Re: Is Lorentz contraction objectively real?
From: Gregory L. Hansen (glhansen_at_steel.ucs.indiana.edu)
Date: 09/13/04
- Next message: mitch perkins: "Re: Operation Cold Shoulder Givers"
- Previous message: Ferrous Patella: "Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation"
- In reply to: Eugene Shubert: "Re: Is Lorentz contraction objectively real?"
- Next in thread: Creighton Hogg: "Re: Is Lorentz contraction objectively real?"
- Reply: Creighton Hogg: "Re: Is Lorentz contraction objectively real?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 15:54:58 +0000 (UTC)
In article <4144ebfb@sys13.hou.wt.net>,
Eugene Shubert <http://www.everythingimportant.org> wrote:
>Lorentz contraction is coordinate dependent. It is subjective,
>misleading and not objectively real.
Frame dependent, not coordinate dependent.
And it's just like velocity in Newtonian mechanics, which is also frame
dependent. That means velocity is subjective, misleading, and not
objectively real.
Whatever shall we do?
-- Irony: "Small businesses want relief from the flood of spam clogging their in-boxes, but they fear a proposed national 'Do Not Spam' registry will make it impossible to use e-mail as a marketing tool." http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/stories/2003/11/10/newscolumn6.html
- Next message: mitch perkins: "Re: Operation Cold Shoulder Givers"
- Previous message: Ferrous Patella: "Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation"
- In reply to: Eugene Shubert: "Re: Is Lorentz contraction objectively real?"
- Next in thread: Creighton Hogg: "Re: Is Lorentz contraction objectively real?"
- Reply: Creighton Hogg: "Re: Is Lorentz contraction objectively real?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
