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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #430251 > unrolled thread

Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox

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

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-28 07:32 -0700
    Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 10:12 -0500
      Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-28 08:41 -0700
        Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 11:13 -0500
          Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-28 09:48 -0700
            Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 16:03 +0000
          Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-29 08:12 -0700
            Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-29 12:46 -0500
              Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-29 14:40 -0700
                Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-29 14:49 -0700
                Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 14:13 -0500
              Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-01 01:08 -0700
              Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Bídníkùm Laterá <bila@wehia.ui> - 2017-09-01 08:21 +0000
            Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 14:13 -0500
              Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-08-31 15:05 -0500
                Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 15:14 -0500
                  Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-08-31 16:31 -0500
                    Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 16:58 -0500
                      Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-08-31 19:12 -0500
                        Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-01 14:53 -0500
                    Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-01 14:54 -0500
              Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-01 05:26 -0700
                Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-01 14:48 -0500
                  Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-01 14:51 -0700
                    Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-03 19:06 -0700
                      Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-03 23:49 -0700
                        Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-04 05:09 -0700
                          Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-04 05:52 -0700
                          Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-09-04 07:00 -0700
                            Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-04 08:02 -0700
                              Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-09-04 08:20 -0700
                                Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-04 11:01 -0700
                            Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-05 06:21 -0700
                              Cretin Ken Sito at work "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-09-05 06:29 -0700
                                Re: Cretin Ken Sito at work mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-05 06:50 -0700
                  Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-05 06:08 -0700
                    Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 09:05 -0500
                      Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-05 08:39 -0700
                        Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-09-05 14:05 -0700
                        Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 16:10 -0500
                          Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-06 07:22 -0700
                            Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-06 13:10 -0500
                            Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-09-06 11:10 -0700

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

#430727

On 8/31/17 4:31 PM, Ned Latham wrote:
>> until such time as a better candidate with a better set of agreement
>> with data appears.
> And that is flawed reasoning.*Any*  alternative model will do if
> the data are consistent with it.
> 

The reason why physicist call a theory "accepted" is that numerous 
alternative theories have been considered SO FAR, and SO FAR none of the 
alternative theories give predictions that match all the extant 
experimental data as the accepted one.

If you complain to the physicist that this doesn't PROVE the accepted 
theory is the right one, and that there may well be other theories that 
will be raised IN THE FUTURE that are better than the accepted one, then 
the physicist will almost always tell you that statement is true and 
obvious.

But to say, "it could be this other explanation I call Mambo Theory" 
will result in the response by the physicist, "What does Mambo Theory 
predict for this measurement?" This means doing a calculation with the 
theory to produce that theory's NUMBER. It does NOT mean a qualitative 
explanation that sounds plausible. It means a calculation.

If Mambo Theory doesn't have any calculations and therefore no 
quantitative PREDICTIONS, then it isn't viable as a physical theory.

The acceptance of the accepted theory is the result of a competition in 
PRESENT STATE of the field of viable physical theories, where those 
theories do make firm quantitative predictions. The outliers that don't 
yet make those quantitative predictions are not even in the running.

-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#430661

On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 3:13:30 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 8/29/17 10:12 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 12:13:50 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 8/28/17 10:41 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >>> On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 11:12:08 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>> On 8/28/17 9:32 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >>>>> On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 9:31:06 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>>> On 8/25/17 8:17 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 10:28:29 AM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 9:19:28 AM UTC-5, kenseto wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 7:36:21 AM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 6:03:19 PM UTC-5, kenseto wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> So are you saying that from the ball’s point of view the hole get larger so it can get through it and from the hole point of view the ball gets gets smaller so the ball can pass through it? I don’t think so. I think you are full of shit.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Length contraction is observed ONLY along the direction of motion.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Why?
> >>>>>>>>> Other observers will see the ball moving the ball moving in different directions.  Doesn’t that mean that the ball is contracted in all directions? That means that if contraction is real (material) then the ball should be able to pass through the hole.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Different observers OBSERVE the ball moving in different directions, and
> >>>>>>>> OBSERVE differing directions and magnitudes of length contraction.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> So observe contraction is not real and thus not directly measurable.....right?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Nope, it is very real and very measurable. And STILL different observers
> >>>>>> will see different things.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> See different thing is not measurement.
> >>>>
> >>>> The observed length contraction is real and very measurable. And STILL
> >>>> different observers will measure different amounts of length contraction.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Nope.....assertion is not a valid argument.
> >>
> >> Do you know the difference between an assertion and a documented fact?
> >> Oh, I know, any documented fact that you haven't read about is an
> >> assertion unless someone presents it to you on usenet. I see.
> > 
> > There is no real documented facts for real physical length contraction. 
> 
> Of course there are.
> 
> > There are falsely interpretations of documented results that interpreted as the effect of length contraction.
> 
> If you have a documented result that is consistent with the prediction 
> of a theory like relativity, then that result supports the theory. It 
> doesn't matter that you don't like the "interpretation" of that theory. 
> It is still true that the experimental result supports that theory. What 
> part of this fundamental aspect of the scientific method do you not 
> understand?

The point is that other interpretations will give the same predictions (eg. LET or IRT).

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

#430721

On 9/1/17 7:26 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 3:13:30 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 8/29/17 10:12 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>> On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 12:13:50 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> On 8/28/17 10:41 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 11:12:08 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/28/17 9:32 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>>> On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 9:31:06 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/25/17 8:17 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 10:28:29 AM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 9:19:28 AM UTC-5, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 7:36:21 AM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 6:03:19 PM UTC-5, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So are you saying that from the ball’s point of view the hole get larger so it can get through it and from the hole point of view the ball gets gets smaller so the ball can pass through it? I don’t think so. I think you are full of shit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Length contraction is observed ONLY along the direction of motion.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Why?
>>>>>>>>>>> Other observers will see the ball moving the ball moving in different directions.  Doesn’t that mean that the ball is contracted in all directions? That means that if contraction is real (material) then the ball should be able to pass through the hole.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Different observers OBSERVE the ball moving in different directions, and
>>>>>>>>>> OBSERVE differing directions and magnitudes of length contraction.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So observe contraction is not real and thus not directly measurable.....right?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope, it is very real and very measurable. And STILL different observers
>>>>>>>> will see different things.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> See different thing is not measurement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The observed length contraction is real and very measurable. And STILL
>>>>>> different observers will measure different amounts of length contraction.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope.....assertion is not a valid argument.
>>>>
>>>> Do you know the difference between an assertion and a documented fact?
>>>> Oh, I know, any documented fact that you haven't read about is an
>>>> assertion unless someone presents it to you on usenet. I see.
>>>
>>> There is no real documented facts for real physical length contraction.
>>
>> Of course there are.
>>
>>> There are falsely interpretations of documented results that interpreted as the effect of length contraction.
>>
>> If you have a documented result that is consistent with the prediction
>> of a theory like relativity, then that result supports the theory. It
>> doesn't matter that you don't like the "interpretation" of that theory.
>> It is still true that the experimental result supports that theory. What
>> part of this fundamental aspect of the scientific method do you not
>> understand?
> 
> The point is that other interpretations will give the same predictions (eg. LET or IRT).
> 

LET also predicts real physical length contraction, which is in 
agreement with data. See Lorentz's paper on the subject, in which this 
is discussed.

Now IRT may say that the observed length contraction isn't physical. 
Don't know for sure and don't care.

Doesn't really matter. There are predictions of observable measurements 
made by relativity, and those predictions match actual observations. 
Thus those observations support relativity. They may ALSO support other 
theories. For example, the Michelson-Morely experimental result supports 
relativity and it also ballistic theories of light. A single experiment 
does not and cannot single out one theory to the exclusion of all 
others. It is the accumulation of ALL data that has the capacity to rule 
out other competing theories, leaving only one standing.

You can't seem to figure out if you want to acknowledge that length 
contraction has been observed but that it may have alternate 
interpretations like IRT, or if you want to say that the length 
contraction has never been observed (which is just factually incorrect).

-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#430750

W dniu piątek, 1 września 2017 21:48:37 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:

> Doesn't really matter. There are predictions of observable measurements 
> made by relativity, and those predictions match actual observations. 

A lie, as expected from brainwashed fanatic trash.
Real clocks of real GPS indicate t'=t, and that
means that time (as defined by your idiot guru himself)
is observed galilean.

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

#430995

On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 3:21:25 AM UTC+5:30, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> W dniu piątek, 1 września 2017 21:48:37 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> 
> > Doesn't really matter. There are predictions of observable measurements 
> > made by relativity, and those predictions match actual observations. 
> 
> A lie, as expected from brainwashed fanatic trash.
> Real clocks of real GPS indicate t'=t, and that
> means that time (as defined by your idiot guru himself)
> is observed galilean.

So are you saying that GPS clocks are not running slow?

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

#431002

W dniu poniedziałek, 4 września 2017 04:06:54 UTC+2 użytkownik gehan.am...@gmail.com napisał:
> On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 3:21:25 AM UTC+5:30, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > W dniu piątek, 1 września 2017 21:48:37 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> > 
> > > Doesn't really matter. There are predictions of observable measurements 
> > > made by relativity, and those predictions match actual observations. 
> > 
> > A lie, as expected from brainwashed fanatic trash.
> > Real clocks of real GPS indicate t'=t, and that
> > means that time (as defined by your idiot guru himself)
> > is observed galilean.
> 
> So are you saying that GPS clocks are not running slow?

"running slow" may be interpreted some ways.
What I'm saying is: the indications of clocks i.e
numbers shown on their displays are equal (t=t'). 
If poor idiot Great Guru knew what is a clock and 
what it is for he could have predicted it.

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

#431019

SO you are saying the clocks aboard the satellite and aboard the Earth show the exact same time? Then where does this offset come from? Since we know the distance to the satellites would we be able to obtain an exact figure by averaging over  a period of time to compensate for atmposhperic variations in light speed?

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

#431024

W dniu poniedziałek, 4 września 2017 14:10:00 UTC+2 użytkownik gehan.am...@gmail.com napisał:
> SO you are saying the clocks aboard the satellite and aboard the Earth show the exact same time? 

Yes. With the precision of an acceptable error.
It's 19 s behind TAI time and 18s before UTC (as for now).

> Then where does this offset come from? 

Whatever "offset" you mean, it doesn't matter. Clocks have 
to be synchronized, because otherwise the system wouldn't
work. And they are synchronized. Great Mystical Symmetry
"discovered" by poor idiot Great Guru hasn't prevented us 
from synchronizing them. Neither has the bunch of brainwashed 
fanatics shouting "unproper! unproper! non-standard!"

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

#431034

On Monday, September 4, 2017 at 5:10:00 AM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> SO you are saying the clocks aboard the satellite and aboard the Earth show the exact same time? 

Yes. 


>Then where does this offset come from?

It is a FREQUENCY offset, not a TIME offset. It comes from the requirement of synchronizing the ground clocks with the satellite ones


> Since we know the distance to the satellites would we be able to obtain an exact figure by averaging over  a period of time to compensate for atmposhperic variations in light speed?

Why don't you read on the GPS ? It is all there. 

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

#431039

W dniu poniedziałek, 4 września 2017 16:00:22 UTC+2 użytkownik Dono, napisał:
> On Monday, September 4, 2017 at 5:10:00 AM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> > SO you are saying the clocks aboard the satellite and aboard the Earth show the exact same time? 
> 
> Yes. 
> 
> 
> >Then where does this offset come from?
> 
> It is a FREQUENCY offset, not a TIME offset.


No, it's not.
As clocks indications are the same and time is the 
same, the frequencies can't differ.

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

#431041

On Monday, September 4, 2017 at 8:02:10 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> W dniu poniedziałek, 4 września 2017 16:00:22 UTC+2 użytkownik Dono, napisał:
> > On Monday, September 4, 2017 at 5:10:00 AM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > SO you are saying the clocks aboard the satellite and aboard the Earth show the exact same time? 
> > 
> > Yes. 
> > 
> > 
> > >Then where does this offset come from?
> > 
> > It is a FREQUENCY offset, not a TIME offset.
> 
> 
> No, it's not.
> As clocks indications are the same and time is the 
> same, the frequencies can't differ.

Can't fix cretin.

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

#431069

W dniu poniedziałek, 4 września 2017 17:20:46 UTC+2 użytkownik Dono, napisał:
> On Monday, September 4, 2017 at 8:02:10 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > W dniu poniedziałek, 4 września 2017 16:00:22 UTC+2 użytkownik Dono, napisał:
> > > On Monday, September 4, 2017 at 5:10:00 AM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > SO you are saying the clocks aboard the satellite and aboard the Earth show the exact same time? 
> > > 
> > > Yes. 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > >Then where does this offset come from?
> > > 
> > > It is a FREQUENCY offset, not a TIME offset.
> > 
> > 
> > No, it's not.
> > As clocks indications are the same and time is the 
> > same, the frequencies can't differ.
> 
> Can't fix cretin.

For sure.

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

#431167

On Monday, September 4, 2017 at 10:00:22 AM UTC-4, Dono, wrote:
> On Monday, September 4, 2017 at 5:10:00 AM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> > SO you are saying the clocks aboard the satellite and aboard the Earth show the exact same time? 
> 
> Yes. 

NO MORON.
> 
> 
> >Then where does this offset come from?
> 
> It is a FREQUENCY offset, not a TIME offset. It comes from the requirement of synchronizing the ground clocks with the satellite ones

Moron FREQUENCY is TIME. They redefined the GPS second to have 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. This makes the passage of a redefined GPS second corresponds to the passage of a ground clock second and thus making the GPS permanently in synch with the ground clock in terms of absolute time. Gee you are so fucking stupid.
> 
> 
> > Since we know the distance to the satellites would we be able to obtain an exact figure by averaging over  a period of time to compensate for atmposhperic variations in light speed?
> 
> Why don't you read on the GPS ? It is all there.

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

#431169 — Cretin Ken Sito at work

On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 6:21:21 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> 
> They redefined the GPS second to have 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. 

"They" are not imbeciles like you, Shito. 

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

#431173 — Re: Cretin Ken Sito at work

W dniu wtorek, 5 września 2017 15:29:07 UTC+2 użytkownik Dono, napisał:
> On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 6:21:21 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> > 
> > They redefined the GPS second to have 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. 
> 
> "They" are not imbeciles like you, Shito.

So, instead redefining second they simply ignored
the moronic try to redefine it by relativistic 
fanatics.

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

#431164

On Friday, September 1, 2017 at 3:48:37 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 9/1/17 7:26 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 3:13:30 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 8/29/17 10:12 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >>> On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 12:13:50 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>> On 8/28/17 10:41 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 11:12:08 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>>> On 8/28/17 9:32 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 9:31:06 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 8/25/17 8:17 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 10:28:29 AM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 9:19:28 AM UTC-5, kenseto wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 7:36:21 AM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 6:03:19 PM UTC-5, kenseto wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So are you saying that from the ball’s point of view the hole get larger so it can get through it and from the hole point of view the ball gets gets smaller so the ball can pass through it? I don’t think so. I think you are full of shit.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Length contraction is observed ONLY along the direction of motion.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Why?
> >>>>>>>>>>> Other observers will see the ball moving the ball moving in different directions.  Doesn’t that mean that the ball is contracted in all directions? That means that if contraction is real (material) then the ball should be able to pass through the hole.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Different observers OBSERVE the ball moving in different directions, and
> >>>>>>>>>> OBSERVE differing directions and magnitudes of length contraction.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> So observe contraction is not real and thus not directly measurable.....right?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Nope, it is very real and very measurable. And STILL different observers
> >>>>>>>> will see different things.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> See different thing is not measurement.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The observed length contraction is real and very measurable. And STILL
> >>>>>> different observers will measure different amounts of length contraction.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Nope.....assertion is not a valid argument.
> >>>>
> >>>> Do you know the difference between an assertion and a documented fact?
> >>>> Oh, I know, any documented fact that you haven't read about is an
> >>>> assertion unless someone presents it to you on usenet. I see.
> >>>
> >>> There is no real documented facts for real physical length contraction.
> >>
> >> Of course there are.
> >>
> >>> There are falsely interpretations of documented results that interpreted as the effect of length contraction.
> >>
> >> If you have a documented result that is consistent with the prediction
> >> of a theory like relativity, then that result supports the theory. It
> >> doesn't matter that you don't like the "interpretation" of that theory.
> >> It is still true that the experimental result supports that theory. What
> >> part of this fundamental aspect of the scientific method do you not
> >> understand?
> > 
> > The point is that other interpretations will give the same predictions (eg. LET or IRT).
> > 
> 
> LET also predicts real physical length contraction, which is in 
> agreement with data. See Lorentz's paper on the subject, in which this 
> is discussed.
> 
> Now IRT may say that the observed length contraction isn't physical. 
> Don't know for sure and don't care.
> Doesn't really matter. 

The point is after years of explanation you still can’t explain what length contraction mean in SR.....You denied:
1. material contraction.
2. geometric projection.
But you failed to tell us what really length contraction means in SR.

IRT has one clear explanation: The light-path length of a moving meter stick is foreshortened by a factor of 1/gamma or expanded by a factor of gamma.
This IRT explanation eliminated all the paradoxes in SR derived from the constant light speed postulate. Therefore IRT is a superior theory.

>There are predictions of observable measurements 
> made by relativity, and those predictions match actual observations. 
> Thus those observations support relativity. They may ALSO support other 
> theories. For example, the Michelson-Morely experimental result supports 
> relativity and it also ballistic theories of light. A single experiment 
> does not and cannot single out one theory to the exclusion of all 
> others. It is the accumulation of ALL data that has the capacity to rule 
> out other competing theories, leaving only one standing.
> 
> You can't seem to figure out if you want to acknowledge that length 
> contraction has been observed but that it may have alternate 
> interpretations like IRT, or if you want to say that the length 
> contraction has never been observed (which is just factually incorrect).
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#431186

On 9/5/17 8:08 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On Friday, September 1, 2017 at 3:48:37 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 9/1/17 7:26 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>> On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 3:13:30 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> On 8/29/17 10:12 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 12:13:50 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/28/17 10:41 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 11:12:08 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/28/17 9:32 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 9:31:06 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 8/25/17 8:17 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 10:28:29 AM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 9:19:28 AM UTC-5, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 7:36:21 AM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 6:03:19 PM UTC-5, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So are you saying that from the ball’s point of view the hole get larger so it can get through it and from the hole point of view the ball gets gets smaller so the ball can pass through it? I don’t think so. I think you are full of shit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Length contraction is observed ONLY along the direction of motion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Other observers will see the ball moving the ball moving in different directions.  Doesn’t that mean that the ball is contracted in all directions? That means that if contraction is real (material) then the ball should be able to pass through the hole.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Different observers OBSERVE the ball moving in different directions, and
>>>>>>>>>>>> OBSERVE differing directions and magnitudes of length contraction.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So observe contraction is not real and thus not directly measurable.....right?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nope, it is very real and very measurable. And STILL different observers
>>>>>>>>>> will see different things.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> See different thing is not measurement.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The observed length contraction is real and very measurable. And STILL
>>>>>>>> different observers will measure different amounts of length contraction.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope.....assertion is not a valid argument.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you know the difference between an assertion and a documented fact?
>>>>>> Oh, I know, any documented fact that you haven't read about is an
>>>>>> assertion unless someone presents it to you on usenet. I see.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no real documented facts for real physical length contraction.
>>>>
>>>> Of course there are.
>>>>
>>>>> There are falsely interpretations of documented results that interpreted as the effect of length contraction.
>>>>
>>>> If you have a documented result that is consistent with the prediction
>>>> of a theory like relativity, then that result supports the theory. It
>>>> doesn't matter that you don't like the "interpretation" of that theory.
>>>> It is still true that the experimental result supports that theory. What
>>>> part of this fundamental aspect of the scientific method do you not
>>>> understand?
>>>
>>> The point is that other interpretations will give the same predictions (eg. LET or IRT).
>>>
>>
>> LET also predicts real physical length contraction, which is in
>> agreement with data. See Lorentz's paper on the subject, in which this
>> is discussed.
>>
>> Now IRT may say that the observed length contraction isn't physical.
>> Don't know for sure and don't care.
>> Doesn't really matter.
> 
> The point is after years of explanation you still can’t explain what length contraction mean in SR.

No, Ken, after years of explanation, you still cannot hear what the 
explanation of length contraction is. Moreover, after years of 
struggling, you still have YET to read a SINGLE BOOK about relativity.

So your inability to understand what has been explained to you 
repeatedly is someone ELSE'S fault??

> ....You denied:
> 1. material contraction.
> 2. geometric projection.

That's right. It's neither.

> But you failed to tell us what really length contraction means in SR.

I have failed nothing. You are not paying me to explain it to you. You 
have not done any homework to learn it. You have made plenty of demands 
and then claimed that people have failed to bow to your demands.

When are you going to do something to learn what length contraction 
means in SR -- ON YOUR OWN?

> 
> IRT has one clear explanation: The light-path length of a moving meter stick is foreshortened by a factor of 1/gamma or expanded by a factor of gamma.
> This IRT explanation eliminated all the paradoxes in SR derived from the constant light speed postulate. Therefore IRT is a superior theory.
> 
>> There are predictions of observable measurements
>> made by relativity, and those predictions match actual observations.
>> Thus those observations support relativity. They may ALSO support other
>> theories. For example, the Michelson-Morely experimental result supports
>> relativity and it also ballistic theories of light. A single experiment
>> does not and cannot single out one theory to the exclusion of all
>> others. It is the accumulation of ALL data that has the capacity to rule
>> out other competing theories, leaving only one standing.
>>
>> You can't seem to figure out if you want to acknowledge that length
>> contraction has been observed but that it may have alternate
>> interpretations like IRT, or if you want to say that the length
>> contraction has never been observed (which is just factually incorrect).
>>
>> -- 
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables


-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#431207

On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 10:05:32 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 9/5/17 8:08 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > On Friday, September 1, 2017 at 3:48:37 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 9/1/17 7:26 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 3:13:30 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>> On 8/29/17 10:12 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 12:13:50 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>>> On 8/28/17 10:41 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 11:12:08 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 8/28/17 9:32 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 9:31:06 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 8/25/17 8:17 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 10:28:29 AM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 9:19:28 AM UTC-5, kenseto wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 7:36:21 AM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 6:03:19 PM UTC-5, kenseto wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So are you saying that from the ball’s point of view the hole get larger so it can get through it and from the hole point of view the ball gets gets smaller so the ball can pass through it? I don’t think so. I think you are full of shit.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Length contraction is observed ONLY along the direction of motion.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Why?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Other observers will see the ball moving the ball moving in different directions.  Doesn’t that mean that the ball is contracted in all directions? That means that if contraction is real (material) then the ball should be able to pass through the hole.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Different observers OBSERVE the ball moving in different directions, and
> >>>>>>>>>>>> OBSERVE differing directions and magnitudes of length contraction.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> So observe contraction is not real and thus not directly measurable.....right?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Nope, it is very real and very measurable. And STILL different observers
> >>>>>>>>>> will see different things.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> See different thing is not measurement.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The observed length contraction is real and very measurable. And STILL
> >>>>>>>> different observers will measure different amounts of length contraction.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Nope.....assertion is not a valid argument.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Do you know the difference between an assertion and a documented fact?
> >>>>>> Oh, I know, any documented fact that you haven't read about is an
> >>>>>> assertion unless someone presents it to you on usenet. I see.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> There is no real documented facts for real physical length contraction.
> >>>>
> >>>> Of course there are.
> >>>>
> >>>>> There are falsely interpretations of documented results that interpreted as the effect of length contraction.
> >>>>
> >>>> If you have a documented result that is consistent with the prediction
> >>>> of a theory like relativity, then that result supports the theory. It
> >>>> doesn't matter that you don't like the "interpretation" of that theory.
> >>>> It is still true that the experimental result supports that theory. What
> >>>> part of this fundamental aspect of the scientific method do you not
> >>>> understand?
> >>>
> >>> The point is that other interpretations will give the same predictions (eg. LET or IRT).
> >>>
> >>
> >> LET also predicts real physical length contraction, which is in
> >> agreement with data. See Lorentz's paper on the subject, in which this
> >> is discussed.
> >>
> >> Now IRT may say that the observed length contraction isn't physical.
> >> Don't know for sure and don't care.
> >> Doesn't really matter.
> > 
> > The point is after years of explanation you still can’t explain what length contraction mean in SR.
> 
> No, Ken, after years of explanation, you still cannot hear what the 
> explanation of length contraction is. Moreover, after years of 
> struggling, you still have YET to read a SINGLE BOOK about relativity.

You have your own secret explanation......I am not going to waste time to find out. So go and fuck yourself.

> 
> So your inability to understand what has been explained to you 
> repeatedly is someone ELSE'S fault??
> 
> > ....You denied:
> > 1. material contraction.
> > 2. geometric projection.
> 
> That's right. It's neither.
> 
> > But you failed to tell us what really length contraction means in SR.
> 
> I have failed nothing. You are not paying me to explain it to you. You 
> have not done any homework to learn it. You have made plenty of demands 
> and then claimed that people have failed to bow to your demands.
> 
> When are you going to do something to learn what length contraction 
> means in SR -- ON YOUR OWN?
> 
> > 
> > IRT has one clear explanation: The light-path length of a moving meter stick is foreshortened by a factor of 1/gamma or expanded by a factor of gamma.
> > This IRT explanation eliminated all the paradoxes in SR derived from the constant light speed postulate. Therefore IRT is a superior theory.
> > 
> >> There are predictions of observable measurements
> >> made by relativity, and those predictions match actual observations.
> >> Thus those observations support relativity. They may ALSO support other
> >> theories. For example, the Michelson-Morely experimental result supports
> >> relativity and it also ballistic theories of light. A single experiment
> >> does not and cannot single out one theory to the exclusion of all
> >> others. It is the accumulation of ALL data that has the capacity to rule
> >> out other competing theories, leaving only one standing.
> >>
> >> You can't seem to figure out if you want to acknowledge that length
> >> contraction has been observed but that it may have alternate
> >> interpretations like IRT, or if you want to say that the length
> >> contraction has never been observed (which is just factually incorrect).
> >>
> >> -- 
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#431243

kenseto wrote:
> 
> On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 10:05:32 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > On 9/5/17 8:08 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > > On Friday, September 1, 2017 at 3:48:37 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > >> On 9/1/17 7:26 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > >>> On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 3:13:30 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > >>>> On 8/29/17 10:12 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > >>>>> On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 12:13:50 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > >>>>>> On 8/28/17 10:41 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > >>>>>>> On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 11:12:08 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> On 8/28/17 9:32 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>> On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 9:31:06 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>> On 8/25/17 8:17 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 10:28:29 AM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 9:19:28 AM UTC-5, kenseto wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 7:36:21 AM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 6:03:19 PM UTC-5, kenseto wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So are you saying that from the ball’s point of view the hole get larger so it can get through it and from the hole point of view the ball gets gets smaller so the ball can pass through it? I don’t think so. I think you are full of shit.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Length contraction is observed ONLY along the direction of motion.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Why?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Other observers will see the ball moving the ball moving in different directions.  Doesn’t that mean that the ball is contracted in all directions? That means that if contraction is real (material) then the ball should be able to pass through the hole.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Different observers OBSERVE the ball moving in different directions, and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> OBSERVE differing directions and magnitudes of length contraction.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> So observe contraction is not real and thus not directly measurable.....right?
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Nope, it is very real and very measurable. And STILL different observers
> > >>>>>>>>>> will see different things.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> See different thing is not measurement.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> The observed length contraction is real and very measurable. And STILL
> > >>>>>>>> different observers will measure different amounts of length contraction.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Nope.....assertion is not a valid argument.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Do you know the difference between an assertion and a documented fact?
> > >>>>>> Oh, I know, any documented fact that you haven't read about is an
> > >>>>>> assertion unless someone presents it to you on usenet. I see.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> There is no real documented facts for real physical length contraction.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Of course there are.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> There are falsely interpretations of documented results that interpreted as the effect of length contraction.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> If you have a documented result that is consistent with the prediction
> > >>>> of a theory like relativity, then that result supports the theory. It
> > >>>> doesn't matter that you don't like the "interpretation" of that theory.
> > >>>> It is still true that the experimental result supports that theory. What
> > >>>> part of this fundamental aspect of the scientific method do you not
> > >>>> understand?
> > >>>
> > >>> The point is that other interpretations will give the same predictions (eg. LET or IRT).
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> LET also predicts real physical length contraction, which is in
> > >> agreement with data. See Lorentz's paper on the subject, in which this
> > >> is discussed.
> > >>
> > >> Now IRT may say that the observed length contraction isn't physical.
> > >> Don't know for sure and don't care.
> > >> Doesn't really matter.
> > >
> > > The point is after years of explanation you still can’t explain what length contraction mean in SR.
> >
> > No, Ken, after years of explanation, you still cannot hear what the
> > explanation of length contraction is. Moreover, after years of
> > struggling, you still have YET to read a SINGLE BOOK about relativity.
> 
> You have your own secret explanation......I am not going to waste time to find out. So go and fuck yourself.



If you want him to grant your request...you first have to bring back the broomstick of the Witch of the West...Now, Go!

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

#431248

On 9/5/17 10:39 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 10:05:32 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 9/5/17 8:08 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>> On Friday, September 1, 2017 at 3:48:37 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> On 9/1/17 7:26 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 3:13:30 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/29/17 10:12 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 12:13:50 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/28/17 10:41 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 11:12:08 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 8/28/17 9:32 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 9:31:06 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/25/17 8:17 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 10:28:29 AM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 9:19:28 AM UTC-5, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 7:36:21 AM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 6:03:19 PM UTC-5, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So are you saying that from the ball’s point of view the hole get larger so it can get through it and from the hole point of view the ball gets gets smaller so the ball can pass through it? I don’t think so. I think you are full of shit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Length contraction is observed ONLY along the direction of motion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Other observers will see the ball moving the ball moving in different directions.  Doesn’t that mean that the ball is contracted in all directions? That means that if contraction is real (material) then the ball should be able to pass through the hole.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Different observers OBSERVE the ball moving in different directions, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OBSERVE differing directions and magnitudes of length contraction.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So observe contraction is not real and thus not directly measurable.....right?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, it is very real and very measurable. And STILL different observers
>>>>>>>>>>>> will see different things.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> See different thing is not measurement.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The observed length contraction is real and very measurable. And STILL
>>>>>>>>>> different observers will measure different amounts of length contraction.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nope.....assertion is not a valid argument.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you know the difference between an assertion and a documented fact?
>>>>>>>> Oh, I know, any documented fact that you haven't read about is an
>>>>>>>> assertion unless someone presents it to you on usenet. I see.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is no real documented facts for real physical length contraction.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course there are.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There are falsely interpretations of documented results that interpreted as the effect of length contraction.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you have a documented result that is consistent with the prediction
>>>>>> of a theory like relativity, then that result supports the theory. It
>>>>>> doesn't matter that you don't like the "interpretation" of that theory.
>>>>>> It is still true that the experimental result supports that theory. What
>>>>>> part of this fundamental aspect of the scientific method do you not
>>>>>> understand?
>>>>>
>>>>> The point is that other interpretations will give the same predictions (eg. LET or IRT).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> LET also predicts real physical length contraction, which is in
>>>> agreement with data. See Lorentz's paper on the subject, in which this
>>>> is discussed.
>>>>
>>>> Now IRT may say that the observed length contraction isn't physical.
>>>> Don't know for sure and don't care.
>>>> Doesn't really matter.
>>>
>>> The point is after years of explanation you still can’t explain what length contraction mean in SR.
>>
>> No, Ken, after years of explanation, you still cannot hear what the
>> explanation of length contraction is. Moreover, after years of
>> struggling, you still have YET to read a SINGLE BOOK about relativity.
> 
> You have your own secret explanation.

No, I don't Ken. This is the PUBLIC explanation about length contraction 
in relativity.

> .....I am not going to waste time to find out. So go and fuck yourself.

So you're not going to waste time to find out what length contraction in 
relativity means. OK, then why ask about it?

It's not secret, Ken. You just are ignorant of things most people are 
not ignorant of.

> 
>>
>> So your inability to understand what has been explained to you
>> repeatedly is someone ELSE'S fault??
>>
>>> ....You denied:
>>> 1. material contraction.
>>> 2. geometric projection.
>>
>> That's right. It's neither.
>>
>>> But you failed to tell us what really length contraction means in SR.
>>
>> I have failed nothing. You are not paying me to explain it to you. You
>> have not done any homework to learn it. You have made plenty of demands
>> and then claimed that people have failed to bow to your demands.
>>
>> When are you going to do something to learn what length contraction
>> means in SR -- ON YOUR OWN?
>>
>>>
>>> IRT has one clear explanation: The light-path length of a moving meter stick is foreshortened by a factor of 1/gamma or expanded by a factor of gamma.
>>> This IRT explanation eliminated all the paradoxes in SR derived from the constant light speed postulate. Therefore IRT is a superior theory.
>>>
>>>> There are predictions of observable measurements
>>>> made by relativity, and those predictions match actual observations.
>>>> Thus those observations support relativity. They may ALSO support other
>>>> theories. For example, the Michelson-Morely experimental result supports
>>>> relativity and it also ballistic theories of light. A single experiment
>>>> does not and cannot single out one theory to the exclusion of all
>>>> others. It is the accumulation of ALL data that has the capacity to rule
>>>> out other competing theories, leaving only one standing.
>>>>
>>>> You can't seem to figure out if you want to acknowledge that length
>>>> contraction has been observed but that it may have alternate
>>>> interpretations like IRT, or if you want to say that the length
>>>> contraction has never been observed (which is just factually incorrect).
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> 


-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[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