Clocks in relative motion cannot remain synchronized for any length of time.
kenseto
time.
Why? Because clocks in relative motion are running at different rates.
That means that as soon as you synchronize them they will get out of
synch.
So how do they make the GPS clocks synchronized with the ground
clocks?
The answer:
The definition for a ground clock second is N periods of Cs 133
radiation. They redefined the
GPS second to have (N+4.15) periods of Cs 133 radiation. The redefined
GPS second is designed to contain the same amount of absolute time as
a ground clock second. This makes the GPS clock remained in synch with
the ground ground clock preminantly.
What does this mean? It means that absolute time exists.
A new theory of relativity based on the existence of absolute time
called IRT has been formulated. IRT includes SRT as a subset. However,
unlike SRT, the equatons of IRT are valid in all environments,
including gravity. A detail description of IRT is available in the
following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg,pdf
Ken Seto
Uncle Al
>
> Clocks in relative motion cannot remain synchronized for any length of
> time.
Hey stooopid -
1) Only local clocks can be compared.
2) When clocks translates relative to one another the clock that
passes throught the most space accumulates the least time, because the
four vector conserved.
Hey stooopid kenseto - you have proven yourself utterly ineducable for
almost two decades. You cannot do basic math to a consistent
conclusion. You are a whining piece of shit. You would be happier -
certainly better placed - as an evangelical Christian.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
BURT
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
There is a fastest clock for zero gravity and zero motion. Clocks
flowing through the gravity space frame slow down by Gamma for this
motion and gravity. The gravity continuum is the absolute frame.
Mitch Raemsch
Sam Wormley
> So how do they make the GPS clocks synchronized with the ground
> clocks?
See: Relativistic Effects on Satellite Clocks
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=node5.html
BURT
The best way to synchronize the clocks is to put them together and
coordinate them in gravity and motion.
Mitch Raemsch
kenseto
> kenseto wrote:
>
> > Clocks in relative motion cannot remain synchronized for any length of
> > time.
>
> Hey stooopid -
Al you are so fucking stupid I suggest that you go off to a corner and
commit suicide.
>
> 1) Only local clocks can be compared.
Fucking idiot non-local clocks are compared using SR equations.
> 2) When clocks translates relative to one another the clock that
> passes throught the most space accumulates the least time, because the
> four vector conserved.
Fucking idiot.
kenseto
Hey wormy how come you never come up with any valid arguement??
Tom Roberts
> Clocks in relative motion cannot remain synchronized for any length of
> time.
This is true. For once, kenseto just happened to get something right.
> So how do they make the GPS clocks synchronized with the ground
> clocks?
> The answer: They redefined the GPS second [...]
True to form, kenseto got this wrong, along with the rest of his post. One
second in the GPS is the same duration as one second of UTC, when both are
measured on earth's geoid (which is where the latter is defined).
What they actually did in the GPS is to construct a locally-inertial frame
called the Earth-Centered Inertial frame (ECI). In the ECI, time on the geoid
coincides with GPS time, which is kept essentially equal to UTC modulo leap
seconds (which would screw up GPS computations). The ECI is constructed so the
vacuum speed of light is isotropically c in the region between earth's surface
and the GPS satellite orbits. To do this requires non-standard clocks, so they
adjusted the satellite clocks to display ECI time wherever they are, by
modifying the clock divider in the satellites to account for the effects of both
gravity and orbital velocity.
No "redefinition" is involved, because one of their requirements is to keep GPS
time within 1 microsecond of UTC modulo leap seconds (in practice they do much
better).
Tom Roberts
Sam Wormley
> On Mar 8, 2:36 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 3/8/10 12:19 PM, kenseto wrote:
>>
>>> So how do they make the GPS clocks synchronized with the ground
>>> clocks?
>>
>
> Hey wormy how come you never come up with any valid arguement??
Well the GPS satellites are in nearly circular orbits, so their
relative speed with respect to the center of the earth is relatively
constant and as is the gravitational potential.
One can derive a first-order correction for the time dilation
described in general relativity. By using highly stable atomic
clocks and applying a frequency offset and observer dependent
relativistic corrections, the sat clocks can be kept stable
with respect to the ground clocks to an accuracy on the order
of a nanosecond via the.
See:
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=node5.html
va...@icmf.inf.cu
> Clocks in relative motion cannot remain synchronized for any length of
> time.
> Why? Because clocks in relative motion are running at different rates.
> That means that as soon as you synchronize them they will get out of
> synch.
> So how do they make the GPS clocks synchronized with the ground
> clocks?
to the unique inertial frame used, denoted as ECI (Earth Centred
Inertial frame). It is the centre of mass inertial system
corresponding to all the bodies involved, the Earth and the GPS
satellites orbiting it. Why do you denote ECI time as “absolute time”?
We can make for example a GPS in the Moon (or in any other part),
using a different unique time, the corresponding to the centre of mass
inertial system of the Moon and the new GPS satellites orbiting it
(let us denote it as MCI time). Of course, ECI and MCI times are
different ones, being the MCI second a little greater than the ECI
one.
(rest snipped)
RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
PD
> Clocks in relative motion cannot remain synchronized for any length of
> time.
Right.
> Why? Because clocks in relative motion are running at different rates.
> That means that as soon as you synchronize them they will get out of
> synch.
Right.
> So how do they make the GPS clocks synchronized with the ground
> clocks?
By re-synchronizing the GPS clock every once in a while. Then it falls
out of synch again. And so they correct it again. And again, and
again.
> The answer:
> The definition for a ground clock second is N periods of Cs 133
> radiation. They redefined the
> GPS second to have (N+4.15) periods of Cs 133 radiation.
Nope. That's not what they did. Please see my statement above and see
the project documentation, freely available on the web. You do know
how to read something other than usenet, right?
Inertial
"PD" <thedrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fc234420-ba5b-43fa...@j27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
The documents I have seen show that there is a frequency adjustment in the
circuitry that adjusts the ticking rate according to GR (and other)
corrections to help keep the signal from the satellite being at the correct
rate. But it is still given periodic updates to account for drift etc. But
the adjustments to the ticking rate help stop drift from GR effects and so
minimize creeping errors.
PD
> "PD" <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
That's correct. There is an oscillator divider that is adjusted.
kenseto
> On 8 mar, 13:19, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:> Clocks in relative motion cannot remain synchronized for any length of
> > time.
> > Why? Because clocks in relative motion are running at different rates.
> > That means that as soon as you synchronize them they will get out of
> > synch.
> > So how do they make the GPS clocks synchronized with the ground
> > clocks?
>
> All GPS clocks are adjusted to show a unique time, the corresponding
> to the unique inertial frame used, denoted as ECI (Earth Centred
> Inertial frame). It is the centre of mass inertial system
> corresponding to all the bodies involved, the Earth and the GPS
> satellites orbiting it.
Right....but the UTC second which is represented by 9,192,631,770
periods (or N periods) of Cs 133 radiation is used in combination with
SR/GR to calculate the value of an UTC second in the ECI
frame....let's say the result is (N+n)periods of the Cs 133 radiation
in the ECI frame.....this means that N periods of Cs 133 radiation at
UTC contains the same amount of absolute time as (N+n) periods of Cs
133 radiation at the ECI frame. They then use the the redefined ECI
second (N+n)periods of Cs 133 radiation in combination with SR/GR to
calculate the value of a redefined GPS second and the result is (N
+4.15) periods of Cs 133 radiation.
So what does this mean? It means that N periods of Cs 133 radiation at
the UTC location contains the same amount of absolute time as (N+4.15)
periods of Cs 133 radiation in the GPS location and (N+n) periods of
Cs 133 radiation at the ECI location.
> Why do you denote ECI time as “absolute time”?
I did not say that the ECI time as absolute time. I said that a
redefined ECI second contains the same amount of absolute time as a
UTC second.
Ken Seto
kenseto
> kenseto wrote:
> > Clocks in relative motion cannot remain synchronized for any length of
> > time.
>
> This is true. For once, kenseto just happened to get something right.
>
> > So how do they make the GPS clocks synchronized with the ground
> > clocks?
> > The answer: They redefined the GPS second [...]
>
> True to form, kenseto got this wrong, along with the rest of his post. One
> second in the GPS is the same duration as one second of UTC, when both are
> measured on earth's geoid (which is where the latter is defined).
No I didn't get it wrong. I use too think that you are a very
knowledgeable person but now I see that you are just another runt of
the SRians.
The UTC second which is represented by 9,192,631,770
periods (or N periods) of Cs 133 radiation is used in combination
with
SR/GR to calculate the value of an UTC second in the ECI
frame....let's say the result is (N+n)periods of the Cs 133 radiation
in the ECI frame.....this means that N periods of Cs 133 radiation at
UTC contains the same amount of absolute time as (N+n) periods of Cs
133 radiation at the ECI frame. They then use the the redefined ECI
second (N+n)periods of Cs 133 radiation in combination with SR/GR to
calculate the value of a redefined GPS second and the result is (N
+4.15) periods of Cs 133 radiation.
So what does this mean? It means that N periods of Cs 133 radiation
at
the UTC location contains the same amount of absolute time as (N
+4.15)
periods of Cs 133 radiation in the GPS location and (N+n) periods of
Cs 133 radiation at the ECI location.
Ken Seto
kenseto
> On Mar 8, 12:19 pm, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > Clocks in relative motion cannot remain synchronized for any length of
> > time.
>
> Right.
>
> > Why? Because clocks in relative motion are running at different rates.
> > That means that as soon as you synchronize them they will get out of
> > synch.
>
> Right.
>
> > So how do they make the GPS clocks synchronized with the ground
> > clocks?
>
> By re-synchronizing the GPS clock every once in a while. Then it falls
> out of synch again. And so they correct it again. And again, and
> again.
This shows me that you have no clue. They adjust the tick rate of a
GPS clock before launch....even stupid Inertial knows that. The
additional daily adjustment is due to drift. <shrug>
Ken Seto
>
> > The answer:
> > The definition for a ground clock second is N periods of Cs 133
> > radiation. They redefined the
> > GPS second to have (N+4.15) periods of Cs 133 radiation.
>
> Nope. That's not what they did. Please see my statement above and see
> the project documentation, freely available on the web. You do know
> how to read something other than usenet, right?
>
>
>
> > The redefined
> > GPS second is designed to contain the same amount of absolute time as
> > a ground clock second. This makes the GPS clock remained in synch with
> > the ground ground clock preminantly.
> > What does this mean? It means that absolute time exists.
> > A new theory of relativity based on the existence of absolute time
> > called IRT has been formulated. IRT includes SRT as a subset. However,
> > unlike SRT, the equatons of IRT are valid in all environments,
> > including gravity. A detail description of IRT is available in the
> > following link:http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg,pdf
>
> > Ken Seto- Hide quoted text -
PD
> On Mar 8, 4:39 pm, Tom Roberts <tjrob...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > kenseto wrote:
> > > Clocks in relative motion cannot remain synchronized for any length of
> > > time.
>
> > This is true. For once, kenseto just happened to get something right.
>
> > > So how do they make the GPS clocks synchronized with the ground
> > > clocks?
> > > The answer: They redefined the GPS second [...]
>
> > True to form, kenseto got this wrong, along with the rest of his post. One
> > second in the GPS is the same duration as one second of UTC, when both are
> > measured on earth's geoid (which is where the latter is defined).
>
> No I didn't get it wrong. I use too think that you are a very
> knowledgeable person but now I see that you are just another runt of
> the SRians.
Pattern for Seto: "I am looking for guidance on what SR says by
experts on newsgroups. As long as you agree with what I say, you are
viewed as an expert. As soon as you tell me I'm wrong, though, you are
a runt of the SRians and cannot be trusted."
You're sick, Ken. Sick in the head.
PD
> On Mar 8, 6:27 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 8, 12:19 pm, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > Clocks in relative motion cannot remain synchronized for any length of
> > > time.
>
> > Right.
>
> > > Why? Because clocks in relative motion are running at different rates.
> > > That means that as soon as you synchronize them they will get out of
> > > synch.
>
> > Right.
>
> > > So how do they make the GPS clocks synchronized with the ground
> > > clocks?
>
> > By re-synchronizing the GPS clock every once in a while. Then it falls
> > out of synch again. And so they correct it again. And again, and
> > again.
>
> This shows me that you have no clue. They adjust the tick rate of a
> GPS clock before launch....even stupid Inertial knows that.
Inertial and I do not disagree. You just can't read.
Tom Roberts
>> True to form, kenseto got this wrong, along with the rest of his post. One
>> second in the GPS is the same duration as one second of UTC, when both are
>> measured on earth's geoid (which is where the latter is defined).
>
Yes, you did, and remain very confused.
The GPS is valid ANYWHERE between earth's surface and the GPS satellite orbits
(and perhaps a bit beyond them), not just inside the satellites as you seem to
think. In particular, on the geoid, GPS time is equal to UTC time, to an
accuracy of a few nanoseconds over >20 years -- that is considerably more
accurate than any atomic clock.
Do you even know what the geoid is, where it's located, and why
it is important?
But ultimately, the fact is that the GPS uses the same definition of the second
as UTC and ISO. This completely negates your claims.
I believe there are more GPS clocks on earth than there are in orbit. And the
GPS operators connect in to all of the clocks used to define UTC, which dwarfs
the GPS in numbers of clocks -- those are all on the earth's surface.
You are just unwilling to LEARN what the GPS actually is, how it actually works,
and how relativity is actually used in it. Your own opinions sound so loudly in
your ears that you cannot hear anything else.
Tom Roberts
kenseto
> On Mar 9, 9:25 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 8, 4:39 pm, Tom Roberts <tjrob...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > > kenseto wrote:
> > > > Clocks in relative motion cannot remain synchronized for any length of
> > > > time.
>
> > > This is true. For once, kenseto just happened to get something right.
>
> > > > So how do they make the GPS clocks synchronized with the ground
> > > > clocks?
> > > > The answer: They redefined the GPS second [...]
>
> > > True to form, kenseto got this wrong, along with the rest of his post. One
> > > second in the GPS is the same duration as one second of UTC, when both are
> > > measured on earth's geoid (which is where the latter is defined).
>
> > No I didn't get it wrong. I use too think that you are a very
> > knowledgeable person but now I see that you are just another runt of
> > the SRians.
>
> Pattern for Seto: "I am looking for guidance on what SR says by
> experts on newsgroups. As long as you agree with what I say, you are
> viewed as an expert. As soon as you tell me I'm wrong, though, you are
> a runt of the SRians and cannot be trusted."
Hey idiot....I am not looking for any guidance on what Sr says.
Besides there is no experts on this NG knows what SR really says. I
know what SR really says and that's why I was able to formulate a new
theory of relativity called IRT. IRT includes SR as a subset. However,
unlike SRT the equations of IRT are valid in all environments,
inlcuding gravity.
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf
Ken Seto
> > > Tom Roberts- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
kenseto
> On Mar 9, 9:45 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 8, 6:27 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 8, 12:19 pm, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Clocks in relative motion cannot remain synchronized for any length of
> > > > time.
>
> > > Right.
>
> > > > Why? Because clocks in relative motion are running at different rates.
> > > > That means that as soon as you synchronize them they will get out of
> > > > synch.
>
> > > Right.
>
> > > > So how do they make the GPS clocks synchronized with the ground
> > > > clocks?
>
> > > By re-synchronizing the GPS clock every once in a while. Then it falls
> > > out of synch again. And so they correct it again. And again, and
> > > again.
>
> > This shows me that you have no clue. They adjust the tick rate of a
> > GPS clock before launch....even stupid Inertial knows that.
>
> Inertial and I do not disagree. You just can't read.
Yes he did in a post responding to my post. He gave you a link
pointing out your mistake. You then made a post agreeing with him.
Ken Seto
>
>
>
> > The
> > additional daily adjustment is due to drift. <shrug>
>
> > Ken Seto
>
> > > > The answer:
> > > > The definition for a ground clock second is N periods of Cs 133
> > > > radiation. They redefined the
> > > > GPS second to have (N+4.15) periods of Cs 133 radiation.
>
> > > Nope. That's not what they did. Please see my statement above and see
> > > the project documentation, freely available on the web. You do know
> > > how to read something other than usenet, right?
>
> > > > The redefined
> > > > GPS second is designed to contain the same amount of absolute time as
> > > > a ground clock second. This makes the GPS clock remained in synch with
> > > > the ground ground clock preminantly.
> > > > What does this mean? It means that absolute time exists.
> > > > A new theory of relativity based on the existence of absolute time
> > > > called IRT has been formulated. IRT includes SRT as a subset. However,
> > > > unlike SRT, the equatons of IRT are valid in all environments,
> > > > including gravity. A detail description of IRT is available in the
> > > > following link:http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg,pdf
>
> > > > Ken Seto- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
PD
> On Mar 9, 11:47 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 9, 9:25 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 8, 4:39 pm, Tom Roberts <tjrob...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > > > kenseto wrote:
> > > > > Clocks in relative motion cannot remain synchronized for any length of
> > > > > time.
>
> > > > This is true. For once, kenseto just happened to get something right.
>
> > > > > So how do they make the GPS clocks synchronized with the ground
> > > > > clocks?
> > > > > The answer: They redefined the GPS second [...]
>
> > > > True to form, kenseto got this wrong, along with the rest of his post. One
> > > > second in the GPS is the same duration as one second of UTC, when both are
> > > > measured on earth's geoid (which is where the latter is defined).
>
> > > No I didn't get it wrong. I use too think that you are a very
> > > knowledgeable person but now I see that you are just another runt of
> > > the SRians.
>
> > Pattern for Seto: "I am looking for guidance on what SR says by
> > experts on newsgroups. As long as you agree with what I say, you are
> > viewed as an expert. As soon as you tell me I'm wrong, though, you are
> > a runt of the SRians and cannot be trusted."
>
> Hey idiot....I am not looking for any guidance on what Sr says.
This is why you constantly mention and ask questions about what I
write, what Tom writes, what Inertial writes, what....
> Besides there is no experts on this NG knows what SR really says.
You've been told repeatedly to go read some decent books.
> I
> know what SR really says
No, you do not, Ken. You make up stuff and insist that this must be
what SR means.
> and that's why I was able to formulate a new
> theory of relativity called IRT. IRT includes SR as a subset. However,
> unlike SRT the equations of IRT are valid in all environments,
> inlcuding gravity.http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf
You have deluded yourself into thinking that you and you alone
understand SR. You have deluded yourself into thinking that you are a
misunderstood genius. You cannot bear the thought that you are wrong.
You cannot bear the thought that after 15 years of study, you are no
further along in understanding relativity than when you started -- all
those wasted years. It does not occur to you that having only studied
relativity from a chapter of a freshman physics book and A Brief
History of Time, you may not have adequately prepared yourself for
study on the subject.
You are mentally ill, Ken. You are bordering on psychosis with your
egocentric fantasies. I know you worry your family, and you would much
rather they look up to you as a genius. Get help, Ken. Be a man and
admit a weakness and get help.
PD
> On Mar 9, 11:48 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 9, 9:45 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 8, 6:27 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 8, 12:19 pm, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Clocks in relative motion cannot remain synchronized for any length of
> > > > > time.
>
> > > > Right.
>
> > > > > Why? Because clocks in relative motion are running at different rates.
> > > > > That means that as soon as you synchronize them they will get out of
> > > > > synch.
>
> > > > Right.
>
> > > > > So how do they make the GPS clocks synchronized with the ground
> > > > > clocks?
>
> > > > By re-synchronizing the GPS clock every once in a while. Then it falls
> > > > out of synch again. And so they correct it again. And again, and
> > > > again.
>
> > > This shows me that you have no clue. They adjust the tick rate of a
> > > GPS clock before launch....even stupid Inertial knows that.
>
> > Inertial and I do not disagree. You just can't read.
>
> Yes he did in a post responding to my post. He gave you a link
> pointing out your mistake. You then made a post agreeing with him.
I am fully aware of how the GPS satellites work, and I've already read
the contents of that link. You perhaps did not understand what I said.
I did not disagree with Inertial, nor did I say anything that was
contrary to the contents of that link.
va...@icmf.inf.cu
one corresponding to its centre of mass inertial system (that centre
is a little out from Sun’s surface). Maybe you think that the Solar
System is at “absolute rest” in the centre of the whole Universe?
> > Why do you denote ECI time as “absolute time”?
>
> I did not say that the ECI time as absolute time. I said that a
> redefined ECI second contains the same amount of absolute time as a
> UTC second.
>
knowledge about clocks behaviour with velocity and gravity. Can you
explain us what do you name “absolute time”? I referred already how to
make a new GPS in any place (without any comment from your part yet).
Are you able to do the same (at least in principle) for an arbitrary
selected object of our Universe?
> Ken Seto
>
RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
Inertial
"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:7f58a33b-baee-42a0...@x12g2000yqx.googlegroups.com...
You're right PD .. he has a mental illness.
kenseto
> kenseto wrote:
> >> True to form, kenseto got this wrong, along with the rest of his post. One
> >> second in the GPS is the same duration as one second of UTC, when both are
> >> measured on earth's geoid (which is where the latter is defined).
>
> > No I didn't get it wrong. [...]
>
> Yes, you did, and remain very confused.
I I am not confused....they did adjust the GPS clock second to have
4.15 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second
before the launch.
>
> The GPS is valid ANYWHERE between earth's surface and the GPS satellite orbits
> (and perhaps a bit beyond them),
So?... don't you know that a clock second on anywhere on earth's
surface is defined to have the 9,192,631,770 periods of Cs 133
radiation which is 4.15 less periods of Cs 133 radiation than the GPS
second? This means that every ground clock on earth's surface remains
synchronized with the GPS clock. If you want to learn anything beyond
SR/GR I suggest that you read my paper on IRT in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf
Ken Seto
Inertial
> On Mar 9, 12:47 pm, Tom Roberts <tjrob...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> kenseto wrote:
>> >> True to form, kenseto got this wrong, along with the rest of his post.
>> >> One
>> >> second in the GPS is the same duration as one second of UTC, when both
>> >> are
>> >> measured on earth's geoid (which is where the latter is defined).
>>
>> > No I didn't get it wrong. [...]
>>
>> Yes, you did, and remain very confused.
>
> I I am not confused....they did adjust the GPS clock second to have
> 4.15 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second
> before the launch.
They didn't redefine the second .. they adjust the clock rate. If you slow
down or speed up a clock, that is not redefining the second. That is all
that was done.
kenseto
No I didn't say that at all. I said that a clock second in the
observer's frame represents a specific amount of absolute time. That
amount of absolute time is represented by a different clock time
interval in different frames as determined by SR/GR or IRT.
> Why do you denote ECI time as “absolute time”?
I didn't say that. I said that the redefined ECI second defined by (N
+n) periods of Cs 133 radiation represents the same amount of absolute
time as a UTC second defined by N periods of Cs 133 radiation.
>
> > I did not say that the ECI time as absolute time. I said that a
> > redefined ECI second contains the same amount of absolute time as a
> > UTC second.
>
> That is not an arbitrary definition, it is a calculation based on
> knowledge about clocks behaviour with velocity and gravity. Can you
> explain us what do you name “absolute time”?
You need to accept the existence of absolute time to understand what I
said. In my theory IRT absolute time exists. A clock second on the
observer's clock represents a specific amount of absolute time and
this specific amount of absolute time is represented by a different
interval of clock time in different frames and these different clock
time intervals are calculated using SR/GR equations.
I suggest that you read my paper on IRT in the following link to get a
better understanding what I said:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf
Ken Seto
> I referred already how to
> make a new GPS in any place (without any comment from your part yet).
> Are you able to do the same (at least in principle) for an arbitrary
> selected object of our Universe?
>
> > Ken Seto
>
> RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)- Hide quoted text -
kenseto
Yes you did.
Inertial
>> one corresponding to its centre of mass inertial system (that centre
>> System is at �absolute rest� in the centre of the whole Universe?
>
> No I didn't say that at all. I said that a clock second in the
> observer's frame represents a specific amount of absolute time. That
> amount of absolute time is represented by a different clock time
> interval in different frames as determined by SR/GR or IRT.
>
>
> I didn't say that. I said that the redefined ECI second defined by (N
> +n) periods of Cs 133 radiation represents the same amount of absolute
> time as a UTC second defined by N periods of Cs 133 radiation.
>
>>
>> > I did not say that the ECI time as absolute time. I said that a
>> > redefined ECI second contains the same amount of absolute time as a
>> > UTC second.
>>
>> That is not an arbitrary definition, it is a calculation based on
>> knowledge about clocks behaviour with velocity and gravity. Can you
>
> You need to accept the existence of absolute time to understand what I
> said. In my theory
[snip IRT that is just a copy of LET with the math done wrong]
PD
I know what I said and what I was meaning when I sent it. Perhaps you
could consider the possibility that you misunderstood what I wrote,
and thought it meant something it did not.
Tom Roberts
> On Mar 9, 12:47 pm, Tom Roberts <tjrob...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> kenseto wrote:
>>>> True to form, kenseto got this wrong, along with the rest of his post. One
>>>> second in the GPS is the same duration as one second of UTC, when both are
>>>> measured on earth's geoid (which is where the latter is defined).
>>> No I didn't get it wrong. [...]
>> Yes, you did, and remain very confused.
>
> I I am not confused....they did adjust the GPS clock second to have
> 4.15 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second
> before the launch.
You keep repeating your nonsense without reading what I wrote.
The GPS designers did not redefine THE SECOND. What they did is to adjust SOME
of the clocks in the GPS, specifically those in the satellites. They did NOT
adjust the clocks on the ground. They did NOT change the meaning of "one second".
[There's no point in continuing until you LEARN something about the subject.]
Tom Roberts
kenseto
> kenseto wrote:
> > On Mar 9, 12:47 pm, Tom Roberts <tjrob...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> kenseto wrote:
> >>>> True to form, kenseto got this wrong, along with the rest of his post. One
> >>>> second in the GPS is the same duration as one second of UTC, when both are
> >>>> measured on earth's geoid (which is where the latter is defined).
> >>> No I didn't get it wrong. [...]
> >> Yes, you did, and remain very confused.
>
> > I I am not confused....they did adjust the GPS clock second to have
> > 4.15 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second
> > before the launch.
>
> You keep repeating your nonsense without reading what I wrote.
You are the one who keep on repeating the nonsense without reading
what I said.
>
> The GPS designers did not redefine THE SECOND. What they did is to adjust SOME
> of the clocks in the GPS, specifically those in the satellites. They did NOT
> adjust the clocks on the ground. They did NOT change the meaning of "one second".
Sure they redefined the GPS second.....It has (N+4.15) periods of Cs
133 radiation while in orbit whereas the standard clock second has N
periods of the Cs 133 radiation.
>
> [There's no point in continuing until you LEARN something about the subject.]
There is no point of you answering my post until you learn to read
what I said.
Ken Seto
>
> Tom Roberts
kenseto
Here are some evidences that you runts of the SRians don't understand
SR and don't agree with each other on what SR says:
In the pole and the barn scenario:
SR claims that an 80 ft material pole is able to fit into 40 ft
material barn but SR also made the contradictory claim that an 80 ft
material pole is not able to fit into a 40 ft material barn.
Inertial said that the atoms in the moving pole is closer
together......this means material contraction but PD claims that this
does not mean that the pole is materially shorter.
Tom Roberts said that: it depends on what you mean by physical
contraction then follow by saying that "Generally, they would
consider a "physical length contraction" to mean that the object
ITSELF gets physically shorter. This is manifestly not so in SR." TR
said in the past that length contraction in SR is a geometric
projection effect ....much like a longer ladder is able to fit
through
a narrow door way. I agree that geometric length contraction is not
physical or material contraction.
PD claims that the pole is physically contracted but not materially
contracted. He seem to have a new meaning for the term "physical
contraction"...a meaning that is in between material length
contraction and geometric projection length contraction effect.
Here are some evidences that you runts of the SRians don't know that
SR makes the following contradictory claims
1. The speeed of light is a universal constant in all inertial frames
and yet the clock second use to define light speed does not represent
the same amount of time (duration) in different frames.
2. In Einstein's Train gedanken the speed of light in the M' frame is
isotropic and at the same time SR claims that M' is moving wrt the
light fronts from the strikes to get the SR concept of Relativity of
Simultaneity.
3. SR claims a 80 ft material pole can fit into a 40 ft material
pole
and at the same time claims the same 80 ft material pole cannot fit
into a 40 ft material barn.
4. In the bug and the rivet paradox: The bug is still alive just
before the rivet head hits the wall of the hole. At the same time SR
claims that the bug is dead just before the rivet head hits the wall
of the hole.
5. A and B are in relative motion SR claims that: A predicts B's
clock
is running slow by a factor of 1/gamma and B predicts that A's clock
is running slow by a factor of 1/gamma.
Ken Seto
What does these
PD
No, Ken. This is evidence that YOU don't understand SR. What you
present below is a mixture of the following:
- statements you THINK SR makes but SR does NOT.
- statements you THINK are contradictory but are NOT.
- statements you THINK mean something else but do NOT.
- statements that involve terms you don't understand the meaning of,
and you THINK the terms mean one thing when they mean something else
entirely. You think it's unfair that words wouldn't mean what you
think they should mean.
> In the pole and the barn scenario:
> SR claims that an 80 ft material pole is able to fit into 40 ft
> material barn but SR also made the contradictory claim that an 80 ft
> material pole is not able to fit into a 40 ft material barn.
See above. This is not a contradiction. It fits in one frame and does
not fit in another. This is not contradiction. Statements that apply
in one frame do not necessarily apply in another.
> Inertial said that the atoms in the moving pole is closer
> together......this means material contraction but PD claims that this
> does not mean that the pole is materially shorter.
No it does not mean material contraction. Only YOU think it means
material contraction. SR does not say this. It is not SR that has the
contradiction. It is what YOU say that makes the contradiction.
> Tom Roberts said that: it depends on what you mean by physical
> contraction then follow by saying that "Generally, they would
> consider a "physical length contraction" to mean that the object
> ITSELF gets physically shorter. This is manifestly not so in SR." TR
> said in the past that length contraction in SR is a geometric
> projection effect ....much like a longer ladder is able to fit
> through
> a narrow door way. I agree that geometric length contraction is not
> physical or material contraction.
As you see, it is only confusion on your part about what people are
saying. There is no contradiction.
> PD claims that the pole is physically contracted but not materially
> contracted. He seem to have a new meaning for the term "physical
> contraction"...a meaning that is in between material length
> contraction and geometric projection length contraction effect.
It is not a contradiction. It is a term that you don't know the
meaning of. You don't understand what "physical contraction" means and
think it must mean "material contraction" but that is YOUR deficiency,
not that of SR.
>
> Here are some evidences that you runts of the SRians don't know that
> SR makes the following contradictory claims
> 1. The speeed of light is a universal constant in all inertial frames
> and yet the clock second use to define light speed does not represent
> the same amount of time (duration) in different frames.
This is not a contradiction. You just don't know what "universal
constant" means, and you think it means something it does not.
>
> 2. In Einstein's Train gedanken the speed of light in the M' frame is
> isotropic and at the same time SR claims that M' is moving wrt the
> light fronts from the strikes to get the SR concept of Relativity of
> Simultaneity.
This is not a contradiction. One is closing speed, and the other is
light speed. Closing speed can be anisotropic when lightspeed is
isotropic. This is just a confusion on your part, thinking these two
mean the same thing when they do NOT.
>
> 3. SR claims a 80 ft material pole can fit into a 40 ft material
> pole
> and at the same time claims the same 80 ft material pole cannot fit
> into a 40 ft material barn.
See above. It fits in one frame and not in another. This is not a
contradiction. The statement that is true in one frame does not
necessarily have to be true in another frame.
>
> 4. In the bug and the rivet paradox: The bug is still alive just
> before the rivet head hits the wall of the hole. At the same time SR
> claims that the bug is dead just before the rivet head hits the wall
> of the hole.
This is not a contradiction. The sequence of events in one frame is
not the sequence of events in another frame.
>
> 5. A and B are in relative motion SR claims that: A predicts B's
> clock
> is running slow by a factor of 1/gamma and B predicts that A's clock
> is running slow by a factor of 1/gamma.
This is also not a contradiction, and I haven't got the foggiest idea
why you think it is.
>
> Ken Seto
>
> What does these
>
> >You have deluded yourself into thinking that you are a
> > misunderstood genius. You cannot bear the thought that you are wrong.
> > You cannot bear the thought that after 15 years of study, you are no
> > further along in understanding relativity than when you started -- all
> > those wasted years. It does not occur to you that having only studied
> > relativity from a chapter of a freshman physics book and A Brief
> > History of Time, you may not have adequately prepared yourself for
> > study on the subject.
>
> > You are mentally ill, Ken. You are bordering on psychosis with your
> > egocentric fantasies. I know you worry your family, and you would much
> > rather they look up to you as a genius. Get help, Ken. Be a man and
> > admit a weakness and get help.
You are mentally ill, Ken. You are confused by SR and have been
confused for 15 years. But you cannot mentally accept the fact that it
is you with the problem, so you assume it is SR that has the problem.
PD
Ken, I'm going to write down a few scenarios so that you can
understand what I mean when I say that a statement that is true in one
frame is not true in another. All of these scenarios are from
classical, Newtonian physics, and have been understood for almost 400
years. They can all be found in your freshman physics textbook. None
of them are contradictions:
1. A crate is dropped from the cargo bay of an airplane. In the frame
of the pilot on the plane, the crate drops vertically down in a
straight line. In the frame of someone on the ground watching the
plane, the crate starts falling horizontally and then in a curved,
parabolic trajectory. WHAT IS TRUE IN ONE FRAME IS NOT TRUE IN ANOTHER
FRAME.
2. A car is traveling on the highway and applies the brakes. In the
frame of someone standing beside the road, the car initially is going
forward and slows down when the brakes are applied. In the frame of a
truck going faster than the car and passing it on the highway, the car
is initially going backward and speeds up when the brakes are applied.
WHAT IS TRUE IN ONE FRAME IS NOT TRUE IN ANOTHER FRAME.
3. A bullet is fired from a gun and is lodged in a block of wood that
is initially resting on a fence post. In the frame of the fence post,
there is kinetic energy before the collision, and the bullet and the
block fly away after impact, so that there is kinetic energy after the
collision, as well as heat. In the center-of-mass frame, there is
kinetic energy before the collision, and the bullet and the block come
to rest after impact, so that there is no kinetic energy after the
collision, only heat. WHAT IS TRUE IN ONE FRAME IS NOT TRUE IN ANOTHER
FRAME.
If you think any of these things are contradictions, then you need to
re-read your freshman physics textbook until you can repeat to
yourself WHAT IS TRUE IN ONE FRAME IS NOT TRUE IN ANOTHER FRAME. Then
when you run into something in special relativity that you think is a
contradiction, you will know to say WHAT IS TRUE IN ONE FRAME IS NOT
TRUE IN ANOTHER FRAME.
PD
Inertial
Very childish Ken. Guess you can't deal with being wrong. You should have
had LOTS of practice by now.
Inertial
Here is more evidence the Ken does not understand Sr, nor what those who DO
understand SR means.
> In the pole and the barn scenario:
> SR claims that an 80 ft material pole is able to fit into 40 ft
> material barn
Yes .. when moving fast enough.
> but SR also made the contradictory claim that an 80 ft
> material pole is not able to fit into a 40 ft material barn.
Yes .. when not moving fast enough
There is no contradiction there
> Inertial said that the atoms in the moving pole is closer
> together......
They are
> this means material contraction
Not if by 'material' you mean the frame-invariant intrinsic properties
> but PD claims that this
> does not mean that the pole is materially shorter.
Not if by 'material' you mean the frame-invariant intrinsic properties
> Tom Roberts said that: it depends on what you mean by physical
> contraction
That is correct.
> then follow by saying that "Generally, they would
> consider a "physical length contraction" to mean that the object
> ITSELF gets physically shorter.
I'm not sure who 'they' are. That is one possible meaning of the word,
where 'itself' means the intrinsic frame-invariant length (ie the length in
the object's rest frame)
> This is manifestly not so in SR."
That is correct, with that meaning of the word 'physcial'.
> TR
> said in the past that length contraction in SR is a geometric
> projection effect ....
Yes .. it is an effect you can model geometrically. Geometry is just math
.. it doesn't have a meaning in physics unless it is modelling reality.
> much like a longer ladder is able to fit
> through
> a narrow door way.
That is a good analogy. Tilting the ladder is a physical change to the
system, and is modelled by a geometric effect. It does not change anything
intrinsic about the ladder itself, but does change the physical relationship
between the ladder and doorway.
> I agree that geometric length contraction is not
> physical or material contraction.
If you are using physical and material as synonyms that both refer to any
frame-invariant intrinsic change to an object, then that is correct. Noone
here claims that a moving observer changes an object in any way at all.
> PD claims that the pole is physically contracted but not materially
> contracted.
he is using a different meaning for 'physically'
> He seem to have a new meaning for the term "physical
> contraction"...a meaning that is in between material length
> contraction and geometric projection length contraction effect.
Not in between. Geometrical really means purely mathematical. But in
physics when we say something is geometrical, we mean it is modelled by
geometry. 'Material' we have taken to mean the intrinsic frame-invariant
rest-frame properties of an object. 'Physcial' is still not well defined in
terms of how to apply it to physics .. it can mean what we can measure and
observe (and can be frame dependent) that are not illusions .. or it can
just be a synonym for 'material'.
If you talk about things like momentum and velocity being quantities we can
measure physically, but seeing a rod as bent when putin water is just an
illusion and it is not physically bent .. then you are using the first
meaning.
Whether length contraction is physical or not depends soley on whether you
would define length a physical quantity or not (like velocity or momentum)
So far the only disagreements seem to be on what we should consider the word
'physical' to mean. There is NO disagreement on what SR actually says.
> Here are some evidences that you runts of the SRians don't know that
> SR makes the following contradictory claims
> 1. The speeed of light is a universal constant in all inertial frames
Yes
> and yet the clock second use to define light speed does not represent
> the same amount of time (duration) in different frames.
No .. it does. It is a second in all frames. However, observers measure
the ticking rate of a moving clock will measure it as slower (due to RoS).
I have given an example elsewhere showing how clocks n different frames
(with different synchronisation) gives you slower ticking rates. I'll show
it again here.
eg. consider two sets of moving clocks, with each set differently
synchronised.
S1 10:30 11:00=A 11:30 <--v
S2 11:30 11:00 10:30 -->v
Consider above the middle clock in each set (which when they meet show the
same time) .. then look at how clocks in the set compare an hour later (by
each of those clocks)
S1 11:30 12:00=A 12:30 <--v
S2 12:30 12:00 11:30 -->v
According to the S2 clocks, clock A is slow (the S2 clock says the time at
the point is 12:30, but the S1 clock only shows 12:00). So according to S2,
the S1 clock is running slow. And as easily seen, the same is true of what
S1 clocks measure about S2 clocks.
No contradiction there.
> 2. In Einstein's Train gedanken the speed of light in the M' frame is
> isotropic
It is. In that frame M' is at rest
> and at the same time SR claims that M' is moving wrt the
> light fronts from the strikes
You just frame jumped. In the M frame, M' is moving, and as the light is
isotropic c in that frame, that means the separation speeds between light
and M' are not isotropic. That is correct.
> to get the SR concept of Relativity of
> Simultaneity.
RoS explains the difference
No contradiction there
> 3. SR claims a 80 ft material pole can fit into a 40 ft material
> pole
Yes .. when moving fast enough.
> and at the same time claims the same 80 ft material pole cannot fit
> into a 40 ft material barn.
Yes .. when not moving fast enough.
No contradiction there
Well ... looks like you bombed out again, and showed you have no real
understanding of SR at all. Thanks for playing Ken. Get a new hobby.
kenseto
Sure it is a contradiction.....the pole can fit into the barn
materially is a frame independent concept and similarly the same
material pole cannot fit into the material barn is also a frame
independent concept.
The rest of your post is repeating the same nonsense. So I am not
wasting anymore time on it.
Ken Seto
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more »
kenseto
No....from the point of view of the pilot he had to drop the crate
before he is direction over the target point on the ground. That means
that he knows that the crate is falling in a curved parabolic
trajectory.....gee you don't know any physics and you are a physics
professor????
Ken Seto
>
> 2. A car is traveling on the highway and applies the brakes. In the
> frame of someone standing beside the road, the car initially is going
> forward and slows down when the brakes are applied. In the frame of a
> truck going faster than the car and passing it on the highway, the car
> is initially going backward and speeds up when the brakes are applied.
> WHAT IS TRUE IN ONE FRAME IS NOT TRUE IN ANOTHER FRAME.
>
> 3. A bullet is fired from a gun and is lodged in a block of wood that
> is initially resting on a fence post. In the frame of the fence post,
> there is kinetic energy before the collision, and the bullet and the
> block fly away after impact, so that there is kinetic energy after the
> collision, as well as heat. In the center-of-mass frame, there is
> kinetic energy before the collision, and the bullet and the block come
> to rest after impact, so that there is no kinetic energy after the
> collision, only heat. WHAT IS TRUE IN ONE FRAME IS NOT TRUE IN ANOTHER
> FRAME.
>
> If you think any of these things are contradictions, then you need to
> re-read your freshman physics textbook until you can repeat to
> yourself WHAT IS TRUE IN ONE FRAME IS NOT TRUE IN ANOTHER FRAME. Then
> when you run into something in special relativity that you think is a
> contradiction, you will know to say WHAT IS TRUE IN ONE FRAME IS NOT
> TRUE IN ANOTHER FRAME.
>
> PD- Hide quoted text -
kenseto
> "kenseto" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote in message
OK so you are saying that there is real material contraction. But do
you know that real material contraction is a frame independent
concept?
>
> > but SR also made the contradictory claim that an 80 ft
> > material pole is not able to fit into a 40 ft material barn.
>
> Yes .. when not moving fast enough
Hey idiot the pole is moving at the same speed as before when it is
able to fit into the barn.
It appears that you don't know any physics and that you disagree with
with other runts of the SRians that there is no material contraction
in SR.
Ken Seto
> understanding of SR at all. Thanks for playing Ken. Get a new hobby.- Hide quoted text -
PD
Oh, come on, Ken. IN THE FRAME of the pilot of the plane, the crate
drops vertically down in a straight line. As he watches the crate
fall, it stays directly under the open hatch.
If you are having trouble understanding the basics of reference frames
even in classical, Newtonian, freshman physics, then it's time to
reread your freshman physics text. Good heavens, it's no wonder you
don't understand relativity. You don't understand freshman physics
either!
PD
PD
No, Ken it is not. A statement that is true in one frame is not
necessarily true in another. This is why I gave you several examples
from FRESHMAN physics to illustrate the same thing.
> The rest of your post is repeating the same nonsense. So I am not
> wasting anymore time on it.
Hey, Ken, you asked the questions, and I answered them. If you don't
want to listen to the answers because you don't like the answers, this
is one sure-fire way to ensure that you never learn anything.
>
> Ken Seto
>
>
PD
> "kenseto" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote in message
This is precisely Ken's problem. He has NEVER been able to admit that
he is wrong about anything.
kenseto
Why should I admit that I am wrong when I knew that I was not
wrong?????????????
kenseto
Sigh....you did not read what I said. The crate does not drop
verticlly down in a straight line.
Ken Seto
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
kenseto
Geometric projection contraction is a frame dependent
concept....material contraction is not a frame dependent concept.
That's why the more knowledgeable SRians than you endorse the idea of
geometric projection contraction. You need to update your naive
knowledge of physics.
Ken Seto
>
> > The rest of your post is repeating the same nonsense. So I am not
> > wasting anymore time on it.
>
> Hey, Ken, you asked the questions, and I answered them. If you don't
> want to listen to the answers because you don't like the answers, this
> is one sure-fire way to ensure that you never learn anything.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Ken Seto- Hide quoted text -
PD
Ken, it is a *physical* contraction. As we've discussed, you do not
know the meaning of "physical contraction" and get it confused with
"material contraction". It is a physical contraction and it is frame-
dependent. This is what SR says.
There are many physical concepts that are frame-dependent, and I've
given you several examples from CLASSICAL physics to demonstrate this
to you.
You have it fixed in your head that only "illusions" can be frame-
dependent, and that real physical properties are never frame
dependent. This is demonstrably and firmly wrong, and your freshman
physics textbook lists many, many examples of real, physical
properties that are frame-dependent. If you did not know that, then
you need to review freshman physics.
PD
Yes, it does, in the plane frame. In the ground frame, it does not. If
you can only think of things from the ground frame and think that this
is somehow this is the "real" frame and the plane frame is not "real",
then you need to review freshman physics.
>
PD
Ken, you ALWAYS think you were not wrong. It is simply impossible for
you to admit that you were ever wrong.
This is a personality defect, and you know it.
va...@icmf.inf.cu
Earth's surface is moving with respect to the plane considered at
rest? What is moving, the Earth's surface or the plane? What is
moving, the whole Earth or the Sun? Can you describe the Sun's
trajectory in the ECI frame of GPS? Can you describe the Earth's
trajectory in the plane frame?
RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
PD
Physically, there is no difference!
kenseto
No it doesn't....the pilot had to drop the crate before he is directly
over the target. If the crate falls vertically down as you asserted
then the pilot wouldn't drop the crate before he is directly over the
target....gee you are so naive to be a physics professor. I feel sorry
for your students.
Ken Seto
PD
In the plane frame, it is the ground that is moving, not the plane,
Ken. The crate falls vertically, and this is clearly visible because
the crate always stays directly under the cargo door. If it had any
horizontal motion in this frame, Ken, it would not stay directly under
the cargo door. While it falls vertically, the ground moves so that
the target meets the crate directly under the cargo door.
> If the crate falls vertically down as you asserted
> then the pilot wouldn't drop the crate before he is directly over the
> target....gee you are so naive to be a physics professor. I feel sorry
> for your students.
Ken, as I said, you are having problems with *freshman* physics
concepts. You need to review the material in your *freshman* physics
book before you attempt to understand what relativity says.
BURT
Moving the clock through space at different rates programs gamma for
different slower rates of time. Even secondary rotation will add to
the time aether slowdown rate.
Mitch Raemsch
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
In the runner's frame he is running the race not the ground.
Mitch Raemsch
BURT
Clocks must be coordinated in gravity as well.
Mitch Raemsch
Inertial
I didn't say, or imply, that it was material contraction.
If you mean does the material of the rod fits between the material of the
barn doors when shut simultaneously (in the barn frame).. yes it does.
If you means is there a material change to the rod itself .. no there is no
change.
> But do
> you know that real material contraction is a frame independent
> concept?
Yes I do. Amazing that you've finally learnt that. Maybe there is hope for
you yet.
>>
>> > but SR also made the contradictory claim that an 80 ft
>> > material pole is not able to fit into a 40 ft material barn.
>>
>> Yes .. when not moving fast enough
>
> Hey idiot the pole is moving at the same speed as before when it is
> able to fit into the barn.
Then it fits. There is no contradiction.
> It appears that you don't know any physics
I know far more than you.
> and that you disagree with
> with other runts of the SRians
You wouldn't know . .you don't know enough physics to comment.
> that there is no material contraction
> in SR.
If you mean the frame independent intrinsic length .. of course there isn't.
I have never said there was, because SR does not say there is.
Unlike you, I know what SR actually says. Your posts about supposed
contradictions in SR shows that you do not.
[snip my answers to all your supposed contradictions that show they are not
that you did not even comment upon .. you must know you are wrong]
va...@icmf.inf.cu
one, why? Anyway, while waiting for the rest of the answers (please,
don't forget them!), I can make some comment about your unique answer.
From your answer I deduce that, for you, Ptolomeo and Galileo world
views are totally equivalent "physically" (whatever the meaning that
can have). If I am right, don't forget in your next post to include
some details about the "real" Sun's trajectory around the whole Earth.
Maybe you can enrich also 1913 Bohr's H model, talking about the
"real" proton trajectory around the electron.
RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
Inertial
See .. Ken is delusional. If he never admits to being wrong then he keeps
the delusion alive. He needs psychological help urgently. I wonder if
George Hammond can suggest a good institute for him? Perhaps Ken can get a
bulk discount if Henry, Androcles and Porat join him.
Inertial
"PD" <thedrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d2f5c6f7-2697-44f2...@o30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
Ken has the same problem as Henry. As soon as things start to move, he gets
confused. Someone with this sort of basic defect should not be doing
physics, as it does often tend to involve things that move. Indeed, it
could interfere with his ability to function in the real world. I suggest a
nice safe padded cell each for the two of them where nothing moves
unexpectedly.
kenseto
Yes you did. You said that the atoms get closer together....that is
material contraction.
>
> If you mean does the material of the rod fits between the material of the
> barn doors when shut simultaneously (in the barn frame).. yes it does.
Hey idiot...That is material contraction.
>
> If you means is there a material change to the rod itself .. no there is no
> change.
Hey idiot when the atoms of the rod get closer together as you
claimed.... that means that there is a change to the length of the rod
itself.
>
> > But do
> > you know that real material contraction is a frame independent
> > concept?
>
> Yes I do. Amazing that you've finally learnt that. Maybe there is hope for
> you yet.Ken Seto
>
>
>
> >> > but SR also made the contradictory claim that an 80 ft
> >> > material pole is not able to fit into a 40 ft material barn.
>
> >> Yes .. when not moving fast enough
>
> > Hey idiot the pole is moving at the same speed as before when it is
> > able to fit into the barn.
>
> Then it fits. There is no contradiction.
>
> > It appears that you don't know any physics
>
> I know far more than you.
>
> > and that you disagree with
> > with other runts of the SRians
>
> You wouldn't know . .you don't know enough physics to comment.
>
> > that there is no material contraction
> > in SR.
>
> If you mean the frame independent intrinsic length .. of course there isn't.
> I have never said there was, because SR does not say there is.
>
> Unlike you, I know what SR actually says. Your posts about supposed
> contradictions in SR shows that you do not.
>
> [snip my answers to all your supposed contradictions that show they are not
> that you did not even comment upon .. you must know you are wrong]- Hide quoted text -
kenseto
It is impossible for you to admit that SR made contradictory claims.
This is a personality defect and you know it.
Ken Seto
>
> This is a personality defect, and you know it.
>
>
>
>
>
> > - Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
PD
SR does not make contradictory claims. You are the only one who thinks
it does. Does it not occur to you that you are the blind one?
If you see contradictions, where everyone else sees that there are
none, does it not occur to you that you're missing something?
kenseto
If physical contraction is not the same as material contraction then
there is no such thing as physical contraction unless you accept that
physical contraction is a geometric projection effect. In that case
your meaning of physical contraction is an apparent effect.
kenseto
Sigh....the pilot uses his air speed to calculate the drop point such
that the crate will reach the target. Since the drop point is not
directly over the target then it must follow a curved path on its way
to the target.
Ken Seto
kenseto
1. The speeed of light is a universal constant in all inertial frames
and yet the clock second use to define light speed does not represent
the same amount of time (duration) in different frames.
2. In Einstein's Train gedanken the speed of light in the M' frame is
isotropic and at the same time SR claims that M' is moving wrt the
light fronts from the strikes to get the SR concept of Relativity of
Simultaneity.
3. SR claims a 80 ft material pole can fit into a 40 ft material
pole
and at the same time claims the same 80 ft material pole cannot fit
into a 40 ft material barn.
4. In the bug and the rivet paradox: The bug is still alive just
before the rivet head hits the wall of the hole. At the same time SR
claims that the bug is dead just before the rivet head hits the wall
of the hole.
5. A and B are in relative motion SR claims that: A predicts B's
clock
is running slow by a factor of 1/gamma and B predicts that A's clock
is running slow by a factor of 1/gamma.
Ken Seto
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
You must put two clocks in synch both for two rates. Gravity slows
time rate and accelerating energy is the second rate that slows time.
You must coordinate the clocks in gravity as well as in identical
motion. Two times must be taken into account when synchronizing
clocks.
Mitch Raemsch
Inertial
If that's what you think material contraction means, then it is. But that's
not what we agree material contraction meant.
>> If you mean does the material of the rod fits between the material of the
>> barn doors when shut simultaneously (in the barn frame).. yes it does.
>
> Hey idiot...That is material contraction.
If that's what you think material contraction means, then it is. But that's
not what we agree material contraction meant.
>> If you means is there a material change to the rod itself .. no there is
>> no
>> change.
>
> Hey idiot when the atoms of the rod get closer together as you
> claimed.... that means that there is a change to the length of the rod
> itself.
Of course it is shorter .. length is frame dependent. That's what we've all
been telling you.
Why do you have so many problems with this?
Inertial
It doesn't. You've attempted to show some, and every time you are shown to
be wrong
> This is a personality defect and you know it.
No .. it is a LACK of defect in SR. It is proven self-consistent.
Inertial
Repeating your lies doesn't make them true, Ken. You are fooling noone ..
not even yourself
PD
No, geometric projection is a real physical effect, not an apparent
effect.
There are real physical properties that are frame-dependent, and these
are not due to material alteration. I've pointed to several examples
from freshman physics. It's a real pity you cannot get a grip on this.
PD
Ken, this does not change the fact that in the plane frame, the crate
has no horizontal velocity. If it did, it would move out from under
the cargo door, but instead it stays directly under it. Since in this
frame it has no horizontal velocity, its motion is strictly vertical.
This is a *freshman* physics concept. If you can't get this, then you
really need to start completely over with freshman physics.
PD
I've already told you that these are not contradictions and explained
where your misunderstanding is. Until you can correct those
misunderstandings, you will always believe SR has contradictions where
there are none.
Pity, Ken. Fifteen years, and you're stuck on the basics.
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
You must synch atomic clocks in two rates. The strength of gravity
slowdown and the motion slowdown of SR.
Bringing clocks together in gravity strength and same motion will
synch them in the two rates required..
Mitch Raemsch
kenseto
Sigh....your explanations are based on assumptions that do not exist
in the real world.
The pole can fit into the barn and the same pole cannot fit into the
barn is a contradcition.
The bug is still alive just before the head of the rivet hit the wall
of the hole and the bug is already dead just before the head of the
rivet hit the wall of the hole is a contradiction.
etc..etc..etc.
Ken Seto
>
> Pity, Ken. Fifteen years, and you're stuck on the basics.- Hide quoted text -
kenseto
Sigh...have you ever see a parachute jumper from a plane? He does not
remain directly under the plane.
Ken Seto
kenseto
If that's not material contraction then what is it? BTW I did not
agree on anything you said.
>
> >> If you mean does the material of the rod fits between the material of the
> >> barn doors when shut simultaneously (in the barn frame).. yes it does.
>
> > Hey idiot...That is material contraction.
>
> If that's what you think material contraction means, then it is. But that's
> not what we agree material contraction meant.
If that's not material contraction then what is it? BTW I did not
agree on anything you said.
>
> >> If you means is there a material change to the rod itself .. no there is
> >> no
> >> change.
>
> > Hey idiot when the atoms of the rod get closer together as you
> > claimed.... that means that there is a change to the length of the rod
> > itself.
>
> Of course it is shorter .. length is frame dependent. That's what we've all
> been telling you.
No idiot....material length is frame independent. geometric projection
effect is frame dependent that's why knowledgeable physicists insist
that length contraction is a geometric projection effect.
Ken Seto
>
> Why do you have so many problems with this?- Hide quoted text -
kenseto
Sure it is an apparent effect only material contraction is real
effect....Geometric projection effect is like I see you to be shorter
from a distance is an apparent effect.
Ken Seto
PD
No, Ken. There are more real and physical contractions other than
material contractions. It is simply not true that the only real and
physical contractions are material contractions. That is WRONG.
I've given you examples from freshman physics of real and physical
events that differ from frame to frame without there being any
material interaction that causes the difference. Since you don't
believe such a thing is possible, you need to go back and learn
freshman physics again. You have a freshman physics book -- there are
lots of examples in there.
PD
Ken, I was talking about a crate, not a parachute jumper.
I'm sure there are videos available on YouTube of things being dropped
from planes, so that you can see that there are many cases where they
really do stay DIRECTLY UNDER THE PLANE.
I can't believe you haven't absorbed this from freshman physics. I'll
bet there is a diagram of this in your book!
> ...
>
> read more »
Inertial
Wrong
> The pole can fit into the barn and the same pole cannot fit into the
> barn is a contradcition.
For every observer, either it fits or it doesn't. Never both for a single
observer. So no contradiction there are all. That different observers
measure things differently does not make a contradiction. You seem to think
that fitting in a barn with the doors closed simultaneously does NOT depend
on the frame of reference where you determine what simultaneous means. If
you are talking about SR, then simultaneity is not absolute.
> The bug is still alive just before the head of the rivet hit the wall
> of the hole and the bug is already dead just before the head of the
> rivet hit the wall of the hole is a contradiction.
For every observer, either the bug is dead first, or not. Never both for a
single observer. So no contradiction there are all. That different
observers measure things differently does not make a contradiction. You
seem to think that the order of all events does NOT depend on the frame of
reference where you determine the order. If you are talking about SR, then
order of events is not absolute.
Inertial
'Wind' blows him off course in practice (due to his high horizontal
component of speed relative to the air). If the wind (and air resistance
etc) didn't do that, and he could simply fall, then an observer in the plane
would see him fall straight down. But an observer on the ground would see
him fall NOT straight down, but taking a parabolic path. This is very VERY
basic physics
Inertial
When the proper frame-independent length gets shorter.
> BTW I did not
> agree on anything you said.
That shows how silly you are then, doesn't it.
'we' meaning the other posters in this thread. Are you saying you do NOT
agree on what is meant by 'material'? Apparently not, as you seem to think
a frame dependent change as described above IS material. Perhaps you need
to work out exactly what YOU mean is meant by 'material contraction' and
then (after making that perfectly clear and unambiguous in language others
will understand) find out what SR says about it
>> >> If you mean does the material of the rod fits between the material of
>> >> the
>> >> barn doors when shut simultaneously (in the barn frame).. yes it does.
>>
>> > Hey idiot...That is material contraction.
>>
>> If that's what you think material contraction means, then it is. But
>> that's
>> not what we agree material contraction meant.
>
> If that's not material contraction then what is it? BTW I did not
> agree on anything you said.
see above
>>
>> >> If you means is there a material change to the rod itself .. no there
>> >> is
>> >> no
>> >> change.
>>
>> > Hey idiot when the atoms of the rod get closer together as you
>> > claimed.... that means that there is a change to the length of the rod
>> > itself.
>>
>> Of course it is shorter .. length is frame dependent. That's what we've
>> all
>> been telling you.
>
> No idiot....material length is frame independent.
Not by what you've just said. You have said that a frame-dependent
contraction IS material. Really .. you should make up your mind. You are
terribly confused.
> geometric projection
> effect is frame dependent
And that means the atoms in a rod are measured as closer together in a frame
in which the rod is moving than in the frame where it is not. In frames
where it moves faster, the atoms are measured as more close together.
> that's why knowledgeable physicists insist
> that length contraction is a geometric projection effect.
That rules out you then on both counts. You are neither knowledgeable NOR a
physicist.
Length contraction is modeled by a geometric projection which has the effect
of a making a smaller distance between the atoms of the rod as measured in a
frame where the rod moves. Got it now? Probably not.
PD
Yes, they do. Equivalent experiments have been done in the real world,
and they show that what happens is exactly what SR says will happen.
> The pole can fit into the barn and the same pole cannot fit into the
> barn is a contradcition.
No it is not. What is true in one frame does not have to be true in
another frame. This is true even in FRESHMAN physics and I gave you an
example. Let me give you one of those examples again.
A car is traveling on the highway and it applies its brakes. In the
frame of a bystander on the road, the car is traveling east and slows
down when the car applies its brakes. In the frame of a truck that is
passing the car on the highway, the car is traveling west and speeds
up when the car applies its brakes. In your mind, these statements
cannot be simultaneously true, but they are, and this is FRESHMAN
physics. These statements are not contradictory. A statement that is
true in one frame is not necessarily the case in another frame. If you
cannot get a grip on this, then you need to start again with freshman
physics first. This has nothing to do with relativity. It has to do
with really basic, simple freshman physics stuff.
Inertial
'Wind' blows him off course in practice (due to his high horizontal
kenseto
No it is not wrong. There are only two kinds of
"contraction"....material contraction like freezing a meter stick or
apparent contraction like seeing a meter stick to be shorter from a
distance.
You guys claim that an 80 ft pole can fit into a 40 ft barn and that's
material contraction. Material contraction is frame independent.
Ken Seto
kenseto
What is the difference?
>
> I'm sure there are videos available on YouTube of things being dropped
> from planes, so that you can see that there are many cases where they
> really do stay DIRECTLY UNDER THE PLANE.
Hey idiot...All things drop from planes will slow down due to air
resistance.
Ken Seto
> > > > > > > > > > > re-read- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more »
kenseto
No they don't.
>
> > The pole can fit into the barn and the same pole cannot fit into the
> > barn is a contradcition.
>
> No it is not. What is true in one frame does not have to be true in
> another frame.
Hey idiot...Fitting a material pole into a material barn is frame
independent.
Ken Seto
>This is true even in FRESHMAN physics and I gave you an
> example. Let me give you one of those examples again.
> A car is traveling on the highway and it applies its brakes. In the
> frame of a bystander on the road, the car is traveling east and slows
> down when the car applies its brakes. In the frame of a truck that is
> passing the car on the highway, the car is traveling west and speeds
> up when the car applies its brakes. In your mind, these statements
> cannot be simultaneously true, but they are, and this is FRESHMAN
> physics. These statements are not contradictory. A statement that is
> true in one frame is not necessarily the case in another frame. If you
> cannot get a grip on this, then you need to start again with freshman
> physics first. This has nothing to do with relativity. It has to do
> with really basic, simple freshman physics stuff.
>
>
>
> > The bug is still alive just before the head of the rivet hit the wall
> > of the hole and the bug is already dead just before the head of the
> > rivet hit the wall of the hole is a contradiction.
> > etc..etc..etc.
>
> > Ken Seto
>
> > > Pity, Ken. Fifteen years, and you're stuck on the basics.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
PD
I'm sorry, Ken, but the universe is larger than your small conception
of it.
Just because YOU can only conceive of these two possibilities does not
mean these are the only two possibilities.
Magicians fool audiences easily because the audience members see
something happening and they think there is only one or two ways this
could occur. Then the magician shows the audience that those one or
two ways are not what's going on here. Then the audience members think
it must be magic because they've run out of conceivable explanations
for what they saw, when the magician knows there is yet another way
this could occur. There is no magic.
There is no magic in physics, either. It's just that sometimes the
explanation is different than the one or two things you can think of
for an explanation.
> You guys claim that an 80 ft pole can fit into a 40 ft barn and that's
> material contraction.
No, it's not, it's physical contraction. "Physical" does not mean
"material". We've been through this before, and we even looked in the
dictionary.
> Material contraction is frame independent.
Physical contraction can be frame dependent.
PD
The difference is that there are videos of crates falling from planes
and staying directly under the plane. This really happens, Ken.
> ...
>
> read more »
PD
Yes, they do, and you've been pointed to those references before, Ken.
Denying them is simply closing your eyes to reality.
If you don't want to believe in reality and want to live in a fantasy
world where these things don't happen, that's up to you.
>
>
>
> > > The pole can fit into the barn and the same pole cannot fit into the
> > > barn is a contradcition.
>
> > No it is not. What is true in one frame does not have to be true in
> > another frame.
>
> Hey idiot...Fitting a material pole into a material barn is frame
> independent.
No, it's not, Ken. We've discussed this before. It's physical
contraction, not material contraction. Physical does not mean
material. Physical contraction can be frame dependent.
I don't know why you simply choose to refuse to believe this stuff
really happens.
Sue...
> Clocks in relative motion cannot remain synchronized for any length of
> time.
> That means that as soon as you synchronize them they will get out of
> synch.
> So how do they make the GPS clocks synchronized with the ground
> clocks?
Why are you directly comparing coordinate time with
the intervals marked by real-world clock mechanisms?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordinate_time
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_synchronisation
Sue...
> The answer:
> The definition for a ground clock second is N periods of Cs 133
> radiation. They redefined the
> GPS second to have (N+4.15) periods of Cs 133 radiation. The redefined
> GPS second is designed to contain the same amount of absolute time as
> a ground clock second. This makes the GPS clock remained in synch with
> the ground ground clock preminantly.
> What does this mean? It means that absolute time exists.
> A new theory of relativity based on the existence of absolute time
> called IRT has been formulated. IRT includes SRT as a subset. However,
> unlike SRT, the equatons of IRT are valid in all environments,
> including gravity. A detail description of IRT is available in the
> following link:http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg,pdf
>
> Ken Seto
kenseto
In the world we live in there are only two kinds of contraction.
>
> Magicians fool audiences easily because the audience members see
> something happening and they think there is only one or two ways this
> could occur. Then the magician shows the audience that those one or
> two ways are not what's going on here. Then the audience members think
> it must be magic because they've run out of conceivable explanations
> for what they saw, when the magician knows there is yet another way
> this could occur. There is no magic.
ROTFLOL....so modern physics is magic?
>
> There is no magic in physics, either. It's just that sometimes the
> explanation is different than the one or two things you can think of
> for an explanation.
Yes you can dream up some 4 5 or 6 dimensions to explain things. But
why do you need to do that when 3 dimensions of space and one
dimension of time can explain all?
>
> > You guys claim that an 80 ft pole can fit into a 40 ft barn and that's
> > material contraction.
>
> No, it's not, it's physical contraction. "Physical" does not mean
> "material". We've been through this before, and we even looked in the
> dictionary.
I dn't accept yur explanation that physical contraction is not
material contraction. fitting a 80 ft pole into a 40 ft barn is
material and thus frame independent. Rotating a meter stick on the x-
axis around the time axis to make it shorter is apparent contraction.
> > Material contraction is frame independent.
>
> Physical contraction can be frame dependent.
Only if you accept that physical contraction is a geometric projection
contraction effect.
Ken seto
>
>
>
>
>
> > Ken Seto
>
> > > I've given you examples from freshman physics of real and physical
> > > events that differ from frame to frame without there being any
> > > material interaction that causes the difference. Since you don't
> > > believe such a thing is possible, you need to go back and learn
> > > freshman physics again. You have a freshman physics book -- there are
> > > lots of examples in there.
>
> > > > Ken Seto
>
> > > > > There are real physical properties that are frame-dependent, and these
> > > > > are not due to material alteration. I've pointed to several examples
> > > > > from freshman physics. It's a real pity you cannot get a grip on this.
>
> > > > > > > > That's why the more knowledgeable SRians than you endorse the idea of
> > > > > > > > geometric projection contraction. You need to update your naive
> > > > > > > > knowledge of physics.
>
> > > > > > > > Ken Seto
>
> > > > > > > > > > The rest of your post is repeating the same nonsense. So I am not
> > > > > > > > > > wasting anymore time on it.
>
> > > > > > > > > Hey, Ken, you asked the questions, and I answered- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more »
kenseto
No geometric projection contraction can be frame dependent.
>
> I don't know why you simply choose to refuse to believe this stuff
> really happens.
Because this stuff didn't really happen.
Ken Seto
Inertial
Wrong
> You guys claim that an 80 ft pole can fit into a 40 ft barn and that's
> material contraction. Material contraction is frame independent.
Wrong
You really should study physics before making a fool of yourself like this.
Or did you ... in which case you are a bigger fool.
PD
> On Mar 16, 10:39 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > No, Ken. There are more real and physical contractions other than
> > > > material contractions. It is simply not true that the only real and
> > > > physical contractions are material contractions. That is WRONG.
>
> > > No it is not wrong. There are only two kinds of
> > > "contraction"....material contraction like freezing a meter stick or
> > > apparent contraction like seeing a meter stick to be shorter from a
> > > distance.
>
> > I'm sorry, Ken, but the universe is larger than your small conception
> > of it.
> > Just because YOU can only conceive of these two possibilities does not
> > mean these are the only two possibilities.
>
> In the world we live in there are only two kinds of contraction.
As you've said many times, Ken, assertion is not an argument. I know
of more than two. You don't.
>
>
>
> > Magicians fool audiences easily because the audience members see
> > something happening and they think there is only one or two ways this
> > could occur. Then the magician shows the audience that those one or
> > two ways are not what's going on here. Then the audience members think
> > it must be magic because they've run out of conceivable explanations
> > for what they saw, when the magician knows there is yet another way
> > this could occur. There is no magic.
>
> ROTFLOL....so modern physics is magic?
Not at all. There is no magic. I just said that. Only people who don't
understand what happened think it's magic.
>
>
>
> > There is no magic in physics, either. It's just that sometimes the
> > explanation is different than the one or two things you can think of
> > for an explanation.
>
> Yes you can dream up some 4 5 or 6 dimensions to explain things. But
> why do you need to do that when 3 dimensions of space and one
> dimension of time can explain all?
>
>
>
> > > You guys claim that an 80 ft pole can fit into a 40 ft barn and that's
> > > material contraction.
>
> > No, it's not, it's physical contraction. "Physical" does not mean
> > "material". We've been through this before, and we even looked in the
> > dictionary.
>
> I dn't accept yur explanation that physical contraction is not
> material contraction.
I don't care what you accept or don't accept. Not anyone's job to
convince you of things you do not accept. Even the dictionary
distinguishes "physical" from "material". If you don't accept even
what's written in the dictionary, that's your problem.
> fitting a 80 ft pole into a 40 ft barn is
> material and thus frame independent. Rotating a meter stick on the x-
> axis around the time axis to make it shorter is apparent contraction.
>
> > > Material contraction is frame independent.
>
> > Physical contraction can be frame dependent.
>
> Only if you accept that physical contraction is a geometric projection
> contraction effect.
As you say, assertion is not an argument.
>
> Ken seto
>
>
>
> > > Ken Seto
>
> > > > I've given you examples from freshman physics of real and physical
> > > > events
>
> ...
>
> read more »
PD
Assertion is not an argument.
>
>
>
> > I don't know why you simply choose to refuse to believe this stuff
> > really happens.
>
> Because this stuff didn't really happen.
Of course it did. The experiments are documented. Go find them.
BURT
To coordinate clocks first you would want to bring them together in
the strength of gravity and their level of motion. They need to be
coordinates the same in the two rates.
Mitch Raemsch
kenseto
> On Mar 16, 3:31 pm, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 16, 10:39 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > No, Ken. There are more real and physical contractions other than
> > > > > material contractions. It is simply not true that the only real and
> > > > > physical contractions are material contractions. That is WRONG.
>
> > > > No it is not wrong. There are only two kinds of
> > > > "contraction"....material contraction like freezing a meter stick or
> > > > apparent contraction like seeing a meter stick to be shorter from a
> > > > distance.
>
> > > I'm sorry, Ken, but the universe is larger than your small conception
> > > of it.
> > > Just because YOU can only conceive of these two possibilities does not
> > > mean these are the only two possibilities.
>
> > In the world we live in there are only two kinds of contraction.
>
> As you've said many times, Ken, assertion is not an argument. I know
> of more than two. You don't.
So what other kinds of contraction are there? BTW what I said is not
an assertion....freezing a meter stick is an obserevd material
contraction and seeing a building from a distance to be shorter is
apparent contraction.
>
>
>
> > > Magicians fool audiences easily because the audience members see
> > > something happening and they think there is only one or two ways this
> > > could occur. Then the magician shows the audience that those one or
> > > two ways are not what's going on here. Then the audience members think
> > > it must be magic because they've run out of conceivable explanations
> > > for what they saw, when the magician knows there is yet another way
> > > this could occur. There is no magic.
>
> > ROTFLOL....so modern physics is magic?
>
> Not at all. There is no magic. I just said that. Only people who don't
> understand what happened think it's magic.
Yes there is magic according to you. You said that physical
contraction is not material contraction and it is also not apparent
contraction. It appear that you mean physical contraction is magical
contraction.
Ken Seto
> > read more »- Hide quoted text -