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 20:30 On 12 Feb, 01:59, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message > > news:3ab08ba8-abb2-4ba6-9fb6-d4ae8b396b69(a)z26g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Feb 11, 10:32 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> That is not so, Ken. You see, that is the only way YOU can think of > >> this happening, and so you assume it IS the only way it can happen. In > >> this way, you prevent yourself from learning anything new. > > >> Things can be physically contracted without being materially > >> contracted. > >> However, YOU can only think of one way something can be physically > >> contracted, and that's if it's materially contracted. That's YOUR > >> limitation, and yours only. > > > No things cannot be physically contracted without materially > > contracted. The word physical has the meaning of "of matter; material" > > in the dictionary. I don't understand why you insist to give the word > > physical a new meaning that is not associated with material. > > Furthermore in SR there is geometric contraction effect....why don't > > you use that instead of "physical contraction"? > > So you are using 'physical' as a synonym for 'material' .. why not just say > 'material' and then we'll all agree with you. As is evident, the word > 'physical' is a term that causes confusion. You are an idiot a meter is not physical it is a unit, the unit is invariant it do not shrink between frames. If object B,,C,D,E,F with relative different velcoities measure object A to same magnitude you are dealing with a unit. If they do not you are dealing with ECDT leftovers from his highness. > So a ladder tilting over is (by your use of the word) physically unchanged, > but it is also true that it is not as tall, and so can it fit through > doorway gap that is shorter than the ladder's length. The only thing that is tilting here right now is your head. > Would *you* describe the tilted ladder passing through the shorter doorway > as something 'physical'? Does the ladder physically get to the other side > of the doorway? Is the a rotation of a ladder something physical? > > If so, then you must similarly describe the pole being between the barn > doors as physical. If not, then I would agree that length contraction is > not 'physical' by your use of the word.- Dölj citerad text - There is nothing physical using ECDT measures to begin with they do not share magnitudes betwen frame, as some other monkey delicate put it. The ECDT is only valid in it's own frame, this was from another monkey, do you understand monkey boy. Barn and Pole is like fto state when i use my 3 meter banana it will fit within my 2 meter cucumber it simply do not make sense. > - Visa citerad text -
From: Inertial on 11 Feb 2010 21:45 "JT" <jonas.thornvall(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:b929a140-dcd3-48de-8d1e-e0645c90ad1b(a)b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... > On 12 Feb, 01:59, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message >> >> news:3ab08ba8-abb2-4ba6-9fb6-d4ae8b396b69(a)z26g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Feb 11, 10:32 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> That is not so, Ken. You see, that is the only way YOU can think of >> >> this happening, and so you assume it IS the only way it can happen. In >> >> this way, you prevent yourself from learning anything new. >> >> >> Things can be physically contracted without being materially >> >> contracted. >> >> However, YOU can only think of one way something can be physically >> >> contracted, and that's if it's materially contracted. That's YOUR >> >> limitation, and yours only. >> >> > No things cannot be physically contracted without materially >> > contracted. The word physical has the meaning of "of matter; material" >> > in the dictionary. I don't understand why you insist to give the word >> > physical a new meaning that is not associated with material. >> > Furthermore in SR there is geometric contraction effect....why don't >> > you use that instead of "physical contraction"? >> >> So you are using 'physical' as a synonym for 'material' .. why not just >> say >> 'material' and then we'll all agree with you. As is evident, the word >> 'physical' is a term that causes confusion. > You are an idiot a meter is not physical it is a unit, the unit is > invariant it do not shrink between frames. If object B,,C,D,E,F with > relative different velcoities measure object A to same magnitude you > are dealing with a unit. > > If they do not you are dealing with ECDT [ snip rest unread after you stupid ECDT nonsense .. if you can't post physics, don't bother replying ]
From: Paul Stowe on 11 Feb 2010 22:10 On Feb 11, 4:46 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Paul Stowe" <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:3b3fb45b-8442-413c-bd96-df4dd57c8b50(a)m35g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > > > On Feb 11, 1:46 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "Paul Stowe" <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >>news:e197d580-e4c3-4afa-a4e6-2fbf404412e6(a)l12g2000prg.googlegroups.com.... > > >> > On Feb 10, 11:16 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> >> "Paul Stowe" <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >> >>news:0db4a675-2ae3-4b9d-af25-9b5f4fac9d55(a)a16g2000pre.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> > On Feb 10, 11:36 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> >> > {Snip...} > > >> >> >> The question therefore remains, how can the speed of propagation > >> >> >> possibly be measured to be constant in all frames. > > >> >> > The answer to your question is actually simple and 'intuitive' if > >> >> > you > >> >> > think > >> >> > about what must happen in a medium. The propagation of any type of > >> >> > disturbance travels by 'conduction' from one entity to the next. > >> >> > This > >> >> > is > >> >> > set by the mean speed and spacing. If the medium is > >> >> > 'incompressible' > >> >> > the > >> >> > entities are all touching (spacing is zero) and the entities > >> >> > 'infinitely > >> >> > hard' In that case, the speed of propagation is infinite, and no > >> >> > delta > >> >> > 'pressures' are possible 'within the medium. OTOH, in any > >> >> > compressible > >> >> > medium there is spacing, and the entities have momentum and energy. > >> >> > This > >> >> > results a distinctive independent set speed by which any > >> >> > disturbances > >> >> > (like wave propagation) will occur. This is designated as c for > >> >> > ANY! > >> >> > medium > > >> >> > Now it should be obvious that in the case of a medium it is this > >> >> > process > >> >> > that always dominates... The speed of sources must, by that > >> >> > constraint, > >> >> > alter there emission/field profiles to conform to this limitation.. > > >> >> > So now, start with a source of a omni-directional wave generator 'at > >> >> > rest' > >> >> > with respect to the medium. The resulting waves propagate outward > >> >> > 'at > >> >> > c' > >> >> > in all directions, resulting in a perfectly spherical field form. > >> >> > Next, > >> >> > give this source some speed v, obviously c hasn't changed so, in the > >> >> > direction of motion the source is displacing forward at v so each > >> >> > wave > >> >> > front must be separating 'from the source' at c - v. In the > >> >> > perpendicular > >> >> > (transverse) direction the wave fronts are still separating from the > >> >> > source at c. Thus, for the hemisphere in front of the moving source > >> >> > the > >> >> > wave field form is no longer spherical, but flatten into an > >> >> > ellipsoid. > >> >> > Now what happens to the back half??? > > >> >> The opposite > > >> >> > Intuitively you would think > >> >> > that > >> >> > the wave front would be separating 'from the source' at c + v. > > >> >> It does > > >> >> > However, remember that a wave is an oscillation (a back & forth > >> >> > motion) so, > > >> >> Not for light. It is side-to-side > > >> >> > one cycle is c - v and c + v. > > >> >> Nonsense [snip rest] > > >> > From the �Handbook of Physics� (Section 3, Chapter 8 - �Acoustics�, > >> > Rev 2 1967), > > >> > �The surfaces of constant sound pressure on the other hand > >> > are given by R� = constant, which corresponds to the > >> > ellipsoid x'^2 + y^2 + z^2 = constant = R�^2 as pictured > >> > in Fig. 8.2. It is interesting to note that the field is > >> > the same up and down wind and that the intensity is > >> > larger in the directions at right angles to the flow.� > > >> Don't have that book > > >> Each wavefront (for sound), however, forms a sphere around the point from > >> which it was emitted. > > > Really? What's the general form of the wave equation for that? > > Why do you need to know the equation for a sphere? Then the equation should be simple to present. Hint, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_equation > >> The source continues to move, so successive wave cycles have the centre > >> of their spherical wavefront at a different position > > > If the field for each source position (instant) could manifest itself > > instantaneously maybe, but the field doesn't/can't. > > No need to be instantaneous > > > The disturbances must propagate from the source outward at finite speed.. > > Yes .. in all directions at the same speed wrt the medium. Hence you get a > sphere. No, they don't It's not a cartoon, where the source stops for an instant, emits a pulse, then moves to the next position, stops and pulses. Both are continuous, thus the wavefronts cannot possibly be perfectly spherical. You might think it to be teardrop shaped... > And as the source is going slower than the speed of propagation in the > medium, the overall bounds of the wavefront is always a sphere .. the sphere > defined by the leading wavefront. So, with v = 0.999c you still think it's spherical? > > Thus for every dx the field propagates the source moves forward some ds.... > > Pretty much what I said > > > The > > result of this is as described in the reference provided, and I > > described earlier. Namely, the resulting overall sound field is a > > flatten ellipsoid contracted along axis of motion by precisely Sqrt(1 > > - [v/c]^2), a.k.a. it undergoes a Lorentz contraction. > > But a wave-front is spherical. What is a 'sound field', and what do areas > of constant pressure have to do with SR? How do you think that can be if c is independent of the speed of the source??? > >> What has a surface of constant sound pressure got to do with anything in > >> SR? > > > Think about it for awhile..... > > OK .. just did. No answer. So .. seeing it is your claim, what does sound > pressure have to do with SR? One can lead a person to information but cannot make'em think. Paul Stowe
From: Inertial on 11 Feb 2010 23:12 "Paul Stowe" <theaetherist(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:7c846ac6-1ab0-4a6b-b1fd-3b38936c6f90(a)u19g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 11, 4:46 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Paul Stowe" <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:3b3fb45b-8442-413c-bd96-df4dd57c8b50(a)m35g2000prh.googlegroups.com... >> >> > On Feb 11, 1:46 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> "Paul Stowe" <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >>news:e197d580-e4c3-4afa-a4e6-2fbf404412e6(a)l12g2000prg.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> > On Feb 10, 11:16 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> >> "Paul Stowe" <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >>news:0db4a675-2ae3-4b9d-af25-9b5f4fac9d55(a)a16g2000pre.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On Feb 10, 11:36 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > {Snip...} >> >> >> >> >> The question therefore remains, how can the speed of propagation >> >> >> >> possibly be measured to be constant in all frames. >> >> >> >> > The answer to your question is actually simple and 'intuitive' if >> >> >> > you >> >> >> > think >> >> >> > about what must happen in a medium. The propagation of any type >> >> >> > of >> >> >> > disturbance travels by 'conduction' from one entity to the next. >> >> >> > This >> >> >> > is >> >> >> > set by the mean speed and spacing. If the medium is >> >> >> > 'incompressible' >> >> >> > the >> >> >> > entities are all touching (spacing is zero) and the entities >> >> >> > 'infinitely >> >> >> > hard' In that case, the speed of propagation is infinite, and >> >> >> > no >> >> >> > delta >> >> >> > 'pressures' are possible 'within the medium. OTOH, in any >> >> >> > compressible >> >> >> > medium there is spacing, and the entities have momentum and >> >> >> > energy. >> >> >> > This >> >> >> > results a distinctive independent set speed by which any >> >> >> > disturbances >> >> >> > (like wave propagation) will occur. This is designated as c for >> >> >> > ANY! >> >> >> > medium >> >> >> >> > Now it should be obvious that in the case of a medium it is this >> >> >> > process >> >> >> > that always dominates... The speed of sources must, by that >> >> >> > constraint, >> >> >> > alter there emission/field profiles to conform to this >> >> >> > limitation. >> >> >> >> > So now, start with a source of a omni-directional wave generator >> >> >> > 'at >> >> >> > rest' >> >> >> > with respect to the medium. The resulting waves propagate >> >> >> > outward >> >> >> > 'at >> >> >> > c' >> >> >> > in all directions, resulting in a perfectly spherical field form. >> >> >> > Next, >> >> >> > give this source some speed v, obviously c hasn't changed so, in >> >> >> > the >> >> >> > direction of motion the source is displacing forward at v so each >> >> >> > wave >> >> >> > front must be separating 'from the source' at c - v. In the >> >> >> > perpendicular >> >> >> > (transverse) direction the wave fronts are still separating from >> >> >> > the >> >> >> > source at c. Thus, for the hemisphere in front of the moving >> >> >> > source >> >> >> > the >> >> >> > wave field form is no longer spherical, but flatten into an >> >> >> > ellipsoid. >> >> >> > Now what happens to the back half??? >> >> >> >> The opposite >> >> >> >> > Intuitively you would think >> >> >> > that >> >> >> > the wave front would be separating 'from the source' at c + v. >> >> >> >> It does >> >> >> >> > However, remember that a wave is an oscillation (a back & forth >> >> >> > motion) so, >> >> >> >> Not for light. It is side-to-side >> >> >> >> > one cycle is c - v and c + v. >> >> >> >> Nonsense [snip rest] >> >> >> > From the �Handbook of Physics� (Section 3, Chapter 8 - >> >> > �Acoustics�, >> >> > Rev 2 1967), >> >> >> > �The surfaces of constant sound pressure on the other hand >> >> > are given by R� = constant, which corresponds to the >> >> > ellipsoid x'^2 + y^2 + z^2 = constant = R�^2 as pictured >> >> > in Fig. 8.2. It is interesting to note that the field is >> >> > the same up and down wind and that the intensity is >> >> > larger in the directions at right angles to the flow.� >> >> >> Don't have that book >> >> >> Each wavefront (for sound), however, forms a sphere around the point >> >> from >> >> which it was emitted. >> >> > Really? What's the general form of the wave equation for that? >> >> Why do you need to know the equation for a sphere? > > Then the equation should be simple to present. Hint, > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_equation I don't need a wave equation for the equation for a sphere. >> >> The source continues to move, so successive wave cycles have the >> >> centre >> >> of their spherical wavefront at a different position >> >> > If the field for each source position (instant) could manifest itself >> > instantaneously maybe, but the field doesn't/can't. >> >> No need to be instantaneous >> >> > The disturbances must propagate from the source outward at finite >> > speed. >> >> Yes .. in all directions at the same speed wrt the medium. Hence you get >> a >> sphere. > > No, they don't It's not a cartoon, I didn't say it was > where the source stops for an > instant, emits a pulse, then moves to the next position, stops and > pulses. I didn't say it did > Both are continuous, Yes > thus the wavefronts cannot possibly be > perfectly spherical. Why not > You might think it to be teardrop shaped... > >> And as the source is going slower than the speed of propagation in the >> medium, the overall bounds of the wavefront is always a sphere .. the >> sphere >> defined by the leading wavefront. > > So, with v = 0.999c you still think it's spherical? Yes .. of course it is. >> > Thus for every dx the field propagates the source moves forward some >> > ds... >> >> Pretty much what I said >> >> > The >> > result of this is as described in the reference provided, and I >> > described earlier. Namely, the resulting overall sound field is a >> > flatten ellipsoid contracted along axis of motion by precisely Sqrt(1 >> > - [v/c]^2), a.k.a. it undergoes a Lorentz contraction. >> >> But a wave-front is spherical. What is a 'sound field', and what do >> areas >> of constant pressure have to do with SR? You didn't answer my question > How do you think that can be if c is independent of the speed of the > source??? It is spherical in all frames of reference because the light travels at c in all directions from the source. >> >> What has a surface of constant sound pressure got to do with anything >> >> in >> >> SR? >> >> > Think about it for awhile..... >> >> OK .. just did. No answer. So .. seeing it is your claim, what does >> sound >> pressure have to do with SR? > > One can lead a person to information but cannot make'em think. So you don't know. Why not just admit it instead of bullshitting and avoiding questions.
From: kenseto on 12 Feb 2010 09:27
On Feb 11, 7:59 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message > > news:3ab08ba8-abb2-4ba6-9fb6-d4ae8b396b69(a)z26g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Feb 11, 10:32 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> That is not so, Ken. You see, that is the only way YOU can think of > >> this happening, and so you assume it IS the only way it can happen. In > >> this way, you prevent yourself from learning anything new. > > >> Things can be physically contracted without being materially > >> contracted. > >> However, YOU can only think of one way something can be physically > >> contracted, and that's if it's materially contracted. That's YOUR > >> limitation, and yours only. > > > No things cannot be physically contracted without materially > > contracted. The word physical has the meaning of "of matter; material" > > in the dictionary. I don't understand why you insist to give the word > > physical a new meaning that is not associated with material. > > Furthermore in SR there is geometric contraction effect....why don't > > you use that instead of "physical contraction"? > > So you are using 'physical' as a synonym for 'material' .. why not just say > 'material' and then we'll all agree with you. As is evident, the word > 'physical' is a term that causes confusion. In the dictionary physical is defined as (matter, material). The confusion is on your part when you tried to hijack the word physical to give it a completely different meaning than what is defined in the dictionary. > > So a ladder tilting over is (by your use of the word) physically unchanged, > but it is also true that it is not as tall, and so can it fit through > doorway gap that is shorter than the ladder's length. This is not the same as the longer material pole can fit into a shorter material barn with both doors close simultaneously. This requires real physical or material contraction. > > Would *you* describe the tilted ladder passing through the shorter doorway > as something 'physical'? Does the ladder physically get to the other side > of the doorway? Is the a rotation of a ladder something physical? No it is not physicsl contraction; it is a geometric projection. Ken Seto > > If so, then you must similarly describe the pole being between the barn > doors as physical. If not, then I would agree that length contraction is > not 'physical' by your use of the word.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |