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 18 Jun 2010 19:26 On Jun 18, 11:23 am, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > Dear glird: My New Science has the most ether INSIDE of the matter. When photons are emitted, some of the needed ether gets carried out, too. That deficiency (low pressure area) is why the force of gravity exists. Either, in flowing down to replenish the deficiency, exerts a mass-proportional force on every atom it passes through. At the end of this you said: "If, as you suppose, a void fills the space between atoms, we wouldn't exist; and even if we did, we wouldn't be able to see anything at all." Fellow, I have never "supposed" any such thing! Light (quanta) don't require a medium to travel through! Matter (composed of atoms) is teaming with ether. I never said that there was "Swiss Cheese" between atoms; I said there is Swiss Cheese between GALAXIES! That's a huge difference in terms! NoEinstein > > On Jun 18, 10:20 am, NoEinstein wrote: > > > Dear Burt: Come out of the "Dark Ages" man! Light > > isn't WAVES. It is photons (energy quanta) only! > > Dear NotEinstein: Despite the fact that in a reaction between an > atom and a transient light a quantum of energy is absorbed or > released, the light isn't made of quantities of energy ("photons". It > consist of em WAVES. > > >< Light doesn't need a medium to travel in. It goes across the Swiss Cheese voids (no ether) between galaxies with no problem at all.> > > The only voids that exists in the Universe are in the heads of > people who believe that a quantum of energy and/or a light wave can > exist in one. > > >< If, as you suppose, light requires a medium, then we wouldn't be able to see anything beyond the Milky Way > > Galaxy. > > > If,as you suppose, a void fills the space between atoms, we wouldn't > exist; and even if we did, we wouldn't be able to see anything at all. > > glird
From: NoEinstein on 18 Jun 2010 19:32 On Jun 18, 11:38 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > PD: There are several definitions of physical. You'll always choose the one that makes you seem to be smarter that others. Actually, you are just a sad pedantand one who has made zero contribution to science. NoEinstein > > On Jun 18, 9:08 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 15, 9:47 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message > > > >news:242a9782-3a6b-43d7-a0f1-b6b940b89f05(a)e5g2000yqn.googlegroups.com.... > > > > > There is no physical length contraction or physical length expansion. > > > > Define 'physical' > > > Physical means material. > > No, it does not. You've made this mistake before. > An electric field is not material. It contains energy. It is very > physical. > > > > >...there is no material contraction in SR. > > That's why the more learned SRians invented geometric contraction and > > geometric contraction is an apparent effect. > > > > > New physics says that the physical length of a meter stick remains the > > > > same in all frames. > > > > No. Its proper length does, its spatial length does not. Define which of > > > those is 'physical' and explain why the other one isn't > > > Peoper length is physical....geometric projection length is not > > physical. Just as I see you to be shorter from a distance is not > > physical. > > > Ken Seto > > > > [snip irrelevant IRT bullshit]- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 18 Jun 2010 19:38 On Jun 18, 12:56 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 18, 8:23 am, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 18, 10:20 am, NoEinstein wrote: > > > > Dear Burt: Come out of the "Dark Ages" man! Light > > > isn't WAVES. It is photons (energy quanta) only! > > > Dear NotEinstein: Despite the fact that in a reaction between an > > atom and a transient light a quantum of energy is absorbed or > > released, the light isn't made of quantities of energy ("photons". It > > consist of em WAVES. > > > >< Light doesn't need a medium to travel in. It goes across the Swiss Cheese voids (no ether) between galaxies with no problem at all.> > > > The only voids that exists in the Universe are in the heads of > > people who believe that a quantum of energy and/or a light wave can > > exist in one. > > > >< If, as you suppose, light requires a medium, then we wouldn't be able to see anything beyond the Milky Way > > > Galaxy. > > > > If,as you suppose, a void fills the space between atoms, we wouldn't > > exist; and even if we did, we wouldn't be able to see anything at all. > > > glird > > I see you're in denial. Energy of ligtht is defined by its wave. > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Light is QUANTA, Burt, NOT waves! NE
From: BURT on 18 Jun 2010 19:55 On Jun 18, 4:38 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Jun 18, 12:56 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 18, 8:23 am, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 18, 10:20 am, NoEinstein wrote: > > > > > Dear Burt: Come out of the "Dark Ages" man! Light > > > > isn't WAVES. It is photons (energy quanta) only! > > > > Dear NotEinstein: Despite the fact that in a reaction between an > > > atom and a transient light a quantum of energy is absorbed or > > > released, the light isn't made of quantities of energy ("photons". It > > > consist of em WAVES. > > > > >< Light doesn't need a medium to travel in. It goes across the Swiss Cheese voids (no ether) between galaxies with no problem at all.> > > > > The only voids that exists in the Universe are in the heads of > > > people who believe that a quantum of energy and/or a light wave can > > > exist in one. > > > > >< If, as you suppose, light requires a medium, then we wouldn't be able to see anything beyond the Milky Way > > > > Galaxy. > > > > > If,as you suppose, a void fills the space between atoms, we wouldn't > > > exist; and even if we did, we wouldn't be able to see anything at all.. > > > > glird > > > I see you're in denial. Energy of ligtht is defined by its wave. > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Light is QUANTA, Burt, NOT waves! NE - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Einstein was the winner. He was the one who questioned his photon. He was right to question it. Mitch Raemsch
From: eric gisse on 18 Jun 2010 20:06
kenseto wrote: > On Jun 18, 12:18 pm, Sam <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Jun 15, 8:11 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: >> >> > There is no physical length contraction or physical length expansion. >> > New physics says that the physical length of a meter stick remains the >> > same in all frames. However, the light-path length of a meter stick >> > moving wrt an observer is predicted to be shorter or longer than the >> > light-path length of the observer's meter stick.and the light-path >> > length of the observer's meter stick is assumed to be its physical >> > length. This interpretation resolves all the paradoxes of SR. This >> > interpretation is included in a new theory of relativity called IRT. >> > IRT includes SRT and LET as subsets. However, unlike SRT, the >> > equations of IRT are valid in all environments, including gravity. IRT >> > is described in the following >> > link:http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf >> >> > Ken Seto >> >> Ken--Relativity theory enjoys the fact that there have never been an >> observation that contradicts a prediction of relativity, special or >> general. Furthermore there are direct confirmations of many of >> relativity's prediction. In indirect confirmation of many others. >> There >> is little doubt that observer dependent measurements of relativistic >> effects are valid. >> >> Particle accelerators work! GPS works! Cosmic ray muons' path to the >> earth's surface is foreshortened! The Perihelion precession of Mercury >> is correctly predicted. > > Wrong....the SR effect on the GPS is 7 us/day running slow. From the > GPS point of view the SR effect is ~7 us/day running fast. > The cosmic muon is able to reach the ground because its life time is > gamma*2.2 us compared to the lab muon. So Ken, when is this 'description' of IRT going to include equations that predict something relativity does not? Seems to me that all you've done is renamed the variables that SR uses and called them your own. That's plaigarism, Ken. > > Ken Seto > >> >> Let's face it, Ken. You are wrong and relativity is correct. >> >> What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?http:// >> math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html |