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: Sam Wormley on 27 Jun 2010 10:45
On 6/27/10 9:13 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On Jun 26, 5:39 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>> Assuming that both stars stars go nova simultaneously is MEANINGLESS.
>
>
> Hey idot without this stipulation then the gedanken is meaningless.
>
> Ken Seto

Ken, this is your chance to learn something in on USENET!

Relativity of simultaneity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity

"In physics, the relativity of simultaneity is the concept that
simultaneity�whether two events occur at the same time�is not absolute,
but depends on the observer's reference frame. According to the special
theory of relativity, it is impossible to say in an absolute sense
whether two events occur at the same time if those events are separated
in space".

Two points Ken:

o whether two events occur at the same time�is not absolute,
but depends on the observer's reference frame

o it is impossible to say in an absolute sense whether two
events occur at the same time if those events are separated
in space

Die gedanken, to be useful, must take into account the
relativistic physics, not the old Newtonian concepts. You
cannot butcher the gedanken with Newtonian absolutes!



From: Sam Wormley on 27 Jun 2010 10:54
On 6/27/10 9:24 AM, kenseto wrote:
>
> Sigh... no experiment supports physical or material length
> contraction.
>
> Ken Seto

From the cosmic muon's perspective, the distance traveled
to the earth's surface is foreshortened as predicted by
relativity theory.

From: Sam Wormley on 27 Jun 2010 10:56
On 6/27/10 9:28 AM, kenseto wrote:
> In fact there is no physical or
> material length contraction. Why Because it gives rise to paradoxes
> such as the bug and the rivet paradox and the barn and the pole
> paradox.
>
> Ken Seto


Remember, Ken, you only get one perspective. Relativity theory
correctly predicts the outcome of a measurement or observation.
One perspective Ken--No paradox.
From: Michael Moroney on 27 Jun 2010 11:16
kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes:

>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.

Once again, everything in the diagram is stationary with respect to
everything else in the diagram. We don't care about anything else not
influencing things, that's the point of a gedanken.

>>
>> 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.

I stated no such thing. I explicitly stated that there is a 9 year
difference between the times A and B see the novae.

>> 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.

I stated no such thing. I explicitly stated that there is a 9 year
difference between the times A and B see the novae.

>> 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.

Don't change what I wrote. I made no such assumptions whatsoever. Reread
what I wrote if necessary.
From: Peter Webb on 27 Jun 2010 11:23
>
> You do NOT get to dictate what "physical" means.

Sure...if you want to use physical as not material then you need to
define what that meaning means....but you refuse to do so.

> You do NOT get to say "physical" does not mean "geometric".

If physical means geometrical

___________________________________
Physical does not mean the same as geometric, they are not synonyms either.

then why do you need the term physical
to explain length contraction???....

___________________________________
Umm, because it is physical?

is it design to fool the public?
One question: if length contraction is only geometrical then how come
a ball will flatten to a pancake materially in the direction of
motion.

___________________________________
For the same reason a tilted ladder will fit through a doorway.

Also what is that motion that causes the flattening?

__________________________________
A rotation about x,y,z,it


Ken Seto


First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46
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