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 26 Jun 2010 10:57

On Jun 26, 9:43 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
> On Jun 25, 5:01 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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.
>
> There is no experiment confirming that length contraction is
> physically or materially real. So your assertion is without merit.
>

That is a lie, Ken. I've given you several examples of experiments
that have provided sufficient confirmation of length contraction as a
PHYSICAL effect.
Whether it is a material effect is a different question, because
"physical" means "material" in YOUR head only, not in the minds of
physicists. If you want to know what "physical" means, you ask a
physicist.
You've asked for those experimental results to be spoonfed to you
here, and I've told you to go do your own stinking homework. That
still stands.

PD

From: PD on 26 Jun 2010 11:03

On Jun 26, 9:54 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
> On Jun 25, 5:04 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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.
>
> Yes they are.
>
> > 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.
>
> Length contraction in SR is either apparent or physical/material but
> not both.

You do NOT get to dictate what "physical" means.
You do NOT get to say "physical" does not mean "geometric".
You do NOT get to say "physical" means "material" and everything else
is just "apparent".
You do NOT get to say "apparent" means anything that is not
"material".
You do NOT get to say "frame-dependent" means "apparent" and not
"physical".

> You try to use the word physical to mean both....apparently
> it is an attempt to fool the public

No, it is NOT an attempt to fool the public. Physicists have ALWAYS
made it clear that if you want to do physics, then you MUST learn the
meaning of the words *as they are used in physics*, NOT as they are
used in common everyday language. This is what is taught from day one
in any physics class.

You may say, "But I don't LIKE that. I want to be able to stick with
everyday language and still do physics, and if I can't then you're
trying to pull the wool over the public's eyes." That is just laziness
and whining. Stop it. It's childish behavior.

There are no shortcuts. There is homework to be done if you want to do
physics. Part of that homework is learning the terminology. Asking you
to do homework is not an attempt to fool the public. It is telling you
to stop being so lazy.

> and yourself that physcial
> contraction can mean both apparent and material.
>
> Ken Seto
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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 -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -

From: Inertial on 26 Jun 2010 11:05

"kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message
news:7e1083cc-ca0b-4357-9307-865c9ac03cc1(a)5g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
> 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.

WRONG

> The bug dies in both frames before the head of the rivet
> hits the wall of the hole.

WRONG

> The hole clock and the rivet clock are
> running at different rates

WRONG

> and thus show the event happened at
> different times. Relativty of simultaneity is a bogus concept.

WRONG

You're not very good at physics.

From: kenseto on 26 Jun 2010 17:31

On Jun 25, 10:35 am, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
wrote:
> kenseto <kens...(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.

This is stupid....evrything in the universe is mvoing.

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

I assume that you stipulate that both stars stars go nova
simultaneously and what A see is due to its distances from the stars.

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

I assume that you stipulate that both stars stars go nova
simultaneously and what B see is due to its distances from the stars.

>
> 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?

Hey idiot you already stipulated that the stars go nova simultaneously
and both A and B agree to that and what they see is due to the
distances from the stars.

Ken Seto

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

From: Sam Wormley on 26 Jun 2010 17:39

On 6/26/10 4:31 PM, kenseto wrote:
> On Jun 25, 10:35 am, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
> wrote:
>> kenseto<kens...(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.
>
> This is stupid....evrything in the universe is mvoing.

With respect to something.

>
>>
>> A sees Star 1 go nova and 9 years later sees Star 2 go nova.
>
> I assume that you stipulate that both stars stars go nova
> simultaneously and what A see is due to its distances from the stars.

Assuming that both stars stars go nova simultaneously is MEANINGLESS.

>
>> B sees Star 2 go nova and 9 years later sees Star 1 go nova.
>
> I assume that you stipulate that both stars stars go nova
> simultaneously and what B see is due to its distances from the stars.

No. Stipulating both stars stars go nova simultaneously is MEANINGLESS.

>
>>
>> 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?
>
> Hey idiot you already stipulated that the stars go nova simultaneously
> and both A and B agree to that and what they see is due to the
> distances from the stars.

No, Seto. You incorrectly inferred that!

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