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: Michael Moroney on 21 Jul 2010 13:13

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

>On Jul 20, 5:53 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
>wrote:
>> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes:
>> >Hey idiot SR predicts that the bug dies before and after the head of
>> >the rivet hit the wall of the hole. You are so stupid.
>>
>> Once again, describe an SR frame where the bug dies twice. You can't,
>> because there is no such frame. Yet you keep claiming the bug dies
>> twice. Why?

>Hey idiot....if there is real length contraction SR does predict that
>the bug dies at two different instants of time. You are so stupid.

Once again, show me an SR frame where the bug dies twice and I'll
believe your claim that the bug dies at two different instants of time.
You can't. There is no such frame. Yet you repeat your lie over and over
again that "SR predicts the bug dies at two different instants of time."

You have nothing but insults.

From: Michael Moroney on 21 Jul 2010 13:45

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

>The problem is that SR predicts that in the rivet
>frame the tip of the rivet hits the bug before the head of the rivet
>hits the wall of the hole.....and at the same time SR predicts that
>in
>the hole frame the tip of the rivet hits the bug after the head of
>the
>rivet hits the wall of the hole. These are two different instants of
>time....what this mean is that SR predicts that the bug dies at two
>different instants of time.

In which frame is this true? The hole frame? (Nope, the head strikes
first.) The rivet frame? (Nope, the tip strikes first.) Some other
frame? (Which one?)

From: kenseto on 22 Jul 2010 09:40

On Jul 21, 10:52 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 21, 9:38 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 19, 11:52 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 17, 11:44 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > 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.
>
> > > No, it says it dies at ONE instant. But one observer says it dies
> > > before, the other says it dies after. Neither observer says it dies
> > > both before and after.
>
> > If there is real physical/material length contraction, SR does predict
> > that the bug dies at two different instants of time.
>
> Physical does not mean material. You keep making that mistake.

But you said in the previous post that physical can mean material....
>
>

From: kenseto on 22 Jul 2010 09:41

On Jul 21, 10:53 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 21, 9:39 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 20, 5:53 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
> > wrote:
>
> > > kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes:
> > > >On Jul 17, 2:28 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
> > > >wrote:
> > > >> kenseto <kens...(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.
> > > >Hey idiot SR predicts that the bug dies before and after the head of
> > > >the rivet hit the wall of the hole. You are so stupid.
>
> > > Once again, describe an SR frame where the bug dies twice. You can't,
> > > because there is no such frame. Yet you keep claiming the bug dies
> > > twice. Why?
>
> > Hey idiot....if there is real length contraction
>
> And there is.
>
> > SR does predict that
> > the bug dies at two different instants of time.
>
> Nope. You're just repeating the same mistake over and over and over
> again. Why do you cling to mistakes?

Before and after the head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole are
two different instants of time.

>
>
>
> > You are so stupid.
>
> > Ken Seto- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

From: kenseto on 22 Jul 2010 09:48

On Jul 21, 1:13 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
wrote:
> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes:
> >On Jul 20, 5:53 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
> >wrote:
> >> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes:
> >> >Hey idiot SR predicts that the bug dies before and after the head of
> >> >the rivet hit the wall of the hole. You are so stupid.
>
> >> Once again, describe an SR frame where the bug dies twice. You can't,
> >> because there is no such frame. Yet you keep claiming the bug dies
> >> twice. Why?
> >Hey idiot....if there is real length contraction SR does predict that
> >the bug dies at two different instants of time. You are so stupid.
>
> Once again, show me an SR frame where the bug dies twice and I'll
> believe your claim that the bug dies at two different instants of time.
> You can't. There is no such frame. Yet you repeat your lie over and over
> again that "SR predicts the bug dies at two different instants of time."

Hey idiot....SR does predict that the bug dies before the head of the
rivet hits the wall and also predicts that it dies after the head of
the rivet hit the wall.

Ken Seto

>
> You have nothing but insults.