Re: Length "contraction" and time "dialation" bad language.

harry:
>Baugh wrote:

>> No. One would observe a contraction of the measured components say
>Dx.
>> Asserting that the object shrank rather than your ruler growing is
>> picking a model (and vis versa).
>
>I now see what you mean, you interpret "length contraction" to imply an
>assertion about what happened in observer-independent reality. I found
>no such intention by either Lorentz or Einstein, it would even conflict
>with their claims!

You're an idiot, harry. Stop telling einstein what he intended.
What you are trying to say is equivalent to saying that two people
facing different directions aren't really facing different directions.

>Instead it's just a description of observation, referring to
>observation, similar to the term "sunrise". I agree with
>you that such misinterpretations of the terms should be avoided.

Does that mean you think two observers facing different directions
only ``observe'' different different directions but ``really'' face
the same direction?

[...]
>But object properties happen to be *defined* as relationships between
>it and others...

The length of an object is the length of its world line. The spatial
size of an object is the spatial projection of its world line at a
particular time, which is observer dependent. It works the same way
in 4-d that it does in 3-d.

[...]
>>
>> No, I mean yes... "You've effectively said that I stopped beating my
>> wife." I never started and in fact am single.
>>
>> What I stated was the mathematical structure of the transformation
>> group. In different models you can argue over how the
>transformations
>> affect the properties of the object.
>
>Hmm, also yes but no: in physics a mathematical transformation can't
>affect physical properties. But I suppose that's not exactly what you
>meant, please forgive my nitpicking.

Then stop arguing that a transformation does change the properties of
an object. In relativity, the properties of an object are invariants.
In your bastardization of relativity, objects have a relativistic mass
and get heavier by changing franes. Do you really think an electron
becomes a muon if it goes ``fast enough?''



.

Quantcast