Prev: The principles of the Ether-nal Ethe-r-eal Real-m of Real-ity
Next: Religion is a glimpse of the highest science.
From: kenseto on 10 Aug 2010 09:57
On Aug 10, 3:35 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote:
> On Aug 9, 10:31 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 9, 1:01 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > New Interpretation for Length Contraction and Length Expansion:
>
> > > 1. The physical length of a meter stick remains the same in all frames
> > > of
> > > reference.
> > > 2. The Light path length of the observer's meter stick is assumed to
> > > be its
> > >     physical length.
> > > 3. The light path length of a moving meter stick is predicted as
> > > follows:
> > >    L_aa=Light path length of the observer's meter stick
> > >    L_ab=Light path length of a moving meter stick as predicted by
> > > observer A.
> > >    Gamma= 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> > >    A predicts B to be contracted:
> > >    L_ab=L_aa/gamma
> > >    A predicts B to be expanded:
> > >    L_ab=Gamma*L_aa
> > > 4. These interpretations require that every observer to include both
> > > predictions
> > >     for the light   path length of a moving meter stick.
> > > 5. Since light path length is not physical these interpretations will
> > > resolve
> > >     all the paradoxes of SR and LET.
>
> > > A new theory of relativity called IRT includes the above
> > > interpretations. IRT
> > > includes both SR and LET as subsets. However, unlike SRT the equations
> > > of IRT
> > > are valid in all environments, including gravity. A paper on IRT is
> > > available in
> > > the following link:http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf
>
> > > Ken Seto
>
> > None of this has any bearing on physics because Ken is speaking a
> > different language, having his own meanings for "physical",
>
> right
>
> > "physical length",
>
> right
>
> > "light path length",
>
> right
>
> > "contracted", "expanded",
>
> not sure
>
> > not to mention
> > "relative velocity",
>
> right
>
> > "vector", "vector component",
>
> probably right
>
> > "acceleration",
>
> probably right
>
> > "universal",
>
> right
>
> > "constant",
>
> probably right
>
> >"measure",
>
> probably right
>
> >"reference frame",
>
> right
>
> > "inertial",
>
> right
>
> > and
> > a whole host of other terms common in physics.
>
> Are you sure you didn't mention them all? ;-)
>
> > While he continues to speak this private language, you will find that
> > nothing he says makes much sense, because you will mistakenly think
> > he's using those words in the manner than physicists do, when in fact
> > that is not true.
>
> Yes indeed.

How would you know since you don't know any physics....you even think
that the rate of an observed clock changes because it passes you.

Ken Seto


>
> Harald- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

From: rotchm on 10 Aug 2010 11:16
On Aug 9, 4:31 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 9, 1:01 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > New Interpretation for Length Contraction and Length Expansion:
>
> > 1. The physical length of a meter stick remains the same in all frames
> > of
> > reference.
> > 2. The Light path length of the observer's meter stick is assumed to
> > be its
> >     physical length.
> > 3. The light path length of a moving meter stick is predicted as
> > follows:
> >    L_aa=Light path length of the observer's meter stick
> >    L_ab=Light path length of a moving meter stick as predicted by
> > observer A.
> >    Gamma= 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> >    A predicts B to be contracted:
> >    L_ab=L_aa/gamma
> >    A predicts B to be expanded:
> >    L_ab=Gamma*L_aa
> > 4. These interpretations require that every observer to include both
> > predictions
> >     for the light   path length of a moving meter stick.
> > 5. Since light path length is not physical these interpretations will
> > resolve
> >     all the paradoxes of SR and LET.
>
> > A new theory of relativity called IRT includes the above
> > interpretations. IRT
> > includes both SR and LET as subsets. However, unlike SRT the equations
> > of IRT
> > are valid in all environments, including gravity. A paper on IRT is
> > available in
> > the following link:http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf
>
> > Ken Seto
>
> None of this has any bearing on physics because Ken is speaking a
> different language, having his own meanings for "physical", "physical
> length",

<SNIP>

Very true. seto is using a completely different language and different
definitions than the usual physics definitions.

But on a sidenote, physicist have been doing this too which is why
many are confused on the meanings of length, time, etc.

Take for example time. In ~1905 its meaning has been changed (remember
what Newton and Poincare said about this...?). It used to be the
Newtonian time. Then it was redefined to todays concept of time w/o
emphasizing it to anyone. From there SR has been misinterpreted and
convoluted to those who do not know better. The 'second' and 'meter'
have been redefined many times too. 'Mass' has been called 'mass',
then seperated into two: 'proper mass' and 'relativistic mass'. Then
w/o advising anyone, 'relativistic mass' has been thrown out the door
and 'proper mass' has been redefined to be just 'mass'.

No wonder many are confused and steered in the wrong direction by
modern physics.
Its not 'bad' to redefine concepts if it makes physics simple. What is
bad is that these redefintions are not made explicit nor clear.


From: kenseto on 10 Aug 2010 11:27
On Aug 10, 9:48 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 10, 7:23 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 9, 4:31 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 9, 1:01 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > New Interpretation for Length Contraction and Length Expansion:
>
> > > > 1. The physical length of a meter stick remains the same in all frames
> > > > of
> > > > reference.
> > > > 2. The Light path length of the observer's meter stick is assumed to
> > > > be its
> > > >     physical length.
> > > > 3. The light path length of a moving meter stick is predicted as
> > > > follows:
> > > >    L_aa=Light path length of the observer's meter stick
> > > >    L_ab=Light path length of a moving meter stick as predicted by
> > > > observer A.
> > > >    Gamma= 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> > > >    A predicts B to be contracted:
> > > >    L_ab=L_aa/gamma
> > > >    A predicts B to be expanded:
> > > >    L_ab=Gamma*L_aa
> > > > 4. These interpretations require that every observer to include both
> > > > predictions
> > > >     for the light   path length of a moving meter stick.
> > > > 5. Since light path length is not physical these interpretations will
> > > > resolve
> > > >     all the paradoxes of SR and LET.
>
> > > > A new theory of relativity called IRT includes the above
> > > > interpretations. IRT
> > > > includes both SR and LET as subsets. However, unlike SRT the equations
> > > > of IRT
> > > > are valid in all environments, including gravity. A paper on IRT is
> > > > available in
> > > > the following link:http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf
>
> > > > Ken Seto
>
> > > None of this has any bearing on physics because Ken is speaking a
> > > different language, having his own meanings for "physical", "physical
> > > length", "light path length",
>
> > Hey idiot you invented a new meaning for physical contraction that is
> > between material contraction and geometric projection contraction.
>
> Nobody invented anything but you, Ken.

You did....you asserted that physical contraction can mean both
material contraction and geometric projection effect.

Ken Seto

>You just never asked to find
> out what the definitions of these terms are.
> So you made up your own, and when you were told these were wrong, you
> assumed that others had made up new ones. They are not new ones. They
> are the old ones.
>
> > Even Tom Roberts disagree with you ....He said that length contraction
> > in Sr does not mean that the moving ruler is contracted physically.
>
> No, he did NOT say that. He said that it is a geometric effect, and
> geometric effects have physical consequences. You cannot even
> comprehend what is told you.

Yes he said that. Geometric projection effect has no physical
consequence....iow rotating a ruler does not effect the material/
physical length of the ruler. Your problem is that you want to
perpetuating the bogus idea that a moving ruler is contracted
physically/materially. It is not in SR.

Ken Seto




>
>
>
> > "contracted", "expanded",
>
> > Contracted and expanded in IRT means material/physical contraction or
> > expansion.
>
> You see? You've made up your own definitions.
>
> >...there is no material/physical contraction in IRT. There
> > is light-path length contraction or expansion for a moving meter stick
> > compared to the light path length of the observer's meter stick. This
> > is equivalent to geometric porjection effect for length contraction in
> > SR.
>
> > >not to mention
> > > "relative velocity",
>
> > Hey idiot relative velocity in IRT and SRT means the same.
>
> How do you know? You don't know the meaning of "relative velocity" in
> physics.
>
>
>
> > >"vector", "vector component", "acceleration",
>
> > Vector component for an object in the aether is isotropic.
>
> See? You don't know what "vector component" even means.
>
>
>
> > > "universal", "constant", "measure",
>
> > You don't understand the word universal....you insisted that the speed
> > of light is a universal constant and yet the clock second use to
> > define speed is not a universal constant in all frames.
>
> See? You don't know the meaning of the word "universal".
>
> > You used the word measure in place of the word predict. There is no
> > way to measure to rate of a moving clock.
>
> No, I meant MEASURE, and it IS possible -- quite easy in fact -- to
> measure the rate of a moving clock. Just because YOU don't know how to
> do it doesn't mean it can't be done. And it CERTAINLY doesn't mean
> that "measure" is misconstrued as "predicted".
>
>
>
> > > "reference frame", "inertial", and
> > > a whole host of other terms common in physics.
>
> > There is no scuh thing as an inertial frame on earth
>
> Of course there is. See? You don't know what "inertial reference
> frame" means.
>
> > and yet every
> > time SR runs into difficulty you claimed that that's because one of
> > the frame is not inertial.
>
> And that's because you can't recognize the difference between an
> inertial reference frame and a noninertial reference frame. See? You
> don't know what the words even mean.
>
> It's pointless talking with someone who doesn't even know what the
> words mean.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Ken Seto
>
> > > While he continues to speak this private language, you will find that
> > > nothing he says makes much sense, because you will mistakenly think
> > > he's using those words in the manner than physicists do, when in fact
> > > that is not true.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

From: kenseto on 10 Aug 2010 11:40
On Aug 10, 11:16 am, rotchm <rot...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 9, 4:31 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 9, 1:01 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > New Interpretation for Length Contraction and Length Expansion:
>
> > > 1. The physical length of a meter stick remains the same in all frames
> > > of
> > > reference.
> > > 2. The Light path length of the observer's meter stick is assumed to
> > > be its
> > >     physical length.
> > > 3. The light path length of a moving meter stick is predicted as
> > > follows:
> > >    L_aa=Light path length of the observer's meter stick
> > >    L_ab=Light path length of a moving meter stick as predicted by
> > > observer A.
> > >    Gamma= 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> > >    A predicts B to be contracted:
> > >    L_ab=L_aa/gamma
> > >    A predicts B to be expanded:
> > >    L_ab=Gamma*L_aa
> > > 4. These interpretations require that every observer to include both
> > > predictions
> > >     for the light   path length of a moving meter stick.
> > > 5. Since light path length is not physical these interpretations will
> > > resolve
> > >     all the paradoxes of SR and LET.
>
> > > A new theory of relativity called IRT includes the above
> > > interpretations. IRT
> > > includes both SR and LET as subsets. However, unlike SRT the equations
> > > of IRT
> > > are valid in all environments, including gravity. A paper on IRT is
> > > available in
> > > the following link:http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf
>
> > > Ken Seto
>
> > None of this has any bearing on physics because Ken is speaking a
> > different language, having his own meanings for "physical", "physical
> > length",
>
> <SNIP>
>
> Very true. seto is using a completely different language and different
> definitions than the usual physics definitions.

No...My usage of terms are according to the defintions the dictionary.
In the cases where I use a term different than that of the dictionary
I define the term clearly. For example: I said length contraction is
not material/physical but rather the light path length of a moving
ruler is predicted to be contracted or expanded.
I don't have to stick to what physicists say about a certain term as
long as I define what the term mean in my theory.

Ken Seto

>
> But on a sidenote, physicist have been doing this too which is why
> many are confused on the meanings of length, time, etc.
>
> Take for example time. In ~1905 its meaning has been changed (remember
> what Newton and Poincare said about this...?). It used to be the
> Newtonian time. Then it was redefined to todays concept of time w/o
> emphasizing it to anyone. From there SR has been misinterpreted and
> convoluted to those who do not know better.  The 'second' and 'meter'
> have been redefined many times too. 'Mass' has been called 'mass',
> then seperated into two: 'proper mass' and 'relativistic mass'. Then
> w/o advising anyone, 'relativistic mass' has been thrown out the door
> and 'proper mass' has been redefined to be  just 'mass'.
>
> No wonder many are confused and steered in the wrong direction by
> modern physics.
> Its not 'bad' to redefine concepts if it makes physics simple. What is
> bad is that these redefintions are not made explicit nor clear.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

From: Stamenin on 11 Aug 2010 20:15
On Aug 9, 11:01 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
> New Interpretation for Length Contraction and Length Expansion:
>
> 1. The physical length of a meter stick remains the same in all frames
> of
> reference.
> 2. The Light path length of the observer's meter stick is assumed to
> be its
>     physical length.
> 3. The light path length of a moving meter stick is predicted as
> follows:
>    L_aa=Light path length of the observer's meter stick
>    L_ab=Light path length of a moving meter stick as predicted by
> observer A.
>    Gamma= 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
>    A predicts B to be contracted:
>    L_ab=L_aa/gamma
>    A predicts B to be expanded:
>    L_ab=Gamma*L_aa
> 4. These interpretations require that every observer to include both
> predictions
>     for the light   path length of a moving meter stick.
> 5. Since light path length is not physical these interpretations will
> resolve
>     all the paradoxes of SR and LET.
>
> A new theory of relativity called IRT includes the above
> interpretations. IRT
> includes both SR and LET as subsets. However, unlike SRT the equations
> of IRT
> are valid in all environments, including gravity. A paper on IRT is
> available in
> the following link:http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf
>
> Ken Seto

The length contraction is a wrong conclusion obtained by the wrongly
use of the errant LT. It is a shame for all participants in these
discussions to not understand this simple question. If you use the GT
this error do not appears.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: The principles of the Ether-nal Ethe-r-eal Real-m of Real-ity
Next: Religion is a glimpse of the highest science.