There is no physical length contraction or physical length expansion
in [Physics]
|
From: NoEinstein on 27 Jun 2010 20:28 On Jun 18, 7:55 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Dear Burt: No. Einstein questioned most things that he saidlike the supposed cosmological constant. Saying that light can be either photons or... "waves" shows that the person speaking doesnt know what the hell they are thinking. Only yours truly has correctly figured out every force or energy transfer in the universe. Varying ether flow and density explains it all! NoEinstein > > 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: NoEinstein on 27 Jun 2010 20:51 On Jun 19, 10:14 am, Sam <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Sam: Your Einstein biased status quo "spin" is as wrong today as it was the day it was first farted out. NE > > 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.... > > 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: NoEinstein on 27 Jun 2010 21:02 On Jun 19, 3:56 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > Dear kenseto: It is the drag pressure of the ether in Earth's atmosphere against the muons which prevents them from flying apart so fast (atomic decay). Scientists are great at making observations, but only yours truly is really, really great at explaining why the observations happen that way! NoEinstein > > 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!- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 27 Jun 2010 21:04 On Jun 19, 4:00 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > My pleasure, Burt! NE > > 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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Unified_Perspective on 28 Jun 2010 12:03
On Jun 15, 9:11 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > There is no physical length contraction or physical length expansion. > New physics says that the physical length of a meter stick remains the > same in all frames. However, the light-path length of a meter stick > moving wrt an observer is predicted to be shorter or longer than the > light-path length of the observer's meter stick.and the light-path > length of the observer's meter stick is assumed to be its physical > length. This interpretation resolves all the paradoxes of SR. This > interpretation is included in a new theory of relativity called IRT. > IRT includes SRT and LET as subsets. However, unlike SRT, the > equations of IRT are valid in all environments, including gravity. IRT > is described in the following link:http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf > > Ken Seto Ken This is a very old argument and I believe you are on the correct side of the debate. In his original paper Lorentz used observers that were either full tone or half tone to illustrate the actual vs the relative observation. Unfortunately, he got the tones wrong and this is the origin of the misunderstanding of observable space time distortions due to relativistic effects. If the tones had been more nearly correct, then it would have been obvious to most readers that the distortion predicted was due to distortion of perception and not a distortion of reality. Somewhere in his rather large set of papers you may even find comments to this effect from Einstein himself. However, scientific discourse was different in those days - far more polite! I wish you the best of luck in correcting this error of scientific understanding, but don't hold your breath while you try. Benjamin Franklin was responsible for naming the polarity of a common battery. He was well aware that there was a flow, but there was at that time no means of determining the direction. He consulted other experts in the field and then made a guess, as he felt pressure to publish his findings on the universality of electric charge. He guessed wrong. Within a few years there was evidence of this but the matter was not conclusively proven for several decades. No serious effort was ever made to correct Franklin's work. When modern electronics came along and the embedded error became a serious problem "scientists" simply rename positive and negative as anode and cathode reversing the sense of directionality in the flow of electrons and continued on their merry way. This true story from the history of science should help to give you a perspective on just how incredibly difficult it can be to correct a scientific misunderstanding. I hope it helps you have patience with those who have "religious faith" in their own understanding of things. Mr. Gee |