Some Contradictory Claims of SR.
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: ben6993 is a LIAR.
Next: Light wave is immaterial
From: kenseto on 14 Jul 2010 14:07 On Jul 14, 10:48 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 14, 7:39 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 13, 12:34 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > > wrote: > > > > kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > > > >On Jul 12, 2:58 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > > > >wrote: > > > >> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > > > >> >On Jul 10, 10:11 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > > > >> >wrote: > > > > >> >> There is no inertial frame where the bug dies more than once, or fewer > > > >> >> than once. Every observer no matter what their frame is agrees the bug > > > >> >> dies exactly once. Your claim that SR claims the bug dies at two different > > > >> >> times is absurdity. > > > >> >Hey idiot SR predicts that the bug dies before and after the head of > > > >> >the rivet hits the wall of the hole....that's two instant of time.. > > > > >> No it doesn't. It predicts the bug dies before OR after the rivet head > > > >> hits the wall, depending on the frame of the observer. > > > >Hey idiotthe rivet observer says that the bug dies before the head of > > > >the rivet hits the wall and the hole observer says that the bug dies > > > >after the head of the rivet hits the wall..... > > > > (ignoring insult) Very Good. Maybe you're beginning to understand the > > > problem and how the two observers observe different sequences of events. > > > > >that means that the bug > > > >dies at two instants of time. > > > > Nope. The rivet observer sees the bug die exactly ONCE, not twice. > > > The hole observer sees the bug die exactly ONCE, not twice. > > > So do all other observers. No observer sees the bug die twice, like > > > you claim. > > > Hey idiot....before and after are two different instants of time and > > this fact is not observer depedent. > > Assertion is not an argument. > What you just said is counter to experimental observation. Hey idiot....before and after are two different instants of time and this fact is not observer depedent. That means that SR predicts that the bug dies at two different instants of time. If you get rid of the bogus idea of physical/material length contraction in SR then the bug dies only one time ....when the tip of the rivet hits the bug. You runts of the SRians are truly a bunch of stupid idiots. Ken Seto > > > > > That means that SR predicts that > > the bug dies at two different instants of time. If you get rid of the > > bogus idea of physical/material length contraction in SR then the bug > > dies only one time ....when the tip of the rivet hits the bug. You > > runts of the SRians are truly a bunch of stupid idiots. > > > Ken Seto > > > > Until you understand this, you'll continue to wallow in your ignorance > > > (actually, stupidity). > > > > How are you coming along with the two stars going nova problem and the > > > red/blue box problem? Figure either one of them out yet?- 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: Michael Moroney on 14 Jul 2010 14:11 kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes: >On Jul 13, 12:34 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >wrote: >> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: >> >> >that means that the bug >> >dies at two instants of time. >> >> Nope. The rivet observer sees the bug die exactly ONCE, not twice. >> The hole observer sees the bug die exactly ONCE, not twice. >> So do all other observers. No observer sees the bug die twice, like >> you claim. >Hey idiot....before and after are two different instants of time and >this fact is not observer depedent. It is observer dependent. Consider the following: 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 in this diagram is moving relative to anything else in the diagram. 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. The two observers disagree on the order of the stars going nova. A sees 1 go nova before 2 goes nova. B sees 1 go nova after 2 goes nova. They agree that each star goes nova exactly once. > That means that SR predicts that >the bug dies at two different instants of time. Once again, I challenge you to show me an SR frame where the bug dies at two different instants of time. You can't. >then the bug >dies only one time ....when the tip of the rivet hits the bug. Every observer agrees that the bug dies only one time, when the tip of the rivet hits the bug.
From: PD on 14 Jul 2010 15:31 On Jul 14, 12:58 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Jul 14, 10:46 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 14, 7:48 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 13, 1:24 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 13, 7:58 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 12, 10:10 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 12, 8:52 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jul 11, 3:37 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Jul 11, 8:32 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 10, 11:59 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 10, 8:44 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 9, 3:52 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 9, 1:44 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 8, 11:07 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 8, 8:00 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 7, 11:01 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 7, 9:23 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 6, 3:52 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >On Jul 1, 10:29 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >but SR predicts that that the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >bug dies at two different instants of time due to length contraction > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >and that is the source of contradiction. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> No it doesn't. Both observers agree that the bug dies, just once. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Hey idiot.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since it is you who is having such a tough time understanding this problem > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > yet you continue to refuse to learn SR, I'd say that you're the idiot > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > around here. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey idiot I am not trying to learn SR. I am pointing out that SR makes > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contradictory claims. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No it doesn't. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes it does. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No. YOUR superficial and comic-book ideas about SR are contradictory. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But SR is not contradictory. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >YOUR superficial and comic book ideas about SR are > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contradictory. But SR is not. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you understood what SR *really says*, then you would easily see > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there are no contradictions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The comic book claims are on your part. For example: the bug dies at > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > two different times, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It doesn't. This is what YOU say, not what SR says. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mutual time dilation, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is not a contradiction. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > physcial contraction is not > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > material or geometric > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is not a contradiction. It is YOUR assertion that "physical" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means "material". Physicists disagree with you, and they own the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > definition of 'physical". That is not a contradiction, it is a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > correction of a mistake. You don't like it, but that doesn't make it a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contradiction. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure it is a contradiction....you tried to have two meanings for the > > > > > > > > > > > > > word physical. > > > > > > > > > > > > >...one means apparent contraction (geometric projection) > > > > > > > > > > > > > and the other implies material contraction. You can have one or the > > > > > > > > > > > > > other but not both simultaneously. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ken, you're an idiot. > > > > > > > > > > > > No you are the idiot. You want to clint on to the bogus idea that > > > > > > > > > > > length contraction in SR is both geometrical and material. > > > > > > > > > > > No, I never said that. I said it is both geometrical and physical. > > > > > > > > > > Physical is not synonymous with material. > > > > > > > > > > We all know what geometrical means...its like I see you to be shorter > > > > > > > > > from a distance, So what is physical mean since you insist that > > > > > > > > > physical is not material? > > > > > > > > > OK, so let me just clarify something here before answering. > > > > > > > > > Are you ASKING a physicist what "physical" means, since you > > > > > > > > acknowledge that you may be using it to mean "not geometrical" or > > > > > > > > "material", and you've been told that this is not correct? > > > > > > > > No you said that length contraction is physical but it is not the same > > > > > > > as geometrical and it is definitly not material. > > > > > > > "Physical" does not mean geometrical. Nor does it mean "material" > > > > > > Ah.... so you invented a new meaning for the word "physical" but you > > > > > want to keep that meaning secret because you don't want to educate > > > > > me.....right? You are a dork. > > > > > Ken, you've repeated said you don't NEED or WANT education. You've > > > > repeated said you're 20 years ahead of any physicist in understanding > > > > this stuff. Is it any wonder that I don't feed you something you say > > > > you don't want? > > > > The other possibility is that you don't have different defintion for > > > the word physical that is different than material and/or geometric > > > projection. > > > I see that you are simply hog-tied by emotional incapacitation. You > > simply cannot ask an honest question without choking on it. > > > "Physical" means what it has always meant to physicists: Pertaining to > > the behavior and natural laws of the universe; that which physicists > > study, including the interactions of matter, energy, and other > > entities that exhibit regular, predictable behavior; having properties > > that are subject to regularities and constraints known as laws of > > nature or physical laws. > > But you denied that Physical length contraction in SR is not matter > (material) related and here you are saying that it is. No, Ken, I'm not saying that here at all. There is NOTHING that I've said in the above that says that length contraction is related to material contraction. Physics INCLUDES the study of matter, but it includes the study of MORE than matter, as I *explicitly* told you above. Read it again. > > > > The geometry of spacetime fits this description, as do non-material > > entities like fields of various types. The description of systems in > > non-material reference frames is also physical, as are the symmetries > > exhibited by the interactions between matter and matter, matter and > > non-matter, and between non-matter and non-matter. Please reread what I wrote here too, and not the very first sentence. > > > This is not a new definition, even if it is new to you. You just never > > learned it correctly. > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > If you want the definition of "physical", then feel free to ASK for > > > > it. > > > > You're pretty quick to whine about what it is that I don't do, but you > > > > seem to be unable to ASK for what you want. > > > > Does it just make you just choke to ask? > > > > > By the way, the definition of "physical" has not changed recently. > > > > Just because you've always thought it meant "material" doesn't mean > > > > it's EVER meant material to a physicist. > > > > > PD > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > Likewise, "mammal" does not mean "having four legs and fur" even > > > > > > though it includes animals with four legs and fur. > > > > > > Nor does "mammal" mean "having flippers and a blowhole" even though it > > > > > > includes animals with flipper and a blowhole. > > > > > > > > So I ask you to give > > > > > > > us the meaning of the word "physical" as related to length contraction > > > > > > > in SR. > > > > > > > I don't quite understand you, Ken. I asked you directly if you were > > > > > > asking for the meaning of physical. You then told me "No." Then you > > > > > > asked me for the meaning of "physical". > > > > > > > Can't you answer my question directly and honestly? > > > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > > > Are you ready for the first time to ASK the meaning of a term that you > > > > > > > > do not understand? > > > > > > > > > This will be a gauge of your emotional health, Ken. If you find that > > > > > > > > you cannot do this without gagging, then it's clear that you're too > > > > > > > > emotionally crippled to do anything sensible in physics. > > > > > > > > > > Does physical contraction able to kill the > > > > > > > > > bug twice? > > > > > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > > > > > There is nothing "bogus" about a definition of a term as used by > > > > > > > > > > physicists. You either use the term as it is used in physics, or you > > > > > > > > > > don't use it at all when you are discussing physics. > > > > > > > > > > You may not like this, but there is nothing bogus about it. > > > > > > > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > > > > > > > A mammal can mean animals that have four legs and fur. > > > > > > > > > > > > A mammal can mean animals that have flippers and no fur. > > > > > > > > > > > > Does this mean that the word mammal is contradictory, or that it > > > > > > > > > > > > encompasses both kinds of animals? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Only YOU insist that "physical" can mean only one thing or the other, > > > > > > > > > > > > because you cannot grasp it being both. > > > > > > > > > > > > You might as well insist that mammals can only be one kind of animal > > > > > > > > > > > > or the other. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >....etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you think you find contradictions in a theory that has been > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thoroughly examined and thoroughly tested for a hundred years by > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 14 Jul 2010 15:46 On Jul 14, 1:07 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Jul 14, 10:48 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 14, 7:39 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 13, 12:34 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > > > wrote: > > > > > kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > > > > >On Jul 12, 2:58 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > > > > >wrote: > > > > >> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > > > > >> >On Jul 10, 10:11 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > > > > >> >wrote: > > > > > >> >> There is no inertial frame where the bug dies more than once, or fewer > > > > >> >> than once. Every observer no matter what their frame is agrees the bug > > > > >> >> dies exactly once. Your claim that SR claims the bug dies at two different > > > > >> >> times is absurdity. > > > > >> >Hey idiot SR predicts that the bug dies before and after the head of > > > > >> >the rivet hits the wall of the hole....that's two instant of time. > > > > > >> No it doesn't. It predicts the bug dies before OR after the rivet head > > > > >> hits the wall, depending on the frame of the observer. > > > > >Hey idiotthe rivet observer says that the bug dies before the head of > > > > >the rivet hits the wall and the hole observer says that the bug dies > > > > >after the head of the rivet hits the wall..... > > > > > (ignoring insult) Very Good. Maybe you're beginning to understand the > > > > problem and how the two observers observe different sequences of events. > > > > > >that means that the bug > > > > >dies at two instants of time. > > > > > Nope. The rivet observer sees the bug die exactly ONCE, not twice. > > > > The hole observer sees the bug die exactly ONCE, not twice. > > > > So do all other observers. No observer sees the bug die twice, like > > > > you claim. > > > > Hey idiot....before and after are two different instants of time and > > > this fact is not observer depedent. > > > Assertion is not an argument. > > What you just said is counter to experimental observation. > > Hey idiot....before and after are two different instants of time and > this fact is not observer depedent. That's an assertion, and assertion is not an argument. I realize there are some things you think are just common sense and recognized by everyone. But a lot of these things are just lies your brain is telling you. You say that it is common sense that "before" and "after" is not observer dependent. But your common sense lies to you. Experiment says so. > That means that SR predicts that > the bug dies at two different instants of time. If you get rid of the > bogus idea of physical/material length contraction in SR then the bug > dies only one time ....when the tip of the rivet hits the bug. You > runts of the SRians are truly a bunch of stupid idiots. > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > > That means that SR predicts that > > > the bug dies at two different instants of time. If you get rid of the > > > bogus idea of physical/material length contraction in SR then the bug > > > dies only one time ....when the tip of the rivet hits the bug. You > > > runts of the SRians are truly a bunch of stupid idiots. > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > Until you understand this, you'll continue to wallow in your ignorance > > > > (actually, stupidity). > > > > > How are you coming along with the two stars going nova problem and the > > > > red/blue box problem? Figure either one of them out yet?- 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 -
From: G. L. Bradford on 15 Jul 2010 04:41
"PD" wrote: I see that you are simply hog-tied by emotional incapacitation. You simply cannot ask an honest question without choking on it. "Physical" means what it has always meant to physicists: Pertaining to the behavior and natural laws of the universe; that which physicists study, including the interactions of matter, energy, and other entities that exhibit regular, predictable behavior; having properties that are subject to regularities and constraints known as laws of nature or physical laws. The geometry of spacetime fits this description, as do non-material entities like fields of various types. The description of systems in non-material reference frames is also physical, as are the symmetries exhibited by the interactions between matter and matter, matter and non-matter, and between non-matter and non-matter. ============== Ultimately the difference between 'material' and 'non-material' blurs to no difference at all. We see that at the very least from Berkeley's defense of Newton when Johnson kicked the rock. Planck, essentially, seconded him and Hawking seconded them both. And what is singularity (particularly infinite Singularity) if not the ultimate reach to the ultimate blurring of material and non-material. To come at the point in a somewhat different way, can we tell the difference, absolutely, between us and space, or only relatively speaking? Can we tell the difference, absolutely, between any molecule and space? Between any atom and space? Between any proton and space? Between anything at all that can be sub-divided, and space? Above any sub-division whatsoever, whether up or down -- above them all!, we realize when we really think about it, we are talking nothing but planes of space. Even in the planes below each plane perceived, we realize that the vast majority element of the state of each and every seeming material component on each and every plane will be space. It will be that way until you reach the point, up / down (out / in), where you can't tell any difference whatsoever, where the line-definition between the two becomes completely blurred and disappears totally. If you have any imagination, vision or perception at all, you can project that 'duality' of material and non-material, of matter and non-matter, to any plane (of an infinity of planes) of the Universe (any parallel or perpendicular universe of an infinite Universe of universes)....all the universes being relative; all the planes reducing. Thus you can project 'singularity' just as far and well (to an infinite Singularity of singularities). The line-definition between the two becoming completely blurred and disappearing totally can either be seen as a fullness and richness beyond all imagining existing to the Universe, or an emptiness and poverty beyond all imagining existing to the same Universe. Even if someone decided to walk the line exactly centering between the two views, that is still a fullness and richness existing to the Universe just short of "beyond all imagining." The only really radical view is that of an emptiness and poverty, a darkness and a coldness, beyond all imagining existing to the Universe at large. This last is your institutional view, your institutional religion, your institution's priestly teaching to all the world as "science" rather than the religion it really is ('Not-priests' pushing the 'Not-Religion' (just as the experienced and only too well knowing Russians, in their so very long and finely developed "Moscow humor," soon enough began to call the socio-economic [scientists] -- the so-called experts -- sent to them by Harvard University after the fall of Communism, "the American 'Not-Communists' who are here to teach us 'Not-Communism'")). GLB ======================== |