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 14 Feb 2010 10:36 On Feb 14, 6:17 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "kenseto" <kens...(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? Fields are math constructs. Steven Weinberg said that a field is stress in a solid....similar to stress in a solid material. In that sense a field is physical. But such concept requires the acceptance of a material aether occupying all of space. http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf >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? In my theory fields are stress in an aether called the E-Matrix. > > >> >> 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? In the pole and the barn paradox you did say that. You said that an 80 ft long material pole can fit into a 40 ft materially long barn with both barn doors close simultaneously. > > > 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 is not material (or physical) contraction. In the pole and the barn case it implies material contraction. > > > > >> > 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) But in the pole and the barn case the pole must contracted materially (or physically) to fit into the barn with both doors close simultaneously. > > > 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 You didn't corner me at all. > > 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). Nope....nothing physical happened to the pole or ladder. > > >> 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. No you can't the barn is only 1 ft tall materially. That means no tilting of any kind can fit the materially long pole into the materially shorter barn. > > > 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. The problem is: You can't tilt the materially longer pole enough to make it fit into a materially 1 ft tall barn. Furthermore length contraction in SR is in the direction of motion....so where is this tilting of the pole comes in? Ken Seto
From: Paul Stowe on 14 Feb 2010 12:36 On Feb 14, 3:46 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "PaulStowe" <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:c4700cb6-dfaa-47ae-9fc0-e32b11b932c8(a)t31g2000prh.googlegroups.com... {Snip...} > > 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 If that were true why wouldn't I just goto/frequent the various discussion groups that 'agree' with me. Cynicism clouds all objectivism and judgment. So does extremism. There is clearly way too much of it in today's society. > >http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/64784/01/bassett.pdf > > > And looking at Ref 68 of this document. > > So what?? The answer to the question posed in the title of this thread. There's nothing 'special' about relativity... All fields behave the same manner (and one would think that for unification that would be considered a 'good thing') and yes, there is a 'real' physical contraction. I've provided you with four different references now that support that conclusion. Paul Stowe
From: JT on 14 Feb 2010 13:52 On 14 Feb, 18:36, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 14, 3:46 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > "PaulStowe" <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:c4700cb6-dfaa-47ae-9fc0-e32b11b932c8(a)t31g2000prh.googlegroups.com.... > > {Snip...} > > > > 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 > > If that were true why wouldn't I just goto/frequent the various > discussion groups that 'agree' with me. Cynicism clouds all > objectivism and judgment. So does extremism. There is clearly way > too much of it in today's society. > > > >http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/64784/01/bassett.pdf > > > > And looking at Ref 68 of this document. > > > So what?? > > The answer to the question posed in the title of this thread. There's > nothing 'special' about relativity... All fields behave the same > manner (and one would think that for unification that would be > considered a 'good thing') and yes, there is a 'real' physical > contraction. I've provided you with four different references now > that support that conclusion. > > Paul Stowe No there is no and can be no physical contraction unless pole B,C,D,E,F who travels at different velocities at moment X they are aligned parallell in front of barn A if they measure the distance to A and the length of A to the same you are dealing with a *UNIT* and any change of B,C,D,E,F lengths must be real. If not we are dealing with ECDT=Einstein compressed turd meters that are used by turdjugglers as yourself as an excuse for not understanding the difference between the possibilities of compressed physical matter VS units. Units do not compress. So in real world nor can a set of ECDT bananas equal a set of ECDT cucumbers that you juggle. Nor can the 10 of the ECDT pole equal 10 of the ECDT barn. They are not simply meters and they are absolutely not units. JT
From: glird on 14 Feb 2010 14:37 On Feb 10, 2:36 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > I definitely can't make this aether theory work. For what I lack in > mathematical skill, I've made up for with programming skill, and it is > clear that propagation speed cannot be constant with reference to an > absolute frame - its effects would be immediately obvious. > The question therefore remains, how can the speed of propagation > possibly be measured to be constant in all frames. Three things are needed, of which the third is unrelated to the others. 1. A meter rod must end up q-shorter in the direction of motion of their frame of reference, where q = sqrt(c^2/v^2). 2. Clocks of a moving system must change the rate at which they beat by an amount that is a function of how much the length of a meter rod changes when perpendicular to the direction fo its system's motion. (If lengths shrink by q, in those directions, thus by Q = q62 in the direction of motion, then no rate change is needed.) 3. Regardless of how much lengths may change in items 1 and 2, successive clocks in the direction a system is moving must be offset by -vx/c^2 seconds, compared to each other, where v/c is the velocity of the parent system in the aether and x/c is the distance between two such clocks as measured by the given system itself. glird
From: Paul Stowe on 14 Feb 2010 16:28
On Feb 14, 10:52 am, JT <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 14 Feb, 18:36, PaulStowe<theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Feb 14, 3:46 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > "PaulStowe" <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > >news:c4700cb6-dfaa-47ae-9fc0-e32b11b932c8(a)t31g2000prh.googlegroups.com.... > > > {Snip...} > > > > > 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 > > > If that were true why wouldn't I just goto/frequent the various > > discussion groups that 'agree' with me. Cynicism clouds all > > objectivism and judgment. So does extremism. There is clearly way > > too much of it in today's society. > > > > >http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/64784/01/bassett.pdf > > > > > And looking at Ref 68 of this document. > > > > So what?? > > > The answer to the question posed in the title of this thread. There's > > nothing 'special' about relativity... All fields behave the same > > manner (and one would think that for unification that would be > > considered a 'good thing') and yes, there is a 'real' physical > > contraction. I've provided you with four different references now > > that support that conclusion. > > > PaulStowe > > No there is no and can be no physical contraction unless pole > B,C,D,E,F who travels at different velocities at moment X they are > aligned parallell in front of barn A if they measure the distance to A > and the length of A to the same you are dealing with a *UNIT* and any > change of B,C,D,E,F lengths must be real. May I ask how will you measure all of the poles? How will you get it such, with different speeds (which must be drastic to get course measurements differences), the poles align at some instant? Third, nothing is perfectly rigid and of constant length. Your ruler at 0 degrees C is shorter than it is at 45 degrees C. You do know this, right? BTW, have you heard of Bell's Spaceship Paradox? If not, check out, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_spaceship_paradox But, don't expect this issue to be resolved here, it just a discussion group... > If not we are dealing with ECDT=Einstein compressed turd meters that > are used by turdjugglers as yourself as an excuse for not > understanding the difference between the possibilities of compressed > physical matter VS units. > > Units do not compress. > So in real world nor can a set of ECDT bananas equal a set of ECDT > cucumbers that you juggle. Nor can the 10 of the ECDT pole equal 10 > of the ECDT barn. > > They are not simply meters and they are absolutely not units. > > JT |