Some Contradictory Claims of SR.
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: ben6993 is a LIAR.
Next: Light wave is immaterial
From: eric gisse on 25 Jun 2010 20:59 G. L. Bradford wrote: [....] You have been posting here for many years, yet I never see you actually discuss physics on a meaningful level. And here you are demanding that Paul make it easy for you to understand. I imagine that's a total coincidence.
From: eric gisse on 25 Jun 2010 21:01 Michael Moroney wrote: > 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? [...] Because he can't process the question. I'm starting to become convinced that the people who don't get relativity just don't have the mental flexibility to consider the abstract.
From: Peter Webb on 25 Jun 2010 21:33 "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. ____________________________ Yes it can. Think about being on a ladder under some electricity lines. If the ladder is vertical, you touch the wires and get electrocuted. If it is at an angle to the vertical, then you you don't reach the wires and you aren't electrocuted. In this case, the "geometric projection" of the ladder onto the vertical axis is not large enough for you to reach the wires and be electrocuted. Are you really having this much trouble understanding this concept? It might be better if you tried to think through the analogy with the ladder yourself before asking these questions. You will learn faster and understand better if you try to work out the answer yourself first.
From: G. L. Bradford on 26 Jun 2010 06:16 "PD" <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:2241a80a-e7f5-4dbc-a614-030ef6ef8249(a)j4g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... On Jun 25, 1:06 pm, "G. L. Bradford" <glbra...(a)insightbb.com> wrote: > The Constitution says we don't have to support your establishment of > religion. Sorry, but just because you do not understand it does not make it religion. The difference between science and religion is that the claims of science are supported by corroborated and documented *experimental evidence*. No one expects a science student to just accept things on faith. They are in fact expected and encouraged to research the documentation and to spot-check the results by direct confirmation in the lab, as an exercise in understanding how this corroboration works. But this involves WORK on the part of the student. It means that the interested person does have to invest in reading, in learning terminology and their precise meanings, in doing calculations, in learning how to make predictions with the theory and actually checking that those predictions work in the lab as advertised. It does NOT mean "bring it down to my level". > 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. Quantum mechanics and relativistic physics can be tested in *teaching* laboratories at universities. You could see it work with your own eyes. If you take classes, you'd find that out. > > 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. Don't be ridiculous. I don't rate myself at their caliber. But what you are asking about is NOT CUTTING EDGE. It is rather ordinary and mundane physics by now. You could get comparable training if you applied yourself and committed the resources and time. If you do not choose to do so, then do not expect more than a hobbyist-level grasp of the subject. Sorry. > 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 > > ============================- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - ========================= It's not "hobbyist-level grasp" when you've worked closely and routinely with practical application before as part of your job in a world girdling belt of sites. I had acquired much of the sense of it through the practical (one might say the "physical contact with it") long before I started reading up on it, studying it, visualizing and thinking into it from my own approaches to it more and more broadly and deeply. ------------------- You are quite right that you are not of "their caliber." You are generally of very small caliber. Very, very, small caliber. This from Gibbon concerning the decline and fall of Rome describes so well how YOU are repeating history, repeating the growth of a frontierless social entropy, today: "The love of letters, almost inseparable from peace and refinement, was fashionable among the subjects of Hadrian and the Antonines, who were themselves men of learning and curiosity. It was diffused over the whole extent of their empire; the most northern tribes of Britons had acquired a taste for rhetoric; Homer as well as Virgil were transcribed and studied on the banks of the Rhine and Danube; and the most liberal rewards sought out the faintest glimmerings of literally merit. The sciences of physic and astronomy were successfully cultivated by the Greeks; the observations of Ptolemy and the writings of Galen are studied by those who have improved their discoveries and corrected their errors; but if we except the inimitable Lucian, this age of indolence passed away without having produced a single writer of original genius, or who excelled in the arts of elegant composition. The authority of Plato and Aristotle, of Zeno and Epicurus, still reigned in the schools; and their systems, transmitted with blind deference from one generation of disciples to another, precluded every generous attempt to exercise the powers, or enlarge the limits, of the human mind. The beauties of the poets and orators, instead of kindling a fire like their own, inspired only cold and servile imitations or if any ventured to deviate from those models, they deviated at the same time from good sense and propriety. On the revival of letters, the youthful vigour of the imagination, after a long repose, national emulation, a new religion, new languages, and a new world (A NEW WORLD), called forth the genius of Europe. But the provincials of Rome, trained by a uniform artificial foreign education, were engaged in a very unequal competition with those bold ancients, who, by expressing their genuine feelings in their native tongue, had already occupied every place of honour. The name of Poet was almost forgotten; that of Orator was usurped by the sophists. A cloud of critics, of compilers, of commentators, darkened the face of learning, and the decline of genius was soon followed by the corruption of taste. The sublime Longinus, who in a somewhat later period, and in the court of a Syrian queen, preserved the spirit of ancient Athens, observes and laments this degeneracy of his contemporaries, which debased their sentiments, enervated their courage, and depressed their talents. 'In the same manner,' says he 'as some children always remain pygmies, whose infant limbs have been too closely confined; thus our tender minds, fettered by the prejudices and habits of a just servitude, are unable to expand themselves, or to attain that well-proportioned greatness which we admire in the ancients; who living under a popular government, wrote with the same freedom as they acted.' This diminutive stature of mankind, if we pursue the metaphor, was daily sinking below the old standard, and the Roman world was indeed peopled by a race of pygmies; when the fierce giants of the north broke in, and mended the puny breed. They restored a manly spirit of freedom; and after the revolution of ten centuries, freedom became the happy parent of taste and science." Of course you have nothing to do with "manly spirit," do you Draper (your constants when generally speaking are always blatantly feminine, never manly or anything else but feminine, "she", "she," "she," "her," "her," "her"....)? Thanks to your kind 58% of college entrants are now female (schools, colleges and classes in the U.S. now being entirely female oriented (males need not apply unless they are female "sensitive") and the majority of males in the U.S., as well as in the world at large, now just give YOU the finger. It's increasingly noticeable even among pre-schooler, Kindergarten, and grade 1-12 males. Even the youngest males, despite all massively increasing punishments of males for it, are [savagely] blocking out your kind's feminine-heavy programming and showing their maleness by giving YOU the finger in every naturally male oriented way, Professor Political Correctness (Mr. "girlie-man"). You have line-for-line, word for word, rote knowledge but no dynamic original vision or feel at all for the Universe you arrogantly purport to [know] so much about. As a fanatically feminine orientated male, or one of the biggest cowards of the world, you are no more than a mentally decayed, psychologically warped, pseudo-scientist and teacher: The evolved modern version of Gibbon's race of increasingly biologically (and every other way) unfertile, "diminutive," mental "pygmies." There is no greater savage than a mindless, visionless, uniform bio-robot. There is no greater savagery than that of the mindless, visionless, uniform mob of equal slaves. Mr. Political Correctness, you are purely malignant to genius, particularly mass or national genius; the deadliest enemy there is of the mind's enlargement...again particularly of the mass mind's enlargement.....Very much the history repeating, the 'physics' repeating, creature of Dark Age Utopia. GLB ===========================
From: G. L. Bradford on 26 Jun 2010 09:15
"eric gisse" <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:i03jdp$fdt$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > G. L. Bradford wrote: > [....] > > You have been posting here for many years, yet I never see you actually > discuss physics on a meaningful level. > > And here you are demanding that Paul make it easy for you to understand. I > imagine that's a total coincidence. > > ==================== You don't have a very high level of comprehension. I demanded nothing for myself. I never have. I always find my own way and that is what drives some around here up the wall....particularly when I get beneath or over the surface they are stopped dead at. GLB ==================== |