Some Contradictory Claims of SR.
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: ben6993 is a LIAR.
Next: Light wave is immaterial
From: kenseto on 25 Jul 2010 09:56 On Jul 24, 11:06 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 24, 9:43 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 23, 9:29 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 23, 7:43 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 22, 10:46 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > 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 you who don't know what the word epicycle mean....it mean an add > > > > on to a theory that encounters observation problems. > > > > Well, not quite, but now I understand what YOU mean by "epicycle". > > > > > That's exactly > > > > what the term "physical contraction" does when you insisted that it > > > > means both material contraction and geometric projection effect. > > > > "Physical" has ALWAYS encompassed both the geometric and the material > > > -- and even more than that. > > > There was no adjustment made. > > > ROTFLOL....do you realize that geometric projection effect is not > > material and material effect is not geometric projection??? What this > > means is that you give the term "physical contraction" two > > contradictory meanings. <shrug> > > Do you realize that an animal with four legs and fur is not an animal > with fins and a blowhole? ROTFLOL....no valid counter arguement so you go back to your animal anology. <sgrug> Ken Seto > Do you realize that an animal with fins and a blowhole is not an > animal with four legs and fur? > What this means is that when a biologist uses "mammal" to describe > both these animals it gives it two contradictory meanings? > > Don't be an idiot, Ken. > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > Similarly the rubber ruler is an epicycle because it is an add on to > > > > SR to maintain the constancy of the speed of light. > > > > What? When do you think "rubber rulers" were added on to SR? What did > > > SR say prior to the addition of "rubber rulers". Do you have ANY idea > > > what you're talking about? No, I didn't think so. > > What did SR say prior to the addition of "rubber rulers", Ken? > Do you have any idea what you're talking about? > > > > > > > Rubber ruler: > > 1 meter=1/299,792,458 light-second > > c=1 light-second/1 second=1 > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > >..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. > > > > > Yes it is an added on. > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > >It's ALWAYS meant that. It meant that centuries > > > > > before you were born. You just never knew what "physical" meant. > > > > See? > > > > > > > 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 »- 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: artful on 25 Jul 2010 10:05 On Jul 25, 12:50 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Jul 23, 10:02 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > > > "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. > > Hey idiot....that means that the bug dies at different instants of > time according to different observers. Nope. Each observer says it dies at the same instant. No observer disagrees. They only disagree on the ordering of that instant compared to another instant. Same two instances for all .. just a different order. > But all observers agree that > the bug dies at one instant of time....when the ti[p of the rivet hits > it. Yeup. No arguments there.
From: kenseto on 25 Jul 2010 10:23 On Jul 25, 10:05 am, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 25, 12:50 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 23, 10:02 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > "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. > > > Hey idiot....that means that the bug dies at different instants of > > time according to different observers. > > Nope. Each observer says it dies at the same instant. No observer > disagrees. They only disagree on the ordering of that instant > compared to another instant. Same two instances for all .. just a > different order. Hey idiot....if length contraction is material/physical then SR is predicting that the bug dies at two instants of time. Ken Seto > > > But all observers agree that > > the bug dies at one instant of time....when the ti[p of the rivet hits > > it. > > Yeup. No arguments there.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Peter Webb on 26 Jul 2010 07:01 This thread should be moved to alt.language.english. You have long since given up arguing that SR is an incorrect theory; instead you just want to quibble about what the words "physical", "material" and "geometric" actually mean. SR does not attempt to define these terms. What it does do is predict the outcomes of experiments involving things moving close to the speed of light (or at least much faster than we are used to personally), and it does that spectacularly well. Some of them appear paradoxical, such as the twins "paradox" or the ladder/barn "paradox", but they are not, and many, many, many experiments show the outcomes predicted by SR to be correct. So you seem to have given up arguing that SR makes false predictions; indeed, given the overwhelming amount of evidence, it would be impossible for you to sustain this position. So instead you try and find some meaning to "physical" as if the definition of an English word has anything to do with whether SR is a correct theory; it doesn't. Pathetic, really.
From: JT on 26 Jul 2010 07:31
On 26 Juli, 13:01, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > This thread should be moved to alt.language.english. > > You have long since given up arguing that SR is an incorrect theory; instead > you just want to quibble about what the words "physical", "material" and > "geometric" actually mean. > > SR does not attempt to define these terms. What it does do is predict the > outcomes of experiments involving things moving close to the speed of light > (or at least much faster than we are used to personally), and it does that > spectacularly well. Some of them appear paradoxical, such as the twins > "paradox" or the ladder/barn "paradox", but they are not, and many, many, > many experiments show the outcomes predicted by SR to be correct. > > So you seem to have given up arguing that SR makes false predictions; > indeed, given the overwhelming amount of evidence, it would be impossible > for you to sustain this position. > > So instead you try and find some meaning to "physical" as if the definition > of an English word has anything to do with whether SR is a correct theory; > it doesn't. > > Pathetic, really. Well Peter when comparing objects ***and*** units they must measure up if you want to claim equivalence. A meter have certain properties like an extension within one dimension. You can not have a ***different*** set of meters for every frame, and somehow claim that your use of the word signify equivalence between lengths in different frames. And this will of course affect your precious invariant lightspeed, it is actually not moving at c=300 000 km/s thru a space measured using Euclidian geometry in a Cartesian cordinate system. The only measured invariant c as reference for lightspeed appears in the localized geometically skewed spacetime that Einstein created for airheads doing calculations. JT |