There is no time dilation or physical length contraction.
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 13 Nov 2009 15:16 On Nov 13, 1:17 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Nov 13, 6:17 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Nov 12, 11:04 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Nov 12, 8:53 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > "BURT" <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > > > >news:32c4d849-6559-4e72-a6d3-ba5c1404339a(a)s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > On Nov 12, 8:00 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >> On Nov 12, 9:36 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > >> > There is no time dilation. > > > > >> > 1. Clocks in different frames runs at different rates. > > > > > >> That's what time dilation MEANS. > > > > > >> > 2. A clock second does not represent the same duration (absolute time > > > > >> > content) in different frames. In other words a clock second is not a > > > > >> > universal interval of time in different frames. > > > > > >> It isn't required that the clock second represent the same duration in > > > > >> different frames. And you confuse "universal" with "absolute". > > > > > >> > There is no physical length contraction. > > > > >> > 1. The physical length of a meter stick remains that same in all > > > > >> > frames. > > > > > >> Not according to *measurement*. > > > > > >> > 2. The observer assumes that the light path length of his meter stick > > > > >> > is the physical length of his meter stick and then he uses this > > > > >> > assumption and the SR equations to predict the light path length of a > > > > >> > moving meter stick is contractioned by a factor of 1/gamma. > > > > > >> Nowhere is there *measurement* in this statement. Length contraction > > > > >> is (indirectly) *measured*. > > > > > >> > IRT is a new theory of relativity. It includes the above concept for > > > > >> > time and length. A description of IRT is available in the following > > > > >> > link:http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf > > > > > >> > Ken Seto- Hide quoted text - > > > > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > > > > If we can't measure contraction it should not be considered a fact in > > > > > science. > > > > > We have measured it .. but not directly > > > > > > There is no shrinking energy. > > > > > Who said there was? > > > > > > No flat atom forms no contraction of > > > > > space. > > > > > SR doesn't say that there is any flattening of atoms (thought LET does). > > > > > > The universe cannot go flat. > > > > > SR doesn't say it does. You really should try to understand what SR DOES > > > > say, and not what is written in popular articles and what crackpots think it > > > > means.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > If motion shrinks space and trains we need dircet evidence if you are > > > consididering proof. > > > Well, first of all, science offers proof of nothing, so if you're > > looking for proof you're in the wrong zip code. > > I don't need proof to see that flat atoms are wrong science. This > science is not a fact. Mitch, you can't decide what is fact and what is not fact based on intuition and thinking. The only way to tell -- and this is what science does -- is from experimental evidence (direct and indirect). You say flat atoms are impossible and inconceivable, but you can't really KNOW that until you've done careful experimental tests to see if that's really so. Nature is very surprising. > > > > > Secondly, indirect evidence is among the best in science for a variety > > of reasons. Whether you believe it or not is not really the driving > > consideration. > > What is the indirect evidence? I've mentioned before the rapidity distributions of secondary particles from hadron-hadron collisions in both fixed target and collider experiments. This is explicitly looking at the very same physical process from two different reference frames. The calorimeter segmentation that assures uniform illumination across the rapidity plateau is pretty clear support for length contraction. > > MItch Raemsch > > > > > > There are no flat forms; atoms trains or the universe. It is bad > > > science. > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -
From: BURT on 13 Nov 2009 15:22 On Nov 13, 12:16 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Nov 13, 1:17 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Nov 13, 6:17 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Nov 12, 11:04 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Nov 12, 8:53 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > > "BURT" <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > > > > >news:32c4d849-6559-4e72-a6d3-ba5c1404339a(a)s21g2000prm.googlegroups..com... > > > > > > > On Nov 12, 8:00 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> On Nov 12, 9:36 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > >> > There is no time dilation. > > > > > >> > 1. Clocks in different frames runs at different rates. > > > > > > >> That's what time dilation MEANS. > > > > > > >> > 2. A clock second does not represent the same duration (absolute time > > > > > >> > content) in different frames. In other words a clock second is not a > > > > > >> > universal interval of time in different frames. > > > > > > >> It isn't required that the clock second represent the same duration in > > > > > >> different frames. And you confuse "universal" with "absolute". > > > > > > >> > There is no physical length contraction. > > > > > >> > 1. The physical length of a meter stick remains that same in all > > > > > >> > frames. > > > > > > >> Not according to *measurement*. > > > > > > >> > 2. The observer assumes that the light path length of his meter stick > > > > > >> > is the physical length of his meter stick and then he uses this > > > > > >> > assumption and the SR equations to predict the light path length of a > > > > > >> > moving meter stick is contractioned by a factor of 1/gamma. > > > > > > >> Nowhere is there *measurement* in this statement. Length contraction > > > > > >> is (indirectly) *measured*. > > > > > > >> > IRT is a new theory of relativity. It includes the above concept for > > > > > >> > time and length. A description of IRT is available in the following > > > > > >> > link:http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf > > > > > > >> > Ken Seto- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > If we can't measure contraction it should not be considered a fact in > > > > > > science. > > > > > > We have measured it .. but not directly > > > > > > > There is no shrinking energy. > > > > > > Who said there was? > > > > > > > No flat atom forms no contraction of > > > > > > space. > > > > > > SR doesn't say that there is any flattening of atoms (thought LET does). > > > > > > > The universe cannot go flat. > > > > > > SR doesn't say it does. You really should try to understand what SR DOES > > > > > say, and not what is written in popular articles and what crackpots think it > > > > > means.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > If motion shrinks space and trains we need dircet evidence if you are > > > > consididering proof. > > > > Well, first of all, science offers proof of nothing, so if you're > > > looking for proof you're in the wrong zip code. > > > I don't need proof to see that flat atoms are wrong science. This > > science is not a fact. > > Mitch, you can't decide what is fact and what is not fact based on > intuition and thinking. > The only way to tell -- and this is what science does -- is from > experimental evidence (direct and indirect). > You say flat atoms are impossible and inconceivable, but you can't > really KNOW that until you've done careful experimental tests to see > if that's really so. Nature is very surprising. > > > > > > Secondly, indirect evidence is among the best in science for a variety > > > of reasons. Whether you believe it or not is not really the driving > > > consideration. > > > What is the indirect evidence? > > I've mentioned before the rapidity distributions of secondary > particles from hadron-hadron collisions in both fixed target and > collider experiments. Secondary particles are seen to contract how? I doubt this. There are no flat particles. Mitch Raemsch > This is explicitly looking at the very same > physical process from two different reference frames. The calorimeter > segmentation that assures uniform illumination across the rapidity > plateau is pretty clear support for length contraction. > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > MItch Raemsch > > > > > There are no flat forms; atoms trains or the universe. It is bad > > > > science. > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I need
From: PD on 13 Nov 2009 15:28 On Nov 13, 2:22 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Nov 13, 12:16 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Nov 13, 1:17 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Nov 13, 6:17 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Nov 12, 11:04 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Nov 12, 8:53 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > > > "BURT" <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > > > > > >news:32c4d849-6559-4e72-a6d3-ba5c1404339a(a)s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > On Nov 12, 8:00 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > >> On Nov 12, 9:36 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > >> > There is no time dilation. > > > > > > >> > 1. Clocks in different frames runs at different rates. > > > > > > > >> That's what time dilation MEANS. > > > > > > > >> > 2. A clock second does not represent the same duration (absolute time > > > > > > >> > content) in different frames. In other words a clock second is not a > > > > > > >> > universal interval of time in different frames. > > > > > > > >> It isn't required that the clock second represent the same duration in > > > > > > >> different frames. And you confuse "universal" with "absolute". > > > > > > > >> > There is no physical length contraction. > > > > > > >> > 1. The physical length of a meter stick remains that same in all > > > > > > >> > frames. > > > > > > > >> Not according to *measurement*. > > > > > > > >> > 2. The observer assumes that the light path length of his meter stick > > > > > > >> > is the physical length of his meter stick and then he uses this > > > > > > >> > assumption and the SR equations to predict the light path length of a > > > > > > >> > moving meter stick is contractioned by a factor of 1/gamma.. > > > > > > > >> Nowhere is there *measurement* in this statement. Length contraction > > > > > > >> is (indirectly) *measured*. > > > > > > > >> > IRT is a new theory of relativity. It includes the above concept for > > > > > > >> > time and length. A description of IRT is available in the following > > > > > > >> > link:http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf > > > > > > > >> > Ken Seto- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > If we can't measure contraction it should not be considered a fact in > > > > > > > science. > > > > > > > We have measured it .. but not directly > > > > > > > > There is no shrinking energy. > > > > > > > Who said there was? > > > > > > > > No flat atom forms no contraction of > > > > > > > space. > > > > > > > SR doesn't say that there is any flattening of atoms (thought LET does). > > > > > > > > The universe cannot go flat. > > > > > > > SR doesn't say it does. You really should try to understand what SR DOES > > > > > > say, and not what is written in popular articles and what crackpots think it > > > > > > means.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > If motion shrinks space and trains we need dircet evidence if you are > > > > > consididering proof. > > > > > Well, first of all, science offers proof of nothing, so if you're > > > > looking for proof you're in the wrong zip code. > > > > I don't need proof to see that flat atoms are wrong science. This > > > science is not a fact. > > > Mitch, you can't decide what is fact and what is not fact based on > > intuition and thinking. > > The only way to tell -- and this is what science does -- is from > > experimental evidence (direct and indirect). > > You say flat atoms are impossible and inconceivable, but you can't > > really KNOW that until you've done careful experimental tests to see > > if that's really so. Nature is very surprising. You didn't seem to absorb the statement made above. You went on ahead to simply state, without any evidence one way or the other, that "there are no flat particles," as though just saying it makes it so. > > > > > Secondly, indirect evidence is among the best in science for a variety > > > > of reasons. Whether you believe it or not is not really the driving > > > > consideration. > > > > What is the indirect evidence? > > > I've mentioned before the rapidity distributions of secondary > > particles from hadron-hadron collisions in both fixed target and > > collider experiments. > > Secondary particles are seen to contract how? The *distribution* of the secondary particles are seen to contract. You can google "calorimeter pseudorapidity segmentation" if you'd like to do some initial contact. > I doubt this. There are no flat particles.' This is the statement you simply cannot make without the benefit of experimental evidence, Mitch. That's my point. > > Mitch Raemsch > > > This is explicitly looking at the very same > > physical process from two different reference frames. The calorimeter > > segmentation that assures uniform illumination across the rapidity > > plateau is pretty clear support for length contraction. > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > MItch Raemsch > > > > > > There are no flat forms; atoms trains or the universe. It is bad > > > > > science. > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > I need
From: BURT on 13 Nov 2009 15:52 On Nov 13, 12:28 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Nov 13, 2:22 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Nov 13, 12:16 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Nov 13, 1:17 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Nov 13, 6:17 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Nov 12, 11:04 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Nov 12, 8:53 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > "BURT" <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > > > > > > >news:32c4d849-6559-4e72-a6d3-ba5c1404339a(a)s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > > On Nov 12, 8:00 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > >> On Nov 12, 9:36 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > >> > There is no time dilation. > > > > > > > >> > 1. Clocks in different frames runs at different rates. > > > > > > > > >> That's what time dilation MEANS. > > > > > > > > >> > 2. A clock second does not represent the same duration (absolute time > > > > > > > >> > content) in different frames. In other words a clock second is not a > > > > > > > >> > universal interval of time in different frames. > > > > > > > > >> It isn't required that the clock second represent the same duration in > > > > > > > >> different frames. And you confuse "universal" with "absolute". > > > > > > > > >> > There is no physical length contraction. > > > > > > > >> > 1. The physical length of a meter stick remains that same in all > > > > > > > >> > frames. > > > > > > > > >> Not according to *measurement*. > > > > > > > > >> > 2. The observer assumes that the light path length of his meter stick > > > > > > > >> > is the physical length of his meter stick and then he uses this > > > > > > > >> > assumption and the SR equations to predict the light path length of a > > > > > > > >> > moving meter stick is contractioned by a factor of 1/gamma. > > > > > > > > >> Nowhere is there *measurement* in this statement. Length contraction > > > > > > > >> is (indirectly) *measured*. > > > > > > > > >> > IRT is a new theory of relativity. It includes the above concept for > > > > > > > >> > time and length. A description of IRT is available in the following > > > > > > > >> > link:http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf > > > > > > > > >> > Ken Seto- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > If we can't measure contraction it should not be considered a fact in > > > > > > > > science. > > > > > > > > We have measured it .. but not directly > > > > > > > > > There is no shrinking energy. > > > > > > > > Who said there was? > > > > > > > > > No flat atom forms no contraction of > > > > > > > > space. > > > > > > > > SR doesn't say that there is any flattening of atoms (thought LET does). > > > > > > > > > The universe cannot go flat. > > > > > > > > SR doesn't say it does. You really should try to understand what SR DOES > > > > > > > say, and not what is written in popular articles and what crackpots think it > > > > > > > means.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > If motion shrinks space and trains we need dircet evidence if you are > > > > > > consididering proof. > > > > > > Well, first of all, science offers proof of nothing, so if you're > > > > > looking for proof you're in the wrong zip code. > > > > > I don't need proof to see that flat atoms are wrong science. This > > > > science is not a fact. > > > > Mitch, you can't decide what is fact and what is not fact based on > > > intuition and thinking. > > > The only way to tell -- and this is what science does -- is from > > > experimental evidence (direct and indirect). > > > You say flat atoms are impossible and inconceivable, but you can't > > > really KNOW that until you've done careful experimental tests to see > > > if that's really so. Nature is very surprising. > > You didn't seem to absorb the statement made above. You went on ahead > to simply state, without any evidence one way or the other, that > "there are no flat particles," as though just saying it makes it so. > > > > > > > > Secondly, indirect evidence is among the best in science for a variety > > > > > of reasons. Whether you believe it or not is not really the driving > > > > > consideration. > > > > > What is the indirect evidence? > > > > I've mentioned before the rapidity distributions of secondary > > > particles from hadron-hadron collisions in both fixed target and > > > collider experiments. > > > Secondary particles are seen to contract how? > > The *distribution* of the secondary particles are seen to contract. > You can google "calorimeter pseudorapidity segmentation" if you'd like > to do some initial contact. > > > I doubt this. There are no flat particles.' > > This is the statement you simply cannot make without the benefit of > experimental evidence, Mitch. That's my point. > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > This is explicitly looking at the very same > > > physical process from two different reference frames. The calorimeter > > > segmentation that assures uniform illumination across the rapidity > > > plateau is pretty clear support for length contraction. > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > MItch Raemsch > > > > > > > There are no flat forms; atoms trains or the universe. It is bad > > > > > > science. > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > I need- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - But you are wrong. Indirect evidence is not conclusive. The forms of the universe cannot contract. I want to know if there evidence that they expand? Mitch Raemsch
From: PD on 13 Nov 2009 16:28
On Nov 13, 2:52 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Nov 13, 12:28 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Nov 13, 2:22 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Nov 13, 12:16 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Nov 13, 1:17 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Nov 13, 6:17 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Nov 12, 11:04 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Nov 12, 8:53 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > "BURT" <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > > > > > > > >news:32c4d849-6559-4e72-a6d3-ba5c1404339a(a)s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 12, 8:00 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > >> On Nov 12, 9:36 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> > There is no time dilation. > > > > > > > > >> > 1. Clocks in different frames runs at different rates. > > > > > > > > > >> That's what time dilation MEANS. > > > > > > > > > >> > 2. A clock second does not represent the same duration (absolute time > > > > > > > > >> > content) in different frames. In other words a clock second is not a > > > > > > > > >> > universal interval of time in different frames. > > > > > > > > > >> It isn't required that the clock second represent the same duration in > > > > > > > > >> different frames. And you confuse "universal" with "absolute". > > > > > > > > > >> > There is no physical length contraction. > > > > > > > > >> > 1. The physical length of a meter stick remains that same in all > > > > > > > > >> > frames. > > > > > > > > > >> Not according to *measurement*. > > > > > > > > > >> > 2. The observer assumes that the light path length of his meter stick > > > > > > > > >> > is the physical length of his meter stick and then he uses this > > > > > > > > >> > assumption and the SR equations to predict the light path length of a > > > > > > > > >> > moving meter stick is contractioned by a factor of 1/gamma. > > > > > > > > > >> Nowhere is there *measurement* in this statement. Length contraction > > > > > > > > >> is (indirectly) *measured*. > > > > > > > > > >> > IRT is a new theory of relativity. It includes the above concept for > > > > > > > > >> > time and length. A description of IRT is available in the following > > > > > > > > >> > link:http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf > > > > > > > > > >> > Ken Seto- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > If we can't measure contraction it should not be considered a fact in > > > > > > > > > science. > > > > > > > > > We have measured it .. but not directly > > > > > > > > > > There is no shrinking energy. > > > > > > > > > Who said there was? > > > > > > > > > > No flat atom forms no contraction of > > > > > > > > > space. > > > > > > > > > SR doesn't say that there is any flattening of atoms (thought LET does). > > > > > > > > > > The universe cannot go flat. > > > > > > > > > SR doesn't say it does. You really should try to understand what SR DOES > > > > > > > > say, and not what is written in popular articles and what crackpots think it > > > > > > > > means.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > If motion shrinks space and trains we need dircet evidence if you are > > > > > > > consididering proof. > > > > > > > Well, first of all, science offers proof of nothing, so if you're > > > > > > looking for proof you're in the wrong zip code. > > > > > > I don't need proof to see that flat atoms are wrong science. This > > > > > science is not a fact. > > > > > Mitch, you can't decide what is fact and what is not fact based on > > > > intuition and thinking. > > > > The only way to tell -- and this is what science does -- is from > > > > experimental evidence (direct and indirect). > > > > You say flat atoms are impossible and inconceivable, but you can't > > > > really KNOW that until you've done careful experimental tests to see > > > > if that's really so. Nature is very surprising. > > > You didn't seem to absorb the statement made above. You went on ahead > > to simply state, without any evidence one way or the other, that > > "there are no flat particles," as though just saying it makes it so. > > > > > > > Secondly, indirect evidence is among the best in science for a variety > > > > > > of reasons. Whether you believe it or not is not really the driving > > > > > > consideration. > > > > > > What is the indirect evidence? > > > > > I've mentioned before the rapidity distributions of secondary > > > > particles from hadron-hadron collisions in both fixed target and > > > > collider experiments. > > > > Secondary particles are seen to contract how? > > > The *distribution* of the secondary particles are seen to contract. > > You can google "calorimeter pseudorapidity segmentation" if you'd like > > to do some initial contact. > > > > I doubt this. There are no flat particles.' > > > This is the statement you simply cannot make without the benefit of > > experimental evidence, Mitch. That's my point. > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > This is explicitly looking at the very same > > > > physical process from two different reference frames. The calorimeter > > > > segmentation that assures uniform illumination across the rapidity > > > > plateau is pretty clear support for length contraction. > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > MItch Raemsch > > > > > > > > There are no flat forms; atoms trains or the universe. It is bad > > > > > > > science. > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > I need- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > But you are wrong. Indirect evidence is not conclusive. I'm sorry, Mitch, but much of what we know scientifically comes from indirect evidence. It's a shame you didn't know that. > > The forms of the universe cannot contract. And how do you KNOW that? > I want to know if there > evidence that they expand? > > Mitch Raemsch |