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 25 Jun 2010 09:48

On Jun 23, 11:40 pm, "Peter Webb"
<webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> "kenseto" <kens...(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.

Sigh...but geometric projection contraction cannot keep the bug to
remain alive just before the head of the rivet hit the hole of the
wall if length contraction in SR is physically or materially real.

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

From: Inertial on 25 Jun 2010 10:28

"kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message
news:4dc0bf2f-0076-4684-a0eb-74a12df72972(a)j4g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 23, 2:03 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> The whole point of this discussion is: Is length contraction in SR a
> real shortening of a physical or material meter stick

Yes .. though no intrinsic change to the stick itself .. it does occupy a
shorter physical space. Like tilting a ladder makes it physically less tall
(it can pass thru a phsycially shorter doorway when tilted) without an
intrinsic change to the ladder itself.

> or it is just a
> gemetric projection effect (a rotational effect).

Yes .. though not exactly rotation. Like tilting a ladder makes it
physically less tall (it can pass thru a phsycially shorter doorway when
tilted) without an intrinsic change to the ladder itself.

Do you think rotation isn't physical?

> You want to retain
> the word physical to give the impression to the public that length
> contraction in SR is physically or materially real

It is

> and then you want
> to use the term geometric projection when real physical or material
> length contraction gives rise to paradoxes.

It doesn't

From: Inertial on 25 Jun 2010 10:29

"kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message
news:0c62b8a3-0939-4ba1-b2d8-c4cf9ebba74f(a)a30g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 23, 11:40 pm, "Peter Webb"
> <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>> "kenseto" <kens...(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.
>
> Sigh...but geometric projection contraction cannot keep the bug to
> remain alive just before the head of the rivet hit the hole of the
> wall if length contraction in SR is physically or materially real.

Differences in clock sync and simultaneity can

From: Michael Moroney on 25 Jun 2010 10:35

kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes:

>Hey idiot the bug dies requires that the rivet squish it to
>death....both frames must agree that it occurs at the same instant of
>time....and this is not frame dependent.

Hey Ken. How come you never answered my question about two stars going
nova with the two observers? I'll draw it out for you.

1--A--------------------B--2

A is 1 lightyear from Star 1 and 10 lightyears from Star 2.
B is 1 lightyear from Star 2 and 10 lightyears from Star 1.
Nothing is moving relative to anything else.

A sees Star 1 go nova and 9 years later sees Star 2 go nova.
B sees Star 2 go nova and 9 years later sees Star 1 go nova.

Why don't both observers agree on the order of events, since you claim
things like "both frames must agree that it occurs at the same instant of
time". What do you claim the order of events is?

The bug/rivet isn't much different, it's just complicated by relativistic
motion.

From: PD on 25 Jun 2010 10:59

On Jun 25, 8:11 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
> On Jun 23, 12:31 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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.
>
> Hey idiot the bug dies requires that the rivet squish it to
> death.

Yes.

>...both frames must agree that it occurs at the same instant of
> time.

No. There is no need for both frames to agree that the rivet squish it
to death at the same time.
In one frame, the rivet squishes it to death BEFORE the rivet head
hits the wall. In another frame, the rivet squishes it to death AFTER
the rivet head hits the wall. There is no physical problem with this
at all.

>...and this is not frame dependent.

Sorry, but yes it is.

> If length contraction is really physical or material the bug is still
> alive when the head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole.

Physical does not mean material. I've told you this dozens of times,
and pointed out to you the dictionary that proves you wrong.

> If length
> contraction is only a geometric projection effect (not a physical or
> material effect)then the bug is dead from both frames point of view.
> In other words, you can't have it both ways....that the bug is dead
> and alive at the same instant of time.
>
> Ken Seto
>
>
>
> > 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 -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > -
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -