There is no physical length contraction or physical length expansion
in [Physics]
|
From: kenseto on 1 Jul 2010 09:23 On Jun 30, 12:05 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. So your arguement is hair splitting?? What is the difference between "a field is a stress in a medium" and "a field is something like a stress in a medium"???? In any case, do you agree that a field is substance or material related? Ken Seto > > 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: PD on 1 Jul 2010 09:42 On Jul 1, 8:23 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Jun 30, 12:05 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > So your arguement is hair splitting?? What is the difference between > "a field is a stress in a medium" and "a field is something like a > stress in a medium"???? It's not hairsplitting. It's the difference between declaring what something is and what something resembles. A bat is something like a bird with fur rather than feathers. This does not mean the same thing as saying a bat is a bird with feathers. If you cannot read and comprehend simple sentences, then how are you ever going to understand physics? > In any case, do you agree that a field is substance or material > related? No. No physicist will agree that a field is substance or material related. > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 1 Jul 2010 09:43 On Jul 1, 2:35 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > 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! I have. You just don't know how to use a newsreader. That's not my problem, it's yours. > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 1 Jul 2010 12:15 On Jul 1, 9:23 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > Dear kenseto: "Conversing" with PD will always be an exercise in futility. He's never learned anything, not can he learn anything. I've been trying to get him to do the latter for over two years. PD is 100% negativity, never agreement. NoEinstein > > On Jun 30, 12:05 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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. > > So your arguement is hair splitting?? What is the difference between > "a field is a stress in a medium" and "a field is something like a > stress in a medium"???? > In any case, do you agree that a field is substance or material > related? > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 1 Jul 2010 12:18
On Jul 1, 9:42 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > NOTE: The path to understanding physics does NOT pass through PD! All true physics bypasses that airhead. NoEinstein > > On Jul 1, 8:23 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 30, 12:05 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > So your arguement is hair splitting?? What is the difference between > > "a field is a stress in a medium" and "a field is something like a > > stress in a medium"???? > > It's not hairsplitting. It's the difference between declaring what > something is and what something resembles. > A bat is something like a bird with fur rather than feathers. This > does not mean the same thing as saying a bat is a bird with feathers. > If you cannot read and comprehend simple sentences, then how are you > ever going to understand physics? > > > In any case, do you agree that a field is substance or material > > related? > > No. No physicist will agree that a field is substance or material > related. > > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |