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: kenseto on 15 Jul 2010 10:20

On Jul 14, 3:46 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 14, 1:07 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 14, 10:48 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 14, 7:39 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 13, 12:34 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > kenseto <kens...(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.
>
> > > > Hey idiot....before and after are two different instants of time and
> > > > this fact is not observer depedent.
>
> > > Assertion is not an argument.
> > > What you just said is counter to experimental observation.
>
> > Hey idiot....before and after are two different instants of time and
> > this fact is not observer depedent.
>
> That's an assertion, and assertion is not an argument.

ROTFLOL....so before and after of an event are not two different
instants of time. You are truly the most uninformed physics professor
on this earth.<shrug>

Ken Seto

>
> I realize there are some things you think are just common sense and
> recognized by everyone. But a lot of these things are just lies your
> brain is telling you. You say that it is common sense that "before"
> and "after" is not observer dependent. But your common sense lies to
> you. Experiment says so.
>
>
>
> > That means that SR predicts that
> > the bug dies at two different instants of time. If you get rid of the
> > bogus idea of physical/material length contraction in SR then the bug
> > dies only one time ....when the tip of the rivet hits the bug. You
> > runts of the SRians are truly a bunch of stupid idiots.
>
> > Ken Seto
>
> > > > That means that SR predicts that
> > > > the bug dies at two different instants of time. If you get rid of the
> > > > bogus idea of physical/material length contraction in SR then the bug
> > > > dies only one time ....when the tip of the rivet hits the bug. You
> > > > runts of the SRians are truly a bunch of stupid idiots.
>
> > > > Ken Seto
>
> > > > > 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?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- 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: Michael Moroney on 15 Jul 2010 12:06

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

>On Jul 14, 2:11 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
>wrote:
>> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes:

>> >Hey idiot....before and after are two different instants of time and
>> >this fact is not observer depedent.
>>
>> It is observer dependent.

>No idiot...it is not observer dependent. Every observer will agree
>that before the head of the rivet hit the wall and after the head of
>the rivet hit the wall are two different instants of time....the
>before occurs first and the after occurs later.

It is observer dependent - the two events (rivet tip hitting the bug and
the rivet head hitting the wall) are what SR calls spatially separated.
See below.

>>Consider the following:
>>
>> 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 in this diagram is moving relative to anything else in
>> the diagram.

>Your stupid example is observer dependent because it depends on how
>far the observer away from the source.

You don't realize it of course, but you nearly caught a clue. The two
events *are* separated by a distance. A distance that is larger in
comparison than the time difference (c^2 * (delta-t)^2 < (delta-r)^2
where delta-t is the time difference and delta-r is the space distance)
so that which event happens first is observer dependent. There are also
frames where the two events happen simultaneously. In the case of the
two stars, it's anywhere on the plane of points equidistant between
them while stationary. SR calls this a space-like interval.

On the other hand, if the distance in spacetime is less than the time
distance between two events (c^2 * (delta-t)^2 > (delta-r)^2) then it is
true that for *all* observers, one of the events definitely happened
before the other. SR calls this a time-like interval. It also means
perhaps the first event caused the second event, which is impossible for
the space-like interval (it's impossible for one of the two stars going
nova to cause the other star to go nova) Nearly all of our world
experience is in this category. Your confusion is because your common
sense is lying to you by making you think that *all* pairs of events fall
in this category.

Guess what? The bug/rivet problem falls into the first category
and not the second. The distance between the two events (whether the
length of the rivet shaft or the depth of the hole, depending on
your reference frame) exceeds the time difference between the events
so that it is not true for *all* observers that one event happened before
the other. The time difference is very small due to the relativistic
speed of the rivet.

BTW there is a frame where the events are simultaneous in time - in other
words, there is a reference frame where the bug gets squished at the
*exact instant* the rivet head hits the wall.

You really really really need to read a book on SR. The discussion
how Space-like intervals, time-like intervals and light-like intervals
work can help you learn the bug-rivet problem.

From: PD on 15 Jul 2010 12:54

On Jul 15, 9:07 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
> On Jul 14, 3:31 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 14, 12:58 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 14, 10:46 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 14, 7:48 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jul 13, 1:24 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jul 13, 7:58 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Jul 12, 10:10 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Jul 12, 8:52 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Jul 11, 3:37 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Jul 11, 8:32 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 10, 11:59 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 10, 8:44 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 9, 3:52 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 9, 1:44 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 8, 11:07 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 8, 8:00 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 7, 11:01 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 7, 9:23 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 6, 3:52 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >On Jul 1, 10:29 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >but SR predicts that that the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >bug dies at two different instants of time due to length contraction
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >and that is the source of contradiction.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> No it doesn't. Both observers agree that the bug dies, just once.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Hey idiot....
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since it is you who is having such a tough time understanding this problem
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > yet you continue to refuse to learn SR, I'd say that you're the idiot
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > around here.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey idiot I am not trying to learn SR.. I am pointing out that SR makes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contradictory claims.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No it doesn't.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes it does.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No. YOUR superficial and comic-book ideas about SR are contradictory.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But SR is not contradictory.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >YOUR superficial and comic book ideas about SR are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contradictory. But SR is not.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you understood what SR *really says*, then you would easily see
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there are no contradictions.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The comic book claims are on your part. For example: the bug dies at
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > two different times,
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It doesn't. This is what YOU say, not what SR says.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mutual time dilation,
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is not a contradiction.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > physcial contraction is not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > material or geometric
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is not a contradiction. It is YOUR assertion that "physical"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means "material". Physicists disagree with you, and they own the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > definition of 'physical". That is not a contradiction, it is a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > correction of a mistake. You don't like it, but that doesn't make it a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contradiction.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure it is a contradiction....you tried to have two meanings for the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > word physical.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >...one means apparent contraction (geometric projection)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and the other implies material contraction. You can have one or the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other but not both simultaneously.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ken, you're an idiot.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > No you are the idiot. You want to clint on to the bogus idea that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > length contraction in SR is both geometrical and material.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > No, I never said that. I said it is both geometrical and physical.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Physical is not synonymous with material.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > We all know what geometrical means...its like I see you to be shorter
> > > > > > > > > > > from a distance, So what is physical mean since you insist that
> > > > > > > > > > > physical is not material?
>
> > > > > > > > > > OK, so let me just clarify something here before answering.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Are you ASKING a physicist what "physical" means, since you
> > > > > > > > > > acknowledge that you may be using it to mean "not geometrical" or
> > > > > > > > > > "material", and you've been told that this is not correct?
>
> > > > > > > > > No you said that length contraction is physical but it is not the same
> > > > > > > > > as geometrical and it is definitly not material.
>
> > > > > > > > "Physical" does not mean geometrical. Nor does it mean "material"
>
> > > > > > > Ah.... so you invented a new meaning for the word "physical" but you
> > > > > > > want to keep that meaning secret because you don't want to educate
> > > > > > > me.....right? You are a dork.
>
> > > > > > Ken, you've repeated said you don't NEED or WANT education. You've
> > > > > > repeated said you're 20 years ahead of any physicist in understanding
> > > > > > this stuff. Is it any wonder that I don't feed you something you say
> > > > > > you don't want?
>
> > > > > The other possibility is that you don't have different defintion for
> > > > > the word physical that is different than material and/or geometric
> > > > > projection.
>
> > > > I see that you are simply hog-tied by emotional incapacitation. You
> > > > simply cannot ask an honest question without choking on it.
>
> > > > "Physical" means what it has always meant to physicists: Pertaining to
> > > > the behavior and natural laws of the universe; that which physicists
> > > > study, including the interactions of matter, energy, and other
> > > > entities that exhibit regular, predictable behavior; having properties
> > > > that are subject to regularities and constraints known as laws of
> > > > nature or physical laws.
>
> > > But you denied that Physical length contraction in SR is not matter
> > > (material) related and here you are saying that it is.
>
> > No, Ken, I'm not saying that here at all. There is NOTHING that I've
> > said in the above that says that length contraction is related to
> > material contraction. Physics INCLUDES the study of matter, but it
> > includes the study of MORE than matter, as I *explicitly* told you
> > above. Read it again.
>
> But length contraction in SR is related to matter/material/physical
> contraction.

No sir. It is NOT. The shrinking due to freezing is a material
contraction.
Length contraction in SR is NOT material contraction.
BOTH of these -- shrinking due to freezing and length contraction --
are physical.

> All those other meanings for "physical" is not applicable
> to length contraction in SR.

I'm sorry, but the meaning of "physical" applies where physicists say
it applies, not where YOU think it applies.
You have to learn the meaning of terms used in physics before you even
attempt to discuss physics with physicists. Sorry, but true.

> Matter/material/physcial length
> contraction in SR causes the bug dies at two different instants of
> time.
>
> Ken Seto
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > The geometry of spacetime fits this description, as do non-material
> > > > entities like fields of various types. The description of systems in
> > > > non-material reference frames is also physical, as are the symmetries
> > > > exhibited by the interactions between matter and matter, matter and
> > > > non-matter, and between non-matter and non-matter.
>
> > Please reread what I wrote here too, and not the very first sentence.
>
> > > > This is not a new definition, even if it is new to you. You just never
> > > > learned it correctly.
>
> > > > > Ken Seto
>
> > > > > > If you want the definition of "physical", then feel free to ASK for
> > > > > > it.
> > > > > > You're pretty quick to whine about what it is that I don't do, but you
> > > > > > seem to be unable to ASK for what you want.
> > > > > > Does it just make you just choke to ask?
>
> > > > > > By the way, the definition of "physical" has not changed recently.
> > > > > > Just because you've always thought it meant "material" doesn't mean
> > > > > > it's EVER meant material to a physicist.
>
> > > > > > PD
>
> > > > > > > Ken Seto
>
> > > > > > > Ken Seto
>
> > > > > > > > Likewise, "mammal" does not mean "having four legs and fur" even
> > > > > > > > though it includes animals with four legs and fur.
> > > > > > > > Nor does "mammal" mean "having flippers and a blowhole" even though it
> > > > > > > > includes animals with flipper and a blowhole.
>
> > > > > > > > > So I ask you to give
> > > > > > > > > us the meaning of the word "physical" as related to length contraction
> > > > > > > > > in SR.
>
> > > > > > > > I don't quite understand you, Ken. I asked you directly if you were
> > > > > > > > asking for the meaning of physical. You then told me "No." Then you
> > > > > > > > asked me for the meaning of "physical".
>
> > > > > > > > Can't you answer my question directly and honestly?
>
> > > > > > > > > Ken Seto
>
> > > > > > > > > > Are you ready for the first time to ASK the meaning of a term that you
> > > > > > > > > > do not understand?
>
> > > > > > > > > > This will be a gauge of your emotional health, Ken. If you find that
> > > > > > > > > > you cannot do this without gagging, then it's clear that you're too
> > > > > > > > > > emotionally crippled to do anything sensible in physics..
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Does physical contraction able to kill the
> > > > > > > > > > > bug
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

From: kenseto on 17 Jul 2010 12:44

On Jul 15, 12:06 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
wrote:
> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes:
> >On Jul 14, 2:11 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
> >wrote:
> >> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes:
> >> >Hey idiot....before and after are two different instants of time and
> >> >this fact is not observer depedent.
>
> >> It is observer dependent.
> >No idiot...it is not observer dependent. Every observer will agree
> >that before the head of the rivet hit the wall and after the head of
> >the rivet hit the wall are two different instants of time....the
> >before occurs first and the after occurs later.
>
> It is observer dependent - the two events (rivet tip hitting the bug and
> the rivet head hitting the wall) are what SR calls spatially separated.

Hey idiot SR predicts the bug dies at two instants of time... before
and after the head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole.

Ken Seto

> See below.
>
> >>Consider the following:
>
> >> 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 in this diagram is moving relative to anything else in
> >> the diagram.
> >Your stupid example is observer dependent because it depends on how
> >far the observer away from the source.
>
> You don't realize it of course, but you nearly caught a clue. The two
> events *are* separated by a distance. A distance that is larger in
> comparison than the time difference (c^2 * (delta-t)^2 < (delta-r)^2
> where delta-t is the time difference and delta-r is the space distance)
> so that which event happens first is observer dependent. There are also
> frames where the two events happen simultaneously. In the case of the
> two stars, it's anywhere on the plane of points equidistant between
> them while stationary. SR calls this a space-like interval.
>
> On the other hand, if the distance in spacetime is less than the time
> distance between two events (c^2 * (delta-t)^2 > (delta-r)^2) then it is
> true that for *all* observers, one of the events definitely happened
> before the other. SR calls this a time-like interval. It also means
> perhaps the first event caused the second event, which is impossible for
> the space-like interval (it's impossible for one of the two stars going
> nova to cause the other star to go nova) Nearly all of our world
> experience is in this category. Your confusion is because your common
> sense is lying to you by making you think that *all* pairs of events fall
> in this category.
>
> Guess what? The bug/rivet problem falls into the first category
> and not the second. The distance between the two events (whether the
> length of the rivet shaft or the depth of the hole, depending on
> your reference frame) exceeds the time difference between the events
> so that it is not true for *all* observers that one event happened before
> the other. The time difference is very small due to the relativistic
> speed of the rivet.
>
> BTW there is a frame where the events are simultaneous in time - in other
> words, there is a reference frame where the bug gets squished at the
> *exact instant* the rivet head hits the wall.
>
> You really really really need to read a book on SR. The discussion
> how Space-like intervals, time-like intervals and light-like intervals
> work can help you learn the bug-rivet problem.

From: Michael Moroney on 17 Jul 2010 14:28

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

>On Jul 15, 1:03 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Sorry, but if you have two events A and B, it isn't true that every
>> observer will agree that A comes before B and B is after A.

>Hey idiot....there is only one event: the head of the rivet hits the
>wall of the hole

Two events. Head of rivet hits wall and tip of rivet hits bug.
It is the order of these two events which is observer dependent.

How can you argue this problem if you don't even understand it?