There is no physical length contraction or physical length expansion
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Einstein was right - The state of the ether is determined by its connections with the matter
Next: *** Re: Experts doubt Einstein..... but Einstein Dingleberries still worship him
From: NoEinstein on 1 Jul 2010 12:21 On Jul 1, 9:43 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > No PD, it's YOUR problem! Give the titles and the links to your "many" posts, so everyone can see for themselves how incompetent you are. NE > > On Jul 1, 2:35 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Jun 30, 12:06 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear PD the Dunce: Why don't you at least TRY to be a scientist and > > make a '+new post' on any subject of your expertise? Ha, ha, HA! > > I have. You just don't know how to use a newsreader. That's not my > problem, it's yours. > > > > > NE > > > > On Jun 30, 10:29 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 29, 6:20 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Folks: PD the DUNCE should publish a book on how to use "negative > > > > thinking" to elevate one's status. Would any of you buy such a book? > > > > Ha, ha, HA! NE > > > > There was no negativism in my post. There was the urging for you to do > > > what you should do if you call yourself a scientist. If you don't do > > > it, then the only person who is being negative is you. > > > > > > On Jun 29, 4:51 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 28, 3:57 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Dear Dunce: I said the results should be comparable, not necessarily > > > > > > equal. > > > > > > Then you should be able to calculate the amount of inequality in the > > > > > different circumstances, John. Why can't you? > > > > > > > Muon's originating in the high atmosphere travel downward into > > > > > > ether which is increasing in density. A horizontal vacuum tube > > > > > > experiment would be at the Earth's surface, so the ether density would > > > > > > be greater. That would mean more 'slowing and compression of the > > > > > > muons, even if their "relativistic" (sic) velocities aren't as high. > > > > > > The latter could explain why both experiments yield similar results. > > > > > > Understand the ether, and you understand the Universe! NE > > > > > > > > On Jun 28, 2:07 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Jun 28, 2:37 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: If your one neuron brain was capable of > > > > > > > > learning, you would realize that ETHER pervades the inside of vacuum > > > > > > > > chambers. And if the vacuum tube was horizontal, the velocity would > > > > > > > > depend of the same thing that caused the muon to "approach" 'c' in the > > > > > > > > upper atmosphere. If the velocity is the same, the ether drag should > > > > > > > > be comparable. NoEinstein > > > > > > > > But, NoEinstein, you said yourself that ether FLOWS INWARD toward the > > > > > > > center of the earth. > > > > > > > So surely the drag is different for a muon that is traveling downward > > > > > > > *with* the flow, upward *against* the flow, or horizontally *across* > > > > > > > the flow. And in fact, one should be able to estimate the difference > > > > > > > of each of these cases in the effect on the lifetime of the muon and > > > > > > > check that against against measurement.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 1 Jul 2010 12:43 On Jul 1, 11:15 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Jul 1, 9:23 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > Dear kenseto: "Conversing" with PD will always be an exercise in > futility. He's never learned anything, not can he learn anything. > I've been trying to get him to do the latter for over two years. PD > is 100% negativity, never agreement. NoEinstein Why would you expect agreement or positivity over something that is demonstrably wrong? The fact that you do not believe or accept the demonstrations is irrelevant. You can remain stubbornly wrong and stubbornly irrelevant all you want.
From: PD on 1 Jul 2010 12:45 On Jul 1, 11:21 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Jul 1, 9:43 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > No PD, it's YOUR problem! No, it's not. YOU are the only one that seems to have difficulties finding them. So it's YOUR problem. I don't owe you solutions to YOUR problems that other people do not share. YOU have to generate solutions to YOUR problems. Alternatively, you could pay a therapist. > Give the titles and the links to your > "many" posts, so everyone can see for themselves how incompetent you > are. NE > >
From: BURT on 1 Jul 2010 14:11 On Jul 1, 1:05 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Jul 1, 12:41 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > Dear Burt: Throw a baseball from the bow of a boat going 10 mph, and > the velocity of the BOAT adds to the velocity of the ball, say, 90 > mph. That means the ball is traveling 100 mph wrt the shore. Now, > throw a baseball from the stern of the boat and the ball will be > traveling 80 mph total, wrt the shore. MythBusters tried to show this > effect by having bowmen shoot arrows at a target with the horse moving > toward the target. After lots of trials to hit the target, they > verified the effect. NE > > > > > > > On Jun 30, 8:43 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On Jun 29, 7:30 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > Dear Burt: You can, indeed, have an absolute speed or velocity > > > without stating the direction. But if you are measuring light speed, > > > such must be axial between the source and the observer. Then, the > > > only 'direction' of interest is whether or not the light source is > > > moving toward or away from the observer. The latter is an either-or > > > question, that's not the same as stating a 3D azimuth. NoEinstein > > > > > On Jun 29, 3:03 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > On Jun 28, 7:10 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Spudnik: I've DISPROVED SR and GR. 'c' isn't the maximum velocity! > > > > > NE > > > > > > > I question that about Franklin, since > > > > > > the polarity (and charge) is rather arbitrary, > > > > > > in the first place (although they used > > > > > > to use a flow of positive charges, > > > > > > what is the same as the flow of "holes," today.) > > > > > > anyway, what is the problem > > > > > > with Lorentzian dilation of time & length, if > > > > > > it is not apparent within the relativistic frame? > > > > > > > doesn't it all boil-down to the fact that > > > > > > the speed (not velocity) of light is the maximum, > > > > > > such that the internal angular momenta would > > > > > > clearly be limited in the direction of the speed > > > > > > (velocity) of the ship? > > > > > > > why is that so hard to see? > > > > > > > > He guessed wrong. Within a few years there was evidence of this but > > > > > > > the matter was not conclusively proven for several decades. > > > > > > > -- Rep. Waxman, Pres. Obama and BP, les ducs d'oil; > > > > > > the last bailout of Wall St. is cap&trade!http://wlym.com-Hidequotedtext- > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > You mean speed. There is no reason to point out that motion has a > > > > direction. And the FUNCTION OF WEIGHT limits change in the universe to > > > > below light speed in space. > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > When do things do anything but move forward in space? > > No. Velocity is meant to look smart. That is all it really is. > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Which dierction is the ball going in? Mitch Raemsch
From: NoEinstein on 3 Jul 2010 19:14
On Jul 1, 12:43 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > .... Just like PD will remain that irrelevant "spec" at the bottom of the Science Hill that I'm the King of. NE > > On Jul 1, 11:15 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Jul 1, 9:23 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > Dear kenseto: "Conversing" with PD will always be an exercise in > > futility. He's never learned anything, not can he learn anything. > > I've been trying to get him to do the latter for over two years. PD > > is 100% negativity, never agreement. NoEinstein > > Why would you expect agreement or positivity over something that is > demonstrably wrong? > The fact that you do not believe or accept the demonstrations is > irrelevant. > You can remain stubbornly wrong and stubbornly irrelevant all you > want. |