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 11:18

On Jun 22, 9:58 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

No it is you who is mistaken....if length contraction in SR is real
physical then you wouldn't have to invent the term geometrical
projection to describe the effect. I see you from a distance to be
shorter is a geometrical effect....not a physical effect.

Ken Seto

>
>
>
>
>
> > > >...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.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more »

From: kenseto on 22 Jun 2010 11:28

On Jun 22, 10:00 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

Yes they have to agree...just as that they have to agree that the
speed of light is a constant ratio. The bug die or alive at a certain
instant of time is not frame dependent. The clock at the hole frame
can read a different time thaan the clock at the rivet frame for when
the bug dies.... but that's because the two clocks are running at
different rates.....not because the bug die at different times.

>
> > 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.

The normal usage of the word physical is material related. Your
example that a field is physical is also material related....a field
is stress in a medium occupying space.

Ken Seto
>
>
> > > >...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 -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

From: kenseto on 22 Jun 2010 11:32

On Jun 22, 9:58 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

All physical effects are material related and thus not frame
dependent.

>
>
>
>
>
> > > >...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.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more »

From: PD on 22 Jun 2010 11:34

On Jun 22, 10:28 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
> On Jun 22, 10:00 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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.
>
> Yes they have to agree...just as that they have to agree that the
> speed of light is a constant ratio.

No, they do not. Different frames have different accounts for events
transpiring. Sorry, Ken, this is just a fact of life.

> The bug die or alive at a certain
> instant of time is not frame dependent.

Yes, it is, Ken. Your assertion is not an argument.

> The clock at the hole frame
> can read a different time thaan the clock at the rivet frame for when
> the bug dies.... but that's because the two clocks are running at
> different rates.....not because the bug die at different times.
>
>
>
> > > 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.
>
> The normal usage of the word physical is material related.

No, it is not, Ken. That is YOUR usage. It is not the usage that
physicists use.

> Your
> example that a field is physical is also material related....a field
> is stress in a medium occupying space.

Not to a physicist, Ken.
Physicists don't care what YOU think the term should mean.

>
> Ken Seto
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > >...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 -- 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: Inertial on 22 Jun 2010 11:38

"kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message
news:32fa2f7e-d5fd-460c-a009-76962cd9ad4f(a)k39g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> 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???

It is an existing term from the mathematical branch of geometry. it wasn't
invented by physics, let alone by me.

If you use a geometric formulation of SR (ie minkowski geometry) then the
physical contraction of spatial length is modeled as a geometrical
projection.

If there is a shadow from a building, then the you work out its length by
doing geometrical projection (and trigonometry). That doesn't mean the
shadow length is not really that value you calculate geometrically. Nor
does it mean that there is a difference in height of the building itself due
to the projection. You need to consider separately the notion of height of
a building and length shadow.

If there is a spatial length to be measured for a moving rod, then the you
work out its spatial length by doing geometrical projection (and
trigonometry). That doesn't mean the spatial length is not really that
value you calculate geometrically. Nor does it mean that there is a
difference in proper length of the rod itself due to the projection. You
need to consider separately the notion of proper length of a rod and its
spatial length.