Discussion:
A space ships length contraction near light speed
Add Reply
mitchr...@gmail.com
2021-09-11 19:59:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
the original room in it would shrink.
How big does it have to be before
accelerating... for the astronaut?

Mitchell Raemsch
Emmet Kahl
2021-09-12 20:39:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
The astronaut has to shrink... but his atomic chemistry would be
affected. That should not happen. Is length contraction real?
If relativity is a shared separation and converging back equal both
sides would have the equal speed length contraction.
you mix tutifruti, there are 2 kind, a one because the speed, then the
other because the curvature gradient (perpendicular). Real both as much
as it can be, and it nothing to do with chemistry.
mitchr...@gmail.com
2021-09-13 01:15:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Emmet Kahl
The astronaut has to shrink... but his atomic chemistry would be
affected. That should not happen. Is length contraction real?
If relativity is a shared separation and converging back equal both
sides would have the equal speed length contraction.
you mix tutifruti, there are 2 kind, a one because the speed, then the
other because the curvature gradient (perpendicular). Real both as much
as it can be, and it nothing to do with chemistry.
If length contraction is real it would have a consequence on chemistry.

Mitchell Raemsch
Loyd Catt
2021-09-13 12:18:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Emmet Kahl
The astronaut has to shrink... but his atomic chemistry would be
affected. That should not happen. Is length contraction real?
If relativity is a shared separation and converging back equal both
sides would have the equal speed length contraction.
you mix tutifruti, there are 2 kind, a one because the speed, then the
other because the curvature gradient (perpendicular). Real both as much
as it can be, and it nothing to do with chemistry.
If length contraction is real it would have a consequence on chemistry.
it's about the observations, not changes in chemical reactions or
consistence just by observing it. Think.
mitchr...@gmail.com
2021-09-14 18:36:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Loyd Catt
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Emmet Kahl
The astronaut has to shrink... but his atomic chemistry would be
affected. That should not happen. Is length contraction real?
If relativity is a shared separation and converging back equal both
sides would have the equal speed length contraction.
you mix tutifruti, there are 2 kind, a one because the speed, then the
other because the curvature gradient (perpendicular). Real both as much
as it can be, and it nothing to do with chemistry.
If length contraction is real it would have a consequence on chemistry.
it's about the observations, not changes in chemical reactions or
consistence just by observing it. Think.
If you observe it it would have an affect on chemistry...
It is not real...

Mitchell Raemsch
Gale Binz
2021-09-14 21:14:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Loyd Catt
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Emmet Kahl
The astronaut has to shrink... but his atomic chemistry would be
affected. That should not happen. Is length contraction real?
If relativity is a shared separation and converging back equal
both sides would have the equal speed length contraction.
you mix tutifruti, there are 2 kind, a one because the speed, then
the other because the curvature gradient (perpendicular). Real both
as much as it can be, and it nothing to do with chemistry.
If length contraction is real it would have a consequence on chemistry.
it's about the observations, not changes in chemical reactions or
consistence just by observing it. Think.
If you observe it it would have an affect on chemistry...
It is not real...
You must have a different apparatus, let me see it.
mitchr...@gmail.com
2021-09-15 00:27:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Loyd Catt
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Emmet Kahl
The astronaut has to shrink... but his atomic chemistry would be
affected. That should not happen. Is length contraction real?
If relativity is a shared separation and converging back equal
both sides would have the equal speed length contraction.
you mix tutifruti, there are 2 kind, a one because the speed, then
the other because the curvature gradient (perpendicular). Real both
as much as it can be, and it nothing to do with chemistry.
If length contraction is real it would have a consequence on chemistry.
it's about the observations, not changes in chemical reactions or
consistence just by observing it. Think.
If you observe it it would have an affect on chemistry...
It is not real...
How have you measured length contraction?

Mitchell Raemsch
Python
2021-09-15 01:29:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Loyd Catt
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Emmet Kahl
The astronaut has to shrink... but his atomic chemistry would be
affected. That should not happen. Is length contraction real?
If relativity is a shared separation and converging back equal
both sides would have the equal speed length contraction.
you mix tutifruti, there are 2 kind, a one because the speed, then
the other because the curvature gradient (perpendicular). Real both
as much as it can be, and it nothing to do with chemistry.
If length contraction is real it would have a consequence on chemistry.
it's about the observations, not changes in chemical reactions or
consistence just by observing it. Think.
If you observe it it would have an affect on chemistry...
It is not real...
How have you measured length contraction?
Mitchell Raemsch
I told you two days ago, you didn't follow. Are you impaired?
mitchr...@gmail.com
2021-09-15 17:49:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Python
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Loyd Catt
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Emmet Kahl
The astronaut has to shrink... but his atomic chemistry would be
affected. That should not happen. Is length contraction real?
If relativity is a shared separation and converging back equal
both sides would have the equal speed length contraction.
you mix tutifruti, there are 2 kind, a one because the speed, then
the other because the curvature gradient (perpendicular). Real both
as much as it can be, and it nothing to do with chemistry.
If length contraction is real it would have a consequence on chemistry.
it's about the observations, not changes in chemical reactions or
consistence just by observing it. Think.
If you observe it it would have an affect on chemistry...
It is not real...
How have you measured length contraction?
Mitchell Raemsch
I told you two days ago, you didn't follow. Are you impaired?
That is an excuse. There has never been a measurement
of length contracting. Or show otherwise....
Why would you be afraid?

Mitchell Raemsch
Gale Binz
2021-09-15 15:08:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Loyd Catt
Post by ***@gmail.com
If length contraction is real it would have a consequence on chemistry.
it's about the observations, not changes in chemical reactions or
consistence just by observing it. Think.
If you observe it it would have an affect on chemistry...
It is not real...
How have you measured length contraction?
as usual, with my meterstick in which I trust.
mitchr...@gmail.com
2021-09-15 17:52:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gale Binz
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Loyd Catt
Post by ***@gmail.com
If length contraction is real it would have a consequence on chemistry.
it's about the observations, not changes in chemical reactions or
consistence just by observing it. Think.
If you observe it it would have an affect on chemistry...
It is not real...
How have you measured length contraction?
as usual, with my meterstick in which I trust.
Its never been measured. How are you going
to do it you? Why would you be the exception?
Hardy Kuhn
2021-09-15 20:31:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gale Binz
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Loyd Catt
Post by ***@gmail.com
If length contraction is real it would have a consequence on chemistry.
it's about the observations, not changes in chemical reactions or
consistence just by observing it. Think.
If you observe it it would have an affect on chemistry...
It is not real...
How have you measured length contraction?
as usual, with my meterstick in which I trust.
Its never been measured. How are you going to do it you? Why would you
be the exception?
it's been. What you see you measure with the meterstick. It's called, if
not mistaken, telemeter and the process telemetry. Let me watch your
meterstick.
mitchr...@gmail.com
2021-09-15 21:40:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Hardy Kuhn
Post by Gale Binz
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Loyd Catt
Post by ***@gmail.com
If length contraction is real it would have a consequence on
chemistry.
it's about the observations, not changes in chemical reactions or
consistence just by observing it. Think.
If you observe it it would have an affect on chemistry...
It is not real...
How have you measured length contraction?
as usual, with my meterstick in which I trust.
Its never been measured. How are you going to do it you? Why would you
be the exception?
it's been.
No it hasn't. That is you pretending it has instead...
What about a space ship?

Mitchell Raemsch
mitchr...@gmail.com
2021-09-16 00:36:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Hardy Kuhn
Post by Gale Binz
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Loyd Catt
Post by ***@gmail.com
If length contraction is real it would have a consequence on
chemistry.
it's about the observations, not changes in chemical reactions or
consistence just by observing it. Think.
If you observe it it would have an affect on chemistry...
It is not real...
How have you measured length contraction?
as usual, with my meterstick in which I trust.
Its never been measured. How are you going to do it you? Why would you
be the exception?
it's been.
No it hasn't. That is you pretending it has instead...
What about a space ship?
Mitchell Raemsch
Either length contraction is real or it is not.
And it is not... universal distance cannot go away...
it does expand instead... and that is measured
to be accelerating.
Michael Moroney
2021-09-16 02:02:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Hardy Kuhn
Post by Gale Binz
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Loyd Catt
Post by ***@gmail.com
If length contraction is real it would have a consequence on chemistry.
it's about the observations, not changes in chemical reactions or
consistence just by observing it. Think.
If you observe it it would have an affect on chemistry...
It is not real...
How have you measured length contraction?
as usual, with my meterstick in which I trust.
Its never been measured. How are you going to do it you? Why would you
be the exception?
it's been.
No it hasn't. That is you pretending it has instead...
What about a space ship?
Mitchell Raemsch
Either length contraction is real or it is not.
And it is not... universal distance cannot go away...
it does expand instead... and that is measured
to be accelerating.
Mitch, you Roy Masters, in the frame of the spaceship, the spaceship is
stationary and the astronaut and atoms are not squished. However the
astronaut will observe the rest of the universe as being squished!

If you weren't such a chicken, you could google that and actually learn
something for once in your miserable life. But you won't, so you won't.
mitchr...@gmail.com
2021-09-16 02:52:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Hardy Kuhn
Post by Gale Binz
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Loyd Catt
Post by ***@gmail.com
If length contraction is real it would have a consequence on
chemistry.
it's about the observations, not changes in chemical reactions or
consistence just by observing it. Think.
If you observe it it would have an affect on chemistry...
It is not real...
How have you measured length contraction?
as usual, with my meterstick in which I trust.
Its never been measured. How are you going to do it you? Why would you
be the exception?
it's been.
No it hasn't. That is you pretending it has instead...
What about a space ship?
Mitchell Raemsch
Either length contraction is real or it is not.
And it is not... universal distance cannot go away...
it does expand instead... and that is measured
to be accelerating.
Mitch, you Roy Masters, in the frame of the spaceship, the spaceship is
stationary
No it isn't. It knows it has accelerated...
Begin to move and you like a spaceship know you are moving.
The space ship beginning to move will feel weight...
that is the difference.

Mitchell Raemsch
Michael Moroney
2021-09-16 06:49:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by ***@gmail.com
Either length contraction is real or it is not.
And it is not... universal distance cannot go away...
it does expand instead... and that is measured
to be accelerating.
Mitch, you Roy Masters, in the frame of the spaceship, the spaceship is
stationary
No it isn't. It knows it has accelerated...
Begin to move and you like a spaceship know you are moving.
Roy Masters, I'm talking about the ship cruising along, not
accelerating. After any acceleration has been done.
Post by ***@gmail.com
The space ship beginning to move will feel weight...
You mean force. Again that involves acceleration.
Post by ***@gmail.com
that is the difference.
Once the ship reaches a cruising speed and no longer accelerates, it is
inertial and the astronaut in the ship can consider himself stationary
and marvel at the length contracted universe whiz by out the window.
Maciej Wozniak
2021-09-16 07:45:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Moroney
Once the ship reaches a cruising speed and no longer accelerates, it is
inertial and the astronaut in the ship can consider himself stationary
and marvel at the length contracted universe whiz by out the window.
A gedanken astronaut in a gedanken ship of gedanken
scenarios may observe gedanken wonders of Giant
Guru, but in the meantime in the real world the real clocks
of the real GPS keep indicating t'=t, just like all serious
clocks always did.
mitchr...@gmail.com
2021-09-16 16:58:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by ***@gmail.com
Either length contraction is real or it is not.
And it is not... universal distance cannot go away...
it does expand instead... and that is measured
to be accelerating.
Mitch, you Roy Masters, in the frame of the spaceship, the spaceship is
stationary
No it isn't. It knows it has accelerated...
Begin to move and you like a spaceship know you are moving.
Roy Masters, I'm talking about the ship cruising along, not
accelerating. After any acceleration has been done.
Post by ***@gmail.com
The space ship beginning to move will feel weight...
You mean force. Again that involves acceleration.
No. Feeling weight in that case is not from gravity or force.
It is from the ships propulsion instead.
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by ***@gmail.com
that is the difference.
Once the ship reaches a cruising speed and no longer accelerates, it is
inertial and the astronaut in the ship can consider himself stationary
and marvel at the length contracted universe whiz by out the window.
Nothing can be considered stationary as there is no absolute rest.
Voyager are slowing down subject to gravity leaving the Solar system.
If gravity is everywhere affecting motion there are no inertial frames.
Einstein got inertial frames wrong because motion's in general are not
steady. As a rule speed is always subject to change instead.
Show what speeds are steady if you can...

Mitchell Raemsch
Michael Moroney
2021-09-17 21:28:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by ***@gmail.com
Either length contraction is real or it is not.
And it is not... universal distance cannot go away...
it does expand instead... and that is measured
to be accelerating.
Mitch, you Roy Masters, in the frame of the spaceship, the spaceship is
stationary
No it isn't. It knows it has accelerated...
Begin to move and you like a spaceship know you are moving.
Roy Masters, I'm talking about the ship cruising along, not
accelerating. After any acceleration has been done.
Post by ***@gmail.com
The space ship beginning to move will feel weight...
You mean force. Again that involves acceleration.
No. Feeling weight in that case is not from gravity or force.
It is from the ships propulsion instead.
Weight is the force from gravity. You said correctly it's from the
acceleration, so the force is not from gravity, so it's not weight.
This is a mistake you always make, is English not your first language?

Anyway, the ship is cruising at constant speed so not accelerating at
all so there is no force in the situation I'm discussing.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by ***@gmail.com
that is the difference.
Once the ship reaches a cruising speed and no longer accelerates, it is
inertial and the astronaut in the ship can consider himself stationary
and marvel at the length contracted universe whiz by out the window.
Nothing can be considered stationary as there is no absolute rest.
Nothing is absolutely stationary, correct. But anything (inertial) can
be considered stationary relative to itself, so anything inertial can be
used as a reference for stationary. So it's valid for my
(non-accelerating) spacecraft to consider itself stationary.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Voyager are slowing down subject to gravity leaving the Solar system.
Yes, and...? Since there are no other forces on the Voyagers, they are
in "free fall" relative to the sun* so they are locally inertial.
Post by ***@gmail.com
If gravity is everywhere affecting motion there are no inertial frames.
There are always inertial frames. Trying to make an object stationary
(inertial) in one may or may not be easy. If there are no other forces
on the object and the graviting masses are so distant there is no
gradient then they are in free fall and locally inertial.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Einstein got inertial frames wrong because motion's in general are not
steady. As a rule speed is always subject to change instead.
Changing speeds requires an external force.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Show what speeds are steady if you can...
Any time there is zero force. See Newton, Roy.
(*) The Voyagers are moving away from the sun and exceed escape velocity
so yes, they'll never fall toward the sun but free fall is the correct term.
mitchr...@gmail.com
2021-09-18 00:42:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by ***@gmail.com
Either length contraction is real or it is not.
And it is not... universal distance cannot go away...
it does expand instead... and that is measured
to be accelerating.
Mitch, you Roy Masters, in the frame of the spaceship, the spaceship is
stationary
No it isn't. It knows it has accelerated...
Begin to move and you like a spaceship know you are moving.
Roy Masters, I'm talking about the ship cruising along, not
accelerating. After any acceleration has been done.
Post by ***@gmail.com
The space ship beginning to move will feel weight...
You mean force. Again that involves acceleration.
No. Feeling weight in that case is not from gravity or force.
It is from the ships propulsion instead.
Weight is the force from gravity.
Gravity is geometry where weightless can be.
The weight side is not always with the real force.
Post by Michael Moroney
Anyway, the ship is cruising at constant speed so not accelerating at
all so there is no force in the situation I'm discussing.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by ***@gmail.com
that is the difference.
Once the ship reaches a cruising speed and no longer accelerates, it is
inertial and the astronaut in the ship can consider himself stationary
No. There can be inner movements of the space ship to itself.
That self stillness never applies always...
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by ***@gmail.com
Nothing can be considered stationary as there is no absolute rest.
Nothing is absolutely stationary, correct. But anything (inertial) can
be considered stationary relative to itself, so anything inertial can be
used as a reference for stationary. So it's valid for my
(non-accelerating) spacecraft to consider itself stationary.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Voyager are slowing down subject to gravity leaving the Solar system.
Yes, and...? Since there are no other forces on the Voyagers, they are
in "free fall" relative to the sun* so they are locally inertial.
Gravity will always count...
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by ***@gmail.com
If gravity is everywhere affecting motion there are no inertial frames.
There are always inertial frames. Trying to make an object stationary
(inertial) in one may or may not be easy. If there are no other forces
on the object and the graviting masses are so distant there is no
gradient then they are in free fall and locally inertial.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Einstein got inertial frames wrong because motion's in general are not
steady. As a rule speed is always subject to change instead.
Changing speeds requires an external force.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Show what speeds are steady if you can...
Any time there is zero force. See Newton, Roy.
Isn't gravity supposed to be everywhere you moron?
What about the space station's zero gravity?
It still has a gravity field. It is not zero gravity it
is weightlessness instead...
Post by Michael Moroney
(*) The Voyagers are moving away from the sun and exceed escape velocity
Can you prove that?
Post by Michael Moroney
so yes, they'll never fall toward the sun but free fall is the correct term.
They will be slowing down...

Mitchell Raemsch
Michael Moroney
2021-09-18 02:23:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Moroney
Mitch, you Roy Masters, in the frame of the spaceship, the spaceship is
stationary
No it isn't. It knows it has accelerated...
Begin to move and you like a spaceship know you are moving.
Roy Masters, I'm talking about the ship cruising along, not
accelerating. After any acceleration has been done.
Post by ***@gmail.com
The space ship beginning to move will feel weight...
You mean force. Again that involves acceleration.
No. Feeling weight in that case is not from gravity or force.
It is from the ships propulsion instead.
Weight is the force from gravity.
Gravity is geometry where weightless can be.
The weight side is not always with the real force.
English, please. I don't understand babble.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Moroney
Once the ship reaches a cruising speed and no longer accelerates, it is
inertial and the astronaut in the ship can consider himself stationary
No. There can be inner movements of the space ship to itself.
Are you saying that if the astronaut is walking from the back to the
front of the spaceship he's not stationary relative to it? Good grief.
Post by ***@gmail.com
That self stillness never applies always...
Again, English, please.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by ***@gmail.com
Voyager are slowing down subject to gravity leaving the Solar system.
Yes, and...? Since there are no other forces on the Voyagers, they are
in "free fall" relative to the sun* so they are locally inertial.
Gravity will always count...
And...? The Voyager is in free fall. One of the points in engineering
and science is to look at possible sources of error and in a thought
experiment you can consider them zero. So a spaceship considering itself
stationary in a thought experiment can ignore gravity, just assume it's
far enough away that it can be ignored.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by ***@gmail.com
Show what speeds are steady if you can...
Any time there is zero force. See Newton, Roy.
Isn't gravity supposed to be everywhere you moron?
See above. Plus everything is in freefall relative to the ignorable
amount of gravity.
Post by ***@gmail.com
What about the space station's zero gravity?
What about it? It's because of freefall.
Post by ***@gmail.com
It still has a gravity field. It is not zero gravity it
is weightlessness instead...
It's also orbiting a planet, so gravity cannot be ignored. I'm talking
about an inertial spaceship, far enough from any gravity source its
effect is trivial.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Moroney
(*) The Voyagers are moving away from the sun and exceed escape velocity
Can you prove that?
Yes. Google their current distances, their velocities at that distance,
then calculate the sun's escape velocity at that distance. You can do
the math yourself.
mitchr...@gmail.com
2021-09-18 17:05:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Moroney
Mitch, you Roy Masters, in the frame of the spaceship, the spaceship is
stationary
No it isn't. It knows it has accelerated...
Begin to move and you like a spaceship know you are moving.
Roy Masters, I'm talking about the ship cruising along, not
accelerating. After any acceleration has been done.
Post by ***@gmail.com
The space ship beginning to move will feel weight...
You mean force. Again that involves acceleration.
No. Feeling weight in that case is not from gravity or force.
It is from the ships propulsion instead.
Weight is the force from gravity.
Gravity is geometry where weightless can be.
The weight side is not always with the real force.
English, please. I don't understand babble.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Moroney
Once the ship reaches a cruising speed and no longer accelerates, it is
inertial and the astronaut in the ship can consider himself stationary
No. There can be inner movements of the space ship to itself.
Are you saying that if the astronaut is walking from the back to the
front of the spaceship he's not stationary relative to it? Good grief.
Post by ***@gmail.com
That self stillness never applies always...
Again, English, please.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by ***@gmail.com
Voyager are slowing down subject to gravity leaving the Solar system.
Yes, and...? Since there are no other forces on the Voyagers, they are
in "free fall" relative to the sun* so they are locally inertial.
Gravity will always count...
And...? The Voyager is in free fall. One of the points in engineering
and science is to look at possible sources of error and in a thought
experiment you can consider them zero. So a spaceship considering itself
stationary in a thought experiment can ignore gravity, just assume it's
far enough away that it can be ignored.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by ***@gmail.com
Show what speeds are steady if you can...
Any time there is zero force. See Newton, Roy.
Isn't gravity supposed to be everywhere you moron?
See above. Plus everything is in freefall relative to the ignorable
amount of gravity.
Post by ***@gmail.com
What about the space station's zero gravity?
What about it? It's because of freefall.
Post by ***@gmail.com
It still has a gravity field. It is not zero gravity it
is weightlessness instead...
It's also orbiting a planet, so gravity cannot be ignored. I'm talking
about an inertial spaceship, far enough from any gravity source its
effect is trivial.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Moroney
(*) The Voyagers are moving away from the sun and exceed escape velocity
Can you prove that?
Yes. Google their current distances, their velocities at that distance,
then calculate the sun's escape velocity at that distance. You can do
the math yourself.
How did you calculate the Sun's escape velocity?
If you haven't measured it you cannot use it...

Mitchell Raemsch
Michael Moroney
2021-09-19 02:53:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Moroney
Mitch, you Roy Masters, in the frame of the spaceship, the spaceship is
stationary
No it isn't. It knows it has accelerated...
Begin to move and you like a spaceship know you are moving.
Roy Masters, I'm talking about the ship cruising along, not
accelerating. After any acceleration has been done.
Post by ***@gmail.com
The space ship beginning to move will feel weight...
You mean force. Again that involves acceleration.
No. Feeling weight in that case is not from gravity or force.
It is from the ships propulsion instead.
Weight is the force from gravity.
Gravity is geometry where weightless can be.
The weight side is not always with the real force.
English, please. I don't understand babble.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Moroney
Once the ship reaches a cruising speed and no longer accelerates, it is
inertial and the astronaut in the ship can consider himself stationary
No. There can be inner movements of the space ship to itself.
Are you saying that if the astronaut is walking from the back to the
front of the spaceship he's not stationary relative to it? Good grief.
Post by ***@gmail.com
That self stillness never applies always...
Again, English, please.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by ***@gmail.com
Voyager are slowing down subject to gravity leaving the Solar system.
Yes, and...? Since there are no other forces on the Voyagers, they are
in "free fall" relative to the sun* so they are locally inertial.
Gravity will always count...
And...? The Voyager is in free fall. One of the points in engineering
and science is to look at possible sources of error and in a thought
experiment you can consider them zero. So a spaceship considering itself
stationary in a thought experiment can ignore gravity, just assume it's
far enough away that it can be ignored.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by ***@gmail.com
Show what speeds are steady if you can...
Any time there is zero force. See Newton, Roy.
Isn't gravity supposed to be everywhere you moron?
See above. Plus everything is in freefall relative to the ignorable
amount of gravity.
Post by ***@gmail.com
What about the space station's zero gravity?
What about it? It's because of freefall.
Post by ***@gmail.com
It still has a gravity field. It is not zero gravity it
is weightlessness instead...
It's also orbiting a planet, so gravity cannot be ignored. I'm talking
about an inertial spaceship, far enough from any gravity source its
effect is trivial.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Moroney
(*) The Voyagers are moving away from the sun and exceed escape velocity
Can you prove that?
Yes. Google their current distances, their velocities at that distance,
then calculate the sun's escape velocity at that distance. You can do
the math yourself.
How did you calculate the Sun's escape velocity?
Ask this guy named Newton.
Post by ***@gmail.com
If you haven't measured it you cannot use it...
I can always use the numbers measured or calculated by someone else, Roy.

Hey Roy, shouldn't you be worried that your God will stop creating
gravity just long enough to toss you into hell because of all of your
lies? There you can join your buddy, Roy Masters. Unless you really are
Roy Masters. Who else can lie as much as you do?
mitchr...@gmail.com
2021-09-20 18:04:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Moroney
Mitch, you Roy Masters, in the frame of the spaceship, the spaceship is
stationary
No it isn't. It knows it has accelerated...
Begin to move and you like a spaceship know you are moving.
Roy Masters, I'm talking about the ship cruising along, not
accelerating. After any acceleration has been done.
Post by ***@gmail.com
The space ship beginning to move will feel weight...
You mean force. Again that involves acceleration.
No. Feeling weight in that case is not from gravity or force.
It is from the ships propulsion instead.
Weight is the force from gravity.
Gravity is geometry where weightless can be.
The weight side is not always with the real force.
English, please. I don't understand babble.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Moroney
Once the ship reaches a cruising speed and no longer accelerates, it is
inertial and the astronaut in the ship can consider himself stationary
No. There can be inner movements of the space ship to itself.
Are you saying that if the astronaut is walking from the back to the
front of the spaceship he's not stationary relative to it? Good grief.
Post by ***@gmail.com
That self stillness never applies always...
Again, English, please.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by ***@gmail.com
Voyager are slowing down subject to gravity leaving the Solar system.
Yes, and...? Since there are no other forces on the Voyagers, they are
in "free fall" relative to the sun* so they are locally inertial.
Gravity will always count...
And...? The Voyager is in free fall. One of the points in engineering
and science is to look at possible sources of error and in a thought
experiment you can consider them zero. So a spaceship considering itself
stationary in a thought experiment can ignore gravity, just assume it's
far enough away that it can be ignored.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by ***@gmail.com
Show what speeds are steady if you can...
Any time there is zero force. See Newton, Roy.
Isn't gravity supposed to be everywhere you moron?
See above. Plus everything is in freefall relative to the ignorable
amount of gravity.
Post by ***@gmail.com
What about the space station's zero gravity?
What about it? It's because of freefall.
Post by ***@gmail.com
It still has a gravity field. It is not zero gravity it
is weightlessness instead...
It's also orbiting a planet, so gravity cannot be ignored. I'm talking
about an inertial spaceship, far enough from any gravity source its
effect is trivial.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Moroney
(*) The Voyagers are moving away from the sun and exceed escape velocity
Can you prove that?
Yes. Google their current distances, their velocities at that distance,
then calculate the sun's escape velocity at that distance. You can do
the math yourself.
How did you calculate the Sun's escape velocity?
Ask this guy named Newton.
Post by ***@gmail.com
If you haven't measured it you cannot use it...
I can always use the numbers measured or calculated by someone else, Roy.
Why would they be any better off in their data?
How do you know their data is accurate?
How do you know any drop off gravity in that way?

Mitchell Raemsch
Michael Moroney
2021-09-20 18:30:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Moroney
Mitch, you Roy Masters, in the frame of the spaceship, the spaceship is
stationary
No it isn't. It knows it has accelerated...
Begin to move and you like a spaceship know you are moving.
Roy Masters, I'm talking about the ship cruising along, not
accelerating. After any acceleration has been done.
Post by ***@gmail.com
The space ship beginning to move will feel weight...
You mean force. Again that involves acceleration.
No. Feeling weight in that case is not from gravity or force.
It is from the ships propulsion instead.
Weight is the force from gravity.
Gravity is geometry where weightless can be.
The weight side is not always with the real force.
English, please. I don't understand babble.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Moroney
Once the ship reaches a cruising speed and no longer accelerates, it is
inertial and the astronaut in the ship can consider himself stationary
No. There can be inner movements of the space ship to itself.
Are you saying that if the astronaut is walking from the back to the
front of the spaceship he's not stationary relative to it? Good grief.
Post by ***@gmail.com
That self stillness never applies always...
Again, English, please.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by ***@gmail.com
Voyager are slowing down subject to gravity leaving the Solar system.
Yes, and...? Since there are no other forces on the Voyagers, they are
in "free fall" relative to the sun* so they are locally inertial.
Gravity will always count...
And...? The Voyager is in free fall. One of the points in engineering
and science is to look at possible sources of error and in a thought
experiment you can consider them zero. So a spaceship considering itself
stationary in a thought experiment can ignore gravity, just assume it's
far enough away that it can be ignored.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by ***@gmail.com
Show what speeds are steady if you can...
Any time there is zero force. See Newton, Roy.
Isn't gravity supposed to be everywhere you moron?
See above. Plus everything is in freefall relative to the ignorable
amount of gravity.
Post by ***@gmail.com
What about the space station's zero gravity?
What about it? It's because of freefall.
Post by ***@gmail.com
It still has a gravity field. It is not zero gravity it
is weightlessness instead...
It's also orbiting a planet, so gravity cannot be ignored. I'm talking
about an inertial spaceship, far enough from any gravity source its
effect is trivial.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Moroney
(*) The Voyagers are moving away from the sun and exceed escape velocity
Can you prove that?
Yes. Google their current distances, their velocities at that distance,
then calculate the sun's escape velocity at that distance. You can do
the math yourself.
How did you calculate the Sun's escape velocity?
Ask this guy named Newton.
Post by ***@gmail.com
If you haven't measured it you cannot use it...
I can always use the numbers measured or calculated by someone else, Roy.
Why would they be any better off in their data?
Because they have the accurate scientific instruments which I don't, Smitch.
Post by ***@gmail.com
How do you know their data is accurate?
Because the grand tour paths of the Voyagers actually worked for one,
Smitch. If the data were inaccurate it wouldn't work, Smitch.
Post by ***@gmail.com
How do you know any drop off gravity in that way?
Please translate that last one into English.
mitchr...@gmail.com
2021-09-20 19:07:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Moroney
Mitch, you Roy Masters, in the frame of the spaceship, the spaceship is
stationary
No it isn't. It knows it has accelerated...
Begin to move and you like a spaceship know you are moving.
Roy Masters, I'm talking about the ship cruising along, not
accelerating. After any acceleration has been done.
Post by ***@gmail.com
The space ship beginning to move will feel weight...
You mean force. Again that involves acceleration.
No. Feeling weight in that case is not from gravity or force.
It is from the ships propulsion instead.
Weight is the force from gravity.
Gravity is geometry where weightless can be.
The weight side is not always with the real force.
English, please. I don't understand babble.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Moroney
Once the ship reaches a cruising speed and no longer accelerates, it is
inertial and the astronaut in the ship can consider himself stationary
No. There can be inner movements of the space ship to itself.
Are you saying that if the astronaut is walking from the back to the
front of the spaceship he's not stationary relative to it? Good grief.
Post by ***@gmail.com
That self stillness never applies always...
Again, English, please.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by ***@gmail.com
Voyager are slowing down subject to gravity leaving the Solar system.
Yes, and...? Since there are no other forces on the Voyagers, they are
in "free fall" relative to the sun* so they are locally inertial.
Gravity will always count...
And...? The Voyager is in free fall. One of the points in engineering
and science is to look at possible sources of error and in a thought
experiment you can consider them zero. So a spaceship considering itself
stationary in a thought experiment can ignore gravity, just assume it's
far enough away that it can be ignored.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by ***@gmail.com
Show what speeds are steady if you can...
Any time there is zero force. See Newton, Roy.
Isn't gravity supposed to be everywhere you moron?
See above. Plus everything is in freefall relative to the ignorable
amount of gravity.
Post by ***@gmail.com
What about the space station's zero gravity?
What about it? It's because of freefall.
Post by ***@gmail.com
It still has a gravity field. It is not zero gravity it
is weightlessness instead...
It's also orbiting a planet, so gravity cannot be ignored. I'm talking
about an inertial spaceship, far enough from any gravity source its
effect is trivial.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Moroney
(*) The Voyagers are moving away from the sun and exceed escape velocity
Can you prove that?
Yes. Google their current distances, their velocities at that distance,
then calculate the sun's escape velocity at that distance. You can do
the math yourself.
How did you calculate the Sun's escape velocity?
Ask this guy named Newton.
Post by ***@gmail.com
If you haven't measured it you cannot use it...
I can always use the numbers measured or calculated by someone else, Roy.
Why would they be any better off in their data?
Because they have the accurate scientific instruments which I don't, Smitch.
Post by ***@gmail.com
How do you know their data is accurate?
Because the grand tour paths of the Voyagers actually worked for one,
Smitch. If the data were inaccurate it wouldn't work, Smitch.
Post by ***@gmail.com
How do you know any drop off gravity in that way?
Please translate that last one into English.
Either length contracts or it does not.
And it does not...

Mitchell Raemsch
Maciej Wozniak
2021-09-20 19:31:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Moroney
Because they have the accurate scientific instruments which I don't, Smitch.
As anyone can check in GPS, however, these "accurate scientific
instruments" are pretty useless junk when it comes to serious
measurement.

Maciej Wozniak
2021-09-16 04:25:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Moroney
Mitch, you Roy Masters, in the frame of the spaceship, the spaceship is
stationary and the astronaut and atoms are not squished. However the
astronaut will observe the rest of the universe as being squished!
Gedanken astronaut will observe gedanken wonders, no surprise.
In the meantime in the real world, however, the clocks of GPS keep
indicating t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.
Sylvia Else
2021-09-13 01:36:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
the original room in it would shrink.
How big does it have to be before
accelerating... for the astronaut?
Mitchell Raemsch
Nothing happens to the spaceship. It does not contract. That is not what
relativity says.

Sylvia.
mitchr...@gmail.com
2021-09-13 02:29:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by ***@gmail.com
the original room in it would shrink.
How big does it have to be before
accelerating... for the astronaut?
Mitchell Raemsch
Nothing happens to the spaceship. It does not contract. That is not what
relativity says.
Why not? Either contraction is real or it is not...
and it is not...

Mitchell Raemsch
Sylvia Else
2021-09-13 02:35:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by ***@gmail.com
the original room in it would shrink.
How big does it have to be before
accelerating... for the astronaut?
Mitchell Raemsch
Nothing happens to the spaceship. It does not contract. That is not what
relativity says.
Why not? Either contraction is real or it is not...
and it is not...
Mitchell Raemsch
The contraction consists of a reduction in the length of an object in
one frame as measured from another frame. It is certainly real in that
sense, but it still is not a change to the object.

As an everyday example, the angle subtended by an object in your eye
reduces as the object gets further away. That reduction is real and
measurable, but the object is unaffected.

Sylvia.
mitchr...@gmail.com
2021-09-13 02:39:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by ***@gmail.com
the original room in it would shrink.
How big does it have to be before
accelerating... for the astronaut?
Mitchell Raemsch
Nothing happens to the spaceship. It does not contract. That is not what
relativity says.
Why not? Either contraction is real or it is not...
and it is not...
Mitchell Raemsch
The contraction consists of a reduction in the length of an object in
one frame as measured from another frame.
Would both be equal in length contraction
like the Twin paradox?

What Can you show that contraction is real?
No. You are a moron instead...

Mitchell Raemsch
Sylvia Else
2021-09-13 02:52:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by ***@gmail.com
the original room in it would shrink.
How big does it have to be before
accelerating... for the astronaut?
Mitchell Raemsch
Nothing happens to the spaceship. It does not contract. That is not what
relativity says.
Why not? Either contraction is real or it is not...
and it is not...
Mitchell Raemsch
The contraction consists of a reduction in the length of an object in
one frame as measured from another frame.
Would both be equal in length contraction
like the Twin paradox?
What Can you show that contraction is real?
No. You are a moron instead...
That is how you always react to an explanation that you don't like. You
resort to insults.

Sylvia.
mitchr...@gmail.com
2021-09-13 03:06:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by ***@gmail.com
the original room in it would shrink.
How big does it have to be before
accelerating... for the astronaut?
Mitchell Raemsch
Nothing happens to the spaceship. It does not contract. That is not what
relativity says.
Why not? Either contraction is real or it is not...
and it is not...
Mitchell Raemsch
The contraction consists of a reduction in the length of an object in
one frame as measured from another frame.
Would both be equal in length contraction
like the Twin paradox?
What Can you show that contraction is real?
No. You are a moron instead...
That is how you always react to an explanation that you don't like. You
resort to insults.
Sylvia.
You get what you deserve Sylvia...
Where is your evidence for your claim that length contraction is real?

Mitchell Raemsch
Sylvia Else
2021-09-13 04:35:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by ***@gmail.com
the original room in it would shrink.
How big does it have to be before
accelerating... for the astronaut?
Mitchell Raemsch
Nothing happens to the spaceship. It does not contract. That is not what
relativity says.
Why not? Either contraction is real or it is not...
and it is not...
Mitchell Raemsch
The contraction consists of a reduction in the length of an object in
one frame as measured from another frame.
Would both be equal in length contraction
like the Twin paradox?
What Can you show that contraction is real?
No. You are a moron instead...
That is how you always react to an explanation that you don't like. You
resort to insults.
Sylvia.
You get what you deserve Sylvia...
Where is your evidence for your claim that length contraction is real?
So you can write coherent and grammatical sentences.

Oops!

Sylvia.
mitchr...@gmail.com
2021-09-13 02:46:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by ***@gmail.com
the original room in it would shrink.
How big does it have to be before
accelerating... for the astronaut?
Mitchell Raemsch
Nothing happens to the spaceship. It does not contract. That is not what
relativity says.
Why not? Either contraction is real or it is not...
and it is not...
Mitchell Raemsch
The contraction consists of a reduction in the length of an object in
one frame as measured from another frame. It is certainly real in that
sense, but it still is not a change to the object.
As an everyday example, the angle subtended by an object in your eye
reduces as the object gets further away. That reduction is real and
measurable, but the object is unaffected.
Sylvia.
How do you prove your length contraction is real?

Mitchell Raemsch
Sylvia Else
2021-09-15 01:31:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by ***@gmail.com
the original room in it would shrink.
How big does it have to be before
accelerating... for the astronaut?
Mitchell Raemsch
Nothing happens to the spaceship. It does not contract. That is not what
relativity says.
Why not? Either contraction is real or it is not...
and it is not...
Mitchell Raemsch
The contraction consists of a reduction in the length of an object in
one frame as measured from another frame. It is certainly real in that
sense, but it still is not a change to the object.
As an everyday example, the angle subtended by an object in your eye
reduces as the object gets further away. That reduction is real and
measurable, but the object is unaffected.
Sylvia.
How do you prove your length contraction is real?
Mitchell Raemsch
With the demonstration that your garbled English is in fact deliberate,
you have revealed yourself to be a troll. I can't be bothered with you
any more.

Sylvia.
Loading...