Prev: Droolin Doolin's multiplication table
Next: The Planet Attractor Action, July 28, 2010 johnreed
From: Uncle Ben on 28 Jul 2010 19:02
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
From: BURT on 28 Jul 2010 19:06
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
From: Androcles on 28 Jul 2010 19:35

"Uncle Ben" <ben(a)greenba.com> wrote in message
news:011a112d-9223-4f5e-a2a5-660b59d2eb12(a)w30g2000yqw.googlegroups.com...
| 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.

Einstein's entire paper is a fuckup from paragraph 2 onwards, not just one
mistake. Besides which, Einstein did not call his drivel "Lorentz
transformations". Napoleon Bonehead Green never learnt mathematics.

|
| 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.

Hendrick Lorentz claimed his contraction was due to aether pressure on one
side of molecules as the Earth swims through aether at 30,000 metres/second.
Lorentz ignored Newton's third law; this was a pathetic attempt to explain
the null result of MMX whilst retaining the bigotry of aether.
MMX for real:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T0d7o8X2-E

Tell us, Bonehead, is that experiment moving around the Sun or not?

The idiot Einstein used division-by-zero to obtain his expansion, which, if
it were true, would have the same magical effect on that real and repeatable
experiment. Napoleon Bonehead Green, Doctor of Phrenology, is too stupid to
find the division-by-zero and trusts his own blind faith and bigotry in
Einstein's drivel.

<Rest of the crank Napoleon Bonehead Green's idiot drivel snipped, no
mathematical content or argument. He certainly cannot be rescued and should
drop dead immediately, he is useless to society.>

From: mpc755 on 28 Jul 2010 20:00
On Jul 28, 7:02 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

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 20:24
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)
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Droolin Doolin's multiplication table
Next: The Planet Attractor Action, July 28, 2010 johnreed