Re: Is Lorentz contraction a real process
From: Androcles (androc1es_at_nospamblueyonder.co.uk)
Date: 09/13/04
- Next message: Gregory L. Hansen: "Re: Is Lorentz contraction objectively real?"
- Previous message: bv_schornak: "Re: Jastrebski, Schornak & McDermid."
- In reply to: Ilja Schmelzer: "Re: Is Lorentz contraction a real process"
- Next in thread: Tom Roberts: "Re: Is Lorentz contraction a real process"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 17:10:21 GMT
"Ilja Schmelzer" <q6867901@mailstore.fernuni-hagen.de> wrote in message
news:ci432a$432$1@beech.fernuni-hagen.de...
|
| "Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
| news:3bff5641.0409130017.1425f411@posting.google.com...
| > Tom Roberts <tjroberts@lucent.com> wrote in message
| news:<YvO0d.15397$ZC7.4870@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>...
| > > Harry wrote:
| > > > I still wonder how real and unreal these things are in the
Einsteinian
| > > > interpretation.
| > >
| > > In SR, no rod "contracts" in any way due to its velocity relative to
any
| > > inertial frame; similarly no clock "dilates" in any way due to its
| > > velocity relative to any inertial frame.
|
| Misleading.
|
| > Thanks for trying to explain this. So, according to you, in Einstein's
| > interpretation what is measured (time dilation) does *not* correspond
| > to reality?
|
| They correspond to reality. Time dilation as well as rod contraction.
| This is interpretation-independent, true in Lorentz interpretation as well
| as Einstein interpretation.
|
| > I think thathe stated quite the opposite when he first
| > presented his interpretation:
| > "Thence we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more
| > slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock
| > situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions."
|
| Indeed.
|
| > (Well put IMO; let's not waste time on the then unknown GRT effect).
|
| (GR effects are not unknown but accurately computed in any GPS sattelite.)
|
| Ilja
Recurrent novae effects are not unknown but accurately computable on most
personal computers. Ignorance effects are very well known and predominant in
relativists.
Androcles
- Next message: Gregory L. Hansen: "Re: Is Lorentz contraction objectively real?"
- Previous message: bv_schornak: "Re: Jastrebski, Schornak & McDermid."
- In reply to: Ilja Schmelzer: "Re: Is Lorentz contraction a real process"
- Next in thread: Tom Roberts: "Re: Is Lorentz contraction a real process"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
