Some Contradictory Claims of SR.
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: ben6993 is a LIAR.
Next: Light wave is immaterial
From: kenseto on 28 Jun 2010 09:46 On Jun 27, 11:16 am, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > >On Jun 25, 10:35 am, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > >wrote: > >> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > >> >Hey idiot the bug dies requires that the rivet squish it to > >> >death....both frames must agree that it occurs at the same instant of > >> >time....and this is not frame dependent. > > >> Hey Ken. How come you never answered my question about two stars going > >> nova with the two observers? I'll draw it out for you. > > >> 1--A--------------------B--2 > > >> A is 1 lightyear from Star 1 and 10 lightyears from Star 2. > >> B is 1 lightyear from Star 2 and 10 lightyears from Star 1. > >> Nothing is moving relative to anything else. > >This is stupid....evrything in the universe is mvoing. > > Once again, everything in the diagram is stationary with respect to > everything else in the diagram. We don't care about anything else not > influencing things, that's the point of a gedanken. > > > > >> A sees Star 1 go nova and 9 years later sees Star 2 go nova. > >I assume that you stipulate that both stars stars go nova > >simultaneously and what A see is due to its distances from the stars. > > I stated no such thing. I explicitly stated that there is a 9 year > difference between the times A and B see the novae. Then you gedanken is meaningless....A and B sees the stars go nova at different times because they are at different distances from the stars. > > >> B sees Star 2 go nova and 9 years later sees Star 1 go nova. > >I assume that you stipulate that both stars stars go nova > >simultaneously and what B see is due to its distances from the stars. > > I stated no such thing. I explicitly stated that there is a 9 year > difference between the times A and B see the novae. > > >> Why don't both observers agree on the order of events, since you claim > >> things like "both frames must agree that it occurs at the same instant of > >> time". What do you claim the order of events is? > >Hey idiot you already stipulated that the stars go nova simultaneously > >and both A and B agree to that and what they see is due to the > >distances from the stars. > > Don't change what I wrote. I made no such assumptions whatsoever. Reread > what I wrote if necessary.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 28 Jun 2010 10:19 On Jun 27, 9:13 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Jun 26, 5:39 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 6/26/10 4:31 PM, kenseto wrote: > > > > On Jun 25, 10:35 am, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > > > wrote: > > >> kenseto<kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > > >>> Hey idiot the bug dies requires that the rivet squish it to > > >>> death....both frames must agree that it occurs at the same instant of > > >>> time....and this is not frame dependent. > > > >> Hey Ken. How come you never answered my question about two stars going > > >> nova with the two observers? I'll draw it out for you. > > > >> 1--A--------------------B--2 > > > >> A is 1 lightyear from Star 1 and 10 lightyears from Star 2. > > >> B is 1 lightyear from Star 2 and 10 lightyears from Star 1. > > >> Nothing is moving relative to anything else. > > > > This is stupid....evrything in the universe is mvoing. > > > With respect to something. > > > >> A sees Star 1 go nova and 9 years later sees Star 2 go nova. > > > > I assume that you stipulate that both stars stars go nova > > > simultaneously and what A see is due to its distances from the stars. > > > Assuming that both stars stars go nova simultaneously is MEANINGLESS. > > Hey idot without this stipulation then the gedanken is meaningless. No, Ken, insisting that such a stipulation must be made is your error that immediately leads to a contradiction. The fact that you immediately get a contradiction should be an indicator to you that making such a stipulation is probably a mistake. However, accepting that you make mistakes is something you are unable to do. > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > >> B sees Star 2 go nova and 9 years later sees Star 1 go nova. > > > > I assume that you stipulate that both stars stars go nova > > > simultaneously and what B see is due to its distances from the stars. > > > No. Stipulating both stars stars go nova simultaneously is MEANINGLESS. > > > >> Why don't both observers agree on the order of events, since you claim > > >> things like "both frames must agree that it occurs at the same instant of > > >> time". What do you claim the order of events is? > > > > Hey idiot you already stipulated that the stars go nova simultaneously > > > and both A and B agree to that and what they see is due to the > > > distances from the stars. > > > No, Seto. You incorrectly inferred that! > > > > Ken Seto > > > >> The bug/rivet isn't much different, it's just complicated by relativistic > > >> motion.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 28 Jun 2010 10:23 On Jun 27, 9:24 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Jun 26, 10:54 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 26, 9:38 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 25, 10:59 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 25, 8:11 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jun 23, 12:31 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 23, 9:22 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jun 22, 11:34 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Jun 22, 10:28 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 22, 10:00 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 22, 8:04 am, "kens...(a)erinet.com" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 21, 5:58 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 13, 8:38 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 12, 1:21 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 12, 9:07 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 11, 4:52 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 11, 1:00 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 11, 9:07 am, Sam Wormley <sworml....(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 6/11/10 7:36 AM, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No from the hole point of view the bug is still alive just before the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole. However from the rivet > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > point of view the bug is already deadat the just before the head of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the rivet hit the wall of the hole. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pick on perspective or the other, Seto. You can't have both! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wormy the bug cannot be both alive and dead at the moment when the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole....both observers must > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > agree on whether the bug is alive or dead but not both. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, Ken. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The order of events is frame dependent. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is not true that both observers must agree on the state of the bug > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *when* the rivet head hits. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The "when" is the part that trips you up. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey idiot... the bug is dead or alive is an absolute event > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Absolute event" is a term you made up, and has no meaning in physics. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The word "event" has a specific meaning in physics, even if you're > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unaware of it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The order of spacelike-separated events depends on the frame. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The hole > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clock and the rivet clock are running at different rates give you the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > two perspective. When you corrected for the rate difference you will > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > see that the rivet's perspective is the correct perspective. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In physics, Ken, it is important that one not favor one reference > > > > > > > > > > > > > > frame over another as being "the correct one". Physical laws are the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > same in all reference frames, though the quantities in the laws will > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vary frame to frame and the description of events will be different in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > two different frames. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure there is the correct perspective. The following will demonstrate > > > > > > > > > > > > > that clearly: > > > > > > > > > > > > > The hole is 1.2 ft long at its rest frame. > > > > > > > > > > > > > The bug is 0.1 ft tall. > > > > > > > > > > > > > The rivet length is 2 ft. long at its rest frame. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Gamma is 2. > > > > > > > > > > > > > From the hole point of view just before the rivet head hits the wall > > > > > > > > > > > > > of the hole: > > > > > > > > > > > > > the length of the rivet is: 2/2=1 ft. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Therefore if length contraction is physical or material the bug is > > > > > > > > > > > > > still alive just before the head of the rivet hits the wall of the > > > > > > > > > > > > > hole. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From the rivet point of view the length of the hole is: 1.2/2=0.6 ft > > > > > > > > > > > > > and the length of the rivet remains 2 ft. Therefore the bug is > > > > > > > > > > > > > already > > > > > > > > > > > > > dead way before the head of the rivet hit the wall of the hole. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What this mean is that you cannot claim both perspectives at the same > > > > > > > > > > > > > time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course you can. One is the perspective in one frame, the other is > > > > > > > > > > > > the perspective in the other frame. At the same time. > > > > > > > > > > > > No you can't....they must agree whether the bug is already dead or > > > > > > > > > > > still alive when the head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole. > > > > > > > > > > > No, they don't "must" agree. They don't. I don't know where you got > > > > > > > > > > the impression they do. > > > > > > > > > > Yes they have to agree...just as that they have to agree that the > > > > > > > > > speed of light is a constant ratio. > > > > > > > > > No, they do not. Different frames have different accounts for events > > > > > > > > transpiring. Sorry, Ken, this is just a fact of life. > > > > > > > > The fact of life is this clocks in relative motion are running at > > > > > > > different rates and thus the different perspectives are not real when > > > > > > > it is corrected for the different rates of the clocks. > > > > > > > > > > The bug die or alive at a certain > > > > > > > > > instant of time is not frame dependent. > > > > > > > > > Yes, it is, Ken. Your assertion is not an argument. > > > > > > > > No it is not ....your assertion is not a valid arguement. > > > > > > > Ken, no one is ever going to get anywhere with you pushing assertions > > > > > > against your assertions. > > > > > > Hey idiot the bug dies requires that the rivet squish it to > > > > > death. > > > > > Yes. > > > > > >...both frames must agree that it occurs at the same instant of > > > > > time. > > > > > No. There is no need for both frames to agree that the rivet squish it > > > > to death at the same time. > > > > Sure there is a need. The bug dies at the instant when the end of the > > > rivet hits it. Both frames must agree to that. > > > Of course. But whether the head of the rivet has already hit the wall > > or has yet to hit the wall, which is an event that occurs in a > > *different location*, will depend on the reference frame, and two > > observers in those frames need not agree. Nor do they agree. > > Hey idiot you are putting up straw-men. Both frames agree that the bug > dies at the instant when the end of the rivet hits the bug. Thereore > your claim that from the hole point of view the bug is still alive due > to length contraction of the rivet is bogus. I never said that the bug was alive when the end of the rivet hits the bug. I never said that. I said that in one frame the bug dies before the head of the rivet hits the wall, and in another frame the bug dies after the head of the rivet hits the wall. Those are two completely different things. You cannot read a single sentence from the capital letter at the beginning to the period at the end and achieve any understanding of what it said. > > > > > > > > > > The hole clock and the > > > rivet clock show a different time for this event to happen...but > > > that's because the two clocks are ticking at different rates. > > > > > In one frame, the rivet squishes it to death BEFORE the rivet head > > > > hits the wall. In another frame, the rivet squishes it to death AFTER > > > > the rivet head hits the wall. There is no physical problem with this > > > > at all. > > > > No....length contraction is SR is not real the bug dies in both frames > > > before the head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole. > > > That is simply incorrect, Seto. You are making an assertion that is > > contrary to a model that agrees extraordinarily well with measurement. > > Assertion is not an argument, Ken. > > Stop making assertions that are not supported by experiment. > > Sigh... no experiment supports physical That is incorrect, Ken, as I've told you repeatedly. There is ample experimental support for physical length contraction. > or material length > contraction. Physical and material are two different things. They are not synonymous in physics. They may be in YOUR mind, and you may be under the impression that the "public" thinks they are the same thing, but both are irrelevant. What matters is what physicists say "physical" means. > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > > Ken Seto- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 28 Jun 2010 10:34 On Jun 27, 9:38 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Jun 26, 11:03 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 26, 9:54 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 25, 5:04 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 25, 8:33 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jun 23, 2:03 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 23, 9:22 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jun 22, 11:34 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Jun 22, 10:28 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > The normal usage of the word physical is material related.. > > > > > > > > > No, it is not, Ken. That is YOUR usage. It is not the usage that > > > > > > > > physicists use. > > > > > > > > Yes it is....it is in the dictionary. You boneheaded physicists need > > > > > > > to change. > > > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > No, Ken. Physicists are the ones who *rightfully* own what "physical" > > > > > > means. Not ordinary folks, not a dictionary of common usage. If you as > > > > > > an ordinary folk think "physical" means "material", then physicists do > > > > > > NOT need to conform to your meaning of the word. This is not a battle > > > > > > of wills. > > > > > > The whole point of this discussion is: Is length contraction in SR a > > > > > real shortening of a physical or material meter stick > > > > > You keep using "physical" and "material" as though they were synonyms. > > > > They are NOT. > > > > Yes they are. > > > > > If you want to know what "physical" means, you ask a physicist. You do > > > > NOT hang on to what "the public" thinks. You let go of what "the > > > > public" thinks and you LEARN something from the physicist. > > > > Length contraction in SR is either apparent or physical/material but > > > not both. > > > You do NOT get to dictate what "physical" means. > > Sure...if you want to use physical as not material then you need to > define what that meaning means....but you refuse to do so. It IS defined, Ken, in physics books. You've consistently whined that people will not teach you things HERE, at your convenience. You persistently refuse to read physics books, where the meanings of physics terms are carefully made abundantly clear. It's a foolish man who says, "I'm thirsty," and when is told where to get all the water he wants, he says, "Why don't you bring it here?" > > > You do NOT get to say "physical" does not mean "geometric". > > If physical means geometrical then why do you need the term physical > to explain length contraction??? Because it IS physical length contraction. It's just that "physical" means what physicists say it means, not what you think it means. >....is it design to fool the public? No, of course it is not a design to fool anyone. Anyone who studies physics is EXPECTED to learn the terms as they are used in physics. Only a fool would decline to do that, and a fool is very good at fooling himself, without any help from physicists. > One question: if length contraction is only geometrical then how come > a ball will flatten to a pancake materially in the direction of > motion. Several comments: - That would be a physical and geometrical effect. - I don't know of any special relativity reference that says a ball flattens *materially*. YOU say that, not relativity. - I think it would be better if you read something other than comic books that tell you that balls will flatten into pancakes. Where did you read this? You'd be much better reading up on what SR actually says will happen, which is much different than "a ball will flatten to a pancake materially in the direction of motion." - You will find yourself better off if you stop making things up by inserting words that are not there. > Also what is that motion that causes the flattening? Any relative motion will produce special relativity effects. > > Ken Seto > > > > > You do NOT get to say "physical" means "material" and everything else > > is just "apparent". > > You do NOT get to say "apparent" means anything that is not > > "material". > > You do NOT get to say "frame-dependent" means "apparent" and not > > "physical". > > > > You try to use the word physical to mean both....apparently > > > it is an attempt to fool the public > > > No, it is NOT an attempt to fool the public. Physicists have ALWAYS > > made it clear that if you want to do physics, then you MUST learn the > > meaning of the words *as they are used in physics*, NOT as they are > > used in common everyday language. This is what is taught from day one > > in any physics class. > > > You may say, "But I don't LIKE that. I want to be able to stick with > > everyday language and still do physics, and if I can't then you're > > trying to pull the wool over the public's eyes." That is just laziness > > and whining. Stop it. It's childish behavior. > > > There are no shortcuts. There is homework to be done if you want to do > > physics. Part of that homework is learning the terminology. Asking you > > to do homework is not an attempt to fool the public. It is telling you > > to stop being so lazy. > > > > and yourself that physcial > > > contraction can mean both apparent and material. > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > If you do not want to learn anything from a physicist, including the > > > > meaning of the word "physical", then you're never going to get anyone > > > > to treat your ideas seriously. Ever. > > > > > > or it is just a > > > > > gemetric projection effect (a rotational effect). You want to retain > > > > > the word physical to give the impression to the public that length > > > > > contraction in SR is physically or materially real and then you want > > > > > to use the term geometric projection when real physical or material > > > > > length contraction gives rise to paradoxes. You phyicists are a bunch > > > > > of crowns. > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > >It is just an act of stupidity if you do not let doctors > > > > > > determine what "medicine" means, architects determine what > > > > > > "architecture" means, biologists determine what "biological life" > > > > > > means, and physicists determine what "physical" means. > > > > > > > This is not unfair. It is a fact of life. Suck it up. > > > > > > > No physicist would ever agree that "physical" means material and frame- > > > > > > dependent. This is YOUR meaning, and only yours. Stick to it, and you > > > > > > will NEVER get off square one with your ideas. > > > > > > > PD- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 28 Jun 2010 10:36
On Jun 27, 9:28 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Jun 26, 10:57 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 26, 9:43 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 25, 5:01 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 25, 8:38 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jun 23, 12:32 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 23, 9:32 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jun 12, 1:21 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Jun 12, 9:07 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 11, 4:52 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 11, 1:00 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 11, 9:07 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 6/11/10 7:36 AM, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No from the hole point of view the bug is still alive just before the > > > > > > > > > > > > > head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole. However from the rivet > > > > > > > > > > > > > point of view the bug is already deadat the just before the head of > > > > > > > > > > > > > the rivet hit the wall of the hole. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pick on perspective or the other, Seto. You can't have both! > > > > > > > > > > > > Wormy the bug cannot be both alive and dead at the moment when the > > > > > > > > > > > head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole....both observers must > > > > > > > > > > > agree on whether the bug is alive or dead but not both. > > > > > > > > > > > No, Ken. > > > > > > > > > > The order of events is frame dependent. > > > > > > > > > > It is not true that both observers must agree on the state of the bug > > > > > > > > > > *when* the rivet head hits. > > > > > > > > > > The "when" is the part that trips you up. > > > > > > > > > > Hey idiot... the bug is dead or alive is an absolute event > > > > > > > > > "Absolute event" is a term you made up, and has no meaning in physics. > > > > > > > > The word "event" has a specific meaning in physics, even if you're > > > > > > > > unaware of it. > > > > > > > > The order of spacelike-separated events depends on the frame. > > > > > > > > > > The hole > > > > > > > > > clock and the rivet clock are running at different rates give you the > > > > > > > > > two perspective. When you corrected for the rate difference you will > > > > > > > > > see that the rivet's perspective is the correct perspective. > > > > > > > > > In physics, Ken, it is important that one not favor one reference > > > > > > > > frame over another as being "the correct one". Physical laws are the > > > > > > > > same in all reference frames, though the quantities in the laws will > > > > > > > > vary frame to frame and the description of events will be different in > > > > > > > > two different frames. > > > > > > > > I am not favoring one perspective over the other. Both the hole > > > > > > > observer and the rivet observer agree that the bug dies at the same > > > > > > > instant of time. > > > > > > > No, they do not. This is an error on your part. > > > > > > Your crappy attempt to save face is an embarrassment. > > > > > > Assertion is not a valid arguement. > > > > > I'm not MAKING an argument. Your assertion that the two observers must > > > > agree whether the bug dies before or after the rivet head strikes the > > > > wall is just that -- an assertion. An incorrect assertion. > > > > > No amount of ARGUMENT will convince you that your assertion is > > > > incorrect. No amount of ARGUMENT will convince you that the assertions > > > > of relativity are the ones that are correct. The correctness of a > > > > theory does not arise from any ARGUMENT. What determines the > > > > correctness of relativity is its agreement with experiment. If you do > > > > not know about the experiments, or you are not convinced of the > > > > results, then you will never believe that relativity is correct. > > > > There is no experiment confirming that length contraction is > > > physically or materially real. So your assertion is without merit. > > > That is a lie, Ken. I've given you several examples of experiments > > that have provided sufficient confirmation of length contraction as a > > PHYSICAL effect. > > No such experiment ever been done. That is a lie, Ken. As I've said, I've given you several examples. If you are given examples that you can look up for yourself and verify that they are in fact true, and you insist that they do not exist, then you have detached from reality. > In fact there is no physical or > material length contraction. Why Because it gives rise to paradoxes > such as the bug and the rivet paradox and the barn and the pole > paradox. Those are not paradoxes, Ken. They are TEACHING puzzles. Because you cannot figure the puzzles out, you assume there really is something wrong with special relativity. That's a mistake. > > Ken Seto > > > > > Whether it is a material effect is a different question, because > > "physical" means "material" in YOUR head only, not in the minds of > > physicists. If you want to know what "physical" means, you ask a > > physicist. > > You've asked for those experimental results to be spoonfed to you > > here, and I've told you to go do your own stinking homework. That > > still stands. > > > PD- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |