WISH: "Show Me A Prediction of Relativity That Is Wrong!!!" --- GRANTED
S T R I C H
universal validity, taunting us to 'show us a prediction of relativity
that is wrong'. I always thought this was a rhetorical question, for
many predictions of relativity are wrong, and the few that are correct
were post -hoc predictions, or a fortunate happenstance. (We must
remind ourselves that the Ptolemaic theory made correct predictions
and stood the test of experiment and observation for well over a
thousand years.)
However, one must not underestimate ignorance. It appears that
relativists indeed believe the theory has made no wrong prediciton. I
am thus inclined to illustrate a wrong prediction, and elaborate on an
experiment that precisely shows this wrong prediction of the Theory of
Relativity. The beauty of this experiment is that it is very simple,
and it can be performed by any student as long as he is aware of some
basic facts. We shall show that the predicted length contraction and
time dilation by the Special Theory of Relativity does not occur, and
is therefore wrong.
===============================================================
The EXPERIMENT:
The first part of the experiment is locating an object with a well-
defined height. That can be yourself, a post, or a tree. For
historical reasons, a tree would be ideal. Newton was famous with his
apple tree, Washington with his cherry tree, Canada with its maple
tree, Judas with the Cercis siliquastrum, the Little Prince with the
baobab tree, and so on. Bamboos, banana plants and other members of
the monocotyledon family would not do as they grow too fast and this
may confound the experiment. I prefer to use the Papaya tree. For
simplicity, choose a tree that is about as tall as you. Also, hang
your watch on a branch of the tree. I myself prefer the Rolex
Yachtmaster with gold trim and a blue face. Yes I know the white
face looks more majestic, but we geniuses have strange tastes.
EXPERIMENT STEP 1: MEASURE THE HEIGHT OF THE TREE. THIS WOULD BE
ABOUT 2 METERS. NOTE THAT SINCE THE TREE IS PRACTICALLY AT REST WITH
RESPECT TO YOU, WHAT YOU ARE MEASURING IS ITS HEIGHT (or LENGTH) AT
REST. NOTE THAT THE CLOCK IS TICKING AT ITS RESTING PACE.
Now the second part of the experiment is the modern part. When
Einstein formulated his Special Theory of Relativity, few particles
were known at the time, much less about their velocities or natural
incidence. Thus Einstein with impunity could make predictions about
objects moving close to the speed of light. After all, where are such
objects to be found! However, in these modern times, we know that
subluminal particles not only exist, they exist everywhere and all the
time. There are neutrinos, cosmic rays, muons, and so on constantly
bombarding us from all directions and at all moments. We do not need
so many. Let us choose just one. My preference is for the cosmic ray
particle zooming in directly from above with a speed of 0.995c. Now
we all know from the Theory of Relativity that this particular
particle, like any particle for that matter, has its own reference
frame which is equally valid for making observations. From the
reference frame of this particle, the tree, you and everything on
earth is travelling at 0.995c towards it.
EXPERIMENT STEP 2: LET THE PARTICLE OBSERVE THE TREE. THE PARTICLE
WOULD MEASURE THE TREE TRAVELLING RELATIVE TO IT AT 0.995c TO BE
CONTRACTED TO 0.2 METERS. NOTE THAT THE WATCH WOULD NOW TICK 10 TIMES
SLOWER.
Any follower of Einstein and his Relativity Theories would have no
argument or dispute with the 2 simple steps above. For indeed the
Lorentz transforms dictate no length contraction or time dilation is
seen by the observer beside the tree, while the same Lorentz
transforms shall dictate that the particle measure the tree as
contracted and the watch hanging from its branch as running slow. At
this point, both steps are simple and indisputable.
EXPERIMENT STEP 3: AS THE PARTICLE OBSERVES THE TREE TO BE CONTRACTED
AND THE WATCH TO BE DILATED, WE WHO ARE STANDING RIGHT BESIDE THE TREE
AND THE WATCH DURING ALL THIS TIME, OBSERVE NO SUCH THING.
CONCLUSION: WE ARE FORCED TO CONCLUDE THAT THE PREDICTED LENGTH
CONTRACTION AND TIME DILATION THAT THE PARTICLE MUST OBERVE OF THE
TREE AND ITS WATCH RESPECTIVELY DO NOT OCCUR. There is NO MEASUREABLE
CHANGE, whether PHYSICAL, CONSTITUTIONAL, ACTUAL, REAL, APPARENT OR
OTHERWISE, NOTHING that can be MEASURED OR OBSERVED, that suggests
that THE TREE HAS BEEN CONTRACTED DUE TO ITS RELATIVE SPEED OF 0.995c
WITH RESPECT TO THE PARTICLE. The experiment can be repeated as many
times as indicated to the satisfaction of the relativists.
(copyrighted to David Strich @2010)
===============================================================
Let me predict a some of the replies. A relativist may respond that
from the standpoint of the particle, the tree, the person and the
measuring stick would all contract, so therefore, the relativistic
changes that the particle observes would be transparent to the
person. This argument can be dismissed in 2 ways. From a logical and
theoretical standpoint, if the relativistic changes are transparent to
the object itself undergoing contraction, then such change becomes
superfluous, as it cannot be observed. The second argument is more
direct and experimental. The person merely chops down the papaya
tree, ala Washington, and now the tree’s height is perpendicular to
the motion of the particle, and would be expected to uncontract (since
Einstein argued the contraction is only along the direction of
motion). Further, as the tree uncontracts in its height, its girth,
which is now along the direction of motion of the particle, should
contract, and now we are left with a tree that is much thinner and
longer than it was, surely an effect that one should not miss at all.
Since these changes would not be observed, then again the predicted
length contraction is an erroneous prediction by a fallacious theory.
It is irrelevant that there have been indirect experimental evidence
of length contraction and time dilation. The experiment above is
direct evidence of the absence of lenght contraction and time
dilation, and must supersede all indirent proofs.
But in the end all this is academic. Since by definition the person
observes the tree as at rest, any measurements he makes is the rest
length. Since at the same time the tree has contracted according to
the particle, such contraction should be experienced by the tree
(which is the object itself undergoing contraction) and observed by
the person, as such contraction must be physical, material, or at the
very least an occurrence in reality. Now if such contraction cannot
be observed or documented, then it must not occur at all.
Finally, it is easy to say relativity is wrong, and it is easy to
prove that is so (for the thick-headed please review above
experiment). However, the more difficult question is, then what is
the correct replacement theory. This kind of detail is beyond the
scope of usenet, and is more appropriate in the setting of an academic
peer reviewed journal or scientific meeting. However, until the
gatekeepers have accepted that relativity is wrong, there is no
further point in bringing such a new theory to the establishment, even
with its complement of proofs and predictions, for it will only be
ridiculed and its author discredited. Until then, the extablishment
would have to make do with their substandard model until they are
ready to receive the replacement model.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inasmuch as the foregoing experiment is simple, straighforward and
logical, I foresee no further need to address any replies. Also, this
group is blessed with many smart free thinkers, and I have all the
trust that they will be able to carry on from here any discussions and
arguments that the closed minded and blinded relativists may try to
foment. Thank you.
Dono.
>snip imbecilities<
The above cretin is back.
Androcles
"S T R I C H" <stric...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:71e936c3-7462-4d56...@i17g2000vbq.googlegroups.com...
Time and again, one hears of a challenge from some relativist claiming
universal validity, taunting us to 'show us a prediction of relativity
that is wrong'. I always thought this was a rhetorical question, for
many predictions of relativity are wrong, and the few that are correct
were post -hoc predictions, or a fortunate happenstance. (We must
remind ourselves that the Ptolemaic theory made correct predictions
and stood the test of experiment and observation for well over a
thousand years.)
However, one must not underestimate ignorance. It appears that
relativists indeed believe the theory has made no wrong prediciton. I
am thus inclined to illustrate a wrong prediction, and elaborate on an
experiment that precisely shows this wrong prediction of the Theory of
Relativity. The beauty of this experiment is that it is very simple,
and it can be performed by any student as long as he is aware of some
basic facts. We shall show that the predicted length contraction
===========================================
Bullshit, relativity predicts length expansion. Do the math and get
your facts right, you are only adding your own ignorance to the shit
already hitting the fan.
Want me to do it for you?
sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) is less than 1.
"Let there be given a stationary rigid rod; and let its length be L as
measured by a measuring-rod which is also stationary. We now imagine the
axis of the rod lying along the axis of x of the stationary system of
co-ordinates, and that a uniform motion of parallel translation with
velocity v along the axis of x in the direction of increasing x is then
imparted to the rod. " -- Einstein.
New length = L /(something less than 1)
for example, 2 = 1/0.5
One must not underestimate ignorance, but toucan, bird brain.
hagman
Jump out of a plnae. You will observe that the earth looks
like moving towards you.
But we doen here standing on the ground see that the earth is not
moving at
all (no, it is not even rotating around its axis or walking around the
sun - how else could I keep me feet firmly on the ground?)
Therefore the movement of the earth towards yourself does not exist.
As a consequence you do not need a parachute.
Tom Roberts
>[...]
Before you can present a prediction of SR that is wrong, you must UNDERSTAND the
theory. You clearly do not. Your attempt fails, because you demonstrated no
prediction that is wrong, you just presented word salad.
Tom Roberts
Androcles
"Tom Roberts" <tjro...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:75CdnbPCE-D...@giganews.com...
| On 9/28/10 9/28/10 - 10:15 AM, S T R I C H wrote:
| >[...]
|
hanson
Einstein Dingleberry "Dono." aka kike Karandash
<http://tinyurl.com/Strich-NO-length-contraction>
>
Androcles wrote:
<http://tinyurl.com/Andro-Its-Lenght-Expansion>
>
Dono who Dunno wrote:
>snip imbecilities<
>
hagman wrote:
As a consequence you do not need a parachute.
>
.... you just presented word salad.
>
hanson wrote:
ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... Now let's see what the
founder & final arbiter of relativity had to say about that:
>
|||AE:||| "as far as the laws of mathematics refer to
|||AE:||| reality, they are not certain; and as far as they
|||AE:||| are certain, they do not refer to reality."
|||AE:||| "Why would anyone be interested in getting exact
|||AE:||| solutions from such an ephemeral set of equations?"
|||AE:||| "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be
|||AE:||| based on the field concept, i. e., on continuous
|||AE:||| structures. In that case nothing remains of my entire
||AE:||| castle in the air, [my] gravitation theory included."
>
and here is how seriously Einstein took his relativity
from a practical, gainful employment perspective:
>
||AE:||| "If I had my life to live over again, I'd be a plumber".
||AE:||| ... [and I would make blouses instead [see link]]
<http://tinyurl.com/Blouse-Plumber-Einstein>
>
Thanks for the laughs, guys... ahahahaha... ahahanson
>
Saul Levy
So?
We still have MANY OTHER CRETINS!
Saul Levy
On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 08:33:25 -0700 (PDT), "Dono." <sa...@comcast.net>
wrote:
Dirk Van de moortel
71e936c3-7462-4d56...@i17g2000vbq.googlegroups.com
[snip waste of electrons]
> Let me predict a some of the replies.
Apparently you failed to predict the most obvious replies.
[snip more waste]
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Inasmuch as the foregoing experiment is simple, straighforward and
> logical, I foresee no further need to address any replies.
Now, *that* is a good idea.
Congratulations.
Dirk Vdm
PD
You said that a prediction of relativity is wrong. But relativity
doesn't predict that the tree is contracted or the clock slowed in the
Earth's rest frame. So you haven't yet found a prediction of
relativity that is wrong. Maybe it would help to learn what relativity
predicts.
Androcles
"PD" <thedrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e778e2cc-0767-42ae...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
===============================================
Relativity predicts:
Clock A reads 6:00 am at dawn, its a perfect clock.
Clock B reads 12:00 pm at noon, its a perfect clock.
Clock A remains in synch with Earth wherever it goes because
"In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
tB-tA = t'A-tB",clock A can see the Earth and Earth can see
clock A, "the ``time'' required by light to travel from A to B
equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A."-- Einstein.
Because of time dilation, "if one of two synchronous clocks
at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity until
it returns to A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by the clock
which has remained at rest the travelled clock on its arrival at
A will be 1/2 tv^2/c^2 second slow." -- Einstein.
Clock A meets clock B at A and is 6 hours slow. Both clocks
synchronize with Earth. Therefore clock A meets clock B at
dawn and clock B sees clock A arrive at noon.
Relativity further predicts you are a rancid fat, Mallard.
Gc
wrong. But contra Popper a scientific theory does not get falsified
after just few observations that contradict the theory if there is no
better theory to replace it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly
S T R I C H
> > Inasmuch as the foregoing experiment is simple, straighforward and
> > logical, I foresee no further need to address any replies. Also, this
> > group is blessed with many smart free thinkers, and I have all the
> > trust that they will be able to carry on from here any discussions and
> > arguments that the closed minded and blinded relativists may try to
> > foment. Thank you.
>
> You said that a prediction of relativity is wrong. But relativity
> doesn't predict that the tree is contracted or the clock slowed in the
> Earth's rest frame. So you haven't yet found a prediction of
> relativity that is wrong. Maybe it would help to learn what relativity
>
> - Show quoted text -
You agree that the cosmic ray particle observes the tree, including
every other inhabitant of the earth, such as you, to be contracted?
Yes?
Can you show us measureable evidence that you have contracted?
No?
Paul Cardinale
Testing a theory requires: actually executing an experiment that
includes making measurements, performing an error analysis of the
experiment, calculating what values the theory predicts will be
measured, and comparing the measured values to the calculated values.
Most 4th graders have a better understanding of science that you do.
Paul Cardinale
Androcles
"Gc" <gcu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d76e926e-d7a4-49f7...@z28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
that's all.
PD
Since it's hard to strap a ruler on a cosmic-ray muon, then this
becomes difficult.
Fortunately, in experimental physics, you can take advantage of the
fact that a prediction is based on a general principle. Therefore, one
does not HAVE to check that the principle works in every single
application. One can just *choose* an application or a few where it is
easier to make the measurement and then see if the principle works in
those. And indeed this has been done in a few cases. One example that
I point out is the Lorentz contraction of calorimeter segments and how
those are illuminated in particle accelerators. This has been compared
in two different reference frames (called collider machines and fixed-
target machines) for otherwise identical processes, and in fact, the
contraction works exactly as predicted. This, plus a few similar
applications, provides sufficient evidence that the predictions of
relativity are supported, and you then do not have to go out and check
that length contraction works in every single instance where it might
apply.
For time dilation, there is another example of mutual time dilation
that has been documented fully outside of the newsgroup but described
briefly in this newsgroup not too long ago. I'm sure you can find it.
But summarizing, I just want to point out that the *lack* of
experimental evidence in support of a claim of relativity under a
particular application is not at all equivalent to evidence AGAINST
relativity. Evidence against relativity would be of the sort you tried
to put together, where there is a specific relativistic claim about
what will be measured on certain clocks and rulers in a particular
reference frame, and where the results of those measurements are NOT
the same.
jmor...@idirect.com
> Time and again, one hears of a challenge from some relativist claiming
> universal validity, taunting us to 'show us a prediction of relativity
...
...
> Inasmuch as the foregoing experiment is simple, straighforward and
> logical, I foresee no further need to address any replies. Also, this
> group is blessed with many smart free thinkers, and I have all the
> trust that they will be able to carry on from here any discussions and
> arguments that the closed minded and blinded relativists may try to
> foment. Thank you.
With all the spare time (in any frame) that you will now have, you
could perhaps profit by going almost 50 years into the past, amd
viewing this classic film:
http://www.scivee.tv/node/2415
It postulates almost the exact gedanken experiment you discussed, and
actually carries it out.
BTW, no part of SR predicts that an observer's view of his frame will
be changed by the existence of a movinf observer,,,
Androcles
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope. Using the same racetrack and the same clock, the muon
wins against the photon in the race. The only difficulty is your
very credible stupidity and ignorance of science.
S T R I C H
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/5e90ed510097b152
> > You agree that the cosmic ray particle observes the tree, including
> > every other inhabitant of the earth, such as you, to be contracted?
> > Yes?
>
> > Can you show us measureable evidence that you have contracted?
> > No?
>
> Since it's hard to strap a ruler on a cosmic-ray muon, then this
> becomes difficult.
>
> Fortunately, in experimental physics, you can take advantage of the
> fact that a prediction is based on a general principle. Therefore, one
> does not HAVE to check that the principle works in every single
> application...
Correction: I used cosmic ray particle, not cosmic ray muon, there is
a difference.
Unfortunately, the Theory of Special Relativity has to work everytime,
not only in highly selected and specialized areas. That includes you,
who the Theory states are contracted. Thus PD has to believe he is
contracted, but has no evidence to show for it.
In summary, Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity tells us we are
already contracted to 10% of our size and are aging 10 times slower,
but no measureable observation pertaining to this can be made.
Androcles
<jmor...@idirect.com> wrote in message
news:fb67e30b-0625-4994...@h4g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 28, 11:15 am, S T R I C H <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Time and again, one hears of a challenge from some relativist claiming
> universal validity, taunting us to 'show us a prediction of relativity
...
...
...
> Inasmuch as the foregoing experiment is simple, straighforward and
> logical, I foresee no further need to address any replies. Also, this
> group is blessed with many smart free thinkers, and I have all the
> trust that they will be able to carry on from here any discussions and
> arguments that the closed minded and blinded relativists may try to
> foment. Thank you.
With all the spare time (in any frame) that you will now have, you
could perhaps profit by going almost 50 years into the past, amd
viewing this classic film:
http://www.scivee.tv/node/2415
=============================================
Bullshit then and bullshit now.
In a fair race between the muon and the photon, same racetrack,
same clock, muon wins. Prove otherwise, assertion about not
being able to exceed the speed of the photon isn't proof at all
and that's all you have to rely on.
PD
wrote:
> "PD" <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
You lie. Repeating a stale lie doesn't improve the flavor.
PD
> On Sep 28, 3:23 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/5e90ed51009...
>
> > > You agree that the cosmic ray particle observes the tree, including
> > > every other inhabitant of the earth, such as you, to be contracted?
> > > Yes?
>
> > > Can you show us measureable evidence that you have contracted?
> > > No?
>
> > Since it's hard to strap a ruler on a cosmic-ray muon, then this
> > becomes difficult.
>
> > Fortunately, in experimental physics, you can take advantage of the
> > fact that a prediction is based on a general principle. Therefore, one
> > does not HAVE to check that the principle works in every single
> > application...
>
> Correction: I used cosmic ray particle, not cosmic ray muon, there is
> a difference.
>
> Unfortunately, the Theory of Special Relativity has to work everytime,
> not only in highly selected and specialized areas. That includes you,
> who the Theory states are contracted. Thus PD has to believe he is
> contracted, but has no evidence to show for it.
I'm sorry, Strich, but the fact that the theory of relativity works
every time does NOT mean that it has to be tested every time. If you
think it does, then (to use an example used by someone else) it is
extremely important to test that Newtonian gravity works when you jump
from the roof of a 25 story building, and you should immediately
conduct that test to confirm Newtonian gravity, lest it be in doubt.
>
> In summary, Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity tells us we are
> already contracted to 10% of our size and are aging 10 times slower,
> but no measureable observation pertaining to this can be made.
It helps to know what relativity says, and that isn't what you've
written.
Androcles
=========================================
You are an ignorant lying cunt. Cosmic muons exceed the
speed of photons. All your experiments and calculations
are based on the erroneous belief and blind faith that they
cannot. Assertion carries no weight in science.
Androcles
On Sep 28, 2:40 pm, S T R I C H <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 28, 3:23 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com>
> wrote:http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/5e90ed51009...
>
> > > You agree that the cosmic ray particle observes the tree, including
> > > every other inhabitant of the earth, such as you, to be contracted?
> > > Yes?
>
> > > Can you show us measureable evidence that you have contracted?
> > > No?
>
> > Since it's hard to strap a ruler on a cosmic-ray muon, then this
> > becomes difficult.
>
> > Fortunately, in experimental physics, you can take advantage of the
> > fact that a prediction is based on a general principle. Therefore, one
> > does not HAVE to check that the principle works in every single
> > application...
>
> Correction: I used cosmic ray particle, not cosmic ray muon, there is
> a difference.
>
> Unfortunately, the Theory of Special Relativity has to work everytime,
> not only in highly selected and specialized areas. That includes you,
> who the Theory states are contracted. Thus PD has to believe he is
> contracted, but has no evidence to show for it.
I'm sorry, Strich
==================================
So you should be, you ignorant lying cunt.
S T R I C H
> I'm sorry, Strich, but the fact that the theory of relativity works
It does not work everytime. According to the Theory of Special
Relativity, you are contracted and time dilated by a factor of 10.
Show us the evidence of that supposed fact!
Show is the evidence of your own contraction!
Michael Moroney
>On Sep 28, 3:23=A0pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/5e90ed510097b152
>> Since it's hard to strap a ruler on a cosmic-ray muon, then this
>> becomes difficult.
>>
>> Fortunately, in experimental physics, you can take advantage of the
>> fact that a prediction is based on a general principle. Therefore, one
>> does not HAVE to check that the principle works in every single
>> application...
>Correction: I used cosmic ray particle, not cosmic ray muon, there is
>a difference.
>Unfortunately, the Theory of Special Relativity has to work everytime,
>not only in highly selected and specialized areas. That includes you,
>who the Theory states are contracted. Thus PD has to believe he is
>contracted, but has no evidence to show for it.
>In summary, Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity tells us we are
>already contracted to 10% of our size and are aging 10 times slower,
>but no measureable observation pertaining to this can be made.
FAIL. Frame-jumping.
Just as it is hard to strap a ruler to a cosmic ray particle to
prove what relativity predicts here, it's hard to strap a ruler to a
cosmic ray particle to try to disprove relativity. For you, Strich
to disprove relativity with this thought experiment, you'd have to
do the equivalent of strapping a ruler to a cosmic ray particle and
shows it measures something _different_ than 10% of size for earthbound
objects (including demonstrating they measure 100% of size).
You argument essentially is that PD doesn't see himself as 10% of his size
(frame jumping). Why would relativity claim that PD sees himself as 10%
of his size? He's not moving at 0.995c relative to himself!
It seems to me that most "proofs" that relativity doesn't work involve
frame jumping of some sort, and thus are doomed to be wrong.
PD
That's inconsistent with observations in the set-up of those cosmic
ray telescopes.
You've been corrected on this many times before. There's no reason to
dredge up the same old stuff again just because you're itching for a
fight.
S T R I C H
wrote:
> IDIOCY (hopefully it is not terminal)
It is not a thought experiment. It is an actual experiment. I have
measured no detectable evidence of contraction of any part of the
Earth, despite the fact that it is contracted by a factor of 10
according to the cosmic ray particle.
Are you trying to say there is another Earth somewhere where this
supposed contraction can be measured?
Think! You are standing on this same earth! Have you measured any
detectable evidence of contraction of this earth that is supposed to
be happening at this very moment?
This supposed contraction is a factor of 10 so it would not be easy to
miss.
Let me summarize it for you:
1: There is only one Earth.
2: It is contracted as observed by the CRP, by a factor of 10.
3: There must be some changes associated with this contraction that we
can measure.
4: Measurement results: NEGATIVE; Special Theory of Relativity:
FAILURE.
Androcles
======================================
Using the same racetrack and the same clock, the muon wins against
the photon in the race.
Repeating the truth makes you bitter because you are an ugly troll.
"I've lost interest. Foam and blather and waste all the time you want.
You're not getting anywhere." -- Phuckwit Mal-lard.
(Meaning "I lost that argument, those grapes are sour".)
Ref: d23006a4-4a88-4efb...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com
"You are not entitled to be educated. Someone who insists on
being willfully ignorant does not deserve to be dissuaded.
Nobody owes you anything. Nobody *should* do anything for
you. It's your choice to learn or not to learn."-- Phuckwit Mal-lard.
Ref: 571b8ace-cca8-4392...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com
Einstein did NOT write
1/2[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c+v)+x'/(c-v))]=tau(x',0,0, t+x'/(c-v))
<http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif>
and he did not write:
"indem man durch Definition festsetzt, daß die "Zeit", welche das
Licht braucht, um von A nach B zu gelangen, gleich ist der "Zeit",
welche es braucht, um von B nach A zu gelangen." -- Einstein
-- signed, Lying Illiterate Relativistic Dunce (LIRD).
What kind of lunacy prompted Einstein to NOT say
the speed of light from A=(0,0,0) to B=(x',0,0) is c-v,
the speed of light from B=(x',0,0) to A=(0,0,0) is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same and invent time dilation,
which he did not NOT do, no, not, no, not... no... nooo...?
Androcles
"Michael Moroney" <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
news:i7ti21$sj3$1...@pcls6.std.com...
| FAIL. Frame-jumping.
Clock A reads 6:00 am at dawn, its a perfect clock.
Clock B reads 12:00 pm at noon, its a perfect clock.
Clock A remains in synch with Earth wherever it goes because
"In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
tB-tA = t'A-tB",clock A can see the Earth and Earth can see
clock A, "the ``time'' required by light to travel from A to B
equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A."-- Einstein.
Because of time dilation, "if one of two synchronous clocks
at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity until
it returns to A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by the clock
which has remained at rest the travelled clock on its arrival at
A will be 1/2 tv^2/c^2 second slow." -- Einstein.
Clock A meets clock B at A and is 6 hours slow. Both clocks
synchronize with Earth. Therefore clock A meets clock B at
dawn and clock B sees clock A arrive at noon.
No frame jumping.
Idiot.
Dirk Van de moortel
fb67e30b-0625-4994...@h4g2000yqp.googlegroups.com
> On Sep 28, 11:15 am, S T R I C H <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Time and again, one hears of a challenge from some relativist claiming
>> universal validity, taunting us to 'show us a prediction of relativity
> ...
> ...
> ...
>
>> Inasmuch as the foregoing experiment is simple, straighforward and
>> logical, I foresee no further need to address any replies. Also, this
>> group is blessed with many smart free thinkers, and I have all the
>> trust that they will be able to carry on from here any discussions and
>> arguments that the closed minded and blinded relativists may try to
>> foment. Thank you.
>
> With all the spare time (in any frame) that you will now have, you
> could perhaps profit by going almost 50 years into the past, amd
> viewing this classic film:
>
> http://www.scivee.tv/node/2415
>
> It postulates almost the exact gedanken experiment you discussed, and
> actually carries it out.
Very nice.
Thaks for this link.
It's a miracle that ever since the sixties so many retired comic moron
particles managed to survive up to now. This is clearly another piece
of evidence for prolonged survival through relativistic time dilation.
>
> BTW, no part of SR predicts that an observer's view of his frame will
> be changed by the existence of a movinf observer,,,
Here's one specially crafted to drive Ken Seto insane for once and
for all:
http://www.scivee.tv/node/3025
Dirk Vdm
Michael Moroney
>On Sep 28, 4:09=A0pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
>wrote:
>> IDIOCY (hopefully it is not terminal)
I do hope your idiocy is not terminal.
>It is not a thought experiment. It is an actual experiment. I have
>measured no detectable evidence of contraction of any part of the
>Earth, despite the fact that it is contracted by a factor of 10
>according to the cosmic ray particle.
You strapped yourself to a cosmic ray particle and went flying by the
earth and measured things as you did so? Why don't you give me
details on how you managed to do this astounding feat! (until then,
pardon me while I disbelieve you)
>Think! You are standing on this same earth! Have you measured any
>detectable evidence of contraction of this earth that is supposed to
>be happening at this very moment?
FAIL. Frame jumping. Why would I measure any contraction in the earth
since I am certainly not moving at a relativistic speed with respect
to the earth!
>This supposed contraction is a factor of 10 so it would not be easy to
>miss.
And certainly anyone riding along with the cosmic ray particle wouldn't
miss it!
>Let me summarize it for you:
>1: There is only one Earth.
>2: It is contracted as observed by the CRP, by a factor of 10.
Important phrase here: "as observed by the CRP".
>3: There must be some changes associated with this contraction that we
>can measure.
That the cosmic ray particle can measure, yes.
(there. I fixed your frame jump for you.)
>4: Measurement results: NEGATIVE; Special Theory of Relativity:
>FAILURE.
Show me the results of what the cosmic ray particle measured before
claiming that.
PD
> On Sep 28, 3:51 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm sorry, Strich, but the fact that the theory of relativity works
> > every time does...
>
> It does not work everytime. According to the Theory of Special
> Relativity, you are contracted and time dilated by a factor of 10.
> Show us the evidence of that supposed fact!
You are contracted and time dilated only in the muon frame, not in the
Earth frame.
The *frame-dependence* of these effects is essential (and comic-book
basic) to relativity.
The measurements that show contraction would have to be done with
clocks and rulers at rest relative to the muon, not using clocks and
rulers at rest relative to the Earth.
You can insist all you want that you don't believe that it applies in
this case, even if it has been shown to apply elsewhere. You can foam
and bluster all day long that you won't believe it until it is
demonstrated in every case you can dream up. Nobody will care.
Physicists demonstrate principles using applications where the
measurements are feasible and they don't fret about the applications
where the measurements are not feasible.
>
> Show is the evidence of your own contraction!
Show us the evidence that Newtonian gravity works if you jump off a 24-
story building!!
Sam Wormley
Are There Any Good Books on Relativity Theory?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Administrivia/rel_booklist.html
Try reading one S T R I C H
PD
> On Sep 28, 4:09 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
> wrote:
>
> > IDIOCY (hopefully it is not terminal)
>
> It is not a thought experiment. It is an actual experiment. I have
> measured no detectable evidence of contraction of any part of the
> Earth, despite the fact that it is contracted by a factor of 10
> according to the cosmic ray particle.
>
> Are you trying to say there is another Earth somewhere where this
> supposed contraction can be measured?
>
> Think! You are standing on this same earth! Have you measured any
> detectable evidence of contraction of this earth that is supposed to
> be happening at this very moment?
>
> This supposed contraction is a factor of 10 so it would not be easy to
> miss.
>
> Let me summarize it for you:
>
> 1: There is only one Earth.
Yes, but it's properties depend on the reference frame.
> 2: It is contracted as observed by the CRP, by a factor of 10.
For one reference frame. Not in the frame in which the Earth is at
rest.
> 3: There must be some changes associated with this contraction that we
> can measure.
There is. There is a difference in the length of the tree as measured
in the two reference frames. There is also a difference in the time it
takes for the particle to get from the top to the bottom of the tree,
as measured in the two reference frames.
There are no material compressions like what you'd get in a vice, no.
> 4: Measurement results: NEGATIVE; Special Theory of Relativity:
> FAILURE.
Not at all. You're just looking for the wrong thing, because you don't
know what relativity predicts.
S T R I C H
wrote:
> BTW, no part of SR predicts that an observer's view of his frame will
> be changed by the existence of a movinf observer,,,
It is the Theory of Relativity. Motion is relative.
The cosmic ray particle is not moving. It is at rest. It is the
earth that is moving towards it at 0.995c; the earth is contracted by
a factor of 10. Show us evidence for this supposed contraction of the
Earth?
PD
You apparently like to repeat lies, on the off chance that it will
provoke an argument, which you like.
The button you are attempting to push will not work in the fashion you
imagine.
> Repeating the truth makes you bitter because you are an ugly troll.
> "I've lost interest. Foam and blather and waste all the time you want.
> You're not getting anywhere." -- Phuckwit Mal-lard.
> (Meaning "I lost that argument, those grapes are sour".)
>
> Ref: d23006a4-4a88-4efb-b1f4-12b115399...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com
> "You are not entitled to be educated. Someone who insists on
> being willfully ignorant does not deserve to be dissuaded.
> Nobody owes you anything. Nobody *should* do anything for
> you. It's your choice to learn or not to learn."-- Phuckwit Mal-lard.
>
> Ref: 571b8ace-cca8-4392-ba69-0a328320a...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com
Androcles
On Sep 28, 3:02 pm, S T R I C H <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 28, 3:51 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm sorry, Strich, but the fact that the theory of relativity works
> > every time does...
>
> It does not work everytime. According to the Theory of Special
> Relativity, you are contracted and time dilated by a factor of 10.
> Show us the evidence of that supposed fact!
You are contracted
==============================
Expanded, shithead.
"Let there be given a stationary rigid rod; and let its length be L as
measured by a measuring-rod which is also stationary. We now imagine the
axis of the rod lying along the axis of x of the stationary system of
co-ordinates, and that a uniform motion of parallel translation with
velocity v along the axis of x in the direction of increasing x is then
imparted to the rod. We now inquire as to the length of the moving rod"
xi = x'/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
But then, you never could read algebra, you dumb bastard.
Saul Levy
Ken Seto is ALREADY INSANE!
Saul Levy
Androcles
You never could manage algebra, you are a fuckwit and an arsehole.
Brad Guth
How about adding one more, for those that simply can't comprehend the
special law of objective reality.
5: Go fish
papa...@gmail.com
size. That, unfortunately, is irreversible and has nothing whatsoever
to do with relativity.
Go back to your psychiatric ward and make sure you are provided with a
good number of bedpans, as we are sure your excrement output will
continue to flow.
Miguel Rios
Androcles
--
1/2[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c+v)+x'/(c-v))]=tau(x',0,0, t+x'/(c-v))
<http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif>
and he did not write:
"indem man durch Definition festsetzt, daß die "Zeit", welche das
Licht braucht, um von A nach B zu gelangen, gleich ist der "Zeit",
welche es braucht, um von B nach A zu gelangen." -- Einstein
-- signed, Lying Illiterate Relativistic Dunce (LIRD).
What kind of lunacy prompted Einstein to NOT say
the speed of light from A=(0,0,0) to B=(x',0,0) is c-v,
the speed of light from B=(x',0,0) to A=(0,0,0) is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same and invent time dilation,
which he did not NOT do, no, not, no, not... no... nooo...?
Fuck off, papamoron.
<papa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f485c87a-c1ac-4c75...@i5g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
artful
Relativity does NOT claim the tree itself contracts .. SR predicts NO
CHANGE AT ALL to the tree. SR claims the length MEASUREMENT of the
tree made by the a relatively moving observer will be shorter than one
made by an observer at rest with the tree.
You claim the SR predicts some intrinsic change to the tree is a lie,
and so your claim that there is an SR prediction that is wrong is ALSO
a lie. You have simply made your OWN prediction based on what SR does
NOT say, and shown that THAT is wrong .. which, of course, it is.
Dirk Van de moortel
My all-time favourite killer argument.
People who are not impressed by this kind of argument are imbeciles
or trolls or autistics, or a combination of these. This particular case just
came back for reassurance. With success :-)
Dirk Vdm
PD
[a lot of noise]
By the way, while you were gone, you were replaced. We already have an
insane megalomaniac who flails at relativity despite not knowing even
the basics of science, let alone physics. His name is John Armistead,
from Easley South Carolina, he goes by the moniker NoEinstein, and he
is (like you) off his meds.
I suggest you introduce yourself to him, so that a few spectators can
watch the bitch-slap-contest that ensues.
Thanks much.
PD
PD
Yes, and my apologies for only crediting you with it obliquely.
Dirk Van de moortel
It's a pity that these guys usually stay away from each as far
as they possibly can, notwithstanding notable exceptions like
Androcles and Henry Wilson.
>
> Thanks much.
>
> PD
Don't hold your breath :-)
Dirk Vdm
S T R I C H
>
> > Show is the evidence of your own contraction!
>
> Show us the evidence that Newtonian gravity works if you jump off a 24-
> story building!!
I throw a stone from a 24th story building. It falls. Newtons's
gravity works.
Now, show me the evidence of your own contraction! You can use a
stone or tree if you want.
If a cosmic ray particle sees you as contracted, you should be able to
measure that, unless of course these Special Theory of Relativity
predictions belong to the pages of Marvel Comics.
Dirk Van de moortel
37aefb2f-9ad7-4e72...@j2g2000vbo.googlegroups.com
> On Sep 28, 4:50 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Show is the evidence of your own contraction!
>>
>> Show us the evidence that Newtonian gravity works if you jump off a 24-
>> story building!!
>
> I throw a stone from a 24th story building. It falls. Newtons's
> gravity works.
Yes, but prove that YOU fall. Otherwise we don't believe it.
Dirk Vdm
Androcles
--
Clock B reads 12:00 pm at noon, its a perfect clock.
Clock A remains in synch with Earth wherever it goes because
"In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
tB-tA = t'A-tB",clock A can see the Earth and Earth can see
clock A, "the ``time'' required by light to travel from A to B
equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A."-- Einstein.
Because of time dilation, "if one of two synchronous clocks
at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity until
it returns to A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by the clock
which has remained at rest the travelled clock on its arrival at
A will be 1/2 tv^2/c^2 second slow." -- Einstein.
Clock A meets clock B at A and is 6 hours slow. Both clocks
synchronize with Earth. Therefore clock A meets clock B at
dawn and clock B sees clock A arrive at noon.
"artful" <artf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f0e3922b-26ac-40ca...@a7g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
Androcles
--
Clock A reads 6:00 am at dawn, its a perfect clock.
Clock B reads 12:00 pm at noon, its a perfect clock.
Clock A remains in synch with Earth wherever it goes because
"In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
tB-tA = t'A-tB",clock A can see the Earth and Earth can see
clock A, "the ``time'' required by light to travel from A to B
equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A."-- Einstein.
Because of time dilation, "if one of two synchronous clocks
at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity until
it returns to A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by the clock
which has remained at rest the travelled clock on its arrival at
A will be 1/2 tv^2/c^2 second slow." -- Einstein.
Clock A meets clock B at A and is 6 hours slow. Both clocks
synchronize with Earth. Therefore clock A meets clock B at
dawn and clock B sees clock A arrive at noon.
<papa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e5cdab60-a8e4-47fb...@k10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
| For sure Androfart, you can join Strich and even share your bedpans.
| And also do not forget to bring your grass joints....the poor Strich
| need them badly!
|
| Miguel Rios
Dirk Van de moortel
No problem. Go ahead - I'm only here for a short visit.
Nothing has changed apparently - the Law of Conservation of
Stupidity in action.
Enjoy!
Dirk Vdm
Androcles
Mission accomplished.
Algebra and logic have you fucked.
S T R I C H
<dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote:
> S T R I C H <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> 37aefb2f-9ad7-4e72-864a-bbc33c58d...@j2g2000vbo.googlegroups.com
>
> > On Sep 28, 4:50 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Show is the evidence of your own contraction!
>
> >> Show us the evidence that Newtonian gravity works if you jump off a 24-
> >> story building!!
>
> > I throw a stone from a 24th story building. It falls. Newtons's
> > gravity works.
>
> Yes, but prove that YOU fall. Otherwise we don't believe it.
>
> Dirk Vdm
You won't believe gravity, which is everywhere and measureable, but
you believe in length contraction, which is everywhere, but not
measureable?
I've always figured you for a fool.
Dirk Van de moortel
a8b51ca3-341b-4845...@d17g2000yqm.googlegroups.com
> On Sep 28, 5:36 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
> <dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote:
>> S T R I C H <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> 37aefb2f-9ad7-4e72-864a-bbc33c58d...@j2g2000vbo.googlegroups.com
>>
>>> On Sep 28, 4:50 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Show is the evidence of your own contraction!
>>
>>>> Show us the evidence that Newtonian gravity works if you jump off a 24-
>>>> story building!!
>>
>>> I throw a stone from a 24th story building. It falls. Newtons's
>>> gravity works.
>>
>> Yes, but prove that YOU fall. Otherwise we don't believe it.
>>
>> Dirk Vdm
>
> You won't believe gravity, which is everywhere and measureable,
But YOU are an exception to gravity. Prove that you aren't.
"Go ahead on 'n get it over with then, find you a bridge and
take a jump"
Dirk Vdm
Strich-Reply-To-Idiots
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 28, 5:36 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
> > <dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> S T R I C H <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> 37aefb2f-9ad7-4e72-864a-bbc33c58d...@j2g2000vbo.googlegroups.com
>
> >>> On Sep 28, 4:50 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> Show is the evidence of your own contraction!
>
> >>>> Show us the evidence that Newtonian gravity works if you jump off a 24-
> >>>> story building!!
>
> >>> I throw a stone from a 24th story building. It falls. Newtons's
> >>> gravity works.
>
> >> Yes, but prove that YOU fall. Otherwise we don't believe it.
>
> >> Dirk Vdm
>
> > You won't believe gravity, which is everywhere and measureable,
>
> But YOU are an exception to gravity.
I'm sorry I lost you. What are you trying to prove? Are you trying
to say I do not follow gravity? Prove it then.
Unfortunately for you I have already proved PD has not contracted
(actually I have proved that nothing on Earth has contracted, despite
the cosmic ray particle supposed observation to the contrary). It is
PD who cannot prove he (or anything else) actually contracts
relativistically (whatever that comical phrase now implies).
Dirk, pick somebody your own size, somebody who is contracted :)
hanson
"John Stafford" <nh...@droffats.net> will be the nomninee,
if not the winner, of this year's Ig-Nobel because he wrote:
>
ig-Noble man Stiffrod wrote:
The universe and everything of it is expanding at C.
>
hanson wrote:
It then also expanded and blew your mind; right?.. It happened
to you so fast you didn't even see it coming and much less when
it, your mind, was going, gone, blew and disappeared.... Pity.
>
But you are not alone. That is the fate of all Einstein Dingleberries.
Thanks for the laughs though, you quaint & precious Dreidel....
ahahaha... AHAHAHAHAHA... ahahaha... ahahahanson
papa...@gmail.com
wrote:
> Dirk, pick somebody your own size, somebody who is contracted :)- Ocultar texto de la cita -
>
> - Mostrar texto de la cita -
It is amazing this guy pretends to have an IQ of 200 and three Ph.Ds.
Strich9: according to mpc755, your brain is enterily composed of dark
matter. In this case I tend to agree with mpc755.
Miguel Rios
artful
wrote:
> I'm sorry I lost you. What are you trying to prove? Are you trying
> to say I do not follow gravity? Prove it then.
>
> Unfortunately for you I have already proved PD has not contracted
> (actually I have proved that nothing on Earth has contracted, despite
> the cosmic ray particle supposed observation to the contrary).
Of course no thing 'has contracted' (ie any change in its intrinsic
length) .. it hasn't .. relativity doesn't say it has. Relativity
says that is someone move fast enough relative to that object will
MEASURE its length as less (ie it will occupy less physical space at
any given time in the frame of the observer)
> It is
> PD who cannot prove he (or anything else) actually contracts
There is evidence that it does .. indirect experiments .. but no
direct experiments as yet, simple due to technical difficulties of
being able to measure length of a fast enough moving object precisely
enough to detect a meaningful difference, and to be certain that no
other effects are in play.
> relativistically (whatever that comical phrase now implies).
Look up the dictionary.. its defined there (a couple of meanings, like
most words) and not in the least humorous.
BURT
> On Sep 28, 5:36 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
>
>
>
>
>
> <dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote:
> > S T R I C H <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > 37aefb2f-9ad7-4e72-864a-bbc33c58d...@j2g2000vbo.googlegroups.com
>
> > > On Sep 28, 4:50 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> Show is the evidence of your own contraction!
>
> > >> Show us the evidence that Newtonian gravity works if you jump off a 24-
> > >> story building!!
>
> > > I throw a stone from a 24th story building. It falls. Newtons's
> > > gravity works.
>
> > Yes, but prove that YOU fall. Otherwise we don't believe it.
>
> > Dirk Vdm
>
> You won't believe gravity, which is everywhere and measureable,
What about gravity for a circular orbit and speed?
There is no longer any strength of gravity.
General Relativity says there is acceleration
where there is gravity but for circular
orbit no speed change is found.
No strength of gravity is to be found there.
Mitch Raemsch
> but
> you believe in length contraction, which is everywhere, but not
> measureable?
>
> I've always figured you for a fool.- Hide quoted text -
Brad Guth
According to relativity, everything turns into a perfectly flat disk
due to all that contraction while moving at c.
So why are there no visible disk shaped formations emitted from a
supernova that blows away the local mass at <.1 c?
~ BG
Sam Wormley
I'm glad you at least stopped is to see the current nonsense, Dirk.
Thanks.
-Sam
Sam Wormley
Actually, Strich touts his high school more than anything else!
Sam Wormley
> According to relativity, everything turns into a perfectly flat disk
> due to all that contraction while moving at c.
>
> So why are there no visible disk shaped formations emitted from a
> supernova that blows away the local mass at<.1 c?
>
> ~ BG
Who says there aren't?
Daryl McCullough
I don't think you know what a testable prediction is. A testable
prediction is a claim of the form: If you do such and such experiment,
then the result will be such and such. You haven't given a prediction
of SR, and you haven't showed any predictions wrong.
The contradiction that you think that you have found is that
a fast-moving particle "sees" a watch on Earth to be time-dilated,
and a tree to be length-contracted, while a person standing next
to the tree and watch see no such thing. That's exactly what SR
says will be the case: clock rates, lengths of objects, etc.
are relative to a frame of reference in SR.
--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY
Androcles
--
Einstein did NOT write
1/2[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c+v)+x'/(c-v))]=tau(x',0,0, t+x'/(c-v))
<http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif>
and he did not write:
"indem man durch Definition festsetzt, daß die "Zeit", welche das
Licht braucht, um von A nach B zu gelangen, gleich ist der "Zeit",
welche es braucht, um von B nach A zu gelangen." -- Einstein
-- signed, Lying Illiterate Relativistic Dunce (LIRD).
What kind of lunacy prompted Einstein to NOT say
the speed of light from A=(0,0,0) to B=(x',0,0) is c-v,
the speed of light from B=(x',0,0) to A=(0,0,0) is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same and invent time dilation,
which he did not NOT do, no, not, no, not... no... nooo...?
"artful" <artf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8b07db66-7a7e-42ba...@c28g2000prj.googlegroups.com...
S T R I C H
wrote:
> S T R I C H says...
>
> I don't think you know what a testable prediction is.
Haven't we been talking about the well-known predictions of
relativity? Obviously yes.
Let me summarize what has been said.
According to the relativists, the cosmic ray particle, seeing the
earth moving at 0.995c, sees the earth as contracted and time dilated
by a factor of 10.
Also according to the relativists, none of these changes are felt or
measured here on earth.
Nonetheless the relativists claim, that despite these changes not
being felt or measured on earth, they do exist as part of relativistic
reality.
Is this correct so far?
PD
wrote:
> On Sep 28, 5:55 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
>
>
>
> <dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote:
> > S T R I C H <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > a8b51ca3-341b-4845-91e6-ce3042ca3...@d17g2000yqm.googlegroups.com
>
> > > On Sep 28, 5:36 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
> > > <dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >> S T R I C H <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > >> 37aefb2f-9ad7-4e72-864a-bbc33c58d...@j2g2000vbo.googlegroups.com
>
> > >>> On Sep 28, 4:50 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >>>>> Show is the evidence of your own contraction!
>
> > >>>> Show us the evidence that Newtonian gravity works if you jump off a 24-
> > >>>> story building!!
>
> > >>> I throw a stone from a 24th story building. It falls. Newtons's
> > >>> gravity works.
>
> > >> Yes, but prove that YOU fall. Otherwise we don't believe it.
>
> > >> Dirk Vdm
>
> > > You won't believe gravity, which is everywhere and measureable,
>
> > But YOU are an exception to gravity.
>
> I'm sorry I lost you. What are you trying to prove? Are you trying
> to say I do not follow gravity? Prove it then.
You're cheating. With relativity, you insist that the exception is
proven until the rule is demonstrated in that case. Here you insist
that the rule is proven unless the exception is demonstrated in that
case.
David, I realize that your whole function here is to cat-call and hoot
and make noise, and you really don't care how much of an idiot you
make of yourself in the process. Are you THAT desperate for attention
that even derision is satisfying to you?
PD
> On Sep 28, 2:46 pm, S T R I C H <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 28, 5:36 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
>
> > <dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > S T R I C H <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > > 37aefb2f-9ad7-4e72-864a-bbc33c58d...@j2g2000vbo.googlegroups.com
>
> > > > On Sep 28, 4:50 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >>> Show is the evidence of your own contraction!
>
> > > >> Show us the evidence that Newtonian gravity works if you jump off a 24-
> > > >> story building!!
>
> > > > I throw a stone from a 24th story building. It falls. Newtons's
> > > > gravity works.
>
> > > Yes, but prove that YOU fall. Otherwise we don't believe it.
>
> > > Dirk Vdm
>
> > You won't believe gravity, which is everywhere and measureable, but
> > you believe in length contraction, which is everywhere, but not
> > measureable?
>
> > I've always figured you for a fool.
>
> According to relativity, everything turns into a perfectly flat disk
> due to all that contraction while moving at c.
Relativity says no such thing. Relativity explicitly says that no
material object will EVER move at c, so how can it make a statement
about what something traveling at c will turn into?
Androcles
On Sep 28, 5:09 pm, Strich-Reply-To-Idiots <strich.9...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Sep 28, 5:55 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
>
>
>
> <dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote:
> > S T R I C H <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > a8b51ca3-341b-4845-91e6-ce3042ca3...@d17g2000yqm.googlegroups.com
>
> > > On Sep 28, 5:36 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
> > > <dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >> S T R I C H <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > >> 37aefb2f-9ad7-4e72-864a-bbc33c58d...@j2g2000vbo.googlegroups.com
>
> > >>> On Sep 28, 4:50 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >>>>> Show is the evidence of your own contraction!
>
> > >>>> Show us the evidence that Newtonian gravity works if you jump off a
> > >>>> 24-
> > >>>> story building!!
>
> > >>> I throw a stone from a 24th story building. It falls. Newtons's
> > >>> gravity works.
>
> > >> Yes, but prove that YOU fall. Otherwise we don't believe it.
>
> > >> Dirk Vdm
>
> > > You won't believe gravity, which is everywhere and measureable,
>
> > But YOU are an exception to gravity.
>
> I'm sorry I lost you. What are you trying to prove? Are you trying
> to say I do not follow gravity? Prove it then.
You're cheating.
======================================
Fraudulent Cunt -- Kettle -- Black.
Algebra has you fucked, Mallard.
Frames of reference have you fucked, Phuckwit Duck.
--
Strich-Reply-To-Idiots
> the usual
Let me follow your twisted relativistic logic. So far this is the
gist of what has been said:
1) According to the relativists, the cosmic ray particle, seeing the
earth moving at 0.995c, sees the earth as contracted and time dilated
by a factor of 10.
2) Also according to the relativists, none of these changes are felt
or measured here on earth.
3) Nonetheless the relativists claim, that despite these changes not
being felt or measured on earth, they do exist as part of relativistic
reality (from the perspective of the cosmic ray particle).
Yes?
PD
> On Sep 28, 11:13 pm, stevendaryl3...@yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough)
> wrote:
>
> > S T R I C H says...
>
> > I don't think you know what a testable prediction is.
>
> Haven't we been talking about the well-known predictions of
> relativity? Obviously yes.
Obviously no. You've been talking about what YOU think the predictions
of relativity are, but those are not the predictions of relativity.
>
> Let me summarize what has been said.
>
> According to the relativists, the cosmic ray particle, seeing the
> earth moving at 0.995c, sees the earth as contracted and time dilated
> by a factor of 10.
Yes.
>
> Also according to the relativists, none of these changes are felt or
> measured here on earth.
Yes.
>
> Nonetheless the relativists claim, that despite these changes not
> being felt or measured on earth, they do exist as part of relativistic
> reality.
They exist as part of reality, yes.
Now, I take it that you are making the ADDITIONAL statement that in
order for something to be considered real, then if it is true in one
reference frame, then it is true in all reference frames.
But let me point out something very simple. Galileo noted about 400
years ago that something that is stationary in one reference frame is
moving in another reference frame. He also noted that a trajectory
that is straight-line motion in one reference frame is a parabolic
curve in another reference frame. Keep in mind this is 400 years old.
So which is "real" -- the being stationary or the being in motion?
Which is "real" -- the straight-line path or the parabolic curved
path?
PD
S T R I C H
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/ba44816735d28bab
> On Sep 29, 8:21 am, S T R I C H <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Let me summarize what has been said.
>
> > According to the relativists, the cosmic ray particle, seeing the
> > earth moving at 0.995c, sees the earth as contracted and time dilated
> > by a factor of 10.
>
> Yes.
>
>
> > Also according to the relativists, none of these changes are felt or
> > measured here on earth.
>
> Yes.
>
>
> > Nonetheless the relativists claim, that despite these changes not
> > being felt or measured on earth, they do exist as part of relativistic
> > reality.
>
> They exist as part of reality, yes.
>
So we are in agreement. Save the lecture on reality. You will need
it later.
Now let us extend your reality...
1) The CRP observes the earth to be time dilated by a factor of 10.
Correct? Of course. You just agreed above.
2) Assuming a standard lifespan, the relativists here at SPR will die
in a few years at the ripe old age of 65.
No need for argument here. This is an immutable fact.
3) In the CRP frame, the relativists are time dilated by a factor of
10 and live to the unbearable age of 650 years. You shall claim this
is part of reality, as the CRP observations constitute reality as
well.
Tell me PD, what would the CRP observe the relativists doing in the
extra 585 years that they are alive?
Zerkon
> However, one must not underestimate ignorance.
Nor the delights of flame wars.
Androcles
"Zerkon" <Z...@erkonx.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2010.09...@erkonx.net...
| On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 08:15:54 -0700, S T R I C H wrote:
|
| > However, one must not underestimate ignorance.
|
| Nor the delights of flame wars.
|
without any algebra fight amongst themselves.
--
Predictions of relativity.
Clock A reads 6:00 am at dawn, its a perfect clock.
Clock B reads 12:00 pm at noon, its a perfect clock.
Clock A remains in synch with Earth wherever it goes because
"In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
tB-tA = t'A-tB",clock A can see the Earth and Earth can see
clock A, "the ``time'' required by light to travel from A to B
equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A."-- Einstein.
Because of time dilation, "if one of two synchronous clocks
at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity until
it returns to A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by the clock
which has remained at rest the travelled clock on its arrival at
A will be 1/2 tv^2/c^2 second slow." -- Einstein.
Clock A meets clock B at A and is 6 hours slow. Both clocks
synchronize with Earth, because "in accordance with definition
the two clocks synchronize if tB-tA = t'A-tB."-- Einstein.
Therefore clock A meets clock B at dawn and clock B sees
clock A arrive at noon.
Hence we have reductio-ad-absurdum
Mark Murray
> So we are in agreement. Save the lecture on reality. You will need
> it later.
You deleted the good bit, then ignored it. It contained a large chunk
of the answer you seek.
You then go off the rails, not taking into account the deleted info.
You needed it.
<UncleAl>
Idiot.
</UncleAl>
M
--
Mark "No Nickname" Murray
Notable Nebbish, Extreme Generalist.
PD
> On Sep 29, 9:56 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/ba44816735d...
>
>
>
> > On Sep 29, 8:21 am, S T R I C H <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Let me summarize what has been said.
>
> > > According to the relativists, the cosmic ray particle, seeing the
> > > earth moving at 0.995c, sees the earth as contracted and time dilated
> > > by a factor of 10.
>
> > Yes.
>
> > > Also according to the relativists, none of these changes are felt or
> > > measured here on earth.
>
> > Yes.
>
> > > Nonetheless the relativists claim, that despite these changes not
> > > being felt or measured on earth, they do exist as part of relativistic
> > > reality.
>
> > They exist as part of reality, yes.
>
> > ...
>
> So we are in agreement. Save the lecture on reality. You will need
> it later.
>
> Now let us extend your reality...
>
> 1) The CRP observes the earth to be time dilated by a factor of 10.
>
> Correct? Of course. You just agreed above.
>
> 2) Assuming a standard lifespan, the relativists here at SPR will die
> in a few years at the ripe old age of 65.
>
> No need for argument here. This is an immutable fact.
>
> 3) In the CRP frame, the relativists are time dilated by a factor of
> 10 and live to the unbearable age of 650 years.
650 years as measured by the cosmic ray particles, yes. Not 650 years
as measured by the physicists.
> You shall claim this
> is part of reality, as the CRP observations constitute reality as
> well.
>
> Tell me PD, what would the CRP observe the relativists doing in the
> extra 585 years that they are alive?
They won't measure having 650 years.
This business of frame-dependent properties seems to be causing you
fits. You keep expecting that properties exhibited in one frame will
be identically exhibited in another frame. Even Galileo recognized
that this was not the case 400 years ago, and I gave you a couple of
examples. Can you not read?
papa...@gmail.com
> On Sep 29, 9:56 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/ba44816735d...
For one thing, the moving observer would dearly appreciate the fact
that you would have for long disappear from this forum for good..
Carl Sagan explained this in his Cosmos book, where at speeds very
close to c, a spaceship crew would be able to travel to the other
extreme of our universe (that is, to 13 billion light years) within
their lifespan (say 65 years), because of the time dilation effect.
Miguel Rios
Strich-Reply-To-Idiots
> On Sep 29, 9:14 am, S T R I C H <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > So we are in agreement. Save the lecture on reality. You will need
> > it later.
>
> > Now let us extend your reality...
>
> > 1) The CRP observes the earth to be time dilated by a factor of 10.
>
> > Correct? Of course. You just agreed above.
>
> > 2) Assuming a standard lifespan, the relativists here at SPR will die
> > in a few years at the ripe old age of 65.
>
> > No need for argument here. This is an immutable fact.
>
> > 3) In the CRP frame, the relativists are time dilated by a factor of
> > 10 and live to the unbearable age of 650 years.
>
> 650 years as measured by the cosmic ray particles, yes. Not 650 years
> as measured by the physicists.
>
> > You shall claim this
> > is part of reality, as the CRP observations constitute reality as
> > well.
>
> > Tell me PD, what would the CRP observe the relativists doing in the
> > extra 585 years that they are alive?
>
> They won't measure having 650 years.
>
So the cosmic ray particle will not observe time dilation on the earth
moving at 0.995c?
Don't be confused. We are not frame-jumping. We are locked in on the
CRP frame. I thought you just said that the time dilation the CRP
observes is real. So the earthmen are aging 10 times slower in the
CRP frame and should live to 650, but you are saying no?
prag
> Time and again, one hears of a challenge from some relativist claiming
> universal validity, taunting us to 'show us a prediction of relativity
> that is wrong'. I always thought this was a rhetorical question, for
> many predictions of relativity are wrong, and the few that are correct
> were post -hoc predictions, or a fortunate happenstance. (We must
> remind ourselves that the Ptolemaic theory made correct predictions
> and stood the test of experiment and observation for well over a
> thousand years.)
>
> However, one must not underestimate ignorance. It appears that
> relativists indeed believe the theory has made no wrong prediciton. I
> am thus inclined to illustrate a wrong prediction, and elaborate on an
> experiment that precisely shows this wrong prediction of the Theory of
> Relativity. The beauty of this experiment is that it is very simple,
> and it can be performed by any student as long as he is aware of some
> basic facts. We shall show that the predicted length contraction and
> time dilation by the Special Theory of Relativity does not occur, and
> is therefore wrong.
>
> ===============================================================
>
> The EXPERIMENT:
>
> The first part of the experiment is locating an object with a well-
> defined height. That can be yourself, a post, or a tree. For
> historical reasons, a tree would be ideal. Newton was famous with his
> apple tree, Washington with his cherry tree, Canada with its maple
> tree, Judas with the Cercis siliquastrum, the Little Prince with the
> baobab tree, and so on. Bamboos, banana plants and other members of
> the monocotyledon family would not do as they grow too fast and this
> may confound the experiment. I prefer to use the Papaya tree. For
> simplicity, choose a tree that is about as tall as you. Also, hang
> your watch on a branch of the tree. I myself prefer the Rolex
> Yachtmaster with gold trim and a blue face. Yes I know the white
> face looks more majestic, but we geniuses have strange tastes.
>
> EXPERIMENT STEP 1: MEASURE THE HEIGHT OF THE TREE. THIS WOULD BE
> ABOUT 2 METERS. NOTE THAT SINCE THE TREE IS PRACTICALLY AT REST WITH
> RESPECT TO YOU, WHAT YOU ARE MEASURING IS ITS HEIGHT (or LENGTH) AT
> REST. NOTE THAT THE CLOCK IS TICKING AT ITS RESTING PACE.
>
> Now the second part of the experiment is the modern part. When
> Einstein formulated his Special Theory of Relativity, few particles
> were known at the time, much less about their velocities or natural
> incidence. Thus Einstein with impunity could make predictions about
> objects moving close to the speed of light. After all, where are such
> objects to be found! However, in these modern times, we know that
> subluminal particles not only exist, they exist everywhere and all the
> time. There are neutrinos, cosmic rays, muons, and so on constantly
> bombarding us from all directions and at all moments. We do not need
> so many. Let us choose just one. My preference is for the cosmic ray
> particle zooming in directly from above with a speed of 0.995c. Now
> we all know from the Theory of Relativity that this particular
> particle, like any particle for that matter, has its own reference
> frame which is equally valid for making observations. From the
> reference frame of this particle, the tree, you and everything on
> earth is travelling at 0.995c towards it.
>
> EXPERIMENT STEP 2: LET THE PARTICLE OBSERVE THE TREE. THE PARTICLE
> WOULD MEASURE THE TREE TRAVELLING RELATIVE TO IT AT 0.995c TO BE
> CONTRACTED TO 0.2 METERS. NOTE THAT THE WATCH WOULD NOW TICK 10 TIMES
> SLOWER.
>
> Any follower of Einstein and his Relativity Theories would have no
> argument or dispute with the 2 simple steps above. For indeed the
> Lorentz transforms dictate no length contraction or time dilation is
> seen by the observer beside the tree, while the same Lorentz
> transforms shall dictate that the particle measure the tree as
> contracted and the watch hanging from its branch as running slow. At
> this point, both steps are simple and indisputable.
>
> EXPERIMENT STEP 3: AS THE PARTICLE OBSERVES THE TREE TO BE CONTRACTED
> AND THE WATCH TO BE DILATED, WE WHO ARE STANDING RIGHT BESIDE THE TREE
> AND THE WATCH DURING ALL THIS TIME, OBSERVE NO SUCH THING.
>
> CONCLUSION: WE ARE FORCED TO CONCLUDE THAT THE PREDICTED LENGTH
> CONTRACTION AND TIME DILATION THAT THE PARTICLE MUST OBERVE OF THE
> TREE AND ITS WATCH RESPECTIVELY DO NOT OCCUR. There is NO MEASUREABLE
> CHANGE, whether PHYSICAL, CONSTITUTIONAL, ACTUAL, REAL, APPARENT OR
> OTHERWISE, NOTHING that can be MEASURED OR OBSERVED, that suggests
> that THE TREE HAS BEEN CONTRACTED DUE TO ITS RELATIVE SPEED OF 0.995c
> WITH RESPECT TO THE PARTICLE. The experiment can be repeated as many
> times as indicated to the satisfaction of the relativists.
>
> (copyrighted to David Strich @2010)
>
> ===============================================================
>
> Let me predict a some of the replies. A relativist may respond that
> from the standpoint of the particle, the tree, the person and the
> measuring stick would all contract, so therefore, the relativistic
> changes that the particle observes would be transparent to the
> person. This argument can be dismissed in 2 ways. From a logical and
> theoretical standpoint, if the relativistic changes are transparent to
> the object itself undergoing contraction, then such change becomes
> superfluous, as it cannot be observed. The second argument is more
> direct and experimental. The person merely chops down the papaya
> tree, ala Washington, and now the tree’s height is perpendicular to
> the motion of the particle, and would be expected to uncontract (since
> Einstein argued the contraction is only along the direction of
> motion). Further, as the tree uncontracts in its height, its girth,
> which is now along the direction of motion of the particle, should
> contract, and now we are left with a tree that is much thinner and
> longer than it was, surely an effect that one should not miss at all.
> Since these changes would not be observed, then again the predicted
> length contraction is an erroneous prediction by a fallacious theory.
>
> It is irrelevant that there have been indirect experimental evidence
> of length contraction and time dilation. The experiment above is
> direct evidence of the absence of lenght contraction and time
> dilation, and must supersede all indirent proofs.
>
> But in the end all this is academic. Since by definition the person
> observes the tree as at rest, any measurements he makes is the rest
> length. Since at the same time the tree has contracted according to
> the particle, such contraction should be experienced by the tree
> (which is the object itself undergoing contraction) and observed by
> the person, as such contraction must be physical, material, or at the
> very least an occurrence in reality. Now if such contraction cannot
> be observed or documented, then it must not occur at all.
>
> Finally, it is easy to say relativity is wrong, and it is easy to
> prove that is so (for the thick-headed please review above
> experiment). However, the more difficult question is, then what is
> the correct replacement theory. This kind of detail is beyond the
> scope of usenet, and is more appropriate in the setting of an academic
> peer reviewed journal or scientific meeting. However, until the
> gatekeepers have accepted that relativity is wrong, there is no
> further point in bringing such a new theory to the establishment, even
> with its complement of proofs and predictions, for it will only be
> ridiculed and its author discredited. Until then, the extablishment
> would have to make do with their substandard model until they are
> ready to receive the replacement model.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Inasmuch as the foregoing experiment is simple, straighforward and
> logical, I foresee no further need to address any replies. Also, this
> group is blessed with many smart free thinkers, and I have all the
> trust that they will be able to carry on from here any discussions and
> arguments that the closed minded and blinded relativists may try to
> foment. Thank you.
You need to understand the theory of relativity.
When you measure the length of a moving object, you have to not the
position of both ends of the ruler at exactly the same time.
To determine that two events occur at the same time, you can use a
light beam and a clock or oscillator. If you transmit a beam and it
is reflected back, the the event of it being reflected is the same
time as the event midway between the light leaving and returning to
your location. The reflection and the middle tick of the clock occur
at the same time. (That is the middle tick between the sending and
receiving of the beam.)
But a moving observer using the same procedure will judge that the two
events are not simultaneous since he is moving relative to light. He
will assume he is not moving relative to light.
Since the moving observer comes to a different judgement about
simultaneous events he will botch the length measurement, he won
't read the two ends of the ruler at the same time.
If you take a yard stick and quickly move it so that the ends align
with the bottom of your feet and the top of your head at almost the
same time, then you can claim that your aligned it with your feet and
head at the same time and therefore you are only 1 yard tall.
Observers at rest with you will not agree, assuming you are not really
1 yard tall. But if you moved it fast enough, sufficently close to the
speed of light, then some observer moving at a high speed in the right
direction will agree with you.
Androcles
"prag" <tada...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0daf2a91-a218-41d4...@e14g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
You need to understand the theory of relativity.
Oh good, someone that does.
Painius
"S T R I C H" <stric...@gmail.com> wrote in message...
news:71e936c3-7462-4d56...@i17g2000vbq.googlegroups.com...
Time and again, one hears of a challenge from some relativist claiming
universal validity, taunting us to 'show us a prediction of relativity
that is wrong'. I always thought this was a rhetorical question, for
many predictions of relativity are wrong, and the few that are correct
were post -hoc predictions, or a fortunate happenstance. (We must
remind ourselves that the Ptolemaic theory made correct predictions
and stood the test of experiment and observation for well over a
thousand years.)
However, one must not underestimate ignorance. It appears that
relativists indeed believe the theory has made no wrong prediciton. I
am thus inclined to illustrate a wrong prediction, and elaborate on an
experiment that precisely shows this wrong prediction of the Theory of
Relativity. The beauty of this experiment is that it is very simple,
and it can be performed by any student as long as he is aware of some
basic facts. We shall show that the predicted length contraction and
time dilation by the Special Theory of Relativity does not occur, and
is therefore wrong.
B W A H H A H A H A H A B W A H H A H A H A !
Thank you so much !
Yours was the first post in the list when i opened my reader.
I needed a good laugh, and you gave me a bellow or two.
I know a guy in Vegas who would just love to sign you up !
Your act would make a great comedy relief in between the
dancing girls' numbers.
Irony can sometimes be sooo funny ! You're theee best !
Happy days *and*...
Starry, starry nights !
--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth
PS. "The current best fit model which has an accelerating
expansion gives a maximum distance we can see of
47 billion light years." > Ned Wright
PPS. http://astro.painellsworth.net !
http://www.secretsgolden.com !
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Paine_Ellsworth !
Dirk Van de moortel
a8838a02-c358-4b95...@a9g2000yqg.googlegroups.com
> On Sep 28, 5:55 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
> <dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote:
>> S T R I C H <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> a8b51ca3-341b-4845-91e6-ce3042ca3...@d17g2000yqm.googlegroups.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Sep 28, 5:36 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
>>> <dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> S T R I C H <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> 37aefb2f-9ad7-4e72-864a-bbc33c58d...@j2g2000vbo.googlegroups.com
>>
>>>>> On Sep 28, 4:50 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> Show is the evidence of your own contraction!
>>
>>>>>> Show us the evidence that Newtonian gravity works if you jump off a 24-
>>>>>> story building!!
>>
>>>>> I throw a stone from a 24th story building. It falls. Newtons's
>>>>> gravity works.
>>
>>>> Yes, but prove that YOU fall. Otherwise we don't believe it.
>>
>>>> Dirk Vdm
>>
>>> You won't believe gravity, which is everywhere and measureable,
>>
>> But YOU are an exception to gravity.
>
> I'm sorry I lost you.
"... just make sure you do it right the first time, 'cause nothin's worse
than a Suicide Chump"
Dirk Vdm
Mark Murray
> So the cosmic ray particle will not observe time dilation on the earth
> moving at 0.995c?
>
> Don't be confused. We are not frame-jumping. We are locked in on the
> CRP frame. I thought you just said that the time dilation the CRP
> observes is real. So the earthmen are aging 10 times slower in the
> CRP frame and should live to 650, but you are saying no?
The observer will observe the passage of 650 years. At the end, it'll
also observe an apparent aging of the earthmen of 65 years. The
Earthmen will have experienced 65 years of time.
Michael Moroney
The cosmic ray particle will also observe everything happen s-l-o-w-l-y.
It'll observe women being pregnant for 7 1/2 years (90 months) before
giving birth. It'll observe the earth taking 10 years to go around the
sun and 10 days to rotate once. Everything on earth goes in slow motion.
The reverse is also true. A muon lives for 2.2 microseconds. Moving at
nearly c, it could travel 660 meters in that time. Yet we routinely
see muons created high in the atmosphere reaching the ground. Someone
else mentioned the pion beams several times longer than should be possible
from their expected lifetime.
Androcles
"Mark Murray" <w.h....@example.com> wrote in message
news:4ca364d8$0$2540$da0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
| On 09/29/10 16:51, Strich-Reply-To-Idiots wrote:
| > So the cosmic ray particle will not observe time dilation on the earth
| > moving at 0.995c?
| >
| > Don't be confused. We are not frame-jumping. We are locked in on the
| > CRP frame. I thought you just said that the time dilation the CRP
| > observes is real. So the earthmen are aging 10 times slower in the
| > CRP frame and should live to 650, but you are saying no?
|
| The observer will observe the passage of 650 years. At the end, it'll
| also observe an apparent aging of the earthmen of 65 years. The
| Earthmen will have experienced 65 years of time.
|
| M
Predictions of relativity.
Clock A reads 6:00 am at dawn, its a perfect clock.
Clock B reads 12:00 pm at noon, its a perfect clock.
Clock A remains in synch with Earth wherever it goes because
"In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
tB-tA = t'A-tB",clock A can see the Earth and Earth can see
clock A, "the ``time'' required by light to travel from A to B
equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A."-- Einstein.
Because of time dilation, "if one of two synchronous clocks
at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity until
it returns to A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by the clock
which has remained at rest the travelled clock on its arrival at
A will be 1/2 tv^2/c^2 second slow." -- Einstein.
Clock A meets clock B at A and is 6 hours slow. Both clocks
synchronize with Earth, because "in accordance with definition
the two clocks synchronize if tB-tA = t'A-tB."-- Einstein.
Therefore clock A meets clock B at dawn and clock B sees
clock A arrive at noon.
Hence we have reductio-ad-absurdum and you are a deranged
lying cretin. Your straight jacket awaits.
Androcles
<papa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9422cfd0-0b4d-4b29...@a36g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
Miguel Rios
=======================================
Sagan was deranged, as are you.
--
Predictions of relativity.
--
Androcles
"Michael Moroney" <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
news:i7vocv$61p$1...@pcls6.std.com...
| Strich-Reply-To-Idiots <stric...@gmail.com> writes:
|
| >On Sep 29, 11:33 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
| >>
| >> > Tell me PD, what would the CRP observe the relativists doing in the
| >> > extra 585 years that they are alive?
| >>
| >> They won't measure having 650 years.
| >>
|
| >So the cosmic ray particle will not observe time dilation on the earth
| >moving at 0.995c?
|
| >Don't be confused. We are not frame-jumping. We are locked in on the
| >CRP frame. I thought you just said that the time dilation the CRP
| >observes is real. So the earthmen are aging 10 times slower in the
| >CRP frame and should live to 650, but you are saying no?
|
| The cosmic ray particle will also observe everything happen s-l-o-w-l-y.
Including your brain. Particles don't observe, you fucking moron.
Mark Murray
> Bwahahahahahahahahaha!
... etc.
I once promised myself that I wouldn't get involved in
a fruitless crank discussion (except one, and I chose
JSH). Now I remember why.
Michael Moroney
>On 09/29/10 17:13, Androcles wrote:
>> Bwahahahahahahahahaha!
>... etc.
>I once promised myself that I wouldn't get involved in
>a fruitless crank discussion (except one, and I chose
>JSH). Now I remember why.
I killfiled Androgyne when he resorted to spamming usenet (posting the
same thing over and over again with no attempt at discussion).
Other crackpots are more entertaining.
Androcles
| On 09/29/10 17:13, Androcles wrote:
| > Bwahahahahahahahahaha!
|
|
| ... etc.
|
| I once promised myself that I wouldn't get involved in
| a fruitless crank discussion (except one, and I chose
| JSH). Now I remember why.
|
| M
Logic too difficult for you, is it, dumbfuck?
Predictions of relativity.
Clock A reads 6:00 am at dawn, it's a perfect clock.
Clock B reads 12:00 pm at noon, it's a perfect clock.
Brad Guth
In other words, you have nothing objective other than math and skewed
outcomes of experiments that are very much like our redshift expanding
universe that you claim is potentially bogus or illusionary, and I
tend to even go at least somewhat along with your stand-up comedy act.
The LHC should rather easily provide conclusive relativity evidence of
contraction and time dilation, but they haven't. Why is that?
Why is there nothing disk shaped zooming around in those spendy
colliders?
~ BG
papa...@gmail.com
> <papar...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
>
> For one thing, the moving observer would dearly appreciate the fact
> that you would have for long disappear from this forum for good..
>
> Carl Sagan explained this in his Cosmos book, where at speeds very
> close to c, a spaceship crew would be able to travel to the other
> extreme of our universe (that is, to 13 billion light years) within
> their lifespan (say 65 years), because of the time dilation effect.
>
> Miguel Rios
> =======================================
> Sagan was deranged, as are you.
>
As always you are unable to put anything with some logic in it.
Look Andro the bedpan of yours is for collecting you bottom output!!!
It appears you are wrongly using it to drink your tea!
Too bad
Miguel Rios
Brad Guth
The LHC should rather easily provide conclusive relativity evidence of
contraction and time dilation, but they haven't. Why is that?
Isn't 99.9% c good enough?
Why is there nothing disk shaped or aging differently zooming around
Androcles
<papa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3b26c120-5c6f-4d2a...@a36g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
| On 29 sep, 12:16, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_aa> wrote:
| > <papar...@gmail.com> wrote in message
| >
| >
| > For one thing, the moving observer would dearly appreciate the fact
| > that you would have for long disappear from this forum for good..
| >
| > Carl Sagan explained this in his Cosmos book, where at speeds very
| > close to c, a spaceship crew would be able to travel to the other
| > extreme of our universe (that is, to 13 billion light years) within
| > their lifespan (say 65 years), because of the time dilation effect.
| >
| > Miguel Rios
| > =======================================
| > Sagan was deranged, as are you.
| >
|
| As always you are unable to put anything with some logic in it.
As always a dumb cunt like you has to snip to not see logic.
Predictions of relativity.
papa...@gmail.com
> On Sep 29, 10:04 am, "papar...@gmail.com" <papar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > For one thing, the moving observer would dearly appreciate the fact
> > > that you would have for long disappear from this forum for good..
>
> > > Carl Sagan explained this in his Cosmos book, where at speeds very
> > > close to c, a spaceship crew would be able to travel to the other
> > > extreme of our universe (that is, to 13 billion light years) within
> > > their lifespan (say 65 years), because of the time dilation effect.
>
> > > Miguel Rios
> > > =======================================
>
> contraction and time dilation, but they haven't. Why is that?
>
Wrong again
See experimental confirmation on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation
Also see http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v3/n12/abs/nphys778.html
Miguel Rios
S T R I C H
wrote:
> "Mark Murray" <w.h.o...@example.com> wrote in message
> | The observer will observe the passage of 650 years. At the end, it'll
> | also observe an apparent aging of the earthmen of 65 years. The
> | Earthmen will have experienced 65 years of time.
> |
> | M
> Bwahahahahahahahahaha!
>
Now that we have started laughing, let us make ourselves laugh at some
more predictions of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity.
Remember we are still using the cosmic ray particle (CRP) frame where
the earth is speeding at 0.995c. From this frame, the earthmen are
observed to live to about 650 years.
But there is more...
An earthman lumberjack chops down a pine tree. Since it was along the
direction of motion, it is observed to be 10 feet high. However, as
it falls to the ground, it is now not along the direction of motion
and expands to 100 feet. Wow, this is an instantanous way of
producing extra lumbar...
Mount Everest is observed to be a mere 2900 feet. Later as the earth
rotates Everest to the side, Everest expands to 29000 feet. But lo,
that sudden expansion did not disturb any of the unstable snow drifts
to cause an avalanche...
There's more...
Cars are observed to have elliptical wheels, as the wheel diameter
along the direction of motion is contracted. Yet as the wheels roll
along, they maintain this elliptical shape, instantaneously flexing
the hub and tire to an ellipse with each roll...
The generators and turbines are also elliptical, as the diameter along
the direction of motion is contracted...
At the microscopic level, paramecia are noted to change shape as they
move about...
DNA is flattened and lengthened at will without regard to chemical
properties...
Even the atom is not exempt... It appears ovoid (or disclike as Brad
Guth observes0 in shape...
All these are the expected results of measurements performed in the
CRP frame based on Einstein's relativity...
All these are part of reality based on the relativists faith...
[NOTE: Now we all know about the predictions of time dilation and
length contraction by Einstein's relativity. The example above
reflect this prediction. We all know about how to properly measure
rods and clocks. The examples above again illustrate the results of
precisely using these types of measurements.
Of course it is one thing to draw up simple Lorentz Transformation
Equations, and to draw simple world lines in a Minkowski diagram, but
it takes far more genius than what Einstein supposedly had to
reconcile these changes with everything else. As the results above
illustrate, the fantasies of length contraction and time dilation,
when applied to its ultimate conclusion, defies logic and reality.
Einstein simplistically conceived length contraction and time dilation
without thinking of its consequences. He was enamored by a childish
daydream of time dilation and length contraction and was not able to
see its consequences beyond it, very typical of a schizophrenic mind.