Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #430251 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-08-28 07:32 -0700 |
| Last post | 2017-09-06 11:10 -0700 |
| Articles | 3 on this page of 43 — 9 participants |
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.
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 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-06 07:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cf498718-f72f-42fb-82be-890c47b6d2c5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #431248 |
On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 5:10:36 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > 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. Yes it’s your own secret explanation.....like your own secret explanation for “scientific method” which I look it up in the dictionary and you disagreed. > > > > >> > >> 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]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-06 13:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oopdmm$1e9$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #431347 |
On 9/6/17 9:22 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 5:10:36 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> 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. > > > Yes it’s your own secret explanation. No, Ken, it is not. > ....like your own secret explanation > for “scientific method” which I look it up in the dictionary and you disagreed. You looked up a short, two-line DEFINITION. You did not look up an explanation for the scientific method, which requires some number of pages. But I understand, Ken. You cannot read an entire page of text without losing track. So this is why you choose not to read. It sucks to be getting senile, doesn't it? >> >>> >>>> >>>> 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? When, Ken? >>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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 -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-06 11:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <59B03A1C.749B@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #431347 |
kenseto wrote: > > On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 5:10:36 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > 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. > > Yes it’s your own secret explanation.....like your own secret explanation for “scientific method†which I look it up in the dictionary and you disagreed. > > > > > > > >> > > >> 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 Odd Bodkin voice: And you, Kenseto, have the effrontery to ask for a brain? You billowing bale of bovine fodder! Do you presume to criticize the Great Oz? You ungrateful creature. Do not arouse the wrath of the Great and Powerful Oz! --- pay no attention to that man behind the computer Go , ! The Great Odd and Powerful Odd has spoken! Now close your eyes, and tap your heels together three times. And say to yourself, ‘There's no place like Usenet'...‘There's no place like Usenet'...‘There's no place like Usenet'.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web