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 23 Jul 2010 09:23

On Jul 22, 11:21 am, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
wrote:
> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes:
> >On Jul 21, 1:38 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
> >wrote:
> >> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes:
> >> > These are two different instants of
> >> >time....
>
> >> One instant. When the tip strikes the bug.
> >No two instants of time when the tip hits the bug.
>
> The tip hits the bug exactly once. One instance of time.

But SR predicts that this event happened at two instants of time.

>
> >> >what this mean is that SR predicts that the bug dies at two
> >> >different instants of time.
>
> >> So how are you coming along at describing an SR frame where the bug dies
> >> twice? You can't do it, can you. Hint: There is no such frame.
> >Hey idiot why would any one frame say that the bug die twice?
>
> Because you claim SR claims the bug dies twice!

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

>For this to be true,
> there has to be at least one reference frame where the bug dies twice.
> Show it to us!
>
> > But SR
> >does predict that the tip of the rivet hit the bug at two different
> >instants of time. No matter how you spin it that's what SR predicts.
>
> Once again, in which frame is this true?

From: PD on 23 Jul 2010 09:29

On Jul 23, 7:43 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
> On Jul 22, 10:46 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 22, 8:32 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Sorry, Ken, you don't get to decide what "physical" means. >Physicists do. It really doesn't matter whether you find these >definitions
> > > > > > laughable or not. You either learn them, and use the terms as
> > > > > > physicists do, or you give up on communicating with physicists.
>
> > > > > ROTFLOL....you want to use the word physical to have different
> > > > > meanings as follows:
> > > > > 1. Physical contraction can mean real material shrinkage such that the
> > > > > tip of the rivet will crush the bug to death at a later time than if
> > > > > there is no material shrinkage.
> > > > > 2. Physical contraction can mean that no real material shrinkage....it
> > > > > is a geometric projection effect. this kind of shrinkage will not
> > > > > affect when the tip of the rivet hits the bug.
>
> > > > Yes. Physical encompasses both kinds of effects.
>
> > > ROTFLOL....so that means that "physical contraction" is an
> > > epicycle.
>
> > What do you think "epicycle" means, Ken? You've just used another word
> > and you have no idea what it means.
>
> It is you who don't know what the word epicycle mean....it mean an add
> on to a theory that encounters observation problems.

Well, not quite, but now I understand what YOU mean by "epicycle".

> That's exactly
> what the term "physical contraction" does when you insisted that it
> means both material contraction and geometric projection effect.

"Physical" has ALWAYS encompassed both the geometric and the material
-- and even more than that.
There was no adjustment made.

> Similarly the rubber ruler is an epicycle because it is an add on to
> SR to maintain the constancy of the speed of light.

What? When do you think "rubber rulers" were added on to SR? What did
SR say prior to the addition of "rubber rulers". Do you have ANY idea
what you're talking about? No, I didn't think so.

>
>
>
> > >..it is added on by indoctrinated runts of the SRians such as
> > > yourself to propagate the myth to the public that a meter stick is
> > > shorter when it is in relative motion wrt an observer.
>
> > No, it's not added on.
>
> Yes it is an added on.
>
> Ken Seto
>
>
>
> >It's ALWAYS meant that. It meant that centuries
> > before you were born. You just never knew what "physical" meant.

See?

>
> > > You SRians are good at inventing things that has different meanings.
> > > Another example of epicycle invented for SR is the rubber meter stick
> > > to maintain the constancy of the speed of light in all frames:
> > > 1 meter=1/299,792,458 light-second.
>
> > > Ken Seto
>
> > > - Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -...
>
> > > > read more »- 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: PD on 23 Jul 2010 09:30

On Jul 23, 8:03 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
> On Jul 22, 10:57 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 22, 8:40 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > 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....
>
> > Can yes, in some cases. Not all cases.
>
> There is no point of arguing with you. You want "physical contraction"
> to mean both "material contraction" and "geometric projection effect".

"Physical" has ALWAYS included that.

> It seems that all you guys doing to resolve observational problem is
> by adding epicycle.

Sorry, Ken, but you don't know what you're talking about.

>
>
>
> > A mammal CAN have four legs. This doesn't mean mammals are animals
> > with four legs. A whale is a mammal.
> > A rectangle CAN be a square. This doesn't mean all rectangles are
> > square.
>
> > Physical does not mean material.
>
> > > - 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: Inertial on 23 Jul 2010 09:11

>"kenseto" wrote in message
>news:c0eeb42e-7baa-4436-ac06-2adccf641aa0(a)g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>It is you who don't know what the word epicycle mean....it mean an add
>on to a theory that encounters observation problems.

BAHAHAHAHAHA. You're such a clown

From: Inertial on 23 Jul 2010 10:02

"kenseto" wrote in message
news:8e1acc83-14f3-4c4d-baed-3c2a7709b3a7(a)z10g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
>> SHOW ME THE FRAME WHERE THE BUG DIES TWICE, BEFORE AND AFTER THE HEAD
>> HITS
>> THE WALL!!!!!
>
>Hey idiot....why would any one observer claims that the bug dies
>before and after the head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole????

Its your nonsense claim .. not ours

>The hole observer claims that the bug dies after the head of the rivet
>hits the wall of the hole. The rivet observer claims that the bug dies
>before the head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole. These are two
>different instants of time.

No .. same instants, different order

>SR predicts that the bug dies before and after the head of the rivet
> hits the wall of the hole due to material length contraction.

No .. it predicts it dies before OR it dies after according to some observer
,, depending on the observers inertial frame. It never predicts the that
bug dies both before AND after in ANY inertial frame.

Your lies and assertions aren't proof.