There is no physical length contraction or physical length expansion
in [Physics]
|
From: BURT on 1 Jul 2010 00:41 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 - When do things do anything but move forward in space? No. Velocity is meant to look smart. That is all it really is. Mitch Raemsch
From: NoEinstein on 1 Jul 2010 03:32 On Jun 30, 12:05 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Wow! PD accuses anyone who's on the "right side" of any argument of being a fraud. What do you call HIM when he lies in defense of his non-science status quo? Ha, ha , HA! NE > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 1 Jul 2010 03:35 On Jun 30, 12:06 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear PD the Dunce: Why don't you at least TRY to be a scientist and make a '+new post' on any subject of your expertise? Ha, ha, HA! NE > > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 1 Jul 2010 03:43 On Jun 30, 1:44 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Dear Burt: In the case of light, the intrinsic velocity of light, IVL (formerly 'c') will have the velocity of the source added to OR subtracted from IVL. The "inertia", or mass, of the object has zero effect on the ultimate velocity so long as the ether is magnetized and made to RIP away in front of the spaceship. No ether in front = no limit on velocity. NE > > 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-Hidequotedtext - > > > > > - 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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 1 Jul 2010 04:05
On Jul 1, 12:41 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Dear Burt: Throw a baseball from the bow of a boat going 10 mph, and the velocity of the BOAT adds to the velocity of the ball, say, 90 mph. That means the ball is traveling 100 mph wrt the shore. Now, throw a baseball from the stern of the boat and the ball will be traveling 80 mph total, wrt the shore. MythBusters tried to show this effect by having bowmen shoot arrows at a target with the horse moving toward the target. After lots of trials to hit the target, they verified the effect. NE > > 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-Hidequotedtext - > > > > > - 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 - > > When do things do anything but move forward in space? > No. Velocity is meant to look smart. That is all it really is. > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |