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: paparios on 7 Feb 2010 11:31 On 7 feb, 02:48, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 7 Feb, 04:02, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Nice to see you've already established the outcome of this > > conversation. That is, it is not entertained that you will be > > convinced of anything differently than what you now hold. The only > > question is whether you'll convince anyone else, and if not, then it's > > time to attribute that outcome to stupidity? > > Ah, but the difference is I *will* discuss my views, I'll discuss them > on each and every occasion someone expresses a legitimate interest in > discussing them, and I'll generally continue to discuss them until > either one of us changes our views, or until the other person gets > tired. On the other hand, I won't be in a position of tolerating sheer > dismissive abuse and sarcasm for 15 years. > > Indeed, it's clear to me here that many people's beliefs in relativity > are verging on ideological, and I was quite shocked when I first came > here just how arrogant and unreasonable many posters appear to be, > with many posters seeming to compete only on how emphatically and > frequently they can shout "no!". This is precisely what allows us to qualify you as a troll. You are here, without any formal education in physics or mathematics, to discuss your *views* and nothing more. You have not considered that your *views* may be partially or completely wrong and you are not willing to accept that situation and also not willing to accept our help to change your status of ignorance to other of at least a better understanding of what science is. Nothing in physics has anything to do with ideology. If that were the case, Einstein and others in his time would have clearly being dismissed as wackos. Instead most of them received well deserved Nobel prizes. Modern physics is not an easy subject. I took my first course in modern physics over 40 years ago and I'm still learning and, most probably, will need several more years to even feel comfortable to discuss some of the subjects at the level they are discussed in this forum (which is rather basic). You still have a very long road to cover. Up to now you are just spouting nonsense. Miguel Rios
From: mpalenik on 7 Feb 2010 15:46 On Feb 7, 9:06 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Feb 5, 9:36 pm, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 5, 9:04 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 5 Feb, 15:55, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 4, 8:34 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On 5 Feb, 01:12, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 5, 11:49 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Feb 4, 6:04 pm, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Feb 4, 5:59 pm, "kens...(a)erinet.com" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > It it does violate the PoR. You made the contradcictory claims that > > > > > > > > > the pole can fit into the barn physically (materially) an at the same > > > > > > > > > time you claim that the pole cannot fit into the barn physically > > > > > > > > > (materially)......that a violation of the PoR. > > > > > > > > > No. The doors are not closed simultaneously in the pole's frame, nor > > > > > > > > are the two ends of the pole simultaneously in the barn in the pole's > > > > > > > > reference frame. In the barn's frame, the two ends of the pole are in > > > > > > > > the barn simultaneously and the doors shut simultaneously. In the > > > > > > > > pole's frame, the two ends of the pole are in the barn at different > > > > > > > > times and the doors shut at different times. > > > > > > > > Sigh..You are making the contradictory claims: > > > > > > > 1. The pole can fit into the barn with both doors close > > > > > > > simultaneously. > > > > > > > In the frame of the barn > > > > > > > > 2. The pole cannot fit into the barn with both doors close > > > > > > > simultaneously. > > > > > > > In the frame of the pole > > > > > > > Two different meanings for 'simultaneously'. So they are not > > > > > > contradictory > > > > > > > You really are not very good at thinking or arguing logically. > > > > > > He seems perfectly reasonable to me. > > > > > > He's saying that, if one stands in the middle of the barn equidistant > > > > > from the doors on each side, and one closes the doors simultaneously > > > > > (i.e. what I would call "absolutely simultaneously", but which for > > > > > conveience we'll say "simultaneous according to an observer standing > > > > > equidistant from each door), then is it possible that both doors can > > > > > appear closed while the ladder is observed to be inside the barn. > > > > > > It's a simple question, and the answer is "no!". > > > > > Your conclusion "no" is in conflict with experimental measurement. > > > > When intuition conflicts with experimental measurement, then it is > > > > intuition that must give way. > > > > I checked Paul before I gave this answer. Length contraction has never > > > been experimentally tested. So my intuition does *not* conflict with > > > experimental evidence.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Length contraction must follow for logical consitancy based on other > > measurements. If the speed of light is constant in every reference > > frame, length contraction must necesessarily follow, as we've > > described it to you. > > No there is no need for physical length contraction. The physical > length of a meter stick remains the same in all frames of reference. > An SR observer assumes that the light path length of his meter stick > is the same as the physical length of his meter stick. He uses the SR > equation to predict the light path length of a meter stick to be > contracted by a factor of 1/gamma. This agree with the newer SR > concept that length contraction is a geometric projection effect. > > Ken Seto Your idea that length contraction is merely an optical phenomenon produces formulas for "length contraction" that are in wild disagreement with SR. The fact that light has a finite speed and that you need to account for that when you take measurements was known long before SR was developed. Length in SR is taken to be the length *after* you've accounted for the finite speed of light (if you choose to make your measurements optically).
From: eric gisse on 7 Feb 2010 16:07 mpalenik wrote: [...] > Your idea that length contraction is merely an optical phenomenon > produces formulas for "length contraction" that are in wild > disagreement with SR. The fact that light has a finite speed and that > you need to account for that when you take measurements was known long > before SR was developed. Length in SR is taken to be the length > *after* you've accounted for the finite speed of light (if you choose > to make your measurements optically). For the past fifteen years people have been explaining to Ken why he is wrong and why his perceptions of SR are wrong. You will not succeed where hundreds before you have failed.
From: mpalenik on 7 Feb 2010 16:28 Eric, for some reason, when I reply to your messages, they don't appear in the group. I'm using google groups, I don't know if that has something to do with it. I tried responding to your last message twice and neither reply has appeared here. That happened once in another thread also. Fortunately, I had the sense to copy my reply from last time, so here it is: Anyway, that message was more for the benefit of Ste, who I'm still hoping can be taught. He doesn't seem to know whether he's arguing that a) the predictions of SR are incorrect or b) the predictions of SR are correct but can be explained by the finite amount of time that it takes for light to travel because measurements are made "optically". In fact, he seems to switch back and forth between whichever explanation is more convenient. For example, he continually says that all the effects of relativity can be explained by propagation delay (position b) but then was unconcerned when I pointed out how propagation delay does not reproduce the length contraction predicted by SR (in the example of the car and the photograph). I'm hoping that I can force him to pick one of those two positions. Once he picks position a), it's just a matter of exposing him to the wealth of experimental evidence out there (easier said than done, I know).
From: Peter Webb on 7 Feb 2010 17:48
"Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:807a38a6-210c-4b5a-9ae0-388f623f391a(a)b10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... > On 7 Feb, 07:08, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> > wrote: >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >> _________________________________ >> >> Lots of ways. Normally I measure length by puting a ruler next to an >> >> object. >> >> > And by looking at the readings with your eyes no doubt - so we've gone >> > back to a measurement mediated by light? >> >> No, I feel the edges with my fingers. Blind people can still measure >> things. > > Ain't that the truth about physicists! But seriously, yes you can > feel, but the fact remains that no "feeling" experiment has ever been > done. Huh? Your complaint about SR is that the experiments have never been conducted by a blind person using touch alone? |