There is no time dilation or physical length contraction.
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 13 Nov 2009 09:17 On Nov 12, 11:04 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 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. Well, first of all, science offers proof of nothing, so if you're looking for proof you're in the wrong zip code. Secondly, indirect evidence is among the best in science for a variety of reasons. Whether you believe it or not is not really the driving consideration. > There are no flat forms; atoms trains or the universe. It is bad > science. > > Mitch Raemsch
From: PD on 13 Nov 2009 09:18 On Nov 12, 7:20 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Nov 12, 8:14 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 > > Einstein had to say it was immaterial in order for Einstein to say > "the idea of motion may not be applied to [aether]". Funny how you think scientists "have to" say things rather than just saying what they're pretty sure of. > Einstein had to > say that or two frames of reference occupying the same three > dimensional space would not have the aether at rest relative to both > frames. What Einstein was incorrect about is two frames moving > relative to one another cannot have the aether be motionless relative > to both. It is physically impossible. > > When you say everything exists in the aether, that is exactly right. > Matter exists in the aether. Matter has displaced the aether which > would otherwise exist where the matter is.
From: kenseto on 13 Nov 2009 09:33 On Nov 12, 1:09 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > kenseto wrote: > > There is no time dilation. > > 1. Clocks in different frames runs at different rates. > > We call that 'time dilation'. Hey idiot if clocks run at different rates in different frame then the Sr concept of mutual time dilation is wrong.
From: kenseto on 13 Nov 2009 09:37 On Nov 12, 1:23 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > kenseto wrote: > > There is no time dilation. > > 1. Clocks in different frames runs at different rates. > > That IS time dilation! > > General relativity is a fruitful tool to predict time > dilation agreeing with observations. Hey wormy that's not time dilation....that's GPS second containing 4.15 more periods of Cs133 radiation to make the GPS second contains the same amount of absolute time as the ground second. Ken Seto
From: john on 13 Nov 2009 10:04
On Nov 13, 8:37 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Nov 12, 1:23 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > > > kenseto wrote: > > > There is no time dilation. > > > 1. Clocks in different frames runs at different rates. > > > That IS time dilation! > > > General relativity is a fruitful tool to predict time > > dilation agreeing with observations. > > Hey wormy that's not time dilation....that's GPS second containing > 4.15 more periods of Cs133 radiation to make the GPS second contains > the same amount of absolute time as the ground second. > > Ken Seto Sam, I gotta agree with Ken. Time *has* to be the same everywhere.* The faster or slower aging of one system over another just has to do with how fast they are going relative to each other. *They* have faster or slower pulses relative to Time, which was already said in the first part of the sentence when I said 'faster'. Because Time *is* our monitor. john |