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: PD on 22 Jun 2010 11:46

On Jun 22, 10:18 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
> 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.

No, Ken, the term "geometric projection effect" is not a term invented
by physicists. Nor is it intended to denote effects that are non-
physical. You don't know what terms mean. Nor can you read for
comprehension. Both Tom and I have repeatedly told you that geometry
plays a central role in physics and physical effects. You have
persistently blocked that from your head.

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

From: PD on 22 Jun 2010 11:47

On Jun 22, 10:32 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:

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

This is flat wrong, Ken. Your assertion is not an argument.
This is just flat wrong, and no physicist would agree with this.

From: Sam on 22 Jun 2010 17:58

On Jun 12, 9:01 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:

> No wormy....one of the perspective is apparent because length
> contraction in SR is not physically real. This means that the hole's
> perspective is not real....the bug is already dead just before the
> head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole.

What's real depends on one's perspective. Distance foreshortening
for cosmic ray muons is a real as real can be, Seto. You can only
have one perspective at a time, Seto.

From: Peter Webb on 22 Jun 2010 23:15

>
> 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???

________________________________
He is not inventing a term. It is a standard term. And similar concepts are
used in Newtonian mechanics. For example, people talk about the "height" of
a ladders. But their height is not fixed; it is not an invariant. What is
fixed (with your basic ladder) is its length. Its height is determined by a
geometric projection of it length on to the vertical axis. Do you understand
this? If you do, you also understand the role of length in SR; there is an
invariant which corresponds to "length" in ladder and a term which depends
upon the geometry which corresponds to "height" in ladders. If you don't,
maybe you should try measuring the height of different ladders as you change
their angle with the ground.

From: kenseto on 23 Jun 2010 10:14

On Jun 22, 5:58 pm, Sam <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 12, 9:01 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > No wormy....one of the perspective is apparent because length
> > contraction in SR is not physically real. This means that the hole's
> > perspective is not real....the bug is already dead just before the
> > head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole.
>
> What's real depends on one's perspective. Distance foreshortening
> for cosmic ray muons is a real as real can be, Seto. You can only
> have one perspective at a time, Seto.

No wormy....cosmic muon has a life time of gamma*2.2 us (compare to
the earth muon's life time of 2.2us) that's why it is able to reach
the earth surface before it decays.