There is no physical length contraction or physical length expansion
in [Physics]
|
From: NoEinstein on 30 Jun 2010 11:43 On Jun 29, 7:30 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Dear Burt: You can, indeed, have an absolute speed or velocity without stating the direction. But if you are measuring light speed, such must be axial between the source and the observer. Then, the only 'direction' of interest is whether or not the light source is moving toward or away from the observer. The latter is an either-or question, that's not the same as stating a 3D azimuth. NoEinstein > > 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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 30 Jun 2010 12:05 On Jun 30, 8:38 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > 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. No, he did not. He said it is *something like* a stress in a medium. You have this awful habit of inserting words to change the meaning of what someone has said, and to leave out words to change the meaning of what someone has said. That is intellectually dishonest. You are a fraud. > > > > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 30 Jun 2010 12:06 On Jun 30, 10:29 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > 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 > There was no negativism in my post. There was the urging for you to do what you should do if you call yourself a scientist. If you don't do it, then the only person who is being negative is you. > > > > > > 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. >
From: BURT on 30 Jun 2010 13:44 On Jun 30, 8:43 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Jun 29, 7:30 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > Dear Burt: You can, indeed, have an absolute speed or velocity > without stating the direction. But if you are measuring light speed, > such must be axial between the source and the observer. Then, the > only 'direction' of interest is whether or not the light source is > moving toward or away from the observer. The latter is an either-or > question, that's not the same as stating a 3D azimuth. NoEinstein > > > > > > > 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-Hidequoted 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- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - But the word velocity doesn't really mean anything additional. Weight/mass is the limiting factor of resistance in the universe as objects approach the speed of light.(not the velocity) Mitch Raemsch
From: spudnik on 30 Jun 2010 20:34
you've disproven, What?... have you ever proven a theorem from geometry? well, so, then, What is the max speed in Universe, if not that of light -- what phenomenon, other than science fiction, requires any thing over that speed -- or is it less than the speed of light? thus&so: I didn't see what "last paragraph" you wrote; anyway, the summary in the paper is fairly clear (~1.8 some thing .-) > The last paragraph about the relation between surface temperature and pressure, > and radiating temperature and altitude is my translation of what I think > Miskolczi is saying in: > <http://www.met.hu/doc/idojaras/vol111001_01.pdf> thus&so: that is awfully interesting, if rather complex. anyway, I have said for years, that no-one ever bothered -- after Ahrrenius did not win the first Nobel in chemistry for his coinage of the term, glass house gasses -- to model an ordinary glass house *at a latitude.* thus, the overwhelming conception of the GCMers, that the poles will heat more than the tropics, which is quite absurd. I'd also mention the '30s paper of George Simpson, a table-top experiment with a Bunsen-burner & cubes of ice! thus&so: BP's and Waxman's cap&trade is striclty "free market;" let the arbitrageurs & daytrippers jack-up the price of energy, as much as they can, as with Waxman's '91 bill (presumably; there seems to be a dearth of "story" about how fantastic it was .-) > And those other ways could be much more fair than letting those > with lots of money pay the carbon tax while the less well off go without. thus&so: don't worry; British Petroleum's cap&trade & free beer/miles is on the way! thus&so: like, I typed, sea-ice is the most unstable thing -- aside from clouds. so, see Fred Singer's retrospective metastudy on world-around glaciers, Doofus. also, see the November '01 story in the Sunday LAtribcoTimes, "120 New Glaciers Found on Continental Divide." thus&so: what if El Nino is correlated with underwater vulcanism? I started looking at ENSO, just before it was called that. well, it was two things, El Nino and the Quasibiennial Southern Oscillation, the latter having had a period of about 26 months. so, now, draw some conclusion! > The global temperature lags ENSO by 6 months. thus&so: as in, Beyond Petroleum (tm) -- stuff that's squeezed from a holow rock, and is allegedly fossilized. in my experience, neither R or D know the definition of "republic," or much of the history of the idea. anyway, the whole problem of the Anthropocene was highlighted, perhaps for some purpose, by having the conference in the venue of the Copenhagenskool of QM thus&so: Myth 1 is supported by the old Shackleton et al study, which seems to show a spike in CO2, just before the glacial phase. Myth 2 is somewhat overstated, since the change in obliquity of Earth's orbit is synched -- not causative -- with the 100,000-year cycle of glaciation in the Quaternary. Myth 5 is supported by the fact that the floating-point spec is inherently chaotic (IEEE-755, -855, I think); think, "fractals are the very definition of psychedelia, man!" > * Myth 1 Ice core records show that changes in temperature drive > changes in carbon dioxide, and it is not carbon dioxide that is > driving the current warming. > * Myth 2 Solar activity is the main driver of climate change. > * Myth 5 Climate models are too complex and uncertain to provide > useful projections of climate change." > http://climateprogress.org/2008/03/18/hadley-center-to-delayers-denie... > ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.land_ocean.90S.90N.... thus&so: what if the same guy who was the source d'Eaugate for Bernward at the Post, was also the Vice President, who purposely set his mattress on fire in the first tower (second was hit by a 757 filled with fuel for most of a transcontinental flight, minus the steering loop); and, so, how many mattresses'd he have'd to set, to make for a controlled demolition? well, some of us believe that he was not just the acting president -- especially since the impeachment of Bill C.. also, what in Heck is a one-ball centrifuge -- doesn't one need two, at the least, for balance? --BP's cap&trade + free beer/miles on your CO2 debits at ARCO! http://wlym.com |