Contradictory Premises at High Speeds

On Aug 16, 6:17*pm, Poutnik wrote:
GogoJF from
posted Thu, 16 Aug 2012 16:00:25 -0700 (PDT)



Koobee Wublee wrote: *Length contraction is a dynamic effect while
time dilation is an
accumulative effect.

Gogo says: *Do you think time dilation is a static effect?

Not to confuse time dilation and time offset.

Time dilation is dynamic as well as length contraction.
It is time offset what is cumulative.

--
Poutnik

Wow, two dynamics and zero statics!

GogoJF from
posted Thu, 16 Aug 2012 16:54:30 -0700 (PDT)



On Aug 16, 6:17*pm, Poutnik wrote:
GogoJF from
posted Thu, 16 Aug 2012 16:00:25 -0700 (PDT)



Koobee Wublee wrote: *Length contraction is a dynamic effect while
time dilation is an
accumulative effect.

Gogo says: *Do you think time dilation is a static effect?

Not to confuse time dilation and time offset.

Time dilation is dynamic as well as length contraction.
It is time offset what is cumulative.

--
Poutnik

Wow, two dynamics and zero statics!

Length of object in rest wrt observer is static.
So well as time offset of previously moving objects,
finally put in rest wrt to observer.



--
Poutnik

On Aug 16, 7:01*pm, Poutnik wrote:
GogoJF from
posted Thu, 16 Aug 2012 16:54:30 -0700 (PDT)











On Aug 16, 6:17*pm, Poutnik wrote:
GogoJF from
posted Thu, 16 Aug 2012 16:00:25 -0700 (PDT)

Koobee Wublee wrote: *Length contraction is a dynamic effect while
time dilation is an
accumulative effect.

Gogo says: *Do you think time dilation is a static effect?

Not to confuse time dilation and time offset.

Time dilation is dynamic as well as length contraction.
It is time offset what is cumulative.

--
Poutnik

Wow, two dynamics and zero statics!

Length of object in rest wrt observer is static.
So well as time offset of previously moving objects,
finally put in rest wrt to observer.

--
Poutnik

It amazes me the ignorance of the fact that what humans can see in a
raw manner is the most beautiful truth of what we really want our
science to be.

GogoJF from
posted Thu, 16 Aug 2012 17:13:54 -0700 (PDT)



Wow, two dynamics and zero statics!

Length of object in rest wrt observer is static.
So well as time offset of previously moving objects,
finally put in rest wrt to observer.

--
Poutnik

It amazes me the ignorance of the fact that what humans can see in a
raw manner is the most beautiful truth of what we really want our
science to be.

E.g. a broken rod half submerged in water... :-)

--
Poutnik

Giovi from
posted Thu, 16 Aug 2012 15:28:36 -0700 (PDT)

with all do respect, so far as i know, there
are no extraordinary proofs for black holes
and length contraction, only indications and
predictions

you cant take a prediction as extraordinary
proof, that is, sorry

It would be good to tell us
what extraordinary proof of length contraction you expect.
Being extraordinary here is related to expected inprobability
of agreement of prediction and measurement.

EVERY length measurement at normal conditions
confirms length contraction as predicted value is measured.
The point is such measurement is of no statistival value
and is useless.

Length measurement at extreme conditions, where you cannot use
normal measuring tools at level of atoms and near c speed
confirms length contraction too.

It should be taken as extraordinary,
as such result would not be expected without contraction.


--
Poutnik

On Aug 16, 11:55 pm, Poutnik wrote:
Giovi from
posted Thu, 16 Aug 2012 14:42:16 -0700 (PDT)



the point is, i understand, that relativity exhibits
extraordinary claims that requires extraordinary proofs

but there are no extraordinary proofs, for for instance,
black holes, length contraction, time dilation and so on

No physical theory can bring any proof,
but verification that events, that it predicts,
and values, that it calculates,
are observed and measured.

And this was done many times, with accuracy
that very few theories from the whole physics can compete.

--
Poutnik

a theory that predicts an observation is the observation that the
theory is wrong

Steve Watson from posted Sun, 19 Aug 2012 03:51:10
-0700 (PDT)

On Aug 16, 11:55 pm, Poutnik wrote:

No physical theory can bring any proof, but verification that
events, that it predicts, and values, that it calculates, are
observed and measured.

And this was done many times, with accuracy that very few theories
from the whole physics can compete.

--
Poutnik

a theory that predicts an observation is the observation that the
theory is wrong

Tell to us stupid why.....

Theory that does not predict any observation is not scientific theory,
as it is not falsifyable, what is essential requirement.

--
Poutnik

On Aug 19, 12:57 pm, Poutnik wrote:
Steve Watson from posted Sun, 19 Aug 2012 03:51:10
-0700 (PDT)

On Aug 16, 11:55 pm, Poutnik wrote:
No physical theory can bring any proof, but verification that
events, that it predicts, and values, that it calculates, are
observed and measured.

And this was done many times, with accuracy that very few theories
from the whole physics can compete.

--
Poutnik

a theory that predicts an observation is the observation that the
theory is wrong

Tell to us stupid why.....


"us" !? what us, yet another moron
3rd order famous by association wannabe


Theory that does not predict any observation is not scientific theory,
as it is not falsifyable, what is essential requirement.

observations are done disregard any theory you
may have, nobody cares !!!

Steve Watson

Steve Watson from
posted Sun, 19 Aug 2012 05:42:30 -0700 (PDT)


Tell to us stupid why.....

"us" !? what us, yet another moron
3rd order famous by association wannabe

For your hatred you are unable to read and think.

By "us" is meant the audience of this newsgroup,
as you should be able to imagine
there are more people than just you and me.

The only way you are interesting is trolling.


Theory that does not predict any observation is not scientific theory,
as it is not falsifyable, what is essential requirement.

observations are done disregard any theory you
may have, nobody cares !!!

I do not have any theory, there is no need for that.


--
Poutnik

On Aug 19, 2:52 pm, Poutnik wrote:
Steve Watson from
posted Sun, 19 Aug 2012 05:42:30 -0700 (PDT)



Tell to us stupid why.....

"us" !? what us, yet another moron
3rd order famous by association wannabe

For your hatred you are unable to read and think.

right, and you are able to write


By "us" is meant the audience of this newsgroup,
as you should be able to imagine
there are more people than just you and me.

The only way you are interesting is trolling.

me!?


Theory that does not predict any observation is not scientific theory,
as it is not falsifyable, what is essential requirement.

observations are done disregard any theory you
may have, nobody cares !!!

I do not have any theory, there is no need for that.

finally you agree, you got the point then, ;-)
why always it takes so long time?


--
Poutnik