Viewpoint and Schwartz'n'eleaticus Paradox

From: eleaticus (eleaticus_at_bellsouth.net)
Date: 11/23/04 

Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 04:49:43 -0600

<ande452@attglobal.net> wrote in message news:41A2D1CA.2EDF@attglobal.net...
> eleaticus wrote:
> > Non-absolute simultaneity has no utility when discussing human sized
objects
> > in impact. If you think it does, then make it ant sized objects.

> > What a cretin you are!

> Jeezzuss! Non absolute simultaneity doesn't have to have "utility"
> to explain SR for any size objects. Can you even define "utility"
> in the context that you introduced the term into this discussion.

> SR predicts non absolute simultaneity and predicts how to relate
> measurements made in different frames of reference using relativity
> of simultaneity.

Both are hoizontal 'height' .0000000000000000000000000000000000000866
approx.

A' feet start at time t=t'=0 by convention and at x=-.866 approx, x'=--1.732
approx.
A feet start at time t=t'=0 by convention and at x=0.
Their relative velocity is .866c approx and gamma = 2..

Their feet become adjacent at t=1, at which time the A' head is at
.0000000000000000000000000000000000000866 , the lower abdomen of A, gamma
being 2.

So far there is unmistakable simultaneity, being strictly from viewpoint A.

>From the A' point of view it is at time 1 the feet become adjacent at
location zero and the A head is at
.0000000000000000000000000000000000000433, the location of the A' belly.

That being from an unmistakable simultaneity viewpoint, being strictly from
viewpoint A'.

Hence, boxer A fist misses the A' head but he sees the A' fist plow into
his belly.
And hence, boxer A' fist misses the A head but he sees the A first plow into
his belly.

QED

If you are half my height, our feet are adjacent, and our heads extend in
the same direction, your head is just above my crotch, no matter what time
it is. And SR says that is the situation in the given setup at my time t=1.

If I am half your height, our feet are adjacent, and our heads extend in the
same direction, my head is just at the lower parta of your belly no matter
what time it is. And SR says that is the situation in the given setup at
your time t=1.

Wait a minute!

That is direct application of SR.

But don't you know that SR is so fucked up that the direct application of
its basic equations is tacitly outlawed by the SR-cult?

You are not allowed to use those basic equations directly.

To do so shows them to be complete nonsense, invalid by reduction to the
absurd, as above.

So, let's play the True Believer SR-cult cretin game and pretend SR isn't
crap, and that the non-simulataneity isn't the most vomitous version of the
crap.

No, let's don't. Why practice their idiocy?

The given resolution being absolutely irrefutable given SR-contraction, any
further SR-idiocy that says otherwise is proof by reduction to the absurd
that SR is crap.

What's the problem, over and above the basic problem that SR is crap?

Screwed up viewpoint.

We know that the contraction result of x'=gx-gvt is not the moving system
viewpoint, it is supposedly what A will see, not what A' will see for
itself. A' does not see himself contracted according to SR-dogma. Too bad,
because if he saw himself as contracted the .866 distance would be 1.732 for
him and at v=.866 the feet would become adjacent at t'=2, the same figure
the SR-idiot A would calculate for t'.

We also know that A' doesn't see A as contracted: let a rail run from
adjacent to the A' feet to adjacent to the A feet, to mark the distance with
something physical. The rail would be only .433 long and at v=.866 it would
be at time t'=.5 that the feet were adjacent, not the t'=2 the SR-idiot A
calculated using SR, not the t'=1 an actual A' would see it taking.

We know that the dilation result of (the corrupt) t'=gt-gxt/cc is not the
moving system viewpoint, it is supposdedly what A will see, not what A' will
see for itself. A' does not see himself slowed down. No 'too bad' here
because there is no way the (mis)info can be used. With t'=d'/v, what in
hell would it mean to say time has slowed? Nothing! No consequence.

That is, not just x and t but also x' and t' are stationary system
viewpoints, one pair sane, and the other pair pure psychotic idiocy.

In our setup, the moving system also see that it takes t=1 elapsed time unit
to become feet-adjacent. The moving system sees at that time that - given
contraction - the A head is at the A' belly.

Period. The idiocy of the BEER (Basic Equations of Einstein's Relativity)
has nothing to do with the moving system measures, it is nonsense, crap, and
... well, SR.

eleaticus