Some Contradictory Claims of SR.
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: ben6993 is a LIAR.
Next: Light wave is immaterial
From: kenseto on 26 Jun 2010 17:31 On Jun 25, 10:35 am, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > kenseto <kens...(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. This is stupid....evrything in the universe is mvoing. > > A sees Star 1 go nova and 9 years later sees Star 2 go nova. I assume that you stipulate that both stars stars go nova simultaneously and what A see is due to its distances from the stars. > B sees Star 2 go nova and 9 years later sees Star 1 go nova. I assume that you stipulate that both stars stars go nova simultaneously and what B see is due to its distances from the stars. > > 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? Hey idiot you already stipulated that the stars go nova simultaneously and both A and B agree to that and what they see is due to the distances from the stars. Ken Seto > > The bug/rivet isn't much different, it's just complicated by relativistic > motion.
From: Sam Wormley on 26 Jun 2010 17:39 On 6/26/10 4:31 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Jun 25, 10:35 am, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > wrote: >> kenseto<kens...(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. > > This is stupid....evrything in the universe is mvoing. With respect to something. > >> >> A sees Star 1 go nova and 9 years later sees Star 2 go nova. > > I assume that you stipulate that both stars stars go nova > simultaneously and what A see is due to its distances from the stars. Assuming that both stars stars go nova simultaneously is MEANINGLESS. > >> B sees Star 2 go nova and 9 years later sees Star 1 go nova. > > I assume that you stipulate that both stars stars go nova > simultaneously and what B see is due to its distances from the stars. No. Stipulating both stars stars go nova simultaneously is MEANINGLESS. > >> >> 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? > > Hey idiot you already stipulated that the stars go nova simultaneously > and both A and B agree to that and what they see is due to the > distances from the stars. No, Seto. You incorrectly inferred that! > > Ken Seto > >> >> The bug/rivet isn't much different, it's just complicated by relativistic >> motion. >
From: Robert Higgins on 26 Jun 2010 18:35 On Jun 8, 9:35 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: [snipped same old same old] Ken, give up - you are simply too dense to learn anything. > > Ken Seto
From: kenseto on 27 Jun 2010 10:13 On Jun 26, 5:39 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 6/26/10 4:31 PM, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 25, 10:35 am, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > > wrote: > >> kenseto<kens...(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. > > > This is stupid....evrything in the universe is mvoing. > > With respect to something. > > > > >> A sees Star 1 go nova and 9 years later sees Star 2 go nova. > > > I assume that you stipulate that both stars stars go nova > > simultaneously and what A see is due to its distances from the stars. > > Assuming that both stars stars go nova simultaneously is MEANINGLESS. Hey idot without this stipulation then the gedanken is meaningless. Ken Seto > > > > >> B sees Star 2 go nova and 9 years later sees Star 1 go nova. > > > I assume that you stipulate that both stars stars go nova > > simultaneously and what B see is due to its distances from the stars. > > No. Stipulating both stars stars go nova simultaneously is MEANINGLESS. > > > > >> 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? > > > Hey idiot you already stipulated that the stars go nova simultaneously > > and both A and B agree to that and what they see is due to the > > distances from the stars. > > No, Seto. You incorrectly inferred that! > > > > > > > Ken Seto > > >> The bug/rivet isn't much different, it's just complicated by relativistic > >> motion.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: kenseto on 27 Jun 2010 10:24
On Jun 26, 10:54 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 26, 9:38 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 25, 10:59 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > Sure there is a need. The bug dies at the instant when the end of the > > rivet hits it. Both frames must agree to that. > > Of course. But whether the head of the rivet has already hit the wall > or has yet to hit the wall, which is an event that occurs in a > *different location*, will depend on the reference frame, and two > observers in those frames need not agree. Nor do they agree. Hey idiot you are putting up straw-men. Both frames agree that the bug dies at the instant when the end of the rivet hits the bug. Thereore your claim that from the hole point of view the bug is still alive due to length contraction of the rivet is bogus. > > > The hole clock and the > > rivet clock show a different time for this event to happen...but > > that's because the two clocks are ticking at different rates. > > > > 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. > > > No....length contraction is SR is not real the bug dies in both frames > > before the head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole. > > That is simply incorrect, Seto. You are making an assertion that is > contrary to a model that agrees extraordinarily well with measurement. > Assertion is not an argument, Ken. > Stop making assertions that are not supported by experiment. Sigh... no experiment supports physical or material length contraction. Ken Seto > > > > > > > Ken Seto- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |