Some Contradictory Claims of SR.
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: ben6993 is a LIAR.
Next: Light wave is immaterial
From: kenseto on 22 Jul 2010 09:41 On Jul 21, 10:53 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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? Before and after the head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole are two different instants of time. > > > > > You are so stupid. > > > Ken Seto- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: kenseto on 22 Jul 2010 09:48 On Jul 21, 1:13 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > kenseto <kens...(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." Hey idiot....SR does predict that the bug dies before the head of the rivet hits the wall and also predicts that it dies after the head of the rivet hit the wall. Ken Seto > > You have nothing but insults.
From: kenseto on 22 Jul 2010 09:54 On Jul 21, 1:45 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > kenseto <kens...(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?) Hey idiot....if there is length contraction as asserted by SR then the bug dies at two different instants of time. Ken Seto
From: PD on 22 Jul 2010 10:46 On Jul 22, 8:32 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > Sorry, Ken, you don't get to decide what "physical" means. >Physicists do. It really doesn't matter whether you find these >definitions > > > > laughable or not. You either learn them, and use the terms as > > > > physicists do, or you give up on communicating with physicists. > > > > ROTFLOL....you want to use the word physical to have different > > > meanings as follows: > > > 1. Physical contraction can mean real material shrinkage such that the > > > tip of the rivet will crush the bug to death at a later time than if > > > there is no material shrinkage. > > > 2. Physical contraction can mean that no real material shrinkage...it > > > is a geometric projection effect. this kind of shrinkage will not > > > affect when the tip of the rivet hits the bug. > > > Yes. Physical encompasses both kinds of effects. > > ROTFLOL....so that means that "physical contraction" is an > epicycle. What do you think "epicycle" means, Ken? You've just used another word and you have no idea what it means. >..it is added on by indoctrinated runts of the SRians such as > yourself to propagate the myth to the public that a meter stick is > shorter when it is in relative motion wrt an observer. No, it's not added on. It's ALWAYS meant that. It meant that centuries before you were born. You just never knew what "physical" meant. > You SRians are good at inventing things that has different meanings. > Another example of epicycle invented for SR is the rubber meter stick > to maintain the constancy of the speed of light in all frames: > 1 meter=1/299,792,458 light-second. > > Ken Seto > > - Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -... > > > read more »
From: PD on 22 Jul 2010 10:57
On Jul 22, 8:40 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > 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.... Can yes, in some cases. Not all cases. A mammal CAN have four legs. This doesn't mean mammals are animals with four legs. A whale is a mammal. A rectangle CAN be a square. This doesn't mean all rectangles are square. Physical does not mean material. > > > > - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |