Prev: Quantum Gravity 357.91: Croatia Shows That Probability of Vacuum Energy Density is More Important than its Vacuum Expectation Value (VEV) of the Hamiltonian Density, in line with Probable Causation/Influence (PI)
Next: Hubble Views Saturn's Northern/Southern Lights
From: PD on 17 Feb 2010 16:55
On Feb 17, 3:50 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 17, 3:22 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 17, 4:17 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>
> > > "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:7c117076-4a6e-4d51-ab62-c3014a7e2559(a)z11g2000yqz.googlegroups.com....
>
> > > > On Feb 16, 6:42 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> > > >> "PD" <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > >>news:da09c070-e346-42f6-a55f-cabf519d20dc(a)k36g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > >> > On Feb 16, 5:17 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> > > >> >> "PD" <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > >> >>news:995b34f4-be02-48bb-b9db-463e3437283a(a)j27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > >> >> > On Feb 16, 12:57 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
> > > >> >> >> On Feb 16, 1:46 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> >> >> > 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?
>
> > > >> >> >> In the past you insisted that length contraction in SR is physical
> > > >> >> >> and
> > > >> >> >> at that time you think that physical means material.
>
> > > >> >> > No, sir, I *never* said length contraction was material. I said it
> > > >> >> > was
> > > >> >> > PHYSICAL.
>
> > > >> >> >> You even
> > > >> >> >> suggested that length contraction can be measured directly by
> > > >> >> >> shooting
> > > >> >> >> lasers from the ends of a moving ruler to the rest frame of the
> > > >> >> >> observer.
>
> > > >> >> > Yes, it is MEASURABLE. Physical things are measurable.
> > > >> >> > Energy is MEASURABLE, it is not material.
> > > >> >> > Magnetic fields are MEASURABLE, they are not material.
> > > >> >> > Radio waves are MEASURABLE, they are not material.
>
> > > >> >> >> So you see you think that length contraction in SR is
> > > >> >> >> material.
>
> > > >> >> > No, it is MEASURABLE. It is not material.
>
> > > >> >> >> Also your SR brother Inertial said in this thread that contraction
> > > >> >> >> in
> > > >> >> >> SR means that the atoms get closer....this means material
> > > >> >> >> contraction.
>
> > > >> >> > Ken, rather than desperately trying to gather excuses to support
> > > >> >> > your
> > > >> >> > mistaken impression, why don't you just take another look at the
> > > >> >> > correct definitions for physical that I've already shown you? Why
> > > >> >> > don't you reread your freshman physics text again, and check whether
> > > >> >> > it says the electric field is not physical? If you've made a small
> > > >> >> > mistake, then CORRECT IT and move on. If you cannot ever correct a
> > > >> >> > small mistake, you'll never get out of square one. You'll spend all
> > > >> >> > your time searching newsgroups for support for your mistake.
>
> > > >> >> Note that the atoms in a length-contracted rod are physically closer
> > > >> >> together, as measured in the relatively moving inertial frame.  In
> > > >> >> that
> > > >> >> frame the material that makes up the rod is fitting within a shorter
> > > >> >> distance (ie compressed).
>
> > > >> > Well, I know what you're saying, but I'd be very careful about
> > > >> > terminology here to avoid confusion. Seto thinks of compression as
> > > >> > being solely the effect of a material interaction, such as a
> > > >> > compressive *force* or perhaps a low temperature bath. That's not
> > > >> > what's going on here. So yes, the pole is shorter and since no atoms
> > > >> > have been lost, then the atoms have a different length, but this does
> > > >> > not imply anything squeezing on them (even if Seto can't imagine it
> > > >> > happening any other way).
>
> > > >> I didn't say they were squeezed .. I said they were closer together.
>
> > > > You didn't say that they were squeezed and I didn't interpret that
> > > > they were squeezed. But when you said that the atoms are closer
> > > > together I interpreted that the pole is materially really gotten
> > > > shorter...iow it is not just a geometic projection effect.
>
> > > It is a geometric projection / rotation.  And that projection has physical
> > > effects.  Just like the geometric projection / rotation of a tilted ladder
> > > has the physical effect that it is not as tall and can fit thru a doorway.
>
> > So are you saying that when you tilt the ladder the atoms in the
> > ladder get a little closer? I don't think so.
>
> They do along the plane of the doorway, yes!

Ken, this should be obvious!
A ladder has 9.6E26 atoms along its length. Its length measured with a
ruler that is lain parallel to the ladder is 12 feet. This means there
are 8.0E25 atoms per foot by this measurement.

Now you tip the ladder so that it will fit through a doorway that is 8
feet high. No atoms have disappeared from the ladder when you tip it,
so all 9.6E26 atoms in a line in the ladder still have to get through
the doorway. This means there are 1.2E26 atoms per foot by this
measurement.

Yes indeed, more atoms per foot!

It's OBVIOUS!

>
>
>
> > Ken Seto
>
> > > I don't see why you find this so confusing.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
>

From: Inertial on 17 Feb 2010 17:12

"PD" <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:32935e3d-1858-4fe3-ade4-171d84664f8f(a)j31g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 17, 3:50 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 17, 3:22 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Feb 17, 4:17 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message
>>
>> > >news:7c117076-4a6e-4d51-ab62-c3014a7e2559(a)z11g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > > > On Feb 16, 6:42 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>> > > >> "PD" <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> > > >>news:da09c070-e346-42f6-a55f-cabf519d20dc(a)k36g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > > >> > On Feb 16, 5:17 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>> > > >> >> "PD" <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> > > >> >>news:995b34f4-be02-48bb-b9db-463e3437283a(a)j27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > > >> >> > On Feb 16, 12:57 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>> > > >> >> >> On Feb 16, 1:46 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > >> >> >> > 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?
>>
>> > > >> >> >> In the past you insisted that length contraction in SR is
>> > > >> >> >> physical
>> > > >> >> >> and
>> > > >> >> >> at that time you think that physical means material.
>>
>> > > >> >> > No, sir, I *never* said length contraction was material. I
>> > > >> >> > said it
>> > > >> >> > was
>> > > >> >> > PHYSICAL.
>>
>> > > >> >> >> You even
>> > > >> >> >> suggested that length contraction can be measured directly
>> > > >> >> >> by
>> > > >> >> >> shooting
>> > > >> >> >> lasers from the ends of a moving ruler to the rest frame of
>> > > >> >> >> the
>> > > >> >> >> observer.
>>
>> > > >> >> > Yes, it is MEASURABLE. Physical things are measurable.
>> > > >> >> > Energy is MEASURABLE, it is not material.
>> > > >> >> > Magnetic fields are MEASURABLE, they are not material.
>> > > >> >> > Radio waves are MEASURABLE, they are not material.
>>
>> > > >> >> >> So you see you think that length contraction in SR is
>> > > >> >> >> material.
>>
>> > > >> >> > No, it is MEASURABLE. It is not material.
>>
>> > > >> >> >> Also your SR brother Inertial said in this thread that
>> > > >> >> >> contraction
>> > > >> >> >> in
>> > > >> >> >> SR means that the atoms get closer....this means material
>> > > >> >> >> contraction.
>>
>> > > >> >> > Ken, rather than desperately trying to gather excuses to
>> > > >> >> > support
>> > > >> >> > your
>> > > >> >> > mistaken impression, why don't you just take another look at
>> > > >> >> > the
>> > > >> >> > correct definitions for physical that I've already shown you?
>> > > >> >> > Why
>> > > >> >> > don't you reread your freshman physics text again, and check
>> > > >> >> > whether
>> > > >> >> > it says the electric field is not physical? If you've made a
>> > > >> >> > small
>> > > >> >> > mistake, then CORRECT IT and move on. If you cannot ever
>> > > >> >> > correct a
>> > > >> >> > small mistake, you'll never get out of square one. You'll
>> > > >> >> > spend all
>> > > >> >> > your time searching newsgroups for support for your mistake.
>>
>> > > >> >> Note that the atoms in a length-contracted rod are physically
>> > > >> >> closer
>> > > >> >> together, as measured in the relatively moving inertial frame.
>> > > >> >> In
>> > > >> >> that
>> > > >> >> frame the material that makes up the rod is fitting within a
>> > > >> >> shorter
>> > > >> >> distance (ie compressed).
>>
>> > > >> > Well, I know what you're saying, but I'd be very careful about
>> > > >> > terminology here to avoid confusion. Seto thinks of compression
>> > > >> > as
>> > > >> > being solely the effect of a material interaction, such as a
>> > > >> > compressive *force* or perhaps a low temperature bath. That's
>> > > >> > not
>> > > >> > what's going on here. So yes, the pole is shorter and since no
>> > > >> > atoms
>> > > >> > have been lost, then the atoms have a different length, but this
>> > > >> > does
>> > > >> > not imply anything squeezing on them (even if Seto can't imagine
>> > > >> > it
>> > > >> > happening any other way).
>>
>> > > >> I didn't say they were squeezed .. I said they were closer
>> > > >> together.
>>
>> > > > You didn't say that they were squeezed and I didn't interpret that
>> > > > they were squeezed. But when you said that the atoms are closer
>> > > > together I interpreted that the pole is materially really gotten
>> > > > shorter...iow it is not just a geometic projection effect.
>>
>> > > It is a geometric projection / rotation. And that projection has
>> > > physical
>> > > effects. Just like the geometric projection / rotation of a tilted
>> > > ladder
>> > > has the physical effect that it is not as tall and can fit thru a
>> > > doorway.
>>
>> > So are you saying that when you tilt the ladder the atoms in the
>> > ladder get a little closer? I don't think so.
>>
>> They do along the plane of the doorway, yes!
>
> Ken, this should be obvious!
> A ladder has 9.6E26 atoms along its length. Its length measured with a
> ruler that is lain parallel to the ladder is 12 feet. This means there
> are 8.0E25 atoms per foot by this measurement.
>
> Now you tip the ladder so that it will fit through a doorway that is 8
> feet high. No atoms have disappeared from the ladder when you tip it,
> so all 9.6E26 atoms in a line in the ladder still have to get through
> the doorway. This means there are 1.2E26 atoms per foot by this
> measurement.
>
> Yes indeed, more atoms per foot!
>
> It's OBVIOUS!

Ken has never been terribly good at the obvious :):)


From: mpc755 on 17 Feb 2010 20:11
On Feb 16, 11:55 pm, "Peter Webb"
<webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:3c8112b0-e86e-4fdb-a9f6-6c390200aa01(a)b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 16, 9:26 pm, "Peter Webb"
>
>
>
> <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > > __________________________________
> > > > My tabletop is not in a spaceship, and there is no train on the
> > > > spaceship.
>
> > > > Here is my question. Lets just take the first half this time:
>
> > > > 1. We place two atomic clocks on a tabletop at the centre of a 1 metre
> > > > ruler. We separate them very slowly so they are at either end of the
> > > > one
> > > > metre ruler. We record the time taken (according to the clocks) for
> > > > light
> > > > to
> > > > travel 1 metre in a vacuum. Will the speed of light measured in this
> > > > manner
> > > > be c or some other value?
>
> > > Is the aether at rest with respect to the table top?
>
> > > _________________________________
> > > No. The tabletop is moving at speed of v relative to the ether.
>
> > The the tabletop is the train.
>
> > __________________________________
> > No, a tabletop is a tabletop. Its not a train. And you haven't answered my
> > question. Will the speed of light measured in this manner be c or some
> > other
> > value? It is a pretty simple question. Why won't you answer it?
>
> I have answered it several times. If you want to understand how the
> clocks on the tabletop behave read my posts and replaced 'train' with
> 'tabletop'.
>
> _______________________________________
> Or, you could simply answer my question. Its pretty simple. Will the speed
> be measured as c, or some different value.
>
> I will make it easy for you:
>
> If the earth is moving at velocity v with respect to the ether, and we
> perform the very simple experiment above, then will the measured speed of
> light in a vacuum be measured as c in a laboratory on earth?
>
> Well?

Replace 'earth' with 'train' and read my responses if you want to know
the answer.
From: mpc755 on 17 Feb 2010 20:16
On Feb 16, 11:58 pm, "Peter Webb"
<webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:f6d7f0a4-a27c-476d-8098-8b877d62a849(a)b18g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 16, 9:26 pm, "Peter Webb"
>
>
>
> <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > > __________________________________
> > > > My tabletop is not in a spaceship, and there is no train on the
> > > > spaceship.
>
> > > > Here is my question. Lets just take the first half this time:
>
> > > > 1. We place two atomic clocks on a tabletop at the centre of a 1 metre
> > > > ruler. We separate them very slowly so they are at either end of the
> > > > one
> > > > metre ruler. We record the time taken (according to the clocks) for
> > > > light
> > > > to
> > > > travel 1 metre in a vacuum. Will the speed of light measured in this
> > > > manner
> > > > be c or some other value?
>
> > > Is the aether at rest with respect to the table top?
>
> > > _________________________________
> > > No. The tabletop is moving at speed of v relative to the ether.
>
> > The the tabletop is the train.
>
> > __________________________________
> > No, a tabletop is a tabletop. Its not a train. And you haven't answered my
> > question. Will the speed of light measured in this manner be c or some
> > other
> > value? It is a pretty simple question. Why won't you answer it?
>
> How is the tabletop able to move at 'v' with respect to the aether?
>
> It's on a train.
>
> ________________________________
> It is not on a train. It is on a tabletop. And it moves relative to the
> ether because I have already stated that it is moving at velocity v with
> respect to the ether.
>

So is the train.

> So, is the speed on earth measured at c or some other value?

Whatever you are saying is moving at 'v' with respect to the aether
replace what you insist on calling the object with 'train' and read my
responses in order to understand the answer.

So far you have said the tabletop is moving at 'v' with respect to the
aether and you have said the Earth is moving at 'v' with respect to
the aether. When you decide to call the object moving at 'v' with
respect to the aether a train read my response in order to understand
the answer.
From: mpc755 on 17 Feb 2010 20:22
On Feb 17, 12:36 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 16, 6:35 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 16, 10:24 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > 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?
>
> > Yes.
>
> Good for you. You're a nutjob. Enjoy your medications.
>

Of course the posters refusal to answer the question shows they think
your notion of the C-60 molecule entering one or multiple slits
depending upon detectors being placed at the exits or not in the
future is absurd.

Why wouldn't the poster simply respond with a 'yes' if they agreed
with your absurd nonsense? The poster's non-answer demonstrates they
suffer from delusional denial just like you do.

A C-60 molecule is a particle of matter and has an associated aether
displacement wave. The displacement wave enters and exits the
available slits and creates interference when exiting the slits. The
interference alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. Detectors
at the exits to the slits causes decoherence of the associated
displacement wave (the waves are turned into chop) and there is no
interference.


>
>
> > > > I guess the poster realizes it is absurd nonsense also.
>
> > > On what basis would he realize that? You don't have a basis either.
> > > You just make the empty assertion that it's "absurd, absurd, absurd,
> > > just absurd nonsense". Empty assertion.
>
> > If the poster agreed with you that the future determines the past why
> > didn't he just respond stating so? The posters silence is deafening.
>
>

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Prev: Quantum Gravity 357.91: Croatia Shows That Probability of Vacuum Energy Density is More Important than its Vacuum Expectation Value (VEV) of the Hamiltonian Density, in line with Probable Causation/Influence (PI)
Next: Hubble Views Saturn's Northern/Southern Lights