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: kenseto on 20 Jun 2010 09:25 On Jun 19, 5:26 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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? It is outlined in my paper in the following link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf > > > > >> 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? Hey idiot the LET math came before the SR math. > > Your grasp of temporal ordering seems skewed today. Hey idiot....the LET math was developed and published in 1904 and the SR MATH WAS PUBLISHED in 1905. Ken Seto > > > > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: eric gisse on 20 Jun 2010 15:08 kenseto wrote: [...] >> 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? > > It is outlined in my paper in the following link: > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf Oh yes, it is 'outlined'. When are you going to DO IT? > >> >> >> >> >> 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? > > Hey idiot the LET math came before the SR math. Nobody but you is talking about LET, Ken. >> >> Your grasp of temporal ordering seems skewed today. > > Hey idiot....the LET math was developed and published in 1904 and the > SR MATH WAS PUBLISHED in 1905. Nobody but you is talking about LET, Ken. [...]
From: BURT on 20 Jun 2010 15:23 On Jun 20, 12:08 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > kenseto wrote: > > [...] > > >> 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? > > > It is outlined in my paper in the following link: > >http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf > > Oh yes, it is 'outlined'. When are you going to DO IT? > > > > >> >> 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? > > > Hey idiot the LET math came before the SR math. > > Nobody but you is talking about LET, Ken. > > > > >> Your grasp of temporal ordering seems skewed today. > > > Hey idiot....the LET math was developed and published in 1904 and the > > SR MATH WAS PUBLISHED in 1905. > > Nobody but you is talking about LET, Ken. > > [...] There is no contraction. There are no lopsided atoms. Mitch Raemsch
From: NoEinstein on 27 Jun 2010 20:28 On Jun 18, 7:55 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Dear Burt: No. Einstein questioned most things that he saidlike the supposed cosmological constant. Saying that light can be either photons or... "waves" shows that the person speaking doesnt know what the hell they are thinking. Only yours truly has correctly figured out every force or energy transfer in the universe. Varying ether flow and density explains it all! NoEinstein > > 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: NoEinstein on 27 Jun 2010 20:33
On Jun 18, 8:06 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Great! Eric is alive!. And he asks a reasonable question that kenseto should answer. But kenseto is usually more interested in pontificating that in replying, thoughtfully, to others. NE > > 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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |