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 23 Jul 2010 14:03

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

>On Jul 22, 11:11 am, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
>wrote:
>> 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????

A glimmer of hope? Ken coming to his senses?

>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.

False alarm.

I'll ask again:

SHOW ME A FRAME WHERE SR PREDICTS THE BUG DIES TWICE, BEFORE AND AFTER THE
HEAD HITS THE WALL!!!!!

If you cannot show any such frame, your claim that SR predicts that the
bug dies before and after the head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole
is false on its face.

From: Michael Moroney on 23 Jul 2010 14:06

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

>On Jul 22, 11:14 am, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
>wrote:
>> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes:
>> >Hey idiot....if there is length contraction as asserted by SR then the
>> >bug dies at two different instants of time.
>>
>> You didn't answer the question. In which frame does the bug die at
>> two instances of time? You repeatedly claim this, but you won't
>> point out a frame where this is true.

>Hey idiot....why would any one observer claims that the bug dies
>before and after the head of the rivet hit the wall??? It is SR that
>makes these predictions.

So why won't you show me a frame where SR predicts the bug dies twice?
It's because you can't. SR never makes any such prediction. All you
can do is lie about what SR predicts.

From: Michael Moroney on 23 Jul 2010 14:18

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

>On Jul 22, 11:21 am, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
>wrote:
>> The tip hits the bug exactly once. One instance of time.

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

So why can't you show me any frames where SR predicts the bug dies
at two instances of time? Because you can't.

>> >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.

So why don't you show me an SR frame where this happens?
Because you can't!

Let's go back to the two stars going nova gedanken.

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 is moving relative to anything else in this diagram.

A sees Star 1 go nova BEFORE Star 2 goes nova. B sees Star 1 go nova
AFTER Star 2 goes nova. Does that mean Star 1 goes nova twice, before and
after Star 2 goes nova?

Tell me how this is different from: A sees the bug get squished by the
tip BEFORE the head hits the wall. B sees the bug get squished by the
tip AFTER the head hits the wall.

From: kenseto on 24 Jul 2010 10:43

On Jul 23, 9:29 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

ROTFLOL....do you realize that geometric projection effect is not
material and material effect is not geometric projection??? What this
means is that you give the term "physical contraction" two
contradictory meanings. <shrug>

Ken Seto

>
> > 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.

Rubber ruler:
1 meter=1/299,792,458 light-second
c=1 light-second/1 second=1

Ken Seto
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > >..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 -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

From: kenseto on 24 Jul 2010 10:50

On Jul 23, 10:02 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> "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.

Hey idiot....that means that the bug dies at different instants of
time according to different observers. But all observers agree that
the bug dies at one instant of time....when the ti[p of the rivet hits
it.

Ken Seto

>
> Your lies and assertions aren't proof.