There is no physical length contraction or physical length expansion
in [Physics]
|
From: eric gisse on 28 Jun 2010 21:06 PD wrote: > On Jun 28, 2:10 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: >> On Jun 28, 2:38 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Dear PD, the Dunce: Those who keep defending the status quo after such >> has been disproved are the real nuts. > > You haven't disproved a thing until your results are confirmed. We've > discussed that already, and you acknowledged it. > >> Did you ever do that $40.00 >> ball drop experiment? ? NE ? > > Did you ever send me the parts list? No. Christ, he's still going on about that? [...]
From: NoEinstein on 29 Jun 2010 17:51 On Jun 28, 3:57 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Dunce: I said the results should be comparable, not necessarily equal. Muon's originating in the high atmosphere travel downward into ether which is increasing in density. A horizontal vacuum tube experiment would be at the Earth's surface, so the ether density would be greater. That would mean more 'slowing and compression of the muons, even if their "relativistic" (sic) velocities aren't as high. The latter could explain why both experiments yield similar results. Understand the ether, and you understand the Universe! NE > > On Jun 28, 2:07 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Jun 28, 2:37 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: If your one neuron brain was capable of > > learning, you would realize that ETHER pervades the inside of vacuum > > chambers. And if the vacuum tube was horizontal, the velocity would > > depend of the same thing that caused the muon to "approach" 'c' in the > > upper atmosphere. If the velocity is the same, the ether drag should > > be comparable. NoEinstein > > But, NoEinstein, you said yourself that ether FLOWS INWARD toward the > center of the earth. > So surely the drag is different for a muon that is traveling downward > *with* the flow, upward *against* the flow, or horizontally *across* > the flow. And in fact, one should be able to estimate the difference > of each of these cases in the effect on the lifetime of the muon and > check that against against measurement. > > Any bonehead with a flowing ether model would recognize this in an > instant. Well, maybe not ANY bonehead, because you obviously haven't. > > > > > > > > On Jun 27, 8:02 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 19, 3:56 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > Dear kenseto: It is the drag pressure of the ether in Earth's > > > > atmosphere against the muons which prevents them from flying apart so > > > > fast (atomic decay). > > > > Happens the same in evaculated and horizontal tubes, John. > > > > > Scientists are great at making observations, but > > > > only yours truly is really, really great at explaining why the > > > > observations happen that way! NoEinstein > > > > > > 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!- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- 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: NoEinstein on 29 Jun 2010 18:00 On Jun 28, 3:58 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > PD: A 3/4" steel ball is the same as you'll get a www.smallparts.com They also sell one and only one 3/4" PTFE ball. The clay is self- hardening artist's clay which can be bought at any art supply store. I hope you do the experiment, PD. But you'll be on your (questionable) honor to do things right, and not corrupt things just so you can claim that you are right. You are still just the speck at the bottom of the Science Hill I'm King of. So far, you've made zero contributions to true science, unless you call being a detractor "making a contribution". NE > > On Jun 28, 2:10 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Jun 28, 2:38 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear PD, the Dunce: Those who keep defending the status quo after such > > has been disproved are the real nuts. > > You haven't disproved a thing until your results are confirmed. We've > discussed that already, and you acknowledged it. > > > Did you ever do that $40.00 > > ball drop experiment? NE > > Did you ever send me the parts list? No. > > > > > > > > On Jun 27, 7:56 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 19, 10:21 am, Sam <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Dear Sam: Your "standard" of science truth is what's written in > > > > textbooks (ha, ha, HA!). My standard of what's science true is whats > > > > RATIONAL to explain the observations in the Universe. > > > > Every nutjob thinks his delusions are rational. Doesn't make them so. > > > > > If you aren't > > > > objective enough to read and understand my many posts, that's your > > > > cognitive problem, not mine! NE - Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 29 Jun 2010 18:03 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
From: PD on 29 Jun 2010 18:20
On Jun 29, 4:51 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Jun 28, 3:57 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear Dunce: I said the results should be comparable, not necessarily > equal. Then you should be able to calculate the amount of inequality in the different circumstances, John. Why can't you? > Muon's originating in the high atmosphere travel downward into > ether which is increasing in density. A horizontal vacuum tube > experiment would be at the Earth's surface, so the ether density would > be greater. That would mean more 'slowing and compression of the > muons, even if their "relativistic" (sic) velocities aren't as high. > The latter could explain why both experiments yield similar results. > Understand the ether, and you understand the Universe! NE > > > > > > > On Jun 28, 2:07 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On Jun 28, 2:37 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: If your one neuron brain was capable of > > > learning, you would realize that ETHER pervades the inside of vacuum > > > chambers. And if the vacuum tube was horizontal, the velocity would > > > depend of the same thing that caused the muon to "approach" 'c' in the > > > upper atmosphere. If the velocity is the same, the ether drag should > > > be comparable. NoEinstein > > > But, NoEinstein, you said yourself that ether FLOWS INWARD toward the > > center of the earth. > > So surely the drag is different for a muon that is traveling downward > > *with* the flow, upward *against* the flow, or horizontally *across* > > the flow. And in fact, one should be able to estimate the difference > > of each of these cases in the effect on the lifetime of the muon and > > check that against against measurement. > > > Any bonehead with a flowing ether model would recognize this in an > > instant. Well, maybe not ANY bonehead, because you obviously haven't. > > > > > On Jun 27, 8:02 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > On Jun 19, 3:56 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > Dear kenseto: It is the drag pressure of the ether in Earth's > > > > > atmosphere against the muons which prevents them from flying apart so > > > > > fast (atomic decay). > > > > > Happens the same in evaculated and horizontal tubes, John. > > > > > > Scientists are great at making observations, but > > > > > only yours truly is really, really great at explaining why the > > > > > observations happen that way! NoEinstein > > > > > > > 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!- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |