There is no time dilation or physical length contraction.
in [Relativity]
|
From: BURT on 18 Nov 2009 15:21 On Nov 18, 10:52 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 Flattened forms do not exist.
From: PD on 18 Nov 2009 15:27 On Nov 18, 2:21 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Nov 18, 10:52 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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 > > Flattened forms do not exist. And how do you know this? Other than just telling yourself "Cannot be."
From: glird on 19 Nov 2009 09:40 On Nov 18, 1:52 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Nov 18, 12:11 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > Thank you, PD, for a well reasoned reply to my message. Regards, glird
From: BURT on 19 Nov 2009 14:17 On Nov 19, 6:40 am, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Nov 18, 1:52 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Nov 18, 12:11 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > Thank you, PD, for a well reasoned reply to my message. > > Regards, > glird Time slows down. Space does not contract. Mitch Raemsch
From: PD on 19 Nov 2009 14:45
On Nov 19, 1:17 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Nov 19, 6:40 am, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > On Nov 18, 1:52 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Nov 18, 12:11 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > Thank you, PD, for a well reasoned reply to my message. > > > Regards, > > glird > > Time slows down. Space does not contract. And how do you know this? Other than just telling yourself "Cannot be." > > Mitch Raemsch |