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 23 Jun 2010 14:03

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:
>
> > > 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
>

No, Ken. Physicists are the ones who *rightfully* own what "physical"
means. Not ordinary folks, not a dictionary of common usage. If you as
an ordinary folk think "physical" means "material", then physicists do
NOT need to conform to your meaning of the word. This is not a battle
of wills. It is just an act of stupidity if you do not let doctors
determine what "medicine" means, architects determine what
"architecture" means, biologists determine what "biological life"
means, and physicists determine what "physical" means.

This is not unfair. It is a fact of life. Suck it up.

No physicist would ever agree that "physical" means material and frame-
dependent. This is YOUR meaning, and only yours. Stick to it, and you
will NEVER get off square one with your ideas.

PD

From: Peter Webb on 23 Jun 2010 23:40

"kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message
news:1d4da9f5-45bf-4840-8098-e746d4d98a13(a)u26g2000yqu.googlegroups.com...
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??

_____________________________
No, that doesn't follow. Geometric projections can and do measure physical
parameters. The "height" of a ladder is a geometric projection of its length
onto a vertical line. It is not an invariant, as it depends upon the angle
of the ladder to the ground. But it certainly is a measurable, physical
characteristic of the ladder; it tells you the height of one end of the
ladder above the ground.

As I said before, if you don't understand this, draw some diagrams of
ladders of fixed length at different angles to the ground and see how the
"height" is related to the angle the ladder forms with the ground.
Contemplate the fact that the height is *not* an invariant, is a result of a
geometric projection, yet is physical and measurable.

If you can understand this, you can easily follow the directly analogous
arguments in SR. If you can't follow this, I would suggest that you avoid
careers which involve using SR (eg physicist) or ladders (eg roof repairer).

From: Inertial on 23 Jun 2010 23:47

"Peter Webb" <webbfamily(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:4c22d406$0$17172$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au...
[snip]
> If you can understand this, you can easily follow the directly analogous
> arguments in SR. If you can't follow this, I would suggest that you avoid
> careers which involve using SR (eg physicist) or ladders (eg roof
> repairer).

Love it :)

From: G. L. Bradford on 24 Jun 2010 13:47

"PD" <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:35ea3a23-6e3c-4019-8c63-a032da45138d(a)20g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
> 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:
>>
>> > > 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
>>
>
> No, Ken. Physicists are the ones who *rightfully* own what "physical"
> means. Not ordinary folks, not a dictionary of common usage. If you as
> an ordinary folk think "physical" means "material", then physicists do
> NOT need to conform to your meaning of the word. This is not a battle
> of wills. It is just an act of stupidity if you do not let doctors
> determine what "medicine" means, architects determine what
> "architecture" means, biologists determine what "biological life"
> means, and physicists determine what "physical" means.
>

===========================

Now you've reached far, far, into Orwellian stupidity. Pure unadulterated
'totalitarian state' guild isolationisms, absolutisms, tyrannies and
arrogances. You've arrogantly bulled around in everyone's (I mean
EVERYONE'S!) local and cosmological china shops as if you owned every
definition there is without exception, owning everything and everyone, then
like the [narrow minded] utterly arrogant cowards you are you cry that you
are only human like everyone else when you get caught in arrogance's
catastrophes, when the many get their back up, getting ragingly angrily into
your faces.

You don't own the universe, nor do you own the cosmology (the cosmologies)
and definitions. Not a one of them do you own!

Ken may be persistent in his ignorance, but you've just proved once more
who's truly stupid.

GLB

===========================

From: PD on 24 Jun 2010 15:14

On Jun 24, 12:47 pm, "G. L. Bradford" <glbra...(a)insightbb.com> wrote:
> "PD" <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:35ea3a23-6e3c-4019-8c63-a032da45138d(a)20g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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:
>
> >> > > 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
>
> > No, Ken. Physicists are the ones who *rightfully* own what "physical"
> > means. Not ordinary folks, not a dictionary of common usage. If you as
> > an ordinary folk think "physical" means "material", then physicists do
> > NOT need to conform to your meaning of the word. This is not a battle
> > of wills. It is just an act of stupidity if you do not let doctors
> > determine what "medicine" means, architects determine what
> > "architecture" means, biologists determine what "biological life"
> > means, and physicists determine what "physical" means.
>
> ===========================
>
> Now you've reached far, far, into Orwellian stupidity. Pure unadulterated
> 'totalitarian state' guild isolationisms, absolutisms, tyrannies and
> arrogances. You've arrogantly bulled around in everyone's (I mean
> EVERYONE'S!) local and cosmological china shops as if you owned every
> definition there is without exception, owning everything and everyone, then
> like the [narrow minded] utterly arrogant cowards you are you cry that you
> are only human like everyone else when you get caught in arrogance's
> catastrophes, when the many get their back up, getting ragingly angrily into
> your faces.
>
> You don't own the universe, nor do you own the cosmology (the cosmologies)
> and definitions. Not a one of them do you own!

I disagree. Definitions are indeed owned by the people who use the
words to communicate with them.

In a field such as physics where there are terms that are important
for clear communication, such as "experimental control", "theory",
"physical", "momentum", "spin", "energy", "quantum", and so on, then
the meaning of those terms is set by those people who use them most.

Now, lay people may use the same words in a *different context* and
have them carry a different meaning. Thus "momentum" means something
completely different to a sportscaster or a business analyst than it
does to a physicist. "Spin" means something completely different to a
dancer or a politician than it does to a physicist.

But if you're going to engage in a discussion about *physics*, and it
is your intent to communicate effectively, then you are obligated to
use the term *as it is used in physics*.

People do NOT have the right to tell physicists, "This term that you
use -- 'physical'. You use it in a funny way, and you should change
your meaning of the word to mean the same thing it does to
nonphysicists." To do so would be totalitarianism and tyranny of its
own sort. Specialized groups have the right to develop their own
jargon, and virtually EVERY group does so, as a natural social
phenomenon.

Yes, this means that if you want to actually *participate* in the
activities of the specialized group or even communicate with them
effectively, you will have to adapt and learn the jargon that is used.
This is not an unreasonable expectation. No one gets excluded. Asking
lay people to do a little work to become conversant in an area is not
exclusionary. Refusal to do a little work to become conversant is
often the product of cowardice or laziness. No excuses, no shortcuts.
Suck it up.

PD

>
> Ken may be persistent in his ignorance, but you've just proved once more
> who's truly stupid.
>
> GLB
>
> ===========================- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -