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 10 Jul 2010 10:13

On 7/10/10 8:30 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On Jul 9, 3:12 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 7/9/10 1:48 PM, kenseto wrote:
>>
>>> According to SR the bug dies at two different times....one time before
>>> the head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole and the other time
>>> after the head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole. That is a
>>> contradiction because the bug dies only at one instant of time.
>>
>>> Ken Seto
>>
>> No... One can only have one perspective at a time. Special relativity
>> predicts the observed event precisely. The bug, if it dies, only dies
>> once for each observer.
>
> But it dies at two different times according to SR. That means that
> the one of the two perspectives derived from the SR concept of
> physical length contraction is wrong.

No the bug dies only once according to special relativity. Special
relativity is something you obviously don't understand and are most
likely incapable of understanding it.

>
> Ken Seto
>>
>> Student understanding of time in special relativity: simultaneity and
>> reference frames
>> http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0207109
>

From: Sam Wormley on 10 Jul 2010 10:47

On 7/10/10 9:09 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On Jul 9, 10:11 pm, "Inertial"<relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:

>>
>> There is no frame where in which the bug dies both before and after the
>> rivet hits the wall. Either it dies before, or it dies after. The measured
>> order depends on the frame or reference. It never dies at two different
>> times.
>
> Hey idiot...if length contraction in SR is physical or material then
> the bug dies at two different times. If length contraction is only a
> geometric projection effect then both observer agree that the bug dies
> at one time....when the tip of the rivet hits the bug.
>
> Ken Seto
>

Seto, You are out of control. One reference frame--the bug dies once.
You can't have more than one reference frame.

> 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. Where an event occurs in a single place?for example, a car
> crash?all observers will agree that both cars arrived at the point of
> impact at the same time. But where the events are separated in space,
> such as one car crash in London and another in New Delhi, the question
> of whether the events are simultaneous is relative: in some reference
> frames the two accidents may happen at the same time, in others (in a
> different state of motion relative to the events) the crash in London
> may occur first, and in still others the New Delhi crash may occur first.
>
> "If we imagine one reference frame assigns precisely the same time to
> two events that are at different points in space, a reference frame that
> is moving relative to the first will generally assign different times to
> the two events. This is illustrated in the ladder paradox, a thought
> experiment which uses the example of a ladder moving at high speed
> through a garage.
>
> "A mathematical form of the relativity of simultaneity ("local time")
> was introduced by Hendrik Lorentz in 1892, and physically interpreted
> (to first order in v/c) as the result of a synchronization using light
> signals by Henri Poincar? in 1900. However, both Lorentz and Poincar?
> based their conceptions on the aether as a preferred but undetectable
> frame of reference, and continued to distinguish between "true time" (in
> the aether) and "apparent" times for moving observers. It was Albert
> Einstein in 1905 who abandoned the (classical) aether and emphasized the
> significance of relativity of simultaneity to our understanding of space
> and time. He deduced the failure of absolute simultaneity from two
> stated assumptions:
>
> 1. the principle of relativity?the equivalence of inertial frames, such
> that the laws of physics apply equally in all inertial coordinate systems;
>
> 2. the constancy of the speed of light detected in empty space,
> independent of the relative motion of its source.
>
>
> __________________
>
>
> Student understanding of time in special relativity: simultaneity and
> reference frames
> http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0207109
>
>
>

From: kenseto on 11 Jul 2010 09:17

On Jul 10, 10:13 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/10/10 8:30 AM, kenseto wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 9, 3:12 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 7/9/10 1:48 PM, kenseto wrote:
>
> >>> According to SR the bug dies at two different times....one time before
> >>> the head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole and the other time
> >>> after the head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole. That is a
> >>> contradiction because the bug dies only at one instant of time.
>
> >>> Ken Seto
>
> >> No... One can only have one perspective at a time. Special relativity
> >> predicts the observed event precisely. The bug, if it dies, only dies
> >> once for each observer.
>
> > But it dies at two different times according to SR. That means that
> > the one of the two perspectives derived from the SR concept of
> > physical length contraction is wrong.
>
> No the bug dies only once according to special relativity.

Hey idiot....SR predicts that the bug dies twice....before and after
the head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole.

> Special
> relativity is something you obviously don't understand and are most
> likely incapable of understanding it.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Ken Seto
>
> >> Student understanding of time in special relativity: simultaneity and
> >> reference frames
> >> http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0207109- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

From: kenseto on 11 Jul 2010 09:27

On Jul 10, 10:47 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/10/10 9:09 AM, kenseto wrote:
>
> > On Jul 9, 10:11 pm, "Inertial"<relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>
> >> There is no frame where in which the bug dies both before and after the
> >> rivet hits the wall. Either it dies before, or it dies after. The measured
> >> order depends on the frame or reference. It never dies at two different
> >> times.
>
> > Hey idiot...if length contraction in SR is physical or material then
> > the bug dies at two different times. If length contraction is only a
> > geometric projection effect then both observer agree that the bug dies
> > at one time....when the tip of the rivet hits the bug.
>
> > Ken Seto
>
> Seto, You are out of control. One reference frame--the bug dies once.
> You can't have more than one reference frame.
>
>
>
> > 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. Where an event occurs in a single place?for example, a car
> > crash?all observers will agree that both cars arrived at the point of
> > impact at the same time. But where the events are separated in space,
> > such as one car crash in London and another in New Delhi, the question
> > of whether the events are simultaneous is relative: in some reference
> > frames the two accidents may happen at the same time, in others (in a
> > different state of motion relative to the events) the crash in London
> > may occur first, and in still others the New Delhi crash may occur first.
>
> > "If we imagine one reference frame assigns precisely the same time to
> > two events that are at different points in space, a reference frame that
> > is moving relative to the first will generally assign different times to
> > the two events. This is illustrated in the ladder paradox, a thought
> > experiment which uses the example of a ladder moving at high speed
> > through a garage.
>
> > "A mathematical form of the relativity of simultaneity ("local time")
> > was introduced by Hendrik Lorentz in 1892, and physically interpreted
> > (to first order in v/c) as the result of a synchronization using light
> > signals by Henri Poincar? in 1900. However, both Lorentz and Poincar?
> > based their conceptions on the aether as a preferred but undetectable
> > frame of reference, and continued to distinguish between "true time" (in
> > the aether) and "apparent" times for moving observers. It was Albert
> > Einstein in 1905 who abandoned the (classical) aether and emphasized the
> > significance of relativity of simultaneity to our understanding of space
> > and time. He deduced the failure of absolute simultaneity from two
> > stated assumptions:
>
> > 1. the principle of relativity?the equivalence of inertial frames, such
> > that the laws of physics apply equally in all inertial coordinate systems;
>
> > 2. the constancy of the speed of light detected in empty space,
> > independent of the relative motion of its source.

You are the one who is out of control....accoridng to SR the bug dies
twice....before and after the head of the rivet hits the wall of the
hole.
>
> > __________________
>
> > Student understanding of time in special relativity: simultaneity and
> > reference frames
> > http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0207109- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

From: Michael Moroney on 13 Jul 2010 12:34

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

>On Jul 12, 2:58 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
>wrote:
>> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes:
>> >On Jul 10, 10:11 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
>> >wrote:
>>
>> >> There is no inertial frame where the bug dies more than once, or fewer
>> >> than once. Every observer no matter what their frame is agrees the bug
>> >> dies exactly once. Your claim that SR claims the bug dies at two different
>> >> times is absurdity.
>> >Hey idiot SR predicts that the bug dies before and after the head of
>> >the rivet hits the wall of the hole....that's two instant of time.
>>
>> No it doesn't. It predicts the bug dies before OR after the rivet head
>> hits the wall, depending on the frame of the observer.

>Hey idiotthe rivet observer says that the bug dies before the head of
>the rivet hits the wall and the hole observer says that the bug dies
>after the head of the rivet hits the wall.....

(ignoring insult) Very Good. Maybe you're beginning to understand the
problem and how the two observers observe different sequences of events.

>that means that the bug
>dies at two instants of time.

Nope. The rivet observer sees the bug die exactly ONCE, not twice.
The hole observer sees the bug die exactly ONCE, not twice.
So do all other observers. No observer sees the bug die twice, like
you claim.

Until you understand this, you'll continue to wallow in your ignorance
(actually, stupidity).

How are you coming along with the two stars going nova problem and the
red/blue box problem? Figure either one of them out yet?