The Measurement of Contraction
Peri of Pera
The theory of relativity is presented as one that cannot be understood
by most people. This aura of complexity and difficulty is maintained
by using ambiguity and vagueness in describing and defining the theory
and defending it with even more ambiguity and vagueness against logic.
But what is it really? Stripped of all esoteric language it simply
means that physical objects (we may call them frames) that are capable
of motion (cars, trains, planes, the earth, planets, stars) will
shrink along the axis parallel to the motion and have their clocks
slow down. The effects are in proportion to the velocity of the object
and are called length contraction and time dilation. They can be
calculated using the transformation formulas that are the substance of
the Lorentz contraction hypothesis. But as the tools of measurement
(rulers, clocks) are also adjusted relative to the speed, any change
in metres and clock rates will not be noticed by anyone measuring
length or time in his environment (the local frame). Regardless of the
velocity of the local frame, things measured within the local frame by
local frame occupants always have the same size and the local frame
time always flows at the same rate.
However, the supporters of the relativity theories (both SR and LET)
have introduced the concepts of observed frame and observer frame. If
an observed frame and an observer frame travel at different speeds, it
is claimed that any contraction and dilation affecting the observed
object can be measured by an observer in the observer frame. A
procedure of measurement which will lead to 'the visibility of
contraction' is described in a textbook (Resnick, Introduction to
Special Relativity, 1968) as:
"An observer is an INFINITE set of recording clocks distributed
throughout space, AT REST and synchronized with respect to one
another. The space time co-ordinates of an event (x,y,z,t) are
recorded by the clock at the location (x,y,z) of the event at the time
(t) it occurs. Measurements thus recorded throughout space time (we
might call them local measurements) are then available to be PICKED UP
and ANALYSED by an EXPERIMENTER who collects the measurements made in
this way. Each inertial frame is IMAGINED to have such a set of
recording clocks, or such an observer. The relations between the space-
time co-ordinates of a physical event measured by one OBSERVER (S) and
the space-time co-ordinates of the same physical event measured by
another OBSERVER (S') are the equations of transformation".
Resnick uses the terms INFINITE, AT REST, PICKED UP, ANALYSED,
EXPERIMENTER, OBSERVER (S) and OBSERVER (S'). While the phraseology
may not prevent calculating contraction according to the Lorentz
formulas with a pencil on a piece of paper, it can surely never be
done in the field. It is a smokescreen to support the illusion that
contraction is a physical reality.
But let us ask questions about such a measurement. Event 1 is the
recording of location A of one end of a rod in space at time t by
observers S and S'. Event 2 is the recording of location B of the
other end of the rod also at time t by the same observers. The
experimenter picks up and analyses the four space time co-ordinates
made by the two observers. Will the answer be the contracted length of
the rod? How will the movement of the two observers relative to the
rod disclose the contracted length of the rod and not a distorted view
of it? How are optical, communicative and angular aspects included in
the measurement? What single fixed co-ordinate system is common to
both observers or is it only relative to observer S or observer S'?
How will the experimenter establish that the times t of the two
observers are simultaneous given that SR imposes a whole set of ifs
and buts on simultaneity? How will any difference in the speed the
observed object, S and S' be taken into account?
It all can be done on paper making assumptions but not as a real test.
The more ardent supporters of the contraction hypothesis assert that
proof is not required. Their argument is that to 'make predictions' is
sufficient or they will do the calculations manually and if these are
rejected or ignored by anyone, they accuse him of being incapable of
the maths and he should study the subject to understand the theory.
With understanding they mean accepting it without reservation. It is
the approach of all monotheistic religions which ostracise all non-
believers, excommunicate them, vilify them, and ultimately stone or
burn them. In this NG it is automatically practised against any member
who dares to reject SR or even question it.
Peter Riedt
jeckyl
news:68d664bf-7cbc-4725...@m34g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> The Measurement of Contraction
>
> The theory of relativity is presented as one that cannot be understood
> by most people.
Not 'cannot', just 'is difficult'
> This aura of complexity and difficulty is maintained
> by using ambiguity and vagueness in describing and defining the theory
No .. the theory is very clear and precise .. however, some popularisation
of it are vague and ambiguous, because they use colloquial terms that the
layman is more familiar with, and those terms are vague and ambiguous.
> and defending it with even more ambiguity and vagueness against logic.
There is nothing illogical about SR
> But what is it really? Stripped of all esoteric language it simply
> means that physical objects (we may call them frames) that are capable
> of motion (cars, trains, planes, the earth, planets, stars) will
> shrink along the axis parallel to the motion and have their clocks
> slow down.
No .. nothing happens to the object .. it can't do. Someone moving quickly
past you does not change you. But something happens to how they are
measured by things that move relative to them
> The effects are in proportion to the velocity of the object
No .. they are not in propoertion at all.
> and are called length contraction and time dilation.
You missed relativity or simultaneity .. so many people do, yet it is
probably the most important effect
> They can be
> calculated using the transformation formulas that are the substance of
> the Lorentz contraction hypothesis.
Why not just say "Lorentx transforms"
> But as the tools of measurement
> (rulers, clocks) are also adjusted relative to the speed,
Now you are talking LET, not SR. LET is the one that claim physical
shrinking and an absolute frame of reference and aboslute velocities etc
(its a bit like what KenSteo talks about, only LET is self-consistent)
> any change
> in metres and clock rates will not be noticed by anyone measuring
> length or time in his environment (the local frame). Regardless of the
> velocity of the local frame, things measured within the local frame by
> local frame occupants always have the same size and the local frame
> time always flows at the same rate.
Again, the above is not SR
> However, the supporters of the relativity theories (both SR and LET)
> have introduced the concepts of observed frame and observer frame.
Well, derr .. there isn't much physics able to be done if there is no
observer !!
> If
> an observed frame and an observer frame travel at different speeds, it
> is claimed that any contraction and dilation affecting the observed
> object can be measured by an observer in the observer frame.
There is no contraction and dilation in the observed object in SR .. there
is only a measurement of it from the observer frame.
> A
> procedure of measurement which will lead to 'the visibility of
> contraction' is described in a textbook (Resnick, Introduction to
> Special Relativity, 1968) as:
>
> "An observer is an INFINITE set of recording clocks distributed
> throughout space, AT REST and synchronized with respect to one
> another. The space time co-ordinates of an event (x,y,z,t) are
> recorded by the clock at the location (x,y,z) of the event at the time
> (t) it occurs. Measurements thus recorded throughout space time (we
> might call them local measurements) are then available to be PICKED UP
> and ANALYSED by an EXPERIMENTER who collects the measurements made in
> this way. Each inertial frame is IMAGINED to have such a set of
> recording clocks, or such an observer. The relations between the space-
> time co-ordinates of a physical event measured by one OBSERVER (S) and
> the space-time co-ordinates of the same physical event measured by
> another OBSERVER (S') are the equations of transformation".
>
> Resnick uses the terms INFINITE, AT REST, PICKED UP, ANALYSED,
> EXPERIMENTER, OBSERVER (S) and OBSERVER (S').
So?
> While the phraseology
> may not prevent calculating contraction according to the Lorentz
> formulas with a pencil on a piece of paper, it can surely never be
> done in the field.
We measure and calculate the positions, speeds, and lengths of moving
objects all the time .. what are you alking about?
> It is a smokescreen to support the illusion that
> contraction is a physical reality.
It isn't in SR. In LET it is a physical reality that we cannot measure
(which is rather pointless)
> But let us ask questions about such a measurement. Event 1 is the
> recording of location A of one end of a rod in space at time t by
> observers S and S'. Event 2 is the recording of location B of the
> other end of the rod also at time t by the same observers.
Yes .. that is what length is. The thing is, time t for S and time t for S'
are not simultaneous
> The
> experimenter picks up and analyses the four space time co-ordinates
> made by the two observers. Will the answer be the contracted length of
> the rod?
The rod isn't contracted (in SR) .. but he will see possible different
measured lengths by the two observers, depending on the relative velocities
of them compare to the rod. In LET the situation is the same, excpe that
the rod is said to possibly be contracted due to its absolute motion in the
ether, but what the observers observe is the same in either case.
> How will the movement of the two observers relative to the
> rod disclose the contracted length of the rod and not a distorted view
> of it?
There is no contracted length in SR, and it won't disclose the contracted
lenth in LET (you cannot determine what the contracted length is in LET)
> How are optical, communicative and angular aspects included in
> the measurement?
When we talk about what we the length of the rod is for the two observers to
be here, we make adjustments for those things .. ie it is what we measure
after tkaing into account the possible differences in transit time for
light, aberation etc etc..
> What single fixed co-ordinate system is common to
> both observers or is it only relative to observer S or observer S'?
It is relative. In LET there is an unknown absolute ether system of
coordinates, but that doesn't really make any difference.
> How will the experimenter establish that the times t of the two
> observers are simultaneous
They aren't
> given that SR imposes a whole set of ifs
> and buts on simultaneity? How will any difference in the speed the
> observed object, S and S' be taken into account?
In what way 'taken into account' .. the observers measure what they measure.
If you want to do some calculation using Lorentx transforms back to the
frame of the rod itself, then you get that the rod is the length of the rod
.. but what I assume you are actually interested in is the length of the rod
in the frames S and S' .. ite how much space the rod takes up at a given
time in those two frames respectively
> It all can be done on paper making assumptions but not as a real test.
No .. it can be done as a real test.
> The more ardent supporters of the contraction hypothesis assert that
> proof is not required.
We have experiments that indicate length contraction. It is more difficult
to measure as we need to get something up to very high speeds and measure
its length .. and that is tricky to do.
> Their argument is that to 'make predictions' is
> sufficient or they will do the calculations manually and if these are
> rejected or ignored by anyone, they accuse him of being incapable of
> the maths and he should study the subject to understand the theory.
Noone argues that.
> With understanding they mean accepting it without reservation. It is
> the approach of all monotheistic religions which ostracise all non-
> believers, excommunicate them, vilify them, and ultimately stone or
> burn them. In this NG it is automatically practised against any member
> who dares to reject SR or even question it.
Nonsense
rot...@gmail.com
> The Measurement of Contraction
>
> The theory of relativity is presented as one that cannot be understood
> by most people.
Unfortunately that is how it is often presented.
>This aura of complexity and difficulty is maintained
> by using ambiguity and vagueness in describing and defining the theory
Quite true. I often wondered why they would present the theory in such
a vague and confusing way, when it can be simply presented w/o
vagueness and confusions. Rare are the SR books which are well
presented.
I have come to the conclusion that SR authors are either clueless
about relativity and thus remain vague in its descriptions or that
those authors are just really bad pedagogists.
I am not saying that SR is wrong and I tend to say the opposite.
But I do say that SR is badly represented or described. If relativity
authors really wanted to, they can introduce SR
in simple terms well accessible to highschool students. But then SR
would loose all of its "mystery" and relativist would no longer be
viewed as "brilliant".
harry
"Peri of Pera" <rie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:68d664bf-7cbc-4725...@m34g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> The Measurement of Contraction
>
> The theory of relativity is presented as one that cannot be understood
> by most people. This aura of complexity and difficulty is maintained
> by using ambiguity and vagueness in describing and defining the theory
> and defending it with even more ambiguity and vagueness against logic.
> But what is it really? Stripped of all esoteric language it simply
> means that physical objects (we may call them frames) that are capable
> of motion (cars, trains, planes, the earth, planets, stars) will
> shrink along the axis parallel to the motion and have their clocks
> slow down. The effects are in proportion to the velocity of the object
> and are called length contraction and time dilation. They can be
> calculated using the transformation formulas that are the substance of
> the Lorentz contraction hypothesis.
Note: the transformation formulas do much more than that: they also account
for time dilation and define relativity of simultaneity.
> But as the tools of measurement
> (rulers, clocks) are also adjusted relative to the speed, any change
> in metres and clock rates will not be noticed by anyone measuring
> length or time in his environment (the local frame). Regardless of the
> velocity of the local frame, things measured within the local frame by
> local frame occupants always have the same size and the local frame
> time always flows at the same rate.
That is roughly the way Lorentz formulated the theory, and also close to
Einstein's earliest formulation. Presented like that, it's indeed rather
easy to understand.
> However, the supporters of the relativity theories (both SR and LET)
> have introduced the concepts of observed frame and observer frame.
"Observer frame" or "Local frame", what does it matter?! As long as one
knows what is meant. It becomes less good when next "observer frame" is
replaced by "observer": due to such jargon, all too many people fall in the
trap of confusing inertial coordinate system procedures with
quantum-mechanical "observer" effects.
What do you mean with "physical reality"?
> But let us ask questions about such a measurement. Event 1 is the
> recording of location A of one end of a rod in space at time t by
> observers S and S'. Event 2 is the recording of location B of the
> other end of the rod also at time t by the same observers. The
> experimenter picks up and analyses the four space time co-ordinates
> made by the two observers. Will the answer be the contracted length of
> the rod?
In principle, yes. In practice it's hard to test length contraction directly
because of the difficulty of creating high-speed extended objects and as the
effect is not cumulative. It's different however with time dilation which is
regularly measured.
> How will the movement of the two observers relative to the
> rod disclose the contracted length of the rod and not a distorted view
> of it? How are optical, communicative and angular aspects included in
> the measurement? What single fixed co-ordinate system is common to
> both observers or is it only relative to observer S or observer S'?
??? "observer S" *is* a co-ordinate system.
> How will the experimenter establish that the times t of the two
> observers are simultaneous given that SR imposes a whole set of ifs
> and buts on simultaneity?
It is *defined* as simultaneous. If the PoR is correct then more cannot be
done, if that is what you mean.
> How will any difference in the speed the
> observed object, S and S' be taken into account?
??? S and S' *are* the co-ordinate systems.
> It all can be done on paper making assumptions but not as a real test.
> The more ardent supporters of the contraction hypothesis assert that
> proof is not required. Their argument is that to 'make predictions' is
> sufficient or they will do the calculations manually and if these are
> rejected or ignored by anyone, they accuse him of being incapable of
> the maths and he should study the subject to understand the theory.
> With understanding they mean accepting it without reservation.
Certainly not. :-))
Instead, when taking into account every imagined possibility, no other
reasonable option remains.
> It is
> the approach of all monotheistic religions which ostracise all non-
> believers, excommunicate them, vilify them, and ultimately stone or
> burn them. In this NG it is automatically practised against any member
> who dares to reject SR or even question it.
No problem with questioning it - that's science! However, be prepared to
receive answers. :-)
Harald
Dirk Van de moortel
"Peri of Pera" <rie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:68d664bf-7cbc-4725...@m34g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> The Measurement of Contraction
> But let us ask questions about such a measurement. Event 1 is the
> recording of location A of one end of a rod in space at time t by
> observers S and S'.
This is wrong already.
First you decide in whose coordinate system the rod is
at rest. Let's assume that this is S. So for S' the rod is
moving, so S' must make sure he measures the events
simultaneously - otherwise he is just daft.
Event1 is something that happens on one end of a rod
at time t1' according to observer S'.
According to observer S who is at rest w.r.t. the rod,
this happens at some time t1.
According to S' the spatial coordinate of this event is x1'.
According to S the spatial coordinate of this event is x1
> Event 2 is the recording of location B of the
> other end of the rod also at time t by the same observers.
Wrong again
Event2 is something that happens on the other end of the rod
at the same time t2' = t1' according to the same observer S'.
According to observer S who is at rest w.r.t. the rod,
this happens at some time t2.
According to S' the spatial coordinate of this event is x2'.
According to S the spatial coordinate of this event is x2
If S' is to measure the lenght of the rod, he must make sure that
t1' = t2' ,
so he can *DEFINE* the "coordinate length" as
L' = | x1' - x2' |
For S the times t1 and t2 don't matter since he is at rest
w.r.t. the rod, so he *DEFINES* the "proper length" as
L = | x1 - x2 |
> The
> experimenter picks up and analyses the four space time co-ordinates
> made by the two observers.
I have counted 8 space time co-ordinates, two of which must
be identical: t1' = t2'.
> Will the answer be the contracted length of
> the rod? How will the movement of the two observers relative to the
> rod disclose the contracted length of the rod and not a distorted view
> of it?
If you do it correctly, you will get
L' = L / gamma
which says that the coordinate lenght is contracted w.r.t. to
the proper length.
> How are optical, communicative and angular aspects included in
> the measurement?
For both observers the times and the distance of events
are recorded by sending light signals to the events. This
has been explained to you before. See if you can find
how it is done.
In the one dimensional case there are no angles involved.
> What single fixed co-ordinate system is common to
> both observers
none.
> or is it only relative to observer S or observer S'?
> How will the experimenter establish that the times t of the two
> observers are simultaneous given that SR imposes a whole set of ifs
> and buts on simultaneity?
See above.
> How will any difference in the speed the
> observed object, S and S' be taken into account?
See above.
>
> It all can be done on paper making assumptions but not as a real test.
Indeed, this particular test never has been done.
We also never dropped you from a high tower to test whether
you will indeed fall.
> The more ardent supporters of the contraction hypothesis assert that
> proof is not required.
I don't think that you need a proof for your falling down
from a high tower either.
> Their argument is that to 'make predictions' is
> sufficient or they will do the calculations manually and if these are
> rejected or ignored by anyone,
They should also be consistent with all other experiments
which *have* been conducted (and which, by the way, are generally
ignored by most people on this forum)
> they accuse him of being incapable of
> the maths and he should study the subject to understand the theory.
> With understanding they mean accepting it without reservation. It is
> the approach of all monotheistic religions which ostracise all non-
> believers, excommunicate them, vilify them, and ultimately stone or
> burn them. In this NG it is automatically practised against any member
> who dares to reject SR or even question it.
No, rest assured, on this NG these people are not stoned or burned.
We just have a good laugh over them, and we use them for practice
for when we have to explain to our kids. Thanks for that. It has worked
superbly!
Dirk Vdm
Bryan Olson
> The Measurement of Contraction
>
> The theory of relativity is presented as one that cannot be understood
> by most people.
That's called "projecting".
> This aura of complexity and difficulty is maintained
> by using ambiguity and vagueness in describing and defining the theory
> and defending it with even more ambiguity and vagueness against logic.
> But what is it really? Stripped of all esoteric language it simply
> means that physical objects (we may call them frames) that are capable
> of motion (cars, trains, planes, the earth, planets, stars) will
> shrink along the axis parallel to the motion and have their clocks
> slow down. The effects are in proportion to the velocity of the object
> and are called length contraction and time dilation.
The "shrink" and dilation are not proportional to the velocity.
Peter, you've seen the formula for Lorentz "gamma". How you could
possibly think it's proportional to velocity?
SR is precise. Peter Riedt just doesn't know what the words mean,
not even words he uses.
--
--Bryan
Alen
> The Measurement of Contraction
[...]
One cannot really be surprised if SR appears to people
to be not well or clearly explained. It is in the peculiar
situation of something that is largely correct, and looks
like it could be completely correct, but is actually partly
wrong. In a situation like this, the most brilliant people
can explain it in all ways ad nauseum, and point to the
right final results but, somehow, the mind is always left
partially unsatisfied.
Why? I think that it is like the case of a room with
obstacles in it. No matter how people show you how
you can move about the room, you are always at least
slightly irritated and dissatisfied with the obstacles that
never get out of the way. They can tell you that they are
not obstacles, and you can easily move around them,
but you are not, and never can be persuaded.
A perfectly true theory will be experienced as something
of clarity, with everything manifestly in order, and in its
place. A theory hiding a subtle falsehood, however small,
however, will never give such an experience, and people
will therefore be forever questioning it and feeling perplexed,
even when they cannot put their finger on what it is about
the theory that seems unsatisfactory.
Such is the case with SR
Alen
Dirk Van de moortel
"Alen" <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote in message news:f9d43ae2-9650-4a4d...@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
> One cannot really be surprised if SR appears to
less gifted
> people
> to be not well or clearly explained. It is in the peculiar
> situation of something that is largely correct, and looks
> like it could be completely correct, but is
in the eyes of less gifted people
> actually partly
> wrong. In a situation like this, the most brilliant people
> can explain it in all ways ad nauseum, and point to the
> right final results but, somehow, the
less gifted
> mind is always left
> partially unsatisfied.
>
> Why? I think that it is like the case of a room with
> obstacles in it. No matter how people show you how
> you can move about the room, you are always at least
> slightly irritated and dissatisfied with the obstacles that
> never get out of the way. They can tell you that they are
> not obstacles, and you can easily move around them,
> but you are not, and never can be persuaded.
>
> A perfectly true theory will be experienced as something
> of clarity, with everything manifestly in order, and in its
> place. A theory hiding a subtle falsehood, however small,
> however, will never give such an experience, and people
> will therefore be forever questioning it and feeling perplexed,
> even when they cannot put their finger on what it is about
> the theory that seems unsatisfactory.
>
> Such is the case with
your and most crackpot's understanding of
> SR
Severy less gifted
> Alen
Dirk Vdm
wugi
> "Peri of Pera" :
> > The Measurement of Contraction
> >
> > The theory of relativity is presented as one that cannot be understood
> > by most people.
>
> Not 'cannot', just 'is difficult'
Restricting oneself to the usual algebraic axiomatics and the establishment
of Lorentz transforms, I had the opposite problem: it seemed too simple, yet
it evaded our intuition...
> > This aura of complexity and difficulty is maintained
> > by using ambiguity and vagueness in describing and defining the theory
>
> No .. the theory is very clear and precise .. however, some popularisation
> of it are vague and ambiguous, because they use colloquial terms that the
> layman is more familiar with, and those terms are vague and ambiguous.
>
> > and defending it with even more ambiguity and vagueness against logic.
>
> There is nothing illogical about SR
... so I once decided to have a go at a truly intuitive approach of its
axiomatics. In my case (and I take it, in many people's:) that would mean:
geometry and graphic rendering.
> > But what is it really? Stripped of all esoteric language it simply
> > means that physical objects (we may call them frames) that are capable
> > of motion (cars, trains, planes, the earth, planets, stars) will
> > shrink along the axis parallel to the motion and have their clocks
> > slow down.
>
> No .. nothing happens to the object .. it can't do. Someone moving
quickly
> past you does not change you. But something happens to how they are
> measured by things that move relative to them
>
> > The effects are in proportion to the velocity of the object
>
> No .. they are not in propoertion at all.
>
> > and are called length contraction and time dilation.
>
> You missed relativity or simultaneity .. so many people do, yet it is
> probably the most important effect
Agreed. A result of an "isotropy of = equality of light clocks" axiom (*),
easily taken for granted in a rest frame, but a real hypothesis when
realising that there is no such thing as an all round rest frame...
(*) actually my axiom 4 in the page below, under "MySRT".
See also axiom 5 and comments following:
<"
Axiom 4, put to comparison between different inertial systems, yields
differential simultaneity.
Axioms 4 and 5 yield length contraction and time dilation.
Another result is the constancy of light speed, as a common feature of all
light clocks, their isotropy meaning same light time for same distance, but
being aware of what 'distance' means in different systems.
Actually, understanding the properties of light clocks, and their role as
basic gauge tools for measuring length and time in any system, with any
ruler and clock equipment, is my cornerstone for an intuitive and
geometrical understanding of SRT. The Michelson-Morley experiment may with
hindsight be re-interpreted as an attempt to prove light clocks not being
true (isotropic) clocks !
">
SRT made easy, intuitive, geometrically and logically satisfactory:
http://home.scarlet.be/~pin12499/paratwin.htm
SRT in my QBasic pages with some graphic examples:
http://home.scarlet.be/~pin12499/qbRelaty.html
guido
wugi
<rot...@gmail.com> :
<guido:>
Let's see if you don't find my approach perhaps less vague, clueless,
confusing (if a bit messy, yes:-), mysterious :
Androcles
"wugi" <br...@scarlet.be> wrote in message
news:47accedb$0$829$5f6a...@news.scarlet.nl...
| "jeckyl" :
| > "Peri of Pera" :
| > > The Measurement of Contraction
| > >
| > > The theory of relativity is presented as one that cannot be understood
| > > by most people.
| >
| > Not 'cannot', just 'is difficult'
|
| Restricting oneself to the usual algebraic axiomatics and the
establishment
| of Lorentz transforms, I had the opposite problem: it seemed too simple,
yet
| it evaded our intuition...
Go a step further.
Intuition says believe what you see and intuition says velocities add.
One conflicts with the other, don't rely on intuition.
If you believe what you see then this pencil broken:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/geoopt/optpic/brokpen.jpg
If you use GR to calculate the time on Earth vs the time on the Moon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation
tf = 1,000,000 years
gravitational constant G = 6.673E-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2
Mass of Earth = 5.9736E+24 kg
r = 385000 km (distance to Moon)
c = 299792.458 km/sec
t0 = 994222.168323667
An observer on Earth measures the Moon making ~6 more
orbits around the Sun in a thousand years, as prophesied
by Einstein. You'd think someone would notice by now.
Einstein's pathetic mathematics isn't just counter-intuitive, it's
"believe what you see" crap.
Androcles
|
| <rot...@gmail.com> :
| >> The Measurement of Contraction
| >
| >> The theory of relativity is presented as one that cannot be understood
| > by most people.
|
| > Unfortunately that is how it is often presented.
|
| >> This aura of complexity and difficulty is maintained
| > by using ambiguity and vagueness in describing and defining the theory
|
| > Quite true. I often wondered why they would present the theory in such
| a vague and confusing way, when it can be simply presented w/o
| vagueness and confusions. Rare are the SR books which are well
| presented.
|
| > I have come to the conclusion that SR authors are either clueless
| about relativity and thus remain vague in its descriptions or that
| those authors are just really bad pedagogists.
|
| > I am not saying that SR is wrong and I tend to say the opposite.
| But I do say that SR is badly represented or described. If relativity
| authors really wanted to, they can introduce SR
| in simple terms well accessible to highschool students. But then SR
| would loose all of its "mystery" and relativist would no longer be
| viewed as "brilliant".
|
| <guido:>
| Let's see if you don't find my approach perhaps less vague, clueless,
| confusing (if a bit messy, yes:-), mysterious:
There is no mystery to bullshit.
'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/tAB=tBA.gif
4 = 12 according to the cretin Einstein.
jeckyl
news:rI3rj.68874$801....@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "wugi" <br...@scarlet.be> wrote in message
> news:47accedb$0$829$5f6a...@news.scarlet.nl...
> | "jeckyl" :
> | > "Peri of Pera" :
> | > > The Measurement of Contraction
> | > >
> | > > The theory of relativity is presented as one that cannot be
> understood
> | > > by most people.
> | >
> | > Not 'cannot', just 'is difficult'
> |
> | Restricting oneself to the usual algebraic axiomatics and the
> establishment
> | of Lorentz transforms, I had the opposite problem: it seemed too simple,
> yet
> | it evaded our intuition...
>
> Go a step further.
> Intuition says believe what you see and intuition says velocities add.
SR gives you the same answers that we see in everyday life .. so
(intuitively) SR is just as right regarding what most of us see of the world
most of the time.
> One conflicts with the other, don't rely on intuition.
But when we look at things with greater velocities, we see that velocities
do not just add as vectors when we change frames of reference. We see a
constant speed of light despite source speed. WE see time dilating. SR
describes better what we do see.
Intuition says believe what we see .. and we see SR works better.
jeckyl
> There is no mystery to bullshit.
> 'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
> light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
> to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/tAB=tBA.gif
That diagrams does NOT describe what the statement shows. The A and B in
that are fixed points in a frame of reference .. not moving ones . You've
been told repeatedly, and keep showing your misreprentations. that is
called dishonesty .. that makes you a liar and a fraud just like Henri
Wilson.
xxein
>
> - Show quoted text -
xxein: I wouldn't even have to url to know it is incomplete.
jeckyl
> http://home.scarlet.be/~pin12499/paratwin.htm
The presentation there seems to make it harder, unintuitive and an
incoherent mess. Nice that you've tried, but I think you've failed.
xxein
> "Peri of Pera" <rie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in messagenews:68d664bf-7cbc-4725...@m34g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > The Measurement of Contraction
>
> > The theory of relativity is presented as one that cannot be understood
> > by most people. This aura of complexity and difficulty is maintained
> > by using ambiguity and vagueness in describing and defining the theory
> > and defending it with even more ambiguity and vagueness against logic.
> > But what is it really? Stripped of all esoteric language it simply
> > means that physical objects (we may call them frames) that are capable
> > of motion (cars, trains, planes, the earth, planets, stars) will
> > shrink along the axis parallel to the motion and have their clocks
> > slow down. The effects are in proportion to the velocity of the object
> > and are called length contraction and time dilation. They can be
> > calculated using the transformation formulas that are the substance of
> > the Lorentz contraction hypothesis.
>
> Note: the transformation formulas do much more than that: they also account
> for time dilation and define relativity of simultaneity.
xxein: Hi, Harry. Standard explanation, but what about the
unobserved physic where a subjectively measured relativeness doesn't
matter? What is the explanation/description for that?
>
> > But as the tools of measurement
> > (rulers, clocks) are also adjusted relative to the speed, any change
> > in metres and clock rates will not be noticed by anyone measuring
> > length or time in his environment (the local frame). Regardless of the
> > velocity of the local frame, things measured within the local frame by
> > local frame occupants always have the same size and the local frame
> > time always flows at the same rate.
>
> That is roughly the way Lorentz formulated the theory, and also close to
> Einstein's earliest formulation. Presented like that, it's indeed rather
> easy to understand.
... as a relative method of measurement.
>
> > However, the supporters of the relativity theories (both SR and LET)
> > have introduced the concepts of observed frame and observer frame.
>
> "Observer frame" or "Local frame", what does it matter?! As long as one
> knows what is meant. It becomes less good when next "observer frame" is
> replaced by "observer": due to such jargon, all too many people fall in the
> trap of confusing inertial coordinate system procedures with
> quantum-mechanical "observer" effects.
C'mon Harry. Qm "observers' just localize it more. It's all the same
frame vs. frame. All qm does is focus more intensely and lose gravity
as a more macro part of the physic.
So is the observer S'. They are different. What defines the physic
for this difference (and not just their relative difference)?
>
> > How will the experimenter establish that the times t of the two
> > observers are simultaneous given that SR imposes a whole set of ifs
> > and buts on simultaneity?
>
> It is *defined* as simultaneous. If the PoR is correct then more cannot be
> done, if that is what you mean.
Poo. I define the PoR as a subjective collection of observation (made
into a physical theory) of measureable relationships with no
underlying physical atributes. There is no common thread that unites
the micro to the macro (try gravity) despite the current tries. But I
did mention to you, some time ago, that I was doing it.
>
> > How will any difference in the speed the
> > observed object, S and S' be taken into account?
>
> ??? S and S' *are* the co-ordinate systems.
Yeaaaay. So what unites them in the underlying physic?
>
> > It all can be done on paper making assumptions but not as a real test.
> > The more ardent supporters of the contraction hypothesis assert that
> > proof is not required. Their argument is that to 'make predictions' is
> > sufficient or they will do the calculations manually and if these are
> > rejected or ignored by anyone, they accuse him of being incapable of
> > the maths and he should study the subject to understand the theory.
> > With understanding they mean accepting it without reservation.
>
> Certainly not. :-))
> Instead, when taking into account every imagined possibility, no other
> reasonable option remains.
The "TR hmm" is in order here. You will say that cavemen cannot make
computers. WHY NOT???
>
> > It is
> > the approach of all monotheistic religions which ostracise all non-
> > believers, excommunicate them, vilify them, and ultimately stone or
> > burn them. In this NG it is automatically practised against any member
> > who dares to reject SR or even question it.
>
> No problem with questioning it - that's science! However, be prepared to
> receive answers. :-)
You seem to believe that you have all the answers already and that no
more are needed or to be considered. Did I get that right?
>
> Harald- Hide quoted text -
Peri of Pera
> "Peri of Pera" <rie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in messagenews:68d664bf-7cbc-4725...@m34g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > The Measurement of Contraction
>
Jecko,
Your version of SR is a very strange one.
I said: Physical objects (we may call them frames) that are
capable of motion (cars, trains, planes, the earth, planets, stars)
will
shrink along the axis parallel to the motion and have their clocks
slow down.
You replied: No .. nothing happens to the object .. it can't do.
Someone moving
quickly past you does not change you. But something happens to how
they are
measured by things that move relative to them.
Einstein writes in 1916 (Relativity: The Special and General Theory,
Chapter 16): "The contraction of moving bodies follows from the two
fundamental principles of the theory". This statement by AE is
unqualified. It does not assume as you do that something happens to
moving bodies because they are measured by things that move relative
to them. Utter nonsense. Don't try to re-interpret SR in order to
defend it and study it before you lecture on it.
Peter Riedt
Peri of Pera
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Peri of Pera" <rie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in messagenews:68d664bf-7cbc-4725...@m34g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Dirk,
thank you for your comments which will help me somewhat. However, the
point I am trying to make is that contraction has not (as you
agreed)and can not be made visible by any procedure because it does
not eventuate in nature but is only a hypothetical mathematical
exercise. It all started with the misunderstood MMX and Lorentz's
attempt to explain the null result by conjecture.
Peter Riedt
Alen
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Alen" <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote in messagenews:f9d43ae2-9650-4a4d...@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
I suppose you must persuade yourself of that.
After all, where would you be if you had to think that
I, or any of the others, was actually gifted? In an
unthinkable quandary, probably! No! It MUST never
be possible that any of us could be 'gifted'!
But the other side of the coin is that the supposedly
gifted are able to blind themselves with their own
cleverness, so that they are not able to see past
the brilliance of their own mental constructs, even
if they are wrong.
Gifted or not, I can see perfectly well what is the
reason for a hyperbolic spacetime, and what it is
supposed to achieve, but I can also see that it is
a conceptual hogs breakfast, as someone else
remarked, and can never actually work as a
physical reality!
Alen
jeckyl
news:7fa0ee4e-3f9a-448e...@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 8, 4:42 am, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@epfl.ch> wrote:
> "Peri of Pera" <rie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
> messagenews:68d664bf-7cbc-4725...@m34g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > The Measurement of Contraction
>
> > The theory of relativity is presented as one that cannot be understood
> > by most people. This aura of complexity and difficulty is maintained
> > by using ambiguity and vagueness in describing and defining the theory
> > and defending it with even more ambiguity and vagueness against logic.
> > But what is it really? Stripped of all esoteric language it simply
> > means that physical objects (we may call them frames) that are capable
> > of motion (cars, trains, planes, the earth, planets, stars) will
> > shrink along the axis parallel to the motion and have their clocks
> > slow down. The effects are in proportion to the velocity of the object
> > and are called length contraction and time dilation. They can be
> > calculated using the transformation formulas that are the substance of
> > the Lorentz contraction hypothesis.
>
>> Note: the transformation formulas do much more than that: they also
>> account
>> for time dilation and define relativity of simultaneity.
>
>xxein: Hi, Harry. Standard explanation, but what about the
>unobserved physic
What unobserved physic?
> where a subjectively measured relativeness
There is no subjectively measured relativeness in SR
> doesn't matter?
It doesn't amtter anyway
> What is the explanation/description for that?
There is no 'that'
[snip]
>So is the observer S'. They are different. What defines the physic
>for this difference (and not just their relative difference)?
SR does .. the only difference in SR is how tow different observers measure
some other object
>> > How will any difference in the speed the
>> > observed object, S and S' be taken into account?
>>
>> ??? S and S' *are* the co-ordinate systems.
>
>Yeaaaay. So what unites them in the underlying physic?
What underlying 'phsysic' .. and in what way do you think they are 'united'
jeckyl
>Gifted or not, I can see perfectly well what is the
>reason for a hyperbolic spacetime, and what it is
>supposed to achieve, but I can also see that it is
>a conceptual hogs breakfast, as someone else
>remarked, and can never actually work as a
>physical reality!
Its a model for what reality is .. and it work very well indeed. Noone
claims a model in physics *is* reality .. it is just a
conceptual/mathematical model of reality as we observe/measure it.
jeckyl
> On Feb 8, 9:25 am, "jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> "Peri of Pera" <rie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
>> messagenews:68d664bf-7cbc-4725...@m34g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > The Measurement of Contraction
>>
> Jecko,
> Your version of SR is a very strange one.
No .. it is the standard one. Maybe that's why you think it is strange,
because you don't understand SR.
> I said: Physical objects (we may call them frames) that are
> capable of motion (cars, trains, planes, the earth, planets, stars)
> will
> shrink along the axis parallel to the motion and have their clocks
> slow down.
No .. they don't shrink or have their clock slowed .. nothing happens ot the
object. Like when you hear a whistle from a moving train, the sounds is a
different pitch. Does that mean something happened to the whistle on the
train itself .. no .. its still got the same pitch as always .. it is just
an observer measures/hears the pitch as different.
> You replied: No .. nothing happens to the object .. it can't do.
That's right
> Someone moving
> quickly past you does not change you.
That's right
> But something happens to how
> they are measured by things that move relative to them.
Nothing 'happens to' how they are measured .. that's just how how much
spacetime the moving object occupies.
> Einstein writes in 1916 (Relativity: The Special and General Theory,
> Chapter 16): "The contraction of moving bodies follows from the two
> fundamental principles of the theory". This statement by AE is
> unqualified. It does not assume as you do that something happens to
> moving bodies because they are measured by things that move relative
> to them.
No .. that was *your* assumption .. I said the *nothing* happens. Can't you
even read what was written?
> Utter nonsense.
Yes .. what you wrote was utter nonsense.
> Don't try to re-interpret SR in order to
> defend it and study it before you lecture on it.
I am not reintpretting SR. *You* are the one trying to do so, even though
you have problems understanding it. What I say is completely in line with
what SR says. There is no change to the proper length and time of a body
when an observer is moving relative to it. Ther eis a difference in the
measured length and times by the moving observer .. that is call 'length
contraction' and 'time dilation' (and don't forget the simultaneity effects)
.. That is what Einstein was talking about. That contraction .. the shorter
measurement of length .. is real. The object *really does* take up less
physical space at a given time in the observer's frame of reference .. and
that is what we are talking about when we talk about measured length.
jeckyl
> However, the
> point I am trying to make is that contraction has not (as you
> agreed)and can not be made visible by any procedure
Yes .. it can
> because it does not eventuate in nature
Yes. . it does
> but is only a hypothetical mathematical exercise.
No .. it is not
> It all started with the misunderstood MMX and Lorentz's
> attempt to explain the null result by conjecture.
No .. it didn't
You really are *very* confused. Please.. go and study and (more
importantly) learn.
wugi
>> Dirk Vdm
> Dirk,
> thank you for your comments which will help me somewhat. However, the
point I am trying to make is that contraction has not (as you
agreed)and can not be made visible by any procedure because it does
not eventuate in nature but is only a hypothetical mathematical
exercise.
- - -
Even if it remained so (you are well aware that macro-"solids" and
relativitic speeds combine with difficulty:-) there is no point in doubting
about it.
You're worried about the reciprocal conclusions, as Andro seems to do?
"If a shrinks to b, how can b shrink to a?"
" If a lags behind b, how can b lag behind a?"
You're baffled by the pole-barn paradox?
There's nothing weird or exclusively Einsteinian to that, it occurs in
non-relativistic cases at will...
There are really 4 quantities to be compared, say, a and a', b and b', ie a
"proper" (a,b) and a third party (a',b') one.
As for the relativistic case, this is the situation:
http://home.scarlet.be/~pin12499/MySRT/LorentzObjects.PNG
see
http://home.scarlet.be/~pin12499/paratwin.htm
guido
Alen
A DVD player can reproduce a very good observational
likeness of a reality on its screen, but no one would
conclude that there must be a giant DVD_player_like
source as the basis of the reality of the earth or the
cosmos. That is, a DVD player can reproduce an
observational likeness of reality, but it doesn't model
the manner in which the reality itself produces it.
Likewise, hyperbolic spacetime may produce some
results consistent with experiment, but it doesn't
follow that it models the mechanism in nature by
which such results are produced. If it doesn't, some
people may find it satisfactory nevertheless. But I
say that, if a model in science doesn't model the
mechanism that produces the results, as well as
the results themselves, then it contributes nothing to
what could be called the 'understanding' of nature.
Hyperbolic spacetime is in this category of models
which are useless for the 'understanding' of reality.
Alen
xxein
>
> - Show quoted text -
xxein: If you would study physics, rather than memorizing a text and
a specific math, you might have a chance to find out. Try inventing
concepts instead of adopting from already existing ones.
Co-ordinate systems and their usefulness is not the issue here. The
issue is the physical structure they attempt to describe within their
overall functional domain. The mapping we presently use has it's
basis in static condition. We modified it to include, not only
movement, but gradient movement that is defined by non-linear fields
like gravity. What we did was to simply put a field overlay onto a
pre-existing static system. We did NOT put a dynamic into the co-
ordinate system itself.
The universe is fluid, not static. Its co-ordinates are fluid. Point
"A" is not here anymore. It is now over there. What we presently do
is overlay pertinent fields onto a static map. One for each bit of
gravitational matter. We say, then, that particle "Z" has moved from
point "A" to point "B".
It would seem that either will map the whole system (universe), but
the conceptual difference allows for a different understanding of what
inertial movement IS. You might think that there is no problem
there. But there is.
The gedanken here is that there is a lone large body and a small
(test) pebble located parsecs away. Both temporarily static (a
gedanken, after all). The pebble will "gravitate" toward the mass
(don't even quibble about the mass also moving toward the pebble ---
granted). As the pebble gets closer, has its velocity changed? How
about wrt the speed of light?
You might argue that there is no practical or significant difference
that is very meaningful. Then, I would say that you don't really know
how the underlying physic unites.
The pebble either has an increasing inertial velocity in the presently
used co-ordinate system or its inertial velocity remains unchanged in
a fluid co-ordinate system. In one, its speed varies wrt c. In the
other its speed remains constant wrt c. Exit gedanken.
We can test this rather easily. We can do this with a modified Pound-
Rebka, Pound-Snider. Evacuate a vertical tube and send a radioactive
sample past a counter-clock with photo-electric detectors to control
the on-off for the measuring cycle. Set up trapped adjustable springs
to provide velocity for up and down velocities. Use another clock
merely to adjust the springs and verify the speed of the material as
it passes the photo-electric detectors both up and down.
In this way, you can measure the amount of emitted particles (Geiger)
for a fixed distance of transit and verify that the transit time
remained the same. My predictive result is a ratio that depends on
the selected velocity. For a velocity of 1k m/s, each detection would
increase by 1.3E-10:1 in the downward direction and decrease by
1.19E-10:1 for the upward direction compared to a "parked" detection
(1:1).
This means that a rising clock has a slower timerate than a falling
clock at the same place and time. The conclusions drawn from Pound-
Rebka-Snider are just assumptively based. Some have merit, some are
just imaginary based upon the whole concept. This (mine vs. Pound) is
not addressed by GR. There is no conclusion that can be extracted
from GR. It is simply an assumption of GR that the clocks will have
the same timerate. Do you trust that assumption?
Can you now see how the concept of a co-ordinate system either steers
or prevents an understanding of the physic?
Nobody can claim to be an expert in these matters. We may get
numerous degrees from teaching establishments that tell us so, but we
are all novices. There are many that graduated from GR U., but not
from gravity U. I started in gravity U. in 1989 (~age 45). The first
minute of the "introductory course" is what you are getting right now.
I know that similar thoughts and ideas have been presented before. I
have found the same major faults as you all have. I only wish that I
could find fault with mine to force me out of this crazy arena. But I
almost did, once. This is cool stuff. Listen.
In 1985, I wanted to explore and understand Einstein's theories. They
did not contain a physical logic to me. If Lorentz hadn't existed, I
could have created him. All good until I remembered that we have
gravity. I tried like hell to 'fit' a gravity. I quit 3 or 4 times
over this. Just a good math exercise to nowhere.
One day, out of that nowhere, a concept came to me. It was genuinely
stupid for any thinking I had at the time. But out of novelty, I
wanted to dismiss it with a proof. It did not happen no matter how
hard I tried. Test after test, it remained viable. And tested to
this day. I've got gravity.
How are you doing with that?
You can color me stupid and continue to ride on the bandwagon if you
want, but all that wagon can do right now is go around in the same
circle and hope it finds recyclable trash to use in a different way
and call it a new technology. That's not bad until you compare it to
a new science.
Have a nice day and don't bother to respond unless you want to learn
something new.
What! There's nothing new to learn?
Peri of Pera
> "Peri of Pera" <rie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in messagenews:9ff5f418-199c-4055...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Jecko,
you have no arguments only assertions: Yes it does, No it doesn't - ad
nauseam.
Lorentz contraction hypothesis states that bodies moving through space
contract along the direction of motion. Einstein adopted this
position. This is Let and SR.
Your denial of this fact is just childish. But worse is the number of
times you repeat it.
Peter Riedt
Androcles
Geez you stupid shit.
Bryan Olson
> "jeckyl" wrote:
[...]
>> .. That is what Einstein was talking about. That contraction .. the shorter
>> measurement of length .. is real. The object *really does* take up less
>> physical space at a given time in the observer's frame of reference .. and
>> that is what we are talking about when we talk about measured length.
>
> Jecko,
> you have no arguments only assertions: Yes it does, No it doesn't - ad
> nauseam.
Well, no... you are missing it. Jeckyl is offering *explanations*.
One could assert they are arguments or argue they are assertions, but
either of those misses the real... uh... explanation.
Peter, what you've been writing about SR has been nonsense. (If you
think asserting that arbitrarily, just look up our recent discussions;
I worked through the details, even the math.) Jeckyl is trying to clue
you in.
> Lorentz contraction hypothesis states that bodies moving through space
> contract along the direction of motion. Einstein adopted this
> position. This is Let and SR.
And that is part of what Jeckyl is emphasizing. As he wrote, "The
object *really does* take up less physical space at a given time
in the observer's frame of reference."
Jeckyl also said "There is no change to the proper length and time
of a body when an observer is moving relative to it." To understand
this bit, you need to understand "proper length" and "proper time".
These are *not* vague/ambiguous hand-waves. These are precise,
specific terms. You could look them up.
> Your denial of this fact is just childish. But worse is the number of
> times you repeat it.
> Peter Riedt
Peter, you claimed, "This aura of complexity and difficulty is
maintained by using ambiguity and vagueness in describing and
defining the theory and defending it with even more ambiguity
and vagueness against logic." No, you are wrong on that. The theory
is definite, precise. Jeckyl's explanations of length or time "in
the observer's frame of reference," and his references to "the
proper length and time" are neither vague nor ambiguous. Furthermore,
the two measures are not the same thing; the "proper" measure is not
the same thing as the measure in a different "observer's frame of
reference."
You will not and cannot understand relativity, nor any other
significant theory, if you are unwilling to accept that it may go
beyond what you already know, or think you know. Terminology is not
ambiguous simply because you personally do not know what it means,
and scientific questions do not remain open just because you refuse
to learn the answers.
--
--Bryan
harry
"xxein" <xx...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:7fa0ee4e-3f9a-448e...@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> "Peri of Pera" <rie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
> messagenews:68d664bf-7cbc-4725...@m34g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > The Measurement of Contraction
>
> > The theory of relativity is presented as one that cannot be understood
> > by most people. This aura of complexity and difficulty is maintained
> > by using ambiguity and vagueness in describing and defining the theory
> > and defending it with even more ambiguity and vagueness against logic.
> > But what is it really? Stripped of all esoteric language it simply
> > means that physical objects (we may call them frames) that are capable
> > of motion (cars, trains, planes, the earth, planets, stars) will
> > shrink along the axis parallel to the motion and have their clocks
> > slow down. The effects are in proportion to the velocity of the object
> > and are called length contraction and time dilation. They can be
> > calculated using the transformation formulas that are the substance of
> > the Lorentz contraction hypothesis.
>
> Note: the transformation formulas do much more than that: they also
> account
> for time dilation and define relativity of simultaneity.
: xxein: Hi, Harry. Standard explanation, but what about the
unobserved physic where a subjectively measured relativeness doesn't
matter? What is the explanation/description for that?
See below, one possible explanation is that by Lorentz.
>
> > But as the tools of measurement
> > (rulers, clocks) are also adjusted relative to the speed, any change
> > in metres and clock rates will not be noticed by anyone measuring
> > length or time in his environment (the local frame). Regardless of the
> > velocity of the local frame, things measured within the local frame by
> > local frame occupants always have the same size and the local frame
> > time always flows at the same rate.
>
> That is roughly the way Lorentz formulated the theory, and also close to
> Einstein's earliest formulation. Presented like that, it's indeed rather
> easy to understand.
: ... as a relative method of measurement.
Indeed, but still more than that: the measurable effects hint at possible
interpretations - which themselves are beyond our reach of verification.
> > However, the supporters of the relativity theories (both SR and LET)
> > have introduced the concepts of observed frame and observer frame.
>
> "Observer frame" or "Local frame", what does it matter?! As long as one
> knows what is meant. It becomes less good when next "observer frame" is
> replaced by "observer": due to such jargon, all too many people fall in
> the
> trap of confusing inertial coordinate system procedures with
> quantum-mechanical "observer" effects.
: C'mon Harry. Qm "observers' just localize it more. It's all the same
frame vs. frame. All qm does is focus more intensely and lose gravity
as a more macro part of the physic.
Hmm... no. In QM observations imply physical interferences with the
observed. Not so in SRT which instead uses coordinate systems that are
assumed NOT to interfere. In that sense, SRT is "classical".
[...]
> > How will the movement of the two observers relative to the
> > rod disclose the contracted length of the rod and not a distorted view
> > of it? How are optical, communicative and angular aspects included in
> > the measurement? What single fixed co-ordinate system is common to
> > both observers or is it only relative to observer S or observer S'?
>
> ??? "observer S" *is* a co-ordinate system.
: So is the observer S'. They are different. What defines the physic
for this difference (and not just their relative difference)?
I think you know my interpretation. ;-)
But no known measurement can directly prove interpretations, and the OP
apparently isn't interested in such philosophical discussions.
BTW, for discussions about such foundational issues you are welcome to give
input in sci.physics.foundations. :-)
> > How will the experimenter establish that the times t of the two
> > observers are simultaneous given that SR imposes a whole set of ifs
> > and buts on simultaneity?
>
> It is *defined* as simultaneous. If the PoR is correct then more cannot be
> done, if that is what you mean.
: Poo. I define the PoR as a subjective collection of observation (made
into a physical theory) of measureable relationships with no
underlying physical atributes.
Here I say boo: measurable relationships certainly depend on undelying
physical attributes!
: There is no common thread that unites
the micro to the macro (try gravity) despite the current tries. But I
did mention to you, some time ago, that I was doing it.
Did you succeed?
> > How will any difference in the speed the
> > observed object, S and S' be taken into account?
>
> ??? S and S' *are* the co-ordinate systems.
: Yeaaaay. So what unites them in the underlying physic?
Newton (as well as Einstein) would probably say that they both have zero
rotational velocity relative to Space, while Mach would say that they have
zero rotational velocity relative to the stars!
> > It all can be done on paper making assumptions but not as a real test.
> > The more ardent supporters of the contraction hypothesis assert that
> > proof is not required. Their argument is that to 'make predictions' is
> > sufficient or they will do the calculations manually and if these are
> > rejected or ignored by anyone, they accuse him of being incapable of
> > the maths and he should study the subject to understand the theory.
> > With understanding they mean accepting it without reservation.
>
> Certainly not. :-))
> Instead, when taking into account every imagined possibility, no other
> reasonable option remains.
: The "TR hmm" is in order here. You will say that cavemen cannot make
computers. WHY NOT???
Agree. :-) Immediately after sending I realised that the phrasing was a bit
too dogmatic, and even I myself have looked into the possibility of a
variant. Retake:
When taking into account every imagined possibility that we know of, length
contraction seems to be the only reasonable option (at least in the
direction of motion). For the detailed "why", I can send you a copy of a
conference paper that relates to this topic if you like.
> > It is
> > the approach of all monotheistic religions which ostracise all non-
> > believers, excommunicate them, vilify them, and ultimately stone or
> > burn them. In this NG it is automatically practised against any member
> > who dares to reject SR or even question it.
>
> No problem with questioning it - that's science! However, be prepared to
> receive answers. :-)
: You seem to believe that you have all the answers already and that no
more are needed or to be considered. Did I get that right?
No, certainly not! There are too many unsolved questions. However, on many
of his questions very solid answers can be given.
Cheers,
Harald
harry
On Feb 8, 11:43 pm, "jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> "xxein" <xx...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
Falling Space theories. I thought that they are incompible with Gravity
probe A. However, I later saw the counter claim that the results are
compatible with both stationary and falling space hypotheses (I haven't seen
the calculation though). If the compatibility is that great, then maybe
we'll never know!
Take care.
Harald
Androcles
"Bryan Olson" <fakea...@nowhere.org> wrote in message
news:DbTrj.9666$J41....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net...
| Peri of Pera wrote:
| > "jeckyl" wrote:
| [...]
| >> .. That is what Einstein was talking about. That contraction .. the
shorter
| >> measurement of length .. is real. The object *really does* take up
less
| >> physical space at a given time in the observer's frame of reference ..
and
| >> that is what we are talking about when we talk about measured length.
| >
| > Jecko,
| > you have no arguments only assertions: Yes it does, No it doesn't - ad
| > nauseam.
|
| Well, no... you are missing it. Jeckyl is offering *explanations*.
| One could assert they are arguments or argue they are assertions, but
| either of those misses the real... uh... explanation.
Like you, Jeckyl is a fuckheaded bigot. (That's not an insult, that's an
explanation.)
harry
[...]
>> You missed relativity or simultaneity .. so many people do, yet it is
>> probably the most important effect
>
> Agreed. A result of an "isotropy of = equality of light clocks" axiom (*),
You could just as well call that ANisotropy... the essence is that isotropy
is set by definition, and only for the chosen reference frame.
See for example Einstein's 1905 paper on electrodynamics, paragraph 1. Thus
it's mistake (although a common one) to claim that isotropy is a "result".
You get out what you put in. ;-)
> easily taken for granted in a rest frame, but a real hypothesis when
> realising that there is no such thing as an all round rest frame...
Hmm... As illustrated in paragraph 3 of that same paper, all inertial frames
that are moving relative to the "rest" frame S have that - as measured in
S - light rays propagate at speeds other than c relative to them (also
called "closing speed" c-v).
[...]
> The Michelson-Morley experiment may with
> hindsight be re-interpreted as an attempt to prove light clocks not being
> true (isotropic) clocks !
???
Harald
PD
>
> xxein: If you would study physics, rather than memorizing a text and
> a specific math, you might have a chance to find out. Try inventing
> concepts instead of adopting from already existing ones.
>
This is not necessarily a productive agenda, though it might be
personally entertaining in a quixotic way. Most revolutionary ideas in
fact come from an unanticipated synthesis of already existing ideas --
this has always been the case. Indeed, broad and comfortable
familiarity with the current field of ideas and measurements
*facilitates* this synthesis, and it is the broad grasp of these
existing ideas that marks a notable genius at synthesis. This is what
Einstein is known for, as well as Feynman, Witten, Newton, and
Bardeen, for examples.
Taking the approach that it is better to be original and wrong than
incremental and right is, unfortunately, almost a guarantee that the
outcome will be the former.
This may upset your little apple cart, but it is also a reality check.
PD
xxein
>
> - Show quoted text -
xxein: Hi Harry.
You call them 'falling space theories". I suppose that is generally
correct but I haven't seen one that worked.
I call mine "the ugly duck" because that's how it came to me. It came
as a longshot because I had already quit this (gravity with Lorentz)
effort 3 or 4 times. I was resigned to failure. But out of the blue
came an idea that couldn't work. It did and has worked for 19 years,
despite what I throw at it.
Although logical and organized in my head, I can't seem to put it to
writing. I keep thinking that every word I write has to be defended
against all illogical beliefs with an explanation to suit them.
I usually only offer hints and look stupid to the crowd.
You are welcome to ask and I know that you have some 'set' beliefs
that I would be working against.
wugi
> There is no mystery to bullshit.
> 'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
> light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
> to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/tAB=tBA.gif
>
> 4 = 12 according to the cretin Einstein.
You don't understand " tA=tB (S) but t'A<>t'B (S') " ?
It occurs everywhere, also in non-relativistic cases, basic geometry for
instance...
Equivalence of "non-moving" and "moving" light clocks:
http://home.scarlet.be/~pin12499/MySRT/tak16%20axiom4.gif
http://home.scarlet.be/~pin12499/MySRT/tak17%20axiom4%20b.gif
While tA=tB seems "obvious" in the first and tA<>tB in the second,
t'A=t'B here requires a "mental leap".
Still, a simple transformation exchanges both pictures (the orthogonality of
space and time-axes is fallacious)... there is no uniquely selectable rest
system left.
Actually, the time axis, as one's world line, is being experienced
"directly".
But NO space axis is ever "directly" experienced by any inertial system. To
the point that it leaves a degree of freedom. So, "cretin" Einstein can
define one to his liking if not yours. He chose, cleverly, one that befits
ALL inertial systems in an egalitarian way, no system is selectable as a
special one.
Understanding this is understanding the fabric of spacetime (while remaining
cautious about distinguishing models mixing up space and time, and the
"real" world not doing so:-)
guido
http://home.scarlet.be/~pin12499/paratwin.htm
Androcles
| "Androcles" :
|
| > There is no mystery to bullshit.
| > 'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
| > light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
| > to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein
| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/tAB=tBA.gif
| >
| > 4 = 12 according to the cretin Einstein.
|
| You don't understand " tA=tB (S) but t'A<>t'B (S') " ?
No, I fuckin' don't understand it or why you wrote it.
Did I or Einstein say tA or did I or Einstein say tAB?
Did I say t'A<>t'B or did I say tAB<>tBA?
I drew a picture. Too bad you are too stupid to understand it,
and no, I do not understand what you are ranting about.
| It occurs everywhere, also in non-relativistic cases, basic geometry for
| instance...
|
| Equivalence of "non-moving" and "moving" light clocks:
| http://home.scarlet.be/~pin12499/MySRT/tak16%20axiom4.gif
| http://home.scarlet.be/~pin12499/MySRT/tak17%20axiom4%20b.gif
| While tA=tB seems "obvious" in the first and tA<>tB in the second,
| t'A=t'B here requires a "mental leap".
Did Einstein say tA or did Einstein say tAB?
Did Einstein say tB? No, he didn't fuckin' mention it at all.
It would take a mental leap for you to learn to fuckin' read!
| Still, a simple transformation exchanges both pictures (the orthogonality
of
| space and time-axes is fallacious)... there is no uniquely selectable rest
| system left.
Drool.
|
| Actually, the time axis, as one's world line, is being experienced
| "directly".
More drool.
| But NO space axis is ever "directly" experienced by any inertial system.
To
| the point that it leaves a degree of freedom. So, "cretin" Einstein can
| define one to his liking if not yours. He chose, cleverly, one that befits
| ALL inertial systems in an egalitarian way, no system is selectable as a
| special one.
Yeah, well, NIST defines a second as
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/second.html
the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the
transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the
cesium 133 atom,
which has fuck-all to do with the speed of light so the cretin Einstein
is not in agreement with anyone except his stupid disciples.
| Understanding this is understanding the fabric of spacetime (while
remaining
| cautious about distinguishing models mixing up space and time, and the
| "real" world not doing so:-)
When you can read you'll be able to use words like "egalitarian" or "tAB"
and know what they mean, idiot.
xxein
wrote:Saving web ink.
xxein: "Here I say boo: measurable relationships certainly depend on
underlying
physical attributes!". To that I say 'define them' so that all may
know and have a firm background of the universal physic.
I will use this quote out of its intended context. "No, certainly
not! There are too many unsolved questions.". So which is it that you
adhere to?
So? Are we in a condition to understand underlying physical
attributes or are there too many unsolved questions?
I'll keep this as a short reply but you already know that I am looking
forward to a continued dialogue.
Tia.
Androcles
On Feb 11, 7:46 am, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@epfl.ch>
wrote:
> "xxein" <xx...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
Saving web ink.
xxein: "Here I say boo: measurable relationships certainly depend on
underlying
physical attributes!".
Geez you stupid shit, that's not an answer.
xxein
xxein: Would you give that bit of 'wisdom' to Newton's physics or
Einstein's math description? Was a 'curved space-time' a previously
known concept that just needed a little tweaking? Was "Principia"
just another apple falling from a tree? Get real.
We use the lessons learned - and sometimes it takes decades or
centuries to figure out that they are unsatisfactory. The only
synthesis you want to recognise is with an already formed
familiarity. Iow, it seems that you would fore-go a scientific
breakthrough in favor of the synthesis of the tech we might get from
the prevailing science. Knowing what I know, that option is not
necessarily deleted, but is quite archaic.
xxein
> "xxein" <xx...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:219e428b-2603-4b77...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 11, 7:46 am, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@epfl.ch>
> wrote:> "xxein" <xx...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> Saving web ink.
>
> xxein: "Here I say boo: measurable relationships certainly depend on
> underlying
> physical attributes!".
>
> Geez you stupid shit, that's not an answer.
xxein: You can't even understand how to keep track of posts, can you?
I don't think it matters that much as to what goes on in your mind,
but I am surprised that your care givers let you on the internet. At
least they should know that irrational thoughts and behaviours should
not be allowed to propagate to such a wide audience.
Androcles
On Feb 12, 7:51 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
> "xxein" <xx...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:219e428b-2603-4b77...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 11, 7:46 am, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@epfl.ch>
> wrote:> "xxein" <xx...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> Saving web ink.
>
> xxein: "Here I say boo: measurable relationships certainly depend on
> underlying
> physical attributes!".
>
> Geez you stupid shit, that's not an answer.
xxein: You can't even understand how to keep track of posts, can you?
"boo" you stupid shit... geez.
Peri of Pera
Bryan,
we are stuck in semantic games. Jecko keeps talking about what the
observer in another frame may measure. I am not concerned what the
observer rightly or wrongly can or cannot see. To me it is more
important what actually happens to the moving object regardless if it
can be measured or not either locally or from an external position.
Does it contract or does it not? Lorentz says it does and AE accepted
that. Jecko sidesteps this fundamental question and you throw more
confusion on to it. As I said, ambiguity and vagueness is used by the
supporters of SR. You will not answer a simple question.
Peter Riedt
PD
> On Feb 11, 12:30 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 10, 6:18 pm,xxein<xx...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > >xxein: If you would study physics, rather than memorizing a text and
> > > a specific math, you might have a chance to find out. Try inventing
> > > concepts instead of adopting from already existing ones.
>
> > This is not necessarily a productive agenda, though it might be
> > personally entertaining in a quixotic way. Most revolutionary ideas in
> > fact come from an unanticipated synthesis of already existing ideas --
> > this has always been the case. Indeed, broad and comfortable
> > familiarity with the current field of ideas and measurements
> > *facilitates* this synthesis, and it is the broad grasp of these
> > existing ideas that marks a notable genius at synthesis. This is what
> > Einstein is known for, as well as Feynman, Witten, Newton, and
> > Bardeen, for examples.
>
> > Taking the approach that it is better to be original and wrong than
> > incremental and right is, unfortunately, almost a guarantee that the
> > outcome will be the former.
>
> > This may upset your little apple cart, but it is also a reality check.
>
> > PD
>
> xxein: Would you give that bit of 'wisdom' to Newton's physics or
> Einstein's math description? Was a 'curved space-time' a previously
> known concept that just needed a little tweaking? Was "Principia"
> just another apple falling from a tree? Get real.
Well, in fact, the first of Newton's three laws of dynamics was not
his but Galileo's and he thanked him for it. And he was building on
observation of Keplerian orbits.
And yes, Einstein was building on the work of Maxwell, Poincare,
Lorentz, and Larmor, though he pieced things together a bit more
successfully than they did.
Also remember that Newton was keenly aware of the work that others had
done before him, as was Einstein. They did not come from nowhere.
Eric Gisse
Therein lies the problem. Well, one of them.
What "actually happens" is an irrelevant question since what "actually
happens" depends on how the looking is done.
> Does it contract or does it not? Lorentz says it does and AE accepted
> that. Jecko sidesteps this fundamental question and you throw more
> confusion on to it. As I said, ambiguity and vagueness is used by the
> supporters of SR. You will not answer a simple question.
> Peter Riedt
It is only ambiguous and vague to those who are unwilling and/or
unable to take the time to learn the terminology as well as the theory
described by the words.
Since so few physicists have trouble with either the theory or the
words, you might want to consider that the problem is at /your/ end.
wugi
>Bryan,
>we are stuck in semantic games. Jecko keeps talking about what the
>observer in another frame may measure. I am not concerned what the
>observer rightly or wrongly can or cannot see. To me it is more
>important what actually happens to the moving object regardless if it
>can be measured or not either locally or from an external position.
Nothing special. Any two "equal" objects in motion WRT each other perform
the same self-observations.
It's rather the stuff you've been dismissing casually, that SR is really
about.
>Does it contract or does it not? Lorentz says it does and AE accepted
No it doesn't and no Lorentz doesn't.
>that. Jecko sidesteps this fundamental question and you throw more
>confusion on to it. As I said, ambiguity and vagueness is used by the
>supporters of SR. You will not answer a simple question.
It's hard to answer well the wrong questions.
Another try.
Take my picture
http://home.scarlet.be/~pin12499/MySRT/LorentzObjects.PNG
Consider you've got a pole with the white worldline, "at rest".
Suppose at a certain moment (for you, the rest system) the pole covers a
space segment
A--------------------B
with a length (for you) = L (like, say, object 4)
An "equal" pole comes passing by along the green world line.
If at said moment its one pole end covers A, its other will "fall short" of
B due to length contraction, say, in B':
A---------------B'
(object 3)
But if you consult the moving system you'll find out that it considers a
later front end moment B" to be on a space-segment of his:
A--(A")--------------------B"
(object 1)
Furthermore it considers not your object 4 (segment AB) as a space-segment,
but rather
object 2 (where the A end for you comes earlier than the B end).
You conclude:
- your restpole AB = L, rest length.
(belongs also to your question, even if you ignored it:)
- The moving pole has length AB' = L' = L/gamma
The moving systems concludes:
- its proper pole AB" = L, rest length (your question)
- your pole AB''' [object 2] = L' = L/gamma
If you project object 1 onto your proper space axis, call it 1', then you
find
(lengths of objects) (4)/(1') = (3)/(4) = 1/gamma, ie:
L/L(1') = L'/L = 1/gamma
So you see the reciprocity of contraction, your proper length being
inbetween your perception and the moving system's.
The moving system can do alike and conclude the same, projecting your object
4 onto its space axis.
If you transform the axes so that the green x't' system becomes orthogonal
you find your axes "switched" with the moving ones. (The initial orthogonal
system seems a fallaciously "obvious" rest system, but the angle between x
and t axes is not physical!)
Reciprocal situations and conclusions throughout.
No privileged rest frame that springs out from the rest.
regards,
guido
http://home.scarlet.be/~pin12499/paratwin.htm
Androcles
| "Peri of Pera" :
|
| >Bryan,
| >we are stuck in semantic games. Jecko keeps talking about what the
| >observer in another frame may measure. I am not concerned what the
| >observer rightly or wrongly can or cannot see. To me it is more
| >important what actually happens to the moving object regardless if it
| >can be measured or not either locally or from an external position.
|
| Nothing special. Any two "equal" objects in motion WRT each other perform
| the same self-observations.
| It's rather the stuff you've been dismissing casually, that SR is really
| about.
|
| >Does it contract or does it not? Lorentz says it does and AE accepted
|
| No it doesn't and no Lorentz doesn't.
No it doesn't and yes Lorentz does.
The crank clearly stated that it was pressure from the aether on the
molecules in the direction of motion that caused the contraction.
You've obviously never read anything the crank Lorentz wrote.
xxein
xxein: I missed this. I am late. You give a fine example of the
comprehension missed in such matters.
Androcles
Geez you stupid shit.
wugi
> | >Does it contract or does it not? Lorentz says it does and AE accepted
> |
> | No it doesn't and no Lorentz doesn't.
>
> No it doesn't and yes Lorentz does.
> The crank clearly stated that it was pressure from the aether on the
> molecules in the direction of motion that caused the contraction.
That's what a third party system will conclude about the moving object. It's
not what Peri asked: the moving object detects nothing particular about
itself. Please read questions.
> You've obviously never read anything the crank Lorentz wrote.
Please read texts.
guido
http://home.scarlet.be/~pin12499/paratwin.htm
Peri of Pera
>
> - Show quoted text -
Eric,
OK. I must accept Jecko's view. There is no contraction at all, only
the perception of the observer. If he is drunk, the object is larger.
If he is drugged, the object is smaller. If he is neither, the object
is the same. I will thank Jecko for such profound insight. We wasted
100 years on SR but now the darkness has gone.
Peter Riedt
Androcles
The crazy cranks Lorentz and Fitzgerald said the contraction is real and
applies to the ruler doing the measuring too.
Don't tell me to read it when I have read it. YOU go and read the
papers, you fuckheaded little twerp.
Peri of Pera
Guido,
I am well aware that a local observer cannot detect any contraction or
time dilation in his own system and did not ask a question about it.
The issue is that Jecko and others in this thread denied that Lorentz
proposed length contraction of moving objects and that is plain silly.
Peter Riedt
wugi
>Guido,
>I am well aware that a local observer cannot detect any contraction or
>time dilation in his own system and did not ask a question about it.
That's what I understood from your earlier post, see next.
>The issue is that Jecko and others in this thread denied that Lorentz
>proposed length contraction of moving objects and that is plain silly.
I don't see any saying like that from him.
(and earlier)
>Bryan,
>we are stuck in semantic games. Jecko keeps talking about what the
>observer in another frame may measure. I am not concerned what the
>observer rightly or wrongly can or cannot see. To me it is more
>important what actually happens to the moving object regardless if it
"what actually happens" can't be an "absolute" statement. You've got to
specify what witness of the happening you wish to involve.
>can be measured or not either locally or from an external position.
>Does it contract or does it not? Lorentz says it does and AE accepted
>that. Jecko sidesteps this fundamental question and you throw more
>confusion on to it. As I said, ambiguity and vagueness is used by the
>supporters of SR. You will not answer a simple question.
>Peter Riedt
So I said:
- an inertial object detects no movement, and no contraction or dilation, by
and about itself.
- an external observer in a different inertial state detects those things
upon the object (but you're not asking about that)
So I suppose you're wondering
- is there an "absolute" authority witnessing these changes, on any inertial
object at that?
That's what I think Lorentz and others felt (some stay stuck with it even
nowadays):
the changes would be absolute (eg in an aetherial milieu) but,
"unfortunately", in a way that makes them undetectable for one to oneself,
only mutual observations between "moving" objects being left accessible and,
"weirdly", yielding the proper results.
What they could and would not get to grasp, was that they were up to a
universal relativity principle. They prefered to remain stuck with a FALSE
relativity, with at its core an absolute, though undetectable, reference
frame.
guido
http://home.scarlet.be/~pin12499/paratwin.htm
Peri of Pera
Guido,
I agree but perhaps we are now stuck with the original theory and
another updated but equally incorrect one.
Peter Riedt
Bryan Olson
No; the terms are well-defined within physics. You simply get the
facts wrong.
> Jecko keeps talking about what the
> observer in another frame may measure. I am not concerned what the
> observer rightly or wrongly can or cannot see.
Your willful ignorance of the distinctions SR makes among
different frames of reference is not a point in your favor.
> To me it is more
> important what actually happens to the moving object regardless if it
> can be measured or not either locally or from an external position.
SR says that the object really does have different lengths in
different frames of reference.
> Does it contract or does it not? Lorentz says it does and AE accepted
> that. Jecko sidesteps this fundamental question and you throw more
> confusion on to it. As I said, ambiguity and vagueness is used by the
> supporters of SR. You will not answer a simple question.
Sorry, but the explanation of how the universe actually works is not
as simple as you expect. Consider raising your game to where you can
understand modern physics, rather than demanding everything
dumbed-down to the level at which you are currently comfortable.
At one time I was, truth be told, a relativity-denier. I'm glad I
decided to make sure I understood the theory before I would
proclaim myself to be so much smarter than all those renowned
physicists. Further study showed that I was mistaken.
--
--Bryan
Androcles
| At one time I was, truth be told, a relativity-denier. I'm glad I
| decided to make sure I understood the theory before I would
| proclaim myself to be so much smarter than all those renowned
| physicists. Further study showed that I was mistaken.
What is it you understand that you are mistaken about?
Bryan Olson
> "Bryan Olson" wrote:
>
> | At one time I was, truth be told, a relativity-denier. I'm glad I
> | decided to make sure I understood the theory before I would
> | proclaim myself to be so much smarter than all those renowned
> | physicists. Further study showed that I was mistaken.
>
> What is it you understand that you are mistaken about?
I went through several misunderstandings. At one time, I had
thought the symmetry of the transform of inertial frames to
be contradictory. X slow in Y's frame while Y is slow in X's
frame didn't make sense, as far as I had studied the theory.
Later, I thought relativity was merely a complicated way of
looking at what I already expected from simpler principles.
At my worst, I had a not-even-wrong theory of why relativity
would be a persistent illusion. In my defense, I thought I
was listening to good sources, and thought the math would
work out. Not a great defense, since I could never actually
get the predictions to come out consistently, let alone the
observations.
Understanding SR was a long haul for me. My understanding of
GR is a work in progress.
--
--Bryan
Androcles
"the "time" required by light to travel from A to B equals the "time"
Einstein says so) that I don't, and what evidence do you have
to support such a ridiculous assertion (aside from H.G. Wells'
"Time Machine" that the crank Einstein read as a teenager before
he went cuckoo over Swiss cuckoo clocks in a patent office)?
Bryan Olson
> What is it that you understand about Einstein's third postulate:
> "the "time" required by light to travel from A to B equals the "time"
> it requires to travel from B to A' (in all frames of reference because
> Einstein says so) that I don't,
That's an Androcles postulate. Einstein had no A-prime there.
His assertion follows from his two postulates and the
definition of distance.
Do you think altering the theory and attributing your wrong
version to Einstein is going to fool anyone?
--
--Bryan
Dirk Van de moortel
"Bryan Olson" <fakea...@nowhere.org> wrote in message news:Y6Tuj.2904$tW....@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
Answer 1:
Yes he does.
Answer 2:
No he does not, but he has no way back.
It does not make any difference, and, given his notorious
dishonesty, you will never know :-)
Dirk Vdm
Androcles
| Androcles wrote:
|
| > What is it that you understand about Einstein's third postulate:
| > "the "time" required by light to travel from A to B equals the "time"
| > it requires to travel from B to A' (in all frames of reference because
| > Einstein says so) that I don't,
|
| That's an Androcles postulate.
Fucking liar, Einstein wrote every word I put in single quotes.
What is it that you understand about Einstein's third postulate:
"the "time" required by light to travel from A to B equals the "time"
it requires to travel from B to A' (in all frames of reference because
Einstein says so) that I don't, you useless lying bigot?