Some Contradictory Claims of SR.
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: ben6993 is a LIAR.
Next: Light wave is immaterial
From: PD on 25 Jun 2010 10:59 On Jun 25, 8:11 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > 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. Yes. >...both frames must agree that it occurs at the same instant of > time. No. There is no need for both frames to agree that the rivet squish it to death at the same time. In one frame, the rivet squishes it to death BEFORE the rivet head hits the wall. In another frame, the rivet squishes it to death AFTER the rivet head hits the wall. There is no physical problem with this at all. >...and this is not frame dependent. Sorry, but yes it is. > 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. Physical does not mean material. I've told you this dozens of times, and pointed out to you the dictionary that proves you wrong. > 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 - > > > - > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Inertial on 25 Jun 2010 11:14 "PD" <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:85b59aa2-e229-4497-b6ca-50ef480d1d99(a)u26g2000yqu.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 25, 8:11 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: >> 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. > > Yes. > >>...both frames must agree that it occurs at the same instant of >> time. > > No. There is no need for both frames to agree that the rivet squish it > to death at the same time. I don't agree PD. All frames agree that the bug dies when it dies .. there is just one death happening .. one event. They all say it dies when it dies. What time it is on their clock depends on how they set their particular clocks. But you can put a clock on the bug and see what time it dies and they'll all agree on that time. What they disagree on is what OTHER things happen at OTHER places at the SAME time as the bug dying.
From: PD on 25 Jun 2010 11:19 On Jun 25, 5:00 am, "G. L. Bradford" <glbra...(a)insightbb.com> wrote: > > 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! No sir. You do not support physicists to have them make physics accessible and easily understandable by non-physicists. You support them to *do their job*, which is to conduct physics research, and to do that job in the most efficient manner possible, which in turn entails communicating with each other precisely and consistently. The last is what produces jargon as a necessary work product and tool. If you want to understand what it is you are paying for with your support dollars, then you are entitled to an layperson-level explanation, which will involve a lot of imprecise language and loose statements. If you want to understand it enough to be conversant in it, then you will have to learn the language and develop some facility with the skill sets that are prerequisite for doing the work. Fortunately, many researchers make themselves available to instruct interested people in precisely those things, but they do expect those people to pay tuition and to read books and to do some practice work on their own. Those who refuse to do that work or to pay tuition have their own laziness and lack of devotion to blame. You are NOT entitled to a FREE "bring it all down to my level" account of physics. It is not an efficient way of communicating the subject matter in any detail, and it is not an efficient use of a physicist's time. In a similar way, you are NOT entitled to a "bring it all down to my level" account from ANY professional, whether that is a structural engineer, or a cancer researcher, or a chemist, or a lawyer, or a musical composer, or a Python programmer. It doesn't make any difference that their work is supported by tax dollars. Tax dollars are allocated to support work for the common good, and that work is sent to *experts* so that the work can be done well. It is NOT sent to experts so that every nonexpert can make sense of it. If that were the case, you wouldn't need the work done by trained experts in the first place. Some work DOES require training and expertise. It is an unreasonable and IMMORAL demand that there should be no work that cannot be done by the untrained and the inexpert. If that were true, we'd all be in the stone age still. Hell, even in the stone age, there were experts at making stone tools and the others let them do their work without whining about it. PD > 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 > > ====================================- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: G. L. Bradford on 25 Jun 2010 14:06 "PD" <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:bbf493c8-7ca8-448b-9245-2e8ae888c038(a)5g2000yqz.googlegroups.com... On Jun 25, 5:00 am, "G. L. Bradford" <glbra...(a)insightbb.com> wrote: > > 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! No sir. You do not support physicists to have them make physics accessible and easily understandable by non-physicists. You support them to *do their job*, which is to conduct physics research, and to do that job in the most efficient manner possible, which in turn entails communicating with each other precisely and consistently. The last is what produces jargon as a necessary work product and tool. If you want to understand what it is you are paying for with your support dollars, then you are entitled to an layperson-level explanation, which will involve a lot of imprecise language and loose statements. If you want to understand it enough to be conversant in it, then you will have to learn the language and develop some facility with the skill sets that are prerequisite for doing the work. Fortunately, many researchers make themselves available to instruct interested people in precisely those things, but they do expect those people to pay tuition and to read books and to do some practice work on their own. Those who refuse to do that work or to pay tuition have their own laziness and lack of devotion to blame. You are NOT entitled to a FREE "bring it all down to my level" account of physics. It is not an efficient way of communicating the subject matter in any detail, and it is not an efficient use of a physicist's time. In a similar way, you are NOT entitled to a "bring it all down to my level" account from ANY professional, whether that is a structural engineer, or a cancer researcher, or a chemist, or a lawyer, or a musical composer, or a Python programmer. It doesn't make any difference that their work is supported by tax dollars. Tax dollars are allocated to support work for the common good, and that work is sent to *experts* so that the work can be done well. It is NOT sent to experts so that every nonexpert can make sense of it. If that were the case, you wouldn't need the work done by trained experts in the first place. Some work DOES require training and expertise. It is an unreasonable and IMMORAL demand that there should be no work that cannot be done by the untrained and the inexpert. If that were true, we'd all be in the stone age still. Hell, even in the stone age, there were experts at making stone tools and the others let them do their work without whining about it. PD > 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 > > ====================================- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - ============================== The Constitution says we don't have to support your establishment of religion. More than one of your claims of [theory] gets deep into looks of imposing a religion in your classrooms at tax payer expense. Imposing, programming, your cosmology and calling it science....just once in while qualifying your imposition of religion upon your students as teaching science based "theoretical origins." I've been a student of history for fifty-five years. It is religion and you're a liar. An Orwellian liar. I'm not talking about "classical physics," hands on working physics, and you damn well know it, Mr. Political Correctness. Over the next few years and decades we'll see who it is that knows more about certain [crossing fields] 'big picture' PHYSICS. The logician and historian or the physicist. You can't even tell that there are unobserved objects, things, travelers, clocks, well forward in both SPACE and TIME of the objects, things, travelers, and clocks you have under observation. You don't even understand your own relativity to a star four light years distant from Earth, a relativity of 2006 to 2010 or (-4) years to (0)-point. Where in [relative time], where in a multiplicity of dimension regarding destination point (observed 2006 or -4), departure point (observed 2010 or 0-point), and light -- including c, any traveler would start out upon any light-path-travel to an UNOBSERVED destination point not now at the presently observed (-4) but at an unobservable 0-point (0=0). That HISTORY from (-4) to (0) must be his highway within his travel TIME. All the light-path-HISTORY between, and the TIME of travel, inclusively a package deal! At the finish line, his destination point, once (-4), and his departure point, once 0-point, have traded places and numbers. Thus what is left is......... I'll stop here since it's always been too much for you. The bigger the picture gets, the more -- and more varying -- dimensions that accumulate into one, the more your so-called brain [flatly] stops cold at superficial surface-horizons. Because you have a piece of paper, you rank yourself in quality with such as Einstein and Hawking, Gibbon and Durant, ....., when they were at their best. You are not even 'fairly perceptive' concerning the Universe at large. You are no floodlight. You are nothing more than a narrowing minded denizen of Big Brother. You have no depth perception, no all at once multi-dimensionality, to you. GLB ============================
From: PD on 25 Jun 2010 16:56
On Jun 25, 10:14 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "PD" <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:85b59aa2-e229-4497-b6ca-50ef480d1d99(a)u26g2000yqu.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Jun 25, 8:11 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > >> 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. > > > Yes. > > >>...both frames must agree that it occurs at the same instant of > >> time. > > > No. There is no need for both frames to agree that the rivet squish it > > to death at the same time. > > I don't agree PD. All frames agree that the bug dies when it dies .. there > is just one death happening .. one event. They all say it dies when it > dies. What time it is on their clock depends on how they set their > particular clocks. But you can put a clock on the bug and see what time it > dies and they'll all agree on that time. > > What they disagree on is what OTHER things happen at OTHER places at the > SAME time as the bug dying. Yes, what you've said is correct. In context, when Seto says "it occurs at the same instant of time", he means using the event of the rivet head hitting the wall as a reference. |