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: Ann O'Nymous on 25 Jun 2010 17:02

One thing I don't understand is this: Assume the hole is 1 light second
long, and the rivet shaft (in the rest frame) is 0.75 light seconds
long, and it's approaching the hole at a speed such that gamma=2.

As far as the bug is concerned, when the rivet is approaching, its shaft
is 0.375 light seconds long and it can't reach the bottom of the hole.
Even when the shoulder of the rivet hits, the now stationary shaft is
0.75 light seconds long so it still doesn't reach the bottom of the
hole, so the bug lives. But for someone riding on the rivet, the
hole is only 0.5 light seconds deep so the bug gets squished.

Could someone explain this apparent paradox?

As far as I see, there are 4 viewpoints, not two. On the rivet tip, on
the rivet shoulder, at the bottom of the hole (bug), at the top of the
hole. Do all four of these viewpoints have four different views of the
sequence of events? If so, what are they for this set of conditions?

From: PD on 25 Jun 2010 17:04

On Jun 25, 8:33 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
> 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

You keep using "physical" and "material" as though they were synonyms.
They are NOT.
If you want to know what "physical" means, you ask a physicist. You do
NOT hang on to what "the public" thinks. You let go of what "the
public" thinks and you LEARN something from the physicist.

If you do not want to learn anything from a physicist, including the
meaning of the word "physical", then you're never going to get anyone
to treat your ideas seriously. Ever.

> or it is just a
> gemetric projection effect (a rotational effect). You want to retain
> the word physical to give the impression to the public that length
> contraction in SR is physically or materially real and then you want
> to use the term geometric projection when real physical or material
> length contraction gives rise to paradoxes. You phyicists are a bunch
> of crowns.
>
> Ken Seto
>
>
>
> >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- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

From: PD on 25 Jun 2010 17:08

On Jun 25, 4:02 pm, Ann O'Nymous <nob...(a)nowhere.com> wrote:
> One thing I don't understand is this: Assume the hole is 1 light second
> long, and the rivet shaft (in the rest frame) is 0.75 light seconds
> long, and it's approaching the hole at a speed such that gamma=2.
>
> As far as the bug is concerned, when the rivet is approaching, its shaft
> is 0.375 light seconds long and it can't reach the bottom of the hole.
> Even when the shoulder of the rivet hits, the now stationary shaft is
> 0.75 light seconds long so it still doesn't reach the bottom of the
> hole, so the bug lives.

No it doesn't. You are assuming the rivet is infinitely stiff and that
when the shoulder of the rivet stops, then the tip of the rivet stops
at the same time. But the tip of the rivet cannot possibly know about
what's happened to the shoulder of the rivet until 0.375 seconds later
at the *earliest*, because no signal can travel faster than c.

One of the important outcomes of relativity is that there is no such
thing as an infinitely stiff object, even in principle. To suppose it
is to suppose the existence of an object that violates the laws of
nature.

That's like asking what the 2nd law of thermodynamics would predict if
there were an engine that could violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

> But for someone riding on the rivet, the
> hole is only 0.5 light seconds deep so the bug gets squished.
>
> Could someone explain this apparent paradox?
>
> As far as I see, there are 4 viewpoints, not two. On the rivet tip, on
> the rivet shoulder, at the bottom of the hole (bug), at the top of the
> hole. Do all four of these viewpoints have four different views of the
> sequence of events? If so, what are they for this set of conditions?

From: PD on 25 Jun 2010 17:19

On Jun 25, 1:06 pm, "G. L. Bradford" <glbra...(a)insightbb.com> wrote:

> The Constitution says we don't have to support your establishment of
> religion.

Sorry, but just because you do not understand it does not make it
religion.

The difference between science and religion is that the claims of
science are supported by corroborated and documented *experimental
evidence*. No one expects a science student to just accept things on
faith. They are in fact expected and encouraged to research the
documentation and to spot-check the results by direct confirmation in
the lab, as an exercise in understanding how this corroboration works.

But this involves WORK on the part of the student. It means that the
interested person does have to invest in reading, in learning
terminology and their precise meanings, in doing calculations, in
learning how to make predictions with the theory and actually checking
that those predictions work in the lab as advertised.

It does NOT mean "bring it down to my level".

> 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.

Quantum mechanics and relativistic physics can be tested in *teaching*
laboratories at universities. You could see it work with your own
eyes. If you take classes, you'd find that out.

>
> 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.

Don't be ridiculous. I don't rate myself at their caliber. But what
you are asking about is NOT CUTTING EDGE. It is rather ordinary and
mundane physics by now.

You could get comparable training if you applied yourself and
committed the resources and time. If you do not choose to do so, then
do not expect more than a hobbyist-level grasp of the subject. Sorry.

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

From: eric gisse on 25 Jun 2010 20:59

G. L. Bradford wrote:
[....]

You have been posting here for many years, yet I never see you actually
discuss physics on a meaningful level.

And here you are demanding that Paul make it easy for you to understand. I
imagine that's a total coincidence.