Re: 1c+1c Closing Velocity of Light and Matter

jgreenfield_at_seol.net.au
Date: 01/05/05 

Date: 4 Jan 2005 22:34:56 -0800

Tom Capizzi wrote:
> "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
> news:4p3mt0h4jspkhpfacvidnjddjfqn1qp7cv@4ax.com...
> > On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 05:54:40 +1000, Timo Nieminen
> > <uqtniemi@mailbox.uq.edu.au>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>On Tue, 4 Jan 2005, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> >>
> >>> In sci.physics, Sam Wormley wrote:
> >>> > jgreenfield@seol.net.au wrote:
> >>> >> Sam Wormley wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >>>jgreenfield@seol.net.au wrote:
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>>Sam W states that a moving rod IS shortened
> >>> >>>
> >
> > It's all bunkum.
> >
> > Question: If the speed of a rod is altered by the application of a
force,
> > does
> > the rod become longer or shorter?
> >
> > Answer: Its velocity change can be + or -, depending on the
observer.
> > Therefore
> > SR's gamma transform can also increase or decrease, depending on
the
> > observer.
> > Therefore the 'apparent' length of the rod can either increase of
> > decrease....but it obviously cannot do both simultaneously IN THE
PHYSICAL
> > SENSE.
>
> In the same frame of reference. From different frames both conditions
are
> possible.
>
> > The SR effect is an observational illusion.
> >
> > Clearly, after the force is removed, the rod is exactly the same as
it was
> > beforehand.
>
> Again, only in the frame of the rod itself. The application of a
force must
> change
> the velocity of the rod. To an observer in another inertial frame,
the
> difference
> in velocity becomes a difference in gamma, and a changed length.

So whence the force? If the train is pulled from the front, it should
stretch; shunted it should compress. SR considers not this
contradiction, and just uses "Proof by proclamation", that a moving
train is shorter than a stationary one.
>
> > Exactly the same argument applies to clock rates.
> >
>
> Ditto.
>
> > Conclusion: Neither rod lengths nor clock rates are physically
altered by
> > the
> > application and subsequent removal of a force.
> >
>
> Again, only in the frame of the moving rod itself.
>
> I don't like the predictions of SR either, but when confronted by
evidence,
> I am
> forced to accept reality. There is a classic experiment involving the
decay
> rate
> of some subatomic particle (muon, I think). At non-relativistic
speeds these
> particles have a known half life. Detectors are situated at the top
and
> bottom
> of a mountain. It takes a known amount of time for these high speed
> particles
> to travel to the ground level. Based on the half-life, a certain
fraction of
> them
> are expected to decay. In fact, fewer particles decay than their
half-life
> would
> justify. According to SR, the observer in the stationary frame can
attribute
> this
> observation to time dilation as experienced by the particles. In the
moving
> frame
> of the particles, there is no time dilation. However, the particle
frame
> experiences
> length contraction of the height of the mountain, and simply doesn't
travel
> as
> far to the ground. To the stationary observer, the mountain doesn't
shrink
> and
> to the moving observer time does not dilate. However, when the
particles
> arrive
> at the detector, more of them have not decayed than their half-life
> requires. Both
> observers correctly predict the percentage of decayed particles using
SR,
> even
> though their explanations couldn't be more different. So, are the
effects of
> SR
> real or illusion? Ask the surviving particles!

No! Ask who made the assumptions on which the light operated clocks
which quantify these "measurements" depend. I am not privvy to the
workings of these experiments, but I believe that considered
examination would show that the thing being tested, really whether
c=c+v , is done using the assumption (in the clocks' operations), that
c is invariant- another classical use of circular logic. Henri or Andro
may be able to check it out more concisely.

Jim G
c'=c+v

Relevant Pages

  • Re: 1c+1c Closing Velocity of Light and Matter
    ... >> the rod become longer or shorter? ... only in the frame of the rod itself. ... To an observer in another inertial frame, ... fewer particles decay than their half-life ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: 1c+1c Closing Velocity of Light and Matter
    ... >> the rod become longer or shorter? ... only in the frame of the rod itself. ... To an observer in another inertial frame, ... fewer particles decay than their half-life ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: 1c+1c Closing Velocity of Light and Matter
    ... If the speed of a rod is altered by the application of a force, ... only in the frame of the rod itself. ... To an observer in another inertial frame, ... particles have a known half life. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: 1c+1c Closing Velocity of Light and Matter
    ... If the speed of a rod is altered by the application of a force, ... only in the frame of the rod itself. ... To an observer in another inertial frame, ... particles have a known half life. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Androcles and Draper resume Einstein 1905
    ... The observer in k can measure the rod that is moving in K, ... >> argument that the stationary frame consist of one observer that can ...
    (sci.physics)