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: kenseto on 13 Feb 2010 10:15 On Feb 12, 6:09 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message > > news:bc26ba47-6e5f-4202-aa13-97ebbb1e9bf0(a)a5g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > 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 you are claiming that fields (which are immaterial) are not physical ?? > If they are not physical, what are they? And how can they affect physical > things? Fields are math constructs. So they are immaterial. If they are material what then is that material....is it the aether.....but SR reject the notion of an aether. > > >> 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. > > But a longer ladder fits thru a shorter doorway But the material length of the ladder is not changed.....and the length wise of the ladder cannot fit through the door way. > > > This > > requires real physical or material contraction. > > So you must then claim a ladder gets physically shorter when you tilt it. So > a 6 foot ladder is physically contracted when you tilt it ?? How long is a > six foot ladder when you tilt it. Sigh....the ladder is not physicallly contracted. The geometric projection is shorter. > > >> 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. > > I didn't ask if it was a physical contraction .. I asked if it something > physical happened. Nothing physically happened to the ladder or the door way. > Surely you would agree that the rotation of the ladder > changes something physical about the combination of ladder and doorway (the > combined system of two objects). Nothing physically happened to the ladder or the door way. Beside what if the ladder is not be able to pass through the door way length-wide. This proved that length contraction is SR is not physical. > Even though individually there was no > physical intrinsic change to either of them. That physical change to the > system allows the ladder to fit thru the doorway and pass to the other side. It is not a physical change. It is a gemotric rotation effect. > > That is the same with the pole and barn. There is no physical intrinsic > change to either the pole or the barn in SR. However, there is a physical > change to the combination of pole and barn. This allows the barn doors to > close simultaneously with the pole between them. Not at all. In th ebarn and the pole scenario SR claims that the pole can be completely inside the barn with the barn doors physically close simultaneously. This action means that the material pole is materially shortened and thus it is not merely the geometric projection is shorter. Ken Seto > > Do you see now?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: kenseto on 13 Feb 2010 10:31 On Feb 12, 11:34 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. Are you really that stupid and naive? They use the actual rest length of the horse to made that estimaate. Ken Seto > > > > > > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 13 Feb 2010 10:39 On Feb 13, 9:31 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Feb 12, 11:34 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > Are you really that stupid and naive? They use the actual rest length > of the horse to made that estimaate. No, they don't, Ken. They take a photo of the horses while they are in motion. It is how they determine both the horse's length and by how many lengths the horse has won by. Really, this comes as a surprise to you? Really???? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photo_finish > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -
From: kenseto on 13 Feb 2010 10:54 On Feb 12, 11:32 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. Why do you insist that there is physical or material contraction when you know damn well that it is merely a geometric projection effect? > > > 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. However the most knowledgeable physicists, such as Tom Roberts, discard the obsolete idea of physical or material length contraction in favor of geometric projection contraction. > > 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. Sure it is a falsehood. In the pole and the barn scenario: you claimed that the pole is completely inside the barn with the doors close simultaneously. This is true only if the pole is materially (or physically) contracted. > > > > > > > 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. Apparently what I know about SR is better than what you know about SR. For example: you don't know that length contraction is SR is not material contraction (or physical contraction). > > > > > 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- Hide quoted text - > I am not trying to learn I already know SR and its contradictory claims and that why I was able to come up with a new theory of relativity called IRT. IRT is availble inb the follwoing link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf Ken Seto
From: PD on 13 Feb 2010 13:19
On Feb 13, 9:54 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Feb 12, 11:32 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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. > > Why do you insist that there is physical or material contraction It is a physical contraction, not a material contraction. "Physical" does not mean "material", even in the dictionary. I pointed that out to you. > when > you know damn well that it is merely a geometric projection effect? It's a physical effect. > > > > > > 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. > > However the most knowledgeable physicists, such as Tom Roberts, > discard the obsolete idea of physical or material length contraction > in favor of geometric projection contraction. First of all, people who visit this newsgroup are not representative of the physics community. If you think that as the newsgroup says, so says the physics community, I'm afraid you're deluded. Secondly, you're not in a position to judge who is the most knowledgeable. All that is true is that you've decided who you want to trust on the newsgroup, a personal choice that you've made from a hunch. Third, if you'll READ what Tom has told you, he has said that it IS a physical effect AND a geometric effect. Only YOU have decided that both can't be true and decided to ignore one of the things he told you. > > > > > 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 You see, Ken? Physical does NOT mean material. > > > > 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. Get this through your gears. > > > > 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. > > Sure it is a falsehood. In the pole and the barn scenario: you claimed > that the pole is completely inside the barn with the doors close > simultaneously. Yes. > This is true only if the pole is materially (or > physically) contracted. No. "Physical" does NOT mean "material". I've corrected that mistake above. You can see for yourself. It is ONLY YOU who insists this is the only way it can be true. That's your second mistake. > > > > > > > > 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. > > Apparently what I know about SR is better than what you know about SR. Ken, stop deluding yourself. > For example: you don't know that length contraction is SR is not > material contraction (or physical contraction). Yes, I do know it's not material contraction. It is however a physical contraction. "Physical" does not mean "material". Look at what I showed you even in the dictionary. > > > > > > 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 > > I am not trying to learn I already know SR and its contradictory > claims No you do not, because SR does not make contradictory claims. The fact that you think it DOES make contradictory claims is proof that you do not know SR. > and that why I was able to come up with a new theory of > relativity called IRT. IRT is availble inb the follwoing link:http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf > > Ken Seto |