There is no physical length contraction or physical length expansion
in [Physics]
|
From: Inertial on 17 Jun 2010 00:12 "bill" <cosmosco(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:35856fe9-6300-4367-9395-80534cfdc27a(a)g39g2000pri.googlegroups.com... > 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..."? That the facing face is the same length as what it would appear to be if rotated. > He does not SEE face ABCD as being contracted Yes .. he does > nor does he MEASURE it > as being contracted! Yes .. he does >> 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. As long as you don't forget what part is illusion, and what is due to length contraction. it sees from the above that you don't >> >> 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. Fine ABCD is narrower due to AD and BC contracted. This is observed and measured (in the 'stationary' system in which the cube is moving) >> 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! Wrong. There is. That is PRECISELY why it has the illusion of rotation. > 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. Wrong. >> > 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'. No .. you have it backward. the length contraction give the illusion of rotation > According to Weisskopf and Terrell there IS no contraction UNTIL the > observer applies the relevant mathematical equation! Wrong >> > 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. Wrong >> > 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. Running away again for no reason I see. No wonder you don't learn anything.
From: kenseto on 18 Jun 2010 10:08 On Jun 15, 9:47 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "kenseto" <kens...(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' Physical means material....there is no material contraction in SR. That's why the more learned SRians invented geometric contraction and geometric contraction is an apparent effect. > > > 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 Peoper length is physical....geometric projection length is not physical. Just as I see you to be shorter from a distance is not physical. Ken Seto > > [snip irrelevant IRT bullshit]
From: kenseto on 18 Jun 2010 10:10 On Jun 15, 3:22 pm, Vinyl <ynes9...(a)techemail.com> wrote: > 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 ROTFLOL....you are a runt of the SRians. > > > Ken Seto > > learn physics from a book
From: kenseto on 18 Jun 2010 10:19 On Jun 15, 8:17 pm, bill <cosmo...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > 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. Thank you for your post....they support my claim that length contraction in SR is not physical. It is an apparent effect....much like I see you to br shorter from a distance. In my theory the length of a meter stick remains the same in all frames....however the light-path length of an observed meter stick is longer or shorter than the light-path length of the observer's meter stick. The light-path length of the observer's meter stick is assumed to be its physical length (proper length as termed by SR). With this interpretation all the paradoxes of SR are resolved. http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf Ken Seto
From: glird on 18 Jun 2010 11:23
On Jun 18, 10:20 am, NoEinstein wrote: > > Dear Burt: Come out of the "Dark Ages" man! Light > isn't WAVES. It is photons (energy quanta) only! Dear NotEinstein: Despite the fact that in a reaction between an atom and a transient light a quantum of energy is absorbed or released, the light isn't made of quantities of energy ("photons". It consist of em WAVES. >< Light doesn't need a medium to travel in. It goes across the Swiss Cheese voids (no ether) between galaxies with no problem at all.> The only voids that exists in the Universe are in the heads of people who believe that a quantum of energy and/or a light wave can exist in one. >< If, as you suppose, light requires a medium, then we wouldn't be able to see anything beyond the Milky Way Galaxy. > If,as you suppose, a void fills the space between atoms, we wouldn't exist; and even if we did, we wouldn't be able to see anything at all. glird |