There is no time dilation or physical length contraction.
in [Relativity]
|
From: BURT on 12 Nov 2009 23:25 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. There is no shrinking energy. No flat atom forms no contraction of space. The universe cannot go flat. Mitch Raemsch
From: Inertial on 12 Nov 2009 23:53 "BURT" <macromitch(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.
From: BURT on 13 Nov 2009 00:04 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. There are no flat forms; atoms trains or the universe. It is bad science. Mitch Raemsch
From: Inertial on 13 Nov 2009 00:50 "BURT" <macromitch(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:a87a8f9f-7b11-4586-b2a1-96e8b48219d1(a)y28g2000prd.googlegroups.com... > 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. Proof of what? > There are no flat forms; atoms trains or the universe. It is bad > science. There aren't any in SR either.. guess that makes it good science.
From: PD on 13 Nov 2009 09:16
On Nov 12, 10:25 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 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. But we can. It's been measured, albeit indirectly. > > There is no shrinking energy. No flat atom forms no contraction of > space. > The universe cannot go flat. > > Mitch Raemsch |