Some Contradictory Claims of SR. [Physics]

Prev: 9-11 Kooks - * Hates US * still afraid to post one single thing in his physically impossible claims that he wants to defend -- he can't and he won't because they're all lies
Next: Cosmic Blackbody Microwave Background Radiation proves Atom Totality and dismisses Big Bang Chapt 3 #149; ATOM TOTALITY

From: kenseto on 22 Jun 2010 09:06

On Jun 21, 5:59 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 21, 12:43 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 17, 12:55 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 15, 7:42 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 14, 10:35 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 14, 7:59 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jun 13, 5:37 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Jun 13, 9:20 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Jun 12, 1:23 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Jun 12, 9:14 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Jun 11, 4:54 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 11, 1:13 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 11, 11:14 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 10, 9:01 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 9, 12:34 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail..com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 9, 9:15 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 8, 11:29 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 8, 8:35 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some Contradictory Claims of SR:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. In the bug and the rivet paradox: From the hole point of view the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bug is still alive just before the rivet head hits the wall of the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hole. From the rivet point of view the bug is already dead just before
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is not a contradiction. The sequence of events is something that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > depends on the frame, and this is experimentally confirmed. Nothing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that actually is observed to happen in nature can be considered to be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contradictory. Insisting that the sequence of events SHOULD be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > something that is independent of frame, in the face of experimental
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > evidence to the contrary, is simply detachment from reality.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes it is a contradiction. The bug cannot be both dead and alive when
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The "when the head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole" depends on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the frame of reference.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > No it doesn't....it is only one event.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > No, Ken. You do not understand what an event is. An event is a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > happenstance that is labeled by a particular location and a particular
> > > > > > > > > > > > > time. The bug dying and the rivet head hitting the wall occur at
> > > > > > > > > > > > > different locations and different times. They are separate events. The
> > > > > > > > > > > > > sequence of events depends on reference frame.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hey idiot.....the time of the event is not changed.....the bug id dead
> > > > > > > > > > > > or the bug is still alive but not both before the head of the rivet
> > > > > > > > > > > > hits the wall of the hole. The hole observer must agree with the rivet
> > > > > > > > > > > > observer that the bug is already dead before the head of the rivet
> > > > > > > > > > > > hits the wall of the hole.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > No, the two observers do NOT have to agree on the sequence of events.
> > > > > > > > > > > Two observers do NOT have to agree that event A has occurred or not
> > > > > > > > > > > occurred *when* event B has happened.\
>
> > > > > > > > > > No idiot....they must agree on whethe rthe bug is dead or alive.
>
> > > > > > > > > Not at the time the rivet head hits the wall, they don't.
> > > > > > > > > No, Ken, they do not.
>
> > > > > > > > > It is true that the bug will be dead in both frames. But it isn't true
> > > > > > > > > that this will be the case before the rivet head hits the wall in both
> > > > > > > > > frames.
>
> > > > > > > > The hole is 1.2 ft long at its rest frame.
> > > > > > > > The bug is 0.1 ft tall.
> > > > > > > > The rivet length is 2 ft. long at its rest frame.
> > > > > > > > Gamma is 2.
> > > > > > > > From the hole point of view just before the rivet head hits the wall
> > > > > > > > of the hole:
> > > > > > > > the length of the rivet is: 2/2=1 ft.
> > > > > > > > Therefore if length contraction is physical or material the bug is
> > > > > > > > still alive just before the head of the rivet hits the wall of the
> > > > > > > > hole.
>
> > > > > > > > From the rivet point of view the length of the hole is: 1.2/2=0.6 ft
> > > > > > > > and the length of the rivet remains 2 ft. Therefore the bug is
> > > > > > > > already
> > > > > > > > dead way before the head of the rivet hit the wall of the hole.
>
> > > > > > > > What this mean is that you cannot claim both perspectives at the same
> > > > > > > > time.
>
> > > > > > > The *physical* sequence of events depends on the frame.
>
> > > > > > The bug live or die does not depend on the frame.
>
> > > > > Nor did I say it does.
> > > > > Whether the bug dies before or after the rivet head striking the wall
> > > > > is what depends on the frame.
>
> > > > What you said is true only if length contraction is a geometric
> > > > projection effect. If length contraction is a physcial effect as you
> > > > asserted then the bug dies is not frame dependent.
>
> > > No, Ken, that is not right. Physical effects can also be frame
> > > dependent.
>
> > > I don't know where you ever got the completely stupid idea that
> > > physical effects are frame independent and the only frame dependent
> > > effects are geometric effects.
>
> > > That is just plain wrong -- and boneheaded.
>
> > It is you who is boneheaded. geometric projection effect can be
> > observer dependent.
>
> So can a physical effect be frame dependent.

No....a physical effect is not a geometric projection effect.
>
>
>
> >...I look at you from s distance to be
> > shorter....how shorter you are dependent on how far away from you.
> > OTOH, the intrinsic length of the rivet or the hole remains
> > constant....that means that the bug will die from both perspective,
> > not observer dependent as you claimed.
>
> > Ken Seto
>
> > > > In IRT length there is no length cntraction. Instead the light path
> > > > length of a moving meter stick is shorter or longer than the
> > > > observer's meter stick. The light path length of the observer's meter
> > > > stick is assumed to be the physical length of the observer's meter
> > > > stick. You can see that the IRT interpretation eliminates all the
> > > > paradoxes of SR. IRT is availble in the following link:http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf
>
> > > > Ken Seto
>
> > > > > > It depends on
> > > > > > whether the concept of length contraction is physical or merely a
> > > > > > geometric projection effect.
>
> > > > > > > You are under the mistaken impression that the physical sequence of
> > > > > > > events cannot be frame-dependent. This is incorrect.
>
> > > > > > > > The only way to resolve this is that length contraction is not
> > > > > > > > physical or
> > > > > > > > material....mainstream physicists resolve this by claiming that
> > > > > > > > length
> > > > > > > > contraction is a gemetric projection effect....not physical or
> > > > > > > > material as you claimed.
>
> > > > > > > > Ken Seto
>
> > > > > > > > > The rest of your made-up nonsense is ignored.
>
> > > > > > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > > > hole clock and the rivet clock are rnning at different rates and
> > > > > > > > > > that's why you claim that the bug dies at different times. If you
> > > > > > > > > > correct for the rate difference of the two clock you will arrive at
> > > > > > > > > > the correct persoective that the bug is already dead just before the
> > > > > > > > > > head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole. What this means is that
> > > > > > > > > > length contraction is not physically (materially) real.....that's why
> > > > > > > > > > more learned SRian such as Tom Roberts says that length contraction in
> > > > > > > > > > SR is a geometric projection effect.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > >...what this means is that length
> > > > > > > > > > > > contraction is not material or physical as you claimed. BTW that's why
> > > > > > > > > > > > the more learned SRians such as Tom Roberts said that length
> > > > > > > > > > > > contraction in SR is not physical (or material)....it is an apparant
> > > > > > > > > > > > effect.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you insist that the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > observers disagree the time of the event then it is because their
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > clocks are running at different rates. But this will not make the bug
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is dead and alive at the same time....at the instant when the rivet
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > head hits the wall of the hole.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I said, the sequence of events depends on the frame.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In one frame, the bug dies before the head of the rivet strikes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In another frame, the bug dies after the head of the rivet strikes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You have taken this to mean that the bug is both dead and alive when
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the rivet strikes. This is, of course, a stupid conclusion to draw.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. In the barn and the pole paradox: From the barn point of view an 80
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ft pole can fit into a 40 ft. barn with both doors close
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > simultaneously. From the pole point of view an 80 ft. pole cannot fit
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into a 40 ft barn with both doors close simultaneously.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is not a contradiction. The simultaneity of the doors closing is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > something hat
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

From: Inertial on 22 Jun 2010 09:22

<kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message
news:e1fa2ca6-189c-444c-9255-bebb283f700f(a)e5g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 21, 5:58 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 13, 8:38 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jun 12, 1:21 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Jun 12, 9:07 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Jun 11, 4:52 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > On Jun 11, 1:00 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > On Jun 11, 9:07 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > On 6/11/10 7:36 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > > No from the hole point of view the bug is still alive just
>> > > > > > > > before the
>> > > > > > > > head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole. However from
>> > > > > > > > the rivet
>> > > > > > > > point of view the bug is already deadat the just before the
>> > > > > > > > head of
>> > > > > > > > the rivet hit the wall of the hole.
>>
>> > > > > > > Pick on perspective or the other, Seto. You can't have
>> > > > > > > both!
>>
>> > > > > > Wormy the bug cannot be both alive and dead at the moment when
>> > > > > > the
>> > > > > > head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole....both observers
>> > > > > > must
>> > > > > > agree on whether the bug is alive or dead but not both.
>>
>> > > > > No, Ken.
>> > > > > The order of events is frame dependent.
>> > > > > It is not true that both observers must agree on the state of the
>> > > > > bug
>> > > > > *when* the rivet head hits.
>> > > > > The "when" is the part that trips you up.
>>
>> > > > Hey idiot... the bug is dead or alive is an absolute event
>>
>> > > "Absolute event" is a term you made up, and has no meaning in
>> > > physics.
>> > > The word "event" has a specific meaning in physics, even if you're
>> > > unaware of it.
>> > > The order of spacelike-separated events depends on the frame.
>>
>> > > > The hole
>> > > > clock and the rivet clock are running at different rates give you
>> > > > the
>> > > > two perspective. When you corrected for the rate difference you
>> > > > will
>> > > > see that the rivet's perspective is the correct perspective.
>>
>> > > In physics, Ken, it is important that one not favor one reference
>> > > frame over another as being "the correct one". Physical laws are the
>> > > same in all reference frames, though the quantities in the laws will
>> > > vary frame to frame and the description of events will be different
>> > > in
>> > > two different frames.
>>
>> > Sure there is the correct perspective. The following will demonstrate
>> > that clearly:
>> > The hole is 1.2 ft long at its rest frame.
>> > The bug is 0.1 ft tall.
>> > The rivet length is 2 ft. long at its rest frame.
>> > Gamma is 2.
>> > From the hole point of view just before the rivet head hits the wall
>> > of the hole:
>> > the length of the rivet is: 2/2=1 ft.
>> > Therefore if length contraction is physical or material the bug is
>> > still alive just before the head of the rivet hits the wall of the
>> > hole.
>>
>> > From the rivet point of view the length of the hole is: 1.2/2=0.6 ft
>> > and the length of the rivet remains 2 ft. Therefore the bug is
>> > already
>> > dead way before the head of the rivet hit the wall of the hole.
>>
>> > What this mean is that you cannot claim both perspectives at the same
>> > time.
>>
>> Of course you can. One is the perspective in one frame, the other is
>> the perspective in the other frame. At the same time.
>
> No you can't....they must agree whether the bug is already dead or
> still alive when the head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole.

Why?

> In other words, is length contraction physical (material) or it is
> merely a geometric projection.

It is a real physical contraction of spatial length that is described by a
geometric projection.

How many times do you need to be told?

>> >The only way to resolve this is that length contraction is not
>> > physical or
>> > material.
>>
>> Physical does not mean material. We've been through this.
>
> Your assertion is not a valid arguement.

Yours isn't either

>> >...mainstream physicists resolve this by claiming that length
>> > contraction is a gemetric projection effect....not physical or
>> > material as you claimed.
>>
>> I did not claim physical meant material. You did.
>>
>> It is a nonmaterial, physical effect.
>
> Inventing new meaning for physical is not a valid arguement.

But that is what you are trying to do.

From: PD on 22 Jun 2010 09:58

On Jun 22, 8:06 am, "kens...(a)erinet.com" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
> On Jun 21, 5:59 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 21, 12:43 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 17, 12:55 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 15, 7:42 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 14, 10:35 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jun 14, 7:59 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Jun 13, 5:37 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Jun 13, 9:20 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Jun 12, 1:23 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Jun 12, 9:14 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 11, 4:54 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 11, 1:13 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 11, 11:14 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 10, 9:01 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 9, 12:34 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 9, 9:15 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 8, 11:29 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 8, 8:35 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some Contradictory Claims of SR:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. In the bug and the rivet paradox: From the hole point of view the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bug is still alive just before the rivet head hits the wall of the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hole. From the rivet point of view the bug is already dead just before
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is not a contradiction. The sequence of events is something that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > depends on the frame, and this is experimentally confirmed. Nothing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that actually is observed to happen in nature can be considered to be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contradictory. Insisting that the sequence of events SHOULD be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > something that is independent of frame, in the face of experimental
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > evidence to the contrary, is simply detachment from reality.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes it is a contradiction. The bug cannot be both dead and alive when
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The "when the head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole" depends on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the frame of reference.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No it doesn't....it is only one event.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, Ken. You do not understand what an event is.. An event is a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > happenstance that is labeled by a particular location and a particular
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > time. The bug dying and the rivet head hitting the wall occur at
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > different locations and different times. They are separate events. The
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > sequence of events depends on reference frame.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey idiot.....the time of the event is not changed....the bug id dead
> > > > > > > > > > > > > or the bug is still alive but not both before the head of the rivet
> > > > > > > > > > > > > hits the wall of the hole. The hole observer must agree with the rivet
> > > > > > > > > > > > > observer that the bug is already dead before the head of the rivet
> > > > > > > > > > > > > hits the wall of the hole.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > No, the two observers do NOT have to agree on the sequence of events.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Two observers do NOT have to agree that event A has occurred or not
> > > > > > > > > > > > occurred *when* event B has happened.\
>
> > > > > > > > > > > No idiot....they must agree on whethe rthe bug is dead or alive.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Not at the time the rivet head hits the wall, they don't.
> > > > > > > > > > No, Ken, they do not.
>
> > > > > > > > > > It is true that the bug will be dead in both frames. But it isn't true
> > > > > > > > > > that this will be the case before the rivet head hits the wall in both
> > > > > > > > > > frames.
>
> > > > > > > > > The hole is 1.2 ft long at its rest frame.
> > > > > > > > > The bug is 0.1 ft tall.
> > > > > > > > > The rivet length is 2 ft. long at its rest frame.
> > > > > > > > > Gamma is 2.
> > > > > > > > > From the hole point of view just before the rivet head hits the wall
> > > > > > > > > of the hole:
> > > > > > > > > the length of the rivet is: 2/2=1 ft.
> > > > > > > > > Therefore if length contraction is physical or material the bug is
> > > > > > > > > still alive just before the head of the rivet hits the wall of the
> > > > > > > > > hole.
>
> > > > > > > > > From the rivet point of view the length of the hole is: 1..2/2=0.6 ft
> > > > > > > > > and the length of the rivet remains 2 ft. Therefore the bug is
> > > > > > > > > already
> > > > > > > > > dead way before the head of the rivet hit the wall of the hole.
>
> > > > > > > > > What this mean is that you cannot claim both perspectives at the same
> > > > > > > > > time.
>
> > > > > > > > The *physical* sequence of events depends on the frame.
>
> > > > > > > The bug live or die does not depend on the frame.
>
> > > > > > Nor did I say it does.
> > > > > > Whether the bug dies before or after the rivet head striking the wall
> > > > > > is what depends on the frame.
>
> > > > > What you said is true only if length contraction is a geometric
> > > > > projection effect. If length contraction is a physcial effect as you
> > > > > asserted then the bug dies is not frame dependent.
>
> > > > No, Ken, that is not right. Physical effects can also be frame
> > > > dependent.
>
> > > > I don't know where you ever got the completely stupid idea that
> > > > physical effects are frame independent and the only frame dependent
> > > > effects are geometric effects.
>
> > > > That is just plain wrong -- and boneheaded.
>
> > > It is you who is boneheaded. geometric projection effect can be
> > > observer dependent.
>
> > So can a physical effect be frame dependent.
>
> No....a physical effect is not a geometric projection effect.

That's what I told you earlier.
You are under the MISTAKEN impression that only a geometric effect can
be frame-dependent, and a physical effect can never be frame-
dependent. That is simply wrong. There are physical effects that are
frame-dependent, too.

>
>
>
>
>
> > >...I look at you from s distance to be
> > > shorter....how shorter you are dependent on how far away from you.
> > > OTOH, the intrinsic length of the rivet or the hole remains
> > > constant....that means that the bug will die from both perspective,
> > > not observer dependent as you claimed.
>
> > > Ken Seto
>
> > > > > In IRT length there is no length cntraction. Instead the light path
> > > > > length of a moving meter stick is shorter or longer than the
> > > > > observer's meter stick. The light path length of the observer's meter
> > > > > stick is assumed to be the physical length of the observer's meter
> > > > > stick. You can see that the IRT interpretation eliminates all the
> > > > > paradoxes of SR. IRT is availble in the following link:http://www..modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf
>
> > > > > Ken Seto
>
> > > > > > > It depends on
> > > > > > > whether the concept of length contraction is physical or merely a
> > > > > > > geometric projection effect.
>
> > > > > > > > You are under the mistaken impression that the physical sequence of
> > > > > > > > events cannot be frame-dependent. This is incorrect.
>
> > > > > > > > > The only way to resolve this is that length contraction is not
> > > > > > > > > physical or
> > > > > > > > > material....mainstream physicists resolve this by claiming that
> > > > > > > > > length
> > > > > > > > > contraction is a gemetric projection effect....not physical or
> > > > > > > > > material as you claimed.
>
> > > > > > > > > Ken Seto
>
> > > > > > > > > > The rest of your made-up nonsense is ignored.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > > > > hole clock and the rivet clock are rnning at different rates and
> > > > > > > > > > > that's why you claim that the bug dies at different times. If you
> > > > > > > > > > > correct for the rate difference of the two clock you will arrive at
> > > > > > > > > > > the correct persoective that the bug is already dead just before the
> > > > > > > > > > > head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole. What this means is that
> > > > > > > > > > > length contraction is not physically (materially) real....that's why
> > > > > > > > > > > more learned SRian such as Tom Roberts says that length contraction in
> > > > > > > > > > > SR is a geometric projection effect.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >...what this means is that length
> > > > > > > > > > > > > contraction is not material or physical as you claimed. BTW that's why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the more learned SRians such as Tom Roberts said that length
> > > > > > > > > > > > > contraction in SR is not physical (or material).....it is an apparant
> > > > > > > > > > > > > effect.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you insist that the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > observers disagree the time of the event then it is because their
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clocks are running at different rates. But this will not make the bug
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is dead and alive at the same time....at the instant when the rivet
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > head hits the wall of the hole.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I said, the sequence of events depends on the frame.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In one frame, the bug dies before the head of the rivet strikes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In another frame, the bug dies after the head of the rivet strikes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You have taken this to mean that the bug is both dead and alive when
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the rivet strikes. This is, of course, a stupid conclusion to draw.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. In the barn and the pole paradox: From the barn point of view an 80
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ft
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

From: PD on 22 Jun 2010 10:00

On Jun 22, 8:04 am, "kens...(a)erinet.com" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
> On Jun 21, 5:58 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 13, 8:38 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 12, 1:21 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 12, 9:07 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 11, 4:52 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jun 11, 1:00 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Jun 11, 9:07 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On 6/11/10 7:36 AM, kenseto wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > No from the hole point of view the bug is still alive just before the
> > > > > > > > > head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole. However from the rivet
> > > > > > > > > point of view the bug is already deadat the just before the head of
> > > > > > > > > the rivet hit the wall of the hole.
>
> > > > > > > > Pick on perspective or the other, Seto. You can't have both!
>
> > > > > > > Wormy the bug cannot be both alive and dead at the moment when the
> > > > > > > head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole....both observers must
> > > > > > > agree on whether the bug is alive or dead but not both.
>
> > > > > > No, Ken.
> > > > > > The order of events is frame dependent.
> > > > > > It is not true that both observers must agree on the state of the bug
> > > > > > *when* the rivet head hits.
> > > > > > The "when" is the part that trips you up.
>
> > > > > Hey idiot... the bug is dead or alive is an absolute event
>
> > > > "Absolute event" is a term you made up, and has no meaning in physics.
> > > > The word "event" has a specific meaning in physics, even if you're
> > > > unaware of it.
> > > > The order of spacelike-separated events depends on the frame.
>
> > > > > The hole
> > > > > clock and the rivet clock are running at different rates give you the
> > > > > two perspective. When you corrected for the rate difference you will
> > > > > see that the rivet's perspective is the correct perspective.
>
> > > > In physics, Ken, it is important that one not favor one reference
> > > > frame over another as being "the correct one". Physical laws are the
> > > > same in all reference frames, though the quantities in the laws will
> > > > vary frame to frame and the description of events will be different in
> > > > two different frames.
>
> > > Sure there is the correct perspective. The following will demonstrate
> > > that clearly:
> > > The hole is 1.2 ft long at its rest frame.
> > > The bug is 0.1 ft tall.
> > > The rivet length is 2 ft. long at its rest frame.
> > > Gamma is 2.
> > > From the hole point of view just before the rivet head hits the wall
> > > of the hole:
> > > the length of the rivet is: 2/2=1 ft.
> > > Therefore if length contraction is physical or material the bug is
> > > still alive just before the head of the rivet hits the wall of the
> > > hole.
>
> > > From the rivet point of view the length of the hole is: 1.2/2=0.6 ft
> > > and the length of the rivet remains 2 ft. Therefore the bug is
> > > already
> > > dead way before the head of the rivet hit the wall of the hole.
>
> > > What this mean is that you cannot claim both perspectives at the same
> > > time.
>
> > Of course you can. One is the perspective in one frame, the other is
> > the perspective in the other frame. At the same time.
>
> No you can't....they must agree whether the bug is already dead or
> still alive when the head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole.

No, they don't "must" agree. They don't. I don't know where you got
the impression they do.

> In other words, is length contraction physical (material) or it is
> merely a geometric projection.
>
>
>
> > >The only way to resolve this is that length contraction is not
> > > physical or
> > > material.
>
> > Physical does not mean material. We've been through this.
>
> Your assertion is not a valid arguement.

Nor is yours. I showed you definitions in the dictionary that disagree
with you. You are flat wrong, but are incapable of admitting it, even
when confronted with the dictionary.

>
>
>
> > >...mainstream physicists resolve this by claiming that length
> > > contraction is a gemetric projection effect....not physical or
> > > material as you claimed.
>
> > I did not claim physical meant material. You did.
>
> > It is a nonmaterial, physical effect.
>
> Inventing new meaning for physical is not a valid arguement.

It is not a new meaning. YOUR meaning is not the standard one. YOUR
meaning is the oddball one.

>
> Ken Seto
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Ken Seto
>
> > > > > Ken Seto- 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: kenseto on 22 Jun 2010 11:13

On Jun 22, 9:22 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e1fa2ca6-189c-444c-9255-bebb283f700f(a)e5g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 21, 5:58 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Jun 13, 8:38 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On Jun 12, 1:21 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > On Jun 12, 9:07 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > > On Jun 11, 4:52 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > > > On Jun 11, 1:00 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > > > > On Jun 11, 9:07 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > > > > > On 6/11/10 7:36 AM, kenseto wrote:
>
> >> > > > > > > > No from the hole point of view the bug is still alive just
> >> > > > > > > > before the
> >> > > > > > > > head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole. However from
> >> > > > > > > > the rivet
> >> > > > > > > > point of view the bug is already deadat the just before the
> >> > > > > > > > head of
> >> > > > > > > > the rivet hit the wall of the hole.
>
> >> > > > > > > Pick on perspective or the other, Seto. You can't have
> >> > > > > > > both!
>
> >> > > > > > Wormy the bug cannot be both alive and dead at the moment when
> >> > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole....both observers
> >> > > > > > must
> >> > > > > > agree on whether the bug is alive or dead but not both.
>
> >> > > > > No, Ken.
> >> > > > > The order of events is frame dependent.
> >> > > > > It is not true that both observers must agree on the state of the
> >> > > > > bug
> >> > > > > *when* the rivet head hits.
> >> > > > > The "when" is the part that trips you up.
>
> >> > > > Hey idiot... the bug is dead or alive is an absolute event
>
> >> > > "Absolute event" is a term you made up, and has no meaning in
> >> > > physics.
> >> > > The word "event" has a specific meaning in physics, even if you're
> >> > > unaware of it.
> >> > > The order of spacelike-separated events depends on the frame.
>
> >> > > > The hole
> >> > > > clock and the rivet clock are running at different rates give you
> >> > > > the
> >> > > > two perspective. When you corrected for the rate difference you
> >> > > > will
> >> > > > see that the rivet's perspective is the correct perspective.
>
> >> > > In physics, Ken, it is important that one not favor one reference
> >> > > frame over another as being "the correct one". Physical laws are the
> >> > > same in all reference frames, though the quantities in the laws will
> >> > > vary frame to frame and the description of events will be different
> >> > > in
> >> > > two different frames.
>
> >> > Sure there is the correct perspective. The following will demonstrate
> >> > that clearly:
> >> > The hole is 1.2 ft long at its rest frame.
> >> > The bug is 0.1 ft tall.
> >> > The rivet length is 2 ft. long at its rest frame.
> >> > Gamma is 2.
> >> > From the hole point of view just before the rivet head hits the wall
> >> > of the hole:
> >> > the length of the rivet is: 2/2=1 ft.
> >> > Therefore if length contraction is physical or material the bug is
> >> > still alive just before the head of the rivet hits the wall of the
> >> > hole.
>
> >> > From the rivet point of view the length of the hole is: 1.2/2=0.6 ft
> >> > and the length of the rivet remains 2 ft. Therefore the bug is
> >> > already
> >> > dead way before the head of the rivet hit the wall of the hole.
>
> >> > What this mean is that you cannot claim both perspectives at the same
> >> > time.
>
> >> Of course you can. One is the perspective in one frame, the other is
> >> the perspective in the other frame. At the same time.
>
> > No you can't....they must agree whether the bug is already dead or
> > still alive when the head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole.
>
> Why?
>
> > In other words, is length contraction physical (material) or it is
> > merely a geometric projection.
>
> It is a real physical contraction of spatial length that is described by a
> geometric projection.

If it is real physical then why do you have to invent the term
geometrical projection???

>
> How many times do you need to be told?
>
> >> >The only way to resolve this is that length contraction is not
> >> > physical or
> >> > material.
>
> >> Physical does not mean material. We've been through this.
>
> > Your assertion is not a valid arguement.
>
> Yours isn't either
>
> >> >...mainstream physicists resolve this by claiming that length
> >> > contraction is a gemetric projection effect....not physical or
> >> > material as you claimed.
>
> >> I did not claim physical meant material. You did.
>
> >> It is a nonmaterial, physical effect.
>
> > Inventing new meaning for physical is not a valid arguement.
>
> But that is what you are trying to do.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -