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: Inertial on 14 Feb 2010 17:57 "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message news:47955cc0-4df7-4db2-9383-e691d9eab0be(a)l19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > 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 If fields are not physical, how can they affect phsyical objects? >>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. Who cares >> >> >> >> 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. Nope .. don't lie. > You said that an 80 > ft long material pole can fit into a 40 ft materially long barn with > both barn doors close simultaneously. Of course it fits "physically" in that space.. like a 6 foot ladder can "physically" fit thru a 5 ft door. >> > 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. You are still avoiding the question. Is the tilting something phsyical. > In the pole and the > barn case it implies material contraction. You are changing the subject to divert from the question. Is tilting a ladder a something physical ? >> >> > 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. Nope. Just like a tilted ladder does not need to be materially contracted to fit thru the doorway. >> > 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. Yes I did. If not, then why are you avoiding questions? >> 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. I didn't ask that. I asked if something physical happened to the combined system of ladder and doorway Looks like you know you are cornered again and are avoiding answering very simple and direct questions. that shows a lack of honesty. >> >> 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. It is not identical tilting to the of a ladder. The ladder and doorway is an analogy. But it is still tilting. >> > 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. The tilt is not in just 3 dimensions in this case .. but is still a tilt. > Furthermore length > contraction in SR is in the direction of motion....so where is this > tilting of the pole comes in? It is a tilting in time. But just as much a geometric projection as tilting a ladder. So .. are you going to continue to run away from simple direct questions. Of course you are. In case you forgot what questions you are avoiding: 1) In the case of tilting a ladder to fit thru a doorway .. 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? 2) 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).
From: Inertial on 14 Feb 2010 17:59 "Paul Stowe" <theaetherist(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:5ac247e5-ffa1-4534-b5f6-d6783e136061(a)g8g2000pri.googlegroups.com... > 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. Nope. You've talked about regions of equal sound pressure from a moving sound source and just arm-waved about a link between that and SR. Your references that I have been able to find do not say anything about how sound pressure relates to SR.
From: kenseto on 14 Feb 2010 19:32 On Feb 14, 5:57 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message > > news:47955cc0-4df7-4db2-9383-e691d9eab0be(a)l19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > 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 > > If fields are not physical, how can they affect phsyical objects? > > >>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. > > Who cares > > > > > > > > >> >> >> 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. > > Nope .. don't lie. > > > You said that an 80 > > ft long material pole can fit into a 40 ft materially long barn with > > both barn doors close simultaneously. > > Of course it fits "physically" in that space.. like a 6 foot ladder can > "physically" fit thru a 5 ft door. > > >> > 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. > > You are still avoiding the question. Is the tilting something phsyical.. > > > In the pole and the > > barn case it implies material contraction. > > You are changing the subject to divert from the question. > > Is tilting a ladder a something physical ? > > > > > > >> >> > 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. > > Nope. Just like a tilted ladder does not need to be materially contracted > to fit thru the doorway. If it is not materially contracted how can the longer pole fit into the barn? > > > > > > >> > 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. > > Yes I did. If not, then why are you avoiding questions? > > >> 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. > > I didn't ask that. I asked if something physical happened to the combined > system of ladder and doorway > > Looks like you know you are cornered again and are avoiding answering very > simple and direct questions. that shows a lack of honesty. > > > > > > >> >> 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. > > It is not identical tilting to the of a ladder. The ladder and doorway is > an analogy. But it is still tilting. > > >> > 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. > > The tilt is not in just 3 dimensions in this case .. but is still a tilting. WE live in 3D space. Also if tilting is what make the pole fit into the barn....why can't the pole observer tilt the pole to make it fit into the barn? Ken Seto > > > Furthermore length > > contraction in SR is in the direction of motion....so where is this > > tilting of the pole comes in? > > It is a tilting in time. But just as much a geometric projection as tilting > a ladder. > > So .. are you going to continue to run away from simple direct questions. > Of course you are. In case you forgot what questions you are avoiding: > > 1) > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -...
From: Inertial on 14 Feb 2010 19:46 "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message news:e5b854b1-989a-4a1f-8bb2-b322a5bebbee(a)f34g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 14, 5:57 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message [snip for brevity] >> >> > 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. >> >> The tilt is not in just 3 dimensions in this case .. but is still a >> tilting. > > WE live in 3D space. WE live in 4 dimensions .. 3 spatial and one time. > Also if tilting is what make the pole fit into > the barn....why can't the pole observer tilt the pole to make it fit > into the barn? Its not the observers that do the tilting. > Ken Seto > >> >> > Furthermore length >> > contraction in SR is in the direction of motion....so where is this >> > tilting of the pole comes in? >> >> It is a tilting in time. But just as much a geometric projection as >> tilting >> a ladder. >> >> So .. are you going to continue to run away from simple direct questions. >> Of course you are. In case you forgot what questions you are avoiding: >> >> 1) You ran away again .. so to repeat the questions you continue to ignore (both *only* in the context of tilting a ladder to fit thru a doorway): 1) In the case of tilting a ladder to fit thru a doorway .. 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? 2) Do you agree that the rotation (titling) of the ladder changes something physical about the combination of ladder and doorway (the combined system of two objects).
From: PD on 14 Feb 2010 20:25
On Feb 14, 8:54 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > 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. But that's not the only definition listed, is it? Try looking at the definition that makes reference to its usage in physics. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/physical See definition 3 > > > > > > 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? Physical effects include both geometric effects, material effects and other effects. > > > > > > > > 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? Not at all. What I'm telling you is that you will not find representation of the physics community on this newsgroup. At all. > > >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. You have no basis for judging that, other than your hunch and feeling. > > 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. So you decide who's more knowledgeable on the basis of whether they agree with you? > > > 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. SR doesn't get "interpreted", Ken. You either understand it or you don't. There's not an "old" understanding and a "new revised" understanding. > > > 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. > > ... > > read more » |