quantum", and so on, then the meaning of those terms is set by those people who use them most. Now, lay people may use the same words in a *different context* and have them carry a different meaning. Thus "momentum" means something completely different to a sportscaster or a business analyst than it does to a physicist. "Spin" means something completely different to a dancer or a politician than it does to a physicist. But if you're going to engage in a discussion about *physics*, and it is your intent to communicate effectively, then you are obligated to use the term *as it is used in physics*. People do NOT have the right to tell physicists, "This term that you use -- 'physical'. You use it in a funny way, and you should change your meaning of the word to mean the same thing it does to nonphysicists." To do so would be totalitarianism and tyranny of its own sort. Specialized groups have the right to develop their own jargon, and virtually EVERY group does so, as a natural social phenomenon. Yes, this means that if you want to actually *participate* in the activities of the specialized group or even communicate with them effectively, you will have to adapt and learn the jargon that is used. This is not an unreasonable expectation. No one gets excluded. Asking lay people to do a little work to become conversant in an area is not exclusionary. Refusal to do a little work to become conversant is often the product of cowardice or laziness. No excuses, no shortcuts. Suck it up. PD > > Ken may be persistent in his ignorance, but you've just proved once more > who's truly stupid. > > GLB > > ===========================- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - ==================================== It isn't up to all those who pay your way to learn your gibberish jargon. You will translate for them, and translate accurately and in terms they can do their own pictures from, or else! That's been the way of it for thousands of years. Those who become too arrogant to translate easily for the masses inevitably find themselves eventually digging ditches, if not starving to death. There are fewer of you arrogant asses working today than yesterday. There will be fewer of you working tomorrow than there are working today. You [will] learn to adapt yourselves to those who pay the way. You [will] learn to translate. And you [will] learn to beg for your money rather than dictate. GLB ====================================
From: kenseto on 25 Jun 2010 09:11 On Jun 23, 12:31 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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: > > > > > On Jun 22, 10:00 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jun 22, 8:04 am, "kens...(a)erinet.com" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 21, 5:58 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jun 13, 8:38 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. > > > > > > > > > Sure there is the correct perspective. The following will demonstrate > > > > > > > > that clearly: > > > > > > > > The hole is 1.2 ft long at its rest frame. > > > > > > > > The bug is 0.1 ft tall. > > > > > > > > The rivet length is 2 ft. long at its rest frame. > > > > > > > > Gamma is 2. > > > > > > > > From the hole point of view just before the rivet head hits the wall > > > > > > > > of the hole: > > > > > > > > the length of the rivet is: 2/2=1 ft. > > > > > > > > Therefore if length contraction is physical or material the bug is > > > > > > > > still alive just before the head of the rivet hits the wall of the > > > > > > > > hole. > > > > > > > > > From the rivet point of view the length of the hole is: 1.2/2=0.6 ft > > > > > > > > and the length of the rivet remains 2 ft. Therefore the bug is > > > > > > > > already > > > > > > > > dead way before the head of the rivet hit the wall of the hole. > > > > > > > > > What this mean is that you cannot claim both perspectives at the same > > > > > > > > time. > > > > > > > > Of course you can. One is the perspective in one frame, the other is > > > > > > > the perspective in the other frame. At the same time. > > > > > > > No you can't....they must agree whether the bug is already dead or > > > > > > still alive when the head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole. > > > > > > No, they don't "must" agree. They don't. I don't know where you got > > > > > the impression they do. > > > > > Yes they have to agree...just as that they have to agree that the > > > > speed of light is a constant ratio. > > > > No, they do not. Different frames have different accounts for events > > > transpiring. Sorry, Ken, this is just a fact of life. > > > The fact of life is this clocks in relative motion are running at > > different rates and thus the different perspectives are not real when > > it is corrected for the different rates of the clocks. > > > > > The bug die or alive at a certain > > > > instant of time is not frame dependent. > > > > Yes, it is, Ken. Your assertion is not an argument. > > > No it is not ....your assertion is not a valid arguement. > > Ken, no one is ever going to get anywhere with you pushing assertions > against your assertions. Hey idiot the bug dies requires that the rivet squish it to death....both frames must agree that it occurs at the same instant of time....and this is not frame dependent. If length contraction is really physical or material the bug is still alive when the head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole. If length contraction is only a geometric projection effect (not a physical or material effect)then the bug is dead from both frames point of view. In other words, you can't have it both ways....that the bug is dead and alive at the same instant of time. Ken Seto > The fact is, you make assertions that are contradicted by experiment. > You are ignorant of the experiments, so it is natural that you would > make statements out of ignorance. > > No one owes you a convincing argument. > > If you are wrong, someone may be kind enough to point out that you are > wrong. Someone even kinder will give you pointers to look things up so > that you can discover for yourself why you are wrong. It is then up to > YOU to correct your error. > > If you do not wish to correct your error, you will continue making the > same error over and over, for -- oh -- fifteen years or more. This is > nobody's problem but yours, Ken. > > If you whine and complain that no one has convinced you that you are > wrong, then this speaks to your sanity and your emotional fragility, > and this is on top of your physics errors. > > > > > > > > > > > The clock at the hole frame > > > > can read a different time thaan the clock at the rivet frame for when > > > > the bug dies.... but that's because the two clocks are running at > > > > different rates.....not because the bug die at different times. > > > > > > > In other words, is length contraction physical (material) or it is > > > > > > merely a geometric projection. > > > > > > > > >The only way to resolve this is that length contraction is not > > > > > > > > physical or > > > > > > > > material. > > > > > > > > Physical does not mean material. We've been through this. > > > > > > > Your assertion is not a valid arguement. > > > > > > Nor is yours. I showed you definitions in the dictionary that disagree > > > > > with you. You are flat wrong, but are incapable of admitting it, even > > > > > when confronted with the dictionary. > > > > > 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. > > No, Ken, I showed YOU in the dictionary where the meaning is broader > than material. > It is you that cannot read, even when it is placed directly under your > nose. > > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > Your > > > > example that a field is physical is also material related....a field > > > > is stress in a medium occupying space. > > > > Not to a physicist, Ken. > > > Physicists don't care what YOU think the term should mean. > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > > >...mainstream physicists resolve this by claiming that length > > > > > > > > contraction is a gemetric projection effect....not physical or > > > > > > > > material as you claimed. > > > > > > > > I did not claim physical meant material. You did. > > > > > > > > It is a nonmaterial, physical effect. > > > > > > > Inventing new meaning for physical is not a valid arguement. > > > > > > It is not a new meaning. YOUR meaning is not the standard one. YOUR > > > > > meaning is the oddball one. > > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- 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: kenseto on 25 Jun 2010 09:33
On Jun 23, 2:03 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. The whole point of this discussion is: Is length contraction in SR a real shortening of a physical or material meter stick or it is just a gemetric projection effect (a rotational effect). You want to retain the word physical to give the impression to the public that length contraction in SR is physically or materially real and then you want to use the term geometric projection when real physical or material length contraction gives rise to paradoxes. You phyicists are a bunch of crowns. Ken Seto >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 |