Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #427012 > unrolled thread

In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing!

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-03 03:07 -0700
    Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! Npierre Imaux <tr@ieewerr.cp> - 2017-08-03 10:51 +0000
      Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-03 10:33 -0700
        Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! Otten Schneijders <jii@pouartj.op> - 2017-08-03 19:53 +0000
          Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-03 13:22 -0700
    Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-03 06:08 -0700
      Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-03 10:33 -0700
        Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! Vliert Snijders <ouwi@leolaph.wo> - 2017-08-06 09:48 +0000
          Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-06 18:48 +0200
            Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! Earline Loar <ureoo@wwarao.ei> - 2017-08-06 22:26 +0000
            Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-08-06 21:20 -0500
              Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2017-08-07 09:24 +0200
                Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-07 00:52 -0700
                  Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2017-08-07 15:27 +0200
                    Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-07 07:08 -0700
                Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! Earline Loar <ureoo@wwarao.ei> - 2017-08-07 08:44 +0000
                Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-08-09 05:05 -0500
              Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-07 10:26 +0200
                Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! Earline Loar <ureoo@wwarao.ei> - 2017-08-07 08:54 +0000
                Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-08-09 05:14 -0500
                  Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-09 12:40 +0200
                    Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-08-09 07:32 -0500
                      Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-09 17:03 +0200
                        Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-10 01:02 +0200
                      Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-08-09 16:49 -0500
                        Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-10 01:10 +0200
                          Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! Winfred Tucker <cnt@iiefeer.dc> - 2017-08-09 23:15 +0000
                          Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-10 01:36 +0200
                            Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-10 01:39 -0700
                            Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-08-10 03:46 -0500
                          Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-08-10 03:31 -0500
            Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-06 23:27 -0700
              Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! Earline Loar <ureoo@wwarao.ei> - 2017-08-07 08:35 +0000
              Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-07 07:55 -0700
                Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-08-09 05:21 -0500
                  Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 09:17 -0700
                    Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-09 10:36 -0700
                    Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-08-09 16:52 -0500
                      Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 15:28 -0700
                        Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-08-10 03:50 -0500
              Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-08-09 05:17 -0500
    Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-03 10:26 -0700
    Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-03 12:06 -0700
      Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-03 12:51 -0700
        Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-08-06 11:57 +0200
          Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! Earline Loar <ureoo@wwarao.ei> - 2017-08-06 10:59 +0000
          Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-06 15:54 -0700
            Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-08-07 20:18 +0200
              Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-07 11:48 -0700
                Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-08-08 22:46 +0200
                  Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-08 13:50 -0700

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#427849

Ned Latham wrote:

> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Ned Latham wrote:
>> > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> > > It has been shown time and time again that objects that are moving
>> > > relative to the observer *are* observed by them to be shorter than
>> > > when they are at rest relative to them.
>> > False.
>> No, you just do not know them yet.
> 
> One cannot know that which is not.

One can also not know that which is.  Which is the case with you here.

You are arguing out of your ignorance of what has been observed.  Such an 
argument is a fallacy; your reasoning is flawed.
 
>> > Thought "experiments" show nothing.
>>
>> I am not talking about thought experiments, but *actual* *observations*:
> 
> No, you're not. You're talking about interpretations. That's ll you lot
> ever have to "justify" your dogma.

If simple logic is a “dogma”, then I am content with you calling the result 
of its application “dogma”.  You have not the slightest clue what you are 
talking about.
 
>> like atmospheric muons which do reach the surface when, according to lab
>> experiments at rest, they should have decayed long before.
>>
>> 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction#Experimental_verifications>
> 
> See? You're talking about interpretations.

No, about consistency.  If the basic principle of relativity holds, and that 
it holds has been confirmed since Galilei, then all observers must agree on 
the outcome of an experiment.  In this case, the number of atmospheric muons 
that are *measured* (or whose predicted effects are measured – that does not 
make any difference) to reach the surface of Earth.

Read <http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/tdil.html>, then 
select “Application in muon decay experiment” further below (you will find a 
picture there, so even you should be able to understand it).

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#427855

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > It has been shown time and time again that objects that are moving
> > > > > relative to the observer *are* observed by them to be shorter than
> > > > > when they are at rest relative to them.
> > > >
> > > > False.
> > >
> > > No, you just do not know them yet.
> >
> > One cannot know that which is not.
>
> One can also not know that which is.

That's true. It's clear that you don't know you're stupid.

> Which is the case with you here.

You wish.

> You are arguing out of your ignorance of what has been observed.

Bullshit. You are pretending that interpretations are observations.

> Such an argument is a fallacy;

Wrong. Get some education on logical fallacies.

> your reasoning is flawed.

Wrong again.

> > > > Thought "experiments" show nothing.
> > >
> > > I am not talking about thought experiments, but *actual* *observations*:
> >
> > No, you're not. You're talking about interpretations. That's all you lot
> > ever have to "justify" your dogma.
>
> If simple logic is a "dogma",

It's not. Your fantasy based on unjustifiable assumptions and invalid
conclusions is a dogma.

> then I am content with you calling the result of its application
> "dogma".

You'd be wrong to do that. Even with simple-minded logic.

> You have not the slightest clue what you are talking about.

Wrong again, Pointy Head. It's you who have no idea what I'm talking
about. Let me inform you: no-one has ever observed length contraction.

Note the word "observed", you braindead boob. Look it up in a
dictionary. Try to work out what "observed" really means.

> > > like atmospheric muons which do reach the surface when, according
> > > to lab experiments at rest, they should have decayed long before.
> > >
> > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
> > > Length_contraction#Experimental_verifications>
> >
> > See? You're talking about interpretations.
>
> No, about consistency.

No. What you *interpret* as consistency.

> If the basic principle of relativity holds,

Which basic principle of relativity would that be, Pointy Head.?

> and that it holds has been confirmed since Galilei,

Oh? So you're talkin g about Galilean relativity, are you?
Real physics as opposed to that fantasy of Einstein's?

> then all observers must agree on the outcome of an experiment.

Like when Galilei pisses on your head, he sees piss emerging from his
dick and so do you?

> In this case, the number of atmospheric muons that are *measured*
> (or whose predicted effects are measured - that does not make any
> difference) to reach the surface of Earth.

You're a moron: the effects detected at the ground are assumed
to be the effects of the very same phenomena as those detected
at altitude.

I presume you're not quite stupid enough to try to tell me that
the experiment tracked them all the mat down to the ground?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#427876

Ned Latham wrote:

> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> You are arguing out of your ignorance of what has been observed.
> 
> Bullshit. You are pretending that interpretations are observations.

No, we *know* that there are elementary particles that have the same 
properties as electrons except slightly greater mass, that we call “mu 
leptons”, or “muons” for short.  We know *precisely* how they interact, how 
they decay, and we can measure the decay products.  So we *can* *measure* 
muons.  You could have known that had you bothered to read what I referred 
to:

<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/muonex.html#c2>

<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Particles/lepton.html#c3>
 
See also:

<http://pdg.lbl.gov/2017/tables/contents_tables.html>

<http://home.cern/about/how-detector-works>
<http://cms.cern/detector/detecting-muons>

> No. What you *interpret* as consistency.

What a nonsense.
 
>> If the basic principle of relativity holds,
> 
> Which basic principle of relativity would that be,

There are different ways to formulate it.  For example:

A) The laws of mechanics are the same in every inertial reference frame.

B) There is no preferred inertial reference frame.

(That you do not even know *that* is evidence that you have no idea what you 
are talking about.)

> Pointy Head.?

That is neither my name nor my nickname.  Your childish attempts at 
insulting me are pointless and ridiculous.
 
>> and that it holds has been confirmed since Galilei,
> 
> Oh? So you're talkin g about Galilean relativity, are you?

Of course.  The special principle of relativity as stated by Einstein in 
1905 is but an extension of the Galilean (“basic”) principle of relativity:

It states that not only the laws of mechanics, but *all* laws of physics, 
including Maxwell’s laws of electrodynamics, are the same in every inertial 
reference frame. (postulate #1)

It additionally raises the thesis of Maxwell’s electrodynamics, supported by 
prior observations, that the speed of light c is the same for all observers 
(in all reference frames), and therefore does not depend on the motion of 
the light medium relative to the observer – c = 1∕√(ε₀ µ₀ ε_r µ_r); ε₀, µ₀, 
ε_r, µ_r are constants, so must be c –, to a principle (principle of light 
constancy). (postulate #2)

From that follow the *observed* special-relativistic effects: relativity of 
simultaneity, time dilation, and length contraction; and the *observed* 
effects that follow from that (like the unexpected outcome of the Fizeau 
experiment about 50 years earlier, and the Michelson–Morley experiment about 
15 years earlier).  And they are ultimately succinctly expressed in and 
predicted by the Lorentz transformation (which Lorentz, about 10 years 
earlier, thought were just a mathematical trick to explain observations).

> Real physics as opposed to that fantasy of Einstein's?

Both are real physics, but it turns out that the older, Galilean 
transformation is only an approximation of what really happens, and what can 
be calculated with the Lorentz transformation, for relative speeds that are 
much less than the speed of light.  This is unsurprising as in the about 
300 years since the Galilean transformation had been devised, measurement 
accurancy had increased, and is still increasing, dramatically.

These are the Lorentz transformation equations for a frame S' that is moving 
at speed v relative to a frame S along an axis (unprimed coordinates are 
measured in S, primed coordinates are measured in S'):

  x = γ (x' + v t)

  t = γ (t' + v∕c² x')

where

  γ = 1∕√(1 − v²∕c²)

These are the Galilean transformation equations for the same case 
(parentheses kept intentionally):

  x =   (x' + v t)

  t =   (t')

It is rather easy to see that as v approaches zero, i.e. becomes small 
compared to the speed of light c, γ approaches 1, and the Lorentz 
transformation equations approach the Galilean transformation equations, and 
are equivalent to them if v = 0 (at relative rest).

From the Lorentz transformation also follows that speeds do not simply add.  
For a relative speed u' = dx'∕dt' of a frame T measured in a frame S' moving 
at speed v = dx∕dt relative to a frame S along an axis, the measured 
relative speed u of T in frame S is

  u(v, u') = (v + u')∕(1 + v u'∕c²).

Again, one can easily see that if v and u' are small compared to the speed 
of light c, the relativistic composition of speeds reduces to the Galilean 
addition of speeds:

    lim    (v + u')∕(1 + v u'∕c²) = v + u'.
  v u' → 0

That is, the addition of speeds is a good approximation for the actual, 
relativistic composition of speeds for speeds that are small compared to the 
speed of light.  One can also see from that why speeds that are faster than 
the speed of light have not been observed: even

  u(v = c, u' = c) = (c + c)∕(1 + c²∕c²) = (2 c)∕2 = c.

And it has been experimentally confirmed numerous times that the Lorentz 
transformation, _not_ the Galilean transformation, is in accordance with 
what is being measured, for *any* relative speeds.

Therefore, to say that special (or general) relativity is “a fantasy” is  
outright ridiculous.  But so say the utterly ignorant – those who do not 
know and do not want to know.  Like you.

Probably because even this simple arithmetic (if the speed of light is the 
same in every reference frame, then clocks in the moving frame cannot be 
observed to be synchronized as one clock is moving *away* from one light 
pulse and one is moving *towards* the other pulse) and geometry (application 
of the Pythagorean theorem shows time dilation) just goes well over their 
head.  
 
>> In this case, the number of atmospheric muons that are *measured*
>> (or whose predicted effects are measured - that does not make any
>> difference) to reach the surface of Earth.
> 
> You're a moron: the effects detected at the ground are assumed
> to be the effects of the very same phenomena as those detected
> at altitude.

Yes, of course.  There is no good reason to assume that the laws of physics
are different in any part of Earth than in another.  In fact, all 
observations so far – and there have been billions, if that is even enough – 
show that they are the *same* *everywhere* in the observable universe.  And, 
more practical, every technology of modern Terran civilization, including 
the computer that you are abusing to insult people, depends on that.

<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/muon.html#c5>
 
-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#427958

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> These are the Lorentz transformation equations for a frame S' that is
> moving at speed v relative to a frame S along an axis 
                                                ^^^^^^^
The _x-axis_, to be precise.

> (unprimed coordinates are measured in S, primed coordinates are measured
> in S'):
> 
>   x = γ (x' + v t)

    x = γ (x' + v t')
 
>   t = γ (t' + v∕c² x')
> 
> where
> 
>   γ = 1∕√(1 − v²∕c²)
> 
> These are the Galilean transformation equations for the same case
> (parentheses kept intentionally):
> 
>   x =   (x' + v t)

    x =   (x' + v t')

but as
 
>   t =   (t')

it does not make a difference *there*.

> […]

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#427937

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > >
> > > You are arguing out of your ignorance of what has been observed.
> >
> > Bullshit. You are pretending that interpretations are observations.
>
> No, we *know* that there are elementary particles that have the same
> properties as electrons except slightly greater mass, that we call
> "mu leptons", or "muons" for short.

Wrong. You *think* you know that.

> We know *precisely* how they interact, how they decay, and we can
> measure the decay products.

Wrong. You have developed an interally consistenty set of
interpretations of what little you have actually observed.

> So we *can* *measure* muons.

Yair, right. And Catholics can count the angels dancing on the head
of a pin.

> You could have known that had you bothered to read what I referred
> to:

One cannot know that which is not.

---links snupped----

> > No. What you *interpret* as consistency.
>
> What a nonsense.

Physics has been that way since 1839. Magueijo and Smolin, despite
your fondest wishes, have recognised the nonsense (though not yet
its origin). They might even break through the barrier of academic
prejudice and do what I have surmised before: reinstate Physics as
a science.

> > > If the basic principle of relativity holds,
> >
> > Which basic principle of relativity would that be,
>
> There are different ways to formulate it. For example:
>
> A) The laws of mechanics are the same in every inertial reference frame.
>
> B) There is no preferred inertial reference frame.
>
> (That you do not even know *that* is evidence that you have idea what you
> are talking about.)

Wrong again, moron. That you assumed I wasn't questioning your opinion
of it shows (once again!) that it's you who don't know what I'm talking
about.

> > Pointy Head?
>
> That is neither my name nor my nickname.

I know.

> Your childish attempts at insulting me are pointless and ridiculous.

Wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong (can you guess which "wrong" refers to
what parts of your whine?). I insult you with deliberate intent.`

You have my permission to guess at that. (here's a hint: if you
can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.)

> > > and that it holds has been confirmed since Galilei,
> >
> > Oh? So you're talkin g about Galilean relativity, are you?
>
> Of course. The special principle of relativity as stated by Einstein
> in 1905 is but an extension of the Galilean ("basic:) principle of
> relativity:

Wrong. It's a joke, and a denial if Galiean Relativity.

> It states that not only the laws of mechanics, but *all* laws of
> physics, including Maxwell's laws of electrodynamics, are the
> same in every inertial reference frame. (postulate #1)
>
> It additionally raises the thesis of Maxwell's electrodynamics,
> supported by prior observations,

Interpretations, moron.

> that the speed of light c is the same for all observers
> (in all reference frames),

That's the contradiction.

> and therefore does not depend on the motion of the light medium
> relative to the observer

That's the joke.

> ??? c = 1??????(????? µ??? ??_r µ_r); ?????, µ???, ??_r, µ_r are
> constants, so must be c ???, to a principle (principle of light
> constancy). (postulate #2=

Your garbage characters are no more convincxing than your garbage
statements.

> From that follow the *observed* special-relativistic effects:

I told you to look the word up, you moron. None of those postulated
effects has ever been observed. All of your so-called observations
are interpretations, usually based on circular reasoning;, always
based on unjustifiable assumptions and invalid conclusions.

----dogmatic waffle snipped----

And back to the matter at hand: no-one has ever observed length
contraction (in your Einsteinian fabtasy sense).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#427960

Ned Latham wrote:

> [more nonsense and insults]
>  
> And back to the matter at hand: no-one has ever observed length
> contraction […]

It has been observed.  That you do not know or do not want to accept that, 
does not change reality.

You are a hopeless case, and I am done wasting my precious time with you.  
May you die in ignorance.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#427963

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> Ned Latham wrote:
> 
>> [more nonsense and insults]
>> And back to the matter at hand: no-one has ever observed length
>> contraction […]
> 
> It has been observed.  That you do not know or do not want to accept
> that, does not change reality.

Negative. By whom? Give me a name.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#427966

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> Ned Latham wrote:
>> [more nonsense and insults]
>>  
>> And back to the matter at hand: no-one has ever observed length
>> contraction […]

For those who are willing to learn: I just found a very nice, very simple 
*oral* explanation of time dilation *and* length contraction that just uses 
basic geometry (in particular, the Pythagorean theorem).

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rek7881OGRY>

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#427996

W dniu czwartek, 10 sierpnia 2017 01:36:25 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napisał:
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> 
> > Ned Latham wrote:
> >> [more nonsense and insults]
> >>  
> >> And back to the matter at hand: no-one has ever observed length
> >> contraction […]
> 
> For those who are willing to learn: I just found a very nice, very simple 
> *oral* explanation of time dilation *and* length contraction that just uses 
> basic geometry (in particular, the Pythagorean theorem).

Poor idiot. If it was possible to conclude your idiocies
just from basic geometry, they would be theorems of basic 
geometry.
BTW, your idiot guru has rejected Pythagorean theorem,
together with basic geometry.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#427998

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > Ned Latham wrote:
> > >  
> > > And back to the matter at hand: no-one has ever observed length
> > > contraction
>
> For those who are willing to learn: I just found a very nice, very
> simple 

"Simplistic" is the word you're looking for, Pointy Head.

> *oral* explanation of time dilation *and* length contraction that
< just uses basic geometry (in particular, the Pythagorean theorem).

No it doesn't, you cretinopus bumbling bozo. It also uses that
idiotic assumpyion of invariant light speed.

> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rek7881OGRY>

AND it violates basic relativity (you remember that one, Pointy Head?)

Put a juggler in the truck with the light "clock". Now tell us what
happens to the balls the juggler tosses into the air with the truck
in motion.

From his frame of reference AND from ours, moron. Where's there
ary difference?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#427994

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
>>  
>> And back to the matter at hand: no-one has ever observed length
>> contraction.
>
> It has been observed.

False Thought experiments show mothing.

> That you do not know or do not want to accept that, 
> does not change reality.

You need to trake that Idea on board, Slow Boy.

> You are a hopeless case, and I am done wasting my precious time with you.

You got the promopuns wrong, moron.

> May you die in ignorance.

Thus hath the dogmatist ever spoken. You're no better than a fuckin'
Katholik Inquisitor you ratbag.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#427566

W dniu niedziela, 6 sierpnia 2017 18:48:27 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napisał:

> It has been shown time and time again that objects that are moving relative 
> to the observer *are* observed by them to be shorter than when they are at 
> rest relative to them.  This effect is called “length contraction”.

Samely, as it was shown that walking a street an observer observes
trees and buildings running around him.
Enchanting the reality, as expected from a brainwashed fanatic.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#427586

mlwozniak wrote:

> W dniu niedziela, 6 sierpnia 2017 18:48:27 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas
> 'PointedEars' Lahn napisał:
> 
>> It has been shown time and time again that objects that are moving
>> relative to the observer *are* observed by them to be shorter than when
>> they are at rest relative to them.  This effect is called “length
>> contraction”.
> 
> Samely, as it was shown that walking a street an observer observes trees
> and buildings running around him.
> Enchanting the reality, as expected from a brainwashed fanatic.

Excellent obs, Dr. Mlwozniak. Also, your interlocutor is calling it an 
"effect" which is NOT, and can be NOT.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#427624

On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 11:27:37 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> W dniu niedziela, 6 sierpnia 2017 18:48:27 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napisał:
> 
> > It has been shown time and time again that objects that are moving relative 
> > to the observer *are* observed by them to be shorter than when they are at 
> > rest relative to them.  This effect is called “length contraction”.
> 
> Samely, as it was shown that walking a street an observer observes
> trees and buildings running around him.
> Enchanting the reality, as expected from a brainwashed fanatic.

Not even wrong.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#427847

JanPB wrote:
> mlwozniak wrote:
> > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > > 
> > > It has been shown time and time again that objects that are moving
> > > relative  to the observer *are* observed by them to be shorter than
> > > when they are at  rest relative to them. This effect is called
> > > "length contraction".
> > 
> > Samely, as it was shown that walking a street an observer observes
> > trees and buildings running around him.
> > Enchanting the reality, as expected from a brainwashed fanatic.
>
> Not even wrong.

Wrong.

He should have said "moving", not "running".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#427886

On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 3:21:55 AM UTC-7, Ned Latham wrote:
> JanPB wrote:
> > mlwozniak wrote:
> > > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > It has been shown time and time again that objects that are moving
> > > > relative  to the observer *are* observed by them to be shorter than
> > > > when they are at  rest relative to them. This effect is called
> > > > "length contraction".
> > > 
> > > Samely, as it was shown that walking a street an observer observes
> > > trees and buildings running around him.
> > > Enchanting the reality, as expected from a brainwashed fanatic.
> >
> > Not even wrong.
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> He should have said "moving", not "running".

Either way he mixes two different things and uses the same word to describe both
pretending the are the same. Garbage in, garbage out, as they say.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#427899

W dniu środa, 9 sierpnia 2017 18:17:25 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 3:21:55 AM UTC-7, Ned Latham wrote:
> > JanPB wrote:
> > > mlwozniak wrote:
> > > > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > It has been shown time and time again that objects that are moving
> > > > > relative  to the observer *are* observed by them to be shorter than
> > > > > when they are at  rest relative to them. This effect is called
> > > > > "length contraction".
> > > > 
> > > > Samely, as it was shown that walking a street an observer observes
> > > > trees and buildings running around him.
> > > > Enchanting the reality, as expected from a brainwashed fanatic.
> > >
> > > Not even wrong.
> > 
> > Wrong.
> > 
> > He should have said "moving", not "running".
> 
> Either way he mixes two different things and uses the same word to describe both
> pretending the are the same. 

And you're a queen of England.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#427938

JanPB wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > JanPB wrote:
> > > mlwozniak wrote:
> > > > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > It has been shown time and time again that objects that are moving
> > > > > relative  to the observer *are* observed by them to be shorter than
> > > > > when they are at  rest relative to them. This effect is called
> > > > > "length contraction".
> > > > 
> > > > Samely, as it was shown that walking a street an observer observes
> > > > trees and buildings running around him.
> > > > Enchanting the reality, as expected from a brainwashed fanatic.
> > >
> > > Not even wrong.
> > 
> > Wrong.
> > 
> > He should have said "moving", not "running".
>
> Either way he mixes two different things and uses the same word
> to describe both pretending the are the same.

Nope. In the onserver's frame of reference, the trees and buildings
are mpving around him.

----snip----

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#427946

On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 2:52:35 PM UTC-7, Ned Latham wrote:
> JanPB wrote:
> > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > JanPB wrote:
> > > > mlwozniak wrote:
> > > > > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > It has been shown time and time again that objects that are moving
> > > > > > relative  to the observer *are* observed by them to be shorter than
> > > > > > when they are at  rest relative to them. This effect is called
> > > > > > "length contraction".
> > > > > 
> > > > > Samely, as it was shown that walking a street an observer observes
> > > > > trees and buildings running around him.
> > > > > Enchanting the reality, as expected from a brainwashed fanatic.
> > > >
> > > > Not even wrong.
> > > 
> > > Wrong.
> > > 
> > > He should have said "moving", not "running".
> >
> > Either way he mixes two different things and uses the same word
> > to describe both pretending the are the same.
> 
> Nope. In the onserver's frame of reference, the trees and buildings
> are mpving around him.
> 
> ----snip----

Reread what I wrote.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#428000

JanPB wrote in <82975b10-4b45-4e44-adaf-3bd2eef4f186@googlegroups.com>:
> On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 2:52:35 PM UTC-7, Ned Latham wrote:
> > JanPB wrote:
> > > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > > JanPB wrote:
> > > > > mlwozniak wrote:
> > > > > > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > It has been shown time and time again that objects that are moving
> > > > > > > relative  to the observer *are* observed by them to be shorter than
> > > > > > > when they are at  rest relative to them. This effect is called
> > > > > > > "length contraction".
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Samely, as it was shown that walking a street an observer observes
> > > > > > trees and buildings running around him.
> > > > > > Enchanting the reality, as expected from a brainwashed fanatic.
> > > > >
> > > > > Not even wrong.
> > > > 
> > > > Wrong.
> > > > 
> > > > He should have said "moving", not "running".
> > >
> > > Either way he mixes two different things and uses the same word
> > > to describe both pretending the are the same.
> > 
> > Nope. In the onserver's frame of reference, the trees and buildings
> > are mpving around him.
>
> Reread what I wrote.

It didn't change. Perhaps you should reread what Woz wrote (but
read " moving" where he wrote "running").

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web