Some Contradictory Claims of SR.
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: ben6993 is a LIAR.
Next: Light wave is immaterial
From: PD on 21 Jul 2010 10:52 On Jul 21, 9:38 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Jul 19, 11:52 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 17, 11:44 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 15, 12:06 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > > > wrote: > > > > > kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > > > > >On Jul 14, 2:11 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > > > > >wrote: > > > > >> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > > > > >> >Hey idiot....before and after are two different instants of time and > > > > >> >this fact is not observer depedent. > > > > > >> It is observer dependent. > > > > >No idiot...it is not observer dependent. Every observer will agree > > > > >that before the head of the rivet hit the wall and after the head of > > > > >the rivet hit the wall are two different instants of time....the > > > > >before occurs first and the after occurs later. > > > > > It is observer dependent - the two events (rivet tip hitting the bug and > > > > the rivet head hitting the wall) are what SR calls spatially separated. > > > > Hey idiot SR predicts the bug dies at two instants of time... before > > > and after the head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole. > > > No, it says it dies at ONE instant. But one observer says it dies > > before, the other says it dies after. Neither observer says it dies > > both before and after. > > If there is real physical/material length contraction, SR does predict > that the bug dies at two different instants of time. Physical does not mean material. You keep making that mistake. > > > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > > See below. > > > > > >>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. > > > > >Your stupid example is observer dependent because it depends on how > > > > >far the observer away from the source. > > > > > You don't realize it of course, but you nearly caught a clue. The two > > > > events *are* separated by a distance. A distance that is larger in > > > > comparison than the time difference (c^2 * (delta-t)^2 < (delta-r)^2 > > > > where delta-t is the time difference and delta-r is the space distance) > > > > so that which event happens first is observer dependent. There are also > > > > frames where the two events happen simultaneously. In the case of the > > > > two stars, it's anywhere on the plane of points equidistant between > > > > them while stationary. SR calls this a space-like interval. > > > > > On the other hand, if the distance in spacetime is less than the time > > > > distance between two events (c^2 * (delta-t)^2 > (delta-r)^2) then it is > > > > true that for *all* observers, one of the events definitely happened > > > > before the other. SR calls this a time-like interval. It also means > > > > perhaps the first event caused the second event, which is impossible for > > > > the space-like interval (it's impossible for one of the two stars going > > > > nova to cause the other star to go nova) Nearly all of our world > > > > experience is in this category. Your confusion is because your common > > > > sense is lying to you by making you think that *all* pairs of events fall > > > > in this category. > > > > > Guess what? The bug/rivet problem falls into the first category > > > > and not the second. The distance between the two events (whether the > > > > length of the rivet shaft or the depth of the hole, depending on > > > > your reference frame) exceeds the time difference between the events > > > > so that it is not true for *all* observers that one event happened before > > > > the other. The time difference is very small due to the relativistic > > > > speed of the rivet. > > > > > BTW there is a frame where the events are simultaneous in time - in other > > > > words, there is a reference frame where the bug gets squished at the > > > > *exact instant* the rivet head hits the wall. > > > > > You really really really need to read a book on SR. The discussion > > > > how Space-like intervals, time-like intervals and light-like intervals > > > > work can help you learn the bug-rivet problem.- 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: PD on 21 Jul 2010 10:53 On Jul 21, 9:39 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Jul 20, 5:53 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > wrote: > > > > > > > kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > > >On Jul 17, 2:28 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > > >wrote: > > >> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > > >> >On Jul 15, 1:03 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> >> Sorry, but if you have two events A and B, it isn't true that every > > >> >> observer will agree that A comes before B and B is after A. > > >> >Hey idiot....there is only one event: the head of the rivet hits the > > >> >wall of the hole > > > >> Two events. Head of rivet hits wall and tip of rivet hits bug. > > >> It is the order of these two events which is observer dependent. > > >Hey idiot SR predicts that the bug dies before and after the head of > > >the rivet hit the wall of the hole. You are so stupid. > > > Once again, describe an SR frame where the bug dies twice. You can't, > > because there is no such frame. Yet you keep claiming the bug dies > > twice. Why? > > Hey idiot....if there is real length contraction And there is. > SR does predict that > the bug dies at two different instants of time. Nope. You're just repeating the same mistake over and over and over again. Why do you cling to mistakes? > You are so stupid. > > Ken Seto- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Michael Moroney on 21 Jul 2010 13:13 kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes: >On Jul 20, 5:53 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >wrote: >> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: >> >Hey idiot SR predicts that the bug dies before and after the head of >> >the rivet hit the wall of the hole. You are so stupid. >> >> Once again, describe an SR frame where the bug dies twice. You can't, >> because there is no such frame. Yet you keep claiming the bug dies >> twice. Why? >Hey idiot....if there is real length contraction SR does predict that >the bug dies at two different instants of time. You are so stupid. Once again, show me an SR frame where the bug dies twice and I'll believe your claim that the bug dies at two different instants of time. You can't. There is no such frame. Yet you repeat your lie over and over again that "SR predicts the bug dies at two different instants of time." You have nothing but insults.
From: Michael Moroney on 21 Jul 2010 13:45 kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes: >The problem is that SR predicts that in the rivet >frame the tip of the rivet hits the bug before the head of the rivet >hits the wall of the hole.....and at the same time SR predicts that >in >the hole frame the tip of the rivet hits the bug after the head of >the >rivet hits the wall of the hole. These are two different instants of >time....what this mean is that SR predicts that the bug dies at two >different instants of time. In which frame is this true? The hole frame? (Nope, the head strikes first.) The rivet frame? (Nope, the tip strikes first.) Some other frame? (Which one?)
From: kenseto on 22 Jul 2010 09:40
On Jul 21, 10:52 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 21, 9:38 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 19, 11:52 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 17, 11:44 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 15, 12:06 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > > > > wrote: > > > > > > kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > > > > > >On Jul 14, 2:11 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > > > > > >wrote: > > > > > >> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > > > > > >> >Hey idiot....before and after are two different instants of time and > > > > > >> >this fact is not observer depedent. > > > > > > >> It is observer dependent. > > > > > >No idiot...it is not observer dependent. Every observer will agree > > > > > >that before the head of the rivet hit the wall and after the head of > > > > > >the rivet hit the wall are two different instants of time....the > > > > > >before occurs first and the after occurs later. > > > > > > It is observer dependent - the two events (rivet tip hitting the bug and > > > > > the rivet head hitting the wall) are what SR calls spatially separated. > > > > > Hey idiot SR predicts the bug dies at two instants of time... before > > > > and after the head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole. > > > > No, it says it dies at ONE instant. But one observer says it dies > > > before, the other says it dies after. Neither observer says it dies > > > both before and after. > > > If there is real physical/material length contraction, SR does predict > > that the bug dies at two different instants of time. > > Physical does not mean material. You keep making that mistake. But you said in the previous post that physical can mean material.... > > |