There is no physical length contraction or physical length expansion
in [Physics]
|
From: PD on 29 Jun 2010 18:22 On Jun 29, 5:00 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > 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 awww.smallparts.com Check that URL www.smallparts.com, John. Does it work for you? > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: BURT on 29 Jun 2010 19:30 On Jun 29, 3:03 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > 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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - You mean speed. There is no reason to point out that motion has a direction. And the FUNCTION OF WEIGHT limits change in the universe to below light speed in space. Mitch Raemsch
From: kenseto on 30 Jun 2010 09:38 On Jun 28, 2:36 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 19, 8:46 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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 > > No evidence for that, and lots of evidence counter to it, Seto. No evidence counter to it. Weinberg said that a field is a stress in a medium. > > It is you and ONLY you that says that "physical" means "material" and > if it ain't material it ain't physical. > > > > > 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 -- 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 30 Jun 2010 11:29 On Jun 29, 6:20 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Folks: PD the DUNCE should publish a book on how to use "negative thinking" to elevate one's status. Would any of you buy such a book? Ha, ha, HA! NE > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 30 Jun 2010 11:35
On Jun 29, 6:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > PD: It won't work by clicking the 'link', but it works perfectly if you will copy or paste the link into the address bar of your browser. NE > > On Jun 29, 5:00 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > 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 awww.smallparts.com > > Check that URLwww.smallparts.com, John. Does it work for you? > > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |