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 19 Jun 2010 04:46 On Jun 18, 11:23 am, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > Dear glird: You aren't being... authoritative when you use status quo anything as part of your theories. My New Science WORKS perfectly well without there having to be a 'medium' (ether) for light to travel in. Either is what all matter in the Universe is constructed from. Wherever there are large concentrations of matter, such as galaxies, the ether needed for the construction of all those stars was scavenged from just outside the galaxy space. That's where astronomical photos show "empty spaces" without stars. But enlarged photos show galaxies beyond the voids... through the voids. If light, quanta, required a medium, then no light could pass through the Swiss Cheese voids! I know that gravity requires a continuous ether envelope to function. Since the Swiss Cheese voids are around most 'solitary' galaxies, then gravity doesn't often act beyond galactic intervals. Such fact is important, because it limits the possibility of a "Big Crunch"; and it also disproves the Big Bang! My understanding of the ether is why my New Science will take the world out of the Dark Ages of Einstein (and you)! 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 19 Jun 2010 04:48 On Jun 18, 7:55 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Dear Burt: We would ALL be right to question Einstein... anything! NE > > 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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: kenseto on 19 Jun 2010 09:41 On Jun 18, 8:06 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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? IRT predicts that an observed clock can run faster or slower than the observer's clock. This is confirmed by the GPS....from the GPS point of view the SR effect on the ground clock is ~7 us/day running fast and from the ground clock point of view the SR effect on the GPS clock is 7 us/day running slow. Also the equations of IRT are valid in all environments, including gravity.....this means that the IRT equation can be used calculate the gravitational red shift without using the complicated GR equation. > > Seems to me that all you've done is renamed the variables that SR uses and > called them your own. That's plaigarism, Ken. It can't be plagarism if IRT is a superset of SR. It is plagarism when SR duplicate the math of LET. Ken Seto > > > > > > > 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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: kenseto on 19 Jun 2010 09:46 On Jun 18, 11:38 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. Hey idiot... it is you who don't understand....an electric field is a stress in a medium occupying space and its physical characteristic is derived from the medium which is material. Ken Seto > > > > >...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: Sam on 19 Jun 2010 10:14
On Jun 18, 6:09 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Jun 18, 12:18 pm, Sam <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > 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. > > Ken Seto > I don't know why you go on and on about an "SR effect" on GPS satellite clocks, when the proper tool for relativistic effects on satellite clocks is primarily modeled by general relativity. Do yourself a favor and read this material: Relativistic Effects on Satellite Clocks http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=node5.html As far as cosmic muons, you are correct, saying that from the perspective of the ground observer, time dilation affects the mean muon decay time. However from the perspective of the muon, it is distance foreshortening and not time dilation that makes the travel to the earth's surface possible. Once again, Ken, relativistic effects are observer dependent. That fact is something you continually FAIL to learn. Top of the morning to you! |