Re: Is Lorentz contraction objectively real?
From: Bilge (dubious_at_radioactivex.lebesque-al.net)
Date: 09/13/04
- Next message: Tom Roberts: "Re: Is Lorentz contraction objectively real?"
- Previous message: bv_schornak: "Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation"
- In reply to: Gregory L. Hansen: "Re: Is Lorentz contraction objectively real?"
- Next in thread: YBM: "Re: Is Lorentz contraction objectively real?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 19:18:45 -0000
Gregory L. Hansen:
>In article <Pine.LNX.4.44.0409131117310.31124-100000@erodium.hep.wisc.edu>,
>Creighton Hogg <wchogg@hep.wisc.edu> wrote:
>>
>>
>>On Mon, 13 Sep 2004, Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
>>
>>> 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?
>>
>>Get stinking drunk and try running into walls? If velocity is misleading
>>and not objectively real, then neither is kinetic energy.
>
>Except that the distance to an object like a wall is also frame dependent,
>which means it's also not objectively real! So it would be impossible to
>run into walls because you cannot traverse something that doesn't exist.
>
>Except I still have a scar on my forehead from running into the edge of a
>half-opened door. Eugene and I must be making a mistake somewhere in
>our reasoning.
Physics is not observer dependent, but measurements are always made
in a particular frame - the one in which the observer holds the
measuring tape. Let's take a familiar example. When you measure a
cross-section, do you measure the cross section in manifestly covariant
form, or do you have to consider the fact that your detectors are sitting
in the lab frame and figure out the beam energy and a host of other
mundane tasks?
- Next message: Tom Roberts: "Re: Is Lorentz contraction objectively real?"
- Previous message: bv_schornak: "Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation"
- In reply to: Gregory L. Hansen: "Re: Is Lorentz contraction objectively real?"
- Next in thread: YBM: "Re: Is Lorentz contraction objectively real?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
