Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The real Size of an Electron
104 views
Skip to first unread message
Peter Riedt
Jul 29, 2014, 3:44:15 AM7/29/14
to
The real Size of an Electron
Al Onestone works as a young scientist at the Manhattan Research Institute. Al was attracted to Nancy, a waitress in the canteen at work. He wanted to impress her by his intelligence and knowledge about the important work he did at the Institute. He invited her to his office and tried to explain subatomic particles. To his surprise Nancy was interested to learn more. They got together after work and on weekends and discussed the modern theories of physics and exercised in physical games as well.
Al and Nancy had discussed length contraction measured by non-comoving observers and Al's field of expertise, particles. One day, Nancy made an astonishing assertion: "Electrons move around the nucleus of an atom at the speed of .98 of light. The size of an electron is 5.6fermi or 5.6femto, 5.6E-15m. This must be the contracted size measured by a non-comoving observer according to the theory of Einstein. If I calculate the actual diameter of the electron in its own frame using the gamma factor of Lorentz it will be
1/5.6E-15m/1/SQRT(1+294000000^2/300000000^2) = 250,025,508,902km. However, the sun's diameter is only 1,392,000km. Compared to the size of the sun the real size of an electron is huge. Something must be wrong".
Al could tolerate a girl friend with an intelligence approaching his own but not surpass it. He ditched Nancy and looked for a less intelligent companion.
Peter Riedt
Al Onestone works as a young scientist at the Manhattan Research Institute. Al was attracted to Nancy, a waitress in the canteen at work. He wanted to impress her by his intelligence and knowledge about the important work he did at the Institute. He invited her to his office and tried to explain subatomic particles. To his surprise Nancy was interested to learn more. They got together after work and on weekends and discussed the modern theories of physics and exercised in physical games as well.
Al and Nancy had discussed length contraction measured by non-comoving observers and Al's field of expertise, particles. One day, Nancy made an astonishing assertion: "Electrons move around the nucleus of an atom at the speed of .98 of light. The size of an electron is 5.6fermi or 5.6femto, 5.6E-15m. This must be the contracted size measured by a non-comoving observer according to the theory of Einstein. If I calculate the actual diameter of the electron in its own frame using the gamma factor of Lorentz it will be
1/5.6E-15m/1/SQRT(1+294000000^2/300000000^2) = 250,025,508,902km. However, the sun's diameter is only 1,392,000km. Compared to the size of the sun the real size of an electron is huge. Something must be wrong".
Al could tolerate a girl friend with an intelligence approaching his own but not surpass it. He ditched Nancy and looked for a less intelligent companion.
Peter Riedt
Sylvia Else
Jul 29, 2014, 3:47:48 AM7/29/14
to
On 29/07/2014 5:44 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> The real
There you go, using that word again.
Sylvia.
> The real
There you go, using that word again.
Sylvia.
Peter Riedt
Jul 29, 2014, 4:28:03 AM7/29/14
to
Peter Riedt
Dirk Van de moortel
Jul 29, 2014, 5:05:37 AM7/29/14
to
Peter Riedt <rie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> The real Size of an Electron
>
> Al Onestone works as a young scientist at the Manhattan Research
> Institute. Al was attracted to Nancy, a waitress in the canteen at
> work. He wanted to impress her by his intelligence and knowledge
> about the important work he did at the Institute. He invited her to
> his office and tried to explain subatomic particles. To his surprise
> Nancy was interested to learn more. They got together after work and
> on weekends and discussed the modern theories of physics and
> exercised in physical games as well.
>
> Al and Nancy had discussed length contraction measured by
> non-comoving observers and Al's field of expertise, particles. One
> day, Nancy made an astonishing assertion: "Electrons move around the
> nucleus of an atom at the speed of .98 of light. The size of an
> electron is 5.6fermi or 5.6femto, 5.6E-15m. This must be the
> contracted size measured by a non-comoving observer according to the
> theory of Einstein. If I calculate the actual diameter of the
> electron in its own frame using the gamma factor of Lorentz it will
> be
> 1/5.6E-15m/1/SQRT(1+294000000^2/300000000^2) = 250,025,508,902km.
Ahem:
> The real Size of an Electron
>
> Al Onestone works as a young scientist at the Manhattan Research
> Institute. Al was attracted to Nancy, a waitress in the canteen at
> work. He wanted to impress her by his intelligence and knowledge
> about the important work he did at the Institute. He invited her to
> his office and tried to explain subatomic particles. To his surprise
> Nancy was interested to learn more. They got together after work and
> on weekends and discussed the modern theories of physics and
> exercised in physical games as well.
>
> Al and Nancy had discussed length contraction measured by
> non-comoving observers and Al's field of expertise, particles. One
> day, Nancy made an astonishing assertion: "Electrons move around the
> nucleus of an atom at the speed of .98 of light. The size of an
> electron is 5.6fermi or 5.6femto, 5.6E-15m. This must be the
> contracted size measured by a non-comoving observer according to the
> theory of Einstein. If I calculate the actual diameter of the
> electron in its own frame using the gamma factor of Lorentz it will
> be
> 1/5.6E-15m/1/SQRT(1+294000000^2/300000000^2) = 250,025,508,902km.
1/SQRT(1-294000000^2/300000000^2) = 5.03
and
1/SQRT(1+294000000^2/300000000^2) = 0.714
Our imbeciles can't even use a calculator.
Congratulations.
Dirk Vdm
pcard...@volcanomail.com
Jul 29, 2014, 9:36:10 AM7/29/14
to
On Tuesday, July 29, 2014 12:44:15 AM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote:
> The real Size of an Electron Al Onestone works as a young scientist at the Manhattan Research Institute. Al was attracted to Nancy, a waitress in the canteen at work. He wanted to impress her by his intelligence and knowledge about the important work he did at the Institute. He invited her to his office and tried to explain subatomic particles. To his surprise Nancy was interested to learn more. They got together after work and on weekends and discussed the modern theories of physics and exercised in physical games as well. Al and Nancy had discussed length contraction measured by non-comoving observers and Al's field of expertise, particles. One day, Nancy made an astonishing assertion: "Electrons move around the nucleus of an atom at the speed of .98 of light. The size of an electron is 5.6fermi or 5.6femto, 5.6E-15m. This must be the contracted size measured by a non-comoving observer according to the theory of Einstein. If I calculate the actual diameter of the electron in its own frame using the gamma factor of Lorentz it will be 1/5.6E-15m/1/SQRT(1+294000000^2/300000000^2) = 250,025,508,902km. However, the sun's diameter is only 1,392,000km. Compared to the size of the sun the real size of an electron is huge. Something must be wrong". Al could tolerate a girl friend with an intelligence approaching his own but not surpass it. He ditched Nancy and looked for a less intelligent companion. Peter Riedt
Attempts to measure the size of the electron have always shown that it is smaller than can be measured. Electron radius is known to be less than 10^-22 m.
> The real Size of an Electron Al Onestone works as a young scientist at the Manhattan Research Institute. Al was attracted to Nancy, a waitress in the canteen at work. He wanted to impress her by his intelligence and knowledge about the important work he did at the Institute. He invited her to his office and tried to explain subatomic particles. To his surprise Nancy was interested to learn more. They got together after work and on weekends and discussed the modern theories of physics and exercised in physical games as well. Al and Nancy had discussed length contraction measured by non-comoving observers and Al's field of expertise, particles. One day, Nancy made an astonishing assertion: "Electrons move around the nucleus of an atom at the speed of .98 of light. The size of an electron is 5.6fermi or 5.6femto, 5.6E-15m. This must be the contracted size measured by a non-comoving observer according to the theory of Einstein. If I calculate the actual diameter of the electron in its own frame using the gamma factor of Lorentz it will be 1/5.6E-15m/1/SQRT(1+294000000^2/300000000^2) = 250,025,508,902km. However, the sun's diameter is only 1,392,000km. Compared to the size of the sun the real size of an electron is huge. Something must be wrong". Al could tolerate a girl friend with an intelligence approaching his own but not surpass it. He ditched Nancy and looked for a less intelligent companion. Peter Riedt
Odd Bodkin
Jul 29, 2014, 10:52:09 AM7/29/14
to
On 7/29/2014 2:44 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
>
> One day, Nancy made an astonishing assertion: "Electrons move around
the nucleus of an atom at the speed of .98 of light."
Why would Nancy make some crazy assertion like that? The speed of an
>
> One day, Nancy made an astonishing assertion: "Electrons move around
the nucleus of an atom at the speed of .98 of light."
electron in a hydrogen atom is about 1/137 of the speed of light. That's
less than 1%, not 98%.
I have no idea why you say some of the things you do.
Odd Bodkin
Jul 29, 2014, 10:55:21 AM7/29/14
to
the speed of light, so the Lorentz factor is nowhere near even what you
calculated.
Dirk Van de moortel
Jul 29, 2014, 11:14:26 AM7/29/14
to
And it turns out that in stead of
L / sqrt( 1 - v^2/c^2 ).
he had calculated
sqrt( 1 + v^2/c^2 ) / L
which indeed--sort of--corresponds to
1/5.6E-15m/1/SQRT(1+294000000^2/300000000^2)
O help.
Why *do* these people even get replies in the first place?
Dirk Vdm
Poutnik
Jul 29, 2014, 12:03:21 PM7/29/14
to
if he properly calculates.....
5.6E-15m * SQRT(1-294000000^2/300000000^2)
--
Poutnik
A wise man guards words he says,
as they may say about him more, than he says about the subject.
Odd Bodkin
Jul 29, 2014, 12:47:27 PM7/29/14
to
10,000,000 times bigger than the upper limit known for the electron.
So let's see.
1. He said electrons go 98% of the speed of light when they in fact go
less than 1% of the speed of light.
2. He claimed a size of the electron to be 5.6 fm, when in fact it is
known to be smaller than 0.0000001 fm.
3. He did the calculation of the gamma factor completely wrong.
So what was he trying to show?
Dirk Van de moortel
Jul 29, 2014, 2:19:17 PM7/29/14
to
the proper size you need the factor gamma, and therefore
a division by the square root.
Dirk Vdm
Poutnik
Jul 29, 2014, 2:37:10 PM7/29/14
to
Dne 29.7.2014 v 20:19 Dirk Van de moortel napsal(a):
That is not the point.
He cannot get length by multiplication of
reciprocal length 1/5.6E-15m
and unitless factor 1/1/SQRT(1+294000000^2/300000000^2) .
1/5.6E-15m/1/SQRT(1+294000000^2/300000000^2) is not length.
--
Poutnik
Wise man guards the words he says,
He cannot get length by multiplication of
reciprocal length 1/5.6E-15m
and unitless factor 1/1/SQRT(1+294000000^2/300000000^2) .
1/5.6E-15m/1/SQRT(1+294000000^2/300000000^2) is not length.
--
Poutnik
Wise man guards the words he says,
Dirk Van de moortel
Jul 29, 2014, 2:39:41 PM7/29/14
to
Poutnik <pou...@privacy.net> wrote:
> Dne 29.7.2014 v 20:19 Dirk Van de moortel napsal(a):
>> Poutnik <Pou...@privacy.net> wrote:
[snip]
> Dne 29.7.2014 v 20:19 Dirk Van de moortel napsal(a):
>> Poutnik <Pou...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>> He did not noticed reciprocal size is not size either.
>>>
>>> if he properly calculates.....
>>> 5.6E-15m * SQRT(1-294000000^2/300000000^2)
>>
>> He claims that 5.6E-15m is the "contracted size", so for
>> the proper size you need the factor gamma, and therefore
>> a division by the square root.
>>
>> Dirk Vdm
>>
> That is not the point.
>
> He cannot get length by multiplication of
> reciprocal length 1/5.6E-15m
> and unitless factor 1/1/SQRT(1+294000000^2/300000000^2) .
>
> 1/5.6E-15m/1/SQRT(1+294000000^2/300000000^2) is not length.
Dirk Vdm
pcard...@volcanomail.com
Jul 29, 2014, 3:03:43 PM7/29/14
to
On Tuesday, July 29, 2014 7:52:09 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 7/29/2014 2:44 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: > > One day, Nancy made an astonishing assertion: "Electrons move around the nucleus of an atom at the speed of .98 of light." Why would Nancy make some crazy assertion like that? The speed of an electron in a hydrogen atom is about 1/137 of the speed of light. That's less than 1%, not 98%. I have no idea why you say some of the things you do.
Many idiots just make up crap and spew it. Concepts such as 'true', 'false', 'fact' cannot exists in their defective little minds. In there perverse 'thinking', anything that they spew is automatically true.
> On 7/29/2014 2:44 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: > > One day, Nancy made an astonishing assertion: "Electrons move around the nucleus of an atom at the speed of .98 of light." Why would Nancy make some crazy assertion like that? The speed of an electron in a hydrogen atom is about 1/137 of the speed of light. That's less than 1%, not 98%. I have no idea why you say some of the things you do.
Peter Riedt
Jul 29, 2014, 10:47:40 PM7/29/14
to
Dirk, I did not use the gamma formula used to measure a perceived length contraction. I used the reciprocal to find the real size from the contracted value measured by a non-comoving observer. What in your opinion is the correct formula to get from the measurement of an observed contracted length to the real length if I am wrong?
Peter Riedt
Peter Riedt
Jul 29, 2014, 10:51:15 PM7/29/14
to
Poutnik, what is the proper formula to calculate the real size from a contracted size at .98c?
Peter Riedt
Poutnik
Jul 29, 2014, 11:58:23 PM7/29/14
to
Dne 30.7.2014 v 4:47 Peter Riedt napsal(a):
> On Tuesday, July 29, 2014 11:14:26 PM UTC+8, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>> Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/29/2014 4:05 AM, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>>
>>>> Peter Riedt <rie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>>> The real Size of an Electron
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>> Al Onestone works as a young scientist at the Manhattan Research
>>
>>>>> Institute. Al was attracted to Nancy, a waitress in the canteen at
>>
>>>>> work. He wanted to impress her by his intelligence and knowledge
>>
>>>>> about the important work he did at the Institute. He invited her to
>>
>>>>> his office and tried to explain subatomic particles. To his surprise
>>
>>>>> Nancy was interested to learn more. They got together after work and
>>
>>>>> on weekends and discussed the modern theories of physics and
>>
>>>>> exercised in physical games as well.
>>
>>>>> Al and Nancy had discussed length contraction measured by
>>
>>>>> non-comoving observers and Al's field of expertise, particles. One
>>
>>>>> day, Nancy made an astonishing assertion: "Electrons move around the
>>
>>>>> nucleus of an atom at the speed of .98 of light. The size of an
>>
>>>>> electron is 5.6fermi or 5.6femto, 5.6E-15m. This must be the
>>
>>>>> contracted size measured by a non-comoving observer according to the
>>
>>>>> theory of Einstein. If I calculate the actual diameter of the
>>
>>>>> electron in its own frame using the gamma factor of Lorentz it will
>>
>>>>> be 1/5.6E-15m/1/SQRT(1+294000000^2/300000000^2) = 250,025,508,902km..
>> Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/29/2014 4:05 AM, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>>
>>>> Peter Riedt <rie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>>> The real Size of an Electron
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>> Al Onestone works as a young scientist at the Manhattan Research
>>
>>>>> Institute. Al was attracted to Nancy, a waitress in the canteen at
>>
>>>>> work. He wanted to impress her by his intelligence and knowledge
>>
>>>>> about the important work he did at the Institute. He invited her to
>>
>>>>> his office and tried to explain subatomic particles. To his surprise
>>
>>>>> Nancy was interested to learn more. They got together after work and
>>
>>>>> on weekends and discussed the modern theories of physics and
>>
>>>>> exercised in physical games as well.
>>
>>>>> Al and Nancy had discussed length contraction measured by
>>
>>>>> non-comoving observers and Al's field of expertise, particles. One
>>
>>>>> day, Nancy made an astonishing assertion: "Electrons move around the
>>
>>>>> nucleus of an atom at the speed of .98 of light. The size of an
>>
>>>>> electron is 5.6fermi or 5.6femto, 5.6E-15m. This must be the
>>
>>>>> contracted size measured by a non-comoving observer according to the
>>
>>>>> theory of Einstein. If I calculate the actual diameter of the
>>
>>>>> electron in its own frame using the gamma factor of Lorentz it will
>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> Ahem:
>>
>>>> 1/SQRT(1-294000000^2/300000000^2) = 5.03
>>
>>>> and
>>
>>>> 1/SQRT(1+294000000^2/300000000^2) = 0.714
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> Our imbeciles can't even use a calculator.
>>
>>>> Congratulations.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> Dirk Vdm
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Not to mention the fact that electrons in atoms do not move at 98% of
>>
>>> the speed of light, so the Lorentz factor is nowhere near even what
>>
>>> you calculated.
>>
>>
>>
>> I hadn't even looked at what he was calculating.
>>
>> And it turns out that in stead of
>>
>> L / sqrt( 1 - v^2/c^2 ).
>>
>> he had calculated
>>
>> sqrt( 1 + v^2/c^2 ) / L
>>
>> which indeed--sort of--corresponds to
>>
>> 1/5.6E-15m/1/SQRT(1+294000000^2/300000000^2)
>>
>> Dirk Vdm
>
> Dirk, I did not use the gamma formula used to measure a perceived length contraction. I used the reciprocal to find the real size from the contracted value measured by a non-comoving observer. What in your opinion is the correct formula to get from the measurement of an observed contracted length to the real length if I am wrong?
>
Good start is to realize that a length unit is not reciprocal metre.
>>>>
>>
>>>> Ahem:
>>
>>>> 1/SQRT(1-294000000^2/300000000^2) = 5.03
>>
>>>> and
>>
>>>> 1/SQRT(1+294000000^2/300000000^2) = 0.714
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> Our imbeciles can't even use a calculator.
>>
>>>> Congratulations.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> Dirk Vdm
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Not to mention the fact that electrons in atoms do not move at 98% of
>>
>>> the speed of light, so the Lorentz factor is nowhere near even what
>>
>>> you calculated.
>>
>>
>>
>> I hadn't even looked at what he was calculating.
>>
>> And it turns out that in stead of
>>
>> L / sqrt( 1 - v^2/c^2 ).
>>
>> he had calculated
>>
>> sqrt( 1 + v^2/c^2 ) / L
>>
>> which indeed--sort of--corresponds to
>>
>> 1/5.6E-15m/1/SQRT(1+294000000^2/300000000^2)
>>
>> Dirk Vdm
>
> Dirk, I did not use the gamma formula used to measure a perceived length contraction. I used the reciprocal to find the real size from the contracted value measured by a non-comoving observer. What in your opinion is the correct formula to get from the measurement of an observed contracted length to the real length if I am wrong?
>
Poutnik
Jul 30, 2014, 12:04:02 AM7/30/14
to
Dne 30.7.2014 v 4:51 Peter Riedt napsal(a):
Physics does not use term real size, as all measured sizes are real.
You probably mean size at the rest.
"Your real size" is unreal when object is moving,
as its endpoint positions are measured at different time.
But to answer your question how to calculate rest size...
Lr = L / sqrt ( 1 - 0.98^2 )
--
Poutnik
Wise man guards the words he says,
You probably mean size at the rest.
"Your real size" is unreal when object is moving,
as its endpoint positions are measured at different time.
But to answer your question how to calculate rest size...
Lr = L / sqrt ( 1 - 0.98^2 )
--
Poutnik
Wise man guards the words he says,
Sylvia Else
Jul 30, 2014, 12:26:07 AM7/30/14
to
Sylvia.
Poutnik
Jul 30, 2014, 12:32:46 AM7/30/14
to
Dne 29.7.2014 v 10:28 Peter Riedt napsal(a):
km^-1 at the best.
You are no real challenge to any theory with your counting ability, Peter.
Confusing L and 1/L is quite a stupid error.
You are no real challenge to any theory with your counting ability, Peter.
Confusing L and 1/L is quite a stupid error.
Peter Riedt
Jul 30, 2014, 1:55:53 AM7/30/14
to
Peter Riedt
Sylvia Else
Jul 30, 2014, 2:43:36 AM7/30/14
to
the size as incorrectly calculated by you via a totally ill-conceived
mathematical analysis.
Sylvia.
Message has been deleted
Peter Riedt
Jul 30, 2014, 3:55:30 AM7/30/14
to
Peter Riedt
Poutnik
Jul 30, 2014, 4:17:10 AM7/30/14
to
Distance of its end points.
What is distance of object end points ?
size of difference vectors of their position at the same time .
Is possible to measure position of end points at the same time
and simulatenously to measure them at the same time in object rest frame ?
No.
As the same time is frame dependent,
is the length frame dependent as well.
--
Poutnik
A wise man guards words he says,
Poutnik
Jul 30, 2014, 4:18:57 AM7/30/14
to
On 07/30/2014 09:52 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 30, 2014 12:04:02 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 30, 2014 12:04:02 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote:
>>
>>
> Poutnik, you formula is incorrect.
>
> Peter Riedt
>
First analyze errors in your one.
--
Poutnik
A wise man guards words he says,
Poutnik
Jul 30, 2014, 4:22:15 AM7/30/14
to
On 07/30/2014 09:55 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 30, 2014 12:04:02 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote:
>> Dne 30.7.2014 v 4:51 Peter Riedt napsal(a):
>>>
>>
>>>>>> be 1/5.6E-15m/1/SQRT(1+294000000^2/300000000^2) = 250,025,508,902km.
> On Wednesday, July 30, 2014 12:04:02 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote:
>> Dne 30.7.2014 v 4:51 Peter Riedt napsal(a):
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> But to answer your question how to calculate rest size...
>>
>> Lr = L / sqrt ( 1 - 0.98^2 )
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> But to answer your question how to calculate rest size...
>>
>> Lr = L / sqrt ( 1 - 0.98^2 )
>>
>>
>>
> Poutnik, your formula is incorrect.
>
> Peter Riedt
>
Really ?
>
> Peter Riedt
>
Than you may perhaps show to audience,
how is it possible that 1 / 5.6e-15m is still length and has unit 1 m.
You make basic school mistakes
in elementary math operations and unit analysis.
--
Poutnik
A wise man guards words he says,
Peter Riedt
Jul 30, 2014, 4:36:09 AM7/30/14
to
The equation can be used to calculate the size of the electron numerically.
If the parameters
me = 9.11 • 10 -31 kg for the mass of the electron
c = 2.988 • 108 m/s
ħ = 1.0546 • 10-34 m • kg / s2
are inserted in the above equation, the result for the electron is
Rei = 3.86 • 10-13 m.
Erwin Schrödinger analysed the Dirac equation for the electron in 1930. Among other results, this analysis yielded an electron radius of approx. 4*10-13 m, which agrees with the above result.
Peter Riedt
Jul 30, 2014, 4:38:48 AM7/30/14
to
On Wednesday, July 30, 2014 4:22:15 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote:
> On 07/30/2014 09:55 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, July 30, 2014 12:04:02 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote:
>
> >> Dne 30.7.2014 v 4:51 Peter Riedt napsal(a):
>
>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>> be 1/5.6E-15m/1/SQRT(1+294000000^2/300000000^2) = 250,025,508,902km.
>
> >>
>
>
>
> >>
>
> >> But to answer your question how to calculate rest size...
>
>
>
> >>
>
> >> Lr = L / sqrt ( 1 - 0.98^2 )
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
>
>
> >>
>
> > Poutnik, your formula is incorrect.
>
> >
>
> > Peter Riedt
>
> >
>
> Really ?
>
>
>
> Than you may perhaps show to audience,
>
> how is it possible that 1 / 5.6e-15m is still length and has unit 1 m.
>
>
>
> You make basic school mistakes
>
> in elementary math operations and unit analysis.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Poutnik
>
>
Poutnix, my formula may be wrong but it does not make your's right.
> On 07/30/2014 09:55 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, July 30, 2014 12:04:02 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote:
>
> >> Dne 30.7.2014 v 4:51 Peter Riedt napsal(a):
>
>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>> be 1/5.6E-15m/1/SQRT(1+294000000^2/300000000^2) = 250,025,508,902km.
>
> >>
>
>
>
> >>
>
> >> But to answer your question how to calculate rest size...
>
>
>
> >>
>
> >> Lr = L / sqrt ( 1 - 0.98^2 )
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
>
>
> >>
>
> > Poutnik, your formula is incorrect.
>
> >
>
> > Peter Riedt
>
> >
>
> Really ?
>
>
>
> Than you may perhaps show to audience,
>
> how is it possible that 1 / 5.6e-15m is still length and has unit 1 m.
>
>
>
> You make basic school mistakes
>
> in elementary math operations and unit analysis.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Poutnik
>
>
Peter Riedt
Poutnik
Jul 30, 2014, 7:54:05 AM7/30/14
to
On 07/30/2014 10:38 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 30, 2014 4:22:15 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote:
>>
>>
>> Than you may perhaps show to audience,
>> how is it possible that 1 / 5.6e-15m is still length and has unit 1 m.
>>
>> You make basic school mistakes
>> in elementary math operations and unit analysis.
>>
>>
>>
> On Wednesday, July 30, 2014 4:22:15 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote:
>>
>>
>> Than you may perhaps show to audience,
>> how is it possible that 1 / 5.6e-15m is still length and has unit 1 m.
>>
>> You make basic school mistakes
>> in elementary math operations and unit analysis.
>>
>>
>>
> Poutnix, my formula may be wrong but it does not make your's right.
>
Feel free to correct me.
>
Peter Riedt
Jul 30, 2014, 1:05:13 PM7/30/14
to
On Wednesday, July 30, 2014 7:54:05 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote:
> On 07/30/2014 10:38 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, July 30, 2014 4:22:15 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Than you may perhaps show to audience,
>
> >> how is it possible that 1 / 5.6e-15m is still length and has unit 1 m.
>
> >>
>
> >> You make basic school mistakes
>
> >> in elementary math operations and unit analysis.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> > Poutnix, my formula may be wrong but it does not make your's right.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Feel free to correct me.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Poutnik
Poutnik, do you agree that
> On 07/30/2014 10:38 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, July 30, 2014 4:22:15 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Than you may perhaps show to audience,
>
> >> how is it possible that 1 / 5.6e-15m is still length and has unit 1 m.
>
> >>
>
> >> You make basic school mistakes
>
> >> in elementary math operations and unit analysis.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> > Poutnix, my formula may be wrong but it does not make your's right.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Feel free to correct me.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Poutnik
L'=L/gamma
Lreciprocal=1/L/gamma?
Peter Riedt
Poutnik
Jul 30, 2014, 1:36:46 PM7/30/14
to
On 07/30/2014 07:05 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 30, 2014 7:54:05 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote:
>> On 07/30/2014 10:38 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, July 30, 2014 4:22:15 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> Than you may perhaps show to audience,
>>>> how is it possible that 1 / 5.6e-15m is still length and has unit 1 m.
>>>> You make basic school mistakes
>>>> in elementary math operations and unit analysis.
>>
>>> Poutnix, my formula may be wrong but it does not make your's right.
>>
>> Feel free to correct me.
>>
>
> On Wednesday, July 30, 2014 7:54:05 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote:
>> On 07/30/2014 10:38 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, July 30, 2014 4:22:15 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> Than you may perhaps show to audience,
>>>> how is it possible that 1 / 5.6e-15m is still length and has unit 1 m.
>>>> You make basic school mistakes
>>>> in elementary math operations and unit analysis.
>>
>>> Poutnix, my formula may be wrong but it does not make your's right.
>>
>> Feel free to correct me.
>>
>
> Poutnik, do you agree that
> L'=L/gamma
Correct
> L'=L/gamma
> Lreciprocal=1/L/gamma?
>
> Peter Riedt
>
Meaning of Lreciprocal is,
how many times fits length L in the length unit.
If hydrogen atom has size 0.1 nm, its reciprocal length
is 10 000 000 000 m^-1, i.e. it fits 10 billion times on 1 metre stick.
Remember that reciprocal length is not length.
What is your point ?
Poutnik
Jul 30, 2014, 1:46:55 PM7/30/14
to
On 07/30/2014 07:05 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
>
>
> Poutnik, do you agree that
> L'=L/gamma
> Lreciprocal=1/L/gamma?
Did not you mean
> L'=L/gamma
> Lreciprocal=1/L/gamma?
L' = L / gamma
L = L' * gamma ?
As inverse function is not reciprocal function.
Reciprocal length - like often use wavenumber in IR spectrometry
has itself nothing to do with SR,
Lorentz tranformation and gamma factor.
Dirk Van de moortel
Jul 30, 2014, 3:35:14 PM7/30/14
to
You are too stupid for this. I'm not going to bother explaining.
Dirk Vdm
Peter Riedt
Jul 30, 2014, 10:50:02 PM7/30/14
to
On Thursday, July 31, 2014 1:46:55 AM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote:
> On 07/30/2014 07:05 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
>
>
>
> >
>
> > Poutnik, do you agree that
>
> > L'=L/gamma
>
> > Lreciprocal=1/L/gamma?
>
>
>
> Did not you mean
>
>
>
> L' = L / gamma
>
> L = L' * gamma ?
>
>
>
> As inverse function is not reciprocal function.
>
>
>
> Reciprocal length - like often use wavenumber in IR spectrometry
>
> has itself nothing to do with SR,
>
> Lorentz tranformation and gamma factor.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Poutnik
>
Poutnik, thanks. I did indeed mean the inverse.
> On 07/30/2014 07:05 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
>
>
>
> >
>
> > Poutnik, do you agree that
>
> > L'=L/gamma
>
> > Lreciprocal=1/L/gamma?
>
>
>
> Did not you mean
>
>
>
> L' = L / gamma
>
> L = L' * gamma ?
>
>
>
> As inverse function is not reciprocal function.
>
>
>
> Reciprocal length - like often use wavenumber in IR spectrometry
>
> has itself nothing to do with SR,
>
> Lorentz tranformation and gamma factor.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Poutnik
>
Peter Riedt
Peter Riedt
Jul 30, 2014, 11:02:05 PM7/30/14
to
According to SR, in the rest frame an electron is larger than in its contracted state as observed in the lab. In SR an object in motion has two sizes: a real one in its own frame and a 'measured' one as calculated by the gamma formula and claimed measureable by SR.
Peter Riedt
Poutnik
Jul 31, 2014, 4:39:40 AM7/31/14
to
evaluation. As we cannot measure an elctron size, we can only determine
upper size limit.
Note that you formula for determining size from mass is incorrect,
being naive interpretation of uncertainty principle.
Peter Riedt
Jul 31, 2014, 7:08:03 AM7/31/14
to
My sqrt( 1 + v^2/c^2 ) / L is correct and corresponds
to
1/5.6E-15m/1/SQRT(1+294000000^2/300000000^2)
= 250,025,508,902km. This is the size of the electron
in its own frame (maybe in a world of illusion).
Peter Riedt
Peter Riedt
Jul 31, 2014, 7:18:39 AM7/31/14
to
On Thursday, July 31, 2014 4:39:40 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote:
> On 07/31/2014 05:02 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, July 30, 2014 2:43:36 PM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote:
>
> >> On 30/07/2014 3:55 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> Where did Einstein ever make such a claim?
>
> >>
>
> >>>> Sylvia.
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> Sylvia, Einstein claimed the contraction of an object can be measured by a non-comoving observer by applying the gamma formula of Lorentz which Einstein also derived. This measurement is alleged to be the contracted dimension of the object. If the contracted size is available we can calculate by the reciprocal of gamma the size of the object in the frame of the object.
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> Peter Riedt
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Ah, so when you say the size according to Einstein, you actually mean
>
> >> the size as incorrectly calculated by you via a totally ill-conceived
>
> >> mathematical analysis.
>
> >>
>
> >> Sylvia.
>
> >
>
> > Sylvia, I actually mean the size as predicted by Einstein's contraction theory.
>
> > According to SR, in the rest frame an electron is larger than in its contracted state as observed in the lab. In SR an object in motion has two sizes: a real one in its own frame and a 'measured' one as calculated by the gamma formula and claimed measureable by SR.
>
> >
>
> Note that an electron is on of worst objects you oculd choose for LC
>
> evaluation. As we cannot measure an elctron size, we can only determine
>
> upper size limit.
>
>
>
> Note that your formula for determining size from mass is incorrect,
> On 07/31/2014 05:02 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, July 30, 2014 2:43:36 PM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote:
>
> >> On 30/07/2014 3:55 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> Where did Einstein ever make such a claim?
>
> >>
>
> >>>> Sylvia.
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> Sylvia, Einstein claimed the contraction of an object can be measured by a non-comoving observer by applying the gamma formula of Lorentz which Einstein also derived. This measurement is alleged to be the contracted dimension of the object. If the contracted size is available we can calculate by the reciprocal of gamma the size of the object in the frame of the object.
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> Peter Riedt
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Ah, so when you say the size according to Einstein, you actually mean
>
> >> the size as incorrectly calculated by you via a totally ill-conceived
>
> >> mathematical analysis.
>
> >>
>
> >> Sylvia.
>
> >
>
> > Sylvia, I actually mean the size as predicted by Einstein's contraction theory.
>
> > According to SR, in the rest frame an electron is larger than in its contracted state as observed in the lab. In SR an object in motion has two sizes: a real one in its own frame and a 'measured' one as calculated by the gamma formula and claimed measureable by SR.
>
> >
>
> Note that an electron is on of worst objects you oculd choose for LC
>
> evaluation. As we cannot measure an elctron size, we can only determine
>
> upper size limit.
>
>
>
>
> being naive interpretation of uncertainty principle.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Poutnik
>
>
Poutnik, you are correct, the size and speed of an electron is not a good example if we were only intent on the determination of those attributes.
> being naive interpretation of uncertainty principle.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Poutnik
>
>
More important is the big picture. Reversing the perceived size of the electron in the observed frame to the rest size in the electron's own frame shows how ludicrous the theory of length contraction is.
Peter Riedt
Poutnik
Jul 31, 2014, 7:27:41 AM7/31/14
to
with dimension analysis of your expressions ?
1/5.6E-15m/1/SQRT(1+294000000^2/300000000^2)
DOES NOT have dimension of length.
You regularly make make basic school level calculation mistakes.
Do not wonder then if your calculations produce nonsenses.
Poutnik
Jul 31, 2014, 7:30:58 AM7/31/14
to
On 07/31/2014 01:18 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> On Thursday, July 31, 2014 4:39:40 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote:
>> On 07/31/2014 05:02 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
>>
>>
>> Note that an electron is on of worst objects you oculd choose for LC
>> evaluation. As we cannot measure an elctron size, we can only determine
>> upper size limit.
>>
>> Note that your formula for determining size from mass is incorrect,
>> being naive interpretation of uncertainty principle.
>>
>
>>
>>
> On Thursday, July 31, 2014 4:39:40 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote:
>> On 07/31/2014 05:02 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
>>
>>
>> Note that an electron is on of worst objects you oculd choose for LC
>> evaluation. As we cannot measure an elctron size, we can only determine
>> upper size limit.
>>
>> Note that your formula for determining size from mass is incorrect,
>> being naive interpretation of uncertainty principle.
>>
>
>>
>>
> Poutnik, you are correct, the size and speed of an electron is not a good example if we were only intent on the determination of those attributes.
>
> More important is the big picture. Reversing the perceived size of the electron in the observed frame to the rest size in the electron's own frame shows how ludicrous the theory of length contraction is.
>
No. It only shows lack of your BASIC math skill.
>
> More important is the big picture. Reversing the perceived size of the electron in the observed frame to the rest size in the electron's own frame shows how ludicrous the theory of length contraction is.
>
Dirk Van de moortel
Jul 31, 2014, 7:45:41 AM7/31/14
to
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/UsedReciprocal.html
Good grief.
Dirk Vdm
Peter Riedt
Jul 31, 2014, 7:48:27 AM7/31/14
to
On Thursday, July 31, 2014 7:27:41 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote:
> On 07/31/2014 01:08 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, July 31, 2014 3:35:14 AM UTC+8, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>
> >> Peter Riedt <rie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Open your stupid eyes and read.
>
> >> You are too stupid for this. I'm not going to bother explaining.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Dirk Vdm
>
> >
>
> > Dirk, your L / sqrt( 1 - v^2/c^2 ) is incorrect.
>
> > My sqrt( 1 + v^2/c^2 ) / L is correct and corresponds
>
> > to
>
> > 1/5.6E-15m/1/SQRT(1+294000000^2/300000000^2)
>
> > = 250,025,508,902km. This is the size of the electron
>
> > in its own frame (maybe in a world of illusion).
>
> >
>
> Have you ever bothered yourself
>
> with dimension analysis of your expressions ?
>
>
>
> 1/5.6E-15m/1/SQRT(1+294000000^2/300000000^2)
>
> DOES NOT have dimension of length.
>
>
>
> You regularly make make basic school level calculation mistakes.
>
> Do not wonder then if your calculations produce nonsenses.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Poutnik
>
>
Poutnik, I have changed it to 1/5.6E-15m/1/SQRT(1+294000000m/sec^2/300000000m/sec^2). The big picture is important. The length contraction concept is untenable in the macro and micro world.
> On 07/31/2014 01:08 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, July 31, 2014 3:35:14 AM UTC+8, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>
> >> Peter Riedt <rie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Open your stupid eyes and read.
>
> >> You are too stupid for this. I'm not going to bother explaining.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Dirk Vdm
>
> >
>
> > Dirk, your L / sqrt( 1 - v^2/c^2 ) is incorrect.
>
> > My sqrt( 1 + v^2/c^2 ) / L is correct and corresponds
>
> > to
>
> > 1/5.6E-15m/1/SQRT(1+294000000^2/300000000^2)
>
> > = 250,025,508,902km. This is the size of the electron
>
> > in its own frame (maybe in a world of illusion).
>
> >
>
> Have you ever bothered yourself
>
> with dimension analysis of your expressions ?
>
>
>
> 1/5.6E-15m/1/SQRT(1+294000000^2/300000000^2)
>
> DOES NOT have dimension of length.
>
>
>
> You regularly make make basic school level calculation mistakes.
>
> Do not wonder then if your calculations produce nonsenses.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Poutnik
>
>
Peter Riedt
Poutnik
Jul 31, 2014, 7:55:00 AM7/31/14
to
On 07/31/2014 01:48 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> On Thursday, July 31, 2014 7:27:41 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote:
>> On 07/31/2014 01:08 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday, July 31, 2014 3:35:14 AM UTC+8, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>>
>>>> Peter Riedt <rie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> Open your stupid eyes and read.
>>
>>>> You are too stupid for this. I'm not going to bother explaining.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> Dirk Vdm
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Dirk, your L / sqrt( 1 - v^2/c^2 ) is incorrect.
>>
>>> My sqrt( 1 + v^2/c^2 ) / L is correct and corresponds
>>
>>> to
>>
>>> 1/5.6E-15m/1/SQRT(1+294000000^2/300000000^2)
>>
>>> = 250,025,508,902km. This is the size of the electron
>>
>>> in its own frame (maybe in a world of illusion).
>>
>>>
>>
>> Have you ever bothered yourself
>> with dimension analysis of your expressions ?
>>
>> 1/5.6E-15m/1/SQRT(1+294000000^2/300000000^2)
>> DOES NOT have dimension of length.
>>
>> You regularly make make basic school level calculation mistakes.
>> Do not wonder then if your calculations produce nonsenses.
>>
>
> On Thursday, July 31, 2014 7:27:41 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote:
>> On 07/31/2014 01:08 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday, July 31, 2014 3:35:14 AM UTC+8, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>>
>>>> Peter Riedt <rie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> Open your stupid eyes and read.
>>
>>>> You are too stupid for this. I'm not going to bother explaining.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> Dirk Vdm
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Dirk, your L / sqrt( 1 - v^2/c^2 ) is incorrect.
>>
>>> My sqrt( 1 + v^2/c^2 ) / L is correct and corresponds
>>
>>> to
>>
>>> 1/5.6E-15m/1/SQRT(1+294000000^2/300000000^2)
>>
>>> = 250,025,508,902km. This is the size of the electron
>>
>>> in its own frame (maybe in a world of illusion).
>>
>>>
>>
>> Have you ever bothered yourself
>> with dimension analysis of your expressions ?
>>
>> 1/5.6E-15m/1/SQRT(1+294000000^2/300000000^2)
>> DOES NOT have dimension of length.
>>
>> You regularly make make basic school level calculation mistakes.
>> Do not wonder then if your calculations produce nonsenses.
>>
>
> Poutnik, I have changed it to 1/5.6E-15m/1/SQRT(1+294000000m/sec^2/300000000m/sec^2). The big picture is important. The length contraction concept is untenable in the macro and micro world.
>
Peter, you seem being unable to learn from your mistakes.
>
1 / 5.6E-15m is not length.
dividing or multiplying by any unitless number will not change anything.
Odd Bodkin
Jul 31, 2014, 9:41:57 AM7/31/14
to
On 7/30/2014 2:52 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
>> Lr = L / sqrt ( 1 - 0.98^2 )
>> >
>> >Poutnik
>> >
>> >
> Poutnik, you formula is incorrect.
>> Lr = L / sqrt ( 1 - 0.98^2 )
>> >
>> >Poutnik
>> >
>> >
>
> Peter Riedt
Peter, I don't know how you ever hope to make any claims about
relativity if 7th grade algebra and arithmetic trips you up.
Odd Bodkin
Jul 31, 2014, 11:56:43 AM7/31/14
to
On 7/31/2014 6:08 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
>
> Dirk, your L / sqrt( 1 - v^2/c^2 ) is incorrect.
> My sqrt( 1 + v^2/c^2 ) / L is correct and corresponds
> to
> 1/5.6E-15m/1/SQRT(1+294000000^2/300000000^2)
> = 250,025,508,902km. This is the size of the electron
> in its own frame (maybe in a world of illusion).
No, Peter, you're not correct. You are making a 5th grade math error.
>
> Dirk, your L / sqrt( 1 - v^2/c^2 ) is incorrect.
> My sqrt( 1 + v^2/c^2 ) / L is correct and corresponds
> to
> 1/5.6E-15m/1/SQRT(1+294000000^2/300000000^2)
> = 250,025,508,902km. This is the size of the electron
> in its own frame (maybe in a world of illusion).
Peter Riedt
Jul 31, 2014, 4:35:11 PM7/31/14
to
Peter Riedt
Peter Riedt
Jul 31, 2014, 4:35:55 PM7/31/14
to
Peter Riedt
Jul 31, 2014, 4:37:22 PM7/31/14
to
Peter Riedt
Peter Riedt
Jul 31, 2014, 4:39:34 PM7/31/14
to
Peter Riedt
Poutnik
Jul 31, 2014, 6:12:14 PM7/31/14
to
Dne 31.7.2014 v 22:35 Peter Riedt napsal(a):
Mathematics is as important as ability to walk, before you try running.
What is the length ?
--
Poutnik
Wise man guards the words he says,
What is the length ?
--
Poutnik
Wise man guards the words he says,
Poutnik
Jul 31, 2014, 6:16:07 PM7/31/14
to
Dne 31.7.2014 v 22:39 Peter Riedt napsal(a):
--
Poutnik
Wise man guards the words he says,
> On Thursday, July 31, 2014 7:55:00 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote:
>>
> Poutnik, the mathematics are not important. Important is that the concept of length contraction is untenable for comoving and non-comoving observers.
>
Repeated mistakes does not become knowledge, but stupidity.
>>
> Poutnik, the mathematics are not important. Important is that the concept of length contraction is untenable for comoving and non-comoving observers.
>
--
Poutnik
Wise man guards the words he says,
Poutnik
Jul 31, 2014, 6:36:50 PM7/31/14
to
Dne 31.7.2014 v 22:39 Peter Riedt napsal(a):
> Important is that the concept of length contraction is untenable for comoving and non-comoving observers.
>
Only if all measure both object endpoints simultaneously.
>
--
Poutnik
Wise man guards the words he says,
Odd Bodkin
Aug 4, 2014, 6:58:13 AM8/4/14
to
On 7/31/2014 3:35 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> Bod, the mathematics are not important. Important is that the concept of length contraction is
> untenable for comoving and non-comoving observers.
Sorry, but you've given absolutely no argument for that untenability
> Bod, the mathematics are not important. Important is that the concept of length contraction is
> untenable for comoving and non-comoving observers.
other than a really terrible calculation on your part.
I don't see a single reason to think that length contraction is
untenable. If you have a reason, perhaps you could explain what it is
without obvious and elementary mistakes.
0 new messages