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 14 Feb 2010 04:20 On 13 Feb, 19:19, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > > ... > > läs mer » But what about the variant meter unit? How is it hangin? Where are your theory going? JT
From: JT on 14 Feb 2010 06:09 On 13 Feb, 19:19, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. Dear PD please learn the difference between contracted physical matter and contracted units. 1. You see if only the unit contract within the frame *physical matter seems elongated*, but unfortunatly for SRIANS units do not contract. 2. If only the physical matter is contracted the *material seem contracted* within frame.' 3. If both the unit and the matter is contracted you would not notice within frame, but unfortunatly for SRIANS units do not contract. 4. If both the unit and the physical matter is contracted within frame and you decide to compare the physical matter of frame with another restframe with physical restframe, you are juggling cucumbers and bananas because you love intermingling ECDT. From this we can learn that UNITS can not be contracted only physical matter. When you finally learn that contracted UNITS in a frame elongates relative matter in another frame feel free to come back and vent your missunderstandings about physics. Only contracted UNITS can make difference frame B,C,D,E,F to give different measures of frame A. You see matter is not really contracted within SPECIAL RELATIVITY within the frame. No some idiot decided to let the units be interchangable, starting juggling cucumbers and bananas as they belonged to same set of measurements. And that is wrong very wrong even so wrong that even the most smart people on the planet have a hard time to understand what is going on between the difference frames in SR. But once you acknowledge that SR gives framedependent measures of length and distances you can start, to bone the hoax and dismantle to core of confusion. And it turns our that what is going on within theory is nothing else then plain old Newtonian relativity and that lights moves with c from emitter and c+v and c-v relative the observer. So disrobe the theory from framevariant meters, and the truth will be clear for anyone who want to understand SR. JT > > > 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 > > ... > > läs mer »
From: Inertial on 14 Feb 2010 06:17 "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message news:c5d8a99e-4795-42e3-acfd-2c94c761ed6f(a)l26g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > 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. You are diverting. Are fields something physical? Obviously there are math constructs to model them (as there are for everything else in physics) .. but are fields physical? If not .. how can they affect things physically? >> >> 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..... Did anyone ever say it did? > and the > length wise of the ladder cannot fit through the door way. But when tilted it can physically fit through the doorway. So is that tilting something physical? If not, how can tilting it change whether of not if physically can get from one side of the doorway to the other? >> >> > 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. Noone was saying is was (by the definition you are using of physical) > The geometric > projection is shorter. So it is just the geometric projection of the ladder that goes thru the doorway.. Does the physical ladder stay on the original side? >> >> 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. I didn't ask that. I ask if something physical happened. HINT: Does the ladder physically end up on the other side of the door? Stop avoiding the question. >> 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. I didn't say it did, and that was NTO what I saked > 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. Nope .. just proved you are not man enough to answer a simple question when cornered Do you agree that the rotation of the ladder changes something physical about the combination of ladder and doorway (the combined system of two objects). >> 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. So your are claiming the ladder does not physically end up on the other side of the doorway after passing through it? >> 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. Yeup > This action means that the material pole is materially > shortened Nope .. just like a ladder can fit through a doorway without being material shortened. > and thus it is not merely the geometric projection is > shorter. >> Do you see now? I guess not. If a ladder can fit thru a shorter doorway due to tilting (without getting materially shorter) then a pole can fit in a barn (without getting materially shorter). You can't have you cake and eat it to .. if one example is valid, so is the other.
From: Inertial on 14 Feb 2010 06:46 "Paul Stowe" <theaetherist(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:c4700cb6-dfaa-47ae-9fc0-e32b11b932c8(a)t31g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 11, 8:12 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "PaulStowe" <theaether...(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: >> >> "PaulStowe" <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: >> >> >> "PaulStowe" <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: >> >> >> >> "PaulStowe" <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. > > No, but my interest wanes in attempting to explain to cynics. You > might try looking at appendix C of So you're only interested in crackpots that agree with you. Typical > http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/64784/01/bassett.pdf > > And looking at Ref 68 of this document. So what??
From: kenseto on 14 Feb 2010 09:54
On Feb 13, 1:19 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. You are wrong....In my dioctionary one of the definition for the word physical means matter or material. > > > when > > you know damn well that it is merely a geometric projection effect? > > It's a physical effect. So according to you physical effect is the same as geometric projection effect....Right? > > > > > > > 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. ROTFLOL...So are you claiming that you are the only person who representrs the physics community? >If you think that as the newsgroup says, so > says the physics community, I am not saying that at all. I am saying that Tom Roberts is more knowedgeable than you. I'm afraid you're deluded. > Secondly, you're not in a position to judge who is the most > knowledgeable. Yes I am in a postion to judge you...for example you keep on trying to convince people that length contraction in SR is physical instead of a geometric effect. > 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. It's not a case of trust. It is a case that you wont accept any new advances in SR interpretations. > 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. He said that length contraction in SR is not physical....iow the physical length or material length of the pole is not contracted in the frame of the barn but rather it is the geometric projected length of the pole is able to fit into the barn. Ken Seto > > > 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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -... > > read more » |