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

Groups > sci.physics > #602325

Re: New Physics

Show all headers | View raw

kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:

>On Sunday, October 23, 2016 at 9:06:22 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:

>> >1. No material or physical length contraction.

>> >2. The light-path length of a moving meter stick is predicted to be
>> >foreshortened by a factor of 1/gamma or lengthened by a factor of gamma.
>> >These predictions are based on the assumptions that the light-path length
>> >of the observer's meter stick is its material length.

>> These conflict. Make up your mind, does length contraction exist or not?

>There is no conflict. The light-path length of a meter stick moving wrt the
> observer is contracted by a factor of  1/gamma if the meter stick is in a
>higher state of absolute motion than the observer. However if the meter 
>stick is in a lower state of absolute motion than the observer then its 
>light-path length is expanded by a factor of gamma.

But you just said that there is no length contraction. That conflicts
with what you just wrote above.

>> >3. Absolute time exists.....that means that time is not flexible (no
>> >time dilation) as asserted by SR. However there is no clock time unit
>> >(including a clock second) that represents the same amount of absolute
>> >time in different frames.

>> >4. The observer's clock second will represent a specific amount of absolute
>> > time (this is noted as a proper second by current physics). The observer
>> >predicts that a clock second on a moving  clock is worth 1/gamma 
>> >seconds or 
>> >gamma seconds on his clock clock.

>> If you list multiple objects all moving relative to each other and assume
>> this absolute time, you get contradictions as one or more of the objects
>> would have to be simultaneously have more and less absolute time than a
>> second one.

>No moron, there is no contradiction.....each clock's clock second will 
>contain a different amount of absolute time. This means that each will 
>predict

Nobody cares what anyone predicts. What matters is what actually happens.

>the other clocks seconds as follows:
>1. A will predict B's  clock second is worth 1/gamma seconds on his 
>clock if B is in a higher state of absolute motion than A.  A will 
>predict B 's clock second is worth gamma seconds if B is in a higher 
>state of absolute motion than A. Only one of A's prediction is valid.

All that fails if you have, for example, 4 observers, O, A, B, C.  O is
stationary at the origin of a coordinate system.  A moves at velocity v
along the x axis. B moves at velocity v along the y axis.  C moves at
velocity v along the z axis.  All observers measure each other's 
velocities.

You can claim that A, B, C are at a higher (or lower) state of absolute
motion than O is.  Let's assume that A, B and C are all at a higher state
of absolute motion.  So now A, B and C must be at the same state of
absolute motion wrt each other since they all have the same velocity v.  
So they all must be stationary relative to each other. But in fact they
all have a velocity of sqrt(2)*v relative to each other!  So now A must
have a higher (or lower) absolute motion than B does. This conflicts with
our earlier finding that A, B, C are all the same value of absolute
motion.

You can claim that one of them (for example, C) has a lower value of
absolute motion than O, while A and B are still higher. That still doesn't
change anything, A and B should be equal to each other, yet one of the two
must be higher than the other.  Conflict.  A can't be greater than B (or
less than B) if A=B.  Also the difference between A and C doesn't match 
the velocity difference (sqrt(2)*v).

Thus the concept of absolute motion has been proven to be a failure 
because of self-contradictions.  That's why IRT is a total failure.

>> No need to continue.  We knew before that IRT was a total failure. Its
>> inability to deal with these two issue just confirms its failure.

>That's because you are a moron....you failed to understand so you bogusly
>conclude that IRT is a failure. Gee you are stupid.

As you can see from this post that IRT is a failure has been proven, so is
not bogus.

Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

New Physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-23 06:10 -0700
  Re: New Physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-24 01:06 +0000
    Re: New Physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-24 06:54 -0700
      Re: New Physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-24 16:28 +0000
  Re: New Physics Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-10-25 01:00 -0400
    Re: New Physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-25 06:29 -0700

csiph-web