There is no physical length contraction or physical length expansion
in [Physics]
|
From: Vinyl on 15 Jun 2010 15:22 On Jun 15, 3:11 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > There is no physical length contraction or physical length expansion. imbecile, there are no physical lengths and motion is just a sensation you have > Ken Seto learn physics from a book
From: Sam on 15 Jun 2010 15:51 On Jun 15, 8:11 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > There is no physical length contraction or physical length expansion. > New physics says that the physical length of a meter stick remains the > same in all frames. However, the light-path length of a meter stick > moving wrt an observer is predicted to be shorter or longer than the > light-path length of the observer's meter stick.and the light-path > length of the observer's meter stick is assumed to be its physical > length. This interpretation resolves all the paradoxes of SR. This > interpretation is included in a new theory of relativity called IRT. > IRT includes SRT and LET as subsets. However, unlike SRT, the > equations of IRT are valid in all environments, including gravity. IRT > is described in the following link:http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf > > Ken Seto You tell those cosmic ray muons that the distance from their creation to hitting the earth's surface was not foreshortened. Try some self- education, Seto.
From: bill on 15 Jun 2010 20:17 On Jun 15, 11:11 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > There is no physical length contraction or physical length expansion. > New physics says that the physical length of a meter stick remains the > same in all frames. However, the light-path length of a meter stick > moving wrt an observer is predicted to be shorter or longer than the > light-path length of the observer's meter stick.and the light-path > length of the observer's meter stick is assumed to be its physical > length. This interpretation resolves all the paradoxes of SR. This > interpretation is included in a new theory of relativity called IRT. > IRT includes SRT and LET as subsets. However, unlike SRT, the > equations of IRT are valid in all environments, including gravity. IRT > is described in the following link:http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf > > Ken Seto In the introduction to his article 'Invisibility of the Lorentz Contraction' (Physics Review, 116, 1959) Terrell wrote "Even if methods of measuring [the length of a moving meter stick] are used the Lorentz contraction will not be visible...." In his article 'The Visual Appearance of Rapidly Moving Objects' (Physics Today, 13, 24 Sept. 1960) Weisskopf repeated this point showing that when the cube is at right angles to a stationary observer the face ABCD facing the observer will be a square. They both show that, due to aberration, the observer would also see face ABEF (the rear face of the cube in its direction of travel) as being apparently contracted however those who insist that the cube has rotated are not taking into account the fact that this is nothing more than a visual illusion. If the cube is a train carriage and it physically rotates then only one set of wheels, at corner A, will still be in contact with the tracks from the stationary observer's point of view.
From: eric gisse on 15 Jun 2010 20:40 kenseto wrote: > There is no physical length contraction or physical length expansion. Just like you say there are no diffraction gratings. [...]
From: Inertial on 15 Jun 2010 21:47
"kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message news:242a9782-3a6b-43d7-a0f1-b6b940b89f05(a)e5g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... > There is no physical length contraction or physical length expansion. Define 'physical' > New physics says that the physical length of a meter stick remains the > same in all frames. No. Its proper length does, its spatial length does not. Define which of those is 'physical' and explain why the other one isn't [snip irrelevant IRT bullshit] |