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: YBM on 5 Feb 2010 05:49 Ste a �crit : > On 5 Feb, 03:19, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote: .... >> But there's another way you could rotate it, as well. You can rotate >> it into "time". If you run with the ladder, you're "rotating" the >> front of it a little bit into the future and the back of it a little >> bit into the past. > > Haha! I've nearly spat my tea out! I've never heard such a ludicrous > statement before I came to sci.physics.relativity! > > Of course, I understand what you're getting at, although I understand > the concept differently. What you're getting at is the effect of > propagation delays, whereby both doors can appear to close > simultaneously when, in physical reality, the distant door has already > started to open before the near door closed. See? You're doing it again: pretending SR is about visual illusions caused by finite propagation time. It is not! What about learning what SR is?
From: Ste on 5 Feb 2010 05:53 On 5 Feb, 10:49, YBM <ybm...(a)nooos.fr.invalid> wrote: > Ste a écrit : > > > On 5 Feb, 03:19, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > ... > >> But there's another way you could rotate it, as well. You can rotate > >> it into "time". If you run with the ladder, you're "rotating" the > >> front of it a little bit into the future and the back of it a little > >> bit into the past. > > > Haha! I've nearly spat my tea out! I've never heard such a ludicrous > > statement before I came to sci.physics.relativity! > > > Of course, I understand what you're getting at, although I understand > > the concept differently. What you're getting at is the effect of > > propagation delays, whereby both doors can appear to close > > simultaneously when, in physical reality, the distant door has already > > started to open before the near door closed. > > See? You're doing it again: pretending SR is about visual illusions > caused by finite propagation time. > > It is not! What about learning what SR is? Because I don't agree with your interpretation of SR. The key point here, that of length contraction, is a totally unverified hypothesis.
From: YBM on 5 Feb 2010 06:04 Ste a �crit : > On 5 Feb, 10:49, YBM <ybm...(a)nooos.fr.invalid> wrote: >> Ste a �crit : >> >>> On 5 Feb, 03:19, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> ... >>>> But there's another way you could rotate it, as well. You can rotate >>>> it into "time". If you run with the ladder, you're "rotating" the >>>> front of it a little bit into the future and the back of it a little >>>> bit into the past. >>> Haha! I've nearly spat my tea out! I've never heard such a ludicrous >>> statement before I came to sci.physics.relativity! >>> Of course, I understand what you're getting at, although I understand >>> the concept differently. What you're getting at is the effect of >>> propagation delays, whereby both doors can appear to close >>> simultaneously when, in physical reality, the distant door has already >>> started to open before the near door closed. >> See? You're doing it again: pretending SR is about visual illusions >> caused by finite propagation time. >> >> It is not! What about learning what SR is? > > Because I don't agree with your interpretation of SR. This is not a interpretation. This is what SR says, precisely. > The key point > here, that of length contraction, is a totally unverified hypothesis. Indirectly it has, numerous times. Dear, you're dense.
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 5 Feb 2010 06:36 Tom Roberts wrote on Thu, 04 Feb 2010 22:54:29 -0600: (...) > No. How could arbitrary human choices of coordinates possibly affect the > physical phenomena that underlie the things one measures? ^^^ Here is the origin of your misunderstanding :-D -- http://www.canonicalscience.org/ BLOG: http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 5 Feb 2010 06:43
Tom Roberts wrote on Thu, 04 Feb 2010 22:47:11 -0600: (...) > My point is: for a given object its length might be measured in some > frame as dx, and in another frame as dx'. But any valid physical theory > will not use EITHER dx or dx'; instead it will use invariants, such as > dL, defined as the 4-vector representing the displacement from one end > of the object to the other at a given event (position along its > trajectory in space-time). That is not true. |