A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 16 Feb 2010 11:00 On Feb 16, 8:13 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Feb 15, 10:32 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message > > >news:65fb4cc2-4dcb-4a03-a564-a5787f7e3550(a)w31g2000yqk.googlegroups.com.... > > > > On Feb 15, 5:16 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > >> "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message > > > >>news:65b0b432-ea12-4f62-8dea-14b916d28a20(a)15g2000yqi.googlegroups.com.... > > > >> > On Feb 15, 4:06 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> >> On Feb 15, 2:38 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > >> >> > On Feb 15, 12:27 pm, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> >> > > On Feb 15, 6:54 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >> >> > > > On 14 Feb, 23:46, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> >> > > > > On Feb 14, 2:03 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >> >> > > > > > I'm afraid you're easily satisifed Tom. As I say, I'm not > > >> >> > > > > > really > > >> >> > > > > > interested in learning geometry, or talking about completely > > >> >> > > > > > hypothetical "grooves in spacetime". > > > >> >> > > > > And as many people have repeatedly tried to explain to you, > > >> >> > > > > the > > >> >> > > > > answer > > >> >> > > > > simply is geometry. When you accellerate, you rotate in > > >> >> > > > > spacetime. > > >> >> > > > > Why? Because that's what accelleration means. That's what it > > >> >> > > > > means > > >> >> > > > > to be travelling with a certain velocity with respect to > > >> >> > > > > something > > >> >> > > > > else. It means that you're both "facing different > > >> >> > > > > directions". > > >> >> > > > > Every > > >> >> > > > > effect predicted by relativity can be explained simply by the > > >> >> > > > > fact > > >> >> > > > > that two different observers at different speeds are "facing > > >> >> > > > > different > > >> >> > > > > directions" in spacetime--because that's what it means to be > > >> >> > > > > moving > > >> >> > > > > with respect to something else. It means that you have a > > >> >> > > > > different t > > >> >> > > > > and x axis. > > > >> >> > > > Mark, if you consider this an answer, then you simply haven't > > >> >> > > > understood the question.- Hide quoted text - > > > >> >> > > > - Show quoted text - > > > >> >> > > And if you think there's more to it than that, then you haven't > > >> >> > > understood the answer. The above explains everything about > > >> >> > > relativity > > >> >> > > and there's no ambiguity when you understand it. > > > >> >> > > Going back to the fitting a ladder into a barn analogy, it's like > > >> >> > > you > > >> >> > > have a ladder to long to fit into the barn, you turn it at an > > >> >> > > angle, > > >> >> > > and it fits, and then someone starts asking you what "physically" > > >> >> > > happened to the ladder. You say "well, it got rotated, so it's > > >> >> > > shorter in the horizontal direction". Then the person keeps > > >> >> > > demanding > > >> >> > > a physical explanation, and you say you just rotated the ladder, > > >> >> > > so > > >> >> > > it > > >> >> > > takes up a bit more space in the vertical and less in the > > >> >> > > horizontal > > >> >> > > but the total length of the ladder didn't change. > > > >> >> > In this case you are not fitting the length of the ladder through a > > >> >> > narrow door way. You are fitting a skinny side of the ladder through > > >> >> > a > > >> >> > wider door way. > > >> >> > This is not the same as an 80 ft long material pole can fit into a > > >> >> > 40 > > >> >> > ft long material barn with both doors close simultaneously. In this > > >> >> > case material contraction must occur. That's thee reason why modern > > >> >> > interpretation of length contraction in Sr is merely a geometric > > >> >> > effect instead of material or physical effect as asserted by the > > >> >> > runts of the SRians such as PD and you. > > > >> >> "Material" does not mean the same thing as "physical", Ken. > > >> >> This has been pointed out even in the common dictionary. > > >> >> If you can't let go of your mistakes, Ken, you'll never get off square > > >> >> one. > > > >> > Physical is material....is one of the definitions in my dictionary.. > > > >> My dictionary says it is relating to the human body (as opposed to mind > > >> or > > >> spirit), or involving bodily contact. So if you mean length contraction > > >> in > > >> SR is not physical because it does not involve human body contact, then > > >> I'd > > >> agree. > > > >> In any case, SR says the all the atoms of a moving rod are closer > > >> together > > >> (in the frame of a relatively moving observer). ie. that the spatial > > >> distance between them (at any given time) is shorter than when the rod is > > >> at > > >> rest. That sounds 'physically' shorter to me. > > > > Hey idiot > > > I'm no idiot, as you know. But I'll respond to you anyway. > > > > do you realize that you were describing material length > > > contraction and not merely geometric projection contraction? > > > The geometric projection results in the atoms being closer together in the > > frame in which the rod is moving. > > No...this is wrong. I see you to be shorter from a distance is > geometric projection. The atoms in you are not being closer together. > > > As I said above. The effect of the > > geometric projection (rotation) is that the atoms physically get closer.. > > Geometric operations can have physical results. Like rotating a ladder to > > fit through a doorway. > > Geometric projection has no material or physical effect. When you > rotate the x-axis around the time axis the projected x value onto the > original non-roatated x-axis is shorter. That is not a physical or > material effect. > When you said that the atoms get closer together that's is a physical > or material effect. > > > > > > If > > > material length contraction occur how come from the pole frame point > > > of view there is no material length contraction > > > There is a unity projection from pole frame to pole frame .. so no change as > > a result > > So from the pole point of view the pole is not able to fit into the > barn physically or materially. And at the same time the barn frame > observer insisted that the material pole is able to fit into the barn > materially or physically. That sound like a contradiction to me. > > > > > > and thus it is not > > > able to fit into the barn? > > > It fits in the barn in the barn frame at some time in the barn frame. > > I am afraid that you don't understand SR. SR only claim that the > projected length (not the material length or physical length) is able > to fit into the barn frame. > > >There > > is no time in the pole frame where that is true. That is due to the > > differences in time in those two frames > > Right the material length is not able to fit into the material barn. > Your problem is that you want length contraction to be material or > physical instead of accepting the new SR interpretation that length > contract is not material or physical. > > > > > > Do you realize that material length > > > contraction is frame independent? > > > Depends on what you mean by 'length'. What is your definition of the length > > of a rod? > > Length of a meter stick is its physical or material length. Material does not mean physical. Don't choose definitions to suit you. Use the one that is appropriate. > There is no physical or material length contraction in my theory. The > observer assumes that the light path length of his meter stick is its > physical length (1 meter long). He uses this assumed standard and the > IRT equations to predict the light path length for a meter stick > moving wrt him to be: 1/gamma or (gamma) meters long. The reason for > the two prediction is that the observer does not know if the moving > stick has a higher or lower light path length. > My theory is described in the following link:http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf > > Ken Seto
From: PD on 16 Feb 2010 11:02 On Feb 16, 12:15 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 15, 4:13 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 15, 2:53 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 15, 3:20 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 15, 1:50 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Feb 15, 2:17 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 1:05 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 1:44 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 11:36 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 12:12 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 7:40 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 1:20 am, "Peter Webb" > > > > > > > > > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > > > > > > > > > > >news:16bd20be-baaa-459a-90d2-f763cba4f366(a)b36g2000pri.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 12:27 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2/14/10 11:23 PM, mpc755 wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How do you measure your speed relative to the ether? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What ether? > > > > > > > > > > > > > The aether which is the reason for the observed behaviors in every > > > > > > > > > > > > double slit experiment ever performed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > A C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). Detectors are placed at the exits > > > > > > > > > > > > to the slits while the C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). Every time the > > > > > > > > > > > > C-60 molecule exits the slit(s) it is detected exiting a single slit. > > > > > > > > > > > > > When the detectors are placed and removed from the exits to the slits > > > > > > > > > > > > the C-60 molecule is able to create an interference pattern. > > > > > > > > > > > > > How is this possible without the C-60 molecule having an associated > > > > > > > > > > > > aether displacement wave? > > > > > > > > > > > > > ______________________________________ > > > > > > > > > > > > Or, more to the point, how is this possible without the C-60 molecule having > > > > > > > > > > > > an associated pan-galactic gargleblaster pressure wave? Well? > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, here we are once again with another poster who champions the > > > > > > > > > > > greatness of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM and yet is unwilling > > > > > > > > > > > and unable to answer such a simple question. > > > > > > > > > > > > Only one poster on this forum who chooses to believe nature physically > > > > > > > > > > > behaves according to the Copenhagen interpretation of QM has been > > > > > > > > > > > willing to answer this question and their answer was the future > > > > > > > > > > > determines the past. The C-60 molecule will enter one or multiple > > > > > > > > > > > slits depending on their being, or not being, detectors at the slits > > > > > > > > > > > in the future. Now, obviously, this is absurd nonsense, > > > > > > > > > > > On what basis is it obvious that it is absurd nonsense? How do you > > > > > > > > > > personally determine what is nonsense and what is not nonsense, MPC? > > > > > > > > > > > I'll give you a sample statement: The speed of light from a source is > > > > > > > > > > always c as seen by an observer, whether the source is standing still > > > > > > > > > > relative to the observer, moving away from the observer, or moving > > > > > > > > > > toward the observer. > > > > > > > > > > > Now, the question to you is -- how do you determine whether this > > > > > > > > > > statement is absurd nonsense or not? > > > > > > > > > > > > but you do > > > > > > > > > > > have to give that poster credit, at least they answered the question. > > > > > > > > > > First off, the C-60 molecule is a particle > > > > > > > > > Well, that's what YOU say. Physicists say that it has some properties > > > > > > > > of a particle and other properties not like a particle, and these > > > > > > > > properties are *observed* in real experiments. There are a number of > > > > > > > > things that are like that, and they inhabit a new class of objects > > > > > > > > called quantum objects. > > > > > > > > > Now, you claim that this is not so and that C-60 molecules are > > > > > > > > particles, period. Yet you cannot say how it is that you know this. > > > > > > > > You just assert that it is so. > > > > > > > > > > and as such it always > > > > > > > > > enters and exits a single slit. So, to think a particle is physically > > > > > > > > > able to enter and exits multiple slits in and of itself is physical > > > > > > > > > nonsense to begin with, but it is not absurd nonsense. > > > > > > > > > > The C-60 molecule is about to enter the slit(s). We will disregard the > > > > > > > > > obvious which is the C-60 molecule always enters and exits a single > > > > > > > > > slit and go along with the nonsense of the Copenhagen interpretation > > > > > > > > > of QM for now. > > > > > > > > > > You are saying that the C-60 molecule enters one or multiple slits > > > > > > > > > depending upon what has not occurred yet. You really believe the C-60 > > > > > > > > > molecule is going to enter one slit, or multiple slits, depending upon > > > > > > > > > what has yet to occur. You choose to believe the C-60 molecule will > > > > > > > > > enter one or multiple slits depending upon their being, or not being, > > > > > > > > > detectors at the exits to the slits in the future. > > > > > > > > > > That is absurd nonsense. > > > > > > > > > We're back to you just SAYING something is absurd nonsense, without > > > > > > > > having any rational scheme for determining what is absurd nonsense and > > > > > > > > what is not. Scientists don't operate on that basis, just asserting > > > > > > > > this or asserting that. > > > > > > > > > > The fact that you choose to believe in absurd nonsense in order to > > > > > > > > > maintain the illusion the Copenhagen interpretation of QM isn't > > > > > > > > > physical nonsense to begin with just adds to the absurdity of what you > > > > > > > > > choose to believe. > > > > > > > > > See? You haven't answered the question at all. > > > > > > > > You don't have any method, even in your own mind, for determining what > > > > > > > > is absurd nonsense and what is not. > > > > > > > > To you, it is all just a matter of what you WANT to believe, and so > > > > > > > > what you CHOOSE to believe. > > > > > > > > That's called faith, not science. > > > > > > > > Are we going to have this conversation yet again? What is more 'faith > > > > > > > like'? Understanding light propagates through a medium and this medium > > > > > > > is material or believing the future determines the past? > > > > > > > You can't tell just by looking at the two statements and deciding. > > > > > > Of course you can. One statement discusses the aether as a physical > > > > > material the light propagates through. As a physical material it is > > > > > displaced by matter. > > > > > > The other statement, where a C-60 molecule will enter one or multiple > > > > > slits depending upon what occurs in the future, is absurd nonsense. > > > > > Sorry, but just SAYING it's absurd nonsense doesn't make it absurd > > > > nonsense. > > > > Saying the future determines the past is absurd nonsense. > > > > > We've been around and around and around the block on this and you are > > > > still too dense to figure it out. > > > > How do you KNOW it's absurd nonsense, other than just SAYING it's > > > > absurd nonsense. > > > > If you don't have a method for independently determining that, then > > > > it's just an empty assertion. > > > You see? All you have is the ASSERTION that it is absurd. You have no > > way of determining independently, other than to just repeat over and > > over and over again, "It's absurd, it's absurd, it's absurd. Absurd, > > absurd, absurd." > > > > > > > That's the point. You have to have an independent method for > > > > > > *checking* which of the two statements is more likely. > > > > > > > What's your method for that independent determination? > > > > > > My method for that independent determination is the observed behaviors > > > > > in every double slit experiment ever performed. > > > > > Bullshit, and we've been around and around and around on this too. > > > > Your SAYING it doesn't make it so. > > > > Inventing a new type of object because you do not realize a 'particle' > > > has an associated aether wave is absurd. > > > There you go again. > > Yes, because to invent a new type of object in order to 'explain' the > observed behaviors in a double slit experiment and to then have to > believe the future determines the past in order to support this new > type of object 'you' made up simply because 'you' are unwilling and > unable to understand a moving particle has an associated aether wave > is absurd. There you go again, making loose assertions about what's absurd and what's not. Nobody cares about loose assertions. > > > > > > > > My method for that independent determination is, beside the absurd > > > > > nonsense of QM, a particle travels a single path and waves propagate > > > > > available paths. > > > > > But a C-60 molecule is neither a particle or a wave. > > > > Just SAYING the C-60 molecule is a particle doesn't make it so. > > > > > > A moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave.. > > > > > > > Or do you just CHOOSE based on what you LIKE? > > > > > > > > > > A moving C-60 molecule is a particle of matter and has an associated > > > > > > > > > aether displacement wave.
From: mpalenik on 16 Feb 2010 11:31 On Feb 16, 10:24 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 16, 12:10 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 15, 4:05 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 15, 2:29 pm, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 15, 3:20 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Feb 15, 1:50 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 2:17 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 1:05 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 1:44 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 11:36 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 12:12 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 7:40 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 1:20 am, "Peter Webb" > > > > > > > > > > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > > > > > > > > > > > >news:16bd20be-baaa-459a-90d2-f763cba4f366(a)b36g2000pri.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 12:27 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail..com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2/14/10 11:23 PM, mpc755 wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How do you measure your speed relative to the ether? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What ether? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The aether which is the reason for the observed behaviors in every > > > > > > > > > > > > > double slit experiment ever performed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). Detectors are placed at the exits > > > > > > > > > > > > > to the slits while the C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). Every time the > > > > > > > > > > > > > C-60 molecule exits the slit(s) it is detected exiting a single slit. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When the detectors are placed and removed from the exits to the slits > > > > > > > > > > > > > the C-60 molecule is able to create an interference pattern. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How is this possible without the C-60 molecule having an associated > > > > > > > > > > > > > aether displacement wave? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ______________________________________ > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or, more to the point, how is this possible without the C-60 molecule having > > > > > > > > > > > > > an associated pan-galactic gargleblaster pressure wave? Well? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, here we are once again with another poster who champions the > > > > > > > > > > > > greatness of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM and yet is unwilling > > > > > > > > > > > > and unable to answer such a simple question. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Only one poster on this forum who chooses to believe nature physically > > > > > > > > > > > > behaves according to the Copenhagen interpretation of QM has been > > > > > > > > > > > > willing to answer this question and their answer was the future > > > > > > > > > > > > determines the past. The C-60 molecule will enter one or multiple > > > > > > > > > > > > slits depending on their being, or not being, detectors at the slits > > > > > > > > > > > > in the future. Now, obviously, this is absurd nonsense, > > > > > > > > > > > > On what basis is it obvious that it is absurd nonsense? How do you > > > > > > > > > > > personally determine what is nonsense and what is not nonsense, MPC? > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll give you a sample statement: The speed of light from a source is > > > > > > > > > > > always c as seen by an observer, whether the source is standing still > > > > > > > > > > > relative to the observer, moving away from the observer, or moving > > > > > > > > > > > toward the observer. > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, the question to you is -- how do you determine whether this > > > > > > > > > > > statement is absurd nonsense or not? > > > > > > > > > > > > > but you do > > > > > > > > > > > > have to give that poster credit, at least they answered the question. > > > > > > > > > > > First off, the C-60 molecule is a particle > > > > > > > > > > Well, that's what YOU say. Physicists say that it has some properties > > > > > > > > > of a particle and other properties not like a particle, and these > > > > > > > > > properties are *observed* in real experiments. There are a number of > > > > > > > > > things that are like that, and they inhabit a new class of objects > > > > > > > > > called quantum objects. > > > > > > > > > > Now, you claim that this is not so and that C-60 molecules are > > > > > > > > > particles, period. Yet you cannot say how it is that you know this. > > > > > > > > > You just assert that it is so. > > > > > > > > > > > and as such it always > > > > > > > > > > enters and exits a single slit. So, to think a particle is physically > > > > > > > > > > able to enter and exits multiple slits in and of itself is physical > > > > > > > > > > nonsense to begin with, but it is not absurd nonsense. > > > > > > > > > > > The C-60 molecule is about to enter the slit(s). We will disregard the > > > > > > > > > > obvious which is the C-60 molecule always enters and exits a single > > > > > > > > > > slit and go along with the nonsense of the Copenhagen interpretation > > > > > > > > > > of QM for now. > > > > > > > > > > > You are saying that the C-60 molecule enters one or multiple slits > > > > > > > > > > depending upon what has not occurred yet. You really believe the C-60 > > > > > > > > > > molecule is going to enter one slit, or multiple slits, depending upon > > > > > > > > > > what has yet to occur. You choose to believe the C-60 molecule will > > > > > > > > > > enter one or multiple slits depending upon their being, or not being, > > > > > > > > > > detectors at the exits to the slits in the future. > > > > > > > > > > > That is absurd nonsense. > > > > > > > > > > We're back to you just SAYING something is absurd nonsense, without > > > > > > > > > having any rational scheme for determining what is absurd nonsense and > > > > > > > > > what is not. Scientists don't operate on that basis, just asserting > > > > > > > > > this or asserting that. > > > > > > > > > > > The fact that you choose to believe in absurd nonsense in order to > > > > > > > > > > maintain the illusion the Copenhagen interpretation of QM isn't > > > > > > > > > > physical nonsense to begin with just adds to the absurdity of what you > > > > > > > > > > choose to believe. > > > > > > > > > > See? You haven't answered the question at all. > > > > > > > > > You don't have any method, even in your own mind, for determining what > > > > > > > > > is absurd nonsense and what is not. > > > > > > > > > To you, it is all just a matter of what you WANT to believe, and so > > > > > > > > > what you CHOOSE to believe. > > > > > > > > > That's called faith, not science. > > > > > > > > > Are we going to have this conversation yet again? What is more 'faith > > > > > > > > like'? Understanding light propagates through a medium and this medium > > > > > > > > is material or believing the future determines the past? > > > > > > > > You can't tell just by looking at the two statements and deciding. > > > > > > > Of course you can. One statement discusses the aether as a physical > > > > > > material the light propagates through. As a physical material it is > > > > > > displaced by matter. > > > > > > > The other statement, where a C-60 molecule will enter one or multiple > > > > > > slits depending upon what occurs in the future, is absurd nonsense. > > > > > > Sorry, but just SAYING it's absurd nonsense doesn't make it absurd > > > > > nonsense. > > > > > We've been around and around and around the block on this and you are > > > > > still too dense to figure it out. > > > > > How do you KNOW it's absurd nonsense, other than just SAYING it's > > > > > absurd nonsense. > > > > > If you don't have a method for independently determining that, then > > > > > it's just an empty assertion. > > > > > > > > That's the point. You have to have an independent method for > > > > > > > *checking* which of the two statements is more likely. > > > > > > > > What's your method for that independent determination? > > > > > > > My method for that independent determination is the observed behaviors > > > > > > in every double slit experiment ever performed. > > > > > > Bullshit, and we've been around and around and around on this too.. > > > > > Your SAYING it doesn't make it so. > > > > > Just out of curiosity, why do you and other knowledgable people waste > > > > your time trying to explain things to people like mpc755? He's > > > > probably on medication, probably lives alone and is constantly > > > > paranoid that someone is out to get him, and probably has very little > > > > capability to deal with the real world around him. The kind of > > > > delusions that he and some other people here display seem to go beyond > > > > misunderstandings of the physical world to living in a fantasy world-- > > > > which they probably live in full time--and which is quite sad, > > > > really. I mean, does anyone HONESTLY believe that Androcles, for > > > > example, is a normal, well adjusted human being in everyday life? > > > > > At least with Ste, he has shown the capability to write coherently and > > > > admit fault in his beliefs, and hasn't quite gone around making up > > > > absurdities in the same way that mpc, BURT, and others have. I really > > > > don't think the latter group could ever change because I don't think > > > > they're mentally healthy enough. And I gather that after years of > > > > arguing with them, you've probably determined the same thing. > > > > > So, just out of curiosity, why do you continue to argue with them? > > > > I'm not faulting you for it, I'm just curious. > > > > Sometimes I ask myself the same question. > > > Did you notice the poster you're responding to refuses to answer my > > question as to the validity of your 'understanding' of the behaviors > > in a double slit experiment with a C-60 molecule is due to the future > > determining the past? > > And you take his refusal to answer you to be assent to your claim that > it's absurd? > > > > > I guess the poster realizes it is absurd nonsense also. > > On what basis would he realize that? You... > > read more » For the record, I refuse to engage mpc755 in conversation because I realize that attempting to do so would be a pointless exercise in futility.
From: kenseto on 16 Feb 2010 13:25 On Feb 16, 11:00 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 16, 8:13 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 10:32 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message > > > >news:65fb4cc2-4dcb-4a03-a564-a5787f7e3550(a)w31g2000yqk.googlegroups.com.... > > > > > On Feb 15, 5:16 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > >> "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message > > > > >>news:65b0b432-ea12-4f62-8dea-14b916d28a20(a)15g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... > > > > >> > On Feb 15, 4:06 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> >> On Feb 15, 2:38 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > >> >> > On Feb 15, 12:27 pm, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >> >> > > On Feb 15, 6:54 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > >> >> > > > On 14 Feb, 23:46, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >> >> > > > > On Feb 14, 2:03 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > >> >> > > > > > I'm afraid you're easily satisifed Tom. As I say, I'm not > > > >> >> > > > > > really > > > >> >> > > > > > interested in learning geometry, or talking about completely > > > >> >> > > > > > hypothetical "grooves in spacetime". > > > > >> >> > > > > And as many people have repeatedly tried to explain to you, > > > >> >> > > > > the > > > >> >> > > > > answer > > > >> >> > > > > simply is geometry. When you accellerate, you rotate in > > > >> >> > > > > spacetime. > > > >> >> > > > > Why? Because that's what accelleration means. That's what it > > > >> >> > > > > means > > > >> >> > > > > to be travelling with a certain velocity with respect to > > > >> >> > > > > something > > > >> >> > > > > else. It means that you're both "facing different > > > >> >> > > > > directions". > > > >> >> > > > > Every > > > >> >> > > > > effect predicted by relativity can be explained simply by the > > > >> >> > > > > fact > > > >> >> > > > > that two different observers at different speeds are "facing > > > >> >> > > > > different > > > >> >> > > > > directions" in spacetime--because that's what it means to be > > > >> >> > > > > moving > > > >> >> > > > > with respect to something else. It means that you have a > > > >> >> > > > > different t > > > >> >> > > > > and x axis. > > > > >> >> > > > Mark, if you consider this an answer, then you simply haven't > > > >> >> > > > understood the question.- Hide quoted text - > > > > >> >> > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > >> >> > > And if you think there's more to it than that, then you haven't > > > >> >> > > understood the answer. The above explains everything about > > > >> >> > > relativity > > > >> >> > > and there's no ambiguity when you understand it. > > > > >> >> > > Going back to the fitting a ladder into a barn analogy, it's like > > > >> >> > > you > > > >> >> > > have a ladder to long to fit into the barn, you turn it at an > > > >> >> > > angle, > > > >> >> > > and it fits, and then someone starts asking you what "physically" > > > >> >> > > happened to the ladder. You say "well, it got rotated, so it's > > > >> >> > > shorter in the horizontal direction". Then the person keeps > > > >> >> > > demanding > > > >> >> > > a physical explanation, and you say you just rotated the ladder, > > > >> >> > > so > > > >> >> > > it > > > >> >> > > takes up a bit more space in the vertical and less in the > > > >> >> > > horizontal > > > >> >> > > but the total length of the ladder didn't change. > > > > >> >> > In this case you are not fitting the length of the ladder through a > > > >> >> > narrow door way. You are fitting a skinny side of the ladder through > > > >> >> > a > > > >> >> > wider door way. > > > >> >> > This is not the same as an 80 ft long material pole can fit into a > > > >> >> > 40 > > > >> >> > ft long material barn with both doors close simultaneously. In this > > > >> >> > case material contraction must occur. That's thee reason why modern > > > >> >> > interpretation of length contraction in Sr is merely a geometric > > > >> >> > effect instead of material or physical effect as asserted by the > > > >> >> > runts of the SRians such as PD and you. > > > > >> >> "Material" does not mean the same thing as "physical", Ken. > > > >> >> This has been pointed out even in the common dictionary. > > > >> >> If you can't let go of your mistakes, Ken, you'll never get off square > > > >> >> one. > > > > >> > Physical is material....is one of the definitions in my dictionary. > > > > >> My dictionary says it is relating to the human body (as opposed to mind > > > >> or > > > >> spirit), or involving bodily contact. So if you mean length contraction > > > >> in > > > >> SR is not physical because it does not involve human body contact, then > > > >> I'd > > > >> agree. > > > > >> In any case, SR says the all the atoms of a moving rod are closer > > > >> together > > > >> (in the frame of a relatively moving observer). ie. that the spatial > > > >> distance between them (at any given time) is shorter than when the rod is > > > >> at > > > >> rest. That sounds 'physically' shorter to me. > > > > > Hey idiot > > > > I'm no idiot, as you know. But I'll respond to you anyway. > > > > > do you realize that you were describing material length > > > > contraction and not merely geometric projection contraction? > > > > The geometric projection results in the atoms being closer together in the > > > frame in which the rod is moving. > > > No...this is wrong. I see you to be shorter from a distance is > > geometric projection. The atoms in you are not being closer together. > > > > As I said above. The effect of the > > > geometric projection (rotation) is that the atoms physically get closer. > > > Geometric operations can have physical results. Like rotating a ladder to > > > fit through a doorway. > > > Geometric projection has no material or physical effect. When you > > rotate the x-axis around the time axis the projected x value onto the > > original non-roatated x-axis is shorter. That is not a physical or > > material effect. > > When you said that the atoms get closer together that's is a physical > > or material effect. > > > > > If > > > > material length contraction occur how come from the pole frame point > > > > of view there is no material length contraction > > > > There is a unity projection from pole frame to pole frame .. so no change as > > > a result > > > So from the pole point of view the pole is not able to fit into the > > barn physically or materially. And at the same time the barn frame > > observer insisted that the material pole is able to fit into the barn > > materially or physically. That sound like a contradiction to me. > > > > > and thus it is not > > > > able to fit into the barn? > > > > It fits in the barn in the barn frame at some time in the barn frame. > > > I am afraid that you don't understand SR. SR only claim that the > > projected length (not the material length or physical length) is able > > to fit into the barn frame. > > > >There > > > is no time in the pole frame where that is true. That is due to the > > > differences in time in those two frames > > > Right the material length is not able to fit into the material barn. > > Your problem is that you want length contraction to be material or > > physical instead of accepting the new SR interpretation that length > > contract is not material or physical. > > > > > Do you realize that material length > > > > contraction is frame independent? > > > > Depends on what you mean by 'length'. What is your definition of the length > > > of a rod? > > > Length of a meter stick is its physical or material length. > > Material does not mean physical. Don't choose definitions to suit you. > Use the one that is appropriate. Sure material means physical. Geometric projection does not mean physical. > > > > > There is no physical or material length contraction in my theory. The > > observer assumes that the light path length of his meter stick is its > > physical length (1 meter long). He uses this assumed standard and the > > IRT equations to predict the light path length for a meter stick > > moving wrt him to be: 1/gamma or (gamma) meters long. The reason for > > the two prediction is that the observer does not know if the moving > > stick has a higher or lower light path length. > > My theory is described in the following link:http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf > > > Ken Seto- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 16 Feb 2010 13:46
On Feb 16, 12:25 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Feb 16, 11:00 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 16, 8:13 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 15, 10:32 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message > > > > >news:65fb4cc2-4dcb-4a03-a564-a5787f7e3550(a)w31g2000yqk.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > On Feb 15, 5:16 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > >> "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message > > > > > >>news:65b0b432-ea12-4f62-8dea-14b916d28a20(a)15g2000yqi.googlegroups..com... > > > > > >> > On Feb 15, 4:06 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >> >> On Feb 15, 2:38 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > >> >> > On Feb 15, 12:27 pm, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> >> > > On Feb 15, 6:54 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> >> > > > On 14 Feb, 23:46, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> >> > > > > On Feb 14, 2:03 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> >> > > > > > I'm afraid you're easily satisifed Tom. As I say, I'm not > > > > >> >> > > > > > really > > > > >> >> > > > > > interested in learning geometry, or talking about completely > > > > >> >> > > > > > hypothetical "grooves in spacetime". > > > > > >> >> > > > > And as many people have repeatedly tried to explain to you, > > > > >> >> > > > > the > > > > >> >> > > > > answer > > > > >> >> > > > > simply is geometry. When you accellerate, you rotate in > > > > >> >> > > > > spacetime. > > > > >> >> > > > > Why? Because that's what accelleration means. That's what it > > > > >> >> > > > > means > > > > >> >> > > > > to be travelling with a certain velocity with respect to > > > > >> >> > > > > something > > > > >> >> > > > > else. It means that you're both "facing different > > > > >> >> > > > > directions". > > > > >> >> > > > > Every > > > > >> >> > > > > effect predicted by relativity can be explained simply by the > > > > >> >> > > > > fact > > > > >> >> > > > > that two different observers at different speeds are "facing > > > > >> >> > > > > different > > > > >> >> > > > > directions" in spacetime--because that's what it means to be > > > > >> >> > > > > moving > > > > >> >> > > > > with respect to something else. It means that you have a > > > > >> >> > > > > different t > > > > >> >> > > > > and x axis. > > > > > >> >> > > > Mark, if you consider this an answer, then you simply haven't > > > > >> >> > > > understood the question.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > >> >> > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > >> >> > > And if you think there's more to it than that, then you haven't > > > > >> >> > > understood the answer. The above explains everything about > > > > >> >> > > relativity > > > > >> >> > > and there's no ambiguity when you understand it. > > > > > >> >> > > Going back to the fitting a ladder into a barn analogy, it's like > > > > >> >> > > you > > > > >> >> > > have a ladder to long to fit into the barn, you turn it at an > > > > >> >> > > angle, > > > > >> >> > > and it fits, and then someone starts asking you what "physically" > > > > >> >> > > happened to the ladder. You say "well, it got rotated, so it's > > > > >> >> > > shorter in the horizontal direction". Then the person keeps > > > > >> >> > > demanding > > > > >> >> > > a physical explanation, and you say you just rotated the ladder, > > > > >> >> > > so > > > > >> >> > > it > > > > >> >> > > takes up a bit more space in the vertical and less in the > > > > >> >> > > horizontal > > > > >> >> > > but the total length of the ladder didn't change. > > > > > >> >> > In this case you are not fitting the length of the ladder through a > > > > >> >> > narrow door way. You are fitting a skinny side of the ladder through > > > > >> >> > a > > > > >> >> > wider door way. > > > > >> >> > This is not the same as an 80 ft long material pole can fit into a > > > > >> >> > 40 > > > > >> >> > ft long material barn with both doors close simultaneously. In this > > > > >> >> > case material contraction must occur. That's thee reason why modern > > > > >> >> > interpretation of length contraction in Sr is merely a geometric > > > > >> >> > effect instead of material or physical effect as asserted by the > > > > >> >> > runts of the SRians such as PD and you. > > > > > >> >> "Material" does not mean the same thing as "physical", Ken. > > > > >> >> This has been pointed out even in the common dictionary. > > > > >> >> If you can't let go of your mistakes, Ken, you'll never get off square > > > > >> >> one. > > > > > >> > Physical is material....is one of the definitions in my dictionary. > > > > > >> My dictionary says it is relating to the human body (as opposed to mind > > > > >> or > > > > >> spirit), or involving bodily contact. So if you mean length contraction > > > > >> in > > > > >> SR is not physical because it does not involve human body contact, then > > > > >> I'd > > > > >> agree. > > > > > >> In any case, SR says the all the atoms of a moving rod are closer > > > > >> together > > > > >> (in the frame of a relatively moving observer). ie. that the spatial > > > > >> distance between them (at any given time) is shorter than when the rod is > > > > >> at > > > > >> rest. That sounds 'physically' shorter to me. > > > > > > Hey idiot > > > > > I'm no idiot, as you know. But I'll respond to you anyway. > > > > > > do you realize that you were describing material length > > > > > contraction and not merely geometric projection contraction? > > > > > The geometric projection results in the atoms being closer together in the > > > > frame in which the rod is moving. > > > > No...this is wrong. I see you to be shorter from a distance is > > > geometric projection. The atoms in you are not being closer together. > > > > > As I said above. The effect of the > > > > geometric projection (rotation) is that the atoms physically get closer. > > > > Geometric operations can have physical results. Like rotating a ladder to > > > > fit through a doorway. > > > > Geometric projection has no material or physical effect. When you > > > rotate the x-axis around the time axis the projected x value onto the > > > original non-roatated x-axis is shorter. That is not a physical or > > > material effect. > > > When you said that the atoms get closer together that's is a physical > > > or material effect. > > > > > > If > > > > > material length contraction occur how come from the pole frame point > > > > > of view there is no material length contraction > > > > > There is a unity projection from pole frame to pole frame .. so no change as > > > > a result > > > > So from the pole point of view the pole is not able to fit into the > > > barn physically or materially. And at the same time the barn frame > > > observer insisted that the material pole is able to fit into the barn > > > materially or physically. That sound like a contradiction to me. > > > > > > and thus it is not > > > > > able to fit into the barn? > > > > > It fits in the barn in the barn frame at some time in the barn frame. > > > > I am afraid that you don't understand SR. SR only claim that the > > > projected length (not the material length or physical length) is able > > > to fit into the barn frame. > > > > >There > > > > is no time in the pole frame where that is true. That is due to the > > > > differences in time in those two frames > > > > Right the material length is not able to fit into the material barn. > > > Your problem is that you want length contraction to be material or > > > physical instead of accepting the new SR interpretation that length > > > contract is not material or physical. > > > > > > Do you realize that material length > > > > > contraction is frame independent? > > > > > Depends on what you mean by 'length'. What is your definition of the length > > > > of a rod? > > > > Length of a meter stick is its physical or material length. > > > Material does not mean physical. Don't choose definitions to suit you. > > Use the one that is appropriate. > > Sure material means physical. Geometric projection does not mean > physical. Picking and choosing your definitions, Ken? Look at the definitions I highlighted for you. Look at your freshman physics textbook. Does it tell you that the electric field is not physical? > > > > > > There is no physical or material length contraction in my theory. The > > > observer assumes that the light path length of his meter stick is its > > > physical length (1 meter long). He uses this assumed standard and the > > > IRT equations to predict the light path length for a meter stick > > > moving wrt him to be: 1/gamma or (gamma) meters long. The reason for > > > the two prediction is that the observer does not know if the moving > > > stick has a higher or lower light path length. > > > My theory is described in the following link:http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf > > > > Ken Seto- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - |