Some Contradictory Claims of SR.
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: ben6993 is a LIAR.
Next: Light wave is immaterial
From: Inertial on 23 Jul 2010 09:11 >"kenseto" wrote in message >news:c0eeb42e-7baa-4436-ac06-2adccf641aa0(a)g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... >It is you who don't know what the word epicycle mean....it mean an add >on to a theory that encounters observation problems. BAHAHAHAHAHA. You're such a clown
From: Inertial on 23 Jul 2010 10:02 "kenseto" wrote in message news:8e1acc83-14f3-4c4d-baed-3c2a7709b3a7(a)z10g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > >> SHOW ME THE FRAME WHERE THE BUG DIES TWICE, BEFORE AND AFTER THE HEAD >> HITS >> THE WALL!!!!! > >Hey idiot....why would any one observer claims that the bug dies >before and after the head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole???? Its your nonsense claim .. not ours >The hole observer claims that the bug dies after the head of the rivet >hits the wall of the hole. The rivet observer claims that the bug dies >before the head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole. These are two >different instants of time. No .. same instants, different order >SR predicts that the bug dies before and after the head of the rivet > hits the wall of the hole due to material length contraction. No .. it predicts it dies before OR it dies after according to some observer ,, depending on the observers inertial frame. It never predicts the that bug dies both before AND after in ANY inertial frame. Your lies and assertions aren't proof.
From: Michael Moroney on 23 Jul 2010 14:03 kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes: >On Jul 22, 11:11 am, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >wrote: >> SHOW ME THE FRAME WHERE THE BUG DIES TWICE, BEFORE AND AFTER THE HEAD HITS >> THE WALL!!!!! >Hey idiot....why would any one observer claims that the bug dies >before and after the head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole???? A glimmer of hope? Ken coming to his senses? >SR predicts that the bug dies before and after the head of the rivet >hits the wall of the hole due to material length contraction. False alarm. I'll ask again: SHOW ME A FRAME WHERE SR PREDICTS THE BUG DIES TWICE, BEFORE AND AFTER THE HEAD HITS THE WALL!!!!! If you cannot show any such frame, your claim that SR predicts that the bug dies before and after the head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole is false on its face.
From: Michael Moroney on 23 Jul 2010 14:06 kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes: >On Jul 22, 11:14 am, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >wrote: >> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: >> >Hey idiot....if there is length contraction as asserted by SR then the >> >bug dies at two different instants of time. >> >> You didn't answer the question. In which frame does the bug die at >> two instances of time? You repeatedly claim this, but you won't >> point out a frame where this is true. >Hey idiot....why would any one observer claims that the bug dies >before and after the head of the rivet hit the wall??? It is SR that >makes these predictions. So why won't you show me a frame where SR predicts the bug dies twice? It's because you can't. SR never makes any such prediction. All you can do is lie about what SR predicts.
From: Michael Moroney on 23 Jul 2010 14:18
kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes: >On Jul 22, 11:21 am, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >wrote: >> The tip hits the bug exactly once. One instance of time. >But SR predicts that this event happened at two instants of time. So why can't you show me any frames where SR predicts the bug dies at two instances of time? Because you can't. >> >Hey idiot why would any one frame say that the bug die twice? >> >> Because you claim SR claims the bug dies twice! >Hey idiot...SR does predict that the bug dies twice...before and after >the head of the rivet hits the wall. So why don't you show me an SR frame where this happens? Because you can't! Let's go back to the two stars going nova gedanken. 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 in this diagram. A sees Star 1 go nova BEFORE Star 2 goes nova. B sees Star 1 go nova AFTER Star 2 goes nova. Does that mean Star 1 goes nova twice, before and after Star 2 goes nova? Tell me how this is different from: A sees the bug get squished by the tip BEFORE the head hits the wall. B sees the bug get squished by the tip AFTER the head hits the wall. |