There is no time dilation or physical length contraction.
in [Relativity]
|
From: BURT on 16 Nov 2009 13:58 On Nov 16, 7:42 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > kenseto wrote: > > [...] > > > So length contraction is not real.....it is a projectional effect. > > It took 15 years for you to learn this. I'm so proud! > > [...] Einstein set up a theory of appearences. There is no space contraction. Mitch Raemsch
From: BURT on 18 Nov 2009 01:41 On Nov 13, 2:03 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Nov 13, 4:51 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > > > mpc755 wrote: > > > > Yes, it takes longer [time] to tick. Nothing to do with time. > > > <laughing> > > Yes, it takes more time to tick since the previous tick. That doesn't > mean time has changed. It just means the clock is running slower. If > you have a battery operated clock in your house and it starts to tick > slower has time changed, or do you replace the batteries? Time has a rate and it can slow down. This has basically been demonstrated by the atomic clock. I think you are stupid for doubting this truth. Mitch Raemsch
From: Inertial on 18 Nov 2009 03:27 "BURT" <macromitch(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:b0159cf0-c0dd-437f-a177-2a8712641f58(a)z4g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > On Nov 13, 2:03 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Nov 13, 4:51 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: >> >> > mpc755 wrote: >> >> > > Yes, it takes longer [time] to tick. Nothing to do with time. >> >> > <laughing> >> >> Yes, it takes more time to tick since the previous tick. That doesn't >> mean time has changed. It just means the clock is running slower. If >> you have a battery operated clock in your house and it starts to tick >> slower has time changed, or do you replace the batteries? > > Time has a rate and it can slow down. This has basically been > demonstrated by the atomic clock. > I think you are stupid for doubting this truth. Of course, the thing is, if ALL clocks (by which we really mean all processes, all motion etc) are slowed down, in what way would that be meaningfully different to time slowing down?
From: glird on 18 Nov 2009 13:11 On Nov 13, 3:16 pm, PD wrote: > < 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). > Unfortunately, our scientists ignore some of the experimental evidence in favor of their preconceived erroneous notions. for example; quantum theory asserts that when a quantum of energy interacts with an atom, "either all or none of it is absorbed". That the Compton Effect - which shows that when light transits an atom "all or SOME of its energy is absorbed and the light continues on with that much less energy remaining in it" - proves that this theory is false is ignored. As a result of this ignore-ance, present science believes that all the matter and energy in the universe originated at a point - called a "singularity" - in nowhere about 13 billion years ago. The fact that there is no mechanism by which that could have happened is ignored. So is the first law of Physics: "Neither matter or energy can be created or destroyed". >< Nature is very surprising. > To those who deny sense evidence and the validity of human reason, and ignore salient experimental facts, that is true. For those of us who base their conclusions on the evidence given by our senses - which have been honed by billions of years of survival of the fittest - as interpreted by our sense of reason, the only thing about nature that IS surprising is that our scientists believe total nonsense is true even though experimental evidence proves it is false. glird
From: PD on 18 Nov 2009 13:52
On Nov 18, 12:11 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Nov 13, 3:16 pm, PD wrote: > > > < 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). > > > Unfortunately, our scientists ignore some of the experimental > evidence in favor of their preconceived erroneous notions. for > example; quantum theory asserts that when a quantum of energy > interacts with an atom, "either all or none of it is absorbed". That > the Compton Effect - which shows that when light transits an atom "all > or SOME of its energy is absorbed and the light continues on with that > much less energy remaining in it" - proves that this theory is false > is ignored. Well, wait a minute. the statement by quantum theory that when a quantum of energy interacts with an atom either all of it or none of it is absorbed, this doesn't mean that the absorption cannot be followed by a re-emission. Heck, this is where the absorption and emission spectra of gases COME from: the absorption of quanta and then the re-emission of other quanta. There is no difference between this and the Compton effect, except that the Compton effect produces a continuous spectrum, as the quanta are being absorbed by free, not bound, electrons. > As a result of this ignore-ance, present science believes that all > the matter and energy in the universe originated at a point - called a > "singularity" - in nowhere about 13 billion years ago. The fact that > there is no mechanism by which that could have happened is ignored. Matter yes, energy no. Perhaps you misunderstand the Big Bang. > So > is the first law of Physics: "Neither matter or energy can be created > or destroyed". Well, first of all, I don't know where you got this "first law of Physics", because it is not accurate. Matter is routinely created and destroyed. Electrons and positrons annihilate every day as a diagnostic tool in hospitals (called PET scanning -- you can google that), which completely destroys that matter and produces energy instead. Secondly, please keep in mind that ALL laws of physics are *inferred* from nature by humans, and that some of those inferences are correct and some of them prove to be only correct some of the time and in some cases they prove to be just plain incorrect. Nature doesn't change (much), but our guesses about the laws by which nature works do change all the time as we learn more. This is as it should be. > > >< Nature is very surprising. > > > To those who deny sense evidence and the validity of human reason, > and ignore salient experimental facts, that is true. For those of us > who base their conclusions on the evidence given by our senses - which > have been honed by billions of years of survival of the fittest - as > interpreted by our sense of reason, Please keep in mind that our senses were honed to deal with nature at our scale and for our survival purposes, and in fact our senses are honed to only a thin slice of nature. We therefore make generalizations and guess rules that apply to that THIN SLICE of nature. Those often work very well in that thin slice, even though they turn out to be only approximations of better rules that apply more broadly in nature. It is only in the course of the last couple of centuries that we have been able to systematically investigate nature in scales well outside our senses, and in so doing we've discovered that some of the rules we thought were general are in fact only approximations. > the only thing about nature that > IS surprising is that our scientists believe total nonsense is true > even though experimental evidence proves it is false. You'll have to give me an example of experimental evidence that proves what we believe is in fact false. I'll make a small wager that in most cases, it is actually an example of you misunderstanding what science actually says. We've already covered your misunderstanding of the absorption of quanta. What other statements do you think are countered by experimental evidence? PD |