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 18 Feb 2010 19:19 On 1 Feb, 15:55, "kens...(a)erinet.com" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > IsLengthContractionin SR physical?? > According the most informed SRian, Tom Roberts, the answer to this > question is NO. His answer is thatlengthcontractionis the geometric > projection effect of thelengthof a moving meter stick onto the SR > observer's frame. When a moving meter stick rejoins the stay at home > meter stick they will have the same physicallength. Furthermore iflengthcontractionis physically real how come SR does not predictlengthexpansion? Is that becasue SR assumes that the observer is in a > state of absolute rest? > > So what does it mean when SR says that a moving meter stick is > contracted? > The answer: > 1. An SR observer assumes that the light pathlengthof his meter > stick is the same as the physicallengthof his meter stick. > 2. Using this standard the light pathlengthof a meter stick moving > wrt an SR observer is shorter than the light pathlengthof the stay > at home meter stick. Why? Because light generated at the front end of > the stick will reach the rear end of the stick sooner for a moving > meter stick (c+v) according to the stay at home SR observer. > 3. So according to the SR observer the light pathlengthof a moving > meter stick is as follows: > L' = L_o/gamma. > 4. The above interpretation avoids all the paradoxes that arise due > to > the bogus interpretation that a moving meter stick is physically > contracted. > > However, the above interpretation is incomplete. Why? Because the > light pathlengthof a meter stick moving wrt the observer may be > longer than the observer's meter stick. In that case the light pathlengthof such meter stick is calculated as follows: > L' = L_o(gamma) > This interpretation is included in a new theory of relativity called > Improved Relativity Theory (IRT). IRT includes SRT as subset. > However, > the equations of IRT are valid in all environments, including > gravity. > A complete description of IRT is available in the following link:http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf > > Ken Seto > > Reply to author Forward > > You must Sign in before you can post messages. > To post a message you must first join this group. > Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before > posting. > You do not have the permission required to post. Imagine this... Imagine object A and B travelling parallell vectors in space, A travels 0.1 c and B travel 0.9 c. For some reason the both pass lined up between sensor C and D at same moment x, when the sensor beams reach their front both ships emit one puls forward and one puls backward. The four lightpulses can not possible travel invariant thru the space of C and D, for them to travel invariant in C and D space the two backward pulses must travel aligned and parallell forever and so must the two front pulses. And if they do there something weird going on within A and B, especially the light do not spread uniform around B the light puls infront is contracted and expands at c-v=0.1 c relative restframe B in the space and the lightfront at back expands at 1.9 c relative B. The expansion of the two lightpulses is not uniform and invariant in frame B unless there is shorter meters at the front then at the back. At even higher velocities like 0.999... c the deformation is even clearer. For example consider that the two light pulses have been travelling for a year after B passed between C and D and emitted the two pulses now B suddenly come to halt/stop. Now anyone must surely realise that the pulses never traveled invariant at B and at speed c to begin with. One pulse is a lightyear away the other one is just in front off B. The assertions of SR is ridculous i would go so far to say they are a deliberate hoax. JT
From: kenseto on 19 Feb 2010 12:03 On Feb 15, 4:01 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message > > news:d8eac96d-d0b0-4d5b-bc09-8f7f2d32ca16(a)u9g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Feb 14, 7:46 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "kenseto" <kens...(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. > > > Spatial dimensions are separated from time. > > Reality behaves as if they are not. Reality behaves as if they are. Absolulte time exists and the passage of absolut time is separate from spatial dimensions. The purpose of SR equations is to calculate the clock reading for a specific interval of absolute time in the observer's clock on a clock moving wrt the observer. > > >> > 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. > > > Why don't the pole observer says that the barn is tilted in the time > > dimension and thus it become longer and thus it is able to encase the > > pole completely? > > Because the pole observers become tilted. The pole observer does not tilt > the pole .. he is tilted with it. The tilting occurs due to the relative > motion. So why only the pole is tilted? Why not the barn? Is the barn is is in a frames of absolute rest?? > > Gees .. you just have no idea, do you No it is you who have no idea. > > > > > > >> >> > 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? > > > It is not physical or material.....iow nothing physically happening to > > the ladder. It is geometrical. > > Again, you refuse to answer the actual question. Is *tilting* physical.. I > did not ask if there was a physical change in the ladder itself .. I asked > if tilting is physical. Does it change physical reality. No I already told you that tilting is not physical. What it is is that you allow the narrow end of the ladder pass through the wider door way. > > >> 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) > > > Nothing is changed to the ladder. What you are doing is fitting a > > narrow ends of the ladder through a wiser door way. ;-) > > Again, you refuse to answer the actual question. Is there a physical change > to the combined system of ladder + doorway? There is no physical change. the narrow end of the ladder can alway pass through the door way....there is no length contraction for such opertation. Ken Seto > > So once again > > 1) is tilting physical (NOT is there an intrinsic internal material change > to a tilted object)? > 2) does tilting a ladder make a physical change to the combined system of > ladder and doorway? > > Maybe you'll have the decency to answer the questions asked this time.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Inertial on 19 Feb 2010 18:39
"kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message news:523a181e-b542-49f8-85bf-454a992af996(a)w31g2000yqk.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 15, 4:01 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message >> >> news:d8eac96d-d0b0-4d5b-bc09-8f7f2d32ca16(a)u9g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Feb 14, 7:46 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> "kenseto" <kens...(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. >> >> > Spatial dimensions are separated from time. >> >> Reality behaves as if they are not. > > Reality behaves as if they are. Absolulte time exists and the passage > of absolut time is separate from spatial dimensions. The purpose of SR > equations is to calculate the clock reading for a specific interval of > absolute time in the observer's clock on a clock moving wrt the > observer. > >> >> >> > 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. >> >> > Why don't the pole observer says that the barn is tilted in the time >> > dimension and thus it become longer and thus it is able to encase the >> > pole completely? >> >> Because the pole observers become tilted. The pole observer does not >> tilt >> the pole .. he is tilted with it. The tilting occurs due to the relative >> motion. > > So why only the pole is tilted? Why not the barn? Is the barn is is in > a frames of absolute rest?? > >> >> Gees .. you just have no idea, do you > > No it is you who have no idea. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > 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? >> >> > It is not physical or material.....iow nothing physically happening to >> > the ladder. It is geometrical. >> >> Again, you refuse to answer the actual question. Is *tilting* physical. >> I >> did not ask if there was a physical change in the ladder itself .. I >> asked >> if tilting is physical. Does it change physical reality. > > No I already told you that tilting is not physical. What it is is that > you allow the narrow end of the ladder pass through the wider door > way. > >> >> >> 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) >> >> > Nothing is changed to the ladder. What you are doing is fitting a >> > narrow ends of the ladder through a wiser door way. ;-) >> >> Again, you refuse to answer the actual question. Is there a physical >> change >> to the combined system of ladder + doorway? > > There is no physical change. Liar > the narrow end of the ladder What narrow end? Theres nothing about a narrow end invovled > can alway > pass through the door way....there is no length contraction for such > opertation. There is a height contraction, you lying piece of scum |