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: Inertial on 19 Jun 2010 10:38 "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message news:90914b83-e0d8-4479-8d26-586fe795b20e(a)x27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > 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 NO .. it doesn't.
From: kenseto on 19 Jun 2010 15:56 On Jun 19, 10:14 am, Sam <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. Hey idiot general relativity is the sum of the SR effect and the gravitational potential effect. >Do yourself a favor and > read this > material: > > Relativistic Effects on Satellite Clocks > http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=node5.... > > 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. Yes the life time of the cosmic muon is gamma*2.2 us compare to the lab muon's 2.2 us. That's why the cosmic muon is able to reach the ground from the upper atmosphere. > 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. No....the cosmic muon's gamma*2.2 us is able to cover a distance from the upper atmosphere to the ground.....there is no space contraction. Don't be stupid all your life learn something new. Ken Seto > > Once again, Ken, relativistic effects are observer dependent. That > fact is > something you continually FAIL to learn. > > Top of the morning to you!
From: kenseto on 19 Jun 2010 15:57 On Jun 19, 10:38 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message > > news:90914b83-e0d8-4479-8d26-586fe795b20e(a)x27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > 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 > > NO .. it doesn't. Yes you are an idiot runt of the SRians. Ken Seto
From: BURT on 19 Jun 2010 16:00 On Jun 19, 1:48 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Thanks for telling me. I wouldn't have known otherwise. Mitch Raemsch
From: eric gisse on 19 Jun 2010 17:26
kenseto wrote: > 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. Do you even know what the "complicated GR equation" is, Ken? And at the risk of running into your attention span which can't handle two questions in a row, when are you going to use IRT to derive Mercury's perihelion advance? > >> >> 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. Which came first, Ken? Your grasp of temporal ordering seems skewed today. > > 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 - |