Groups > sci.physics > #577709 > unrolled thread

Does anyone really know the physical cause for time dilation and length contraction?

Started by	xxein1@att.net
First post	2016-05-13 12:17 -0700
Last post	2016-05-16 13:20 +0200
Articles	20 on this page of 278 — 21 participants

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Page 9 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 14 Next page →

#579347

From	kenseto <setoken@att.net>
Date	2016-05-20 16:19 -0700
Message-ID	<22552d4d-c182-4e05-836a-bd614f0a50ac@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#579232

On Friday, May 20, 2016 at 10:24:10 AM UTC-4, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 5/19/16 7:30 PM, kenseto wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 4:01:20 PM UTC-4, Sam Wormley wrote:
> >> > On 5/19/16 2:11 PM, jay moseley wrote:
> >>> > > In other words you have no proof...
> >> >
> >> >    In physics, it's called evidence. And there is plenty of evidence.
> >> >
> >> >    A muon with such and such momentum and energy can only be created
> >> >    by a cosmic ray event. We know from other detections of the event its
> >> >    height above the detector. The fact that the muon was detected at
> >> >    ground level says that the relativistic gamma had to be greater than
> >> >    so and so.
> >> >
> >> >    There is no doubt that the detected muon traversed the distance
> >> >    before it could decay.
> >> >    http://edu-observatory.org/RaySociety/CosmicRays/CosmicMuon.png
> >> >    http://edu-observatory.org/RaySociety/CosmicRays/Week1.html
> 
> 
> > There is n doubt that 2.2 us on the muon clock is worth gamma*2.2 us on the earth clock and that's why the muon is able to travel the great distance before decaying.
> 
>    However, from the perspective of the muon, the distance traveled is
>    foreshortened by the factor of gamma.

No the distance remains the same. The decay time is lengthened to gamma*2.2 us and that's why it is able to reach the ground before decaying.
> 
>    See: Time Dilation of Moving Particles
>    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation_of_moving_particles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
> to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
> community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#579374

From	Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com>
Date	2016-05-20 21:33 -0500
Message-ID	<ieWdnQPYjpKKVKLKnZ2dnUU7-U0AAAAA@giganews.com>
In reply to	#579347

On 5/20/16 6:19 PM, kenseto wrote:

> No the distance remains the same. The decay time is lengthened to
> gamma*2.2 us and that's why it is able to reach the ground before
> decaying.

   That's one perspective. However, from the perspective of the muon,
   the distance traveled is foreshortened by the factor of gamma.

-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#579435

From	kenseto <setoken@att.net>
Date	2016-05-21 07:33 -0700
Message-ID	<c677fa0d-cbf9-4bc8-9605-554353710a95@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#579374

On Friday, May 20, 2016 at 10:34:03 PM UTC-4, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 5/20/16 6:19 PM, kenseto wrote:
> 
> > No the distance remains the same. The decay time is lengthened to
> > gamma*2.2 us and that's why it is able to reach the ground before
> > decaying.
> 
> 
>    That's one perspective. However, from the perspective of the muon,
>    the distance traveled is foreshortened by the factor of gamma.

No that's the muon's perspective....it predicts the earth clock runs fast by a factor of gamma and it predicts that 2.2 us on the earth clock is worth 2.2us/gamma on its own clock. IOW it predicts that a clock second is not an invariant interval of time as assumed by current physics.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#579436

From	Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com>
Date	2016-05-21 09:51 -0500
Message-ID	<Yo6dne44d4CR693KnZ2dnUU7-fGdnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to	#579435

On 5/21/16 9:33 AM, kenseto wrote:
> No that's the muon's perspective....it predicts the earth clock runs fast by a factor of gamma and it predicts that 2.2 us on the earth clock is worth 2.2us/gamma on its own clock.

   That's incorrect, Seto, as you obviously *Do not* understand
   Einstein's special relativity.

   Please take the time to read it.

   ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES
   By A. EINSTEIN
   June 30, 1905
 > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf

-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#579457

From	kenseto <setoken@att.net>
Date	2016-05-21 14:16 -0700
Message-ID	<cd6b1769-f247-44c2-9846-27d2bbb79c26@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#579436

On Saturday, May 21, 2016 at 10:52:00 AM UTC-4, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 5/21/16 9:33 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > No that's the muon's perspective....it predicts the earth clock runs fast by a factor of gamma and it predicts that 2.2 us on the earth clock is worth 2.2us/gamma on its own clock.
> 
> 
> 
>    That's incorrect, Seto, as you obviously *Do not* understand
>    Einstein's special relativity.

Idiot.... the point is that SRT is wrong and incomplete. What I said conforms with observation.

> 
>    Please take the time to read it.
> 
>    ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES
>    By A. EINSTEIN
>    June 30, 1905
>  > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
> to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
> community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#579459

From	Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com>
Date	2016-05-21 16:24 -0500
Message-ID	<XridnTJ6r-WAT93KnZ2dnUU7-YVj4p2d@giganews.com>
In reply to	#579457

On 5/21/16 4:16 PM, kenseto wrote:
> On Saturday, May 21, 2016 at 10:52:00 AM UTC-4, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> On 5/21/16 9:33 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>> No that's the muon's perspective....it predicts the earth clock runs fast by a factor of gamma and it predicts that 2.2 us on the earth clock is worth 2.2us/gamma on its own clock.
>>
>>
>>
>>    That's incorrect, Seto, as you obviously *Do not* understand
>>    Einstein's special relativity.
>
> Idiot.... the point is that SRT is wrong and incomplete. What I said conforms with observation.
>

   Come on, Seto, you know perfectly well that there has never been an
   observation that contradicts a prediction of special relativity. You
   think it is wrong because you have *failed to understand SRT* .

   *Special and general relativity are very fruitful tools* of physics,
   Seto.

>>
>>    Please take the time to read it.
>>
>>    ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES
>>    By A. EINSTEIN
>>    June 30, 1905
>>  > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
>> to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
>> community, and physics-related social issues.
>

-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#579465

From	moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
Date	2016-05-21 21:53 +0000
Message-ID	<nhqld4$usl$1@pcls7.std.com>
In reply to	#579435

kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:

>On Friday, May 20, 2016 at 10:34:03 PM UTC-4, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> On 5/20/16 6:19 PM, kenseto wrote:
>>=20
>> > No the distance remains the same. The decay time is lengthened to
>> > gamma*2.2 us and that's why it is able to reach the ground before
>> > decaying.
>>
>>
>>    That's one perspective. However, from the perspective of the muon,
>>    the distance traveled is foreshortened by the factor of gamma.

>No that's the muon's perspective....it predicts the earth clock runs fast
>by a factor of gamma and it predicts that 2.2 us on the earth clock is 
>worth 2.2us/gamma on its own clock. IOW it predicts that a clock second 
>is not an invariant interval of time as assumed by current physics.

The muon predicts? I did not know muons knew science.  Anyway, what the
muon predicts isn't what it actually experiences, so I guess muons don't
understand SR.

Sam is correct.  From the ground viewpoint, the observer sees the muon's
clock running slow and because it runs slow, it reaches the ground by
travelling gamma times the expected distance.

From the muon's perspective, the clock runs at its normal rate (remember,
in SR, all observers see their own clock (proper time) run at its normal
rate), but length contraction by a factor of gamma reduces the distance it
sees to 1/gamma times the original distance.  So, the muon actually
reaches the ground.

That's the cool thing about SR, Ken.  Two different experiences but both
come up with the same outcome.  Ken, you should learn SR some day.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#579085

From	Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Date	2016-05-19 18:59 -0500
Message-ID	<nhlk1o$1et1$3@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#578997

On 5/19/2016 2:11 PM, jay moseley wrote:
> Sam wrote
>>> the *same* muon being measured at different heights as it descends > through the atmosphere?
>
>> A muon with such and such momentum and energy can only be created by a cosmic ray event. We
> know from other detections of the event its height above the detector. The fact that the muon
> was detected at ground level says that the relativistic gamma had to be greater than so and so.
>
>> There is no doubt that the detected muon traverses...
>
> In other words you have no proof that the same muon is measured
> more than once in these atmospheric tests.

Evidence is EASILY found, Jay. I wonder why you have such difficulties 
finding stuff that others do not find challenging. Is it laziness or 
stupidity? Heck, I even gave you a search term.

> Like Oddball, you can
> only fantasize that there are relativistic effects.
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#579187

From	jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com>
Date	2016-05-19 23:44 -0700
Message-ID	<5f91655c-e0c2-45f1-b83c-f3a43638d939@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#579085

Odd wrote
>> > In other words you have no proof that the same muon is measured 
>> more than once in these atmospheric tests.

>Evidence is EASILY found, Jay. I wonder why you have such difficulties finding stuff that others do not find challenging. Is it laziness or stupidity? Heck, I even gave you a search term.

When you find your evidence for the same muons being measured
twice let me know.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#579234

From	Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com>
Date	2016-05-20 09:26 -0500
Message-ID	<6Judnadq8co9g6LKnZ2dnUU7-c2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to	#579187

On 5/20/16 1:44 AM, jay moseley wrote:
> When you find your evidence for the same muons being measured
> twice let me know.

   Jay, do you also deny that the photon leaving the surface of the star,
   Sirius that is captured by your eye, is the same photon?

-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#579394

From	jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com>
Date	2016-05-21 01:06 -0700
Message-ID	<3e2744b6-4330-42f3-a086-ff8769c85662@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#579234

Sam wrote..
>> When you find your evidence for the same muons being measured 
>> twice let me know.

>Jay, do you also deny that the photon leaving the surface of the star, Sirius that is captured by your eye, is the same photon?

There is no evidence for emr as photons. There is however, 
centuries of evidence showing light is a wave only.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#579414

From	Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com>
Date	2016-05-21 08:17 -0500
Message-ID	<bdydna43EPF8wt3KnZ2dnUU7-audnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to	#579394

On 5/21/16 3:06 AM, jay moseley wrote:
> There is no evidence for emr as photons. There is however,
> centuries of evidence showing light is a wave only.


   Jay, experiments are done with single photons. Where have you been?


   Researchers show that a single photon can transfer an excitation from
   a quantum dot to an ion
 > http://physics.aps.org/articles/v8/27

 > Researchers have made many advances in controlling atomic,
 > solid-state, and other types of quantum systems. Hybrid quantum
 > systems bring together two or more such systems and allow them to
 > interact. Hybrid systems combine the advantages of each component and
 > as such, are of interest for a number of proposed technologies,
 > including a hybrid quantum network. One hybrid system of particular
 > interest is a single artificial atom (e.g., a quantum dot) coupled to
 > a natural atom (e.g., a trapped ion). Combining these two components
 > is, however, a challenge: specialized techniques are needed to
 > control single artificial atoms and single natural atoms, while
 > experimentalists have so far mastered only one system or the other.
 > Research groups at the University of Cambridge, UK, led by Mete
 > Atatüre, an expert on quantum dots, and Michael Köhl, an expert on
 > trapped ions, now overcome this challenge to demonstrate a photonic
 > link between a single ion and a single quantum dot—a nanoscale
 > semiconductor that behaves like an atom [1].




-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#579472

From	"nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com>
Date	2016-05-21 15:49 -0700
Message-ID	<a088d1c7-90a3-4485-9f09-28a912942082@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#579394

On Saturday, May 21, 2016 at 1:06:15 AM UTC-7, jay moseley wrote:
> Sam wrote..
> >> When you find your evidence for the same muons being measured 
> >> twice let me know.
> 
> >Jay, do you also deny that the photon leaving the surface of the star,
> Sirius that is captured by your eye, is the same photon?
> 
> There is no evidence for emr as photons.

  Then why do radar and lidar work exactly the same way?

> There is however, centuries of evidence showing light is a wave only.

  So, now you deny the photoelectric effect?


  Mark L. Fergerson

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#579507

From	jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com>
Date	2016-05-22 02:27 -0700
Message-ID	<fdbc99dd-2df1-452b-a121-5d06c89ba697@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#579472

Mark L Fergerson wrote...
>> There is no evidence for emr as photons.

>Then why do radar and lidar work exactly the same way?

Because they both propagate through space and any medium as a wave.

>> There is however, centuries of evidence showing light is a wave only.

>So, now you deny the photoelectric effect?

Why cant the "photoelectric" effect be explained by waves
being quantized at the detector. We dont actually see what
"hit" the detector. What we see is a dot on a screen that has been 
created  by an electrical cascade triggered by an atom
on the detector plane receiving energy from emr
hitting the detector. That can be as easily explained by
wave only radiation being quantiized into packets by the 
detector atom as it can by imaginary photons. 
Furthermore ALL other observations of emr show it
to be wave based. The weight of evidence is on the side
of a wave based model. The only "evidence" supporting
a photon model is an *assumption* based on a dot
appearing on a computor viewing screen. 

If I had a waterpipe whose water flow was monitered in 
litre amounts as it flowed through the pipe and showed
up on a computor screen as dots each time a litre was 
measured. Does that prove that water is composed
of individual particles, each particle being litre sized?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#579525

From	Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com>
Date	2016-05-22 08:28 -0500
Message-ID	<usWdnT9wj7B-LtzKnZ2dnUU7-TWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to	#579507

On 5/22/16 4:27 AM, jay moseley wrote:
> Why can[']t the "photoelectric" effect be explained by waves
> being quantized at the detector.

http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/quantumzone/photoelectric.html

   You should read Albert Einstein's 1905 paper on the subject.

https://www.aip.org/history/exhibits/einstein/essay-photoelectric.htm
http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys314/lectures/photoe/photoe.html

-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#579711

From	jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com>
Date	2016-05-23 00:10 -0700
Message-ID	<32942a53-9547-4078-9fb3-1580954866c6@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#579525

Sam quoted...
> Yes, you're right--but the details of the photoelectric effect come out differently depending on whether light consists of particles or waves. If it's waves, the energy contained in one of those waves should depend only on its amplitude--that is, on the intensity of the light. Other factors, like the frequency, should make no difference. So, for example, red light and ultraviolet light of the same intensity should knock out the same number of electrons, and the maximum kinetic energy of both sets of electrons should also be the same. Decrease the intensity, and you should get fewer electrons, flying out more slowly; if the light is too faint, you shouldn't get any electrons at all, no matter what frequency you're using.

This is typical of the lies and misinformation used by critics
of the wave model to discredit a wave model.
First of all it is a fundamental observation of resonant
systems, as with atoms in a wave model, that only narrow
ranges of input frequencies can generate a sympathetic
resonance in the same system. In other words classical
resonant systems only respond to input frequencies in
narrow input frequency ranges. Exactly as observed in the
photoelectric effect.
Secondly, regarding amplitude. If the detector atom is quantizing
this input radiation then decreasing intensity shouldnt suddenly
shut off the electric response. As the detector atoms will absorb
wave energy radiation at any intensity regardless of amplitude. It
will just slow down the flow of 'electrons' generated by the detector
atoms. As observed. The mistake made by critics is to
assume that the atom cannot quantize a continuous input wave
input into packets. A hypocritical position to take, considering
these same critics have no problem allowing their own
particle based theory to allow wave energy to be quantized
into photons packets.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#579532

From	benj <nobodyxx@gmail>
Date	2016-05-22 10:07 -0400
Message-ID	<5741bd3c$0$43828$c3e8da3$5e5e430d@news.astraweb.com>
In reply to	#579507

On 05/22/2016 05:27 AM, jay moseley wrote:
> Mark L Fergerson wrote...
>>> There is no evidence for emr as photons.
>
>> Then why do radar and lidar work exactly the same way?
>
> Because they both propagate through space and any medium as a wave.
>
>>> There is however, centuries of evidence showing light is a wave only.
>
>> So, now you deny the photoelectric effect?
>
> Why cant the "photoelectric" effect be explained by waves
> being quantized at the detector. We dont actually see what
> "hit" the detector. What we see is a dot on a screen that has been
> created  by an electrical cascade triggered by an atom
> on the detector plane receiving energy from emr
> hitting the detector. That can be as easily explained by
> wave only radiation being quantiized into packets by the
> detector atom as it can by imaginary photons.
> Furthermore ALL other observations of emr show it
> to be wave based. The weight of evidence is on the side
> of a wave based model. The only "evidence" supporting
> a photon model is an *assumption* based on a dot
> appearing on a computor viewing screen.
>
> If I had a waterpipe whose water flow was monitered in
> litre amounts as it flowed through the pipe and showed
> up on a computor screen as dots each time a litre was
> measured. Does that prove that water is composed
> of individual particles, each particle being litre sized?

Sorry Jay, but your "idea" of wave packets is totally discredited. It 
simply does not work. And the reason it does not work has to do with the 
time it takes for light energy produce the photoelectric effect. If 
light were ONLY a wave, it would take a certain amount of time for light 
energy to "build up" as the waves come in. This is NOT observed.
Energy transfer is nearly instantaneous. Hence one sees a "particle" 
nature to light. Hence the term describing it as "photons"

There is only ONE wave theory of light that actually has been shown to 
work. And that was invented by Feynman and Wheeler. In this theory light 
is imagined to consist of two waves. One traveling forward in time (like 
all normal waves) And the other solution to the wave equation that is 
normally discarded as "non-physical", which is a wave traveling 
BACKWARDS in time. The two waves together solve the "instantaneous" 
problem.

But what is NOT solved is that causality is violated. Causality is a 
natural law in the Earth and to deny it means that Feynman and Wheeler 
were nothing more than some of Wormley's "deniers" and HVAC's "Kooks".
I'm sure HVAC will tell you that Feynman and Wheeler believed in ESP and 
Ghosts.

That is what science says.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#579542

From	HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com>
Date	2016-05-22 08:15 -0700
Message-ID	<76cc8e8d-20a8-4cf0-8e0b-db66b56d1c84@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#579532

BJ quacked
There is only ONE wave theory of light that actually has been shown to 
work. And that was invented by Feynman and Wheeler. In this theory light 
is imagined to consist of two waves. One traveling forward in time (like 
all normal waves) And the other solution to the wave equation that is 
normally discarded as "non-physical", which is a wave traveling 
BACKWARDS in time. The two waves together solve the "instantaneous" 
problem. 

But what is NOT solved is that causality is violated. Causality is a 
natural law in the Earth and to deny it means that Feynman and Wheeler 
were nothing more than some of Wormley's "deniers" and HVAC's "Kooks". 
I'm sure HVAC will tell you that Feynman and Wheeler believed in ESP and 
Ghosts. Location
------

And of course BJ is misdirecting and misrepresenting Feynman's thoughts. Without going into further detail, suffice it to say that Richard and I spent many happy hours at gentleman's clubs investigating 'causality'.

And that's all I have to say about that

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#579574

From	benj <nobodyxx@gmail>
Date	2016-05-22 16:02 -0400
Message-ID	<57421071$0$12045$c3e8da3$3a1a2348@news.astraweb.com>
In reply to	#579542

On 05/22/2016 11:15 AM, HVAC wrote:
> BJ quacked There is only ONE wave theory of light that actually has
> been shown to work. And that was invented by Feynman and Wheeler. In
> this theory light is imagined to consist of two waves. One traveling
> forward in time (like all normal waves) And the other solution to the
> wave equation that is normally discarded as "non-physical", which is
> a wave traveling BACKWARDS in time. The two waves together solve the
> "instantaneous" problem.
>
> But what is NOT solved is that causality is violated. Causality is a
> natural law in the Earth and to deny it means that Feynman and
> Wheeler were nothing more than some of Wormley's "deniers" and HVAC's
> "Kooks". I'm sure HVAC will tell you that Feynman and Wheeler
> believed in ESP and Ghosts. Location ------
>
> And of course BJ is misdirecting and misrepresenting Feynman's
> thoughts. Without going into further detail, suffice it to say that
> Richard and I spent many happy hours at gentleman's clubs
> investigating 'causality'.
>
> And that's all I have to say about that
>
HVAC means that's all he KNOWS about that. Notice how incisively and
cogently HVAC discusses the the wave equation non-physical solutions
(mabe he believes they are ghosts!) and the essence of the
Feynman-Wheeler theory.

In other words there is absolutely NO difference between Herb's 
fantasies of discussing relativity and "spin is in" with Einstein and 
HVAC's dreams of drinking with Feynman. I'm surprised he even knows how 
to spell his name. He probably had to Google it!

Admit it, HVAC, you are completely uneducated and totally ignorant of 
science. All you have is a big mouth and your fantasy dreams. You are SO 
wonderful! That's why everyone wants to be you! NOT.

Now is your chance to "prove" me a "kook" Just give us some details of 
the Feynman-Wheeler theory to explain how I "misrepresented" it.

I'll wait right here for your "proof".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#579583

From	Double-A <double-a3@hush.com>
Date	2016-05-22 13:37 -0700
Message-ID	<e807cbd8-5fd7-4069-a641-bd5d984d7199@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#579574

On Sunday, May 22, 2016 at 1:03:01 PM UTC-7, benj wrote:
> On 05/22/2016 11:15 AM, HVAC wrote:
> > BJ quacked There is only ONE wave theory of light that actually has
> > been shown to work. And that was invented by Feynman and Wheeler. In
> > this theory light is imagined to consist of two waves. One traveling
> > forward in time (like all normal waves) And the other solution to the
> > wave equation that is normally discarded as "non-physical", which is
> > a wave traveling BACKWARDS in time. The two waves together solve the
> > "instantaneous" problem.
> >
> > But what is NOT solved is that causality is violated. Causality is a
> > natural law in the Earth and to deny it means that Feynman and
> > Wheeler were nothing more than some of Wormley's "deniers" and HVAC's
> > "Kooks". I'm sure HVAC will tell you that Feynman and Wheeler
> > believed in ESP and Ghosts. Location ------
> >
> > And of course BJ is misdirecting and misrepresenting Feynman's
> > thoughts. Without going into further detail, suffice it to say that
> > Richard and I spent many happy hours at gentleman's clubs
> > investigating 'causality'.
> >
> > And that's all I have to say about that
> >
> HVAC means that's all he KNOWS about that. Notice how incisively and
> cogently HVAC discusses the the wave equation non-physical solutions
> (mabe he believes they are ghosts!) and the essence of the
> Feynman-Wheeler theory.
> 
> In other words there is absolutely NO difference between Herb's 
> fantasies of discussing relativity and "spin is in" with Einstein and 
> HVAC's dreams of drinking with Feynman. I'm surprised he even knows how 
> to spell his name. He probably had to Google it!


But can he pronounce it?!!

Double-A

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 9 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 14 Next page →

csiph-web

Does anyone really know the physical cause for time dilation and length contraction?

Contents

#579347

#579374

#579435

#579436

#579457

#579459

#579465

#579085

#579187

#579234

#579394

#579414

#579472

#579507

#579525

#579711

#579532

#579542

#579574

#579583