Some Contradictory Claims of SR.
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: ben6993 is a LIAR.
Next: Light wave is immaterial
From: kenseto on 25 Jun 2010 09:38 On Jun 23, 12:32 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. Assertion is not a valid arguement....when the rivet hit the bug the bug dies both the hole observer and the rivet observer agree to that. You are a bobeheaded physicist. <shrug> Ken Seto > > > > >...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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: kenseto on 25 Jun 2010 09:48 On Jun 23, 11:40 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "kenseto" <kens...(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. Sigh...but geometric projection contraction cannot keep the bug to remain alive just before the head of the rivet hit the hole of the wall if length contraction in SR is physically or materially real. Ken Seto > > 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).- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Inertial on 25 Jun 2010 10:28 "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message news:4dc0bf2f-0076-4684-a0eb-74a12df72972(a)j4g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > 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 Yes .. though no intrinsic change to the stick itself .. it does occupy a shorter physical space. Like tilting a ladder makes it physically less tall (it can pass thru a phsycially shorter doorway when tilted) without an intrinsic change to the ladder itself. > or it is just a > gemetric projection effect (a rotational effect). Yes .. though not exactly rotation. Like tilting a ladder makes it physically less tall (it can pass thru a phsycially shorter doorway when tilted) without an intrinsic change to the ladder itself. Do you think rotation isn't physical? > You want to retain > the word physical to give the impression to the public that length > contraction in SR is physically or materially real It is > and then you want > to use the term geometric projection when real physical or material > length contraction gives rise to paradoxes. It doesn't
From: Inertial on 25 Jun 2010 10:29 "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message news:0c62b8a3-0939-4ba1-b2d8-c4cf9ebba74f(a)a30g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 23, 11:40 pm, "Peter Webb" > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: >> "kenseto" <kens...(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. > > Sigh...but geometric projection contraction cannot keep the bug to > remain alive just before the head of the rivet hit the hole of the > wall if length contraction in SR is physically or materially real. Differences in clock sync and simultaneity can
From: Michael Moroney on 25 Jun 2010 10:35
kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes: >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. Hey Ken. How come you never answered my question about two stars going nova with the two observers? I'll draw it out for you. 1--A--------------------B--2 A is 1 lightyear from Star 1 and 10 lightyears from Star 2. B is 1 lightyear from Star 2 and 10 lightyears from Star 1. Nothing is moving relative to anything else. A sees Star 1 go nova and 9 years later sees Star 2 go nova. B sees Star 2 go nova and 9 years later sees Star 1 go nova. Why don't both observers agree on the order of events, since you claim things like "both frames must agree that it occurs at the same instant of time". What do you claim the order of events is? The bug/rivet isn't much different, it's just complicated by relativistic motion. |