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 5 Jul 2010 09:59 On Jul 3, 7:23 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > No Burt! The baseball thrown from the bow, in the direction of boats travel, is in the same (additive) direction. But the ball thrown from the STERN is in the opposite (subtractive) direction relative to the boat. Try to forget space-time! My disproving SR (It violates the Law of the Conservation of Energy.) negates the need to consider space- time in any problem solving. Also, the ether isn't a 'frame of reference'. Near the velocities of pitched baseballs, air resistance, not the ether, would come into play. But since the effective velocity of the ball can be at the instant of the release from the pitchers hand, then the air resistance hasn't had time to affect the speed of the ball. NoEinstein > > On Jul 3, 4:19 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Jul 1, 2:11 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Read, Burt, read! In the first case the ball was thrown (straight > > forward) from the bow of the boat, so that the speed of the boat adds > > to the speed of the pitch. In the second case the ball is thrown from > > the stern of the boat (straight backwards) so that the speed of the > > boat SUBTRACTS from the speed of the ball. Wasn't that clear from > > what I just wrote? NE > > > > 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- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > My point is things are always going in one direction. That is ahead in > space-time aether. > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: spudnik on 6 Jul 2010 19:22 so, you've never proven a theorem in geometry? by the way, the following is just self-publishing; I know, many will not read it; so, What?... and have a nice day, theoretically. thus&so: the other one -- which he apparently also removed from his next rewrite of the book -- was that they were inadequately trained to fly a 757 into a building (but, most accidents occur at take-off & landing, so....) anyway, the pancake theory was not even wrong, so it is effectively a strawman -- that the Truthers believe in, categorically, because it seems to mean that free-fall is unattainable, except by "controlled demo." thus&so: it ain't the unions; it is the British cap&trade condominiums (ICE, CCX etc. ad vomitorium), and their slogan from the Kyoto Protocol, Beyondish Petroleumish (tm); hey, you can't get blood from a porous rock, but, apparently, you can get "fossilized fuel (tm)" from one. call your broker *before* Waxman's bill is passed by the Senate -- they are under *huge* pressure, with the silly/fake anti-cap&tax editorials from the WSUrinal and the teaparty (they believe, taxation without representation was the biggest issue of the Revolution .-) thus&so: yes; like, Shackleton et al's study, although I don't think that they really noticed or noted that. also, see G. Woillard's "Abrupt Collapse of the Eemian Interglacial, *sensu strictu*," via palynology, showing retrogressive vegetational succession (or desertification) in Grand Pile, France. > hot spells and cold spells presage the onset of glaciation. thus&so: a-hem, "note" the number of scientists explaining why, antarctica has cooled -- cooled? just as with the Arctic ice, all of it floating, maybe you are referring ot the Larsen Ice Shelf, sticking out on the peninsula, into the weather differentials. > explanations of why Antarctica has actually cooled. > http://www.scar.org/publications/occasionals/ACCE_25_Nov_2009.pdf > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8387137.stm thus&so: the models are very sparse grids, with heuristical connections between the hydrosphere, atmosphere & lithosphere e.g., if at all. then, the floating-point spec (IEEE-754, -854, I think) is inherently chaotic -- and variously implimented. OK, seriously; who is working for BP and my broker, here, on the cap&trade portfolio? thus&so: lies, polls & statistics. like the "skeptical statistician" said, in *The [Holy] Economist* newsmagazine (a.k.a. the voice of the British Foreign Office), cold kills far oftener than heat in this world ... although there could be some cool physiological reason for that. so, why do you believe that BP and other oilcos are against cap&trade -- they hate money? --BP's Next (or Last) Bailout of Wall St. and the City (of London, the gated community & financial district), CAP and TRADE (circa '91, Waxman's Acid Rain bill) --http://wlym.com
From: spudnik on 6 Jul 2010 21:29 what you just said was funny!... dood, I don't know, what self-medication is supposed to be good for megalomania, unless it's just not taking it, for a while.... NB, I'm better than Einstein, three! thus&so: the other one -- which he apparently also removed from his next rewrite of the book -- was that they were inadequately trained to fly a 757 into a building (but, most accidents occur at take-off & landing, so....) anyway, the pancake theory was not even wrong, so it is effectively a strawman -- that the Truthers believe in, categorically, because it seems to mean that free-fall is unattainable, except by "controlled demo." thus&so: it ain't the unions; it is the British cap&trade condominiums (ICE, CCX etc. ad vomitorium), and their slogan from the Kyoto Protocol, Beyondish Petroleumish (tm); hey, you can't get blood from a porous rock, but, apparently, you can get "fossilized fuel (tm)" from one. call your broker *before* Waxman's bill is passed by the Senate -- they are under *huge* pressure, with the silly/fake anti-cap&tax editorials from the WSUrinal and the teaparty (they believe, taxation without representation was the biggest issue of the Revolution .-) thus&so: yes; like, Shackleton et al's study, although I don't think that they really noticed or noted that. also, see G. Woillard's "Abrupt Collapse of the Eemian Interglacial, *sensu strictu*," via palynology, showing retrogressive vegetational succession (or desertification) in Grand Pile, France. > hot spells and cold spells presage the onset of glaciation. thus&so: a-hem, "note" the number of scientists explaining why, antarctica has cooled -- cooled? just as with the Arctic ice, all of it floating, maybe you are referring ot the Larsen Ice Shelf, sticking out on the peninsula, into the weather differentials. > explanations of why Antarctica has actually cooled. > http://www.scar.org/publications/occasionals/ACCE_25_Nov_2009.pdf > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8387137.stm thus&so: the models are very sparse grids, with heuristical connections between the hydrosphere, atmosphere & lithosphere e.g., if at all. then, the floating-point spec (IEEE-754, -854, I think) is inherently chaotic -- and variously implimented. OK, seriously; who is working for BP and my broker, here, on the cap&trade portfolio? thus&so: lies, polls & statistics. like the "skeptical statistician" said, in *The [Holy] Economist* newsmagazine (a.k.a. the voice of the British Foreign Office), cold kills far oftener than heat in this world ... although there could be some cool physiological reason for that. so, why do you believe that BP and other oilcos are against cap&trade -- they hate money? --BP's Next (or Last) Bailout of Wall St. and the City (of London, the gated community & financial district), CAP and TRADE (circa '91, Waxman's Acid Rain bill) --http://wlym.com
From: NoEinstein on 7 Jul 2010 23:23 On Jul 6, 9:29 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Spudnik never says who he's replying to. So, I suppose he's just talking to himself. NE > > what you just said was funny!... dood, I don't know, > what self-medication is supposed to be good > for megalomania, unless it's just not taking it, > for a while.... NB, I'm better than Einstein, three! > > thus&so: > the other one -- which he apparently also removed > from his next rewrite of the book -- was that > they were inadequately trained to fly a 757 into a building (but, > most accidents occur at take-off & landing, so....) > > anyway, the pancake theory was not even wrong, so > it is effectively a strawman -- that the Truthers believe in, > categorically, because it seems to mean that > free-fall is unattainable, except by "controlled demo." > > thus&so: > it ain't the unions; it is the British cap&trade condominiums > (ICE, CCX etc. ad vomitorium), and their slogan > from the Kyoto Protocol, Beyondish Petroleumish (tm); hey, > you can't get blood from a porous rock, but, apparently, > you can get "fossilized fuel (tm)" from one. > call your broker *before* Waxman's bill is passed > by the Senate -- they are under *huge* pressure, > with the silly/fake anti-cap&tax editorials from the WSUrinal and > the teaparty (they believe, taxation without representation > was the biggest issue of the Revolution .-) > > thus&so: > yes; like, Shackleton et al's study, although > I don't think that they really noticed or noted that. also, > see G. Woillard's "Abrupt Collapse of the Eemian Interglacial, > *sensu strictu*," via palynology, showing retrogressive > vegetational succession (or desertification) in Grand Pile, France. > > > hot spells and cold spells presage the onset of glaciation. > > thus&so: > a-hem, "note" the number of scientists explaining why, > antarctica has cooled -- cooled? > just as with the Arctic ice, all of it floating, > maybe you are referring ot the Larsen Ice Shelf, > sticking out on the peninsula, into the weather differentials. > > > explanations of why Antarctica has actually cooled. > >http://www.scar.org/publications/occasionals/ACCE_25_Nov_2009.pdf > >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8387137.stm > > thus&so: > the models are very sparse grids, with heuristical connections > between the hydrosphere, atmosphere & lithosphere e.g., > if at all. then, the floating-point spec (IEEE-754, -854, > I think) is inherently chaotic -- and variously implimented. > OK, seriously; who is working for BP and my broker, > here, on the cap&trade portfolio? > > thus&so: > lies, polls & statistics. like the "skeptical statistician" said, > in *The [Holy] Economist* newsmagazine (a.k.a. the voice > of the British Foreign Office), > cold kills far oftener than heat in this world ... although > there could be some cool physiological reason for that. > so, why do you believe that BP and other oilcos are > against cap&trade -- they hate money? > > --BP's Next (or Last) Bailout of Wall St. and the City > (of London, the gated community & financial district), > CAP and TRADE (circa '91, Waxman's Acid Rain bill) > --http://wlym.com
From: spudnik on 12 Jul 2010 15:30
hey, I lost track of the 3ad, wherein you were said -- in the second person -- to have refuted Galilean relativity; so, what did you really do to it -- how about those 3d glasses? (if you just took them off, leave them off for n seconds; if you just put them back on, leave them on for n hours. thank *you*, and n=n, quads erat demonstrandae.) > Your Einstein biased status quo "spin" zzzz. thus&so: I *did* focus upon WTC7, but does the numbering infer that it was the seventh bild. to be built?... I think, not. > Focus on WTC7. It accelerated at free fall with near perfect symmetry. > ... "the height of ignorance." --Albert Einstein. thus&so: if it's any consolation, I get the next-to-last word on it; I'd rather wear a pseudorandom pair of Imelda Marcos's shoes, then try to debate in the context of your New sciencE -- just think of all of the permutations, dood. thus&so: that is sufficiently all, to be said on Benford's God-am law; can we not necessarily use e? (not "sumorial, although I know that there is a 'real' analog of the factorial, dood?") > >> "Generalization to digits beyond the first". > For base-b, the probability of d being the n-th digit > (n > 1) is: > b^{n-1}-1 > --- 1 > > log ( 1 + ------ ) > --- b bk + d > k=b^{n-2} > > that the probability of the first > digit being d is: > 1 > log ( 1 + - ) > b d thus&so: sorry; I'm going to stop saying, thence he died, and abuzing my time with this monolog. thanks for all fish! I'm just saying, go jumpt into a pool of spacetime, or timespace, as long as it's deep! > read more »... thus&so: yeah, but are the glasses, 3d, or the clocks -- or neither or both? > ... so, I said, "Hey, Einstein, space and time are made of rubber! > "Just kidding, dood." > I am, however, not implying that he was a surfer, but > he did know the canonical surfer's value ... of pi. thus&so: it's just his bot, as far as I can tell, without researching it ... googoling would be way too much positive feedback, and that's unpositively moderate anyway, what difference between lightwaves and rocks o'light, vis-a-vu the curvature of space (as was uncovered by You now who & you know whO-oo, in the 18th and BCE centuries (or 2nd and Minus Oneth millenia ?-) also, don't forget the ... well, their are a few of them! > If colleagues know, what good? thus&so: .... time, considered to be perpendicular to all of the three spatial directions; at least, in some abstract sense. anyway, I invented the terminology; so ,there.... um, perpendicular Universes: --BP's cap™ call of brokers the group! association http://tarpley.net |