There is no physical length contraction or physical length expansion
in [Physics]
|
From: Inertial on 15 Jun 2010 21:50 "bill" <cosmosco(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:2b8c9aae-2d5c-48fb-a3a0-5400e1977ebb(a)j36g2000prj.googlegroups.com... > 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...." 'Not visible' does not mean 'not measureable' nor does it mean 'not physical'. > 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. Exactly .. that is an optical illusion, and it appears that way due to the length contraction. If length contraction didn't happen , you would not see that > 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. That's right .. that what would happen if the rotation was NOT an illusion. But it IS an illusion.
From: bill on 15 Jun 2010 23:55 On Jun 16, 11:50 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "bill" <cosmo...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote in message > > news:2b8c9aae-2d5c-48fb-a3a0-5400e1977ebb(a)j36g2000prj.googlegroups.com... > 'Not visible' does not mean 'not measureable' nor does it mean 'not > physical'. There is a measuring rod that is the same length as each of the at rest edges of the cube located at the place where edge AD of the cube will be when it is moving past the observer. Let us assume a length of 1m. As the cube moves past the observer he sees that edge AD is precisely the same length as the measuring rod ergo he measures edge AD as being 1m i.e. the same length as the height of the cube (edge AB). > Exactly .. that is an optical illusion, and it appears that way due to the > length contraction. If length contraction didn't happen , you would not see > that The narrow image of face ABEF is not 'due to the length contraction' but because that face is at an angle to the observer; its called perspective. If the cube were at rest and rotated relative to the observer he would similarly see face ABEF as _appearing_ to be foreshortened however if he insisted that edges BE and AF are physically shorter than edges AB and EF he would be exhibiting gross ignorance. If the cube is at rest and rotated relative to the observer he would _not_ see face ABCD as being a square as Weisskopf shows it to be but would _see_ it as being a rectangle which he does _not._ > > 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. > > That's right .. that what would happen if the rotation was NOT an illusion. > But it IS an illusion. Correct - and _because_ its an illusion the observer should have the sense to realize this fact thus conclude that it is _not- reality i.e. that face ABCD does _not_ contract in its direction of travel.
From: Inertial on 16 Jun 2010 00:23 "bill" <cosmosco(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:1741d5dc-95ab-49eb-a159-3bb4c1c674f9(a)n37g2000prc.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 16, 11:50 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "bill" <cosmo...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote in message >> >> news:2b8c9aae-2d5c-48fb-a3a0-5400e1977ebb(a)j36g2000prj.googlegroups.com... > >> 'Not visible' does not mean 'not measureable' nor does it mean 'not >> physical'. > > There is a measuring rod that is the same length as each of the at > rest edges of the cube located at the place where edge AD of the cube > will be when it is moving past the observer. Let us assume a length of > 1m. > > As the cube moves past the observer he sees that edge AD is precisely > the same length as the measuring rod ergo he measures edge AD as being > 1m i.e. the same length as the height of the cube (edge AB). That's just the length contraction .. no illusion in that part. What is illusion is that, because he is able to see the trailing fact of the cube, it appears as if the cube is rotated. >> Exactly .. that is an optical illusion, and it appears that way due to >> the >> length contraction. If length contraction didn't happen , you would not >> see >> that > > The narrow image of face ABEF is not 'due to the length contraction' Please label your faces. The narrowness of the face facing the observer is length contraction. > but because that face is at an angle to the observer; its called > perspective. > > If the cube were at rest and rotated relative to the observer he would > similarly see face ABEF as _appearing_ to be foreshortened That's why it is a good illusion. The contraction is by the same amount that a rotated cube would show > however if > he insisted that edges BE and AF are physically shorter than edges AB > and EF he would be exhibiting gross ignorance. Please label your edges > If the cube is at rest and rotated relative to the observer he would > _not_ see face ABCD as being a square That's right. He's see it narrower. Just as he does when it is moving but NOT rotated .. but the narrowing there is due to length contraction. > as Weisskopf shows it to be but > would _see_ it as being a rectangle which he does _not._ I don't care what you think he may or may not show in his diagram >> > 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. >> >> That's right .. that what would happen if the rotation was NOT an >> illusion. >> But it IS an illusion. > > Correct - and _because_ its an illusion the observer should have the > sense to realize this fact thus conclude that it is _not- reality i.e. The rotation is not reality .. yes .. if he knew physics he would work that out. > that face ABCD does _not_ contract in its direction of travel. Wrong .. you just contradicted yourself. As the rotation is an illusion, something ELSE must be making the facing-face narrower. And that is the length contraction. The ILLUSION of it being rotated is a combination of the different in travel distance (and time) for light from the rear face (so you can see the perpendicular trailing face and it appears angled instead of perpendicular), combined with the length contraction of the facing face. The give away for this illusion, if you look closely at it, is that the facing face is still all right-angles - top and bottom edged of it are parallel. If it were rotated, those edges would not look parallel (due to perspective).
From: kenseto on 16 Jun 2010 09:06 On Jun 15, 3:51 pm, Sam <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. Hey wormy....the traveling muon's life time is increased by a factor of gamma due to its higher state of absolute motion compared to the earth muon. That's why it is able to reach the surface before decaying. You are an idiot. Ken Seto
From: bill on 16 Jun 2010 23:21
On Jun 16, 2:23 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "bill" <cosmo...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote in message > > news:1741d5dc-95ab-49eb-a159-3bb4c1c674f9(a)n37g2000prc.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Jun 16, 11:50 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "bill" <cosmo...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote in message > > >>news:2b8c9aae-2d5c-48fb-a3a0-5400e1977ebb(a)j36g2000prj.googlegroups.com.... > > >> 'Not visible' does not mean 'not measureable' nor does it mean 'not > >> physical'. > > > There is a measuring rod that is the same length as each of the at > > rest edges of the cube located at the place where edge AD of the cube > > will be when it is moving past the observer. Let us assume a length of > > 1m. > > > As the cube moves past the observer he sees that edge AD is precisely > > the same length as the measuring rod ergo he measures edge AD as being > > 1m i.e. the same length as the height of the cube (edge AB). > > That's just the length contraction .. no illusion in that part. WHAT "...is just the length contraction..."? He does not SEE face ABCD as being contracted nor does he MEASURE it as being contracted! > What is illusion is that, because he is able to see the trailing fact of the > cube, it appears as if the cube is rotated. We have already agreed on that aspect ergo there is no reason to continue referring to same. > >> Exactly .. that is an optical illusion, and it appears that way due to > >> the > >> length contraction. If length contraction didn't happen , you would not > >> see > >> that > > > The narrow image of face ABEF is not 'due to the length contraction' > > Please label your faces. The one facing the observer is ABCD with the vertex A being the lower left-hand corner and the others labeled clockwise. Face ABEF is the left-hand face of the cube with the vertexes labeled counter-clockwise. > The narrowness of the face facing the observer is > length contraction. According to Weisskopf and Terrell there IS no visually determined 'narrowness' of face ABCD! On the basis, as above, that the observer measures the edges AD and BC as being the same dimension as edges AB and CD (i.e. they are all the same length as their rest length) there IS no narrowness of face ABCD. > > but because that face is at an angle to the observer; its called > > perspective. > > > If the cube were at rest and rotated relative to the observer he would > > similarly see face ABEF as _appearing_ to be foreshortened > > That's why it is a good illusion. The contraction is by the same amount > that a rotated cube would show It is a 'good' illusion because it suits the ILLUSION of 'length contraction'. According to Weisskopf and Terrell there IS no contraction UNTIL the observer applies the relevant mathematical equation! > > > If the cube is at rest and rotated relative to the observer he would > > _not_ see face ABCD as being a square > > That's right. He's see it narrower. Just as he does when it is moving but > NOT rotated .. but the narrowing there is due to length contraction. The 'narrowing' is nothing more than the result of an application of mathematical juggling. > > as Weisskopf shows it to be but > > would _see_ it as being a rectangle which he does _not._ > > I don't care what you think he may or may not show in his diagram I don't care what you think. Terminated. |