There is no time dilation or physical length contraction.
in [Relativity]
|
From: BURT on 14 Nov 2009 17:31 On Nov 14, 2:10 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message > > news:01559f7a-f3dd-4d54-8aa3-4341ed0573f5(a)k9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Nov 13, 4:44 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message > > >>news:86d8feb2-7242-4f8a-af75-8f9e36d8bb51(a)k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com.... > > >> > On Nov 12, 5:58 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> >> "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message > > >> >>news:0e8846ab-d260-42ee-b61f-d2ff53b6b97a(a)r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> > There is no time dilation. > > >> >> You have no proof of course .. not even a working theory. > > >> > Sure I have a working theory. The GPS second is redefined to have 4.15 > >> > more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the groound clock second...this > >> > is done to make the GPS second contains the same amount of absolute > >> > time as the ground second. > > >> >> > 1. Clocks in different frames runs at different rates. > > >> >> And how is that different from time dilation? > > >> > The differences are: > >> > 1. clocks in relative motion are truly running at different rates. > >> > That means that if clock A is running faster than clock B then clock B > >> > is running slower than clock A. There is no such thing as mutual time > >> > dilation. > > >> >> > 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. > > >> >> Its not supposed to be .. it supposed to keep time in its own frame > > >> > Hey idiot the definition for time "time is what the clock measures" is > >> > wrong....why? Because a clock second does not contain the same amount > >> > of time (same amount of duration or absolute time) in different > >> > frames. > > >> >> > There is no physical length contraction. > > >> >> You have no proof of course .. not even a working theory. > > >> > Sure I have a working theory. > > >> >> > 1. The physical length of a meter stick remains that same in all > >> >> > frames. > > >> >> What do you mean by physical length? > > >> > We use physical ruler to measure length everyday. There is no need to > >> > invent a rubber ruler so that you can make the speed of light to be > >> > constant. > > >> There is no 'rubber ruler' in SR at all. You clearly don't understand SR > >> at > >> all, yet feel compelled to make comments out of ignorance. > > > Sure there is....a ruler accelerated from the observer is contracted > > but when it return it will recover it physical length. > > Its measured length is contracted .. returning to the same place doesn't > make any difference to the measurement .. returning to the same velocity > relative to the observer does > > > Sounds pretty > > rubbery to me. > > There is no change in the ruler itself .. assuming it was a rigid body. Of > course, you do know that there is no such thing as a rigid body in reality.- Hide quoted text - The contracting measuring rod is what Einstein said that space contracted. > - Show quoted text -
From: Inertial on 14 Nov 2009 17:55 "BURT" <macromitch(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:cedbe592-66f6-4279-a4ec-cdac0d9458be(a)r24g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > On Nov 14, 2:10 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message >> >> news:01559f7a-f3dd-4d54-8aa3-4341ed0573f5(a)k9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Nov 13, 4:44 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message >> >> >>news:86d8feb2-7242-4f8a-af75-8f9e36d8bb51(a)k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> > On Nov 12, 5:58 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> >> "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >>news:0e8846ab-d260-42ee-b61f-d2ff53b6b97a(a)r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > There is no time dilation. >> >> >> >> You have no proof of course .. not even a working theory. >> >> >> > Sure I have a working theory. The GPS second is redefined to have >> >> > 4.15 >> >> > more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the groound clock >> >> > second...this >> >> > is done to make the GPS second contains the same amount of absolute >> >> > time as the ground second. >> >> >> >> > 1. Clocks in different frames runs at different rates. >> >> >> >> And how is that different from time dilation? >> >> >> > The differences are: >> >> > 1. clocks in relative motion are truly running at different rates. >> >> > That means that if clock A is running faster than clock B then clock >> >> > B >> >> > is running slower than clock A. There is no such thing as mutual >> >> > time >> >> > dilation. >> >> >> >> > 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. >> >> >> >> Its not supposed to be .. it supposed to keep time in its own frame >> >> >> > Hey idiot the definition for time "time is what the clock measures" >> >> > is >> >> > wrong....why? Because a clock second does not contain the same >> >> > amount >> >> > of time (same amount of duration or absolute time) in different >> >> > frames. >> >> >> >> > There is no physical length contraction. >> >> >> >> You have no proof of course .. not even a working theory. >> >> >> > Sure I have a working theory. >> >> >> >> > 1. The physical length of a meter stick remains that same in all >> >> >> > frames. >> >> >> >> What do you mean by physical length? >> >> >> > We use physical ruler to measure length everyday. There is no need >> >> > to >> >> > invent a rubber ruler so that you can make the speed of light to be >> >> > constant. >> >> >> There is no 'rubber ruler' in SR at all. You clearly don't understand >> >> SR >> >> at >> >> all, yet feel compelled to make comments out of ignorance. >> >> > Sure there is....a ruler accelerated from the observer is contracted >> > but when it return it will recover it physical length. >> >> Its measured length is contracted .. returning to the same place doesn't >> make any difference to the measurement .. returning to the same velocity >> relative to the observer does >> >> > Sounds pretty >> > rubbery to me. >> >> There is no change in the ruler itself .. assuming it was a rigid body. >> Of >> course, you do know that there is no such thing as a rigid body in >> reality.- Hide quoted text - > > The contracting measuring rod is what Einstein said that space > contracted. There is no change in a ruler itself when it is moving .. differently moving observers will measure different lengths for the same ruler. If the motion of the ruler changes, different observers will say different things about how the measurement of its length changed (some may say it is measured longer, others shorter, some may say it is the same). However, any observer that is comoving with the ruler will always get the largest measurement of its length.
From: BURT on 14 Nov 2009 18:54 On Nov 14, 2:55 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "BURT" <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:cedbe592-66f6-4279-a4ec-cdac0d9458be(a)r24g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Nov 14, 2:10 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message > > >>news:01559f7a-f3dd-4d54-8aa3-4341ed0573f5(a)k9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com.... > > >> > On Nov 13, 4:44 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> >> "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message > > >> >>news:86d8feb2-7242-4f8a-af75-8f9e36d8bb51(a)k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> > On Nov 12, 5:58 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> >> >> "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message > > >> >> >>news:0e8846ab-d260-42ee-b61f-d2ff53b6b97a(a)r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> >> > There is no time dilation. > > >> >> >> You have no proof of course .. not even a working theory. > > >> >> > Sure I have a working theory. The GPS second is redefined to have > >> >> > 4.15 > >> >> > more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the groound clock > >> >> > second...this > >> >> > is done to make the GPS second contains the same amount of absolute > >> >> > time as the ground second. > > >> >> >> > 1. Clocks in different frames runs at different rates. > > >> >> >> And how is that different from time dilation? > > >> >> > The differences are: > >> >> > 1. clocks in relative motion are truly running at different rates.. > >> >> > That means that if clock A is running faster than clock B then clock > >> >> > B > >> >> > is running slower than clock A. There is no such thing as mutual > >> >> > time > >> >> > dilation. > > >> >> >> > 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. > > >> >> >> Its not supposed to be .. it supposed to keep time in its own frame > > >> >> > Hey idiot the definition for time "time is what the clock measures" > >> >> > is > >> >> > wrong....why? Because a clock second does not contain the same > >> >> > amount > >> >> > of time (same amount of duration or absolute time) in different > >> >> > frames. > > >> >> >> > There is no physical length contraction. > > >> >> >> You have no proof of course .. not even a working theory. > > >> >> > Sure I have a working theory. > > >> >> >> > 1. The physical length of a meter stick remains that same in all > >> >> >> > frames. > > >> >> >> What do you mean by physical length? > > >> >> > We use physical ruler to measure length everyday. There is no need > >> >> > to > >> >> > invent a rubber ruler so that you can make the speed of light to be > >> >> > constant. > > >> >> There is no 'rubber ruler' in SR at all. You clearly don't understand > >> >> SR > >> >> at > >> >> all, yet feel compelled to make comments out of ignorance. > > >> > Sure there is....a ruler accelerated from the observer is contracted > >> > but when it return it will recover it physical length. > > >> Its measured length is contracted .. returning to the same place doesn't > >> make any difference to the measurement .. returning to the same velocity > >> relative to the observer does > > >> > Sounds pretty > >> > rubbery to me. > > >> There is no change in the ruler itself .. assuming it was a rigid body.. > >> Of > >> course, you do know that there is no such thing as a rigid body in > >> reality.- Hide quoted text - > > > The contracting measuring rod is what Einstein said that space > > contracted. > > There is no change in a ruler itself when it is moving .. differently moving > observers will measure different lengths for the same ruler. If the motion > of the ruler changes, different observers will say different things about > how the measurement of its length changed (some may say it is measured > longer, others shorter, some may say it is the same). However, any observer > that is comoving with the ruler will always get the largest measurement of > its length.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Relativity is a theory of simple appearences. It is invalid as Einstein wrote it. Mitch Raemsch
From: Inertial on 15 Nov 2009 07:06 "BURT" <macromitch(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:05de9db1-b1c6-473c-8f69-2e2a19762b3f(a)t11g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > On Nov 14, 2:55 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "BURT" <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >> >> news:cedbe592-66f6-4279-a4ec-cdac0d9458be(a)r24g2000prf.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Nov 14, 2:10 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message >> >> >>news:01559f7a-f3dd-4d54-8aa3-4341ed0573f5(a)k9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> > On Nov 13, 4:44 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> >> "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >>news:86d8feb2-7242-4f8a-af75-8f9e36d8bb51(a)k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On Nov 12, 5:58 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >> >>news:0e8846ab-d260-42ee-b61f-d2ff53b6b97a(a)r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> > There is no time dilation. >> >> >> >> >> You have no proof of course .. not even a working theory. >> >> >> >> > Sure I have a working theory. The GPS second is redefined to have >> >> >> > 4.15 >> >> >> > more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the groound clock >> >> >> > second...this >> >> >> > is done to make the GPS second contains the same amount of >> >> >> > absolute >> >> >> > time as the ground second. >> >> >> >> >> > 1. Clocks in different frames runs at different rates. >> >> >> >> >> And how is that different from time dilation? >> >> >> >> > The differences are: >> >> >> > 1. clocks in relative motion are truly running at different >> >> >> > rates. >> >> >> > That means that if clock A is running faster than clock B then >> >> >> > clock >> >> >> > B >> >> >> > is running slower than clock A. There is no such thing as mutual >> >> >> > time >> >> >> > dilation. >> >> >> >> >> > 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. >> >> >> >> >> Its not supposed to be .. it supposed to keep time in its own >> >> >> >> frame >> >> >> >> > Hey idiot the definition for time "time is what the clock >> >> >> > measures" >> >> >> > is >> >> >> > wrong....why? Because a clock second does not contain the same >> >> >> > amount >> >> >> > of time (same amount of duration or absolute time) in different >> >> >> > frames. >> >> >> >> >> > There is no physical length contraction. >> >> >> >> >> You have no proof of course .. not even a working theory. >> >> >> >> > Sure I have a working theory. >> >> >> >> >> > 1. The physical length of a meter stick remains that same in >> >> >> >> > all >> >> >> >> > frames. >> >> >> >> >> What do you mean by physical length? >> >> >> >> > We use physical ruler to measure length everyday. There is no >> >> >> > need >> >> >> > to >> >> >> > invent a rubber ruler so that you can make the speed of light to >> >> >> > be >> >> >> > constant. >> >> >> >> There is no 'rubber ruler' in SR at all. You clearly don't >> >> >> understand >> >> >> SR >> >> >> at >> >> >> all, yet feel compelled to make comments out of ignorance. >> >> >> > Sure there is....a ruler accelerated from the observer is contracted >> >> > but when it return it will recover it physical length. >> >> >> Its measured length is contracted .. returning to the same place >> >> doesn't >> >> make any difference to the measurement .. returning to the same >> >> velocity >> >> relative to the observer does >> >> >> > Sounds pretty >> >> > rubbery to me. >> >> >> There is no change in the ruler itself .. assuming it was a rigid >> >> body. >> >> Of >> >> course, you do know that there is no such thing as a rigid body in >> >> reality.- Hide quoted text - >> >> > The contracting measuring rod is what Einstein said that space >> > contracted. >> >> There is no change in a ruler itself when it is moving .. differently >> moving >> observers will measure different lengths for the same ruler. If the >> motion >> of the ruler changes, different observers will say different things about >> how the measurement of its length changed (some may say it is measured >> longer, others shorter, some may say it is the same). However, any >> observer >> that is comoving with the ruler will always get the largest measurement >> of >> its length.- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > Relativity is a theory of simple appearences. It is invalid as > Einstein wrote it. Wrong
From: kenseto on 15 Nov 2009 10:25
On Nov 14, 5:10 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message > > news:01559f7a-f3dd-4d54-8aa3-4341ed0573f5(a)k9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Nov 13, 4:44 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message > > >>news:86d8feb2-7242-4f8a-af75-8f9e36d8bb51(a)k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com.... > > >> > On Nov 12, 5:58 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> >> "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message > > >> >>news:0e8846ab-d260-42ee-b61f-d2ff53b6b97a(a)r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> > There is no time dilation. > > >> >> You have no proof of course .. not even a working theory. > > >> > Sure I have a working theory. The GPS second is redefined to have 4.15 > >> > more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the groound clock second...this > >> > is done to make the GPS second contains the same amount of absolute > >> > time as the ground second. > > >> >> > 1. Clocks in different frames runs at different rates. > > >> >> And how is that different from time dilation? > > >> > The differences are: > >> > 1. clocks in relative motion are truly running at different rates. > >> > That means that if clock A is running faster than clock B then clock B > >> > is running slower than clock A. There is no such thing as mutual time > >> > dilation. > > >> >> > 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. > > >> >> Its not supposed to be .. it supposed to keep time in its own frame > > >> > Hey idiot the definition for time "time is what the clock measures" is > >> > wrong....why? Because a clock second does not contain the same amount > >> > of time (same amount of duration or absolute time) in different > >> > frames. > > >> >> > There is no physical length contraction. > > >> >> You have no proof of course .. not even a working theory. > > >> > Sure I have a working theory. > > >> >> > 1. The physical length of a meter stick remains that same in all > >> >> > frames. > > >> >> What do you mean by physical length? > > >> > We use physical ruler to measure length everyday. There is no need to > >> > invent a rubber ruler so that you can make the speed of light to be > >> > constant. > > >> There is no 'rubber ruler' in SR at all. You clearly don't understand SR > >> at > >> all, yet feel compelled to make comments out of ignorance. > > > Sure there is....a ruler accelerated from the observer is contracted > > but when it return it will recover it physical length. > > Its measured length is contracted .. returning to the same place doesn't > make any difference to the measurement .. returning to the same velocity > relative to the observer does No such measurement ever been made....in fact it is impossible to do so. SR predicts length contraction mathematically and prediction is not a measurement. The modern SR interpretation is that no physical length (material length) contraction. The geometric projection of a moving ruler is contracted.....much like a longer ladder can pass through a narrow door way by orientation. You really need to keep up with what SR is saying before you keep on making a fool of yourself in these NGs. Ken Seto > > > Sounds pretty > > rubbery to me. > > There is no change in the ruler itself .. assuming it was a rigid body. Of > course, you do know that there is no such thing as a rigid body in reality.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |