On 5/26/2021 2:16 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> if contraction is real for the atom
> it would distort chemistry by
> flattening the orbitals or shells..

Roy Masters, such an atom is (obviously!) stationary relative to itself,
so the orbitals are not distorted or flattened as far as it's concerned,
and as far as any other nearby atom moving at nearly the same speed is
concerned.

On Wednesday, May 26, 2021 at 12:19:29 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 5/26/2021 2:16 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > if contraction is real for the atom
> > it would distort chemistry by
> > flattening the orbitals or shells..
> Roy Masters, such an atom is (obviously!) stationary relative to itself,

No. It shares motion with its frame you moron...

> so the orbitals are not distorted or flattened as far as it's concerned,

That shared relative speed of both frames to each other
will contract the atom. Why does it not?

> and as far as any other nearby atom moving at nearly the same speed is
> concerned.

If they are near the same speed in space they
would have near the same speed's contraction.
No. Contraction does not belong.
It never did...

Mitchell Raemsch

On 5/26/2021 4:26 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 26, 2021 at 12:19:29 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney
> wrote:
>> On 5/26/2021 2:16 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> if contraction is real for the atom it would distort chemistry
>>> by flattening the orbitals or shells..
>> Roy Masters, such an atom is (obviously!) stationary relative to
>> itself,
>
> No. It shares motion with its frame you moron...

Meaning it's stationary in its own frame, Roy.
>
>> so the orbitals are not distorted or flattened as far as it's
>> concerned,
>
> That shared relative speed of both frames to each other will contract
> the atom. Why does it not?

They are stationary relative to each other, Roy.
>
>> and as far as any other nearby atom moving at nearly the same speed
>> is concerned.
>
> If they are near the same speed in space they would have near the
> same speed's contraction.

If they have the same speed they are stationary relative to each other, Roy.

You need to Google the word "relativity" and learn how it's used in SR.
Or even how it was used by Galileo.
Of course you'll refuse, because that's what Roy Masters does.

> No. Contraction does not belong. It never did...

SR contraction is how one frame sees/measures another moving at high
speed RELATIVE TO IT.

On Wednesday, May 26, 2021 at 5:49:59 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 5/26/2021 4:26 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 26, 2021 at 12:19:29 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney
> > wrote:
> >> On 5/26/2021 2:16 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> if contraction is real for the atom it would distort chemistry
> >>> by flattening the orbitals or shells..
> >> Roy Masters, such an atom is (obviously!) stationary relative to
> >> itself,
> >
> > No. It shares motion with its frame you moron...
> Meaning it's stationary in its own frame, Roy.

No. It is still in the moving frame you moron...
> >> so the orbitals are not distorted or flattened as far as it's
> >> concerned,

Then you agree with me that contraction does not happen
for the atom....

> >
> > That shared relative speed of both frames to each other will contract
> > the atom. Why does it not?
> They are stationary relative to each other, Roy.

As a whole they move as a frame.
And that does not shrink.
That is my point.

> >
> >> and as far as any other nearby atom moving at nearly the same speed
> >> is concerned.
> >
> > If they are near the same speed in space they would have near the
> > same speed's contraction.
> If they have the same speed they are stationary relative to each other, Roy.

You said nearly the same... so what is your point?
>
> You need to Google the word "relativity" and learn how it's used in SR.
> Or even how it was used by Galileo.
> Of course you'll refuse, because that's what Roy Masters does.
> > No. Contraction does not belong. It never did...
> SR contraction is how one frame sees/measures another moving at high
> speed RELATIVE TO IT.

Why does it wait for a measurement if it is by speed?
No you moron. Contraction does not exist.

Mitchell Raemsch

Il giorno giovedì 27 maggio 2021 alle 03:31:52 UTC+2 mitchr...@gmail.com ha scritto:
> On Wednesday, May 26, 2021 at 5:49:59 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > On 5/26/2021 4:26 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, May 26, 2021 at 12:19:29 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney
> > > wrote:
> > >> On 5/26/2021 2:16 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>> if contraction is real for the atom it would distort chemistry
> > >>> by flattening the orbitals or shells..
> > >> Roy Masters, such an atom is (obviously!) stationary relative to
> > >> itself,
> > >
> > > No. It shares motion with its frame you moron...
> > Meaning it's stationary in its own frame, Roy.
> No. It is still in the moving frame you moron...
> > >> so the orbitals are not distorted or flattened as far as it's
> > >> concerned,
> Then you agree with me that contraction does not happen
> for the atom....
> > >
> > > That shared relative speed of both frames to each other will contract
> > > the atom. Why does it not?
> > They are stationary relative to each other, Roy.
> As a whole they move as a frame.
> And that does not shrink.
> That is my point.
> > >
> > >> and as far as any other nearby atom moving at nearly the same speed
> > >> is concerned.
> > >
> > > If they are near the same speed in space they would have near the
> > > same speed's contraction.
> > If they have the same speed they are stationary relative to each other, Roy.
> You said nearly the same... so what is your point?
> >
> > You need to Google the word "relativity" and learn how it's used in SR.
> > Or even how it was used by Galileo.
> > Of course you'll refuse, because that's what Roy Masters does.
> > > No. Contraction does not belong. It never did...
> > SR contraction is how one frame sees/measures another moving at high
> > speed RELATIVE TO IT.
> Why does it wait for a measurement if it is by speed?
> No you moron. Contraction does not exist.
beda
you are wrong:
try to calculate the travel time for a pulse of light
to go forth and back along a moving ruler,
if the ruler doesn't contract the result doesn't fit.
do the calculus your self and find out that the contraction
is the only explanation for the local invariance of the two ways
speed of light along the moving ruler

if you don't know how to do it, the formula is 2sqrt(1-v^2)/(1-v^2); (1)
for a contracted ruler (v=the speed of the ruler)

for a not contracted ruler the formula is 2/(1-v^2); (2)
only (1) fits the experimental results

cheers
beda

>
> Mitchell Raemsch

On Thursday, May 27, 2021 at 4:10:07 AM UTC-7, beda-p...@libero.it wrote:
> Il giorno giovedì 27 maggio 2021 alle 03:31:52 UTC+2 mitchr...@gmail..com ha scritto:
> > On Wednesday, May 26, 2021 at 5:49:59 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > On 5/26/2021 4:26 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, May 26, 2021 at 12:19:29 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney
> > > > wrote:
> > > >> On 5/26/2021 2:16 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >>> if contraction is real for the atom it would distort chemistry
> > > >>> by flattening the orbitals or shells..
> > > >> Roy Masters, such an atom is (obviously!) stationary relative to
> > > >> itself,
> > > >
> > > > No. It shares motion with its frame you moron...
> > > Meaning it's stationary in its own frame, Roy.
> > No. It is still in the moving frame you moron...
> > > >> so the orbitals are not distorted or flattened as far as it's
> > > >> concerned,
> > Then you agree with me that contraction does not happen
> > for the atom....
> > > >
> > > > That shared relative speed of both frames to each other will contract
> > > > the atom. Why does it not?
> > > They are stationary relative to each other, Roy.
> > As a whole they move as a frame.
> > And that does not shrink.
> > That is my point.
> > > >
> > > >> and as far as any other nearby atom moving at nearly the same speed
> > > >> is concerned.
> > > >
> > > > If they are near the same speed in space they would have near the
> > > > same speed's contraction.
> > > If they have the same speed they are stationary relative to each other, Roy.
> > You said nearly the same... so what is your point?
> > >
> > > You need to Google the word "relativity" and learn how it's used in SR.
> > > Or even how it was used by Galileo.
> > > Of course you'll refuse, because that's what Roy Masters does.
> > > > No. Contraction does not belong. It never did...
> > > SR contraction is how one frame sees/measures another moving at high
> > > speed RELATIVE TO IT.
> > Why does it wait for a measurement if it is by speed?
> > No you moron. Contraction does not exist.
> beda
> you are wrong:

Either atoms contract or they don't.
And they don't.

Mitchell Raemsch

On 5/26/2021 9:31 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 26, 2021 at 5:49:59 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 5/26/2021 4:26 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, May 26, 2021 at 12:19:29 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 5/26/2021 2:16 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> if contraction is real for the atom it would distort chemistry
>>>>> by flattening the orbitals or shells..
>>>> Roy Masters, such an atom is (obviously!) stationary relative to
>>>> itself,
>>>
>>> No. It shares motion with its frame you moron...
>> Meaning it's stationary in its own frame, Roy.
>
> No. It is still in the moving frame you moron...

Yet it is stationary in that frame. So anything else stationary in that
frame will see it normal, no flattening and no distortion. And
obviously, anything is stationary relative to itself so sees itself as
normal.

This is explained in all the websites you refuse to read, Roy.

>>>> so the orbitals are not distorted or flattened as far as it's
>>>> concerned,
>
> Then you agree with me that contraction does not happen
> for the atom....

Not relative to itself. It appears contracted to anything moving at
high speed relative to it.
>
>>>
>>> That shared relative speed of both frames to each other will contract
>>> the atom. Why does it not?
>> They are stationary relative to each other, Roy.
>
> As a whole they move as a frame.
> And that does not shrink.
> That is my point.

And it is stationary in its own frame, so it's normal.
>
>>>
>>>> and as far as any other nearby atom moving at nearly the same speed
>>>> is concerned.
>>>
>>> If they are near the same speed in space they would have near the
>>> same speed's contraction.
>> If they have the same speed they are stationary relative to each other, Roy.
>
> You said nearly the same... so what is your point?

"Nearly" the same meaning at a low relative speed, so low length
contraction so all is normal.
>>
>> You need to Google the word "relativity" and learn how it's used in SR.
>> Or even how it was used by Galileo.
>> Of course you'll refuse, because that's what Roy Masters does.

>>> No. Contraction does not belong. It never did...

It is predicted by and required by SR. We have seen indirect effects of
length contraction. Even magnetic fields from a current-carrying wire
can be explained by length contraction.

>> SR contraction is how one frame sees/measures another moving at high
>> speed RELATIVE TO IT.
>
> Why does it wait for a measurement if it is by speed?

That question makes no sense.

> No you moron. Contraction does not exist.
>
But it does, despite your meaningless objections.

On Thursday, May 27, 2021 at 10:35:55 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 5/26/2021 9:31 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 26, 2021 at 5:49:59 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 5/26/2021 4:26 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, May 26, 2021 at 12:19:29 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> On 5/26/2021 2:16 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> if contraction is real for the atom it would distort chemistry
> >>>>> by flattening the orbitals or shells..
> >>>> Roy Masters, such an atom is (obviously!) stationary relative to
> >>>> itself,
> >>>
> >>> No. It shares motion with its frame you moron...
> >> Meaning it's stationary in its own frame, Roy.
> >
> > No. It is still in the moving frame you moron...
> Yet it is stationary in that frame. So anything else stationary in that
> frame will see it normal, no flattening and no distortion. And
> obviously, anything is stationary relative to itself so sees itself as
> normal.
>
> This is explained in all the websites you refuse to read, Roy.
> >>>> so the orbitals are not distorted or flattened as far as it's
> >>>> concerned,
> >
> > Then you agree with me that contraction does not happen
> > for the atom....
> Not relative to itself. It appears contracted to anything moving at
> high speed relative to it.
> >
> >>>
> >>> That shared relative speed of both frames to each other will contract
> >>> the atom. Why does it not?
> >> They are stationary relative to each other, Roy.
> >
> > As a whole they move as a frame.
> > And that does not shrink.
> > That is my point.
> And it is stationary in its own frame, so it's normal.
> >
> >>>
> >>>> and as far as any other nearby atom moving at nearly the same speed
> >>>> is concerned.
> >>>
> >>> If they are near the same speed in space they would have near the
> >>> same speed's contraction.
> >> If they have the same speed they are stationary relative to each other, Roy.
> >
> > You said nearly the same... so what is your point?
> "Nearly" the same meaning at a low relative speed, so low length
> contraction so all is normal.
> >>
> >> You need to Google the word "relativity" and learn how it's used in SR.
> >> Or even how it was used by Galileo.
> >> Of course you'll refuse, because that's what Roy Masters does.
>
> >>> No. Contraction does not belong. It never did...
> It is predicted by and required by SR. We have seen indirect effects of
> length contraction. Even magnetic fields from a current-carrying wire
> can be explained by length contraction.
> >> SR contraction is how one frame sees/measures another moving at high
> >> speed RELATIVE TO IT.
> >
> > Why does it wait for a measurement if it is by speed?
> That question makes no sense.
> > No you moron. Contraction does not exist.
> >
> But it does, despite your meaningless objections.

Where is your contacted atom if both sides contract.
You said orbitals would not be affected but they
would have to contract... are you backing out
by sating it goes both ways where it does not?
You are a moron. It doesn't happen.
What experiment has ever measured it?

Mitchell Raemsch

On 5/27/2021 2:44 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, May 27, 2021 at 10:35:55 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 5/26/2021 9:31 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, May 26, 2021 at 5:49:59 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 5/26/2021 4:26 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, May 26, 2021 at 12:19:29 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/26/2021 2:16 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> if contraction is real for the atom it would distort chemistry
>>>>>>> by flattening the orbitals or shells..
>>>>>> Roy Masters, such an atom is (obviously!) stationary relative to
>>>>>> itself,
>>>>>
>>>>> No. It shares motion with its frame you moron...
>>>> Meaning it's stationary in its own frame, Roy.
>>>
>>> No. It is still in the moving frame you moron...
>> Yet it is stationary in that frame. So anything else stationary in that
>> frame will see it normal, no flattening and no distortion. And
>> obviously, anything is stationary relative to itself so sees itself as
>> normal.
>>
>> This is explained in all the websites you refuse to read, Roy.
>>>>>> so the orbitals are not distorted or flattened as far as it's
>>>>>> concerned,
>>>
>>> Then you agree with me that contraction does not happen
>>> for the atom....
>> Not relative to itself. It appears contracted to anything moving at
>> high speed relative to it.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That shared relative speed of both frames to each other will contract
>>>>> the atom. Why does it not?
>>>> They are stationary relative to each other, Roy.
>>>
>>> As a whole they move as a frame.
>>> And that does not shrink.
>>> That is my point.
>> And it is stationary in its own frame, so it's normal.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> and as far as any other nearby atom moving at nearly the same speed
>>>>>> is concerned.
>>>>>
>>>>> If they are near the same speed in space they would have near the
>>>>> same speed's contraction.
>>>> If they have the same speed they are stationary relative to each other, Roy.
>>>
>>> You said nearly the same... so what is your point?
>> "Nearly" the same meaning at a low relative speed, so low length
>> contraction so all is normal.
>>>>
>>>> You need to Google the word "relativity" and learn how it's used in SR.
>>>> Or even how it was used by Galileo.
>>>> Of course you'll refuse, because that's what Roy Masters does.
>>
>>>>> No. Contraction does not belong. It never did...
>> It is predicted by and required by SR. We have seen indirect effects of
>> length contraction. Even magnetic fields from a current-carrying wire
>> can be explained by length contraction.
>>>> SR contraction is how one frame sees/measures another moving at high
>>>> speed RELATIVE TO IT.
>>>
>>> Why does it wait for a measurement if it is by speed?
>> That question makes no sense.
>>> No you moron. Contraction does not exist.
>>>
>> But it does, despite your meaningless objections.
>
>
> Where is your contacted atom if both sides contract.

Whoever claimed that?

> You said orbitals would not be affected but they
> would have to contract... are you backing out
> by sating it goes both ways where it does not?

Everything is at rest in the frame it is at rest in. A tautology, but
that tautology really seems to confuse you. Because everything is at
rest in its own frame, it is obviously not contracted in its own frame.

> You are a moron.

You are the one confused by a tautology. You are an imbecile, moron is
too good of a term for you.

> It doesn't happen.
> What experiment has ever measured it?

Use Google to find out.

On Thursday, May 27, 2021 at 11:25:24 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 5/27/2021 2:44 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 27, 2021 at 10:35:55 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 5/26/2021 9:31 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, May 26, 2021 at 5:49:59 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>> On 5/26/2021 4:26 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, May 26, 2021 at 12:19:29 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> On 5/26/2021 2:16 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>> if contraction is real for the atom it would distort chemistry
> >>>>>>> by flattening the orbitals or shells..
> >>>>>> Roy Masters, such an atom is (obviously!) stationary relative to
> >>>>>> itself,

Then the other frames orbitals would be ruined by its contraction.

> >>>>>
> >>>>> No. It shares motion with its frame you moron...
> >>>> Meaning it's stationary in its own frame, Roy.

It is still moving...
> >>>
> >>> No. It is still in the moving frame you moron...
> >> Yet it is stationary in that frame. So anything else stationary in that
> >> frame will see it normal, no flattening and no distortion. And
> >> obviously, anything is stationary relative to itself so sees itself as
> >> normal.
> >>
> >> This is explained in all the websites you refuse to read, Roy.
> >>>>>> so the orbitals are not distorted or flattened as far as it's
> >>>>>> concerned,
> >>>
> >>> Then you agree with me that contraction does not happen
> >>> for the atom....
> >> Not relative to itself. It appears contracted to anything moving at
> >> high speed relative to it.

Either the atom contracts or it doesn't so which is it?
> >>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That shared relative speed of both frames to each other will contract
> >>>>> the atom. Why does it not?
> >>>> They are stationary relative to each other, Roy.

But they are also moving together...
> >>>
> >>> As a whole they move as a frame.
> >>> And that does not shrink.
> >>> That is my point.
> >> And it is stationary in its own frame, so it's normal.

No there is no absolute rest as frames always move as a whole...
> >>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> and as far as any other nearby atom moving at nearly the same speed
> >>>>>> is concerned.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If they are near the same speed in space they would have near the
> >>>>> same speed's contraction.
> >>>> If they have the same speed they are stationary relative to each other, Roy.
> >>>
> >>> You said nearly the same... so what is your point?
> >> "Nearly" the same meaning at a low relative speed

You can be nearly the same at high speed...

> >>>>
> >>>> You need to Google the word "relativity" and learn how it's used in SR.
> >>>> Or even how it was used by Galileo.
> >>>> Of course you'll refuse, because that's what Roy Masters does.
> >>
> >>>>> No. Contraction does not belong. It never did...
> >> It is predicted by and required by SR. We have seen indirect effects of
> >> length contraction. Even magnetic fields from a current-carrying wire
> >> can be explained by length contraction.
> >>>> SR contraction is how one frame sees/measures another moving at high
> >>>> speed RELATIVE TO IT.
> >>>
> >>> Why does it wait for a measurement if it is by speed?
> >> That question makes no sense.

Does contraction have to wait on measurement?
> >>> No you moron. Contraction does not exist.
> >>>
> >> But it does, despite your meaningless objections.

Where is the contraction?
> >
> >
> > Where is your contacted atom if both sides contract.
> Whoever claimed that?
> > You said orbitals would not be affected but they
> > would have to contract... are you backing out
> > by sating it goes both ways where it does not?
> Everything is at rest in the frame it is at rest in. A tautology, but
> that tautology really seems to confuse you. Because everything is at
> rest in its own frame, it is obviously not contracted in its own frame.

If any atom contracts it ruins the atom's orbital order...

> > You are a moron.
>
> You are the one confused by a tautology. You are an imbecile, moron is
> too good of a term for you.
> > It doesn't happen.
> > What experiment has ever measured it?
> Use Google to find out.

Internet confirmation bias is for you... not me...

Mitchell Raemsch