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 23 Jun 2010 10:22

On Jun 22, 11:34 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 fact of life is this clocks in relative motion are running at
different rates and thus the different perspectives are not real when
it is corrected for the different rates of the clocks.

>
> > 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.

No it is not ....your assertion is not a valid arguement.
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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.

Yes it is....it is in the dictionary. You boneheaded physicists need
to change.

Ken Seto

>
> > 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 -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

From: kenseto on 23 Jun 2010 10:32

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.

I am not favoring one perspective over the other. Both the hole
observer and the rivet observer agree that the bug dies at the same
instant of time....but they have different clock readings when that
event took place because their clocks are running at different rates.

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

From: kenseto on 23 Jun 2010 10:35

On Jun 22, 11:15 pm, "Peter Webb"
<webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > 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.

So geometric projection is not physical....then why do you claim that
length contraction in SR is physical??

From: PD on 23 Jun 2010 12:31

On Jun 23, 9:22 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
> On Jun 22, 11:34 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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 fact of life is this clocks in relative motion are running at
> different rates and thus the different perspectives are not real when
> it is corrected for the different rates of the clocks.
>
>
>
> > > 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.
>
> No it is not ....your assertion is not a valid arguement.
>

Ken, no one is ever going to get anywhere with you pushing assertions
against your assertions.
The fact is, you make assertions that are contradicted by experiment.
You are ignorant of the experiments, so it is natural that you would
make statements out of ignorance.

No one owes you a convincing argument.

If you are wrong, someone may be kind enough to point out that you are
wrong. Someone even kinder will give you pointers to look things up so
that you can discover for yourself why you are wrong. It is then up to
YOU to correct your error.

If you do not wish to correct your error, you will continue making the
same error over and over, for -- oh -- fifteen years or more. This is
nobody's problem but yours, Ken.

If you whine and complain that no one has convinced you that you are
wrong, then this speaks to your sanity and your emotional fragility,
and this is on top of your physics errors.

>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > 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.
>
> Yes it is....it is in the dictionary. You boneheaded physicists need
> to change.

No, Ken, I showed YOU in the dictionary where the meaning is broader
than material.
It is you that cannot read, even when it is placed directly under your
nose.

>
> Ken Seto
>
>
>
>
>
> > > 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 -- 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: PD on 23 Jun 2010 12:32

On Jun 23, 9:32 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.
>
> I am not favoring one perspective over the other. Both the hole
> observer and the rivet observer agree that the bug dies at the same
> instant of time.

No, they do not. This is an error on your part.
Your crappy attempt to save face is an embarrassment.

>...but they have different clock readings when that
> event took place because their clocks are running at different rates.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > 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 -