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 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 Next page →
| From | Darling Vavravsky <rlrg@kakkdvyv.lv> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-01 20:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uabq7g$3mqkm$1@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #616498 |
Volney wrote: > On 8/1/2023 7:25 AM, Ken Seto wrote: >> Ha.....so relativity is a model I think that my model is better. > > You don't even have a science model, Stupid Ken, so it's impossible for > your non-model to be better. forget it. You too are a 𝗦𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆 from ukurina. Changed your name and moved to america. Like Einstine. I bet the Einstine was too a 𝗦𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆 from ukurina, changed his name and moved to america. With his cousin, which is a disgrace.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chaney Charnolusky <ycck@sarhhnkn.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-01 20:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uabrmm$3o760$1@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #616541 |
Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > Moscow▂▄▅█████████▅▄▃▂Beijing mushroom cloud, Xi as Putin's stooge when > Russia vaporizes Beijing with its RS-28 Sarmat "Satan II", all because > Xi was too dumb to realize you can never trust an insane person > >> > On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 9:03:40 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote: >> > >"Putin's Stooge" yet another idiot 𝗦𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆 from ukurina. You guys are all 𝗦𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆s, polluting this channel 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵_𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗶_𝗽𝗵𝘆𝘀𝗶𝗰𝘀.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-02 08:33 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <kitfifFn1g9U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #616491 |
On 01-Aug-23 9:25 pm, Ken Seto wrote: > On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 10:10:22 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote: >> 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 >> conse > > Ha.....so relativity is a model I think that my model is better. > My model: > 1. The speed of light is variable...it depends on the absolute speed of the source and the receiver in > the aether. > 2 Material length (such as a meter stick) is constant in all frames > 3. The length light need to t ravel to cover the material length of a meter stick is variable..and this length is identified as LPL. (light path length) > 4. The time for light tio cover the material length of a meter stick is variable. > 5. Variable length/variable time = Constant "c" > > So you see ......my model is better because it provides explanation why the sped of light is constant in all frames. >> > If the model does not correctly predict the results of measurements, then it's wrong. Relativity does correctly predict them. Your model either predicts the same results, and is just a different mathematical formulation of the same predictions, or your model is wrong. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-01 23:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <8mYX-2Ozs7IJcCesT2aXkpdvlok@jntp> |
| In reply to | #616557 |
Le 02/08/2023 à 00:33, Sylvia Else a écrit : > > If the model does not correctly predict the results of measurements, > then it's wrong. Relativity does correctly predict them. Your model > either predicts the same results, and is just a different mathematical > formulation of the same predictions, or your model is wrong. > > Sylvia. It's a little more complicated than that, my love Sylvia. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-02 09:15 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <kithvtFn1g9U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #616558 |
On 02-Aug-23 9:09 am, Richard Hachel wrote: > Le 02/08/2023 à 00:33, Sylvia Else a écrit : >> >> If the model does not correctly predict the results of measurements, >> then it's wrong. Relativity does correctly predict them. Your model >> either predicts the same results, and is just a different mathematical >> formulation of the same predictions, or your model is wrong. >> >> Sylvia. > > It's a little more complicated than that, my love Sylvia. > > R.H. Darling Richard, your comment is singularly uninformative. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-02 10:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <HhwUDHcPZvMfIurID1Y3uc-CiAc@jntp> |
| In reply to | #616559 |
Le 02/08/2023 à 01:15, Sylvia Else a écrit : > On 02-Aug-23 9:09 am, Richard Hachel wrote: >> Le 02/08/2023 à 00:33, Sylvia Else a écrit : >>> >>> If the model does not correctly predict the results of measurements, >>> then it's wrong. Relativity does correctly predict them. Your model >>> either predicts the same results, and is just a different mathematical >>> formulation of the same predictions, or your model is wrong. >>> >>> Sylvia. >> >> It's a little more complicated than that, my love Sylvia. >> >> R.H. > > Darling Richard, your comment is singularly uninformative. > > Sylvia. My love Sylvia, I wrote in 1986: "If a fact or an experiment comes to contradict a theory nevertheless accepted and well ingrained in the spirits, this one must be abandoned: it is the theory which is wrong, and it is the fact which has raison". So we agree. You also say "the theory of relativity can predict observed facts", that is also true, of course. But where I find and say it's a little more complicated than that is when I say that sometimes two theories can predict the same things at some points, and very different things at others. others. There can therefore only be at most one true one among the two. Now let's see how physicists proceed, and how Doctor Hachel proceeds. Physicists have no theory at the start, and are surprised that strange facts appear. This is the experience of physicist Michelson, and his chemist friend Morley. It is then necessary to explain the result, and to cement on it a plausible theory. We start from a fact, and we create a theory to explain it. With Dr. Hachel, we first have a theory and we only ask AFTER to prove it with facts. The conceptual power, if the facts are proven, then becomes enormous. It is not the same to propose a theory on unexplained facts, than to predict unexplained facts before they even occur. So we have two models of SR. But if a single fact proves mine, which logically should happen, and contradicts certain predictions of the current SR, the power of what I propose will be infinite. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-02 03:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c25c42d0-b956-44bc-90d1-31166f514f85n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #616597 |
On Wednesday, 2 August 2023 at 12:17:53 UTC+2, Richard Hachel wrote: > Le 02/08/2023 à 01:15, Sylvia Else a écrit : > > On 02-Aug-23 9:09 am, Richard Hachel wrote: > >> Le 02/08/2023 à 00:33, Sylvia Else a écrit : > >>> > >>> If the model does not correctly predict the results of measurements, > >>> then it's wrong. Relativity does correctly predict them. Your model > >>> either predicts the same results, and is just a different mathematical > >>> formulation of the same predictions, or your model is wrong. > >>> > >>> Sylvia. > >> > >> It's a little more complicated than that, my love Sylvia. > >> > >> R.H. > > > > Darling Richard, your comment is singularly uninformative. > > > > Sylvia. > My love Sylvia, > I wrote in 1986: "If a fact or an experiment comes to contradict a theory > nevertheless accepted and well ingrained in the spirits, this one must be > abandoned: it is the theory which is wrong, and it is the fact which has > raison". > So we agree. You're both very naive and plainly incompetent. > You also say "the theory of relativity can predict observed facts", that > is also true, of course. But in the meantime in the real world, forbidden by your insane bunch "improper" clocks keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks always do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-02 11:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <gTdxS5OuXRhuhnmzvPSAs4PwBs4@jntp> |
| In reply to | #616598 |
Le 02/08/2023 à 12:23, Maciej Wozniak a écrit : > On Wednesday, 2 August 2023 at 12:17:53 UTC+2, Richard Hachel wrote: >> Le 02/08/2023 à 01:15, Sylvia Else a écrit : >> > On 02-Aug-23 9:09 am, Richard Hachel wrote: >> >> Le 02/08/2023 à 00:33, Sylvia Else a écrit : >> >>> >> >>> If the model does not correctly predict the results of measurements, >> >>> then it's wrong. Relativity does correctly predict them. Your model >> >>> either predicts the same results, and is just a different mathematical >> >>> formulation of the same predictions, or your model is wrong. >> >>> >> >>> Sylvia. >> >> >> >> It's a little more complicated than that, my love Sylvia. >> >> >> >> R.H. >> > >> > Darling Richard, your comment is singularly uninformative. >> > >> > Sylvia. >> My love Sylvia, >> I wrote in 1986: "If a fact or an experiment comes to contradict a theory >> nevertheless accepted and well ingrained in the spirits, this one must be >> abandoned: it is the theory which is wrong, and it is the fact which has >> raison". >> So we agree. > > You're both very naive and plainly incompetent. > >> You also say "the theory of relativity can predict observed facts", that >> is also true, of course. > > But in the meantime in the real world, forbidden by your > insane bunch "improper" clocks keep measuring t'=t, just > like all serious clocks always do. Maciej, I find you very arrogant today. I'm going to explain something to you. Did you know that the speed of sound is independent of the intensity of noise? If I make a noise twice as loud, I don't get a sound that travels twice as fast. For the light it's a bit the same. If I am at rest, and I send a light ray towards Maciej, the light ray moves from Richard towards Maciej, at v=c. But if I move towards it, say at 30 m/s, and send it a beam of light, the beam will always pass through space at v=c, not at v=c+30m/s In short, the speed of light is a function of the frame of reference of the receiver, and not of the frame of reference of the emitter. Can you understand that? If not, stop posting Maciej, you do more damage than anything else by posting your bullshit with aggression and harassment. Instead, help others (who don't understand much more than you) to understand how Dr. Hachel's theory of relativity works. I'm not asking for agreement. I ask at least that we understand it. Now when you will have understood what I have just written (I beg you to make an effort of courage) try to progress in what I say, and reflect on the small problems posed recently here with the three small wagons which I drew , and what will induce the constant speed of light in the reference frame of the observer. You will see that time is relative. You will understand WHY. Take advantage of the immense chance that you are given to have here someone who knows his subject and who has a great didactic gift for explaining things with baby steps. Thank you for your understanding Maciej (even if I don't believe it for a second). R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-02 05:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <25ce1e21-f405-4aa2-998e-c41f0bb7dad6n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #616600 |
On Wednesday, 2 August 2023 at 13:47:59 UTC+2, Richard Hachel wrote: > Le 02/08/2023 à 12:23, Maciej Wozniak a écrit : > > On Wednesday, 2 August 2023 at 12:17:53 UTC+2, Richard Hachel wrote: > >> Le 02/08/2023 à 01:15, Sylvia Else a écrit : > >> > On 02-Aug-23 9:09 am, Richard Hachel wrote: > >> >> Le 02/08/2023 à 00:33, Sylvia Else a écrit : > >> >>> > >> >>> If the model does not correctly predict the results of measurements, > >> >>> then it's wrong. Relativity does correctly predict them. Your model > >> >>> either predicts the same results, and is just a different mathematical > >> >>> formulation of the same predictions, or your model is wrong. > >> >>> > >> >>> Sylvia. > >> >> > >> >> It's a little more complicated than that, my love Sylvia. > >> >> > >> >> R.H. > >> > > >> > Darling Richard, your comment is singularly uninformative. > >> > > >> > Sylvia. > >> My love Sylvia, > >> I wrote in 1986: "If a fact or an experiment comes to contradict a theory > >> nevertheless accepted and well ingrained in the spirits, this one must be > >> abandoned: it is the theory which is wrong, and it is the fact which has > >> raison". > >> So we agree. > > > > You're both very naive and plainly incompetent. > > > >> You also say "the theory of relativity can predict observed facts", that > >> is also true, of course. > > > > But in the meantime in the real world, forbidden by your > > insane bunch "improper" clocks keep measuring t'=t, just > > like all serious clocks always do. > Maciej, I find you very arrogant today. > > I'm going to explain something to you. > > Did you know that the speed of sound is independent of the intensity of > noise? > > If I make a noise twice as loud, I don't get a sound that travels twice as > fast. > > For the light it's a bit the same. > > If I am at rest, and I send a light ray towards Maciej, the light ray > moves from Richard towards Maciej, at v=c. > > But if I move towards it, say at 30 m/s, and send it a beam of light, the > beam will always pass through space at v=c, not at v=c+30m/s > > In short, the speed of light is a function of the frame of reference of > the receiver, and not of the frame of reference of the emitter. > > Can you understand that? Speed of light is a function of assumed by us coordinates. Basically, it can be whatever we want. And what you're trying to do is - to persuade us that what we want is what you like. No fucken way, sorry.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-01 16:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5b75c472-0665-46c0-8780-8670f4e81b47n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #616557 |
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 6:33:55 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 01-Aug-23 9:25 pm, Ken Seto wrote: > > On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 10:10:22 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> 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 > >> conse > > > > Ha.....so relativity is a model I think that my model is better. > > My model: > > 1. The speed of light is variable...it depends on the absolute speed of the source and the receiver in > > the aether. > > 2 Material length (such as a meter stick) is constant in all frames > > 3. The length light need to t ravel to cover the material length of a meter stick is variable..and this length is identified as LPL. (light path length) > > 4. The time for light tio cover the material length of a meter stick is variable. > > 5. Variable length/variable time = Constant "c" > > > > So you see ......my model is better because it provides explanation why the sped of light is constant in all frames. > >> > > > If the model does not correctly predict the results of measurements, > then it's wrong. Relativity does correctly predict them. Your model > either predicts the same results, and is just a different mathematical > formulation of the same predictions, or your model is wrong. > How do you know that my model doesn't't give the correct predictions? .
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-01 16:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1c0defa5-0f3f-48d8-83a8-6cf3265b9e64n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #616562 |
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 7:40:05 PM UTC-4, Ken Seto wrote: > On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 6:33:55 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote: > > On 01-Aug-23 9:25 pm, Ken Seto wrote: > > > On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 10:10:22 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote: > > >> 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 > > >> conse > > > > > > Ha.....so relativity is a model I think that my model is better. > > > My model: > > > 1. The speed of light is variable...it depends on the absolute speed of the source and the receiver in > > > the aether. > > > 2 Material length (such as a meter stick) is constant in all frames > > > 3. The length light need to t ravel to cover the material length of a meter stick is variable..and this length is identified as LPL. (light path length) > > > 4. The time for light tio cover the material length of a meter stick is variable. > > > 5. Variable length/variable time = Constant "c" > > > > > > So you see ......my model is better because it provides explanation why the sped of light is constant in all frames. > > >> > > > > > If the model does not correctly predict the results of measurements, > > then it's wrong. Relativity does correctly predict them. Your model > > either predicts the same results, and is just a different mathematical > > formulation of the same predictions, or your model is wrong. > > > How do you know that my model doesn't't give the correct predictions? > . Go read my book chapter r 4......Improved relative theory and Doppler thereof gravity. My book is titled "Model Mechanics: The final Theory" It is available in I Cloud.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-02 10:57 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <kitnv5Fo8nkU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #616562 |
On 02-Aug-23 9:40 am, Ken Seto wrote: > On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 6:33:55 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 01-Aug-23 9:25 pm, Ken Seto wrote: >>> On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 10:10:22 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> 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 >>>> conse >>> >>> Ha.....so relativity is a model I think that my model is better. >>> My model: >>> 1. The speed of light is variable...it depends on the absolute speed of the source and the receiver in >>> the aether. >>> 2 Material length (such as a meter stick) is constant in all frames >>> 3. The length light need to t ravel to cover the material length of a meter stick is variable..and this length is identified as LPL. (light path length) >>> 4. The time for light tio cover the material length of a meter stick is variable. >>> 5. Variable length/variable time = Constant "c" >>> >>> So you see ......my model is better because it provides explanation why the sped of light is constant in all frames. >>>> >>> >> If the model does not correctly predict the results of measurements, >> then it's wrong. Relativity does correctly predict them. Your model >> either predicts the same results, and is just a different mathematical >> formulation of the same predictions, or your model is wrong. >> > > How do you know that my model doesn't't give the correct predictions? > . I didn't say that it doesn't. But you haven't pointed to an experimental result that shows that relativity is wrong (as distinct from an experiment that you think would do so if it were performed). If your theory makes the same predictions are relativity, then I reiterate my point that that means it's just a different mathematical formulation. If it differs in its predictions, then you have the opportunity to do an experiment that will distinguish between your theory and relativity. But you'd have to do it, not just say you think it would support your theory and falsify relativity. You like your theory. We get it. But overturning relativity requires more than that. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-01 18:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <539bd6a3-1f55-4deb-85e8-3cb180a178c0n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #616565 |
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 8:57:13 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 02-Aug-23 9:40 am, Ken Seto wrote: > > On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 6:33:55 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 01-Aug-23 9:25 pm, Ken Seto wrote: > >>> On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 10:10:22 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>> 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 > >>>> conse > >>> > >>> Ha.....so relativity is a model I think that my model is better. > >>> My model: > >>> 1. The speed of light is variable...it depends on the absolute speed of the source and the receiver in > >>> the aether. > >>> 2 Material length (such as a meter stick) is constant in all frames > >>> 3. The length light need to t ravel to cover the material length of a meter stick is variable..and this length is identified as LPL. (light path length) > >>> 4. The time for light tio cover the material length of a meter stick is variable. > >>> 5. Variable length/variable time = Constant "c" > >>> > >>> So you see ......my model is better because it provides explanation why the sped of light is constant in all frames. > >>>> > >>> > >> If the model does not correctly predict the results of measurements, > >> then it's wrong. Relativity does correctly predict them. Your model > >> either predicts the same results, and is just a different mathematical > >> formulation of the same predictions, or your model is wrong. > >> > > > > How do you know that my model doesn't't give the correct predictions? > > . > I didn't say that it doesn't. But you haven't pointed to an experimental > result that shows that relativity is wrong (as distinct from an > experiment that you think would do so if it were performed). > > If your theory makes the same predictions are relativity, then I > reiterate my point that that means it's just a different mathematical > formulation. > > If it differs in its predictions, then you have the opportunity to do an > experiment that will distinguish between your theory and relativity. But > you'd have to do it, not just say you think it would support your theory > and falsify relativity. > > You like your theory. We get it. But overturning relativity requires > more than that. Model Mechanics doesn't overturn relativity.....it includes relativity as a subset.. My book is available in Amazon.au Ken
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-01 23:04 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <uach3h$3umcv$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #616568 |
On 8/1/2023 9:26 PM, Ken Seto wrote: > Model Mechanics doesn't overturn relativity.....it includes relativity as a subset.. If your Muddle Mechanics includes relativity as a subset, it would need to agree with everything relativity predicts. Its supposed value would be predictions which relativity is silent on. Not only does your Muddle Mechanics disagree with relativity (so relativity cannot be a subset), it doesn't even make predictions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-01 21:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <651b503d-0753-4bde-8bde-1383849014bfn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #616579 |
On Wednesday, 2 August 2023 at 05:04:21 UTC+2, Volney wrote: > On 8/1/2023 9:26 PM, Ken Seto wrote: > > > Model Mechanics doesn't overturn relativity.....it includes relativity as a subset.. > If your Muddle Mechanics includes relativity as a subset, it would need 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-01 21:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <43ed6528-c594-47a5-be40-af94951bdb07n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #616565 |
On Wednesday, 2 August 2023 at 02:57:13 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 02-Aug-23 9:40 am, Ken Seto wrote: > > On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 6:33:55 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 01-Aug-23 9:25 pm, Ken Seto wrote: > >>> On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 10:10:22 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>> 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 > >>>> conse > >>> > >>> Ha.....so relativity is a model I think that my model is better. > >>> My model: > >>> 1. The speed of light is variable...it depends on the absolute speed of the source and the receiver in > >>> the aether. > >>> 2 Material length (such as a meter stick) is constant in all frames > >>> 3. The length light need to t ravel to cover the material length of a meter stick is variable..and this length is identified as LPL. (light path length) > >>> 4. The time for light tio cover the material length of a meter stick is variable. > >>> 5. Variable length/variable time = Constant "c" > >>> > >>> So you see ......my model is better because it provides explanation why the sped of light is constant in all frames. > >>>> > >>> > >> If the model does not correctly predict the results of measurements, > >> then it's wrong. Relativity does correctly predict them. Your model > >> either predicts the same results, and is just a different mathematical > >> formulation of the same predictions, or your model is wrong. > >> > > > > How do you know that my model doesn't't give the correct predictions? > > . > I didn't say that it doesn't. But you haven't pointed to an experimental > result that shows that relativity is wrong (as distinct from an > experiment that you think would do so if it were performed). That's very simple, lady - anyone can check GPS and test that time (as defined by your insane guru himself) is galilean with the precision of an acceptable error.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-01 23:00 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <uacgsp$3umcv$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #616562 |
On 8/1/2023 7:40 PM, Ken Seto wrote: > How do you know that my model doesn't't give the correct predictions? > . Because your not-a-model doesn't make ANY predictions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-03 11:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <adb7f98d-8298-4d17-bbea-085cb8699074n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #616578 |
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 11:00:44 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > On 8/1/2023 7:40 PM, Ken Seto wrote: > > > How do you know that my model doesn't't give the correct predictions? > > . > Because your not-a-model doesn't make ANY predictions. Give me an example how SR makes a correct prediction.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-03 15:01 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <uagths$sfsd$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #616708 |
On 8/3/2023 2:53 PM, Ken Seto wrote: > On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 11:00:44 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >> On 8/1/2023 7:40 PM, Ken Seto wrote: >> >>> How do you know that my model doesn't't give the correct predictions? >>> . >> Because your not-a-model doesn't make ANY predictions. > > Give me an example how SR makes a correct prediction. The km long pion beam that Tom R. repeatedly mentions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Moody Vallah <mahv@ohoymldo.lv> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-03 19:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uagvsu$1ggft$3@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #616710 |
Volney wrote: > On 8/3/2023 2:53 PM, Ken Seto wrote: >> On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 11:00:44 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >>> On 8/1/2023 7:40 PM, Ken Seto wrote: >>> >>>> How do you know that my model doesn't't give the correct predictions? >>>> . >>> Because your not-a-model doesn't make ANY predictions. >> >> Give me an example how SR makes a correct prediction. > > The km long pion beam that Tom R. repeatedly mentions. no, I challenge you, It needs to be circular, hence repetitive. The detectors at start would necessarily coincide with those at the end. The credit of america 𝗱𝗼𝘄𝗻𝗴𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗲𝘀_𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺_𝗔𝗔𝗔_𝘁𝗼_𝗔𝗔+. This is amazing. It looks like an underdeveloped country.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web