Prev: The principles of the Ethernal Ethereal Realm of Reality
Next: Religion is a glimpse of the highest science.
From: kenseto on 9 Aug 2010 14:01 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(1v^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
From: PD on 9 Aug 2010 16:31 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(1v^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", "contracted", "expanded", not to mention "relative velocity", "vector", "vector component", "acceleration", "universal", "constant", "measure", "reference frame", "inertial", and a whole host of other terms common in physics. 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.
From: harald on 10 Aug 2010 03:35 On Aug 9, 10:31 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(1v^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", right > "physical length", right > "light path length", right > "contracted", "expanded", not sure > not to mention > "relative velocity", right > "vector", "vector component", probably right > "acceleration", probably right > "universal", right > "constant", probably right >"measure", probably right >"reference frame", right > "inertial", right > and > a whole host of other terms common in physics. Are you sure you didn't mention them all? ;) > 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. Yes indeed. Harald
From: kenseto on 10 Aug 2010 08:23 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(1v^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. Even Tom Roberts disagree with you ....He said that length contraction in Sr does not mean that the moving ruler is contracted physically. "contracted", "expanded", Contracted and expanded in IRT means material/physical contraction or expansion....there is no material/physical contraction in IRT. There is lightpath 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. >"vector", "vector component", "acceleration", Vector component for an object in the aether is isotropic. > "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. You used the word measure in place of the word predict. There is no way to measure to rate of a moving clock. > "reference frame", "inertial", and > a whole host of other terms common in physics. There is no scuh thing as an inertial frame on earth and yet every time SR runs into difficulty you claimed that that's because one of the frame is not inertial. 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 
From: PD on 10 Aug 2010 09:48 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(1v^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 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. > > "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 lightpath 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 

Next

Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 Prev: The principles of the Ethernal Ethereal Realm of Reality Next: Religion is a glimpse of the highest science. 