Re: Testing the reality of Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction
From: operator jay (none_at_none.none)
Date: 09/30/04
- Next message: Bill Hobba: "Re: How to tell if a theory is a good one"
- Previous message: eleaticus: "Re: Relativity Cult Limerick"
- In reply to: Gerry Quinn: "Re: Testing the reality of Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction"
- Next in thread: Gerry Quinn: "Re: Testing the reality of Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction"
- Reply: Gerry Quinn: "Re: Testing the reality of Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 16:47:09 -0500
"Gerry Quinn" <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote in message
news:MPG.1bc6847de5497dd49899c2@news.indigo.ie...
> In article <HIZ6d.2601$wG3.18576@news1.mts.net>, none@none.none says...
> > "Gerry Quinn" <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.1bc5dfc5d7e90bdc9899bd@news.indigo.ie...
> > >
> > > What's wrong with this argument? And can anyone find an analogy to do
> > > with conventional rotation in 3-space?
> >
> > Is there a problem applying relativity where your objects (macaronis)
don't
> > have a constant velocity? When they're at full speed they are still
moving
> > in a circle and therefore their velocity is changing (in direction if
not in
> > magnitude). Would this mean there is no inertial frame of reference for
> > them?
>
> Not for each piece, certainly.
>
> But the point is that under the conditions of the experiment, they don't
> fill the hollow torus (surrounding the photosensitive wire) that they
> completely filled when at rest. And this torus is stationary.
>
> A trick of perspective that lets light through a solid mass of macaroni
> is a pretty strange kind of 'rotation' ;-)
>
> - Gerry Quinn
OK I'm the last guy to know the answer to this question, but I say the wire
has no current flow when you accelerate your macaroni. Instead of several
macaronis, picture one solid pasta torus. (Mmmmmmmmmm....) When you rotate
it, does it shrink and let light through to the wire? I guess not. Now cut
it so that it's like one big long macaroni that reaches around to the end of
itself. Well, if the solid pasta torus doesn't shrink when rotating then I
don't think the simple act of cutting it will change anything. This one big
macaroni shouldn't contract when rotated fast either. By extension, I don't
think cutting it into 2 or 3 or 20 pieces will change anything. So they
shouldn't contract when rotating. Why not, when they're moving fast? Well,
maybe there is a problem applying mathematics of inertial frames to a
situation where there isn't inertial frames. Maybe it's something else.
Maybe I am balls out wrong. Anyways, my bet is no current - solid macaroni.
- Next message: Bill Hobba: "Re: How to tell if a theory is a good one"
- Previous message: eleaticus: "Re: Relativity Cult Limerick"
- In reply to: Gerry Quinn: "Re: Testing the reality of Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction"
- Next in thread: Gerry Quinn: "Re: Testing the reality of Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction"
- Reply: Gerry Quinn: "Re: Testing the reality of Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
