There is no time dilation or physical length contraction.
in [Relativity]
|
From: BURT on 19 Nov 2009 15:04 On Nov 19, 11:45 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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." I know this because the atom form cannot contract without violating physics. Space and matter in it does not contract. There are no flat atom forms. Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 19 Nov 2009 15:29 On Nov 19, 2:04 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Nov 19, 11:45 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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." > > I know this because the atom form cannot contract without violating > physics. What law of physics says that atoms cannot contract? What *specifically* gets violated, Mitch? Please don't confuse "what I think is probably right" with "what physics says". > Space and matter in it does not contract. There are no flat > atom forms. > > Mitch Raemsch
From: BURT on 19 Nov 2009 17:51 On Nov 12, 5:14 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Nov 12, 5:08 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Nov 12, 7:47 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Nov 12, 3:52 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Nov 12, 5:50 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Nov 12, 2:45 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Nov 12, 5:32 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Nov 12, 2:21 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Nov 12, 4:53 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 12, 1:50 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 12, 4:48 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 12, 12:28 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 12, 3:13 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 12, 11:46 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 12, 10:36 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no time dilation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Clocks in different frames runs at different rates. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Clocks ticking at different rates has nothing to do with the present. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Clocks are tiking away right now everywhere else. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, in the present. > > > > > > > > > > > > > What I meant to say was: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Clocks ticking at different rates has nothing to do with time. Clocks > > > > > > > > > > > > all tick in the present. > > > > > > > > > > > > Rates are determined by the time of the force of gravity and the time > > > > > > > > > > > of motion of energy. Both rates are in one time. > > > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > > > > Force of gravity is the force of the displaced aether pushing back on > > > > > > > > > > the matter which displaced the aether. > > > > > > > > > > > Motion of energy is motion of the aether. > > > > > > > > > > > Time is a concept. > > > > > > > > > > > There is only the present.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > This is flow science. > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > > It is Aether Displacement where aether is an elastic medium and is > > > > > > > > displaced by matter and pushes back in an attempt to return to a state > > > > > > > > of rest. The pushing back is gravity. Light propagates at 'c' relative > > > > > > > > to the aether, just like any wave does in any medium. If you want to > > > > > > > > call the motion of the aether flow science, go for it.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > I have because it is a better concept than motion. > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > Yes, the concept of motion, but what of the aether being the elastic > > > > > > medium which pushes back against the matter which displaces it being > > > > > > gravity?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > Aether has no shape. It fills space. > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > Except for where it has been displaced by matter.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > Everything is in the aether. The immaterial cannot be displaced by the > > > material. > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > Aether is material. Aether is matter in its basic form. No two > > materials can exist in the same point in three dimensional space > > simultaneously. The aether is displaced by matter.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > No. Einstein said it had to be immaterial in his Leiden lectures. And > I agree with him. It cannot be displaced. Energy is in the immaterial. > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Clocks everywhere register time because the aether is everywhere. This is Now Rate in proper time. Mitch Raemsch
From: glird on 20 Nov 2009 21:08 On Nov 18, 1:52 pm, PD wrote: On Nov 18, 12:11 pm, glird wrote: > > <<fortunately, 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. > We can discuss that later. Meanwhile, let's look at the point now being made: ><< 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. >> Regardless of how the Compton Effect works, the point is this: The Compton effect is an explanation of how a red shift could happen without any expansion of anything at all, thus without any big bing. >< Matter yes, energy no. Perhaps you misunderstand the Big Bang. > The point is: If, as science believes, matter can be made from energy, and energy cannot be created or destroyed, then ALL the energy that now exists ALWAYS existed - which rules out a big bing anyway. ><< 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. > That's not true, PD. If you'd like to argue this issue with me, please give us your definition of "matter" and "energy". Here, from "What it all is and Why" (W2), are mine: "Matter" is that substance which occupies space. It is the stuff we are familiar with as the essential part of tangible solid, liquid, and gaseous objects. From lifelong sensory experience of it, all of us know what is here meant by "matter". Energy: Energy used to be defined in Physics. It was taught that, "Energy is the ability to do work." When that definition was given up no replacement was provided. ... This poses a deep-seated problem: If Physics cannot define energy, it doesn't really know what energy is! If it doesn't know precisely what energy is, then how can it measure all of it in order to learn whether or not it is fully conserved? How, in short, can the primary law of modern physics be that the total quantity of energy must always be conserved, if modern physics can't define energy thus doesn't know what it ultimately is? Several paragraphs later, W2 did define energy, but I will defer that until after you give us yours, PD. >< 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. > An electron isn't a particle of matter, it is a wave-node, a pressure- density imbalance circulating in an atom's shell-layer at cFs, where c is the speed of light in the dilute matter filling a vacuum and Fs = 1/137.03609 is the fine structure constant. If you are interested, we can discuss the meaning of this later. ><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. > The "laws of physics" are equations. They aren't "inferred"; they are obtained from experimental data, i.e. numerical quantities found by measuring some aspect of the world. An equation is a shorthand way of stating and inter-relating these quantities. Although such equations may not fit data provided by more refined experiments, it isn't the data or the equations that we need to explore; it is the nature of the things we are measuring - which present physicists ignore. ><<< 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. > Yes. Even so, as I said: ><< 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.> You name the odds and I'll name the amount. ><We've already covered your misunderstanding of the absorption of quanta. What other statements do you think are countered by experimental evidence? > The 2nd law of thermodynamics. Wanna bet? :-) glird
From: BURT on 20 Nov 2009 21:10
On Nov 20, 6:08 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Nov 18, 1:52 pm, PD wrote: > On Nov 18, 12:11 pm, glird wrote: > > > > > <<fortunately, 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. > > > We can discuss that later. Meanwhile, let's look at the point now > being made: > > ><< 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. >> > > Regardless of how the Compton Effect works, the point is this: The > Compton effect is an explanation of how a red shift could happen > without any expansion of anything at all, thus without any big bing. > > >< Matter yes, energy no. Perhaps you misunderstand the Big Bang. > > > The point is: If, as science believes, matter can be made from > energy, and energy cannot be created or destroyed, then ALL the energy > that now exists ALWAYS existed - which rules out a big bing anyway. > > ><< 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. > > > That's not true, PD. If you'd like to argue this issue with me, > please give us your definition of "matter" and "energy". Here, from > "What it all is and Why" (W2), are mine: > "Matter" is that substance which occupies space. It is the stuff we > are familiar with as the essential part of tangible solid, liquid, and > gaseous objects. From lifelong sensory experience of it, all of us > know what is here meant by "matter". > Energy: Energy used to be defined in Physics. It was taught that, > "Energy is the ability to do work." When that definition was given up > no replacement was provided. ... This poses a deep-seated problem: If > Physics cannot define energy, it doesn't really know what energy is! > If it doesn't know precisely what energy is, then how can it measure > all of it in order to learn whether or not it is fully conserved? How, > in short, can the primary law of modern physics be that the total > quantity of energy must always be conserved, if modern physics can't > define energy thus doesn't know what it ultimately is? > Several paragraphs later, W2 did define energy, but I will defer that > until after you give us yours, PD. > > >< 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. > > > An electron isn't a particle of matter, it is a wave-node, a pressure- > density imbalance circulating in an atom's shell-layer at cFs, where c > is the speed of light in the dilute matter filling a vacuum and Fs = > 1/137.03609 is the fine structure constant. > If you are interested, we can discuss the meaning of this later. > > ><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. > > > The "laws of physics" are equations. They aren't "inferred"; they > are obtained from experimental data, i.e. numerical quantities found > by measuring some aspect of the world. An equation is a shorthand way > of stating and inter-relating these quantities. > Although such equations may not fit data provided by more refined > experiments, it isn't the data or the equations that we need to > explore; it is the nature of the things we are measuring - which > present physicists ignore. > > ><<< 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. > > > Yes. Even so, as I said: > > ><< 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.> > > You name the odds and I'll name the amount. > > ><We've already covered your misunderstanding of the absorption of quanta.. What other statements do you think are countered by experimental evidence? > > > The 2nd law of thermodynamics. > Wanna bet? :-) > > glird Time slows down in gravity and motion but the atom does not become flat. Mitch Raemsch |