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: 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(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
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(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", "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(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",

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(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.
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 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.

>"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(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 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 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 -

 |  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.