Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #616449 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2023-07-31 16:42 -0700 |
| Last post | 2023-08-01 21:33 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 127 — 28 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
There is no material length contraction Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-07-31 16:42 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-08-01 10:41 +1000
Re: There is no material length contraction patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-31 18:15 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-07-31 18:38 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-08-01 12:10 +1000
Re: There is no material length contraction Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-31 21:47 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-31 22:04 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-08-03 15:52 +1000
Re: There is no material length contraction Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-08-03 09:50 +0000
Re: There is no material length contraction Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 02:55 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-08-03 09:57 +0000
Re: There is no material length contraction Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 03:09 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 07:01 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 10:30 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-03 14:01 -0400
Re: There is no material length contraction Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 12:42 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Rob Bibler <rreb@bieillii.ir> - 2023-08-03 20:02 +0000
Re: There is no material length contraction Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 14:29 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-03 22:37 -0400
Re: There is no material length contraction Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 20:28 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-04 04:11 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-04 13:34 -0400
Re: There is no material length contraction "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-08-04 10:41 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-04 23:31 -0400
Re: There is no material length contraction "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-08-04 21:21 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-05 00:50 -0400
Re: There is no material length contraction "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-08-05 10:57 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-05 14:38 -0400
Re: There is no material length contraction "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-08-06 10:11 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-08-06 21:00 +0000
Re: There is no material length contraction Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-07 11:34 -0400
Re: There is no material length contraction Rondell Verre <eror@vedllele.ee> - 2023-08-05 20:10 +0000
Re: There is no material length contraction Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-04 10:52 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-04 12:58 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-05 14:43 -0400
Re: There is no material length contraction Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-05 21:36 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-06 14:22 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-06 15:00 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-08-06 17:53 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-07 11:39 -0400
Reciprocal dilation of internal chronotropies (SR) Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-08-07 15:53 +0000
Re: Reciprocal dilation of internal chronotropies (SR) Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-07 19:24 +0200
Re: Reciprocal dilation of internal chronotropies (SR) Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-08-07 18:32 +0000
Re: Reciprocal dilation of internal chronotropies (SR) Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-07 22:43 +0200
Re: Reciprocal dilation of internal chronotropies (SR) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-07 12:29 -0500
Re: Reciprocal dilation of internal chronotropies (SR) Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-07 16:45 -0400
Re: There is no material length contraction Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-07 11:01 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-07 16:48 -0400
Re: There is no material length contraction Nat Vaikule <nukv@vektnaaa.nv> - 2023-08-07 21:25 +0000
Re: There is no material length contraction Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-07 15:34 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Jarrell Martirosov <ajrr@riilromm.aa> - 2023-08-08 10:03 +0000
Re: There is no material length contraction whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-07 18:01 -0500
Re: There is no material length contraction Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-10 18:53 -0400
Re: There is no material length contraction Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-10 19:07 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-10 13:20 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-10 18:58 -0400
Re: There is no material length contraction Ronaldo Amerhanov <hera@aeladhrd.ma> - 2023-08-12 20:57 +0000
Re: There is no material length contraction Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-14 06:07 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-08-14 09:06 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-08-14 16:21 +0000
Re: There is no material length contraction "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-08-14 09:39 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Ozzie Jakushov <ezhu@ijjhhouv.az> - 2023-08-04 21:35 +0000
Re: There is no material length contraction Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-04 15:58 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Beraldo Hapy <lhap@aaloyohe.pl> - 2023-08-05 03:00 +0000
Re: There is no material length contraction Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-08 05:30 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Dalton Dubman <nlat@tualtadd.db> - 2023-08-08 14:02 +0000
Re: There is no material length contraction Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-08 10:45 -0400
Re: There is no material length contraction Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-09 06:48 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-09 06:58 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-09 12:31 -0400
Re: There is no material length contraction Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-10 08:38 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-10 11:56 -0400
Re: There is no material length contraction Kaosayn Shakhbazyan <nazs@aoonaaoo.ah> - 2023-08-10 16:30 +0000
Re: There is no material length contraction Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-31 22:12 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-08-03 16:04 +1000
Re: There is no material length contraction Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 00:19 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-08-03 19:06 +1000
Re: There is no material length contraction Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 02:53 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-08-04 08:03 +1000
Re: There is no material length contraction Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 20:23 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-08-04 13:22 +0000
Re: There is no material length contraction patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-03 01:21 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-08-03 19:10 +1000
Re: There is no material length contraction Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-08-03 09:56 +0000
Re: There is no material length contraction patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-03 08:57 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-08-03 16:13 +0000
Re: There is no material length contraction patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-03 09:24 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 20:22 +0200
Re: There is no material length contraction Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-08-03 17:28 +0000
Re: There is no material length contraction patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-03 10:57 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-01 04:25 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-01 09:08 -0400
Re: There is no material length contraction Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-01 06:14 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-01 07:40 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-08-01 10:30 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Shkelqim Jadrennikov <meem@qnoeeooq.ds> - 2023-08-01 20:49 +0000
Re: There is no material length contraction Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-01 22:57 -0400
Re: There is no material length contraction Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 06:43 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-03 14:11 -0400
Re: There is no material length contraction Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 11:38 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Darling Vavravsky <rlrg@kakkdvyv.lv> - 2023-08-01 20:33 +0000
Re: There is no material length contraction Chaney Charnolusky <ycck@sarhhnkn.ca> - 2023-08-01 20:59 +0000
Re: There is no material length contraction Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-08-02 08:33 +1000
Re: There is no material length contraction Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-08-01 23:09 +0000
Re: There is no material length contraction Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-08-02 09:15 +1000
Re: There is no material length contraction Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-08-02 10:17 +0000
Re: There is no material length contraction Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-02 03:23 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-08-02 11:47 +0000
Re: There is no material length contraction Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-02 05:12 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-01 16:40 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-01 16:51 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-08-02 10:57 +1000
Re: There is no material length contraction Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-01 18:26 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-01 23:04 -0400
Re: There is no material length contraction Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-01 21:58 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-01 21:59 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-01 23:00 -0400
Re: There is no material length contraction Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 11:53 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-03 15:01 -0400
Re: There is no material length contraction Moody Vallah <mahv@ohoymldo.lv> - 2023-08-03 19:41 +0000
Re: There is no material length contraction Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 13:00 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction James Dzhunkovsky <uskv@mdjjsnue.ze> - 2023-08-03 19:23 +0000
Re: There is no material length contraction nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-01 11:07 +0200
Re: There is no material length contraction JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-07-31 17:46 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-07-31 18:40 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Lamont Bakhmutov <mktk@tomhmtmm.ml> - 2023-08-01 21:10 +0000
Re: There is no material length contraction Thad Mokrinsky <aonk@yoitaito.rm> - 2023-08-01 21:33 +0000
Page 1 of 7 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-31 16:42 -0700 |
| Subject | There is no material length contraction |
| Message-ID | <44903087-193c-4446-90c3-f7a5acecf264n@googlegroups.com> |
Einstein invented length contraction to make his Postulate P2 constant light speed in all frames viable.
Here's how:
1. The material length of a meter stick remain constant in all frames.
2. Einstein invented length contraction without specifyin what is
contracting.
This allowed him to claim that Length contraction along with time dilation
to give him constant light speed in all frames.
The real reason why the speed of light is not constant in all frames is as follows:
1. The material length of a meter stick remains constant in all frames.
2. The light-path-length (LPL)...the length that light must travel to cover the material length of a meter stick ....
3. The LPL of the observer's meter stick is 1meter ...the same as its material
length..
4. The LPL of a meter moving wrt the observer is predicted to be 1/gamma or gamma.
5. Einstein assumed that the LPL of the moving meter stick only 1/gamma. and thus all meter stick moving wrt the observer will have LPL 1/gamma. This is wrong. The LPL of a moving meter can be gamma. This means that SR is only half of the story.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-01 10:41 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <kir2lmF9hniU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #616449 |
On 01-Aug-23 9:42 am, Ken Seto wrote: > Einstein invented length contraction to make his Postulate P2 constant light speed in all frames viable. > Here's how: > 1. The material length of a meter stick remain constant in all frames. > 2. Einstein invented length contraction without specifyin what is > contracting. > This allowed him to claim that Length contraction along with time dilation > to give him constant light speed in all frames. > The real reason why the speed of light is not constant in all frames is as follows: > 1. The material length of a meter stick remains constant in all frames. > 2. The light-path-length (LPL)...the length that light must travel to cover the material length of a meter stick .... > 3. The LPL of the observer's meter stick is 1meter ...the same as its material > length.. > 4. The LPL of a meter moving wrt the observer is predicted to be 1/gamma or gamma. > 5. Einstein assumed that the LPL of the moving meter stick only 1/gamma. and thus all meter stick moving wrt the observer will have LPL 1/gamma. This is wrong. The LPL of a moving meter can be gamma. This means that SR is only half of the story. > > > > Indeed, there is no material length contraction. Einstein never said there was. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-31 18:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <878cf943-07d6-440f-a8b8-eb7a589cabf0n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #616450 |
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 5:41:31 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 01-Aug-23 9:42 am, Ken Seto wrote: > > Einstein invented length contraction to make his Postulate P2 constant light speed in all frames viable. > > Here's how: > > 1. The material length of a meter stick remain constant in all frames. > > 2. Einstein invented length contraction without specifyin what is > > contracting. > > This allowed him to claim that Length contraction along with time dilation > > to give him constant light speed in all frames. > > The real reason why the speed of light is not constant in all frames is as follows: > > 1. The material length of a meter stick remains constant in all frames. > > 2. The light-path-length (LPL)...the length that light must travel to cover the material length of a meter stick .... > > 3. The LPL of the observer's meter stick is 1meter ...the same as its material > > length.. > > 4. The LPL of a meter moving wrt the observer is predicted to be 1/gamma or gamma. > > 5. Einstein assumed that the LPL of the moving meter stick only 1/gamma. and thus all meter stick moving wrt the observer will have LPL 1/gamma. This is wrong. The LPL of a moving meter can be gamma. This means that SR is only half of the story. > > > > > > > > > Indeed, there is no material length contraction. Einstein never said > there was. > > Sylvia. Sylvia, if an observer starts accelerating at a constant 1g from one end of a rod whose proper length is one light year, will that observer claim that the rod appears to be shrinking in length during the acceleration? I don't know. Just asking.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-31 18:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f528abb1-f28f-4359-9cd8-015db6803417n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #616450 |
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 8:41:31 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 01-Aug-23 9:42 am, Ken Seto wrote: > > Einstein invented length contraction to make his Postulate P2 constant light speed in all frames viable. > > Here's how: > > 1. The material length of a meter stick remain constant in all frames. > > 2. Einstein invented length contraction without specifyin what is > > contracting. > > This allowed him to claim that Length contraction along with time dilation > > to give him constant light speed in all frames. > > The real reason why the speed of light is not constant in all frames is as follows: > > 1. The material length of a meter stick remains constant in all frames. > > 2. The light-path-length (LPL)...the length that light must travel to cover the material length of a meter stick .... > > 3. The LPL of the observer's meter stick is 1meter ...the same as its material > > length.. > > 4. The LPL of a meter moving wrt the observer is predicted to be 1/gamma or gamma. > > 5. Einstein assumed that the LPL of the moving meter stick only 1/gamma. and thus all meter stick moving wrt the observer will have LPL 1/gamma. This is wrong. The LPL of a moving meter can be gamma. This means that SR is only half of the story. > > > > > > > > > Indeed, there is no material length contraction. Einstein never said > there was. So what did Einstein said what is contracting? The LPL as I said above? > > Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-01 12:10 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <kir7s9FbunmU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #616454 |
On 01-Aug-23 11:38 am, Ken Seto wrote: > On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 8:41:31 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 01-Aug-23 9:42 am, Ken Seto wrote: >>> Einstein invented length contraction to make his Postulate P2 constant light speed in all frames viable. >>> Here's how: >>> 1. The material length of a meter stick remain constant in all frames. >>> 2. Einstein invented length contraction without specifyin what is >>> contracting. >>> This allowed him to claim that Length contraction along with time dilation >>> to give him constant light speed in all frames. >>> The real reason why the speed of light is not constant in all frames is as follows: >>> 1. The material length of a meter stick remains constant in all frames. >>> 2. The light-path-length (LPL)...the length that light must travel to cover the material length of a meter stick .... >>> 3. The LPL of the observer's meter stick is 1meter ...the same as its material >>> length.. >>> 4. The LPL of a meter moving wrt the observer is predicted to be 1/gamma or gamma. >>> 5. Einstein assumed that the LPL of the moving meter stick only 1/gamma. and thus all meter stick moving wrt the observer will have LPL 1/gamma. This is wrong. The LPL of a moving meter can be gamma. This means that SR is only half of the story. >>> >>> >>> >>> >> Indeed, there is no material length contraction. Einstein never said >> there was. > > So what did Einstein said what is contracting? The LPL as I said above? >> >> Sylvia. Relativity is a theoretical model. It tells you what to expect if you do measurements. That's it. If you want to interpret the result of certain measurements as meaning that a length has contracted, that's up to you, but it goes beyond the theory, and your interpretation has no observable consequences. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-31 21:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c5aabd88-6c9e-4b5e-acee-73a1e7304c10n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #616456 |
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 7:10:22 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > Relativity is a theoretical model. It tells you what to expect if you do > measurements. That's it. If you want to interpret the result of certain > measurements as meaning that a length has contracted, that's up to you, > but it goes beyond the theory, and your interpretation has no observable > consequences. Perfect. Indisputable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-31 22:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8142a28c-23cd-4034-bcee-a2922ab559e3n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #616468 |
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 9:47:41 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: > On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 7:10:22 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > Relativity is a theoretical model. It tells you what to expect if you do > > measurements. That's it. If you want to interpret the result of certain > > measurements as meaning that a length has contracted, that's up to you, > > but it goes beyond the theory, and your interpretation has no observable > > consequences. > Perfect. Indisputable. Wrong, Mutton Chops. Observer A approaches Observer B at a velocity that Observer A calculates to be the proper relative velocity v. But if Observer A then tries to calculate the coordinate relative velocity that Observer B should calculate, it turns out to be v*gamma^2. So there are very observable consequences. Inconsistent and contradictory consequences.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-03 15:52 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <kj0tljF95vvU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #616469 |
On 01-Aug-23 3:04 pm, patdolan wrote: > On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 9:47:41 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: >> On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 7:10:22 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >> >>> Relativity is a theoretical model. It tells you what to expect if you do >>> measurements. That's it. If you want to interpret the result of certain >>> measurements as meaning that a length has contracted, that's up to you, >>> but it goes beyond the theory, and your interpretation has no observable >>> consequences. >> Perfect. Indisputable. > Wrong, Mutton Chops. Observer A approaches Observer B at a velocity that Observer A calculates to be the proper relative velocity v. But if Observer A then tries to calculate the coordinate relative velocity that Observer B should calculate, it turns out to be v*gamma^2. So there are very observable consequences. Inconsistent and contradictory consequences. If observer A measures observer B's velocity relative to A to have magnitude |v|, then observer B measures observer A's velocity relative to B also to have magnitude |v|. The concept of "coordinate relative velocity" is something you, or some other crank, invented, and has no physical significance. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-03 09:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <INB9UnteMgTKGTkIz-RWd4Zezp4@jntp> |
| In reply to | #616646 |
Le 03/08/2023 à 07:52, Sylvia Else a écrit : >> Wrong, Mutton Chops. Observer A approaches Observer B at a velocity that >> Observer A calculates to be the proper relative velocity v. But if Observer A then >> tries to calculate the coordinate relative velocity that Observer B should >> calculate, it turns out to be v*gamma^2. So there are very observable >> consequences. Inconsistent and contradictory consequences. > > If observer A measures observer B's velocity relative to A to have > magnitude |v|, then observer B measures observer A's velocity relative > to B also to have magnitude |v|. > > The concept of "coordinate relative velocity" is something you, or some > other crank, invented, and has no physical significance. "There is never a privileged reference frame. The effects of relativistic physics remain symmetrical and reciprocal by permutation of reference frame". Dr Richard Hatchel. Pasadena Conference June 2023 If an object approaches me at 0.8c, this object considers that I approach it at v=0.8c. It's reciprocal. But this discovers an absolutely astonishing property well described by Doctor Hachel (him again). The apparent velocities must remain reciprocal. Vapp=Vo/(1+cosµ.Vo/c) Vapp=0.8/(1+(-1)(0.8)=4c I see this object approaching with an apparent speed of 4c. But HIM ALSO, he sees me approaching him at Vapp=4c. It's elementary and yet so counter-intuitive that even the pundits of relativity find it hard to accept the obvious. Worse still: if we tell them that the rocket will be three times longer, they will feel enormous pain in accepting that, for the rocket, it is my telescope which will seem three times longer. In short, space itself is a much more elastic reference mollusc than they imagine. Then joins the intellectual problem a huge human problem of jealousy: "We don't want this man to reign over us". The Jewish high priests said exactly the same thing two thousand years ago. You don't change people. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-03 02:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9821b16e-ad0b-483c-882f-ab84109b1996n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #616657 |
On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 11:51:02 UTC+2, Richard Hachel wrote: > Le 03/08/2023 à 07:52, Sylvia Else a écrit : > >> Wrong, Mutton Chops. Observer A approaches Observer B at a velocity that > >> Observer A calculates to be the proper relative velocity v. But if Observer A then > >> tries to calculate the coordinate relative velocity that Observer B should > >> calculate, it turns out to be v*gamma^2. So there are very observable > >> consequences. Inconsistent and contradictory consequences. > > > > If observer A measures observer B's velocity relative to A to have > > magnitude |v|, then observer B measures observer A's velocity relative > > to B also to have magnitude |v|. > > > > The concept of "coordinate relative velocity" is something you, or some > > other crank, invented, and has no physical significance. > "There is never a privileged reference frame. The effects of relativistic > physics remain symmetrical and reciprocal by permutation of reference > frame". Dr Richard Hatchel. Pasadena Conference June 2023 And in the meantime in the real world, forbidden by idiots like you improper clocks of improper, preferring ECi GPS keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-03 09:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <cMDeqLiivJmLDEvNqqt8zK5gOzA@jntp> |
| In reply to | #616659 |
Le 03/08/2023 à 11:55, Maciej Wozniak a écrit : > On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 11:51:02 UTC+2, Richard Hachel wrote: > And in the meantime in the real world, forbidden by > idiots like you improper clocks of improper, preferring > ECi GPS keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks > always did. Tu l'as déjà dit. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-03 03:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1a933c4f-7503-4404-963d-10ddfebcfacfn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #616661 |
On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 11:57:22 UTC+2, Richard Hachel wrote: > Le 03/08/2023 à 11:55, Maciej Wozniak a écrit : > > On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 11:51:02 UTC+2, Richard Hachel wrote: > > > And in the meantime in the real world, forbidden by > > idiots like you improper clocks of improper, preferring > > ECi GPS keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks > > always did. > Tu l'as déjà dit. And I will again. The reality is not going to follow your insane fancies. You should finally face it. But I can't force you to that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-03 07:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d1c53c5f-9cac-4c9a-b1e4-5f7d9b6549afn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #616646 |
On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 1:52:55 AM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 01-Aug-23 3:04 pm, patdolan wrote: > > On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 9:47:41 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: > >> On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 7:10:22 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> > >>> Relativity is a theoretical model. It tells you what to expect if you do > >>> measurements. That's it. If you want to interpret the result of certain > >>> measurements as meaning that a length has contracted, that's up to you, > >>> but it goes beyond the theory, and your interpretation has no observable > >>> consequences. > >> Perfect. Indisputable. > > Wrong, Mutton Chops. Observer A approaches Observer B at a velocity that Observer A calculates to be the proper relative velocity v. But if Observer A then tries to calculate the coordinate relative velocity that Observer B should calculate, it turns out to be v*gamma^2. So there are very observable consequences. Inconsistent and contradictory consequences. > > If observer A measures observer B's velocity relative to A to have > magnitude |v|, then observer B measures observer A's velocity relative > to B also to have magnitude |v|. No, That's a wrong assumption. A and B each measures a different [V[ cbecause their clock seconds have a different TIME content. You assumed wrongly that a clock second is an absolute unit of time......it is not. A clock second on the A clock /= a clock second on the B clock. > Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-03 10:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <927aff68-068f-43c1-871b-4bb4922f4640n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #616675 |
On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 10:01:36 AM UTC-4, Ken Seto wrote: > On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 1:52:55 AM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote: > > On 01-Aug-23 3:04 pm, patdolan wrote: > > > On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 9:47:41 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: > > >> On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 7:10:22 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > > >> > > >>> Relativity is a theoretical model. It tells you what to expect if you do > > >>> measurements. That's it. If you want to interpret the result of certain > > >>> measurements as meaning that a length has contracted, that's up to you, > > >>> but it goes beyond the theory, and your interpretation has no observable > > >>> consequences. > > >> Perfect. Indisputable. > > > Wrong, Mutton Chops. Observer A approaches Observer B at a velocity that Observer A calculates to be the proper relative velocity v. But if Observer A then tries to calculate the coordinate relative velocity that Observer B should calculate, it turns out to be v*gamma^2. So there are very observable consequences. Inconsistent and contradictory consequences. > > > > If observer A measures observer B's velocity relative to A to have > > magnitude |v|, then observer B measures observer A's velocity relative > > to B also to have magnitude |v|. > No, That's a wrong assumption. A and B each measures a different [V[ cbecause their clock seconds have a different TIME content. > You assumed wrongly that a clock second is an absolute unit of time......it is not. > A clock second on the A clock /= a clock second on the B clock. > > > Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-03 14:01 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <uagq0v$rop6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #616675 |
On 8/3/2023 10:01 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 1:52:55 AM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote: >> If observer A measures observer B's velocity relative to A to have >> magnitude |v|, then observer B measures observer A's velocity relative >> to B also to have magnitude |v|. > > No, That's a wrong assumption. It is not an assumption, Stupid Ken. It is what SR derives from its two postulates. > A and B each measures a different [V[ A and B measure the same v but in opposite directions. They have the same magnitude |v|. > cbecause their clock seconds have a different TIME content. > You assumed wrongly that a clock second is an absolute unit of time......it is not. No, Stupid Ken, time is measured in seconds which is defined as the time of 9192631770 Cs transition cycles.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-03 12:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ea759527-ab14-4f47-a5d3-a2d97afedbcfn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #616697 |
On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 2:01:07 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > On 8/3/2023 10:01 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > > On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 1:52:55 AM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote: > > >> If observer A measures observer B's velocity relative to A to have > >> magnitude |v|, then observer B measures observer A's velocity relative > >> to B also to have magnitude |v|. > > > > No, That's a wrong assumption. > It is not an assumption, Stupid Ken. It is what SR derives from its two > postulates. Stupid Mike, it is a wrong assumption because the SR postulate (P2) is wrong. > > A and B each measures a different [V[ > A and B measure the same v but in opposite directions. They have the > same magnitude |v|. No they don't get the same result because three clock seconds have different value of time. > > cbecause their clock seconds have a different TIME content. You assumed wrongly that a clock second is an absolute unit of time......it is not. > No, Stupid Ken, time is measured in seconds which is defined as the time > of 9192631770 Cs transition cycles. No stupid Mike, you assumed wrongly that each cycle of Cs have the same interval of TIME.....they do not Each cycle depend on the arrival of specific amount of energy and the arrival of this energy is dependent on the absolute motion of A and B. Since A and B are in different states of absolute motion, each cycle will take a different interval of time (absolute time) to arrive and thus a different amount of time (absolute time) to complete a cycle of Cs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rob Bibler <rreb@bieillii.ir> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-03 20:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uah142$1hkeh$1@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #616720 |
Ken Seto wrote: > No stupid Mike, you assumed wrongly that each cycle of Cs have the same > interval of TIME.....they do not Each cycle depend on the arrival of > specific amount of energy and the arrival of this energy is dependent on > the absolute motion of A and B. Since A and B are in different states of > absolute motion, each cycle will take a different interval of time > (absolute time) to arrive and thus a different amount of time (absolute > time) to complete a cycle of Cs. you cannot detect motion inside 𝗮𝗻_𝗮𝗱𝗶𝗮𝗯𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗰 closed 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗹_𝘃𝗼𝗹𝘂𝗺𝗲, fucking stupid. Motion is irrelevant for the beings inside that 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗹_𝘃𝗼𝗹𝘂𝗺𝗲. You are so cheap. 𝗨𝗞_𝗺𝗮𝘆_𝗸𝗶𝗰𝗸_𝗼𝘂𝘁_100,000_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀_ https://r%74.com/news/580744-uk-ukrainian-refugee-status/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-03 14:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6379ff7e-1ae2-438a-8b73-ece81ba383d2n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #616723 |
On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 4:02:15 PM UTC-4, Rob Bibler wrote: > Ken Seto wrote: > > > No stupid Mike, you assumed wrongly that each cycle of Cs have the same > > interval of TIME.....they do not Each cycle depend on the arrival of > > specific amount of energy and the arrival of this energy is dependent on > > the absolute motion of A and B. Since A and B are in different states of > > absolute motion, each cycle will take a different interval of time > > (absolute time) to arrive and thus a different amount of time (absolute > > time) to complete a cycle of Cs. > you cannot detect motion inside 𝗮𝗻_𝗮𝗱𝗶𝗮𝗯𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗰 closed 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗹_𝘃𝗼𝗹𝘂𝗺𝗲, > fucking stupid. Motion is irrelevant for the beings inside that > 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗹_𝘃𝗼𝗹𝘂𝗺𝗲. You are so cheap. I did not say I can detect absolute motion. I merely describe, according to my model, w,ha,t causes time dilation. > > 𝗨𝗞_𝗺𝗮𝘆_𝗸𝗶𝗰𝗸_𝗼𝘂𝘁_100,000_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀_ > https://r%74.com/news/580744-uk-ukrainian-refugee-status/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-03 22:37 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <uaho94$14eng$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #616720 |
On 8/3/2023 3:42 PM, Ken Seto wrote: > On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 2:01:07 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >> On 8/3/2023 10:01 AM, Ken Seto wrote: >>> On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 1:52:55 AM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote: >> >>>> If observer A measures observer B's velocity relative to A to have >>>> magnitude |v|, then observer B measures observer A's velocity relative >>>> to B also to have magnitude |v|. >>> >>> No, That's a wrong assumption. >> It is not an assumption, Stupid Ken. It is what SR derives from its two >> postulates. > Stupid Mike, it is a wrong assumption because the SR postulate (P2) is wrong. A postulate cannot be wrong. A postulate is a postulate. > >>> A and B each measures a different [V[ >> A and B measure the same v but in opposite directions. They have the >> same magnitude |v|. > > No they don't get the same result because three clock seconds have different value of time. They have the same value of time because the second has an exact definition, Stupid Ken. In addition to symmetry arguments for the velocity having the same magnitude. >>> cbecause their clock seconds have a different TIME content. > You assumed wrongly that a clock second is an absolute unit of time......it is not. >> No, Stupid Ken, time is measured in seconds which is defined as the time >> of 9192631770 Cs transition cycles. > > No stupid Mike, you assumed wrongly that each cycle of Cs have the same interval of TIME.....they do not Stupid Ken, your assertions are not valid arguments. The second is DEFINED as that many Cs transition cycles. A definition cannot be wrong. > Each cycle depend on the arrival of specific amount of energy and the arrival of this energy Your assertions are not valid arguments. > is dependent on the absolute motion of A and B. There is no such thing as absolute motion in any science model. All motion is relative. > Since A and B are in different states of > absolute motion, No such thing as absolute motion in any model of science. Therefore this clause is meaningless nonsense. > each cycle will take a different interval of time (absolute time) Because the first part of the conditional clause is false, this blather can be ignored. > to arrive and thus a different amount of time (absolute time) to complete a cycle of Cs. More blithering word salad. Since your Muddle Mechanics is dependent on something that doesn't even exist, it has no value whatsoever, so it is ignored.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-03 20:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d98a563d-1a25-45f9-acb8-c6d75300c529n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #616743 |
On Friday, 4 August 2023 at 04:37:29 UTC+2, Volney wrote: > On 8/3/2023 3:42 PM, Ken Seto wrote: > > On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 2:01:07 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > >> On 8/3/2023 10:01 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > >>> On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 1:52:55 AM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> > >>>> If observer A measures observer B's velocity relative to A to have > >>>> magnitude |v|, then observer B measures observer A's velocity relative > >>>> to B also to have magnitude |v|. > >>> > >>> No, That's a wrong assumption. > >> It is not an assumption, Stupid Ken. It is what SR derives from its two > >> postulates. > > > Stupid Mike, it is a wrong assumption because the SR postulate (P2) is wrong. > A postulate cannot be wrong. A postulate is a postulate. And do you still believe that 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy is some "Newton mode"? You're such an amazing idiot, stupid Mike, even considering the standards of your moronic religion. > > > >>> A and B each measures a different [V[ > > >> A and B measure the same v but in opposite directions. They have the > >> same magnitude |v|. > > > > No they don't get the same result because three clock seconds have different value of time. > They have the same value of time because the second has an exact > definition, Stupid Ken. Stop lying, stupid Mike, the definition of second is varying. > Stupid Ken, your assertions are not valid arguments. The second is > DEFINED as that many Cs transition cycles. A definition cannot be wrong. Of course it can, stupid Mike. Your assertions are not valid arguments. And, BTW, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/second
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 7 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web