Prev: The principles of the Ether-nal Ethe-r-eal Real-m of Real-ity
Next: Religion is a glimpse of the highest science.
From: BURT on 11 Aug 2010 20:30
On Aug 11, 5:15 pm, Stamenin <task...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 9, 11:01 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > New Interpretation for Length Contraction and Length Expansion:
>
> > 1. The physical length of a meter stick remains the same in all frames
> > of
> > reference.
> > 2. The Light path length of the observer's meter stick is assumed to
> > be its
> >     physical length.
> > 3. The light path length of a moving meter stick is predicted as
> > follows:
> >    L_aa=Light path length of the observer's meter stick
> >    L_ab=Light path length of a moving meter stick as predicted by
> > observer A.
> >    Gamma= 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> >    A predicts B to be contracted:
> >    L_ab=L_aa/gamma
> >    A predicts B to be expanded:
> >    L_ab=Gamma*L_aa
> > 4. These interpretations require that every observer to include both
> > predictions
> >     for the light   path length of a moving meter stick.
> > 5. Since light path length is not physical these interpretations will
> > resolve
> >     all the paradoxes of SR and LET.
>
> > A new theory of relativity called IRT includes the above
> > interpretations. IRT
> > includes both SR and LET as subsets. However, unlike SRT the equations
> > of IRT
> > are valid in all environments, including gravity. A paper on IRT is
> > available in
> > the following link:http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf
>
> > Ken Seto
>
> The length contraction is a wrong conclusion obtained by the wrongly
> use of the errant LT. It is a shame for all participants in these
> discussions to not understand this simple question. If you use the GT
> this error do not appears.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I believe length contraction is not real but universal space expansion
is.

Mitch Raemsch
From: PD on 11 Aug 2010 21:22
On Aug 10, 10:27 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
> On Aug 10, 9:48 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 10, 7:23 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 9, 4:31 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 9, 1:01 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > New Interpretation for Length Contraction and Length Expansion:
>
> > > > > 1. The physical length of a meter stick remains the same in all frames
> > > > > of
> > > > > reference.
> > > > > 2. The Light path length of the observer's meter stick is assumed to
> > > > > be its
> > > > >     physical length.
> > > > > 3. The light path length of a moving meter stick is predicted as
> > > > > follows:
> > > > >    L_aa=Light path length of the observer's meter stick
> > > > >    L_ab=Light path length of a moving meter stick as predicted by
> > > > > observer A.
> > > > >    Gamma= 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> > > > >    A predicts B to be contracted:
> > > > >    L_ab=L_aa/gamma
> > > > >    A predicts B to be expanded:
> > > > >    L_ab=Gamma*L_aa
> > > > > 4. These interpretations require that every observer to include both
> > > > > predictions
> > > > >     for the light   path length of a moving meter stick.
> > > > > 5. Since light path length is not physical these interpretations will
> > > > > resolve
> > > > >     all the paradoxes of SR and LET.
>
> > > > > A new theory of relativity called IRT includes the above
> > > > > interpretations. IRT
> > > > > includes both SR and LET as subsets. However, unlike SRT the equations
> > > > > of IRT
> > > > > are valid in all environments, including gravity. A paper on IRT is
> > > > > available in
> > > > > the following link:http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf
>
> > > > > Ken Seto
>
> > > > None of this has any bearing on physics because Ken is speaking a
> > > > different language, having his own meanings for "physical", "physical
> > > > length", "light path length",
>
> > > Hey idiot you invented a new meaning for physical contraction that is
> > > between material contraction and geometric projection contraction.
>
> > Nobody invented anything but you, Ken.
>
> You did....you asserted that physical contraction can mean both
> material contraction and geometric projection effect.
>
> Ken Seto
>
> >You just never asked to find
> > out what the definitions of these terms are.
> > So you made up your own, and when you were told these were wrong, you
> > assumed that others had made up new ones. They are not new ones. They
> > are the old ones.
>
> > > Even Tom Roberts disagree with you ....He said that length contraction
> > > in Sr does not mean that the moving ruler is contracted physically.
>
> > No, he did NOT say that. He said that it is a geometric effect, and
> > geometric effects have physical consequences. You cannot even
> > comprehend what is told you.
>
> Yes he said that. Geometric projection effect has no physical
> consequence.

Then you did not listen to what Tom Roberts told you. He correctly
told you that it is a geometric effect, and he correctly told you that
geometric effects have physical consequences.

I cannot help it if you cannot comprehend what you read and what
people tell you.

>...iow rotating a ruler does not effect the material/
> physical length of the ruler. Your problem is that you want to
> perpetuating the bogus idea that a moving ruler is contracted
> physically/materially.

Physical does not mean material. You keep making this mistake.

> It is not in SR.
>
> Ken Seto
>
>
>
> > > "contracted", "expanded",
>
> > > Contracted and expanded in IRT means material/physical contraction or
> > > expansion.
>
> > You see? You've made up your own definitions.
>
> > >...there is no material/physical contraction in IRT. There
> > > is light-path length contraction or expansion for a moving meter stick
> > > compared to the light path length of the observer's meter stick. This
> > > is equivalent to geometric porjection effect for length contraction in
> > > SR.
>
> > > >not to mention
> > > > "relative velocity",
>
> > > Hey idiot relative velocity in IRT and SRT means the same.
>
> > How do you know? You don't know the meaning of "relative velocity" in
> > physics.
>
> > > >"vector", "vector component", "acceleration",
>
> > > Vector component for an object in the aether is isotropic.
>
> > See? You don't know what "vector component" even means.
>
> > > > "universal", "constant", "measure",
>
> > > You don't understand the word universal....you insisted that the speed
> > > of light is a universal constant and yet the clock second use to
> > > define speed is not a universal constant in all frames.
>
> > See? You don't know the meaning of the word "universal".
>
> > > You used the word measure in place of the word predict. There is no
> > > way to measure to rate of a moving clock.
>
> > No, I meant MEASURE, and it IS possible -- quite easy in fact -- to
> > measure the rate of a moving clock. Just because YOU don't know how to
> > do it doesn't mean it can't be done. And it CERTAINLY doesn't mean
> > that "measure" is misconstrued as "predicted".
>
> > > > "reference frame", "inertial", and
> > > > a whole host of other terms common in physics.
>
> > > There is no scuh thing as an inertial frame on earth
>
> > Of course there is. See? You don't know what "inertial reference
> > frame" means.
>
> > > and yet every
> > > time SR runs into difficulty you claimed that that's because one of
> > > the frame is not inertial.
>
> > And that's because you can't recognize the difference between an
> > inertial reference frame and a noninertial reference frame. See? You
> > don't know what the words even mean.
>
> > It's pointless talking with someone who doesn't even know what the
> > words mean.
>
> > > Ken Seto
>
> > > > While he continues to speak this private language, you will find that
> > > > nothing he says makes much sense, because you will mistakenly think
> > > > he's using those words in the manner than physicists do, when in fact
> > > > that is not true.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
>

From: kenseto on 12 Aug 2010 08:20
On Aug 11, 9:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 10, 10:27 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 10, 9:48 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 10, 7:23 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 9, 4:31 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Aug 9, 1:01 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > New Interpretation for Length Contraction and Length Expansion:
>
> > > > > > 1. The physical length of a meter stick remains the same in all frames
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > reference.
> > > > > > 2. The Light path length of the observer's meter stick is assumed to
> > > > > > be its
> > > > > >     physical length.
> > > > > > 3. The light path length of a moving meter stick is predicted as
> > > > > > follows:
> > > > > >    L_aa=Light path length of the observer's meter stick
> > > > > >    L_ab=Light path length of a moving meter stick as predicted by
> > > > > > observer A.
> > > > > >    Gamma= 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> > > > > >    A predicts B to be contracted:
> > > > > >    L_ab=L_aa/gamma
> > > > > >    A predicts B to be expanded:
> > > > > >    L_ab=Gamma*L_aa
> > > > > > 4. These interpretations require that every observer to include both
> > > > > > predictions
> > > > > >     for the light   path length of a moving meter stick.
> > > > > > 5. Since light path length is not physical these interpretations will
> > > > > > resolve
> > > > > >     all the paradoxes of SR and LET.
>
> > > > > > A new theory of relativity called IRT includes the above
> > > > > > interpretations. IRT
> > > > > > includes both SR and LET as subsets. However, unlike SRT the equations
> > > > > > of IRT
> > > > > > are valid in all environments, including gravity. A paper on IRT is
> > > > > > available in
> > > > > > the following link:http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf
>
> > > > > > Ken Seto
>
> > > > > None of this has any bearing on physics because Ken is speaking a
> > > > > different language, having his own meanings for "physical", "physical
> > > > > length", "light path length",
>
> > > > Hey idiot you invented a new meaning for physical contraction that is
> > > > between material contraction and geometric projection contraction.
>
> > > Nobody invented anything but you, Ken.
>
> > You did....you asserted that physical contraction can mean both
> > material contraction and geometric projection effect.
>
> > Ken Seto
>
> > >You just never asked to find
> > > out what the definitions of these terms are.
> > > So you made up your own, and when you were told these were wrong, you
> > > assumed that others had made up new ones. They are not new ones. They
> > > are the old ones.
>
> > > > Even Tom Roberts disagree with you ....He said that length contraction
> > > > in Sr does not mean that the moving ruler is contracted physically.
>
> > > No, he did NOT say that. He said that it is a geometric effect, and
> > > geometric effects have physical consequences. You cannot even
> > > comprehend what is told you.
>
> > Yes he said that. Geometric projection effect has no physical
> > consequence.
>
> Then you did not listen to what Tom Roberts told you. He correctly
> told you that it is a geometric effect, and he correctly told you that
> geometric effects have physical consequences.

No he said that length contraction in SR does not mean that the length
of a ruler is contracted physically.

>
> I cannot help it if you cannot comprehend what you read and what
> people tell you.

He said that length contraction is much like tilting a ladder through
the door way. This is not physical/material contrction. Physicists
invented geometric projection to replace the obsolete idea that
contraction in SR is physical/material in order to explain the
paradoxes occur if length contraction is physical/material....for
example if length contraction is physical/material the bug dies at two
instants of time....before and after the head of the rivet hits the
wall of the hole. If length contraction is merely a geometric
projection effect then the bug dies only once....when the tip of the
rivet hits the bug.

Ken Seto

>
> >...iow rotating a ruler does not effect the material/
> > physical length of the ruler. Your problem is that you want to
> > perpetuating the bogus idea that a moving ruler is contracted
> > physically/materially.
>
> Physical does not mean material. You keep making this mistake.
>
>
>
> > It is not in SR.
>
> > Ken Seto
>
> > > > "contracted", "expanded",
>
> > > > Contracted and expanded in IRT means material/physical contraction or
> > > > expansion.
>
> > > You see? You've made up your own definitions.
>
> > > >...there is no material/physical contraction in IRT. There
> > > > is light-path length contraction or expansion for a moving meter stick
> > > > compared to the light path length of the observer's meter stick. This
> > > > is equivalent to geometric porjection effect for length contraction in
> > > > SR.
>
> > > > >not to mention
> > > > > "relative velocity",
>
> > > > Hey idiot relative velocity in IRT and SRT means the same.
>
> > > How do you know? You don't know the meaning of "relative velocity" in
> > > physics.
>
> > > > >"vector", "vector component", "acceleration",
>
> > > > Vector component for an object in the aether is isotropic.
>
> > > See? You don't know what "vector component" even means.
>
> > > > > "universal", "constant", "measure",
>
> > > > You don't understand the word universal....you insisted that the speed
> > > > of light is a universal constant and yet the clock second use to
> > > > define speed is not a universal constant in all frames.
>
> > > See? You don't know the meaning of the word "universal".
>
> > > > You used the word measure in place of the word predict. There is no
> > > > way to measure to rate of a moving clock.
>
> > > No, I meant MEASURE, and it IS possible -- quite easy in fact -- to
> > > measure the rate of a moving clock. Just because YOU don't know how to
> > > do it doesn't mean it can't be done. And it CERTAINLY doesn't mean
> > > that "measure" is misconstrued as "predicted".
>
> > > > > "reference frame", "inertial", and
> > > > > a whole host of other terms common in physics.
>
> > > > There is no scuh thing as an inertial frame on earth
>
> > > Of course there is. See? You don't know what "inertial reference
> > > frame" means.
>
> > > > and yet every
> > > > time SR runs into difficulty you claimed that that's because one of
> > > > the frame is not inertial.
>
> > > And that's because you can't recognize the difference between an
> > > inertial reference frame and a noninertial reference frame. See? You
> > > don't know what the words even mean.
>
> > > It's pointless talking with someone who doesn't even know what the
> > > words mean.
>
> > > > Ken Seto
>
> > > > > While he continues to speak this private language, you will find that
> > > > > nothing he says makes much sense, because you will mistakenly think
> > > > > he's using those words in the manner than physicists do, when in fact
> > > > > that is not true.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

From: PD on 12 Aug 2010 09:41
On Aug 12, 7:20 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
> On Aug 11, 9:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 10, 10:27 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 10, 9:48 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 10, 7:23 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Aug 9, 4:31 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Aug 9, 1:01 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > New Interpretation for Length Contraction and Length Expansion:
>
> > > > > > > 1. The physical length of a meter stick remains the same in all frames
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > reference.
> > > > > > > 2. The Light path length of the observer's meter stick is assumed to
> > > > > > > be its
> > > > > > >     physical length.
> > > > > > > 3. The light path length of a moving meter stick is predicted as
> > > > > > > follows:
> > > > > > >    L_aa=Light path length of the observer's meter stick
> > > > > > >    L_ab=Light path length of a moving meter stick as predicted by
> > > > > > > observer A.
> > > > > > >    Gamma= 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> > > > > > >    A predicts B to be contracted:
> > > > > > >    L_ab=L_aa/gamma
> > > > > > >    A predicts B to be expanded:
> > > > > > >    L_ab=Gamma*L_aa
> > > > > > > 4. These interpretations require that every observer to include both
> > > > > > > predictions
> > > > > > >     for the light   path length of a moving meter stick..
> > > > > > > 5. Since light path length is not physical these interpretations will
> > > > > > > resolve
> > > > > > >     all the paradoxes of SR and LET.
>
> > > > > > > A new theory of relativity called IRT includes the above
> > > > > > > interpretations. IRT
> > > > > > > includes both SR and LET as subsets. However, unlike SRT the equations
> > > > > > > of IRT
> > > > > > > are valid in all environments, including gravity. A paper on IRT is
> > > > > > > available in
> > > > > > > the following link:http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf
>
> > > > > > > Ken Seto
>
> > > > > > None of this has any bearing on physics because Ken is speaking a
> > > > > > different language, having his own meanings for "physical", "physical
> > > > > > length", "light path length",
>
> > > > > Hey idiot you invented a new meaning for physical contraction that is
> > > > > between material contraction and geometric projection contraction..
>
> > > > Nobody invented anything but you, Ken.
>
> > > You did....you asserted that physical contraction can mean both
> > > material contraction and geometric projection effect.
>
> > > Ken Seto
>
> > > >You just never asked to find
> > > > out what the definitions of these terms are.
> > > > So you made up your own, and when you were told these were wrong, you
> > > > assumed that others had made up new ones. They are not new ones. They
> > > > are the old ones.
>
> > > > > Even Tom Roberts disagree with you ....He said that length contraction
> > > > > in Sr does not mean that the moving ruler is contracted physically.
>
> > > > No, he did NOT say that. He said that it is a geometric effect, and
> > > > geometric effects have physical consequences. You cannot even
> > > > comprehend what is told you.
>
> > > Yes he said that. Geometric projection effect has no physical
> > > consequence.
>
> > Then you did not listen to what Tom Roberts told you. He correctly
> > told you that it is a geometric effect, and he correctly told you that
> > geometric effects have physical consequences.
>
> No he said that length contraction in SR does not mean that the length
> of a ruler is contracted physically.
>
>
>
> > I cannot help it if you cannot comprehend what you read and what
> > people tell you.
>
> He said that length contraction is much like tilting a ladder through
> the door way. This is not physical/material contrction. Physicists
> invented geometric projection to replace the obsolete idea that
> contraction in SR is physical/material in order to explain the
> paradoxes occur if length contraction is physical/material....for
> example if length contraction is physical/material the bug dies at two
> instants of time....before and after the head of the rivet hits the
> wall of the hole. If length contraction is merely a geometric
> projection effect then the bug dies only once....when the tip of the
> rivet hits the bug.

Hopeless. You do not understand a thing that anyone has told you in 15
years. Not one thing.

>
> Ken Seto
>
>
>
> > >...iow rotating a ruler does not effect the material/
> > > physical length of the ruler. Your problem is that you want to
> > > perpetuating the bogus idea that a moving ruler is contracted
> > > physically/materially.
>
> > Physical does not mean material. You keep making this mistake.
>
> > > It is not in SR.
>
> > > Ken Seto
>
> > > > > "contracted", "expanded",
>
> > > > > Contracted and expanded in IRT means material/physical contraction or
> > > > > expansion.
>
> > > > You see? You've made up your own definitions.
>
> > > > >...there is no material/physical contraction in IRT. There
> > > > > is light-path length contraction or expansion for a moving meter stick
> > > > > compared to the light path length of the observer's meter stick. This
> > > > > is equivalent to geometric porjection effect for length contraction in
> > > > > SR.
>
> > > > > >not to mention
> > > > > > "relative velocity",
>
> > > > > Hey idiot relative velocity in IRT and SRT means the same.
>
> > > > How do you know? You don't know the meaning of "relative velocity" in
> > > > physics.
>
> > > > > >"vector", "vector component", "acceleration",
>
> > > > > Vector component for an object in the aether is isotropic.
>
> > > > See? You don't know what "vector component" even means.
>
> > > > > > "universal", "constant", "measure",
>
> > > > > You don't understand the word universal....you insisted that the speed
> > > > > of light is a universal constant and yet the clock second use to
> > > > > define speed is not a universal constant in all frames.
>
> > > > See? You don't know the meaning of the word "universal".
>
> > > > > You used the word measure in place of the word predict. There is no
> > > > > way to measure to rate of a moving clock.
>
> > > > No, I meant MEASURE, and it IS possible -- quite easy in fact -- to
> > > > measure the rate of a moving clock. Just because YOU don't know how to
> > > > do it doesn't mean it can't be done. And it CERTAINLY doesn't mean
> > > > that "measure" is misconstrued as "predicted".
>
> > > > > > "reference frame", "inertial", and
> > > > > > a whole host of other terms common in physics.
>
> > > > > There is no scuh thing as an inertial frame on earth
>
> > > > Of course there is. See? You don't know what "inertial reference
> > > > frame" means.
>
> > > > > and yet every
> > > > > time SR runs into difficulty you claimed that that's because one of
> > > > > the frame is not inertial.
>
> > > > And that's because you can't recognize the difference between an
> > > > inertial reference frame and a noninertial reference frame. See? You
> > > > don't know what the words even mean.
>
> > > > It's pointless talking with someone who doesn't even know what the
> > > > words mean.
>
> > > > > Ken Seto
>
> > > > > > While he continues to speak this private language, you will find that
> > > > > > nothing he says makes much sense, because you will mistakenly think
> > > > > > he's using those words in the manner than physicists do, when in fact
> > > > > > that is not true.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -

From: Inertial on 12 Aug 2010 11:16
"PD" wrote in message
news:d88b41e3-799f-4820-a12c-0ec794ed1e45(a)u26g2000yqu.googlegroups.com...
> Hopeless. You do not understand a thing that anyone has told you in 15
> years. Not one thing.

Why bother replying to him? You're just feeding the troll

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: The principles of the Ether-nal Ethe-r-eal Real-m of Real-ity
Next: Religion is a glimpse of the highest science.