Some Contradictory Claims of SR.
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: ben6993 is a LIAR.
Next: Light wave is immaterial
From: Michael Moroney on 27 Jun 2010 11:16 kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes: >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. Once again, everything in the diagram is stationary with respect to everything else in the diagram. We don't care about anything else not influencing things, that's the point of a gedanken. >> >> 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. I stated no such thing. I explicitly stated that there is a 9 year difference between the times A and B see the novae. >> 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. I stated no such thing. I explicitly stated that there is a 9 year difference between the times A and B see the novae. >> 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. Don't change what I wrote. I made no such assumptions whatsoever. Reread what I wrote if necessary.
From: Peter Webb on 27 Jun 2010 11:23 > > You do NOT get to dictate what "physical" means. Sure...if you want to use physical as not material then you need to define what that meaning means....but you refuse to do so. > You do NOT get to say "physical" does not mean "geometric". If physical means geometrical ___________________________________ Physical does not mean the same as geometric, they are not synonyms either. then why do you need the term physical to explain length contraction???.... ___________________________________ Umm, because it is physical? is it design to fool the public? One question: if length contraction is only geometrical then how come a ball will flatten to a pancake materially in the direction of motion. ___________________________________ For the same reason a tilted ladder will fit through a doorway. Also what is that motion that causes the flattening? __________________________________ A rotation about x,y,z,it Ken Seto
From: kenseto on 28 Jun 2010 09:31 On Jun 27, 10:54 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 6/27/10 9:24 AM, kenseto wrote: > > > > > Sigh... no experiment supports physical or material length > > contraction. > > > Ken Seto > > From the cosmic muon's perspective, the distance traveled > to the earth's surface is foreshortened as predicted by > relativity theory. No idiot.... from the cosmic muon's point of view the life time of the earth muon is 2.2/gamma us. From the earth point of view the life time of the cosmic muon is gamma*2.2 us. That's why the cosmic muon is able to reach the ground....there is no foreshortening of distance between the cosmic muon anf the earth surface.
From: kenseto on 28 Jun 2010 09:33 On Jun 27, 10:45 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 6/27/10 9:13 AM, kenseto wrote: > > > On Jun 26, 5:39 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Assuming that both stars stars go nova simultaneously is MEANINGLESS. > > > Hey idot without this stipulation then the gedanken is meaningless. > > > Ken Seto > > Ken, this is your chance to learn something in on USENET! > > Relativity of simultaneity > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity > > "In physics, the relativity of simultaneity is the concept that > simultaneitywhether two events occur at the same timeis not absolute, > but depends on the observer's reference frame. According to the special > theory of relativity, it is impossible to say in an absolute sense > whether two events occur at the same time if those events are separated > in space". > > Two points Ken: > > o whether two events occur at the same timeis not absolute, > but depends on the observer's reference frame > > o it is impossible to say in an absolute sense whether two > events occur at the same time if those events are separated > in space > > Die gedanken, to be useful, must take into account the > relativistic physics, not the old Newtonian concepts. You > cannot butcher the gedanken with Newtonian absolutes! Wormy RoS is a faulty concept. It violate the isotropy of the speed of light.
From: kenseto on 28 Jun 2010 09:39
On Jun 27, 10:56 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 6/27/10 9:28 AM, kenseto wrote: > > > In fact there is no physical or > > material length contraction. Why Because it gives rise to paradoxes > > such as the bug and the rivet paradox and the barn and the pole > > paradox. > > > Ken Seto > > Remember, Ken, you only get one perspective. Relativity theory > correctly predicts the outcome of a measurement or observation. > One perspective Ken--No paradox. Everybody must agrees that the bug dies when the tip of the rivet hits the bug...this is not frame dependent. The paradox comes in when the hole frame claims that the tip of the rivet hits the bug at different instant of time due to the bogus SR claim that length contraction is physical or material. |