Is Length Contraction in SR physical??
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Simultaneous events and Einstein's absolute time
Next: New Theory --- The Theory of Quantum Wave Sources
From: JT on 11 Feb 2010 11:43 On 11 Feb, 15:39, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Feb 10, 10:32 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > > >news:kvSdnQR4g8u56O7W4p2dnAA(a)giganews.com... > > > > Nor does the rod get "physically shorter" by any measure we take in any > > > other frame, either. Making a measurement of its length does NOT affect > > > the length of the rod itself, regardless of how the measurement is made. > > > Just using 'length' is also a linguistic problem (similar to that of using > > 'physical'). > > > Does it mean 'proper length' / 'intrinsic length' / 'rest length' .... or > > does it mean the 'measured length' (ie the distance between the coordinates > > of two points at a given time in a given inertial frame) (or is there a > > better term for that 'length' that I can't think of atm :)) ??? > > There is no such thing as measured length of a moving rod. There is a > predicted length or geometric projected length of a moving rod. I > don't understand why you physicists keep on using the word *measured* > instead of *predicted*. Is it to give your SR theory more credence? Of courese you are right Ken they are not measured they are only projections of the applied Lorentz transform. I just wanted to point out that even if the Lorentz transform should turn out to be a realworld event and not a projection, the logical standpoint of using the same unit with different magnitudes is still simply wrong. The use of length units must of course be invariant between frames, a meter is not a turd of certain degree of contraction, because then a meter is a flattened turd. A meter is not a physical entity it is a comparisson tool and must be invariant between frames to even have a function. So they are wrong in so many ways it is hard to really know where to start critisize the theory. Maybe you just can not make them understand that the Lorentz transfomr is a mathematical projection where the world simultaneous lost all meaning, afterall they think already the values is measured when only applying the formula. But you can and must stess the invalid use of units where they lack purpose, a unit is not a measure that can be compressed or contracted a material with a volume can be compressed to have another volume. But the unit liter can not be compressed it is so confusing even imaging such idiocy, but still it falls perfectly natural for them to state that lengths is framedependent. So how you even confront such idiocy, i simply do noit i only talk with others who have enough brain to see the idiocy in what is going on. Although i can see signs that SR today is more a brick holding back the cold reality from surface, i think many SRIANS todays understand the faulthy methodology that lead the theory, but they can just not state outfront that they and Einstein was wrong so they keep on juggling turds like nothing happened. JT > Ken Seto > > > > > > > If we refer to its 'length' 'in some inertial frame', then that would seem > > to imply one means the 'measured length', because the 'proper' / 'intrinsic' > > / 'rest' length does not depend on the frame of reference/ So when we say > > 'the length of the rod is shorter in the frame of the barn', that would seem > > to imply that length as measured in that frame, and not the rest length.. > > > Though a tilted ladder doesn't get 'physically shorter' it is also not as > > 'tall' (it has a lower 'height'). Can one say it is 'physically' not as > > tall? A 6 foot ladder lying on the ground is still a 6 foot ladder, but it > > is no longer 6 foot tall. > > > It all comes down to the ambiguities of the English language (and I suspect > > the same or similar ambiguities in other spoken languages). That being one > > of the reasons why relationships and statements in physics are often made > > using the less ambiguous language of mathematics. > > > Now. . the question is .. does Ken understand the linguistic issues here ... > > and is he of the opinion that the measured length of a rod (((ie the > > distance between its endpoints at a given time in a given frame of > > reference))) is predicted to be shorter in a frame in which it is is motion > > in a direction parallel to the line between those endpoints (eg in the pole > > and barn paradox). Ie if it was possible to devise an experiment where one > > could accurately (enough) measure that length, would that measurement be > > shorter than the proper/intrinsic/rest length of the rod?- Dölj citerad text - > > - Visa citerad text -
From: PD on 11 Feb 2010 15:53 On Feb 11, 10:43 am, JT <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > I just wanted to point out that even if the Lorentz transform should > turn out to be a realworld event and not a projection, the logical > standpoint of using the same unit with different magnitudes is still > simply wrong. In other words, if actual measurements of the way nature REALLY behaves says that length is frame-dependent, then the measurements must be wrong, because you will NOT ALLOW length to be a frame- dependent quantity. And you will NOT ALLOW this, because you believe that your preconceptions about the frame-independence of such quantities MUST be true for science even to be possible. The notion that a standard must be applied locally and not across reference frames just is not acceptable to you as a measurement standard, and the universe MUST comply with YOUR standards. > The use of length units must of course be invariant > between frames, a meter is not a turd of certain degree of > contraction, because then a meter is a flattened turd. A meter is not > a physical entity it is a comparisson tool and must be invariant > between frames to even have a function. > > So they are wrong in so many ways it is hard to really know where to > start critisize the theory. Maybe you just can not make them > understand that the Lorentz transfomr is a mathematical projection > where the world simultaneous lost all meaning, afterall they think > already the values is measured when only applying the formula. > > But you can and must stess the invalid use of units where they lack > purpose, a unit is not a measure that can be compressed or contracted > a material with a volume can be compressed to have another volume. But > the unit liter can not be compressed it is so confusing even imaging > such idiocy, but still it falls perfectly natural for them to state > that lengths is framedependent. > > So how you even confront such idiocy, i simply do noit i only talk > with others who have enough brain to see the idiocy in what is going > on. Although i can see signs that SR today is more a brick holding > back the cold reality from surface, i think many SRIANS todays > understand the faulthy methodology that lead the theory, but they can > just not state outfront that they and Einstein was wrong so they keep > on juggling turds like nothing happened. > > JT >
From: JT on 11 Feb 2010 16:30 On 11 Feb, 21:53, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 11, 10:43 am, JT <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > I just wanted to point out that even if the Lorentz transform should > > turn out to be a realworld event and not a projection, the logical > > standpoint of using the same unit with different magnitudes is still > > simply wrong. > > In other words, if actual measurements of the way nature REALLY > behaves says that length is frame-dependent, then the measurements > must be wrong, because you will NOT ALLOW length to be a frame- > dependent quantity. And you will NOT ALLOW this, because you believe > that your preconceptions about the frame-independence of such > quantities MUST be true for science even to be possible. The notion > that a standard must be applied locally and not across reference > frames just is not acceptable to you as a measurement standard, and > the universe MUST comply with YOUR standards. > > > > > The use of length units must of course be invariant > > between frames, a meter is not a turd of certain degree of > > contraction, because then a meter is a flattened turd. A meter is not > > a physical entity it is a comparisson tool and must be invariant > > between frames to even have a function. > > > So they are wrong in so many ways it is hard to really know where to > > start critisize the theory. Maybe you just can not make them > > understand that the Lorentz transfomr is a mathematical projection > > where the world simultaneous lost all meaning, afterall they think > > already the values is measured when only applying the formula. > > > But you can and must stess the invalid use of units where they lack > > purpose, a unit is not a measure that can be compressed or contracted > > a material with a volume can be compressed to have another volume. But > > the unit liter can not be compressed it is so confusing even imaging > > such idiocy, but still it falls perfectly natural for them to state > > that lengths is framedependent. > > > So how you even confront such idiocy, i simply do noit i only talk > > with others who have enough brain to see the idiocy in what is going > > on. Although i can see signs that SR today is more a brick holding > > back the cold reality from surface, i think many SRIANS todays > > understand the faulthy methodology that lead the theory, but they can > > just not state outfront that they and Einstein was wrong so they keep > > on juggling turds like nothing happened. > > > JT- Dölj citerad text - > > - Visa citerad text - Well you go buy your liter of milk tomorrow in a decliter package and find out how much sense it makes when you are upto making a cake that need one liter of milk. Units are standardised measurements made for comparing magnitudes equal or not they are the ribbon after we do comparissons, they are not contracted turds that you can learn juggle with in a calculation. A distance is not framedependent end of story each object B,C,D,E,F,,, will measure object A to the same distance end of story word juggler. You meter do not qualify as a unit, it qualify as a Lorents transformed turd though but it bares no significance when it come to measure things weither lightspeed, poles or barns. It is simply defective just like your brains. JT
From: PD on 11 Feb 2010 16:56 On Feb 11, 3:30 pm, JT <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 11 Feb, 21:53, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 11, 10:43 am, JT <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > I just wanted to point out that even if the Lorentz transform should > > > turn out to be a realworld event and not a projection, the logical > > > standpoint of using the same unit with different magnitudes is still > > > simply wrong. > > > In other words, if actual measurements of the way nature REALLY > > behaves says that length is frame-dependent, then the measurements > > must be wrong, because you will NOT ALLOW length to be a frame- > > dependent quantity. And you will NOT ALLOW this, because you believe > > that your preconceptions about the frame-independence of such > > quantities MUST be true for science even to be possible. The notion > > that a standard must be applied locally and not across reference > > frames just is not acceptable to you as a measurement standard, and > > the universe MUST comply with YOUR standards. > > > > The use of length units must of course be invariant > > > between frames, a meter is not a turd of certain degree of > > > contraction, because then a meter is a flattened turd. A meter is not > > > a physical entity it is a comparisson tool and must be invariant > > > between frames to even have a function. > > > > So they are wrong in so many ways it is hard to really know where to > > > start critisize the theory. Maybe you just can not make them > > > understand that the Lorentz transfomr is a mathematical projection > > > where the world simultaneous lost all meaning, afterall they think > > > already the values is measured when only applying the formula. > > > > But you can and must stess the invalid use of units where they lack > > > purpose, a unit is not a measure that can be compressed or contracted > > > a material with a volume can be compressed to have another volume. But > > > the unit liter can not be compressed it is so confusing even imaging > > > such idiocy, but still it falls perfectly natural for them to state > > > that lengths is framedependent. > > > > So how you even confront such idiocy, i simply do noit i only talk > > > with others who have enough brain to see the idiocy in what is going > > > on. Although i can see signs that SR today is more a brick holding > > > back the cold reality from surface, i think many SRIANS todays > > > understand the faulthy methodology that lead the theory, but they can > > > just not state outfront that they and Einstein was wrong so they keep > > > on juggling turds like nothing happened. > > > > JT- Dölj citerad text - > > > - Visa citerad text - > > Well you go buy your liter of milk tomorrow in a decliter package and > find out how much sense it makes when you are upto making a cake that > need one liter of milk. That would be using two different volumes locally. As I said, standards work fine LOCALLY. It's only when you attempt to use them across reference frames that they fall apart. > > Units are standardised measurements made for comparing magnitudes LOCALLY. Not across reference frames. Using the standards across reference frames voids the warranty on those standards. Kind of like cross-wiring a GFI outlet. > equal or not they are the ribbon after we do comparissons, they are > not contracted turds that you can learn juggle with in a calculation. > A distance is not framedependent end of story It may be YOUR story, but nature says otherwise. You don't get to dictate the story to nature, no matter how much you'd like to. > each object B,C,D,E,F,,, > will measure object A to the same distance end of story word juggler. > > You meter do not qualify as a unit, it qualify as a Lorents > transformed turd though but it bares no significance when it come to > measure things weither lightspeed, poles or barns. > > It is simply defective just like your brains. > > JT
From: kenseto on 11 Feb 2010 17:19
On Feb 11, 10:24 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 11, 8:39 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 10, 10:32 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > > > >news:kvSdnQR4g8u56O7W4p2dnAA(a)giganews.com... > > > > > Nor does the rod get "physically shorter" by any measure we take in any > > > > other frame, either. Making a measurement of its length does NOT affect > > > > the length of the rod itself, regardless of how the measurement is made. > > > > Just using 'length' is also a linguistic problem (similar to that of using > > > 'physical'). > > > > Does it mean 'proper length' / 'intrinsic length' / 'rest length' .... or > > > does it mean the 'measured length' (ie the distance between the coordinates > > > of two points at a given time in a given inertial frame) (or is there a > > > better term for that 'length' that I can't think of atm :)) ??? > > > There is no such thing as measured length of a moving rod. > > Of course there is, Ken. Even at horse races, horses are measured to > win over second-place finishers by three and a half lengths. What > makes you think it is impossible to measure the length of a moving > rod? How to do it has been described to you dozens of times. But that's not a measurement of the length of a moving horse. > > > > > There is a > > predicted length or geometric projected length of a moving rod. I > > don't understand why you physicists keep on using the word *measured* > > instead of *predicted*. Is it to give your SR theory more credence? > > > Ken Seto > > > > If we refer to its 'length' 'in some inertial frame', then that would seem > > > to imply one means the 'measured length', because the 'proper' / 'intrinsic' > > > / 'rest' length does not depend on the frame of reference/ So when we say > > > 'the length of the rod is shorter in the frame of the barn', that would seem > > > to imply that length as measured in that frame, and not the rest length. > > > > Though a tilted ladder doesn't get 'physically shorter' it is also not as > > > 'tall' (it has a lower 'height'). Can one say it is 'physically' not as > > > tall? A 6 foot ladder lying on the ground is still a 6 foot ladder, but it > > > is no longer 6 foot tall. > > > > It all comes down to the ambiguities of the English language (and I suspect > > > the same or similar ambiguities in other spoken languages). That being one > > > of the reasons why relationships and statements in physics are often made > > > using the less ambiguous language of mathematics. > > > > Now. . the question is .. does Ken understand the linguistic issues here ... > > > and is he of the opinion that the measured length of a rod (((ie the > > > distance between its endpoints at a given time in a given frame of > > > reference))) is predicted to be shorter in a frame in which it is is motion > > > in a direction parallel to the line between those endpoints (eg in the pole > > > and barn paradox). Ie if it was possible to devise an experiment where one > > > could accurately (enough) measure that length, would that measurement be > > > shorter than the proper/intrinsic/rest length of the rod?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |