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: Sam Wormley on 28 Jun 2010 12:31

On 6/28/10 8:39 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On Jun 27, 10:56 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>>
>> Remember, Ken, you only get one perspective. Relativity theory
>> correctly predicts the outcome of a measurement or observation.
>> One perspective Ken--No paradox.

> Everybody must agrees that the bug dies when the tip of the rivet hits
> the bug...this is not frame dependent.

You have absolutely no understanding of relativity theory, Ken.
Perspective is everything. What is measured IS observer dependent!

From: Michael Moroney on 28 Jun 2010 13:49

kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes:

>On Jun 27, 11:16 am, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
>wrote:

>> >> 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.

>Then you gedanken is meaningless....

No, you impose a stipulation that you, not I, state is part of the problem
and you immediately see a problem with it. That should tell you that
the problem is with your stipulation, not my original gedanken.

>A and B sees the stars go nova at
>different times because they are at different distances from the
>stars.

Exactly. The order of events depends on the frame, when and where the
observer is in spacetime. The bug/rivet is rather more complicated since
it involves relativistic motion, but just like the observers A and B
in my simple gedanken see the events in different order, the two
observers in the bug/rivet problem see the two events (rivet hitting
wall & bug squashed) in different order.

From: Michael Moroney on 28 Jun 2010 17:29

Sam Wormley <swormley1(a)gmail.com> writes:

>On 6/28/10 8:31 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>
>> No idiot.... from the cosmic muon's point of view the life time of the
>> earth muon is 2.2/gamma us. From the earth point of view the life time
>> of the cosmic muon is gamma*2.2 us.

> So far so good...

Not really. Notice he put a "/" instead of a "*" in the calculation of
the lifetime of an earth muon. It's due to his mistaken view that if A
sees B's clock running N times slow, B must see A's clock running N times
fast.

From: Sam Wormley on 28 Jun 2010 17:41

On 6/28/10 4:29 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Sam Wormley<swormley1(a)gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On 6/28/10 8:31 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>>
>>> No idiot.... from the cosmic muon's point of view the life time of the
>>> earth muon is 2.2/gamma us. From the earth point of view the life time
>>> of the cosmic muon is gamma*2.2 us.
>
>> So far so good...
>
> Not really. Notice he put a "/" instead of a "*" in the calculation of
> the lifetime of an earth muon. It's due to his mistaken view that if A
> sees B's clock running N times slow, B must see A's clock running N times
> fast.

Thanks--Seto does interchange "/" and "*" indiscriminately. In
arguments with Ken, I usually specify a time interval of ∆t for
clarification. Thanks Michael.

From: GogoJF on 28 Jun 2010 18:46

On Jun 28, 12:49 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
wrote:
> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes:
> >On Jun 27, 11:16 am, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
> >wrote:
> >> >> 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.
> >Then you gedanken is meaningless....
>
> No, you impose a stipulation that you, not I, state is part of the problem
> and you immediately see a problem with it. That should tell you that
> the problem is with your stipulation, not my original gedanken.
>
> >A and B sees the stars go nova at
> >different times because they are at different distances from the
> >stars.
>
> Exactly. The order of events depends on the frame, when and where the
> observer is in spacetime. The bug/rivet is rather more complicated since
> it involves relativistic motion, but just like the observers A and B
> in my simple gedanken see the events in different order, the two
> observers in the bug/rivet problem see the two events (rivet hitting
> wall & bug squashed) in different order.

No, it has nothing whatsoever to do with distance.
"the order of the events depends on the frame" My concept of "critical
reaction time" implies an order based on, not distance, but ability to
see, but, in the end, we talk of different distances, not different
powers to perceive.