Assumption of length contraction in original theory [Physics]

Prev: Everything I know I learned from TV
Next: Biggest Lie Yet Of the Spill: BP "Couldn't Determine the Flow ?Rate"

From: Igor on 7 Jun 2010 18:30

On Jun 6, 2:57 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 6, 7:05 am, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 5, 2:14 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 5, 10:57 am, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 3, 9:39 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > This assumption must be challenged. It is part of particle
> > > > > acceleration physics. But how do we know what the particle
> > > > > experiences? It is a fact that we don't. And our trains have never
> > > > > been observed to shrink either.
>
> > > > > It is simple. If atoms size contracts along the direction of motion
> > > > > then atoms physics can be proven to fail due to lopsidedness of the
> > > > > forces within the atom itself.
>
> > > > > There are No Flattened atoms. Who wants to challenge it?
> > > > > They remain spherical.
>
> > > > And you remain an ignorant twit.
>
> > > Flat atoms fail because the forces inside of them become lopsided.
>
> > > Mitch Raemsch
>
> > Maybe you could explain just what the hell that means. I can't seem
> > to find any such ridiculous statement in the literature. You need to
> > be very thankful for usenet, else you'd be ranting and raving about
> > your silly concepts on a dirty street corner.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> The dimensions of the matter forces change. They are no longer
> spherically symmetrical. The whole atom size becomes lopsided.
>
> Mitch Raemsch

You left out that part about the beeblebrontz zorjniffing the
gribbowaxem, resulting in a catastrophic effenzorch!

From: BURT on 7 Jun 2010 18:48

On Jun 7, 3:30 pm, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote:
> On Jun 6, 2:57 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 6, 7:05 am, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 5, 2:14 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 5, 10:57 am, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 3, 9:39 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > This assumption must be challenged. It is part of particle
> > > > > > acceleration physics. But how do we know what the particle
> > > > > > experiences? It is a fact that we don't. And our trains have never
> > > > > > been observed to shrink either.
>
> > > > > > It is simple. If atoms size contracts along the direction of motion
> > > > > > then atoms physics can be proven to fail due to lopsidedness of the
> > > > > > forces within the atom itself.
>
> > > > > > There are No Flattened atoms. Who wants to challenge it?
> > > > > > They remain spherical.
>
> > > > > And you remain an ignorant twit.
>
> > > > Flat atoms fail because the forces inside of them become lopsided.
>
> > > > Mitch Raemsch
>
> > > Maybe you could explain just what the hell that means. I can't seem
> > > to find any such ridiculous statement in the literature. You need to
> > > be very thankful for usenet, else you'd be ranting and raving about
> > > your silly concepts on a dirty street corner.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > The dimensions of the matter forces change. They are no longer
> > spherically symmetrical. The whole atom size becomes lopsided.
>
> > Mitch Raemsch
>
> You left out that part about the beeblebrontz zorjniffing the
> gribbowaxem, resulting in a catastrophic effenzorch!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You mean I left out your nonsense?

That's right.

Lopsided atoms don't work. Just like lopsided marbles.

Mitch Raemsch

From: Uncle Al on 7 Jun 2010 19:05

Igor wrote:
>
> On Jun 6, 2:57 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 6, 7:05 am, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jun 5, 2:14 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > On Jun 5, 10:57 am, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > On Jun 3, 9:39 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > This assumption must be challenged. It is part of particle
> > > > > > acceleration physics. But how do we know what the particle
> > > > > > experiences? It is a fact that we don't. And our trains have never
> > > > > > been observed to shrink either.
> >
> > > > > > It is simple. If atoms size contracts along the direction of motion
> > > > > > then atoms physics can be proven to fail due to lopsidedness of the
> > > > > > forces within the atom itself.
> >
> > > > > > There are No Flattened atoms. Who wants to challenge it?
> > > > > > They remain spherical.
> >
> > > > > And you remain an ignorant twit.
> >
> > > > Flat atoms fail because the forces inside of them become lopsided.
> >
> > > > Mitch Raemsch
> >
> > > Maybe you could explain just what the hell that means. I can't seem
> > > to find any such ridiculous statement in the literature. You need to
> > > be very thankful for usenet, else you'd be ranting and raving about
> > > your silly concepts on a dirty street corner.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > - Show quoted text -
> >
> > The dimensions of the matter forces change. They are no longer
> > spherically symmetrical. The whole atom size becomes lopsided.
> >
> > Mitch Raemsch
>
> You left out that part about the beeblebrontz zorjniffing the
> gribbowaxem, resulting in a catastrophic effenzorch!

effenzorchi, plural - conservation laws demand antimatter symmetries.
Oh, wait... is it a Majorana effenzeroch? Never mind.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm

From: BURT on 7 Jun 2010 19:15

On Jun 7, 4:05 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...(a)hate.spam.net> wrote:
> Igor wrote:
>
> > On Jun 6, 2:57 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Jun 6, 7:05 am, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 5, 2:14 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 5, 10:57 am, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jun 3, 9:39 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > This assumption must be challenged. It is part of particle
> > > > > > > acceleration physics. But how do we know what the particle
> > > > > > > experiences? It is a fact that we don't. And our trains have never
> > > > > > > been observed to shrink either.
>
> > > > > > > It is simple. If atoms size contracts along the direction of motion
> > > > > > > then atoms physics can be proven to fail due to lopsidedness of the
> > > > > > > forces within the atom itself.
>
> > > > > > > There are No Flattened atoms. Who wants to challenge it?
> > > > > > > They remain spherical.
>
> > > > > > And you remain an ignorant twit.
>
> > > > > Flat atoms fail because the forces inside of them become lopsided..
>
> > > > > Mitch Raemsch
>
> > > > Maybe you could explain just what the hell that means. I can't seem
> > > > to find any such ridiculous statement in the literature. You need to
> > > > be very thankful for usenet, else you'd be ranting and raving about
> > > > your silly concepts on a dirty street corner.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > The dimensions of the matter forces change. They are no longer
> > > spherically symmetrical. The whole atom size becomes lopsided.
>
> > > Mitch Raemsch
>
> > You left out that part about the beeblebrontz zorjniffing the
> > gribbowaxem, resulting in a catastrophic effenzorch!
>
> effenzorchi, plural - conservation laws demand antimatter symmetries.
> Oh, wait... is it a Majorana effenzeroch? Never mind.
>
> --
> Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

How can a positron make it through the atmosphere without anihilating
with one of the 100 quadrillion of electrons it would be attracted to?

No. There is no anti matter. And I challenge anyone on that account.

Mitch Raemsch

From: Uncle Al on 7 Jun 2010 19:15

First | Prev | Next | Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Everything I know I learned from TV
Next: Biggest Lie Yet Of the Spill: BP "Couldn't Determine the Flow ?Rate"