There is no physical length contraction or physical length expansion
in [Physics]
|
From: PD on 28 Jun 2010 14:34 On Jun 18, 6:32 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Jun 18, 11:38 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > PD: There are several definitions of physical. You'll always choose > the one that makes you seem to be smarter that others. Actually, you > are just a sad pedantand one who has made zero contribution to > science. NoEinstein > Not at all. I choose the one that *physicists* use, which is the one that you should choose if you want to discuss physics. If you want to talk about doctor visits, you can use a different definition. Only a fool would choose a different definition than the one that is relevant to the context. The fool makes HIMSELF look foolish by doing that. Nobody has to do that for you. > > > > > > 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. > > > >...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 -
From: PD on 28 Jun 2010 14:36 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. 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 -
From: PD on 28 Jun 2010 14:37 On Jun 27, 8:02 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > 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). Happens the same in evaculated and horizontal tubes, John. > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 28 Jun 2010 14:38 On Jun 27, 7:56 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Jun 19, 10:21 am, Sam <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear Sam: Your "standard" of science truth is what's written in > textbooks (ha, ha, HA!). My standard of what's science true is whats > RATIONAL to explain the observations in the Universe. Every nutjob thinks his delusions are rational. Doesn't make them so. > If you aren't > objective enough to read and understand my many posts, that's your > cognitive problem, not mine! NE >
From: NoEinstein on 28 Jun 2010 15:00
On Jun 28, 2:34 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > PD, the Dunce, is like one of those multiple sign-posts in Alaska. He always points to another "Rock City", and marvels at his insights. But PD marvels alone. NE > > On Jun 18, 6:32 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Jun 18, 11:38 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > PD: There are several definitions of physical. You'll always choose > > the one that makes you seem to be smarter that others. Actually, you > > are just a sad pedantand one who has made zero contribution to > > science. NoEinstein > > Not at all. I choose the one that *physicists* use, which is the one > that you should choose if you want to discuss physics. If you want to > talk about doctor visits, you can use a different definition. > > Only a fool would choose a different definition than the one that is > relevant to the context. The fool makes HIMSELF look foolish by doing > that. Nobody has to do that for you. > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > >...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 - |