Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #460052 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-06-01 21:02 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-06-06 14:38 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 75 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-01 21:02 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 08:54 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 09:50 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 09:53 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 18:05 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 22:52 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 10:04 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 11:10 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 11:20 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 12:13 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 12:59 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 17:08 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 18:38 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 14:54 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 08:34 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 08:37 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 15:51 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 09:13 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 09:21 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 17:19 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 18:20 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 12:04 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 18:26 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 23:22 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 11:26 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 20:03 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-03 03:50 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 13:59 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 09:51 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 21:23 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 21:38 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 19:14 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 13:59 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 06:03 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 16:59 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-03 06:03 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 13:59 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-03 12:17 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 14:44 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-06 14:53 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-06 22:24 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-08 05:15 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 12:40 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Michael Moroney <moroney@TheWorld.com> - 2018-06-08 13:25 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 13:30 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-06 15:39 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-06-06 17:00 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-06 17:28 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-06-06 17:49 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-06-06 18:08 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-06-06 18:53 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-07 12:26 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-06-06 17:52 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-07 01:39 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-06-07 06:18 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-07 06:41 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-07 13:41 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-08 05:33 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 06:12 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-08 07:32 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 10:00 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 10:13 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 00:32 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 09:33 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-06 14:44 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-06 16:43 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-08 05:37 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 09:37 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 05:38 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 07:51 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 09:39 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 10:07 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 13:44 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-06-06 16:11 -0500
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-06-06 14:38 -0700
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-06 22:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pf9mu5$2qk$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #460552 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 10:44:39 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Sunday, June 3, 2018 at 9:59:15 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Saturday, June 2, 2018 at 7:59:43 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: >>>>>> On Saturday, June 2, 2018 at 4:23:22 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>> Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> And Odd said before, that the length contractions are not physical. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No I did not say that. What I said is that length is frame dependent >>>>>>> because simultaneity is, and the physical definition of length hinges on >>>>>>> simultaneity. What I also said that this is not the kind of change in >>>>>>> length like compression or cooling. Still a physical contraction. >>>>>> >>>>>> Steve, you should also be aware that the term "physical" has a certain >>>>>> amount of variation in meaning. When Odd uses the term "physical" in a >>>>>> different sense than I often use it, I am *immediately* aware that he >>>>>> is using the word in one of the other uses of the term, and I immediately >>>>>> adapt to his usage. >>>>>> >>>>>> Lorentz changed his mind several times during his development of the >>>>>> transformation that bears his name. At one point, he believed that length >>>>>> contraction represented a "physical" contraction in the sense that a length- >>>>>> contracted bar should experience strains that should be physically >>>>>> measurable. If a bar were transparent, it should be possible to measure >>>>>> birefringence. If the bar were conductive, it should be possible to measure >>>>>> changes in conductivity. A charged capacitor should be subject to torques >>>>>> depending on its motions through the aether. >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiments_of_Rayleigh_and_Brace >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trouton%E2%80%93Rankine_experiment >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trouton%E2%80%93Noble_experiment >>>>>> >>>>>> Odd is using the word "physical" in a different sense of the word, one that >>>>>> I immediately recognize and accept. By "physical", Odd does not mean an >>>>>> effect of strain like compression, or an adjustment of the relationship of >>>>>> the atoms of a bar with themselves, all of which have been excluded by >>>>>> careful measurement. Rather, Odd means by "physical contraction" that >>>>>> the moving bar, measured in our frame, has a different length that is not >>>>>> any sort of optical illusion, and this difference in length has measurable >>>>>> effects in the way that the bar, or other object under study, interacts >>>>>> with our world. These effects can be dramatic. >>>>> >>>>> So what is ODD’s “physical" mean? How do you measure Odd’s “physical >>>>> contraction" of a moving meter stick? >>>> >>>> I already stated how in explicit detail in this thread. You cannot read. >>> >>> The point is: The material length of a moving meter stick is not >>> measurable and no such attempt ever been made. >> >> The point is: nobody cares what you mean by “material length”. The physical >> length of moving objects are measurable and are routinely measured. > > So how do you MEASURE the physical length of a moving object? Give us > some references please. Already did that. Months ago. You can’t remember? > >> >>> >>>> >>>>> Are you saying that using the LT to predict the length of a moving meter >>>>> stick is a measurement of Odd’s "physical contraction”? >>>>> >>>>> It appears that you guys don’t understand what the LT length contraction >>>>> equation means. It means that the light-path-length (LPL) of a moving >>>>> meter stick is predicted to be foreshortened by a factor of 1/gamma. This >>>>> prediction is based on the assumption that the LPL of the observer’s >>>>> meter stick is its material length. >>>>> >>>>> Note: >>>>> The LPL of a moving meter stick means that the length light needs to >>>>> travel to cover the length of a moving meter stick. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-08 05:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <96035bd5-a7c6-46ac-9af2-3b7b1dcb4531@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #460554 |
On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 6:24:09 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 10:44:39 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Sunday, June 3, 2018 at 9:59:15 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>> On Saturday, June 2, 2018 at 7:59:43 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > >>>>>> On Saturday, June 2, 2018 at 4:23:22 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>> Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>> And Odd said before, that the length contractions are not physical. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> No I did not say that. What I said is that length is frame dependent > >>>>>>> because simultaneity is, and the physical definition of length hinges on > >>>>>>> simultaneity. What I also said that this is not the kind of change in > >>>>>>> length like compression or cooling. Still a physical contraction. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Steve, you should also be aware that the term "physical" has a certain > >>>>>> amount of variation in meaning. When Odd uses the term "physical" in a > >>>>>> different sense than I often use it, I am *immediately* aware that he > >>>>>> is using the word in one of the other uses of the term, and I immediately > >>>>>> adapt to his usage. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Lorentz changed his mind several times during his development of the > >>>>>> transformation that bears his name. At one point, he believed that length > >>>>>> contraction represented a "physical" contraction in the sense that a length- > >>>>>> contracted bar should experience strains that should be physically > >>>>>> measurable. If a bar were transparent, it should be possible to measure > >>>>>> birefringence. If the bar were conductive, it should be possible to measure > >>>>>> changes in conductivity. A charged capacitor should be subject to torques > >>>>>> depending on its motions through the aether. > >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiments_of_Rayleigh_and_Brace > >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trouton%E2%80%93Rankine_experiment > >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trouton%E2%80%93Noble_experiment > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Odd is using the word "physical" in a different sense of the word, one that > >>>>>> I immediately recognize and accept. By "physical", Odd does not mean an > >>>>>> effect of strain like compression, or an adjustment of the relationship of > >>>>>> the atoms of a bar with themselves, all of which have been excluded by > >>>>>> careful measurement. Rather, Odd means by "physical contraction" that > >>>>>> the moving bar, measured in our frame, has a different length that is not > >>>>>> any sort of optical illusion, and this difference in length has measurable > >>>>>> effects in the way that the bar, or other object under study, interacts > >>>>>> with our world. These effects can be dramatic. > >>>>> > >>>>> So what is ODD’s “physical" mean? How do you measure Odd’s “physical > >>>>> contraction" of a moving meter stick? > >>>> > >>>> I already stated how in explicit detail in this thread. You cannot read. > >>> > >>> The point is: The material length of a moving meter stick is not > >>> measurable and no such attempt ever been made. > >> > >> The point is: nobody cares what you mean by “material length”. The physical > >> length of moving objects are measurable and are routinely measured. > > > > So how do you MEASURE the physical length of a moving object? Give us > > some references please. > > Already did that. Months ago. You can’t remember? Just as I thought.....there is no such experiment performed. So you came up with your bullshit. > > > > >> > >>> > >>>> > >>>>> Are you saying that using the LT to predict the length of a moving meter > >>>>> stick is a measurement of Odd’s "physical contraction”? > >>>>> > >>>>> It appears that you guys don’t understand what the LT length contraction > >>>>> equation means. It means that the light-path-length (LPL) of a moving > >>>>> meter stick is predicted to be foreshortened by a factor of 1/gamma. This > >>>>> prediction is based on the assumption that the LPL of the observer’s > >>>>> meter stick is its material length. > >>>>> > >>>>> Note: > >>>>> The LPL of a moving meter stick means that the length light needs to > >>>>> travel to cover the length of a moving meter stick. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-08 12:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pfdtfp$ubq$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #460664 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 6:24:09 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 10:44:39 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Sunday, June 3, 2018 at 9:59:15 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On Saturday, June 2, 2018 at 7:59:43 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: >>>>>>>> On Saturday, June 2, 2018 at 4:23:22 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>> Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> And Odd said before, that the length contractions are not physical. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No I did not say that. What I said is that length is frame dependent >>>>>>>>> because simultaneity is, and the physical definition of length hinges on >>>>>>>>> simultaneity. What I also said that this is not the kind of change in >>>>>>>>> length like compression or cooling. Still a physical contraction. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Steve, you should also be aware that the term "physical" has a certain >>>>>>>> amount of variation in meaning. When Odd uses the term "physical" in a >>>>>>>> different sense than I often use it, I am *immediately* aware that he >>>>>>>> is using the word in one of the other uses of the term, and I immediately >>>>>>>> adapt to his usage. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Lorentz changed his mind several times during his development of the >>>>>>>> transformation that bears his name. At one point, he believed that length >>>>>>>> contraction represented a "physical" contraction in the sense that a length- >>>>>>>> contracted bar should experience strains that should be physically >>>>>>>> measurable. If a bar were transparent, it should be possible to measure >>>>>>>> birefringence. If the bar were conductive, it should be possible to measure >>>>>>>> changes in conductivity. A charged capacitor should be subject to torques >>>>>>>> depending on its motions through the aether. >>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiments_of_Rayleigh_and_Brace >>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trouton%E2%80%93Rankine_experiment >>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trouton%E2%80%93Noble_experiment >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Odd is using the word "physical" in a different sense of the word, one that >>>>>>>> I immediately recognize and accept. By "physical", Odd does not mean an >>>>>>>> effect of strain like compression, or an adjustment of the relationship of >>>>>>>> the atoms of a bar with themselves, all of which have been excluded by >>>>>>>> careful measurement. Rather, Odd means by "physical contraction" that >>>>>>>> the moving bar, measured in our frame, has a different length that is not >>>>>>>> any sort of optical illusion, and this difference in length has measurable >>>>>>>> effects in the way that the bar, or other object under study, interacts >>>>>>>> with our world. These effects can be dramatic. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So what is ODD’s “physical" mean? How do you measure Odd’s “physical >>>>>>> contraction" of a moving meter stick? >>>>>> >>>>>> I already stated how in explicit detail in this thread. You cannot read. >>>>> >>>>> The point is: The material length of a moving meter stick is not >>>>> measurable and no such attempt ever been made. >>>> >>>> The point is: nobody cares what you mean by “material length”. The physical >>>> length of moving objects are measurable and are routinely measured. >>> >>> So how do you MEASURE the physical length of a moving object? Give us >>> some references please. >> >> Already did that. Months ago. You can’t remember? > > Just as I thought.....there is no such experiment performed. So you came > up with your bullshit. No, there certainly is. But you forget when people tell you about it, and so surely you can understand why people tire of telling you the same things over and over, time and time again. > >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Are you saying that using the LT to predict the length of a moving meter >>>>>>> stick is a measurement of Odd’s "physical contraction”? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It appears that you guys don’t understand what the LT length contraction >>>>>>> equation means. It means that the light-path-length (LPL) of a moving >>>>>>> meter stick is predicted to be foreshortened by a factor of 1/gamma. This >>>>>>> prediction is based on the assumption that the LPL of the observer’s >>>>>>> meter stick is its material length. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Note: >>>>>>> The LPL of a moving meter stick means that the length light needs to >>>>>>> travel to cover the length of a moving meter stick. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Moroney <moroney@TheWorld.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-08 13:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pfe04h$hvk$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #460664 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 6:24:09 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >> >>>>> So what is ODD's "physical" mean? How do you measure Odd's >> >>>>> "physical contraction" of a moving meter stick? >> >>>> >> >>>> I already stated how in explicit detail in this thread. You cannot read. >> >>> >> >>> The point is: The material length of a moving meter stick is not >> >>> measurable and no such attempt ever been made. >> >> >> >> The point is: nobody cares what you mean by "material length". The physical >> >> length of moving objects are measurable and are routinely measured. >> > So how do you MEASURE the physical length of a moving object? Give us >> > some references please. >> Already did that. Months ago. You can't remember? >Just as I thought.....there is no such experiment performed. So you came up > with your bullshit. Stupid Ken, so not only don't you remember all of the dozens of times Odd and others have told you how to measure the lengths of moving objects, you are blaming Odd for your poor memory?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-08 13:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pfe0dl$13oe$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #460673 |
Michael Moroney <moroney@TheWorld.com> wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > >> On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 6:24:09 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> So what is ODD's "physical" mean? How do you measure Odd's >>>>>>>> "physical contraction" of a moving meter stick? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I already stated how in explicit detail in this thread. You cannot read. >>>>>> >>>>>> The point is: The material length of a moving meter stick is not >>>>>> measurable and no such attempt ever been made. >>>>> >>>>> The point is: nobody cares what you mean by "material length". The physical >>>>> length of moving objects are measurable and are routinely measured. > >>>> So how do you MEASURE the physical length of a moving object? Give us >>>> some references please. > >>> Already did that. Months ago. You can't remember? > >> Just as I thought.....there is no such experiment performed. So you came up >> with your bullshit. > > Stupid Ken, so not only don't you remember all of the dozens of times Odd > and others have told you how to measure the lengths of moving objects, > you are blaming Odd for your poor memory? > One of the key elements of senility is denial of declining faculties. When the reality finally sinks in that the mind is failing, it is heartbreaking to the victim. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-06 15:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a6365b55-c64e-45f9-91e8-e22b2c1e18a4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #460552 |
On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 4:53:17 PM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 10:44:39 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > The point is: nobody cares what you mean by “material length”. The physical > > length of moving objects are measurable and are routinely measured. > > So how do you MEASURE the physical length of a moving object? Give us some references please. For technical reasons, measurements of length contraction are all indirect, since the only objects we can accelerate to relativistic speeds are elementary particles. Given this caveat, indirect measurements of length contraction abound. 1) The RHIC accelerator collides heavy nuclei. The MEASURED dynamics of the collision matches the results expected if the nuclei were Lorentz contracted by precisely the amount calculated. 2) The magnetic force between two parallel current-carrying wires is due to Lorentz contraction of the current of electrons relative to the static charges in the wires. The MEASURED attraction/repulsion *precisely* matches the calculated calculation. This is an *easy* measurement. 3) Length contraction and time dilation go hand-in-hand. A mere shift in frames will convert observed time dilation into observed length contraction. For example, in the frame of the Earth, time dilation accounts for the anomalously high flux of cosmic-ray muons relative to what otherwise might be expected on the basis of their half life. In the frame of the muons, they distance that the muons travel is shortened. The same gamma applies to both. Time dilation in our frame is equivalent to length contraction in the other. 4) Analysis of particle collisions in accelerators can be explained only if one applies the full Lorentz contractions. One cannot pick and choose, accepting only time dilation without accepting length contraction. BOTH are required.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-06 17:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5293b33a-8f32-4840-8ef9-68ad9ca0d620@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #460555 |
On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 6:39:29 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 4:53:17 PM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > > On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 10:44:39 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > The point is: nobody cares what you mean by “material length”. The physical > > > length of moving objects are measurable and are routinely measured. > > > > So how do you MEASURE the physical length of a moving object? Give us some references please. > > For technical reasons, measurements of length contraction are all indirect, > since the only objects we can accelerate to relativistic speeds are elementary > particles. > > Given this caveat, indirect measurements of length contraction abound. > 1) The RHIC accelerator collides heavy nuclei. The MEASURED dynamics of > the collision matches the results expected if the nuclei were Lorentz > contracted by precisely the amount calculated. > 2) The magnetic force between two parallel current-carrying wires is due to > Lorentz contraction of the current of electrons relative to the static > charges in the wires. The MEASURED attraction/repulsion *precisely* matches > the calculated calculation. This is an *easy* measurement. > 3) Length contraction and time dilation go hand-in-hand. A mere shift in > frames will convert observed time dilation into observed length contraction. > For example, in the frame of the Earth, time dilation accounts for the > anomalously high flux of cosmic-ray muons relative to what otherwise might > be expected on the basis of their half life. In the frame of the muons, > they distance that the muons travel is shortened. The same gamma applies > to both. Time dilation in our frame is equivalent to length contraction > in the other. > 4) Analysis of particle collisions in accelerators can be explained only if > one applies the full Lorentz contractions. One cannot pick and choose, > accepting only time dilation without accepting length contraction. BOTH > are required. As I see you don't actually measure the length. You calculate it from the time and using Lorentz transformations. Of course it will be contracted. So about Einstein's thought experiment, I know why we argued so long with no results: I was trying to follow the experiment using Newtonian Physics, because that's what I thought they had available at that time before Einstein came up with the Theory of Relativity, and by Newtonian physics it didn't make sense, because that assumes time is absolute, and t(A) would be = t(A'), also t(B) = t(B'). And you guys kept arguing with me based on Einstein's theories and saying that the length of the train will be different, using Lorentz transform, etc. Obviously if we assume length contraction and time dilation, you reach to the result that in (M')'s frame A' and B' are not simultaneous. So in both cases what we want to demonstrate, we already use in the assumptions - circular reasoning. That's why the whole experiment is not proving anything, so it's useless. You guys said to look at real experiments proving it - that's another thing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-06 17:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <269a3873-5309-4103-b4cc-b9c53004164b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #460560 |
On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 7:00:48 PM UTC-5, Steven Nagy wrote: > On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 6:39:29 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > As I see you don't actually measure the length. You calculate it from the time and using Lorentz transformations. Of course it will be contracted. > > So about Einstein's thought experiment, I know why we argued so long with no results: > I was trying to follow the experiment using Newtonian Physics, because that's what I thought they had available at that time before Einstein came up with the Theory of Relativity, and by Newtonian physics it didn't make sense, because that assumes time is absolute, and t(A) would be = t(A'), also t(B) = t(B'). > And you guys kept arguing with me based on Einstein's theories and saying that the length of the train will be different, using Lorentz transform, etc. Obviously if we assume length contraction and time dilation, you reach to the result that in (M')'s frame A' and B' are not simultaneous. > So in both cases what we want to demonstrate, we already use in the assumptions - circular reasoning. > That's why the whole experiment is not proving anything, so it's useless. > > You guys said to look at real experiments proving it - that's another thing. It is TRIVIAL to construct a simple apparatus out of wood, nails and wire that will measure the magnetic attraction/repulsion between two coils to within a few percent. As a former high school science fair judge, I've seen it done. From the MEASURED forces generated between the two coils, one can easily deduce the length contraction between the current-carrying electrons, and one's MEASURED result will agree with that calculated by applying the Lorentz transformation. Nobody is going to perform an optical measurement of the distance between the ends of a meter stick speeding at 0.1 c. That seems to be what you are insisting on, and it isn't going to happen. That speeding stick, if it hits anything, will, I imagine, unleash energy equivalent to a nuclear explosion.... hardly suitable for a high school science fair project. But I have personally seen science fair measurements of length contraction for electrons flowing at millimeters per second!!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-06 17:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <692bc197-23d2-482c-8655-42110b0c7d5f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #460560 |
On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 5:00:48 PM UTC-7, Steven Nagy wrote: > > That's why the whole experiment is not proving anything, so it's useless. Cretin Experiments never "prove" a theory, they can only confirm or disprove. Your imbecility is monumental.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-06 18:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7401ca79-8696-481e-a443-4dabe13c109c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #460563 |
On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 8:49:20 PM UTC-4, Dono, wrote: > On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 5:00:48 PM UTC-7, Steven Nagy wrote: > > > > That's why the whole experiment is not proving anything, so it's useless. > Cretin > > Experiments never "prove" a theory, they can only confirm or disprove. Your imbecility is monumental. I talked about Einstein's thought experiment, you squirt. Not a real experiment, and I said it's useless, because there is no conclusion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-06 18:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <040f856d-2166-4f35-909a-d1608b1ca542@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #460565 |
On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 6:08:26 PM UTC-7, Steven Nagy wrote: > On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 8:49:20 PM UTC-4, Dono, wrote: > > On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 5:00:48 PM UTC-7, Steven Nagy wrote: > > > > > > That's why the whole experiment is not proving anything, so it's useless. > > Cretin > > > > Experiments never "prove" a theory, they can only confirm or disprove. Your imbecility is monumental. > > I talked about Einstein's thought experiment, you squirt. Not a real experiment, and I said it's useless, because there is no conclusion. Imbecile, You have been given examples of ACTUAL experiments that you have denied. Your natural antisemitism blinds you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-07 12:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5fffbd44-faec-45e9-8aa5-ee9aaba5dcd1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #460565 |
On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 9:08:26 PM UTC-4, Steven Nagy wrote: > On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 8:49:20 PM UTC-4, Dono, wrote: > > Experiments never "prove" a theory, they can only > > confirm or disprove. Your imbecility is monumental. > > I talked about Einstein's thought experiment, you squirt. > Not a real experiment, and I said it's useless, > because there is no conclusion. You miss the entire point of the thought experiment! It does not prove anything. It is merely a device to help determine the consequences of certain assumptions. Then real scientists make real experiments to confirm or disprove the theory by testing whether the predicted consequences happen. As a result of Einstein's gedanken experiment, he came to two consequences: length contraction. time contraction. It is extremely hard to perform the train experiment in reality. But one consequence that has become easy to test is the time dilation effect. Atomic clocks are now accurate enough to measure the time dilation due to traveling at speeds that are only a small fraction of the speed of light. Other experiments show the effects of relativity culminating in the experiments supporting General Relativity. Many of these experiments show that Galilean mechanics cannot explain the results. Hopefully this helps you understand the results of the train gedanken experiment and the PURPOSE of it. HTH, ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-06 17:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d22fcf6b-b850-42ad-aaa6-d9afb114cdfc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #460560 |
On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 5:00:48 PM UTC-7, Steven Nagy wrote: > > You guys said to look at real experiments proving it - that's another thing. Imbecile, The train of electrons in an undulator is indeed length contracted. I could direct you to the link but your bias is precluding you from learning anything, so continue to embarrass yourself.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-07 01:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pfa2cc$h4n$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #460560 |
Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 6:39:29 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: >> On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 4:53:17 PM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: >>> On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 10:44:39 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> >>>> The point is: nobody cares what you mean by “material length”. The physical >>>> length of moving objects are measurable and are routinely measured. >>> >>> So how do you MEASURE the physical length of a moving object? Give us >>> some references please. >> >> For technical reasons, measurements of length contraction are all indirect, >> since the only objects we can accelerate to relativistic speeds are elementary >> particles. >> >> Given this caveat, indirect measurements of length contraction abound. >> 1) The RHIC accelerator collides heavy nuclei. The MEASURED dynamics of >> the collision matches the results expected if the nuclei were Lorentz >> contracted by precisely the amount calculated. >> 2) The magnetic force between two parallel current-carrying wires is due to >> Lorentz contraction of the current of electrons relative to the static >> charges in the wires. The MEASURED attraction/repulsion *precisely* matches >> the calculated calculation. This is an *easy* measurement. >> 3) Length contraction and time dilation go hand-in-hand. A mere shift in >> frames will convert observed time dilation into observed length contraction. >> For example, in the frame of the Earth, time dilation accounts for the >> anomalously high flux of cosmic-ray muons relative to what otherwise might >> be expected on the basis of their half life. In the frame of the muons, >> they distance that the muons travel is shortened. The same gamma applies >> to both. Time dilation in our frame is equivalent to length contraction >> in the other. >> 4) Analysis of particle collisions in accelerators can be explained only if >> one applies the full Lorentz contractions. One cannot pick and choose, >> accepting only time dilation without accepting length contraction. BOTH >> are required. > As I see you don't actually measure the length. You calculate it from the > time and using Lorentz transformations. Of course it will be contracted. No, that is incorrect. In the first example cited, for instance, what is being measured is nuclear density. Density as you know is mass (or energy equivalent) divided by volume, and volume is related to length cubed. So if one of those lengths decreases, then the density if the nucleus increases. By measuring something that is highly sensitive to density, then you have a measure of the change in length. Thus is ESPECIALLY true if you have a theoretical prediction of how much the length changes, hence you have a prediction how much the density changes, hence you predict how much the sensitive “density barometer” will change. Then you just measure that barometer change and see if it matches the prediction. This is standard experimental science, which I gather you are kind of new to. The other probes are similar. > > So about Einstein's thought experiment, I know why we argued so long with no results: > I was trying to follow the experiment using Newtonian Physics, because > that's what I thought they had available at that time before Einstein > came up with the Theory of Relativity, and by Newtonian physics it didn't > make sense, because that assumes time is absolute, and t(A) would be = > t(A'), also t(B) = t(B'). > And you guys kept arguing with me based on Einstein's theories and saying > that the length of the train will be different, using Lorentz transform, > etc. Obviously if we assume length contraction and time dilation, you > reach to the result that in (M')'s frame A' and B' are not simultaneous. > So in both cases what we want to demonstrate, we already use in the > assumptions - circular reasoning. > That's why the whole experiment is not proving anything, so it's useless. > > You guys said to look at real experiments proving it - that's another thing. > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-07 06:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e2c49586-5022-4617-9b62-996ce230eb48@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #460555 |
On Thursday, 7 June 2018 00:39:29 UTC+2, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 4:53:17 PM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > > On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 10:44:39 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > The point is: nobody cares what you mean by “material length”. The physical > > > length of moving objects are measurable and are routinely measured. > > > > So how do you MEASURE the physical length of a moving object? Give us some references please. > > For technical reasons, measurements of length contraction are all indirect, > since the only objects we can accelerate to relativistic speeds are elementary > particles. And for brainwashing reason your fellow idiot Odd is impudently lying that "The physical length of moving objects are measurable and are routinely measured. "
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-07 06:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2e44ad4b-aef9-44d7-92d4-2d31b9fe5055@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #460584 |
On Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 8:18:38 AM UTC-5, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > On Thursday, 7 June 2018 00:39:29 UTC+2, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 4:53:17 PM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > > > On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 10:44:39 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > > > The point is: nobody cares what you mean by “material length”. The physical > > > > length of moving objects are measurable and are routinely measured. > > > > > > So how do you MEASURE the physical length of a moving object? Give us some references please. > > > > For technical reasons, measurements of length contraction are all indirect, > > since the only objects we can accelerate to relativistic speeds are elementary > > particles. > > And for brainwashing reason your fellow idiot Odd > is impudently lying that "The physical length of > moving objects are measurable and are routinely measured. " What is a "direct" means of measurement? Did WWII battleships measure distances to targets by laying out meter sticks end-to-end? NO!!! They used optical rangefinders to measure the angle needed to bring two views of a target into coincidence. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Polish_destroyer%27s_range-finder.JPG Do laser rangefinders measure distances to targets by laying out meter sticks end-to-end? NO!!! They measure the TIMES between emission and receipt of a laser pulse, and deduce distance to target using a math relationship. Did submarine commanders in WWII measure distances to targets by laying out meter sticks end-to-end? NO!!! They viewed the image of their target in the periscope view, and from known and/or typical dimensions of their target (or class of target), they calculated distance to target. These are all *INDIRECT* measurements. None of them are examples of laying out meter sticks end-to-end. None of them represent stretching a tape measure from one point to another. All of them rely on ASSUMPTIONS used to DEDUCE distance from the results of other forms of measurement.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-07 13:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pfbcmr$mbd$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #460584 |
<mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > On Thursday, 7 June 2018 00:39:29 UTC+2, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: >> On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 4:53:17 PM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: >>> On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 10:44:39 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> >>>> The point is: nobody cares what you mean by “material length”. The physical >>>> length of moving objects are measurable and are routinely measured. >>> >>> So how do you MEASURE the physical length of a moving object? Give us >>> some references please. >> >> For technical reasons, measurements of length contraction are all indirect, >> since the only objects we can accelerate to relativistic speeds are elementary >> particles. > > And for brainwashing reason your fellow idiot Odd > is impudently lying that "The physical length of > moving objects are measurable and are routinely measured. " > They are. Routinely. To various degrees of precision. Some methods are of sufficient precision to discern relativistic length contraction, others are not. If you use a camera and a ruler on the ground and a passing horse, that method will not be if sufficient precision to discern length contraction of the moving horse. But it is of course completely possible to measure the length of the horse regardless. To measure a moving object with sufficient precision to discern length contraction takes more care and elaborate design. Of course. Now, there are some people who will say foolishness like “I will not believe until you can explain how to measure length contraction simply, using only things I can find in my kitchen.” That’s as idiotic as denying the existence of atoms unless they can be seen with a magnifying glass and a bright light, or denying the existence of supernovae unless one just happens to light up the night sky in our galactic neighborhood. Only a fool insists that physics claims are only true if they are simple, common, and obvious to the naked eye. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-08 05:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2348f260-0067-4d50-9304-2f6cd5c1c49b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #460555 |
On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 6:39:29 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 4:53:17 PM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > > On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 10:44:39 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > The point is: nobody cares what you mean by “material length”. The physical > > > length of moving objects are measurable and are routinely measured. > > > > So how do you MEASURE the physical length of a moving object? Give us some references please. > > For technical reasons, measurements of length contraction are all indirect, > since the only objects we can accelerate to relativistic speeds are elementary > particles. > > Given this caveat, indirect measurements of length contraction abound. > 1) The RHIC accelerator collides heavy nuclei. The MEASURED dynamics of > the collision matches the results expected if the nuclei were Lorentz > contracted by precisely the amount calculated. > 2) The magnetic force between two parallel current-carrying wires is due to > Lorentz contraction of the current of electrons relative to the static > charges in the wires. The MEASURED attraction/repulsion *precisely* matches > the calculated calculation. This is an *easy* measurement. > 3) Length contraction and time dilation go hand-in-hand. A mere shift in > frames will convert observed time dilation into observed length contraction. > For example, in the frame of the Earth, time dilation accounts for the > anomalously high flux of cosmic-ray muons relative to what otherwise might > be expected on the basis of their half life. In the frame of the muons, > they distance that the muons travel is shortened. The same gamma applies > to both. Time dilation in our frame is equivalent to length contraction > in the other. > 4) Analysis of particle collisions in accelerators can be explained only if > one applies the full Lorentz contractions. One cannot pick and choose, > accepting only time dilation without accepting length contraction. BOTH > are required. The alternatives: 1. Time Dilation: A clock second is not a universal interval of time. It contains a different amount of absolute time in different frames. For example: one second in the observer’s clock is corresponded to 1/gamma seconds on a clock moving wrt the observer. 2. Length contraction: There is no material length contraction. Instead the Lorentz’s contraction equation means that the light-path-length (LPL) of a moving meter stick is contracted by a factor of 1/gamma. This prediction is based on the assumption that the LPL of the observe’s meter stick is its material length. 3. A paper on the above concept of time dilation and length contraction is available in the following link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-08 06:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <17e5bdf4-01c8-4c70-8223-e9c78dcc9551@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #460665 |
On Friday, June 8, 2018 at 7:33:32 AM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > The alternatives: > 1. Time Dilation: A clock second is not a universal interval of time. It contains a different amount of absolute time in different frames. For example: one second in the observer’s clock is corresponded to 1/gamma seconds on a clock moving wrt the observer. > > 2. Length contraction: There is no material length contraction. Instead the Lorentz’s contraction equation means that the light-path-length (LPL) of a moving meter stick is contracted by a factor of 1/gamma. This prediction is based on the assumption that the LPL of the observe’s meter stick is its material length. > > 3. A paper on the above concept of time dilation and length contraction is available in the following link: > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf Mere assertions. Show us that you can calculate something correctly that SR and GR do not. For that matter, show us that you can calculate ANYTHING.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-08 07:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0269fa30-1db3-4057-ada2-737c5a794f8a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #460672 |
On Friday, June 8, 2018 at 9:12:58 AM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Friday, June 8, 2018 at 7:33:32 AM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > > > The alternatives: > > 1. Time Dilation: A clock second is not a universal interval of time. It contains a different amount of absolute time in different frames. For example: one second in the observer’s clock is corresponded to 1/gamma seconds on a clock moving wrt the observer. > > > > 2. Length contraction: There is no material length contraction. Instead the Lorentz’s contraction equation means that the light-path-length (LPL) of a moving meter stick is contracted by a factor of 1/gamma. This prediction is based on the assumption that the LPL of the observe’s meter stick is its material length. > > > > 3. A paper on the above concept of time dilation and length contraction is available in the following link: > > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf > > Mere assertions. Show us that you can calculate something correctly that > SR and GR do not. For that matter, show us that you can calculate ANYTHING. My theory has the same math as the LT. You asserted that there is no alternative to the Einstein’s length contraction and time dilation and I showed you the alternatives.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web