There is no time dilation or physical length contraction.
kenseto
1. Clocks in different frames runs at different rates.
2. A clock second does not represent the same duration (absolute time
content) in different frames. In other words a clock second is not a
universal interval of time in different frames.
There is no physical length contraction.
1. The physical length of a meter stick remains that same in all
frames.
2. The observer assumes that the light path length of his meter stick
is the physical length of his meter stick and then he uses this
assumption and the SR equations to predict the light path length of a
moving meter stick is contractioned by a factor of 1/gamma.
IRT is a new theory of relativity. It includes the above concept for
time and length. A description of IRT is available in the following
link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf
Ken Seto
PD
> There is no time dilation.
> 1. Clocks in different frames runs at different rates.
That's what time dilation MEANS.
> 2. A clock second does not represent the same duration (absolute time
> content) in different frames. In other words a clock second is not a
> universal interval of time in different frames.
It isn't required that the clock second represent the same duration in
different frames. And you confuse "universal" with "absolute".
>
> There is no physical length contraction.
> 1. The physical length of a meter stick remains that same in all
> frames.
Not according to *measurement*.
> 2. The observer assumes that the light path length of his meter stick
> is the physical length of his meter stick and then he uses this
> assumption and the SR equations to predict the light path length of a
> moving meter stick is contractioned by a factor of 1/gamma.
Nowhere is there *measurement* in this statement. Length contraction
is (indirectly) *measured*.
Uncle Al
>
> There is no time dilation.
idiot
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele-Keating_experiment>
<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html>
<http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/pdf/flying_clock_math.pdf>
http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/cesium.shtml
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0008012
Hafele-Keating Experiment
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=node5.html>
<http://unusedcycles.wordpress.com/2008/05/30/physics-of-gps-relativistic-time-delay/>
Relativistic effects on orbital clocks
idiot
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
eric gisse
> There is no time dilation.
> 1. Clocks in different frames runs at different rates.
We call that 'time dilation'.
[snip rest of spew]
Sam Wormley
> There is no time dilation.
> 1. Clocks in different frames runs at different rates.
That IS time dilation!
General relativity is a fruitful tool to predict time
dilation agreeing with observations.
BURT
Time aether does slow. But energy doesn't contract. There are no
flatened forms.
MItch Raemsch
mpc755
> There is no time dilation.
> 1. Clocks in different frames runs at different rates.
Clocks ticking at different rates has nothing to do with the present.
BURT
Clocks are tiking away right now everywhere else.
Mitch Raemsch
PD
And the clock that is ticking presently has nothing to do with the
present.
:>)
mpc755
Yes, in the present.
What I meant to say was:
Clocks ticking at different rates has nothing to do with time. Clocks
all tick in the present.
Igor
Maybe you need to take a fine chamois and clean off your record. The
needle keeps getting stuck in the same groove.
BURT
Rates are determined by the time of the force of gravity and the time
of motion of energy. Both rates are in one time.
Mitch Raemsch
mpc755
Force of gravity is the force of the displaced aether pushing back on
the matter which displaced the aether.
Motion of energy is motion of the aether.
Time is a concept.
There is only the present.
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
This is flow science.
Mitch Raemsch
mpc755
It is Aether Displacement where aether is an elastic medium and is
displaced by matter and pushes back in an attempt to return to a state
of rest. The pushing back is gravity. Light propagates at 'c' relative
to the aether, just like any wave does in any medium. If you want to
call the motion of the aether flow science, go for it.
harry
Truly hilarious. Thanks all you people this thread is soo much fun! :))
BURT
I have because it is a better concept than motion.
PD
It's wonderful watching the Babble Exchange. It must relieve some
internal pressure for both of them.
mpc755
Yes, the concept of motion, but what of the aether being the elastic
medium which pushes back against the matter which displaces it being
gravity?
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Aether has no shape. It fills space.
Mitch Raemsch
Inertial
news:0e8846ab-d260-42ee...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> There is no time dilation.
You have no proof of course .. not even a working theory.
> 1. Clocks in different frames runs at different rates.
And how is that different from time dilation?
> 2. A clock second does not represent the same duration (absolute time
> content) in different frames. In other words a clock second is not a
> universal interval of time in different frames.
Its not supposed to be .. it supposed to keep time in its own frame
> There is no physical length contraction.
You have no proof of course .. not even a working theory.
> 1. The physical length of a meter stick remains that same in all
> frames.
What do you mean by physical length?
> 2. The observer assumes that the light path length of his meter stick
> is the physical length of his meter stick
No observer measures light path length and no observer makes any assuptions
about something you made up
> and then he uses this
> assumption and the SR equations to predict the light path length of a
> moving meter stick is contractioned by a factor of 1/gamma.
He doesn't care what light path length is. Its some nonsense idea you made
up that is inconsistent.
> IRT is a new theory of relativity.
Its not new and its not a theory
> It includes the above concept for
> time and length. A description of IRT is available in the following
> link:
Looks for it in your nearest garbage bin where it belongs.
mpc755
Except for where it has been displaced by matter.
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Everything is in the aether. The immaterial cannot be displaced by the
material.
Mitch Raemsch
mpc755
Aether is material. Aether is matter in its basic form. No two
materials can exist in the same point in three dimensional space
simultaneously. The aether is displaced by matter.
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
No. Einstein said it had to be immaterial in his Leiden lectures. And
I agree with him. It cannot be displaced. Energy is in the immaterial.
Mitch Raemsch
mpc755
And yes, everything is in the aether. Matter exists in the aether. The
matter has displaced the aether which would otherwise exist where the
matter is.
mpc755
Einstein had to say it was immaterial in order for Einstein to say
"the idea of motion may not be applied to [aether]". Einstein had to
say that or two frames of reference occupying the same three
dimensional space would not have the aether at rest relative to both
frames. What Einstein was incorrect about is two frames moving
relative to one another cannot have the aether be motionless relative
to both. It is physically impossible.
When you say everything exists in the aether, that is exactly right.
Matter exists in the aether. Matter has displaced the aether which
mpc755
Einstein had to say it was immaterial in order for Einstein to say
"the idea of motion may not be applied to [aether]". Einstein had to
say that or two frames of reference occupying the same three
dimensional space would not have the aether at rest relative to both
frames. What Einstein was incorrect about is two frames moving
relative to one another in shared space cannot have the aether be
mpc755
Einstein also said the state of the aether is dependent on its
connections to the matter and the state of the aether in the
surrounding space.
What is the 'state' of the aether if it isn't its state of
displacement?
mpc755
Einstein had to say it was immaterial in order for Einstein to say
"the idea of motion may not be applied to [aether]". Einstein had to
say that or two frames of reference occupying the same three
dimensional space would not have the aether at rest relative to both
frames. What Einstein was incorrect about is two frames moving
relative to one another in shared space cannot have the aether be
motionless relative to both. It is physically impossible.
When you say everything is in the aether, that is exactly right.
Matter exists in the aether. Matter has displaced the aether which
would otherwise exist where the matter is.
Einstein also said the state of the aether is dependent on its
connections to the matter and the state of the aether in the
surrounding space.
What is the 'state' of the aether and the 'state' of the surrounding
mpc755
Einstein had to say it was immaterial in order for Einstein to say
BURT
> On Nov 12, 9:36 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > There is no time dilation.
> > 1. Clocks in different frames runs at different rates.
>
>
> > 2. A clock second does not represent the same duration (absolute time
> > content) in different frames. In other words a clock second is not a
> > universal interval of time in different frames.
>
> different frames. And you confuse "universal" with "absolute".
>
>
>
> > There is no physical length contraction.
> > frames.
>
>
> > 2. The observer assumes that the light path length of his meter stick
> > assumption and the SR equations to predict the light path length of a
> > moving meter stick is contractioned by a factor of 1/gamma.
>
> is (indirectly) *measured*.
>
>
>
>
>
> > IRT is a new theory of relativity. It includes the above concept for
> > time and length. A description of IRT is available in the following
>
> > Ken Seto- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
If we can't measure contraction it should not be considered a fact in
science.
There is no shrinking energy. No flat atom forms no contraction of
space.
The universe cannot go flat.
Mitch Raemsch
Inertial
news:32c4d849-6559-4e72...@s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
We have measured it .. but not directly
> There is no shrinking energy.
Who said there was?
> No flat atom forms no contraction of
> space.
SR doesn't say that there is any flattening of atoms (thought LET does).
> The universe cannot go flat.
SR doesn't say it does. You really should try to understand what SR DOES
say, and not what is written in popular articles and what crackpots think it
means.
BURT
> "BURT" <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
If motion shrinks space and trains we need dircet evidence if you are
consididering proof.
There are no flat forms; atoms trains or the universe. It is bad
science.
Mitch Raemsch
Inertial
Proof of what?
> There are no flat forms; atoms trains or the universe. It is bad
> science.
There aren't any in SR either.. guess that makes it good science.
PD
But we can. It's been measured, albeit indirectly.
PD
Well, first of all, science offers proof of nothing, so if you're
looking for proof you're in the wrong zip code.
Secondly, indirect evidence is among the best in science for a variety
of reasons. Whether you believe it or not is not really the driving
consideration.
PD
Funny how you think scientists "have to" say things rather than just
saying what they're pretty sure of.
kenseto
> kenseto wrote:
> > There is no time dilation.
> > 1. Clocks in different frames runs at different rates.
>
>
> General relativity is a fruitful tool to predict time
> dilation agreeing with observations.
Hey wormy that's not time dilation....that's GPS second containing
4.15 more periods of Cs133 radiation to make the GPS second contains
the same amount of absolute time as the ground second.
Ken Seto
john
Sam, I gotta agree with Ken.
Time *has* to be the same everywhere.*
The faster or slower aging of one system
over another just has to do with how fast they are
going relative to each other.
*They* have faster or slower pulses relative
to Time, which was already said in the
first part of the sentence when I said 'faster'.
Because Time *is* our monitor.
john
Sam Wormley
Well, John, I'm a bit disappointed in you, for Seto is logically and
empirically wrong. Do you know what "empirically wrong" means?
mpc755
There is only the present.
Clocks tick faster or slower in the present.
The rate at which clocks tick has nothing to do with time.
Time is a concept.
kenseto
> "kenseto" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote in message
>
> news:0e8846ab-d260-42ee...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > There is no time dilation.
>
> You have no proof of course .. not even a working theory.
Sure I have a working theory. The GPS second is redefined to have 4.15
more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the groound clock second...this
is done to make the GPS second contains the same amount of absolute
time as the ground second.
>
> > 1. Clocks in different frames runs at different rates.
>
> And how is that different from time dilation?
The differences are:
1. clocks in relative motion are truly running at different rates.
That means that if clock A is running faster than clock B then clock B
is running slower than clock A. There is no such thing as mutual time
dilation.
>
> > 2. A clock second does not represent the same duration (absolute time
> > content) in different frames. In other words a clock second is not a
> > universal interval of time in different frames.
>
> Its not supposed to be .. it supposed to keep time in its own frame
Hey idiot the definition for time "time is what the clock measures" is
wrong....why? Because a clock second does not contain the same amount
of time (same amount of duration or absolute time) in different
frames.
>
> > There is no physical length contraction.
>
> You have no proof of course .. not even a working theory.
Sure I have a working theory.
>
> > 1. The physical length of a meter stick remains that same in all
> > frames.
>
> What do you mean by physical length?
We use physical ruler to measure length everyday. There is no need to
invent a rubber ruler so that you can make the speed of light to be
constant.
>
> > 2. The observer assumes that the light path length of his meter stick
> > is the physical length of his meter stick
>
> No observer measures light path length and no observer makes any assuptions
> about something you made up
Hey idiot....light path length of a meter stick is frame
dependent....not the physical length as asserted by the runts of the
Srians like you. In fact modern interpretation of SR is that the
geometric projection of a moving meter stick is contracted....this is
equiavlent to the light path length of a moving meter stick is
shorter.
>
> > and then he uses this
> > assumption and the SR equations to predict the light path length of a
> > moving meter stick is contractioned by a factor of 1/gamma.
>
> He doesn't care what light path length is. Its some nonsense idea you made
> up that is inconsistent.
Of courase he care. In SR the physical length of a meter stick is not
changed ....the geometric projection of a moving meter stick is frame
dependent.
>
> > IRT is a new theory of relativity.
>
> Its not new and its not a theory
You are the stupidest runt of the SRians.
Ken Seto
john
>
> - Show quoted text -
Do you know what 'monitor'
means? Background? Matrix?
Time is our reference. Everything has this reference.
It cannot be different for any part or you no
longer have a control.
Time is the reason you can compare the rate of
one clock against another.
john
eric gisse
Absolute time doesn't seem all that absolute now does it Ken?
>
> Ken Seto
glird
>
>< Einstein had to say it was immaterial in order for Einstein to say "the idea of motion may not be applied to [aether]". Einstein had to say that or two frames of reference occupying the same three dimensional space would not have the aether at rest relative to both frames. What Einstein was incorrect about is two frames moving relative to one another in shared space cannot have the aether be motionless relative to both. It is physically impossible. >
Einstein did not say that the ether is immaterial. He said that we
can't assign the idea of motion to parts of it; which means that we
can't track the motion of individual portions. He was right about
that, but for a reason nobody pointed out: HIS aether was a
continuous compressible material NOT MADE OF or configured into
PARTICLES. (There is no way to track a portion of matter that is
easily dispersed into multiple directions, in each of which a smaller
portion of it flows.)
>< When you say everything is in the aether, that is exactly right.
Matter exists in the aether. Matter has displaced the aether which
would otherwise exist where the matter is. >
In my terms, "aether" (ether) denotes the continuous aspect of a
material field whether or not particles are part of that continuum. As
such, it IS matter; the one and only kind of matter that exists.
Particles are made of this space-filling material, which they do
displace by their presence.
>< Einstein also said the state of the aether is dependent on its connections to the matter and the state of the aether in the surrounding space. >
If we let "aether" denote only the continuous non-particulate aspect
of matter, and let its "state" denote its local density, then he was
right about that.
>< What is the 'state' of the aether and the 'state' of the surrounding aether if it isn't its state of displacement? >
The "states" of matter are solid, liquid and gaseous. If the word
"aether" includes particles, then THEY are what constitute those
states of matter. (Amorphous matter has no such states.)
It is well known that the state of a group of particles (atoms and
molecules) depends on their relations -- connections -- to each other;
and so does the condition -- density and pressure -- of the
intervening easily movable resistively-compressible etheric matter.
glird
mpc755
Exactly. A=mc^2, where A is aether. The effect the increase in volume
matter has when it transitions to aether is energy.
PD
>
> > kenseto wrote:
> > > There is no time dilation.
> > > 1. Clocks in different frames runs at different rates.
>
> > That IS time dilation!
>
> > General relativity is a fruitful tool to predict time
> > dilation agreeing with observations.
>
> Hey wormy that's not time dilation...
Um, yes, Ken it is. If you didn't know what time dilation meant in the
first place, you could start by admitting it.
PD
> On Nov 13, 8:37 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 12, 1:23 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
> > > kenseto wrote:
> > > > There is no time dilation.
> > > > 1. Clocks in different frames runs at different rates.
>
> > > That IS time dilation!
>
> > > General relativity is a fruitful tool to predict time
> > > dilation agreeing with observations.
>
> > Hey wormy that's not time dilation....that's GPS second containing
> > 4.15 more periods of Cs133 radiation to make the GPS second contains
> > the same amount of absolute time as the ground second.
>
> > Ken Seto
>
> Sam, I gotta agree with Ken.
>
> Time *has* to be the same everywhere.*
What makes you so sure you can make pronouncements about how nature
HAS to behave?
BURT
I don't need proof to see that flat atoms are wrong science. This
science is not a fact.
>
> Secondly, indirect evidence is among the best in science for a variety
> of reasons. Whether you believe it or not is not really the driving
> consideration.
What is the indirect evidence?
MItch Raemsch
>
>
>
> > There are no flat forms; atoms trains or the universe. It is bad
> > science.
>
> > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
PD
Mitch, you can't decide what is fact and what is not fact based on
intuition and thinking.
The only way to tell -- and this is what science does -- is from
experimental evidence (direct and indirect).
You say flat atoms are impossible and inconceivable, but you can't
really KNOW that until you've done careful experimental tests to see
if that's really so. Nature is very surprising.
>
>
>
> > Secondly, indirect evidence is among the best in science for a variety
> > of reasons. Whether you believe it or not is not really the driving
> > consideration.
>
> What is the indirect evidence?
I've mentioned before the rapidity distributions of secondary
particles from hadron-hadron collisions in both fixed target and
collider experiments. This is explicitly looking at the very same
physical process from two different reference frames. The calorimeter
segmentation that assures uniform illumination across the rapidity
plateau is pretty clear support for length contraction.
BURT
Secondary particles are seen to contract how?
I doubt this. There are no flat particles.
Mitch Raemsch
> This is explicitly looking at the very same
> physical process from two different reference frames. The calorimeter
> segmentation that assures uniform illumination across the rapidity
> plateau is pretty clear support for length contraction.
>
Mitch Raemsch
>
>
>
> > MItch Raemsch
>
> > > > There are no flat forms; atoms trains or the universe. It is bad
> > > > science.
>
> > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I need
PD
You didn't seem to absorb the statement made above. You went on ahead
to simply state, without any evidence one way or the other, that
"there are no flat particles," as though just saying it makes it so.
>
> > > > Secondly, indirect evidence is among the best in science for a variety
> > > > of reasons. Whether you believe it or not is not really the driving
> > > > consideration.
>
> > > What is the indirect evidence?
>
> > I've mentioned before the rapidity distributions of secondary
> > particles from hadron-hadron collisions in both fixed target and
> > collider experiments.
>
> Secondary particles are seen to contract how?
The *distribution* of the secondary particles are seen to contract.
You can google "calorimeter pseudorapidity segmentation" if you'd like
to do some initial contact.
> I doubt this. There are no flat particles.'
This is the statement you simply cannot make without the benefit of
experimental evidence, Mitch. That's my point.
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
But you are wrong. Indirect evidence is not conclusive.
The forms of the universe cannot contract. I want to know if there
evidence that they expand?
Mitch Raemsch
PD
I'm sorry, Mitch, but much of what we know scientifically comes from
indirect evidence.
It's a shame you didn't know that.
>
> The forms of the universe cannot contract.
And how do you KNOW that?
Inertial
news:215ee09d-ba07-4cf2...@b36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
And you will find the a moving one ticks slower.
Inertial
news:86d8feb2-7242-4f8a...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 12, 5:58 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> "kenseto" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:0e8846ab-d260-42ee...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > There is no time dilation.
>>
>> You have no proof of course .. not even a working theory.
>
> Sure I have a working theory.
>
> The GPS second is redefined to have 4.15
> more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the groound clock second...this
> is done to make the GPS second contains the same amount of absolute
> time as the ground second.
>>
>> > 1. Clocks in different frames runs at different rates.
>>
>> And how is that different from time dilation?
>
> The differences are:
> 1. clocks in relative motion are truly running at different rates.
> That means that if clock A is running faster than clock B then clock B
> is running slower than clock A. There is no such thing as mutual time
> dilation.
So... how do you synchronise clocks in your 'theory'. How can I set up two
clocks some distance apart (but not moving relative to each other) and have
them in synch. How do you determine if they are in sych?
Inertial
news:86d8feb2-7242-4f8a...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
Something you made up and cannot measure so it is useless
Inertial
news:86d8feb2-7242-4f8a...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
There is no 'rubber ruler' in SR at all. You clearly don't understand SR at
all, yet feel compelled to make comments out of ignorance.
mpc755
> "john" <vega...@accesscomm.ca> wrote in message
Yes, it takes longer to tick. Nothing to do with time.
Sam Wormley
>
> Yes, it takes longer [time] to tick. Nothing to do with time.
<laughing>
mpc755
Yes, it takes more time to tick since the previous tick. That doesn't
mean time has changed. It just means the clock is running slower. If
you have a battery operated clock in your house and it starts to tick
slower has time changed, or do you replace the batteries?
BURT
Time is in the instant. We are talking about now everywhere.
Mitch Raemsch
mpc755
Exactly.
kenseto
> "kenseto" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote in message
>
> news:86d8feb2-7242-4f8a...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 12, 5:58 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> >> "kenseto" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:0e8846ab-d260-42ee...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > There is no time dilation.
>
> >> You have no proof of course .. not even a working theory.
>
> > Sure I have a working theory.
>
> > The GPS second is redefined to have 4.15
> > more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the groound clock second...this
> > is done to make the GPS second contains the same amount of absolute
> > time as the ground second.
>
> >> > 1. Clocks in different frames runs at different rates.
>
> >> And how is that different from time dilation?
>
> > The differences are:
> > 1. clocks in relative motion are truly running at different rates.
> > That means that if clock A is running faster than clock B then clock B
> > is running slower than clock A. There is no such thing as mutual time
> > dilation.
>
> So... how do you synchronise clocks in your 'theory'. How can I set up two
> clocks some distance apart (but not moving relative to each other) and have
> them in synch. How do you determine if they are in sych?
You move the clocks in the opposite directions with the same velocity
and stop them simultaneously. Such clocks will remain synchronized.
Or you calculate the time rate difference using IRT equations and set
the clocks before launch.
kenseto
Hey idiot....light path length of a meter stick in the observer's
frame is assumed to be the physical length of his meter stick....so
light path length is measured. Using this assumed standard the light
path length of a moving meter stick is predicted using the IRT
equation.
kenseto
Sure there is....a ruler accelerated from the observer is contracted
but when it return it will recover it physical length. Sounds pretty
rubbery to me.
Ken Seto
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
There are no flattened forms neither atoms matter or space. It is just
a belief and no direct evidence. The universe cannot go flat.
Mitch Raemsch
Inertial
Fail: Not in your theory.
And if there is already a pair of clocks some fixed distance apart, how do
you tell if they are in sync?
> Or you calculate the time rate difference using IRT equations and set
> the clocks before launch.
What launch' .. we've just got two clocks some distance apart, not moving
relative to each other
Inertial
That's just some arbitrary assumption. What is the ACTUAL light path
length.
> so
> light path length is measured.
So if I measure the length of a moving ruler .. I can assume that is its
light path length of the ruler.
> Using this assumed standard the light
> path length of a moving meter stick is predicted using the IRT
> equation.
And your theory says it will be shorter. And as the length of a ruler is
its light path length, someone moving with the ruler would assume the length
of the ruler is hosrter, because we just showed its light path length is
shorter. So your theory predicts length contraction.
Inertial
Its measured length is contracted .. returning to the same place doesn't
make any difference to the measurement .. returning to the same velocity
relative to the observer does
> Sounds pretty
> rubbery to me.
There is no change in the ruler itself .. assuming it was a rigid body. Of
course, you do know that there is no such thing as a rigid body in reality.
BURT
The contracting measuring rod is what Einstein said that space
contracted.
Inertial
news:cedbe592-66f6-4279...@r24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
There is no change in a ruler itself when it is moving .. differently moving
observers will measure different lengths for the same ruler. If the motion
of the ruler changes, different observers will say different things about
how the measurement of its length changed (some may say it is measured
longer, others shorter, some may say it is the same). However, any observer
that is comoving with the ruler will always get the largest measurement of
its length.
BURT
> "BURT" <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Relativity is a theory of simple appearences. It is invalid as
Einstein wrote it.
Mitch Raemsch
Inertial
"BURT" <macro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:05de9db1-b1c6-473c...@t11g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Wrong
kenseto
No such measurement ever been made....in fact it is impossible to do
so. SR predicts length contraction mathematically and prediction is
not a measurement. The modern SR interpretation is that no physical
length (material length) contraction. The geometric projection of a
moving ruler is contracted.....much like a longer ladder can pass
through a narrow door way by orientation.
You really need to keep up with what SR is saying before you keep on
making a fool of yourself in these NGs.
Ken Seto
>
> > Sounds pretty
> > rubbery to me.
>
> There is no change in the ruler itself .. assuming it was a rigid body. Of
> course, you do know that there is no such thing as a rigid body in reality.- Hide quoted text -
kenseto
Hey idiot...it is in my theory.
>
> And if there is already a pair of clocks some fixed distance apart, how do
> you tell if they are in sync?
Clocks apart cannot be in sync unless they were originally out of sync
before they were moved apart.
>
> > Or you calculate the time rate difference using IRT equations and set
> > the clocks before launch.
>
> What launch' .. we've just got two clocks some distance apart, not moving
> relative to each other
There is no way to make two spatially separated clocks to have the
same reading at the same instant of time. However, two clocks in the
same frame will run at the same rate. BTW that's the reason why
physicists refused to measure the one-way speed of light.
In SR Einstein assumed that the speed of light is isotropic and he
sync the two spatially separated clocks by sending a light signal to
the other clock and when the signal arrive at the other clock you
advance the clock to have a reading of L/c.
Inertial
If it is a prediction of what wuold be measured. Experiment supports those
predictions. You don't understand science
> The modern SR interpretation is that no physical
> length (material length) contraction.
No intrinsinc change in and objects own frame of reference. But different
measurements of the length from moving observers
> The geometric projection of a
> moving ruler is contracted.....
No .. its measured length
> much like a longer ladder can pass*
> through a narrow door way by orientation.
Is somewhat similar, but not the same
> You really need to keep up with what SR is saying before you keep on
> making a fool of yourself in these NGs.
I understand it far better than you, moron. I've been trying to teach you,
but you're not a good pupil
Inertial
"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:76ef4732-79df-438e...@p23g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
Not in your theory. Which makes it pretty much useless.
> However, two clocks in the
> same frame will run at the same rate.
Yes they will
> BTW that's the reason why
> physicists refused to measure the one-way speed of light.
> In SR Einstein assumed that the speed of light is isotropic and he
> sync the two spatially separated clocks by sending a light signal to
> the other clock and when the signal arrive at the other clock you
> advance the clock to have a reading of L/c.
But you can keep clocks in sync in SR by syncing them when together and then
moving them apart. You can't do that in your theory. Or by sending
known-speed signals between them; you could do that in yours, but then in
your theory, you wouldn't measure isotropic speed for light in that case
using those clocks.
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
All clocks are in their now instant everywhere. This is universal.
Mitch Raemsch
Inertial
The now instant isn't an instant .. its eternal. Its always now. Have you
ever woken up in the morning and found that it wasn't now?
Of course, at any instant of time (whatever that really means) we only
experience one part of the eternal now. Everyone you see is experiencing a
different part of their now by the time you get to see them (or hear them
etc) .. you only ever experience the past now's of others. And they
experience you as you were in your past now's.
BURT
> "BURT" <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
You wouldn't know eternity from a hole in a wall.
Mitch Raemsch
Inertial
Well.. no, noone can have experienced eternity, though one can experience a
finite part of it. But now is always now. There has never been a time in
your existence when it wasn't now. Its always now.
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Its always now everywhere you go.
Mitch Raemsch
Inertial
That's what I said. Gees.
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Now is an instant everywhere.
Mitch Raemsch
kenseto
Fucking idiot you don't know anything about my theory.
>
> > However, two clocks in the
> > same frame will run at the same rate.
>
> Yes they will
>
> > BTW that's the reason why
> > physicists refused to measure the one-way speed of light.
> > In SR Einstein assumed that the speed of light is isotropic and he
> > sync the two spatially separated clocks by sending a light signal to
> > the other clock and when the signal arrive at the other clock you
> > advance the clock to have a reading of L/c.
>
> But you can keep clocks in sync in SR by syncing them when together and then
> moving them apart.
Yes if you move them at the same velocity and stop them
simultaneously. IRT agrees with that. That's why I proposed
experiments to get two spatially separated clocks to measure the one-
way speed of light.
> You can't do that in your theory.
You are so fucking stupid....IRT agree with that completely.
>Or by sending
> known-speed signals between them; you could do that in yours, but then in
> your theory, you wouldn't measure isotropic speed for light in that case
> using those clocks.
Fucking idiot...IRT posits that the speed of light is a constant math
ratio in all frames. That's why it is a super set of SR and LET. You
are so stupid.
Ken Seto
kenseto
No idiot its you who don't understand science. No such measurement
ever been made. You use the term "measuure" to give credence to your
bogus theory.
>
> > The modern SR interpretation is that no physical
> > length (material length) contraction.
>
> No intrinsinc change in and objects own frame of reference. But different
> measurements of the length from moving observers
So that means that no physical change to the material length of the
ruler....so the SR contraction is the geometric effect. Similarly in
IRT no physical change in the length of a moving ruler but the light
path length of a moving ruler is predicted to be shorter or longer
than the observer's ruler.
>
> > The geometric projection of a
> > moving ruler is contracted.....
>
> No .. its measured length
No fucking idiot....there is no such mesurement made.
>
> > much like a longer ladder can pass*
> > through a narrow door way by orientation.
>
> Is somewhat similar, but not the same
So length contraction is not real.....it is a projectional effect.
>
> > You really need to keep up with what SR is saying before you keep on
> > making a fool of yourself in these NGs.
>
> I understand it far better than you, moron. I've been trying to teach you,
> but you're not a good pupil-
No you are the stupidest runt of the Srians.
Ken Seto
eric gisse
[...]
> So length contraction is not real.....it is a projectional effect.
It took 15 years for you to learn this. I'm so proud!
[...]
Inertial
You just said that you can't make two spatially separated clocks have the
same reading at the same instant. Were you lying?
>> > However, two clocks in the
>> > same frame will run at the same rate.
>>
>> Yes they will
>>
>> > BTW that's the reason why
>> > physicists refused to measure the one-way speed of light.
>> > In SR Einstein assumed that the speed of light is isotropic and he
>> > sync the two spatially separated clocks by sending a light signal to
>> > the other clock and when the signal arrive at the other clock you
>> > advance the clock to have a reading of L/c.
>>
>> But you can keep clocks in sync in SR by syncing them when together and
>> then
>> moving them apart.
>
> Yes if you move them at the same velocity and stop them
> simultaneously. IRT agrees with that.
No .. it doesn't. Unless IRT has RoS, which you say it doesn't
> That's why I proposed
> experiments to get two spatially separated clocks to measure the one-
> way speed of light.
But IRT will give different times for clocks moved apart at the same speed
.. they won't stay in sync
>> You can't do that in your theory.
>
> You are so fucking stupid....IRT agree with that completely.
You say your theory has time slower at higher levels of absolute motion, but
not RoS. That means that moving clocks apart will result in them going out
of sync.
>>Or by sending
>> known-speed signals between them; you could do that in yours, but then in
>> your theory, you wouldn't measure isotropic speed for light in that case
>> using those clocks.
>
> Fucking idiot...IRT posits that the speed of light is a constant math
> ratio in all frames.
Then IRT is self contradictory, which we all know (but you won't admit)
> That's why it is a super set of SR and LET.
No .. it is not. Otherwise it would predict all the things SR predicts ..
it doesn't.
> You
> are so stupid.
> Ken Seto
You had a period instead of a comma .. that should have read "You are so
stupid, Ken Seto"
Inertial
Wrong
> You use the term "measuure" to give credence to your
> bogus theory.
You use the term 'light path length of rod' and 'absolute time' to yours.
But the thing is.. your theory doesn't work.
>> > The modern SR interpretation is that no physical
>> > length (material length) contraction.
>>
>> No intrinsinc change in and objects own frame of reference. But
>> different
>> measurements of the length from moving observers
>
> So that means that no physical change to the material length of the
> ruler....
To its intrinsic length .. yes
> so the SR contraction is the geometric effect.
It is a change in the measured value for length. Just like different
observers get differnet values for an objects momentem or velocity
> Similarly in
> IRT no physical change in the length of a moving ruler but the light
> path length of a moving ruler is predicted to be shorter or longer
> than the observer's ruler.
And how would you measure the light path length of a moving ruler?
>> > The geometric projection of a
>> > moving ruler is contracted.....
>>
>> No .. its measured length
>
> No fucking idiot....there is no such mesurement made.
Wrong
>> > much like a longer ladder can pass*
>> > through a narrow door way by orientation.
>>
>> Is somewhat similar, but not the same
>
> So length contraction is not real.....
So tilting a ladder to fit through a door isn't real?
> it is a projectional effect.
You can calculate the real effect that way
>> > You really need to keep up with what SR is saying before you keep on
>> > making a fool of yourself in these NGs.
>>
>> I understand it far better than you, moron. I've been trying to teach
>> you,
>> but you're not a good pupil-
>
> No you are the stupidest runt of the Srians.
That's the comment you make to anyone smarter than you and who understands
physics far better than you.
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
The universe is a form that cannot contract. This demonstrates that 3
dimensional space contraction is not right.
There are no flat atoms in Einstein train either.
Mitch Raemsch
Inertial
How do you know?
> This demonstrates that 3
> dimensional space contraction is not right.
How do you know?
> There are no flat atoms in Einstein train either.
Yeup .. SR doesn't have flat atoms (but LET does). Nothing happens to atoms
simply because something moving relative to them measures them. But they
occupy less space at a given time in the moving frame of reference. SR is
all about what happens to measurements. An infinite number of different
observers, each in a different inertial frame, will get an infinite number
of different measurements for a length (just like they do for velocity).
Same for measurements of the ticking rate for a given clock.
BURT
> "BURT" <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
I understand it.
>
> > There are no flat atoms in Einstein train either.
>
> Yeup .. SR doesn't have flat atoms (but LET does). Nothing happens to atoms
> simply because something moving relative to them measures them. But they
> occupy less space at a given time in the moving frame of reference. SR is
> all about what happens to measurements. An infinite number of different
> observers, each in a different inertial frame, will get an infinite number
> of different measurements for a length (just like they do for velocity).
> Same for measurements of the ticking rate for a given clock.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
The train shrinks in SR. You got SR wrong.
Mitch Raemsch
Inertial
Nope. Some relatively moving observer measuring its length does not change
the train. Each different relatively moving observer measures a different
length for the train.
In LET its trickier ... in addition to the above, the train may or may not
be shrunk by some factor which you cannot determine.
> You got SR wrong.
No .. apparently you don't understand SR at all.
BURT
> On Nov 13, 4:51 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
> > mpc755 wrote:
>
> > > Yes, it takes longer [time] to tick. Nothing to do with time.
>
> > <laughing>
>
> Yes, it takes more time to tick since the previous tick. That doesn't
> mean time has changed. It just means the clock is running slower. If
> you have a battery operated clock in your house and it starts to tick
> slower has time changed, or do you replace the batteries?
Time has a rate and it can slow down. This has basically been
demonstrated by the atomic clock.
I think you are stupid for doubting this truth.
Mitch Raemsch
Inertial
Of course, the thing is, if ALL clocks (by which we really mean all
processes, all motion etc) are slowed down, in what way would that be
meaningfully different to time slowing down?
kenseto
Fucking idiot RoS makes the speed of light in the observed frame
aniisotopic.....the speed of light front the front to M' is c+v and
the speed of light from the rear is c-v. You are so fucking stupid I
am not going to waste anymore time with you.
Ken Seto
>
> > That's why I proposed
> > experiments to get two spatially separated clocks to measure the one-
> > way speed of light.
>
> But IRT will give different times for clocks moved apart at the same speed
> .. they won't stay in sync
>
> >> You can't do that in your theory.
>
> > You are so fucking stupid....IRT agree with that completely.
>
> You say your theory has time slower at higher levels of absolute motion, but
> not RoS. That means that moving clocks apart will result in them going out
> of sync.
>
> >>Or by sending
> >> known-speed signals between them; you could do that in yours, but then in
> >> your theory, you wouldn't measure isotropic speed for light in that case
> >> using those clocks.
>
> > Fucking idiot...IRT posits that the speed of light is a constant math
> > ratio in all frames.
>
> Then IRT is self contradictory, which we all know (but you won't admit)
>
> > That's why it is a super set of SR and LET.
>
> No .. it is not. Otherwise it would predict all the things SR predicts ..
> it doesn't.
>
> > You
> > are so stupid.
> > Ken Seto
>
> You had a period instead of a comma .. that should have read "You are so
> stupid, Ken Seto"- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
glird
> < you can't decide what is fact and what is not fact based on intuition and thinking. The only way to tell -- and this is what science does -- is from experimental evidence (direct and indirect). >
Unfortunately, our scientists ignore some of the experimental
evidence in favor of their preconceived erroneous notions. for
example; quantum theory asserts that when a quantum of energy
interacts with an atom, "either all or none of it is absorbed". That
the Compton Effect - which shows that when light transits an atom "all
or SOME of its energy is absorbed and the light continues on with that
much less energy remaining in it" - proves that this theory is false
is ignored.
As a result of this ignore-ance, present science believes that all
the matter and energy in the universe originated at a point - called a
"singularity" - in nowhere about 13 billion years ago. The fact that
there is no mechanism by which that could have happened is ignored. So
is the first law of Physics: "Neither matter or energy can be created
or destroyed".
>< Nature is very surprising. >
To those who deny sense evidence and the validity of human reason,
and ignore salient experimental facts, that is true. For those of us
who base their conclusions on the evidence given by our senses - which
have been honed by billions of years of survival of the fittest - as
interpreted by our sense of reason, the only thing about nature that
IS surprising is that our scientists believe total nonsense is true
even though experimental evidence proves it is false.
glird
PD
> On Nov 13, 3:16 pm, PD wrote:
>
> > < you can't decide what is fact and what is not fact based on intuition and thinking. The only way to tell -- and this is what science does -- is from experimental evidence (direct and indirect). >
>
> Unfortunately, our scientists ignore some of the experimental
> evidence in favor of their preconceived erroneous notions. for
> example; quantum theory asserts that when a quantum of energy
> interacts with an atom, "either all or none of it is absorbed". That
> the Compton Effect - which shows that when light transits an atom "all
> or SOME of its energy is absorbed and the light continues on with that
> much less energy remaining in it" - proves that this theory is false
> is ignored.
Well, wait a minute. the statement by quantum theory that when a
quantum of energy interacts with an atom either all of it or none of
it is absorbed, this doesn't mean that the absorption cannot be
followed by a re-emission. Heck, this is where the absorption and
emission spectra of gases COME from: the absorption of quanta and then
the re-emission of other quanta. There is no difference between this
and the Compton effect, except that the Compton effect produces a
continuous spectrum, as the quanta are being absorbed by free, not
bound, electrons.
> As a result of this ignore-ance, present science believes that all
> the matter and energy in the universe originated at a point - called a
> "singularity" - in nowhere about 13 billion years ago. The fact that
> there is no mechanism by which that could have happened is ignored.
Matter yes, energy no. Perhaps you misunderstand the Big Bang.
> So
> is the first law of Physics: "Neither matter or energy can be created
> or destroyed".
Well, first of all, I don't know where you got this "first law of
Physics", because it is not accurate. Matter is routinely created and
destroyed. Electrons and positrons annihilate every day as a
diagnostic tool in hospitals (called PET scanning -- you can google
that), which completely destroys that matter and produces energy
instead.
Secondly, please keep in mind that ALL laws of physics are *inferred*
from nature by humans, and that some of those inferences are correct
and some of them prove to be only correct some of the time and in some
cases they prove to be just plain incorrect. Nature doesn't change
(much), but our guesses about the laws by which nature works do change
all the time as we learn more. This is as it should be.
>
> >< Nature is very surprising. >
>
> To those who deny sense evidence and the validity of human reason,
> and ignore salient experimental facts, that is true. For those of us
> who base their conclusions on the evidence given by our senses - which
> have been honed by billions of years of survival of the fittest - as
> interpreted by our sense of reason,
Please keep in mind that our senses were honed to deal with nature at
our scale and for our survival purposes, and in fact our senses are
honed to only a thin slice of nature. We therefore make
generalizations and guess rules that apply to that THIN SLICE of
nature. Those often work very well in that thin slice, even though
they turn out to be only approximations of better rules that apply
more broadly in nature. It is only in the course of the last couple of
centuries that we have been able to systematically investigate nature
in scales well outside our senses, and in so doing we've discovered
that some of the rules we thought were general are in fact only
approximations.
> the only thing about nature that
> IS surprising is that our scientists believe total nonsense is true
> even though experimental evidence proves it is false.
You'll have to give me an example of experimental evidence that proves
what we believe is in fact false. I'll make a small wager that in most
cases, it is actually an example of you misunderstanding what science
actually says. We've already covered your misunderstanding of the
absorption of quanta. What other statements do you think are countered
by experimental evidence?
PD