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: PD on 12 Feb 2010 11:32 On Feb 11, 5:37 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Feb 11, 10:32 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Feb 11, 9:07 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 10, 8:49 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 10, 4:57 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Feb 10, 9:39 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 10, 8:06 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Feb 9, 5:56 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Feb 9, 4:29 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 9, 11:32 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 8, 2:58 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 8, 3:25 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 7, 8:39 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When Ken started asking these questions 15 years ago, they were > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reasonable questions. When after a couple of years it was clear he was > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not listening to the answers given to his questions, the tone of the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > responses became a little different. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why should I listen to what you said when you did made sense.?? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ken, it isn't wise to stop listening to people if you do not > > > > > > > > > > > > understand what they are saying. It would be important in that case to > > > > > > > > > > > > say, "I don't understand what you are saying. Can you explain it > > > > > > > > > > > > differently so I can understand it?" > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't listen to you because you keep on making contradictory claims. > > > > > > > > > > > For example the pole is physically contracted to fit the barn and at > > > > > > > > > > > the same time the pole does not fit into the barn because it is not > > > > > > > > > > > physically contracted. > > > > > > > > > > > Those are not contradictory claims. > > > > > > > > > > Yes they are. > > > > > > > > > > >Those are different accounts made > > > > > > > > > > in different reference frames. There is no requirement that the > > > > > > > > > > accounts be identical in different reference frames, and therefore > > > > > > > > > > they are not contradictory. > > > > > > > > > > They have to agree whether the physical length of the pole can fit > > > > > > > > > into the shorter barn. > > > > > > > > > No, they do not. There is no such requirement. > > > > > > > > There is the requirement that if you claim physical contraction then > > > > > > > the pole is really contracted > > > > > > > I have no idea what you mean by "really contracted". It is physically > > > > > > contracted in one frame because it actually fits between the doors > > > > > > when the doors are closed. How can that be called anything other than > > > > > > physical? It does NOT mean *materially* contracted though -- as in > > > > > > squeezing or cooling. > > > > > > Contraction by cooling is "really physically contracted", or > > > > > "materially contracted", and it is NOT a geometrically contracted > > > > > effect. > > > > > Indeed, but you act as though this is the ONLY way something can be > > > > physically contracted. Not so at all. > > > > > > IOW, when a meter stick is "really physically contracted" or > > > > > "materially contracted" its physical length or material length is > > > > > "physically" or "materially" shorter than the observer's meter stick. > > > > > "Physically" does not mean "materially". Never has, Ken. Get that out > > > > of your head. It's wrong. > > > > > > I don't understand why you insist on hijacking the word "physical" and > > > > > give it a different meaning than the standard meaning. > > > > > The standard meaning is the meaning given by physicists, since that > > > > which is physical is what is studied by physics. > > > > Electric field is physical, but it is not material. This should be > > > > enough to tell you that what you think is the "standard meaning" has > > > > something wrong with it, Ken. > > > > > So much of your difficulty in understanding physics, Ken, is that you > > > > insist that words mean what you want them to mean and you never ask > > > > what they really do mean. If you only asked what some words meant in > > > > physics, so much of your misunderstandings would be quickly resolved. > > > > > > I don't > > > > > understand why you don't except the correct phrase that length > > > > > conraction in SR is a "geometric projection effect". > > > > > > BTW the physical length or material length of the pole DOES NOT > > > > > actually fits between the doors when the doors are closed. The > > > > > *geometric projection* of the pole can fit into the barn with both > > > > > doors are closed.....the reason is that geometric projection is not > > > > > physical or material. > > > > > Oh, Ken, Ken, Ken. The doors are both closed at the same time, and the > > > > ends of the pole do not touch the doors. The pole is completely inside > > > > the barn. > > > > Yet you want to insist that the pole is only geometrically inside the > > > > barn and not physically inside the barn? Is it physically sticking out > > > > of the barn? How does it physically do that without physically making > > > > marks on the barn doors where the pole physically hits them? > > > > Here's the problem: What you wrote here means that there is material > > > or physical contraction. Why? Because the only way that the material > > > pole can be completely inside the barn with both doors closed > > > simultaneously is that it is physically or materially contracted. > > > 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. I'm sorry, Ken, but that is simply wrong. It's YOUR limitation, and yours only. > The word physical has the meaning of "of matter; material" > in the dictionary. That certainly isn't the meaning of "physical" as understood by physicists for *hundreds* of years. If you'd like something more accurate, you can look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_property Even in the dictionary, the definition that is relevant to physics is listed as follows: "3. Of or relating to matter and energy or the sciences dealing with them, especially physics." Note that energy is NOT matter, and so physical is not limited to matter, even in the dictionary. You can find that here: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/physical > I don't understand why you insist to give the word > physical a new meaning that is not associated with material. It is not a new meaning. The meaning that includes more than material has been in use for *hundreds* of years. > Furthermore in SR there is geometric contraction effect....why don't > you use that instead of "physical contraction"? Ken, it is not the obligation of science to describe things using terms about which you could not possibly be confused. Part of the work in studying physics is learning the jargon -- that means learning the specialized meanings of the words as they are used in physics. You will note that in your freshman physics book, there is a lot of attention spent on defining words very carefully because they mean things other than the dictionary definitions. I get that you think this is unfair. It's not. You just have to work with it. > > > > > > If > > > this is true then why do you need the explanation that length > > > contraction in SR is a geomrtical projection effect? > > > > > Do you see what kind of nonsense your word games get you into? > > > > ROTFLOL....it is you who is playing word games. Tom Roberts said that > > > length contraction in SR is a geometric projection effect and you said > > > that length contraction in SR is a physical > > > Yes, physical. > > define physical. I gave you a couple of references above. > > > > > > or material effect. > > > No, not material. "Physical" does not mean "material". I've repeated > > this to you at least 10 times, and yet you continue to make the two > > words synonymous when they are not. > > No matter how many time you repeat a falsehood ....I will not accept > it. It's not a falsehood, Ken, it's a correction. If you do not accept corrections, then you will never learn anything. This is a character defect. > > > > > > So who > > > should I trust? You or Tom Roberts? I trust Tom Roberts becasue he > > > seem to be more knowledgeable than you. > > > Ken, Ken, Ken. You see, you are struggling because you're trying to > > learn relativity from a NEWSGROUP. > > No I am not trying to learn relativity from NG. I was trying to point > out your missunderstanding the meaning of SR length contraction. I'm sorry, Ken, but all you know about SR comes from your freshman physics text, A Brief History of Time, and this newsgroup. > > And there you have all manner of > > > people who will say all sorts of things, and many of those people are > > just plain whacko, > > So I guess you are one of those wackos....Right? > > > and you are forced to choose who you should trust > > as the authority to believe. And then you have to make that decision > > on who to trust by who "seems" to be more knowledgeable about a > > subject that you know nothing about. > > As I said I trust Tom Roberts more than you because he is more > knowledgeable. It doesn't matter WHO you choose to trust, Ken. The fact is, you've spent 15 years trying to learn relativity, and you've not gotten anywhere. This should tell you something about what's wrong with your method. > > Ken Seto > > > It does not occur to you that the reason why you have struggled to > > learn ANYTHING consistently over 15 years is that you are using the > > WRONG venue to learn it. A newsgroup is NOT the right place to learn > > relativity. Anyone who tries it will spend 15 years learning > > practically NOTHING, and will still be confused about who to trust. > > > Does it not occur to you that you have been wasting your time by > > choosing this venue to provide you with reliable material so that you > > can learn relativity? Has it not occurred to you that you would be > > better served by spending $40 every few months on a decent book on the > > subject? > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > You get so confused about terms like "physically contracted" and > > > > > > "materially contracted" and "really contracted", as though they all > > > > > > mean the same things. They do not. The sooner you learn the > > > > > > distinctions, the better. > > > > > > > >.....IOW, not just a geometric projection > > > > > > > effect. > > > > > > > > > > The physical length cannot fit into the barn is > > > > > > > > > an absolute concept and it is not observer dependent. > > > > > > > > > I'm sorry, Ken, that is just wrong. > > > > > > > > It is not wrong....also assertion is not a valid arguement. > > > > > > > Factual matters are decided by documented facts, not argument, Ken. > > > > > > The point is not to *convince* you that you are wrong. I'm only > > > > > > pointing out when you ARE wrong, and I'd be happy to direct you to > > > > > > where you can look up the documented facts. However, there is no point > > > > > > in trying to convince you that you are wrong by making a compelling > > > > > > argument. I might as well be arguing with a stone pig. > > > > > > > > > > > Nor is it contradictory to say that a falling ball has a straight-line > > > > > > > > > > trajectory AND a parabolic trajectory in the same fall. Galileo knew > > > > > > > > > > that. I don't see why you don't understand that. > > > > > > > > > Do you understand what I wrote in this paragraph? Do you see why this > > > > > > > > is also not a contradiction? > > > > > > > > What you are describing here is a geometric projection of a falling > > > > > > > ball in the ship from the shore observer's point of view > > > > > > > No, it is a PHYSICAL shape of a trajectory. That is the point. The > > > > > > straight line path is a PHYSICAL trajectory. The parabolic path is a > > > > > > PHYSICAL trajectory. The falling ball has BOTH a straight line > > > > > > physical trajectory AND a parabolic physical trajectory, as seen in > > > > > > different frames. What is *measured* is physical. > > > > > > > >....this is > > > > > > > not the same as in the barn and the pole paradox where you claimed > > > > > > > that the pole is physically contracted.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 12 Feb 2010 11:34 On Feb 11, 4:19 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > 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. How do you know the horse has won by three and a half lengths if you've not measured the length of the moving horse? Good heavens, Ken. > > > > > > 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 -
From: NoEinstein on 12 Feb 2010 16:24 On Feb 9, 12:19 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 8 Feb, 16:20, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 6, 11:33 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 7 Feb, 03:54, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 6, 8:52 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > The only thing that is required is to note at the detector X or the > > > > > > detector Y whether the signals from the events arrive at the same time > > > > > > or at different times. This is a point decision. It is a yes or no > > > > > > question. "Signal from A just arrived at X. Did signal from B arrive > > > > > > at X at the same time? Yes or no." > > > > > > If detection is instantaneous (i.e. if a photon is absorbed > > > > > instantaneously), then it is possible for A and B to be simultaneous > > > > > according to both X and Y. However, if detection is not instantaneous, > > > > > then it is *not* possible. > > > > > I didn't say "according to both X and Y". What I said in fact was the > > > > opposite. Please reread. > > > > What I did say is that X is *right* in concluding that A and B are > > > > simultaneous, based on the procedure we established as reliable. > > > > But the procedure isn't reliable! I've said that repeatedly. > > > It isn't reliable for what? > > For driving a consensus between X and Y? Is that a necessary > > requirement? Why? > > Let's revisit the procedure. > > If you were going to try to determine whether two events are > > simultaneous, according to a *particular* observer, then our suggested > > procedure is as follows: > > 1. Position a detector midway between the two events, where "midway" > > can be established at any time by directly measuring the length > > between the marks left by the events and the mark at the location of > > the detector. Let's amend this to say that this can be repeated on two > > occasions to determine that the "midway" condition has not changed. > > 2. Have the events send a signal known to travel with equal speeds > > toward the detector. The equality of the speeds can be established at > > any time by reproducing the signal and directly measuring the distance > > covered by the signal per unit time. > > (Note that (1) and (2) unambiguously determine that the propagation > > delay is the same from both events.) > > 3. Determine whether the signals from the events arrive at the > > detector at the same time or at different times. If the signals arrive > > at the same time, then from that information the correct conclusion is > > that the original events were simultaneous. If the signals arrive at > > different times, then from that information the correct conclusion is > > that the original events were not simultaneous. > > This works only if neither detector is moving. > > > You agreed earlier that this procedure should be sufficient for > > determining the simultaneity of spatially separated events, according > > to a particular observer. > > > Now you seem not so sure. What's the source of your sudden > > reservation? What procedure would you otherwise propose for > > determining the simultaneity of two spatially separated events? > > The source of my reservation is that equidistance cannot be > maintained, nor symmetry maintained, over the detection *interval*, if > the two detectors are moving relative to each other. Even in an > idealised example where reception of the signal at the atomic level > occurs instantaneously (and I do not necessarily accept that even this > is true), no detection *system* (i.e. real world measurement device) > could perform a measurement of equidistance at the same time as > measuring the reception of the signal, and therefore no real-world > system can produce an observation of simultaneity where the detectors > are moving relative to each other. > > > > > > > > > > > Do you agree that those are the right conclusions, based on the yes or > > > > > > no question above, and given that the other conditions can be > > > > > > established? > > > > > > No. I think your mistake is in assuming that both the photon and > > > > > detector have an absolutely zero diameter (and therefore detection > > > > > occurs as soon as the surface of the zero-diameter objects touch).. In > > > > > reality, nothing in space will have a diameter of zero. > > > > > I don't know why you think diameter has anything to do with it. Note > > > > the size of the distance between A and X and between B and X. If a > > > > detector is 1.5 mm across, do you think this is going to be a dominant > > > > effect? > > > > No, I'm talking about the diameter of the photon and the atom. As I > > > say, the visualisation I have is somewhat like two bubbles in water, > > > and clearly if they are forced together so that they become one > > > bubble, that is not an instantaneous process. Certainly, the bubbles > > > do not merge merely at the first instant their (idealised spherical) > > > surfaces touch - they must be actually forced together until their > > > surface tension breaks. > > > > Having thought about it for a moment however, I realise that my > > > previous argument might not be wholly relevant or may be speculative > > > (although it embodies some likely factors that may be relevant in the > > > real world). You can theoretically (in particular, in the absence of > > > gravity) bring about absorbtion of photons from both events > > > simultaneously for both A and B, assuming that the photons and the > > > atoms maintain a constant speed as they impact and are absorbed by the > > > atom. > > > Let me ask you this. If your physical process can be established to > > take no more than, say, 2 picoseconds, and the arrival of the signals > > at the detectors is seen to be different by at least 2 microseconds, > > would it be established that the original signals were not > > simultaneous? > > Yes, *if* the assumption you make is true. > > Incidentally, does frequency have any effect on the absorbtion time of > electromagnetic radiation?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Discussions of... relativity are moot, because I've disproved SR and shot the HELL out of Einstein's warped space-time! NE
From: NoEinstein on 12 Feb 2010 16:29 On Feb 9, 3:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: Then, stop repeating yourself and simply GO away! Ha, ha, HA! NE > > On Feb 8, 2:28 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Feb 2, 10:52 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear Readers: PD, the Parasite Dunce, is incapable of learning > > anything. He used to be a teacher (big deal). Yet, he can't accept > > that the kinetic energy equationwhich inputs velocity UNIFORMLYcan't > > have a resulting KE increasing exponentially, or KE = 1/2 mv^2, > > We've been through this. 1/2 mv^2 is not an exponential increase. You > seem to have forgotten lesson you were taught just a couple weeks ago. > Did you undergo some mental reset? Is it connected to medications? > > > according to Coriolis's errant formula. Einstein based his SR on the > > latter KE equation, but he dropped the 1/2, for some unexplained > > reason. Both the equations of Coriolis and Einstein, in his SR, > > violate the Law of the Conservation of energy, by GETTING OUT more > > energy than is being put in by velocity. PD considers that distance > > traveled is a 'free' energy component of velocity. But find KE > > wherever he may, both Coriolis and Einstein still violate the Law of > > the Conservation of Energy. If the Coriolis equation was correct, > > then WHERE does the exponentially increasing energy come from? > > From the work provided by an externally applied force. We've been > through this before too. Do you start fresh every day, forgetting > everything that happened yesterday? Because if you do, then I see no > point in repeating myself over and over to you. > > > > > > > NoEinstein > > > > On Feb 2, 9:40 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On 1 Feb, 20:52, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Feb 1, 2:49 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > So does that mean that length contraction is not physical? > > > > > > No, it does not mean that. > > > > > Why do you think that "observer dependent" means "not physical"? > > > > > Lots of physical properties are observer dependent. > > > > > Because for anyone who believes in material reality, physical > > > > properties should not be "observer dependent", > > > > Then I would ask the following questions of you. > > > Is velocity a physical property? It is *clearly* observer-dependent. > > > Having answered that, is kinetic energy a physical property, given > > > that (at least at low speeds) the kinetic energy is proportional to > > > the square of the velocity, and so is also clearly observer-dependent.. > > > Having answered that, is the law of conservation of energy, which > > > includes kinetic energy as one of the contributions to the conserved > > > sum, a law about physical properties? If not, then what is it a law > > > about? > > > > > and if physical > > > > properties do indeed seem to change depending on how they are > > > > observed, then there should be some coherent explanation for it rather > > > > than just a statement that things are "observer dependent", which in > > > > most people's minds rather leaves the glaring question "why". > > > > I think there may just be a clash regarding an unfounded expectation > > > that physical properties "should" be observer-independent. Why would > > > this be an expectation? > > > The reality is that physics is littered with physical properties, > > > about which there are many laws that seem to hold remarkably well. > > > Some of those properties are observer-dependent, and some are observer- > > > independent. There is no rationale required for "why" they are not all > > > one way or the other, any more than there has to be a reason cited for > > > "why" all animals are not mammals. > > > > PD- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 12 Feb 2010 17:20
On Feb 12, 3:29 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Feb 9, 3:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: Then, stop repeating yourself and simply > GO away! Ha, ha, HA! NE Oh dear. > > > > > On Feb 8, 2:28 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On Feb 2, 10:52 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Dear Readers: PD, the Parasite Dunce, is incapable of learning > > > anything. He used to be a teacher (big deal). Yet, he can't accept > > > that the kinetic energy equationwhich inputs velocity UNIFORMLYcan't > > > have a resulting KE increasing exponentially, or KE = 1/2 mv^2, > > > We've been through this. 1/2 mv^2 is not an exponential increase. You > > seem to have forgotten lesson you were taught just a couple weeks ago. > > Did you undergo some mental reset? Is it connected to medications? > > > > according to Coriolis's errant formula. Einstein based his SR on the > > > latter KE equation, but he dropped the 1/2, for some unexplained > > > reason. Both the equations of Coriolis and Einstein, in his SR, > > > violate the Law of the Conservation of energy, by GETTING OUT more > > > energy than is being put in by velocity. PD considers that distance > > > traveled is a 'free' energy component of velocity. But find KE > > > wherever he may, both Coriolis and Einstein still violate the Law of > > > the Conservation of Energy. If the Coriolis equation was correct, > > > then WHERE does the exponentially increasing energy come from? > > > From the work provided by an externally applied force. We've been > > through this before too. Do you start fresh every day, forgetting > > everything that happened yesterday? Because if you do, then I see no > > point in repeating myself over and over to you. > > > > > > > NoEinstein > > > > > On Feb 2, 9:40 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On 1 Feb, 20:52, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 1, 2:49 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > So does that mean that length contraction is not physical? > > > > > > > No, it does not mean that. > > > > > > Why do you think that "observer dependent" means "not physical"? > > > > > > Lots of physical properties are observer dependent. > > > > > > Because for anyone who believes in material reality, physical > > > > > properties should not be "observer dependent", > > > > > Then I would ask the following questions of you. > > > > Is velocity a physical property? It is *clearly* observer-dependent.. > > > > Having answered that, is kinetic energy a physical property, given > > > > that (at least at low speeds) the kinetic energy is proportional to > > > > the square of the velocity, and so is also clearly observer-dependent. > > > > Having answered that, is the law of conservation of energy, which > > > > includes kinetic energy as one of the contributions to the conserved > > > > sum, a law about physical properties? If not, then what is it a law > > > > about? > > > > > > and if physical > > > > > properties do indeed seem to change depending on how they are > > > > > observed, then there should be some coherent explanation for it rather > > > > > than just a statement that things are "observer dependent", which in > > > > > most people's minds rather leaves the glaring question "why". > > > > > I think there may just be a clash regarding an unfounded expectation > > > > that physical properties "should" be observer-independent. Why would > > > > this be an expectation? > > > > The reality is that physics is littered with physical properties, > > > > about which there are many laws that seem to hold remarkably well. > > > > Some of those properties are observer-dependent, and some are observer- > > > > independent. There is no rationale required for "why" they are not all > > > > one way or the other, any more than there has to be a reason cited for > > > > "why" all animals are not mammals. > > > > > PD- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - |