Re: to androcles 2

From: beda pietanza (beda-pietanza_at_libero.it)
Date: 01/24/05 

Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 23:52:36 GMT

"Henri Wilson" <H@..> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:kr58v0tkk779hmvqpcnbbaimu4jqddhva4@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 19:22:45 GMT, "Androcles" <dummy@dummy.net> wrote:
>
> >
> ><bryant_j_j@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:1106478493.978436.196270@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> >> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> >>> In sci.physics.relativity, bryant_j_j@yahoo.com
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>> "Oh, I hadn't thought of that", said God, and promptly vanishes
> >>> in a puff of logic.
> >>>
> >>> "Oh, that was easy", said Man, and proceeds to prove black is
> >>> white and gets killed at the next zebra [*] crossing...
> >>>
> >>> :-)
> >>>
> >>> Androcles, however, does have an interesting point. We must
> >>> prove that shrinkage and time dialation happens.
> >>>
> >>> Thankfully, there are several experiments out there that prove
> >>> time dialation; GPS, for example, involves a frequency shift,
> >>> which is a form thereof, and a far more spectacular experiment
> >>> involves relativistic muons in a storage ring. A few
> >>> experiments also aim to *disprove* c' = c+v by observing
> >>> decay of moving pi mesons -- and they do.
> >>>
> >>> I don't know how easily one can prove rod shrinkage but one
> >>> might try careful examination of certain impact events.
> >>> In any event, an indirect proof of rod shrinkage is the
> >>> time dialation and the invariance of c, established through
> >>> careful experimentation; the mathematical transform
> >>>
> >>> t' = (t-vx/c^2) * gamma
> >>>
> >>> which can be easily established through aforementioned
> >>> muons, requires
> >>>
> >>> x' = (x - vt) * gamma
> >>>
> >>> in order to predict lightspeed invariance.
> >>>
> >>> [*] =crosswalk for us 'Murkins.
> >>>
> >>
> >> doubt that you will convince our friend Androcles to change his mind
> >> though...
> >
> >LOL, nope, I want proof, not guesses.
>
> The proof that SR's length and time 'contractions' are illusions is
trivial.
>
> See my demonstration:
> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/contraction.exe
>
> It explains it all.
>
> Lorentz DID have a point, however. If space DID have an absolute rest
frame
> then such contractions could be real and physical ....but such a frame
doesn't
> exist...so he was wrong too.

If we are not able to detect such a frame the moving ruler contraction is
still there.
So he may have been right

>
> Ask any SRian the question. "if a force is applied to the end of a rod for
a
> short period, does the rod become physicaly longer or shorter?"

do you have the answer yourself???

mine is :

1) if the rod is at rest (in the ether) it would shorten during
accelleration and remain shortened afterwards when moving inertially.
2) if the rod is already moving and the force is applied in the direction
opposite to the movement then the rod would shorten during deceleration and
return longer than it was originally.
3) if the rod is already moving and the force is applied in the same
direction of the movement then the rod would shorten during the acceleration
and remain shorter than it was originnally.

The entity of the shortening when moving inertially is assumed to be the
Lorentz factor.

The entity of the shertening during the accellaration or decelleration is
unknown (to me).

That is what I think, take it or leave it.

best regards

beda pietanza

>
> All they can come up with is a noise that sounds something like
> "ddduuuurrrhhhhh"!
>
> >
> >Androcles.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >
>
>
> HW.
> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
>
> "If it's repeated often enough they'll eventually believe it" __Albert
Bush

Relevant Pages

  • Re: to androcles 2
    ... >>If we are not able to detect such a frame the moving ruler ... > As an aetherian, you are perfectly entitled to hold that opinion. ... >>2) if the rod is already moving and the force is applied in the ... >>and remain shorter than it was originnally. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Was Einstein the most ignorant, immoral, stupid, dishonest plagerist,
    ... and now, as it is moving faster relative to A, it will be even shorter ... is now is moving slower relative to B .. ... In their own frame .. ... ab is the rod of 1m and is mooving with v' relative to K'. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: SR cannot determine Contraction
    ... Your phrase "makes objects shorter" implies a change to the ... moving doorways or poles moving at 0.8 c. ... a rod and somehow resist the effect of contraction. ... if the measurement methodology is ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: to androcles 2
    ... > then such contractions could be real and physical ....but such a frame ... does the rod become physicaly longer or shorter?" ... As you posed it, any answer from 'longer, shorter, or neither' could be ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Another Question They Cannot Answer
    ... >>Henri Wilson wrote: ... >>> anywhere by simply aligning a calibrated rod along it. ... >>And if the object is moving? ... > There is absolutely NO evidence of length 'contractions'. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)