|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: MikeMike Date: May 15, 2008 01:31
On May 14, 10:37Â pm, Tom Roberts sbcglobal.net> wrote:> Mike wrote:
>>> Mike wrote:
>>>> Either the bug is dead smashed by the river or not
>>>> dead.
>
> OK. That is a rather bad gedanken, because a) it assumes seriously
> impossible properties of the rivet, and b) there is no inertial frame in
> which the rivet REMAINS at rest. I have no desire to discuss it because
> it is so bad. That's probably why I had forgotten it.
A) Nothing impossible is assumes. It is a straight forward situation.
Istead of a bug you can have a switch to turn on a light.
B) For God's shake. What a panic excuse is that? The river is at rest
in it's own frame. It moves uniformly towards the bug.
You have no desire to discuss it because even hypephysics falsifies
your statement.
And you forget what does not suit your agenda.
SR IS AN INCONSISTENT PHYSICAL THEORY.
|
| Show full article (1.35Kb) |
|
| | 18 Comments |
|
|
Author: AlbertitoAlbertito Date: May 15, 2008 02:18
On May 15, 9:31 am, Mike wrote:
> On May 14, 10:37 pm, Tom Roberts sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> Mike wrote:
>>>> Mike wrote:
>>>>> Either the bug is dead smashed by the river or not
>>>>> dead.
>
>> OK. That is a rather bad gedanken, because a) it assumes seriously
>> impossible properties of the rivet, and b) there is no inertial frame in
>> which the rivet REMAINS at rest. I have no desire to discuss it because
>> it is so bad. That's probably why I had forgotten it.
>
> A) Nothing impossible is assumes. It is a straight forward situation.
> Istead of a bug you can have a switch to turn on a light.
>
> B) For God's shake. What a panic excuse is that? The river is at rest
> in it's own frame. It moves uniformly towards the bug.
> ...
|
| Show full article (1.97Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: Tom RobertsTom Roberts Date: May 15, 2008 06:23
Mike wrote:
> A) Nothing impossible is assumes.
Yes, a perfectly rigid rivet and wall are assumed, which are impossible
in SR, and TO APPLY SR one cannot assume things that are IMPOSSIBLE IN
SR. Without those assumptions, the bug is always crushed as rivet and
wall disintegrate on impact.
> Istead of a bug you can have a switch to turn on a light.
Then the switch is destroyed, perhaps making contact, perhaps not.
> B) The river is at rest
> in it's own frame. It moves uniformly towards the bug.
Not once its rigid head hits the rigid wall and forces the rivet head to
stop instantaneously, while the body of the RIGID rivet continues moving
for a (very) short time. Rigidity normally applies in the rivet rest
frame, but during the interval just after the head stops at the wall,
the ENTIRE rivet is not at rest in any inertial frame. THAT'S one reason
why this is such a bad gedanken (assuming rigidity is another such reason).
> You have no desire to discuss it because even hypephysics falsifies
> your statement.
|
| Show full article (1.82Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: MikeMike Date: May 15, 2008 06:54
On May 15, 9:23Â am, Tom Roberts sbcglobal.net> wrote:> Mike wrote:
>> A) Nothing impossible is assumes.
>
> Yes, a perfectly rigid rivet and wall are assumed, which are impossible
> in SR, and TO APPLY SR one cannot assume things that are IMPOSSIBLE IN
> SR. Without those assumptions, the bug is always crushed as rivet and
> wall disintegrate on impact.
hahahahahahahahaha
|
| Show full article (2.65Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Dirk Van de moortelDirk Van de moortel Date: May 15, 2008 08:05
> Mike wrote:
[snip]
>> FOR HOW LONG WILL THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY CONTINUE
>> TO WORSHIP AN
>> INCONSISTENT THEORY ABOUT PHYSICAL REALITY?
>
> No "worship" is involved. UNDERSTANDING is the proper word.
> Unfortunately, that seems to be beyond you. So STUDY. Or find another hobby.
Tom, his current hobby is "Trying to upset you" :-)
Dirk Vdm
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: PDPD Date: May 15, 2008 13:52
On May 15, 8:23Â am, Tom Roberts sbcglobal.net> wrote:> Mike wrote:
>> A) Nothing impossible is assumes.
>
> Yes, a perfectly rigid rivet and wall are assumed, which are impossible
> in SR, and TO APPLY SR one cannot assume things that are IMPOSSIBLE IN
> SR. Without those assumptions, the bug is always crushed as rivet and
> wall disintegrate on impact.
And in fact, perfectly rigid objects are impossible not only in SR but
also among the other laws of physics. (And in fact, a moment's thought
will tell you that SR is little more than the invocation of the laws
of physics and the principle of relativity.) This is true not just as
a practical matter but even in principle. There are several puzzles in
relativity that explicitly remind the student that rigidity is
inherently anathema in the real world.
>
>> Istead of a bug you can have a switch to turn on a light.
>
> Then the switch is destroyed, perhaps making contact, perhaps not.
>
>> B) The river is at rest
>> in it's own frame. It moves uniformly...
|
| Show full article (2.40Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: MikeMike Date: May 15, 2008 15:21
On May 15, 4:52Â pm, PD gmail.com> wrote:> On May 15, 8:23Â am, Tom Roberts sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> Mike wrote:
>>> A) Nothing impossible is assumes.
>
>> Yes, a perfectly rigid rivet and wall are assumed, which are impossible
>> in SR, and TO APPLY SR one cannot assume things that are IMPOSSIBLE IN
>> SR. Without those assumptions, the bug is always crushed as rivet and
>> wall disintegrate on impact.
>
> And in fact, perfectly rigid objects are impossible not only in SR but
> also among the other laws of physics. (And in fact, a moment's thought
> will tell you that SR is little more than the invocation of the laws
> of physics and the principle of relativity.) This is true not just as
> a practical matter but even in principle. There are several...
|
| Show full article (3.24Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: PDPD Date: May 15, 2008 19:25
On May 15, 5:21Â pm, Mike wrote:
> On May 15, 4:52Â pm, PD gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> On May 15, 8:23Â am, Tom Roberts sbcglobal.net> wrote:>
>>> Mike wrote:
>>>> A) Nothing impossible is assumes.
>
>>> Yes, a perfectly rigid rivet and wall are assumed, which are impossible
>>> in SR, and TO APPLY SR one cannot assume things that are IMPOSSIBLE IN
>>> SR. Without those assumptions, the bug is always crushed as rivet and
>>> wall disintegrate on impact.
>
>> And in fact, perfectly rigid objects are impossible not only in SR but
>> also among the other laws of physics. (And in fact, a moment's thought
>> will tell you that SR is little more than the invocation of the laws
>> of physics and the principle of relativity.) This is true not just as
>> a practical matter but even in principle. There are several puzzles in ...
|
| Show full article (3.88Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: MikeMike Date: May 16, 2008 07:28
On May 15, 10:25Â pm, PD gmail.com> wrote:> On May 15, 5:21Â pm, Mike wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>> On May 15, 4:52Â pm, PD gmail.com> wrote:>
>>> On May 15, 8:23Â am, Tom Roberts sbcglobal.net> wrote:>
>>>> Mike wrote:
>>>>> A) Nothing impossible is assumes.
>
>>>> Yes, a perfectly rigid rivet and wall are assumed, which are impossible
>>>> in SR, and TO APPLY SR one cannot assume things that are IMPOSSIBLE IN
>>>> SR. Without those assumptions, the bug is always crushed as rivet and
>>>> wall disintegrate on impact.
>
>>> And in fact, perfectly rigid objects are impossible not only in SR but ...
|
| Show full article (4.63Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: papariospaparios Date: May 16, 2008 07:56
On 16 mayo, 10:28, Mike wrote:
> On May 15, 10:25 pm, PD gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> On May 15, 5:21 pm, Mike wrote:
>
>>> On May 15, 4:52 pm, PD gmail.com> wrote:>
>>>> On May 15, 8:23 am, Tom Roberts sbcglobal.net> wrote:>
>>>>> Mike wrote:
>>>>>> A) Nothing impossible is assumes.
>
>>>>> Yes, a perfectly rigid rivet and wall are assumed, which are impossible
>>>>> in SR, and TO APPLY SR one cannot assume things that are IMPOSSIBLE IN
>>>>> SR. Without those assumptions, the bug is always crushed as rivet and
>>>>> wall disintegrate on impact.
>
>>>> And in fact, perfectly rigid objects are impossible not only in SR but ...
|
| Show full article (5.94Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
