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 25 Jul 2010 10:23

On Jul 25, 10:05 am, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

Hey idiot....if length contraction is material/physical then SR is
predicting that the bug dies at two instants of time.

Ken Seto

>
> > 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.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

From: Peter Webb on 26 Jul 2010 07:01

This thread should be moved to alt.language.english.

You have long since given up arguing that SR is an incorrect theory; instead
you just want to quibble about what the words "physical", "material" and
"geometric" actually mean.

SR does not attempt to define these terms. What it does do is predict the
outcomes of experiments involving things moving close to the speed of light
(or at least much faster than we are used to personally), and it does that
spectacularly well. Some of them appear paradoxical, such as the twins
"paradox" or the ladder/barn "paradox", but they are not, and many, many,
many experiments show the outcomes predicted by SR to be correct.

So you seem to have given up arguing that SR makes false predictions;
indeed, given the overwhelming amount of evidence, it would be impossible
for you to sustain this position.

So instead you try and find some meaning to "physical" as if the definition
of an English word has anything to do with whether SR is a correct theory;
it doesn't.

Pathetic, really.

From: JT on 26 Jul 2010 07:31

On 26 Juli, 13:01, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au>
wrote:
> This thread should be moved to alt.language.english.
>
> You have long since given up arguing that SR is an incorrect theory; instead
> you just want to quibble about what the words "physical", "material" and
> "geometric" actually mean.
>
> SR does not attempt to define these terms. What it does do is predict the
> outcomes of experiments involving things moving close to the speed of light
> (or at least much faster than we are used to personally), and it does that
> spectacularly well. Some of them appear paradoxical, such as the twins
> "paradox" or the ladder/barn "paradox", but they are not, and many, many,
> many experiments show the outcomes predicted by SR to be correct.
>
> So you seem to have given up arguing that SR makes false predictions;
> indeed, given the overwhelming amount of evidence, it would be impossible
> for you to sustain this position.
>
> So instead you try and find some meaning to "physical" as if the definition
> of an English word has anything to do with whether SR is a correct theory;
> it doesn't.
>
> Pathetic, really.

Well Peter when comparing objects ***and*** units they must measure up
if you want to claim equivalence. A meter have certain properties like
an extension within one dimension.

You can not have a ***different*** set of meters for every frame, and
somehow claim that your use of the word signify equivalence between
lengths in different frames.

And this will of course affect your precious invariant lightspeed, it
is actually not moving at c=300 000 km/s thru a space measured using
Euclidian geometry in a Cartesian cordinate system.

The only measured invariant c as reference for lightspeed appears in
the localized geometically skewed spacetime that Einstein created for
airheads doing calculations.

JT

From: kenseto on 26 Jul 2010 09:09

On Jul 26, 7:01 am, "Peter Webb"
<webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> This thread should be moved to alt.language.english.
>
> You have long since given up arguing that SR is an incorrect theory; instead
> you just want to quibble about what the words "physical", "material" and
> "geometric" actually mean.

I never said that SR math is incorrect. I said that SR math is
incomplete. My theory IRT includes the SR math as a subset. What I
want to point out is that most of the SR interpretations such as
length contraction and time dilation are wrong. In this case, PD want
to claim that physical contraction can mean material and/or
geometrical. Such claims are contradictory. IRT said that there is no
physcial or material contraction. But rather the light-path length of
a moving meter stick is longer or shorter than the light-path length
of the observer's mater stick. The light-path length of the observer's
meter stick is assumed to be its physical or material length.

Ken

>
> SR does not attempt to define these terms. What it does do is predict the
> outcomes of experiments involving things moving close to the speed of light
> (or at least much faster than we are used to personally), and it does that
> spectacularly well. Some of them appear paradoxical, such as the twins
> "paradox" or the ladder/barn "paradox", but they are not, and many, many,
> many experiments show the outcomes predicted by SR to be correct.
>
> So you seem to have given up arguing that SR makes false predictions;
> indeed, given the overwhelming amount of evidence, it would be impossible
> for you to sustain this position.
>
> So instead you try and find some meaning to "physical" as if the definition
> of an English word has anything to do with whether SR is a correct theory;
> it doesn't.
>
> Pathetic, really.

From: Inertial on 26 Jul 2010 09:09

"kenseto" wrote in message
news:5607cc69-a98e-404b-8a70-daa5d0600e2e(a)q12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>
>> Length contraction is observer dependent!
>
>Does that mean that you are now agreeing that length contraction is
>not material or physical

Why would you say that because something is observer dependent it is not
material or physical ... that doesn't follow? But then, you aren't terribly
logical or rational.

>....but rather it's merely a geometric
>projection effect

It an effect described geometrically .. just like spinning an object can be
described geometrically as a rotation.

>and such effect cannot cause the bug to die....

It is physical..so yes, it can

>the
>gdies when the tip of the rivet hits the bug and every observer
>agrees to that.

Ye they do .. noone other than you has said otherwise.