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: Inertial on 25 Jun 2010 11:14

"PD" <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:85b59aa2-e229-4497-b6ca-50ef480d1d99(a)u26g2000yqu.googlegroups.com...
> 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.

I don't agree PD. All frames agree that the bug dies when it dies .. there
is just one death happening .. one event. They all say it dies when it
dies. What time it is on their clock depends on how they set their
particular clocks. But you can put a clock on the bug and see what time it
dies and they'll all agree on that time.

What they disagree on is what OTHER things happen at OTHER places at the
SAME time as the bug dying.

From: PD on 25 Jun 2010 11:19

On Jun 25, 5:00 am, "G. L. Bradford" <glbra...(a)insightbb.com> wrote:

>
> It isn't up to all those who pay your way to learn your gibberish jargon.
> You will translate for them, and translate accurately and in terms they can
> do their own pictures from, or else!

No sir. You do not support physicists to have them make physics
accessible and easily understandable by non-physicists. You support
them to *do their job*, which is to conduct physics research, and to
do that job in the most efficient manner possible, which in turn
entails communicating with each other precisely and consistently. The
last is what produces jargon as a necessary work product and tool.

If you want to understand what it is you are paying for with your
support dollars, then you are entitled to an layperson-level
explanation, which will involve a lot of imprecise language and loose
statements. If you want to understand it enough to be conversant in
it, then you will have to learn the language and develop some facility
with the skill sets that are prerequisite for doing the work.
Fortunately, many researchers make themselves available to instruct
interested people in precisely those things, but they do expect those
people to pay tuition and to read books and to do some practice work
on their own. Those who refuse to do that work or to pay tuition have
their own laziness and lack of devotion to blame.

You are NOT entitled to a FREE "bring it all down to my level" account
of physics. It is not an efficient way of communicating the subject
matter in any detail, and it is not an efficient use of a physicist's
time.

In a similar way, you are NOT entitled to a "bring it all down to my
level" account from ANY professional, whether that is a structural
engineer, or a cancer researcher, or a chemist, or a lawyer, or a
musical composer, or a Python programmer. It doesn't make any
difference that their work is supported by tax dollars. Tax dollars
are allocated to support work for the common good, and that work is
sent to *experts* so that the work can be done well. It is NOT sent to
experts so that every nonexpert can make sense of it. If that were the
case, you wouldn't need the work done by trained experts in the first
place. Some work DOES require training and expertise. It is an
unreasonable and IMMORAL demand that there should be no work that
cannot be done by the untrained and the inexpert. If that were true,
we'd all be in the stone age still. Hell, even in the stone age, there
were experts at making stone tools and the others let them do their
work without whining about it.

PD

> That's been the way of it for thousands
> of years. Those who become too arrogant to translate easily for the masses
> inevitably find themselves eventually digging ditches, if not starving to
> death.
>
> There are fewer of you arrogant asses working today than yesterday. There
> will be fewer of you working tomorrow than there are working today. You
> [will] learn to adapt yourselves to those who pay the way. You [will] learn
> to translate. And you [will] learn to beg for your money rather than
> dictate.
>
> GLB
>
> ====================================- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

From: G. L. Bradford on 25 Jun 2010 14:06

"PD" <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bbf493c8-7ca8-448b-9245-2e8ae888c038(a)5g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 25, 5:00 am, "G. L. Bradford" <glbra...(a)insightbb.com> wrote:

>
> It isn't up to all those who pay your way to learn your gibberish jargon.
> You will translate for them, and translate accurately and in terms they
> can
> do their own pictures from, or else!

No sir. You do not support physicists to have them make physics
accessible and easily understandable by non-physicists. You support
them to *do their job*, which is to conduct physics research, and to
do that job in the most efficient manner possible, which in turn
entails communicating with each other precisely and consistently. The
last is what produces jargon as a necessary work product and tool.

If you want to understand what it is you are paying for with your
support dollars, then you are entitled to an layperson-level
explanation, which will involve a lot of imprecise language and loose
statements. If you want to understand it enough to be conversant in
it, then you will have to learn the language and develop some facility
with the skill sets that are prerequisite for doing the work.
Fortunately, many researchers make themselves available to instruct
interested people in precisely those things, but they do expect those
people to pay tuition and to read books and to do some practice work
on their own. Those who refuse to do that work or to pay tuition have
their own laziness and lack of devotion to blame.

You are NOT entitled to a FREE "bring it all down to my level" account
of physics. It is not an efficient way of communicating the subject
matter in any detail, and it is not an efficient use of a physicist's
time.

In a similar way, you are NOT entitled to a "bring it all down to my
level" account from ANY professional, whether that is a structural
engineer, or a cancer researcher, or a chemist, or a lawyer, or a
musical composer, or a Python programmer. It doesn't make any
difference that their work is supported by tax dollars. Tax dollars
are allocated to support work for the common good, and that work is
sent to *experts* so that the work can be done well. It is NOT sent to
experts so that every nonexpert can make sense of it. If that were the
case, you wouldn't need the work done by trained experts in the first
place. Some work DOES require training and expertise. It is an
unreasonable and IMMORAL demand that there should be no work that
cannot be done by the untrained and the inexpert. If that were true,
we'd all be in the stone age still. Hell, even in the stone age, there
were experts at making stone tools and the others let them do their
work without whining about it.

PD

> That's been the way of it for thousands
> of years. Those who become too arrogant to translate easily for the masses
> inevitably find themselves eventually digging ditches, if not starving to
> death.
>
> There are fewer of you arrogant asses working today than yesterday. There
> will be fewer of you working tomorrow than there are working today. You
> [will] learn to adapt yourselves to those who pay the way. You [will]
> learn
> to translate. And you [will] learn to beg for your money rather than
> dictate.
>
> GLB
>
> ====================================- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

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

The Constitution says we don't have to support your establishment of
religion. More than one of your claims of [theory] gets deep into looks of
imposing a religion in your classrooms at tax payer expense. Imposing,
programming, your cosmology and calling it science....just once in while
qualifying your imposition of religion upon your students as teaching
science based "theoretical origins." I've been a student of history for
fifty-five years. It is religion and you're a liar. An Orwellian liar.

I'm not talking about "classical physics," hands on working physics, and
you damn well know it, Mr. Political Correctness.

Over the next few years and decades we'll see who it is that knows more
about certain [crossing fields] 'big picture' PHYSICS. The logician and
historian or the physicist. You can't even tell that there are unobserved
objects, things, travelers, clocks, well forward in both SPACE and TIME of
the objects, things, travelers, and clocks you have under observation. You
don't even understand your own relativity to a star four light years distant
from Earth, a relativity of 2006 to 2010 or (-4) years to (0)-point. Where
in [relative time], where in a multiplicity of dimension regarding
destination point (observed 2006 or -4), departure point (observed 2010 or
0-point), and light -- including c, any traveler would start out upon any
light-path-travel to an UNOBSERVED destination point not now at the
presently observed (-4) but at an unobservable 0-point (0=0). That HISTORY
from (-4) to (0) must be his highway within his travel TIME. All the
light-path-HISTORY between, and the TIME of travel, inclusively a package
deal! At the finish line, his destination point, once (-4), and his
departure point, once 0-point, have traded places and numbers. Thus what is
left is.........

I'll stop here since it's always been too much for you. The bigger the
picture gets, the more -- and more varying -- dimensions that accumulate
into one, the more your so-called brain [flatly] stops cold at superficial
surface-horizons. Because you have a piece of paper, you rank yourself in
quality with such as Einstein and Hawking, Gibbon and Durant, ....., when
they were at their best. You are not even 'fairly perceptive' concerning the
Universe at large. You are no floodlight. You are nothing more than a
narrowing minded denizen of Big Brother. You have no depth perception, no
all at once multi-dimensionality, to you.

GLB

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

From: PD on 25 Jun 2010 16:56

On Jun 25, 10:14 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> "PD" <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:85b59aa2-e229-4497-b6ca-50ef480d1d99(a)u26g2000yqu.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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.
>
> I don't agree PD. All frames agree that the bug dies when it dies .. there
> is just one death happening .. one event. They all say it dies when it
> dies. What time it is on their clock depends on how they set their
> particular clocks. But you can put a clock on the bug and see what time it
> dies and they'll all agree on that time.
>
> What they disagree on is what OTHER things happen at OTHER places at the
> SAME time as the bug dying.

Yes, what you've said is correct. In context, when Seto says "it
occurs at the same instant of time", he means using the event of the
rivet head hitting the wall as a reference.

From: PD on 25 Jun 2010 17:01

On Jun 25, 8:38 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
> On Jun 23, 12:32 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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.
>
> Assertion is not a valid arguement.

I'm not MAKING an argument. Your assertion that the two observers must
agree whether the bug dies before or after the rivet head strikes the
wall is just that -- an assertion. An incorrect assertion.

No amount of ARGUMENT will convince you that your assertion is
incorrect. No amount of ARGUMENT will convince you that the assertions
of relativity are the ones that are correct. The correctness of a
theory does not arise from any ARGUMENT. What determines the
correctness of relativity is its agreement with experiment. If you do
not know about the experiments, or you are not convinced of the
results, then you will never believe that relativity is correct.

You are under the impression that scientific knowledge comes from
logic and argument. It does not.

Your assertions about what observers must agree on are simply wrong
and contrary to experiment. The sequence of events is not frame-
independent as you falsely assert. Experiment has shown this to be the
case. If you ignore the experimental evidence to hold on to your false
assertions, then you are simply out of touch with reality.

>...when the rivet hit the bug the
> bug dies both the hole observer and the rivet observer agree to that.
> You are a bobeheaded physicist. <shrug>
>
> Ken Seto
>