There is no physical length contraction or physical length expansion
in [Physics]
|
From: NoEinstein on 3 Jul 2010 19:14 On Jul 1, 12:45 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > .... Just like PD will remain that irrelevant "spec" at the bottom of the Science Hill that I'm the King of. NE > > On Jul 1, 11:21 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Jul 1, 9:43 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > No PD, it's YOUR problem! > > No, it's not. YOU are the only one that seems to have difficulties > finding them. So it's YOUR problem. > I don't owe you solutions to YOUR problems that other people do not > share. YOU have to generate solutions to YOUR problems. Alternatively, > you could pay a therapist. > > > > > Give the titles and the links to your > > "many" posts, so everyone can see for themselves how incompetent you > > are. NE - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: BURT on 3 Jul 2010 19:19 On Jul 3, 4:14 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Jul 1, 12:45 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > ... Just like PD will remain that irrelevant "spec" at the bottom of > the Science Hill that I'm the King of. NE > > > > > > > On Jul 1, 11:21 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On Jul 1, 9:43 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > No PD, it's YOUR problem! > > > No, it's not. YOU are the only one that seems to have difficulties > > finding them. So it's YOUR problem. > > I don't owe you solutions to YOUR problems that other people do not > > share. YOU have to generate solutions to YOUR problems. Alternatively, > > you could pay a therapist. > > > > Give the titles and the links to your > > > "many" posts, so everyone can see for themselves how incompetent you > > > are. NE - Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Science hill? I want to go there! Mitch Raemsch
From: NoEinstein on 3 Jul 2010 19:19 On Jul 1, 2:11 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Read, Burt, read! In the first case the ball was thrown (straight forward) from the bow of the boat, so that the speed of the boat adds to the speed of the pitch. In the second case the ball is thrown from the stern of the boat (straight backwards) so that the speed of the boat SUBTRACTS from the speed of the ball. Wasn't that clear from what I just wrote? NE > > On Jul 1, 1:05 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Which dierction is the ball going in? > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: BURT on 3 Jul 2010 19:23 On Jul 3, 4:19 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Jul 1, 2:11 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > Read, Burt, read! In the first case the ball was thrown (straight > forward) from the bow of the boat, so that the speed of the boat adds > to the speed of the pitch. In the second case the ball is thrown from > the stern of the boat (straight backwards) so that the speed of the > boat SUBTRACTS from the speed of the ball. Wasn't that clear from > what I just wrote? NE > > > > > > > On Jul 1, 1:05 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Which dierction is the ball going in? > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - My point is things are always going in one direction. That is ahead in space-time aether. Mitch Raemsch
From: NoEinstein on 5 Jul 2010 09:47
On Jul 3, 7:19 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Dear Burt: Every time you reply to me, you ARE on the Science Hill, and closer to the top than PD could ever hope to be! NoEinstein > > On Jul 3, 4:14 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Jul 1, 12:45 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > ... Just like PD will remain that irrelevant "spec" at the bottom of > > the Science Hill that I'm the King of. NE > > > > On Jul 1, 11:21 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 1, 9:43 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > No PD, it's YOUR problem! > > > > No, it's not. YOU are the only one that seems to have difficulties > > > finding them. So it's YOUR problem. > > > I don't owe you solutions to YOUR problems that other people do not > > > share. YOU have to generate solutions to YOUR problems. Alternatively, > > > you could pay a therapist. > > > > > Give the titles and the links to your > > > > "many" posts, so everyone can see for themselves how incompetent you > > > > are. NE - Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Science hill? > > I want to go there! > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |