The true meaning of the length contraction equation

[kenseto]

The length contraction equation:
L’ = L/gamma

The SR explanation of this equation is that a moving meter stick will observe (predict) to be contracted materially by a factor of 1/gamma.

The correct interpretation is that the light-path-length (LPL) of a moving meter stick is predicted to be foreshortened by a factor of 1/gamma. This prediction is based on the assumption that the LPL of the observer’s meter stick is its material length.
Definition: LPL is the length of light front must travel to cover the length of material meter stick.

The above interpretation of the length contraction equation gives rise to a new theory of relativity called “Improved Relativity Theory” (IRT). IRT is free of paradoxes and it is compatible with QM. Therefore it is a superior compared to SR.

A paper on IRT is available in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf

[Dirk Van de moortel]

Op 10-nov.-2019 om 18:09 schreef kenseto:

> The length contraction equation: L’ = L/gamma
>
> The SR explanation of this equation is that a moving meter stick will
> observe (predict) to be contracted materially by a factor of
> 1/gamma.

"... a moving meter stick will observe to be contracted ..."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

>
> The correct interpretation is that the light-path-length (LPL) of a
> moving meter stick is predicted to be foreshortened by a factor of
> 1/gamma. This prediction is based on the assumption that the LPL of
> the observer’s meter stick is its material length. Definition: LPL is
> the length of light front must travel to cover the length of material
> meter stick.
>
> The above interpretation of the length contraction equation gives
> rise to a new theory of relativity called “Improved Relativity
> Theory” (IRT). IRT is free of paradoxes and it is compatible with
> QM. Therefore it is a superior compared to SR.
>
> A paper on IRT is available in the following link:

> http://www.dunceheadnmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf

That link does not work.

Dirk Vdm

[Python]

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> Op 10-nov.-2019 om 18:09 schreef kenseto:
>> The length contraction equation: L’ = L/gamma
>>
>> The SR explanation of this equation is that a moving meter stick will
>> observe (predict) to be contracted materially by a factor of
>> 1/gamma.
>
> "... a moving meter stick will observe to be contracted ..."
>
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Would a telephone pole observe to be contracted too :-P ?

[Odd Bodkin]

Don’t bother. He’s a fraud.

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[Dirk Van de moortel]

Op 10-nov.-2019 om 20:15 schreef Python:

This one, for sure!

Dirk Vdm

[Michael Moroney]

Fraudster kenseto <set...@att.net> writes:

>The SR explanation of this equation is that a moving meter stick will observe
>(predict) to be contracted materially by a factor of 1/gamma.

>The correct interpretation is that the light-path-length (LPL) of a moving
>meter stick is predicted to be foreshortened by a factor of 1/gamma. This
>prediction is based on the assumption that the LPL of the observer's
>meter stick is its material length.
>Definition: LPL is the length of light front must travel to cover the length
>of material meter stick.

>The above interpretation of the length contraction equation gives rise to a
>new theory of relativity

Not a theory, only an assertion. Theories need supporting evidence.

>(IRT). IRT is free of paradoxes

So is SR. No advantage there.

Wait, I can think of one IRT paradox offhand. The three rocket gedanken, which
IRT cannot handle.

> and it is compatible with QM.

No, it is not.

> Therefore it is a superior compared to SR.

How could a flawed assertion be superior to a very successful theory?

>A paper on IRT is available in the following link:

>http://www.modelmechaniсs.org/2015irt.pdf

Link doesn't work again.

[The Starmaker]

Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> Fraudster kenseto <set...@att.net> writes:
>
> >The SR explanation of this equation is that a moving meter stick will observe
> >(predict) to be contracted materially by a factor of 1/gamma.
>
> >The correct interpretation is that the light-path-length (LPL) of a moving
> >meter stick is predicted to be foreshortened by a factor of 1/gamma. This
> >prediction is based on the assumption that the LPL of the observer's
> >meter stick is its material length.
> >Definition: LPL is the length of light front must travel to cover the length
> >of material meter stick.
>
> >The above interpretation of the length contraction equation gives rise to a
> >new theory of relativity
>
> Not a theory, only an assertion. Theories need supporting evidence.

You mean evidence to support it is not a theory????




--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

[kenseto]

On Sunday, November 10, 2019 at 3:54:54 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Fraudster kenseto <set...@att.net> writes:
>
> >The SR explanation of this equation is that a moving meter stick will observe
> >(predict) to be contracted materially by a factor of 1/gamma.
>
> >The correct interpretation is that the light-path-length (LPL) of a moving
> >meter stick is predicted to be foreshortened by a factor of 1/gamma. This
> >prediction is based on the assumption that the LPL of the observer's
> >meter stick is its material length.
> >Definition: LPL is the length of light front must travel to cover the length
> >of material meter stick.
>
> >The above interpretation of the length contraction equation gives rise to a
> >new theory of relativity
>
> Not a theory, only an assertion. Theories need supporting evidence.

Moron, SR’s mutual length contraction is an assertion....in our universe the concept of mutual length contraction is impossible and non-existing. IRT predicts that the LPL of a moving meter stick is foreshortened by a factor of 1/gamma or expanded by a factor of gamma.....One of these predictions is correct.

>
> >(IRT). IRT is free of paradoxes
>
> So is SR. No advantage there.

No moron, SR predicts the impossible mutual length contraction. Physicists realized that mutual length contraction is impossible so they modified this interpretation to that the geometric projection of the length of a moving meter stick is foreshortened by a factor of 1/gamma. This new interpretation is compatible with the IRT interpretation that the LPL of a moving meter stick is foreshortened by a factor of 1/gamma.

>
> Wait, I can think of one IRT paradox offhand. The three rocket gedanken, which
> IRT cannot handle.

Moron, there is no paradox....you assumed that each observer measures (predicts) the other clocks are running at the same slower rate of of 1/gamma (2). This is possible only if O is in a state of absolute rest....it is not. Gee you are so fucking stupid.

I said that each observer must use his clock to determine the gamma factor of the other clocks then use the LT to predict their clock rate. So how is that a paradox of IRT? Gee you are so fucking stupid.

>
> > and it is compatible with QM.
>
> No, it is not.

Yes, it is. It is more compatible with QM because it is not based on SR’s impossible concept of mutual length contraction.

>
> > Therefore it is a superior compared to SR.
>
> How could a flawed assertion be superior to a very successful theory?

You got it backward. IRT is not based on flawed assertion while SR is based on the flawed assertion of mutual length contraction.

>
> >A paper on IRT is available in the following link:
> >http://www.modelmechaniсs.org/2015irt.pdf
>
> Link doesn’t work again.

The link is designed to prevent moron like you from reading it.

[kenseto]

The correct link is designed to prevent moron like you from reading it.
>
> Dirk Vdm

[Odd Bodkin]

kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> On Sunday, November 10, 2019 at 3:54:54 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> Fraudster kenseto <set...@att.net> writes:
>>
>>> The SR explanation of this equation is that a moving meter stick will observe
>>> (predict) to be contracted materially by a factor of 1/gamma.
>>
>>> The correct interpretation is that the light-path-length (LPL) of a moving
>>> meter stick is predicted to be foreshortened by a factor of 1/gamma. This
>>> prediction is based on the assumption that the LPL of the observer's
>>> meter stick is its material length.
>>> Definition: LPL is the length of light front must travel to cover the length
>>> of material meter stick.
>>
>>> The above interpretation of the length contraction equation gives rise to a
>>> new theory of relativity
>>
>> Not a theory, only an assertion. Theories need supporting evidence.
>
> Moron, SR’s mutual length contraction is an assertion....in our universe
> the concept of mutual length contraction is impossible and non-existing.

Assertion is not an argument. Stating that it’s impossible is an assertion.

[kenseto]

On Monday, November 11, 2019 at 9:12:31 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> > On Sunday, November 10, 2019 at 3:54:54 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> Fraudster kenseto <set...@att.net> writes:
> >>
> >>> The SR explanation of this equation is that a moving meter stick will observe
> >>> (predict) to be contracted materially by a factor of 1/gamma.
> >>
> >>> The correct interpretation is that the light-path-length (LPL) of a moving
> >>> meter stick is predicted to be foreshortened by a factor of 1/gamma. This
> >>> prediction is based on the assumption that the LPL of the observer's
> >>> meter stick is its material length.
> >>> Definition: LPL is the length of light front must travel to cover the length
> >>> of material meter stick.
> >>
> >>> The above interpretation of the length contraction equation gives rise to a
> >>> new theory of relativity
> >>
> >> Not a theory, only an assertion. Theories need supporting evidence.
> >
> > Moron, SR’s mutual length contraction is an assertion....in our universe
> > the concept of mutual length contraction is impossible and non-existing.
>
> Assertion is not an argument. Stating that it’s impossible is an assertion.

In our universe when comparing two lengths A and B the following possibilities exist:
1. Both lengths are the same.
2. A is shorter then B.
3. B is shorter than A.
4. But never A is shorter than B and at the same time B is shorter than A.

[Odd Bodkin]

kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> On Monday, November 11, 2019 at 9:12:31 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
>>> On Sunday, November 10, 2019 at 3:54:54 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> Fraudster kenseto <set...@att.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> The SR explanation of this equation is that a moving meter stick will observe
>>>>> (predict) to be contracted materially by a factor of 1/gamma.
>>>>
>>>>> The correct interpretation is that the light-path-length (LPL) of a moving
>>>>> meter stick is predicted to be foreshortened by a factor of 1/gamma. This
>>>>> prediction is based on the assumption that the LPL of the observer's
>>>>> meter stick is its material length.
>>>>> Definition: LPL is the length of light front must travel to cover the length
>>>>> of material meter stick.
>>>>
>>>>> The above interpretation of the length contraction equation gives rise to a
>>>>> new theory of relativity
>>>>
>>>> Not a theory, only an assertion. Theories need supporting evidence.
>>>
>>> Moron, SR’s mutual length contraction is an assertion....in our universe
>>> the concept of mutual length contraction is impossible and non-existing.
>>
>> Assertion is not an argument. Stating that it’s impossible is an assertion.
>
> In our universe when comparing two lengths A and B the following possibilities exist:
> 1. Both lengths are the same.
> 2. A is shorter then B.
> 3. B is shorter than A.
> 4. But never A is shorter than B and at the same time B is shorter than A.

Assertion is not an argument. Stating that these are the only possibilities
is an assertion.

[kenseto]

Right....Your assertion is not valid.

[Jose Gonzalez]

kenseto wrote:

>> > A paper on IRT is available in the following link:
>> > http://www.dunceheadnmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf
>>
>> That link does not work.
>
> The correct link is designed to prevent moron like you from reading it.

It couldn't prevent me.

[Jose Gonzalez]

kenseto wrote:

>> >The above interpretation of the length contraction equation gives rise
>> >to a new theory of relativity
>>
>> Not a theory, only an assertion. Theories need supporting evidence.
>
> Moron, SR’s mutual length contraction is an assertion....in our universe

Mutual?? That's why you are getting wrong all the time. There is no such
animal in physics. You have to take a stand, to the one, or the other.
Rewrite your theory starting from the first page. Wake up early.

[Mitch Raemsch]

Atoms would distort. And the universe has an absolute size.
Motion in dimension does not change it locally or globally.

[maluw...@gmail.com]

Python, poor idiot, if your muons have a point of
view - why can't a pole observe?

[kenseto]

Hey moron, mutual time or length contraction is an SR concept. It is derived from the principle of relativity.

[Jose Gonzalez]

No, is not. It's quite the opposite. That's why time gets dilated one
side. Your little theory is not even a _relativity in disguise_ then.

[kenseto]

Idiot.

[Jose Gonzalez]

Why so happy about deep science? They will never give you a rocket or a
spaceship to land on moon and other planets.
https://www.rt.com/news/473566-nasa-soyuz-money-spent/