info
Grups de Google ja no admet publicacions ni subscripcions noves de Usenet. El contingut antic es pot continuar consultant.
Dismiss
New Physics
96 visualitzacions
Ves al primer missatge no llegit
kenseto
23 d’oct. 2016, 9:09:5323/10/16
a
1. No material or physical length contraction.
2. The light-path length of a moving meter stick is predicted to be foreshortened by a factor of 1/gamma or lengthened by a factor of gamma. These predictions are based on the assumptions that the light-path length of the observer's meter stick is its material length.
3. Absolute time exists.....that means that time is not flexible (no time dilation) as asserted by SR. However there is no clock time unit (including a clock second) that represents the same amount of absolute time in different frames.
4. The observer's clock second will represent a specific amount of absolute time (this is noted as a proper second by current physics). The observer predicts that a clock second on a moving clock is worth 1/gamma seconds or gamma seconds on his clock clock.
5. The above new physics gives rise to a new theory of relativity called IRT. IRT math includes SRT and LET math as subsets. IRT equations are valid in all environments, including gravity. Therefore it can be used to replace SRT/GRT in all applications. A paper on IRT is available in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf
2. The light-path length of a moving meter stick is predicted to be foreshortened by a factor of 1/gamma or lengthened by a factor of gamma. These predictions are based on the assumptions that the light-path length of the observer's meter stick is its material length.
3. Absolute time exists.....that means that time is not flexible (no time dilation) as asserted by SR. However there is no clock time unit (including a clock second) that represents the same amount of absolute time in different frames.
4. The observer's clock second will represent a specific amount of absolute time (this is noted as a proper second by current physics). The observer predicts that a clock second on a moving clock is worth 1/gamma seconds or gamma seconds on his clock clock.
5. The above new physics gives rise to a new theory of relativity called IRT. IRT math includes SRT and LET math as subsets. IRT equations are valid in all environments, including gravity. Therefore it can be used to replace SRT/GRT in all applications. A paper on IRT is available in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf
Edgar König
23 d’oct. 2016, 9:13:1523/10/16
a
W dniu poniedziałek, Sun, 23 Oct 2016 06:09:51 -0700 użytkownik kenseto
napisał:
> 1. No material or physical length contraction.
Of course not. Fundamentally consistent with Divergent Matter, the REAL
theroy, The Theory.
> 2. The light-path length of a moving meter stick is predicted to be
> foreshortened by a factor of 1/gamma or lengthened by a factor of gamma.
> These predictions are based on the assumptions that the light-path
> length of the observer's meter stick is its material length.
IRT consistent, however insufficient as a real extent.
napisał:
> 1. No material or physical length contraction.
theroy, The Theory.
> 2. The light-path length of a moving meter stick is predicted to be
> foreshortened by a factor of 1/gamma or lengthened by a factor of gamma.
> These predictions are based on the assumptions that the light-path
> length of the observer's meter stick is its material length.
al...@interia.pl
23 d’oct. 2016, 11:14:3923/10/16
a
The so-called Lorentz's contraction is neccesery to keep
the anisotrophy of a space, which is the most general condition
in the practical/physical sense!
1m = 1m.
You promote:
1m <> 1m, what is plainly false for any real system!
pcard...@volcanomail.com
23 d’oct. 2016, 12:44:0123/10/16
a
Item 2 contradicts item 1. But he kenseto is way too stupid to understand that (or anything else). In fact it's likely that not only he doesn't know the meaning of the word 'contradict', but also that the concept of contradiction can't exist in his pathetic little mind.
Odd Bodkin
24 d’oct. 2016, 9:08:0324/10/16
a
On 10/23/2016 8:09 AM, kenseto wrote:
> 1. No material or physical length contraction.
Which is it? These mean two different things. If they are the same thing
> 1. No material or physical length contraction.
in your language, then this means you're using a different language.
--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
kenseto
24 d’oct. 2016, 10:12:0124/10/16
a
On Sunday, October 23, 2016 at 11:14:39 AM UTC-4, al...@interia.pl wrote:
> W dniu niedziela, 23 października 2016 15:09:53 UTC+2 użytkownik kenseto napisał:
> > 1. No material or physical length contraction.
> >
> > 2. The light-path length of a moving meter stick is predicted to be foreshortened by a factor of 1/gamma or lengthened by a factor of gamma. These predictions are based on the assumptions that the light-path length of the observer's meter stick is its material length.
> >
> > 3. Absolute time exists.....that means that time is not flexible (no time dilation) as asserted by SR. However there is no clock time unit (including a clock second) that represents the same amount of absolute time in different frames.
> >
> > 4. The observer's clock second will represent a specific amount of absolute time (this is noted as a proper second by current physics). The observer predicts that a clock second on a moving clock is worth 1/gamma seconds or gamma seconds on his clock clock.
> >
> > 5. The above new physics gives rise to a new theory of relativity called IRT. IRT math includes SRT and LET math as subsets. IRT equations are valid in all environments, including gravity. Therefore it can be used to replace SRT/GRT in all applications. A paper on IRT is available in the following link:
> > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf
>
> Your fantasies are extremaly stupid.
It appears that you are the stupid one. You failed to understand IRT because you don't have the mental capacity to do so.
> W dniu niedziela, 23 października 2016 15:09:53 UTC+2 użytkownik kenseto napisał:
> > 1. No material or physical length contraction.
> >
> > 2. The light-path length of a moving meter stick is predicted to be foreshortened by a factor of 1/gamma or lengthened by a factor of gamma. These predictions are based on the assumptions that the light-path length of the observer's meter stick is its material length.
> >
> > 3. Absolute time exists.....that means that time is not flexible (no time dilation) as asserted by SR. However there is no clock time unit (including a clock second) that represents the same amount of absolute time in different frames.
> >
> > 4. The observer's clock second will represent a specific amount of absolute time (this is noted as a proper second by current physics). The observer predicts that a clock second on a moving clock is worth 1/gamma seconds or gamma seconds on his clock clock.
> >
> > 5. The above new physics gives rise to a new theory of relativity called IRT. IRT math includes SRT and LET math as subsets. IRT equations are valid in all environments, including gravity. Therefore it can be used to replace SRT/GRT in all applications. A paper on IRT is available in the following link:
> > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf
>
> Your fantasies are extremaly stupid.
>
> The so-called Lorentz's contraction is neccesery to keep
> the anisotrophy of a space, which is the most general condition
> in the practical/physical sense!s
> The so-called Lorentz's contraction is neccesery to keep
> the anisotrophy of a space, which is the most general condition
Contraction or expansion is dependent on the moving meter stick's absolute motion compared to the observer's absolute motion.
>
> 1m = 1m.
>
> You promote:
>
> 1m <> 1m, what is plainly false for any real system!
No idiot.....An IRT observer predicts that the light-path length of a meter stick moving wrt him is contracted by a factor of 1/gamma meters if such meter stick is in a higher state of absolute motion than the IRT observer and the light-path length of such meter stick expands by a factor of gamma meters if it is in slower state of absolute motion than the IRT observer. Gee you are stupid.
> 1m = 1m.
>
> You promote:
>
> 1m <> 1m, what is plainly false for any real system!
kenseto
24 d’oct. 2016, 10:23:5124/10/16
a
On Sunday, October 23, 2016 at 12:44:01 PM UTC-4, pcard...@volcanomail.com wrote:
> Item 2 contradicts item 1. But he kenseto is way too stupid to understand that (or anything else). In fact it's likely that not only he doesn't know the meaning of the word 'contradict', but also that the concept of contradiction can't exist in his pathetic little mind.
No idiot items 1 and 2 are consistent wrt each other. There is no material contraction or expansion of a moving meter stick. But the predicted light path length of a moving meter stick is contracted if the meter stick is in a higher stick of absolute motion than the observer and it is expanded if the meter stick is in a lower state of absolute motion than the observer. These predictions are based on the assumption that the light-path length of the observer's meter stick is its material length. Gee you are stupid no wonder you failed the Mars Lander mission.
> Item 2 contradicts item 1. But he kenseto is way too stupid to understand that (or anything else). In fact it's likely that not only he doesn't know the meaning of the word 'contradict', but also that the concept of contradiction can't exist in his pathetic little mind.
kenseto
24 d’oct. 2016, 10:27:5824/10/16
a
On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 9:08:03 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 10/23/2016 8:09 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > 1. No material or physical length contraction.
>
> Which is it? These mean two different things. If they are the same thing
> in your language, then this means you're using a different language.
They are the same thing according to the dictionary.
> On 10/23/2016 8:09 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > 1. No material or physical length contraction.
>
> Which is it? These mean two different things. If they are the same thing
> in your language, then this means you're using a different language.
kenseto
24 d’oct. 2016, 10:30:4124/10/16
a
On Sunday, October 23, 2016 at 9:13:15 AM UTC-4, Edgar König wrote:
> W dniu poniedziałek, Sun, 23 Oct 2016 06:09:51 -0700 użytkownik kenseto
> napisał:
>
> > 1. No material or physical length contraction.
>
> Of course not. Fundamentally consistent with Divergent Matter, the REAL
> theroy, The Theory.
DM is not a theory.....it is a bunch of assertions.
> W dniu poniedziałek, Sun, 23 Oct 2016 06:09:51 -0700 użytkownik kenseto
> napisał:
>
> > 1. No material or physical length contraction.
>
> Of course not. Fundamentally consistent with Divergent Matter, the REAL
> theroy, The Theory.
Odd Bodkin
24 d’oct. 2016, 10:37:2424/10/16
a
that is wrong for the context, then you have made a mistake.
Physics involves the study of interactions of matter and energy, along
with the properties of geometric symmetries that govern both the laws of
those interactions and observed behaviors.
Surely you're not going to say that energy is material or that geometric
symmetries of physical laws are material.
You have made a mistake.
kenseto
24 d’oct. 2016, 16:34:0324/10/16
a
On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 10:37:24 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 10/24/2016 9:27 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 9:08:03 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 10/23/2016 8:09 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >>> 1. No material or physical length contraction.
> >>
> >> Which is it? These mean two different things. If they are the same thing
> >> in your language, then this means you're using a different language.
> >
> > They are the same thing according to the dictionary.
> >
>
> Ken, the usage of a term depends on context. If you pick a definition
> that is wrong for the context, then you have made a mistake.
For over 100 years you (SR) were not able to explain to the public the difference between material and physical.
> On 10/24/2016 9:27 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 9:08:03 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 10/23/2016 8:09 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >>> 1. No material or physical length contraction.
> >>
> >> Which is it? These mean two different things. If they are the same thing
> >> in your language, then this means you're using a different language.
> >
> > They are the same thing according to the dictionary.
> >
>
> Ken, the usage of a term depends on context. If you pick a definition
> that is wrong for the context, then you have made a mistake.
>
> Physics involves the study of interactions of matter and energy, along
> with the properties of geometric symmetries that govern both the laws of
> those interactions and observed behaviors.
>
> Surely you're not going to say that energy is material or that geometric
> symmetries of physical laws are material.
>
I am saying that material follows the geometries exist in the E-Matrix and those geometries are caused by the absolute motions of the interacting particles (matter).
> Surely you're not going to say that energy is material or that geometric
> symmetries of physical laws are material.
>
Odd Bodkin
26 d’oct. 2016, 10:29:3426/10/16
a
On 10/24/2016 3:34 PM, kenseto wrote:
> On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 10:37:24 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 10/24/2016 9:27 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>> On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 9:08:03 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> On 10/23/2016 8:09 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>> 1. No material or physical length contraction.
>>>>
>>>> Which is it? These mean two different things. If they are the same thing
>>>> in your language, then this means you're using a different language.
>>>
>>> They are the same thing according to the dictionary.
>>>
>>
>> Ken, the usage of a term depends on context. If you pick a definition
>> that is wrong for the context, then you have made a mistake.
>
> For over 100 years you (SR) were not able to explain to the public the
> difference between material and physical.
Ken, you place yourself as the proxy for "the public". I am a woodworker
> On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 10:37:24 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 10/24/2016 9:27 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>> On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 9:08:03 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> On 10/23/2016 8:09 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>> 1. No material or physical length contraction.
>>>>
>>>> Which is it? These mean two different things. If they are the same thing
>>>> in your language, then this means you're using a different language.
>>>
>>> They are the same thing according to the dictionary.
>>>
>>
>> Ken, the usage of a term depends on context. If you pick a definition
>> that is wrong for the context, then you have made a mistake.
>
> For over 100 years you (SR) were not able to explain to the public the
> difference between material and physical.
and a member of the public, and I read. What I've read has explained to
me perfectly the difference between material and physical. The reason
why YOU PERSONALLY do not know the difference between material and
physical is because you have not bother to read.
>
>>
>> Physics involves the study of interactions of matter and energy, along
>> with the properties of geometric symmetries that govern both the laws of
>> those interactions and observed behaviors.
>
> How does matter interacts with energy?
several chapters. I just finished one by Roger Newton.
>>
>> Surely you're not going to say that energy is material or that geometric
>> symmetries of physical laws are material.
>>
>
> I am saying that material follows the geometries exist in the E-Matrix
> and those geometries are caused by the absolute motions of the interacting
> particles (matter).
>
physicists say first before you propose your own. Every single person
who has made a contribution to physics has done that. No exceptions.
al...@interia.pl
26 d’oct. 2016, 13:06:0626/10/16
a
W dniu poniedziałek, 24 października 2016 16:12:01 UTC+2 użytkownik kenseto
> Contraction or expansion is dependent on the moving meter stick's absolute motion compared to the observer's absolute motion.
That is just the standard which Lorentz has discovered long time ago.
> No idiot.....An IRT observer predicts that the light-path length of a meter stick moving wrt him is contracted by a factor of 1/gamma meters if such meter stick is in a higher state of absolute motion than the IRT observer and the light-path length of such meter stick expands by a factor of gamma meters if it is in slower state of absolute motion than the IRT observer. Gee you are stupid.
So, your IRT is another limited submodel of the oryginal Lorentz LET,
like the idiotic SR is..
BTW.
An observed length of moving body is completely different than the stupid L/gamma.
> Contraction or expansion is dependent on the moving meter stick's absolute motion compared to the observer's absolute motion.
> No idiot.....An IRT observer predicts that the light-path length of a meter stick moving wrt him is contracted by a factor of 1/gamma meters if such meter stick is in a higher state of absolute motion than the IRT observer and the light-path length of such meter stick expands by a factor of gamma meters if it is in slower state of absolute motion than the IRT observer. Gee you are stupid.
like the idiotic SR is..
BTW.
An observed length of moving body is completely different than the stupid L/gamma.
kenseto
26 d’oct. 2016, 16:27:4726/10/16
a
On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 1:06:06 PM UTC-4, al...@interia.pl wrote:
> W dniu poniedziałek, 24 października 2016 16:12:01 UTC+2 użytkownik kenseto
>
> > Contraction or expansion is dependent on the moving meter stick's absolute motion compared to the observer's absolute motion.
>
>
> That is just the standard which Lorentz has discovered long time ago.
>
> > No idiot.....An IRT observer predicts that the light-path length of a meter stick moving wrt him is contracted by a factor of 1/gamma meters if such meter stick is in a higher state of absolute motion than the IRT observer and the light-path length of such meter stick expands by a factor of gamma meters if it is in slower state of absolute motion than the IRT observer. Gee you are stupid.
>
> So, your IRT is another limited submodel of the oryginal Lorentz LET,
> like the idiotic SR is..
No idiot....Lorentz's LET does not have length expansion. IRT is completely new.....it posits that the light-path length of a moving meter stick is contracted or expanded. dependent on the state of absolute motion compared to the observer's absolute motion.
> W dniu poniedziałek, 24 października 2016 16:12:01 UTC+2 użytkownik kenseto
>
> > Contraction or expansion is dependent on the moving meter stick's absolute motion compared to the observer's absolute motion.
>
>
> That is just the standard which Lorentz has discovered long time ago.
>
> > No idiot.....An IRT observer predicts that the light-path length of a meter stick moving wrt him is contracted by a factor of 1/gamma meters if such meter stick is in a higher state of absolute motion than the IRT observer and the light-path length of such meter stick expands by a factor of gamma meters if it is in slower state of absolute motion than the IRT observer. Gee you are stupid.
>
> So, your IRT is another limited submodel of the oryginal Lorentz LET,
> like the idiotic SR is..
kenseto
26 d’oct. 2016, 16:34:2026/10/16
a
On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 10:29:34 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 10/24/2016 3:34 PM, kenseto wrote:
> > On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 10:37:24 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 10/24/2016 9:27 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >>> On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 9:08:03 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>> On 10/23/2016 8:09 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >>>>> 1. No material or physical length contraction.
> >>>>
> >>>> Which is it? These mean two different things. If they are the same thing
> >>>> in your language, then this means you're using a different language.
> >>>
> >>> They are the same thing according to the dictionary.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Ken, the usage of a term depends on context. If you pick a definition
> >> that is wrong for the context, then you have made a mistake.
> >
> > For over 100 years you (SR) were not able to explain to the public the
> > difference between material and physical.
>
> Ken, you place yourself as the proxy for "the public". I am a woodworker
> and a member of the public, and I read. What I've read has explained to
> me perfectly the difference between material and physical. The reason
> why YOU PERSONALLY do not know the difference between material and
> physical is because you have not bother to read.
Idiot....geometric projection is not physical.
> On 10/24/2016 3:34 PM, kenseto wrote:
> > On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 10:37:24 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 10/24/2016 9:27 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >>> On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 9:08:03 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>> On 10/23/2016 8:09 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >>>>> 1. No material or physical length contraction.
> >>>>
> >>>> Which is it? These mean two different things. If they are the same thing
> >>>> in your language, then this means you're using a different language.
> >>>
> >>> They are the same thing according to the dictionary.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Ken, the usage of a term depends on context. If you pick a definition
> >> that is wrong for the context, then you have made a mistake.
> >
> > For over 100 years you (SR) were not able to explain to the public the
> > difference between material and physical.
>
> Ken, you place yourself as the proxy for "the public". I am a woodworker
> and a member of the public, and I read. What I've read has explained to
> me perfectly the difference between material and physical. The reason
> why YOU PERSONALLY do not know the difference between material and
> physical is because you have not bother to read.
>
> >
> >>
> >> Physics involves the study of interactions of matter and energy, along
> >> with the properties of geometric symmetries that govern both the laws of
> >> those interactions and observed behaviors.
> >
> > How does matter interacts with energy?
>
> There are many books that explain this beautifully over the course of
> several chapters. I just finished one by Roger Newton.
>
> >>
> >> Surely you're not going to say that energy is material or that geometric
> >> symmetries of physical laws are material.
> >>
> >
> > I am saying that material follows the geometries exist in the E-Matrix
> > and those geometries are caused by the absolute motions of the interacting
> > particles (matter).
> >
>
> You have not learned yet what physicists say. You need to learn what
> physicists say first before you propose your own. Every single person
> who has made a contribution to physics has done that. No exceptions.
I have a new theory....just as Einstein when he wrote the SR paper, he did not refer to other theories of his time.
> >
> >>
> >> Physics involves the study of interactions of matter and energy, along
> >> with the properties of geometric symmetries that govern both the laws of
> >> those interactions and observed behaviors.
> >
> > How does matter interacts with energy?
>
> There are many books that explain this beautifully over the course of
> several chapters. I just finished one by Roger Newton.
>
> >>
> >> Surely you're not going to say that energy is material or that geometric
> >> symmetries of physical laws are material.
> >>
> >
> > I am saying that material follows the geometries exist in the E-Matrix
> > and those geometries are caused by the absolute motions of the interacting
> > particles (matter).
> >
>
> You have not learned yet what physicists say. You need to learn what
> physicists say first before you propose your own. Every single person
> who has made a contribution to physics has done that. No exceptions.
al...@interia.pl
26 d’oct. 2016, 17:04:3126/10/16
a
W dniu środa, 26 października 2016 22:27:47 UTC+2 użytkownik kenseto napisał:
> No idiot....Lorentz's LET does not have length expansion. IRT is completely new.....it posits that the light-path length of a moving meter stick is contracted or expanded. dependent on the state of absolute motion compared to the observer's absolute motion.
OK. I see you are completely stupid.
> No idiot....Lorentz's LET does not have length expansion. IRT is completely new.....it posits that the light-path length of a moving meter stick is contracted or expanded. dependent on the state of absolute motion compared to the observer's absolute motion.
everything is reversible:
contraction <-> expansion.
Walter Bautista
26 d’oct. 2016, 18:13:0126/10/16
a
Entropy etc. Learn Physics, my friend, don't be like them, loving
Relativity without knowing what lies behind that.
JanPB
26 d’oct. 2016, 22:45:3026/10/16
a
--
Jan
kenseto
27 d’oct. 2016, 9:40:4427/10/16
a
Odd Bodkin
27 d’oct. 2016, 12:03:4927/10/16
a
On 10/26/2016 3:34 PM, kenseto wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 10:29:34 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 10/24/2016 3:34 PM, kenseto wrote:
>>> On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 10:37:24 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> On 10/24/2016 9:27 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 9:08:03 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/23/2016 8:09 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>>> 1. No material or physical length contraction.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which is it? These mean two different things. If they are the same thing
>>>>>> in your language, then this means you're using a different language.
>>>>>
>>>>> They are the same thing according to the dictionary.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ken, the usage of a term depends on context. If you pick a definition
>>>> that is wrong for the context, then you have made a mistake.
>>>
>>> For over 100 years you (SR) were not able to explain to the public the
>>> difference between material and physical.
>>
>> Ken, you place yourself as the proxy for "the public". I am a woodworker
>> and a member of the public, and I read. What I've read has explained to
>> me perfectly the difference between material and physical. The reason
>> why YOU PERSONALLY do not know the difference between material and
>> physical is because you have not bother to read.
>
> Idiot....geometric projection is not physical.
Oh yes, it is. Read a book.
> On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 10:29:34 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 10/24/2016 3:34 PM, kenseto wrote:
>>> On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 10:37:24 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> On 10/24/2016 9:27 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 9:08:03 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/23/2016 8:09 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>>> 1. No material or physical length contraction.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which is it? These mean two different things. If they are the same thing
>>>>>> in your language, then this means you're using a different language.
>>>>>
>>>>> They are the same thing according to the dictionary.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ken, the usage of a term depends on context. If you pick a definition
>>>> that is wrong for the context, then you have made a mistake.
>>>
>>> For over 100 years you (SR) were not able to explain to the public the
>>> difference between material and physical.
>>
>> Ken, you place yourself as the proxy for "the public". I am a woodworker
>> and a member of the public, and I read. What I've read has explained to
>> me perfectly the difference between material and physical. The reason
>> why YOU PERSONALLY do not know the difference between material and
>> physical is because you have not bother to read.
>
> Idiot....geometric projection is not physical.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Physics involves the study of interactions of matter and energy, along
>>>> with the properties of geometric symmetries that govern both the laws of
>>>> those interactions and observed behaviors.
>>>
>>> How does matter interacts with energy?
>>
>> There are many books that explain this beautifully over the course of
>> several chapters. I just finished one by Roger Newton.
>>
>>>>
>>>> Surely you're not going to say that energy is material or that geometric
>>>> symmetries of physical laws are material.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I am saying that material follows the geometries exist in the E-Matrix
>>> and those geometries are caused by the absolute motions of the interacting
>>> particles (matter).
>>>
>>
>> You have not learned yet what physicists say. You need to learn what
>> physicists say first before you propose your own. Every single person
>> who has made a contribution to physics has done that. No exceptions.
>
> I have a new theory....just as Einstein when he wrote the SR paper, he did not
> refer to other theories of his time.
Walter Bautista
27 d’oct. 2016, 12:37:2127/10/16
a
Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> I have a new theory....just as Einstein when he wrote the SR paper, he
>> did not refer to other theories of his time.
>
> But Einstein READ and KNEW the other theories of his time. You don't.
Too bad, you can't prove that. Quite the contrary. He probably thereafter
>> I have a new theory....just as Einstein when he wrote the SR paper, he
>> did not refer to other theories of his time.
>
> But Einstein READ and KNEW the other theories of his time. You don't.
never would gain enough courage to come up with Relativity. Good post.
kenseto
27 d’oct. 2016, 14:49:2027/10/16
a
On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 12:03:49 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 10/26/2016 3:34 PM, kenseto wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 10:29:34 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 10/24/2016 3:34 PM, kenseto wrote:
> >>> On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 10:37:24 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>> On 10/24/2016 9:27 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 9:08:03 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>>> On 10/23/2016 8:09 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >>>>>>> 1. No material or physical length contraction.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Which is it? These mean two different things. If they are the same thing
> >>>>>> in your language, then this means you're using a different language.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> They are the same thing according to the dictionary.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Ken, the usage of a term depends on context. If you pick a definition
> >>>> that is wrong for the context, then you have made a mistake.
> >>>
> >>> For over 100 years you (SR) were not able to explain to the public the
> >>> difference between material and physical.
> >>
> >> Ken, you place yourself as the proxy for "the public". I am a woodworker
> >> and a member of the public, and I read. What I've read has explained to
> >> me perfectly the difference between material and physical. The reason
> >> why YOU PERSONALLY do not know the difference between material and
> >> physical is because you have not bother to read.
> >
> > Idiot....geometric projection is not physical.
>
> Oh yes, it is. Read a book.
No its not.....projection is not physical. That's why it's called projection.
> On 10/26/2016 3:34 PM, kenseto wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 10:29:34 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 10/24/2016 3:34 PM, kenseto wrote:
> >>> On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 10:37:24 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>> On 10/24/2016 9:27 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 9:08:03 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>>> On 10/23/2016 8:09 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >>>>>>> 1. No material or physical length contraction.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Which is it? These mean two different things. If they are the same thing
> >>>>>> in your language, then this means you're using a different language.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> They are the same thing according to the dictionary.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Ken, the usage of a term depends on context. If you pick a definition
> >>>> that is wrong for the context, then you have made a mistake.
> >>>
> >>> For over 100 years you (SR) were not able to explain to the public the
> >>> difference between material and physical.
> >>
> >> Ken, you place yourself as the proxy for "the public". I am a woodworker
> >> and a member of the public, and I read. What I've read has explained to
> >> me perfectly the difference between material and physical. The reason
> >> why YOU PERSONALLY do not know the difference between material and
> >> physical is because you have not bother to read.
> >
> > Idiot....geometric projection is not physical.
>
> Oh yes, it is. Read a book.
>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Physics involves the study of interactions of matter and energy, along
> >>>> with the properties of geometric symmetries that govern both the laws of
> >>>> those interactions and observed behaviors.
> >>>
> >>> How does matter interacts with energy?
> >>
> >> There are many books that explain this beautifully over the course of
> >> several chapters. I just finished one by Roger Newton.
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> Surely you're not going to say that energy is material or that geometric
> >>>> symmetries of physical laws are material.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> I am saying that material follows the geometries exist in the E-Matrix
> >>> and those geometries are caused by the absolute motions of the interacting
> >>> particles (matter).
> >>>
> >>
> >> You have not learned yet what physicists say. You need to learn what
> >> physicists say first before you propose your own. Every single person
> >> who has made a contribution to physics has done that. No exceptions.
> >
> > I have a new theory....just as Einstein when he wrote the SR paper, he did not
> > refer to other theories of his time.
>
> But Einstein READ and KNEW the other theories of his time. You don't.
Einstein said that he didn't read the MMX.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Physics involves the study of interactions of matter and energy, along
> >>>> with the properties of geometric symmetries that govern both the laws of
> >>>> those interactions and observed behaviors.
> >>>
> >>> How does matter interacts with energy?
> >>
> >> There are many books that explain this beautifully over the course of
> >> several chapters. I just finished one by Roger Newton.
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> Surely you're not going to say that energy is material or that geometric
> >>>> symmetries of physical laws are material.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> I am saying that material follows the geometries exist in the E-Matrix
> >>> and those geometries are caused by the absolute motions of the interacting
> >>> particles (matter).
> >>>
> >>
> >> You have not learned yet what physicists say. You need to learn what
> >> physicists say first before you propose your own. Every single person
> >> who has made a contribution to physics has done that. No exceptions.
> >
> > I have a new theory....just as Einstein when he wrote the SR paper, he did not
> > refer to other theories of his time.
>
> But Einstein READ and KNEW the other theories of his time. You don't.
Walter Bautista
27 d’oct. 2016, 14:55:3827/10/16
a
kenseto wrote:
>> > Idiot....geometric projection is not physical.
>>
>> Oh yes, it is. Read a book.
>
> No its not.....projection is not physical. That's why it's called
> projection.
So a shadow is not physical?
>> > Idiot....geometric projection is not physical.
>>
>> Oh yes, it is. Read a book.
>
> No its not.....projection is not physical. That's why it's called
> projection.
al...@interia.pl
27 d’oct. 2016, 15:26:0427/10/16
a
In the human stupid science, called as a physics, everything is completely irreversible!
Not only your stupid turbulence, noise, ... but any complex process,
because these are irreversible by definition, in general.
But it's due to the lack of the human knowledge, not any factual rule.
And the entropy is just the entity, which describes that state:
a lack of the human knowledge.
Walter Bautista
27 d’oct. 2016, 15:55:5427/10/16
a
alsor wrote:
>> > everything is reversible: contraction <-> expansion.
>>
>> Except when it is not. As for instance due to a turbulent flow, noise,
>> Entropy etc. Learn Physics, my friend, don't be like them, loving
>> Relativity without knowing what lies behind that.
>
> Don't improvise, stupid.
> In the human stupid science, called as a physics, everything is
> completely irreversible! Not only your stupid turbulence, noise, ... but
> any complex process, because these are irreversible by definition, in
> general. But it's due to the lack of the human knowledge, not any
> factual rule. And the entropy is just the entity, which describes that
> state: a lack of the human knowledge.
Deep words. You are so intelligent. My bad, I didn't expect you to be so
>> > everything is reversible: contraction <-> expansion.
>>
>> Except when it is not. As for instance due to a turbulent flow, noise,
>> Entropy etc. Learn Physics, my friend, don't be like them, loving
>> Relativity without knowing what lies behind that.
>
> Don't improvise, stupid.
> In the human stupid science, called as a physics, everything is
> completely irreversible! Not only your stupid turbulence, noise, ... but
> any complex process, because these are irreversible by definition, in
> general. But it's due to the lack of the human knowledge, not any
> factual rule. And the entropy is just the entity, which describes that
> state: a lack of the human knowledge.
intelligent. I didn't expect you not to be stupid. Sorry.
Python
27 d’oct. 2016, 16:46:4427/10/16
a
group. Actually quite a good point, brilliant, concise and right.
Odd Bodkin
2 de nov. 2016, 9:13:272/11/16
a
this or think that.
Physicists say geometric projection is physical. It's physicists who get
to say what is physical or not, not you.
>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Physics involves the study of interactions of matter and energy, along
>>>>>> with the properties of geometric symmetries that govern both the laws of
>>>>>> those interactions and observed behaviors.
>>>>>
>>>>> How does matter interacts with energy?
>>>>
>>>> There are many books that explain this beautifully over the course of
>>>> several chapters. I just finished one by Roger Newton.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Surely you're not going to say that energy is material or that geometric
>>>>>> symmetries of physical laws are material.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I am saying that material follows the geometries exist in the E-Matrix
>>>>> and those geometries are caused by the absolute motions of the interacting
>>>>> particles (matter).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You have not learned yet what physicists say. You need to learn what
>>>> physicists say first before you propose your own. Every single person
>>>> who has made a contribution to physics has done that. No exceptions.
>>>
>>> I have a new theory....just as Einstein when he wrote the SR paper, he did not
>>> refer to other theories of his time.
>>
>> But Einstein READ and KNEW the other theories of his time. You don't.
>
> Einstein said that he didn't read the MMX.
theories or the experiments.
Furthermore, Einstein did say that he was aware of the MMX at the time
he wrote his paper in 1905. It just wasn't his primary motivation in
coming up with special relativity. It was Maxwellian electrodynamics,
which was still relatively new back then. Note that you don't even know
Maxwellian electrodynamics TODAY, 111 later, nor do you know relativity.
It is a historical fact that every single person who has made a
contribution to physics has learned what physics says first. You haven't.
0 missatges nous