Prev: Droolin Doolin's multiplication table
Next: The Planet Attractor Action, July 28, 2010 johnreed
From: mpc755 on 28 Jul 2010 20:30
On Jul 28, 8:24 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 29, 9:02 am, Uncle Ben <b...(a)greenba.com> wrote:
>
> > Our friend John Parker (aka "Androcles") sincerely believes that he
> > has found a mistake in Einstein's 1905 paper on SR, to wit, that
> > since
>
> > the length of a "moving" rod w.r.t. a "moving" frame of reference
> > (moving with the same velocity as the "moving" rod)
>
> > is longer than the length of that rod w.r.t. a "stationary" frame
> > (stationary in the laboratory), (a result that everyone accepts except
> > other cranks),
>
> > therefore, the "moving" rod has been stretched by its motion.
>
> Whether or not it stretched depends on what its length was BEFORE it
> was moving (assuming that it ever was at reset in the 'stationary'
> frame.  SR only says that its length measured from a relatively moving
> frame will be shorter than the length measured from a comoving frame.
> It doesn't say anything about what may have happened to the rod in
> order for it to have achieved whatever motion it has .. there are
> numerous possibilities.  Refer to Bell's spaceship scenario for one
> possibility (where there IS intrinsic  stretching if one wants the rod
> to maintain the same length in the stationary frame when moving as
> when at rest)

Does the ripple eventually reach the Earth? I will take your non-
answer to be what it is, evidence of your delusional denial state of
existence.

'Hubble Finds Ghostly Ring of Dark Matter'
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/news/dark_matter_ring_feature.html

"Astronomers using NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope got a first-hand view
of how dark matter behaves during a titanic collision between two
galaxy clusters. The wreck created a ripple of dark matter, which is
somewhat similar to a ripple formed in a pond when a rock hits the
water."

The ripple will eventually reach the Earth and this is evidence dark
matter exists from the galaxy cluster to the Earth. This is evidence
dark matter is the medium of space in which light waves propagate.

Pressure exerted towards matter by dark matter displaced by the matter
is gravity.
From: artful on 28 Jul 2010 21:29
On Jul 29, 10:30 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 28, 8:24 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 29, 9:02 am, Uncle Ben <b...(a)greenba.com> wrote:
>
> > > Our friend John Parker (aka "Androcles") sincerely believes that he
> > > has found a mistake in Einstein's 1905 paper on SR, to wit, that
> > > since
>
> > > the length of a "moving" rod w.r.t. a "moving" frame of reference
> > > (moving with the same velocity as the "moving" rod)
>
> > > is longer than the length of that rod w.r.t. a "stationary" frame
> > > (stationary in the laboratory), (a result that everyone accepts except
> > > other cranks),
>
> > > therefore, the "moving" rod has been stretched by its motion.
>
> > Whether or not it stretched depends on what its length was BEFORE it
> > was moving (assuming that it ever was at reset in the 'stationary'
> > frame.  SR only says that its length measured from a relatively moving
> > frame will be shorter than the length measured from a comoving frame.
> > It doesn't say anything about what may have happened to the rod in
> > order for it to have achieved whatever motion it has .. there are
> > numerous possibilities.  Refer to Bell's spaceship scenario for one
> > possibility (where there IS intrinsic  stretching if one wants the rod
> > to maintain the same length in the stationary frame when moving as
> > when at rest)

[snip irrelevant spam]

Nothing left. mpc755 is nothing but another ignorant troll
From: dlzc on 28 Jul 2010 22:08
Dear Uncle Ben:

On Jul 28, 4:02 pm, Uncle Ben <b...(a)greenba.com> wrote:
> Our friend John Parker (aka "Androcles")

How many psychiatrists does it take to change a light bulb? One, but
the light bulb has to want to change.

> Pray for John Parker's sanity. He still needs it.

That light bulb does not want to change.

David A. Smith
From: Uncle Ben on 28 Jul 2010 23:25
On Jul 28, 7:06 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 28, 4:02 pm, Uncle Ben <b...(a)greenba.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Our friend John Parker (aka "Androcles") sincerely believes that he
> > has found a mistake in Einstein's 1905 paper on SR, to wit, that
> > since
>
> > the length of a "moving" rod w.r.t. a "moving" frame of reference
> > (moving with the same velocity as the "moving" rod)
>
> > is longer than the length of that rod w.r.t. a "stationary" frame
> > (stationary in the laboratory), (a result that everyone accepts except
> > other cranks),
>
> > therefore, the "moving" rod has been stretched by its motion.
>
> > In other words, instead of having derived the Lorentz Contraction from
> > the principles of SR, Einstein has derived the Einstein Expansion: The
> > length of the rod w.r.t. the "stationary" frame of reference is still
> > L, while the length of the rod w.r.t. the "moving" frame  is now
> > gamma*L, in the usual notation, where gamma > 1.
>
> > John awaits notice from the Swedish Academy of his Nobel Prize.
>
> > ---------------------------------------
>
> > The mistake Einstein made was a pedagogical mistake,  He believed that
> > readers of the Zeitschrift der Physik would realize that "moving" is a
> > relative thing.  Calling something a "moving" thing is only a name. Is
> > a passenger on a Concorde aloft a moving person? He is w.r.t. the
> > Earth, but he is not moving w.r.t. his seat A in Row 15.
>
> > Thus the "moving" rod is *at rest* w.r.t the "moving" frame! This is a
> > paradox to John, but with the brain he has left, he may, with time,
> > see that it is true.
>
> > So, if it is given that the rest length of the rod is L, no matter
> > what name we give to the rest frame, and we have agreed that the
> > length w.r.t. the laboratory is shorter by a factor gamma, no matter
> > what name we give to the lab frame, we have the Einstein derivation of
> > the Lorentz Contraction.
>
> > Pray for John Parker's sanity. He still needs it.
>
> > Uncle Ben
>
> When you begin to move an appearence of opposite motion is created
> around you and it shrinks in the distance. This is relative motion
> appearence theory.
>
> Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Amazing!
From: Bruce Richmond on 29 Jul 2010 00:53
On Jul 28, 8:30 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 28, 8:24 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 29, 9:02 am, Uncle Ben <b...(a)greenba.com> wrote:
>
> > > Our friend John Parker (aka "Androcles") sincerely believes that he
> > > has found a mistake in Einstein's 1905 paper on SR, to wit, that
> > > since
>
> > > the length of a "moving" rod w.r.t. a "moving" frame of reference
> > > (moving with the same velocity as the "moving" rod)
>
> > > is longer than the length of that rod w.r.t. a "stationary" frame
> > > (stationary in the laboratory), (a result that everyone accepts except
> > > other cranks),
>
> > > therefore, the "moving" rod has been stretched by its motion.
>
> > Whether or not it stretched depends on what its length was BEFORE it
> > was moving (assuming that it ever was at reset in the 'stationary'
> > frame.  SR only says that its length measured from a relatively moving
> > frame will be shorter than the length measured from a comoving frame.
> > It doesn't say anything about what may have happened to the rod in
> > order for it to have achieved whatever motion it has .. there are
> > numerous possibilities.  Refer to Bell's spaceship scenario for one
> > possibility (where there IS intrinsic  stretching if one wants the rod
> > to maintain the same length in the stationary frame when moving as
> > when at rest)
>
> Does the ripple eventually reach the Earth?

I used to drink Ripple occasionally. I'm quite sure it all returned
to earth eventually. How long it took often depended on how much I
drank ;)

> I will take your non-
> answer to be what it is, evidence of your delusional denial state of
> existence.
>
> 'Hubble Finds Ghostly Ring of Dark Matter'http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/news/dark_matter_ring_featur...
>
> "Astronomers using NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope got a first-hand view
> of how dark matter behaves during a titanic collision between two
> galaxy clusters. The wreck created a ripple of dark matter, which is
> somewhat similar to a ripple formed in a pond when a rock hits the
> water."
>
> The ripple will eventually reach the Earth and this is evidence dark
> matter exists from the galaxy cluster to the Earth. This is evidence
> dark matter is the medium of space in which light waves propagate.
>
> Pressure exerted towards matter by dark matter displaced by the matter
> is gravity.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Droolin Doolin's multiplication table
Next: The Planet Attractor Action, July 28, 2010 johnreed