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 24 Jul 2010 11:06

On Jul 23, 2:18 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
wrote:
> kenseto <kens...(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 I didn't say that the bug dies at two instants of time in
any one frame. I said that SR predicts that:
1. in the hole frame the bug dies after the head of the rivet hits the
wall.
2. in the rivet frame the bug dies before the head of the rivet hits
the wall.
These are two different instants of time.

Ken Seto

>
> >> >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: PD on 24 Jul 2010 11:06

On Jul 24, 9:43 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
> 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>

Do you realize that an animal with four legs and fur is not an animal
with fins and a blowhole?
Do you realize that an animal with fins and a blowhole is not an
animal with four legs and fur?
What this means is that when a biologist uses "mammal" to describe
both these animals it gives it two contradictory meanings?

Don't be an idiot, Ken.

>
> 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.

What did SR say prior to the addition of "rubber rulers", Ken?
Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

>
> 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: Michael Moroney on 24 Jul 2010 12:00

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

>On Jul 23, 2:18 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
>wrote:

>> 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 I didn't say that the bug dies at two instants of time in
>any one frame. I said that SR predicts that:
>1. in the hole frame the bug dies after the head of the rivet hits the
>wall.
>2. in the rivet frame the bug dies before the head of the rivet hits
>the wall.
>These are two different instants of time.

You didn't answer the question. Show me a frame (any frame) where SR
predicts the bug dies twice like you claim.

From: kenseto on 25 Jul 2010 09:56

On Jul 24, 11:06 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 24, 9:43 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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>
>
> Do you realize that an animal with four legs and fur is not an animal
> with fins and a blowhole?

ROTFLOL....no valid counter arguement so you go back to your animal
anology. <sgrug>

Ken Seto

> Do you realize that an animal with fins and a blowhole is not an
> animal with four legs and fur?
> What this means is that when a biologist uses "mammal" to describe
> both these animals it gives it two contradictory meanings?
>
> Don't be an idiot, Ken.
>
>
>
> > 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.
>
> What did SR say prior to the addition of "rubber rulers", Ken?
> Do you have any idea what you're talking about?
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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 -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

From: artful on 25 Jul 2010 10:05

On Jul 25, 12:50 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
> 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.

Nope. Each observer says it dies at the same instant. No observer
disagrees. They only disagree on the ordering of that instant
compared to another instant. Same two instances for all .. just a
different order.

> But all observers agree that
> the bug dies at one instant of time....when the ti[p of the rivet hits
> it.

Yeup. No arguments there.