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: eric gisse on 25 Jun 2010 21:01

Michael Moroney wrote:

> 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? [...]

Because he can't process the question. I'm starting to become convinced that
the people who don't get relativity just don't have the mental flexibility
to consider the abstract.

From: Peter Webb on 25 Jun 2010 21:33

"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.

____________________________
Yes it can. Think about being on a ladder under some electricity lines. If
the ladder is vertical, you touch the wires and get electrocuted. If it is
at an angle to the vertical, then you you don't reach the wires and you
aren't electrocuted. In this case, the "geometric projection" of the ladder
onto the vertical axis is not large enough for you to reach the wires and be
electrocuted.

Are you really having this much trouble understanding this concept? It might
be better if you tried to think through the analogy with the ladder yourself
before asking these questions. You will learn faster and understand better
if you try to work out the answer yourself first.

From: G. L. Bradford on 26 Jun 2010 06:16

"PD" <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2241a80a-e7f5-4dbc-a614-030ef6ef8249(a)j4g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
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 -

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

It's not "hobbyist-level grasp" when you've worked closely and routinely
with practical application before as part of your job in a world girdling
belt of sites. I had acquired much of the sense of it through the practical
(one might say the "physical contact with it") long before I started reading
up on it, studying it, visualizing and thinking into it from my own
approaches to it more and more broadly and deeply.

-------------------

You are quite right that you are not of "their caliber." You are generally
of very small caliber. Very, very, small caliber. This from Gibbon
concerning the decline and fall of Rome describes so well how YOU are
repeating history, repeating the growth of a frontierless social entropy,
today:

"The love of letters, almost inseparable from peace and refinement, was
fashionable among the subjects of Hadrian and the Antonines, who were
themselves men of learning and curiosity. It was diffused over the whole
extent of their empire; the most northern tribes of Britons had acquired a
taste for rhetoric; Homer as well as Virgil were transcribed and studied on
the banks of the Rhine and Danube; and the most liberal rewards sought out
the faintest glimmerings of literally merit. The sciences of physic and
astronomy were successfully cultivated by the Greeks; the observations of
Ptolemy and the writings of Galen are studied by those who have improved
their discoveries and corrected their errors; but if we except the
inimitable Lucian, this age of indolence passed away without having produced
a single writer of original genius, or who excelled in the arts of elegant
composition. The authority of Plato and Aristotle, of Zeno and Epicurus,
still reigned in the schools; and their systems, transmitted with blind
deference from one generation of disciples to another, precluded every
generous attempt to exercise the powers, or enlarge the limits, of the human
mind. The beauties of the poets and orators, instead of kindling a fire like
their own, inspired only cold and servile imitations or if any ventured to
deviate from those models, they deviated at the same time from good sense
and propriety. On the revival of letters, the youthful vigour of the
imagination, after a long repose, national emulation, a new religion, new
languages, and a new world (A NEW WORLD), called forth the genius of Europe.
But the provincials of Rome, trained by a uniform artificial foreign
education, were engaged in a very unequal competition with those bold
ancients, who, by expressing their genuine feelings in their native tongue,
had already occupied every place of honour. The name of Poet was almost
forgotten; that of Orator was usurped by the sophists. A cloud of critics,
of compilers, of commentators, darkened the face of learning, and the
decline of genius was soon followed by the corruption of taste.
The sublime Longinus, who in a somewhat later period, and in the court of
a Syrian queen, preserved the spirit of ancient Athens, observes and laments
this degeneracy of his contemporaries, which debased their sentiments,
enervated their courage, and depressed their talents. 'In the same manner,'
says he 'as some children always remain pygmies, whose infant limbs have
been too closely confined; thus our tender minds, fettered by the prejudices
and habits of a just servitude, are unable to expand themselves, or to
attain that well-proportioned greatness which we admire in the ancients; who
living under a popular government, wrote with the same freedom as they
acted.' This diminutive stature of mankind, if we pursue the metaphor, was
daily sinking below the old standard, and the Roman world was indeed peopled
by a race of pygmies; when the fierce giants of the north broke in, and
mended the puny breed. They restored a manly spirit of freedom; and after
the revolution of ten centuries, freedom became the happy parent of taste
and science."

Of course you have nothing to do with "manly spirit," do you Draper (your
constants when generally speaking are always blatantly feminine, never manly
or anything else but feminine, "she", "she," "she," "her," "her,"
"her"....)? Thanks to your kind 58% of college entrants are now female
(schools, colleges and classes in the U.S. now being entirely female
oriented (males need not apply unless they are female "sensitive") and the
majority of males in the U.S., as well as in the world at large, now just
give YOU the finger. It's increasingly noticeable even among pre-schooler,
Kindergarten, and grade 1-12 males. Even the youngest males, despite all
massively increasing punishments of males for it, are [savagely] blocking
out your kind's feminine-heavy programming and showing their maleness by
giving YOU the finger in every naturally male oriented way, Professor
Political Correctness (Mr. "girlie-man").

You have line-for-line, word for word, rote knowledge but no dynamic
original vision or feel at all for the Universe you arrogantly purport to
[know] so much about. As a fanatically feminine orientated male, or one of
the biggest cowards of the world, you are no more than a mentally decayed,
psychologically warped, pseudo-scientist and teacher: The evolved modern
version of Gibbon's race of increasingly biologically (and every other way)
unfertile, "diminutive," mental "pygmies." There is no greater savage than a
mindless, visionless, uniform bio-robot. There is no greater savagery than
that of the mindless, visionless, uniform mob of equal slaves. Mr. Political
Correctness, you are purely malignant to genius, particularly mass or
national genius; the deadliest enemy there is of the mind's
enlargement...again particularly of the mass mind's enlargement.....Very
much the history repeating, the 'physics' repeating, creature of Dark Age
Utopia.

GLB

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

From: kenseto on 26 Jun 2010 10:20

On Jun 25, 5:02 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. 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?

It is obvious that the bug cannot be alive and dead at the same
instant when the head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole. This
means that one of these predictions is only apparent. It comes down to
this:
1. Length contraction in SR is not physically or materially real. It
is a geometric projection effect much like I see you to be shorter
from a distance or a mvoing meter stick is perceived to be shorter as
you rotate it.
2. This means that there is no physical or material contraction and
thus both the hole frame and the rivet frame agree that the bug dies
before the head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole.
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf

Ken Seto

From: kenseto on 26 Jun 2010 10:29

On Jun 25, 10:29 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> "kenseto" <kens...(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

No it can't. The bug dies in both frames before the head of the rivet
hits the wall of the hole. The hole clock and the rivet clock are
running at different rates and thus show the event happened at
different times. Relativty of simultaneity is a bogus concept.

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