There is no physical length contraction or physical length expansion
in [Physics]
|
From: NoEinstein on 19 Jun 2010 04:48 On Jun 18, 7:55 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Dear Burt: We would ALL be right to question Einstein... anything! NE > > On Jun 18, 4:38 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Jun 18, 12:56 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 18, 8:23 am, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 18, 10:20 am, NoEinstein wrote: > > > > > > Dear Burt: Come out of the "Dark Ages" man! Light > > > > > isn't WAVES. It is photons (energy quanta) only! > > > > > Dear NotEinstein: Despite the fact that in a reaction between an > > > > atom and a transient light a quantum of energy is absorbed or > > > > released, the light isn't made of quantities of energy ("photons". It > > > > consist of em WAVES. > > > > > >< Light doesn't need a medium to travel in. It goes across the Swiss Cheese voids (no ether) between galaxies with no problem at all.> > > > > > The only voids that exists in the Universe are in the heads of > > > > people who believe that a quantum of energy and/or a light wave can > > > > exist in one. > > > > > >< If, as you suppose, light requires a medium, then we wouldn't be able to see anything beyond the Milky Way > > > > > Galaxy. > > > > > > If,as you suppose, a void fills the space between atoms, we wouldn't > > > > exist; and even if we did, we wouldn't be able to see anything at all. > > > > > glird > > > > I see you're in denial. Energy of ligtht is defined by its wave. > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Light is QUANTA, Burt, NOT waves! NE - Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Einstein was the winner. He was the one who questioned his photon. > He was right to question it. > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: kenseto on 19 Jun 2010 09:46 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 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 -
From: Sam on 19 Jun 2010 10:14 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. Do yourself a favor and read this material: Relativistic Effects on Satellite Clocks http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=node5.html 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. 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. Once again, Ken, relativistic effects are observer dependent. That fact is something you continually FAIL to learn. Top of the morning to you!
From: kenseto on 19 Jun 2010 15:56 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!
From: BURT on 19 Jun 2010 16:00
On Jun 19, 1:48 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Jun 18, 7:55 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > Dear Burt: We would ALL be right to question Einstein... anything! > NE > > > > > > > On Jun 18, 4:38 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On Jun 18, 12:56 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 18, 8:23 am, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jun 18, 10:20 am, NoEinstein wrote: > > > > > > > Dear Burt: Come out of the "Dark Ages" man! Light > > > > > > isn't WAVES. It is photons (energy quanta) only! > > > > > > Dear NotEinstein: Despite the fact that in a reaction between an > > > > > atom and a transient light a quantum of energy is absorbed or > > > > > released, the light isn't made of quantities of energy ("photons".. It > > > > > consist of em WAVES. > > > > > > >< Light doesn't need a medium to travel in. It goes across the Swiss Cheese voids (no ether) between galaxies with no problem at all.> > > > > > > The only voids that exists in the Universe are in the heads of > > > > > people who believe that a quantum of energy and/or a light wave can > > > > > exist in one. > > > > > > >< If, as you suppose, light requires a medium, then we wouldn't be able to see anything beyond the Milky Way > > > > > > Galaxy. > > > > > > > If,as you suppose, a void fills the space between atoms, we wouldn't > > > > > exist; and even if we did, we wouldn't be able to see anything at all. > > > > > > glird > > > > > I see you're in denial. Energy of ligtht is defined by its wave. > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > Light is QUANTA, Burt, NOT waves! NE - Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Einstein was the winner. He was the one who questioned his photon. > > He was right to question it. > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Thanks for telling me. I wouldn't have known otherwise. Mitch Raemsch |