Re: "The Lorentz Transformation for Velocity"
- From: "Harry" <harald.vanlintel@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 10:56:45 +0200
"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:3McGe.65449$oJ.19909@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> <vergon_enterprises@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1122575332.456199.49970@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > I didn't say the measurements are false. They ARE different from the
> > proper quantites, however -- or don't you think so?
>
> No - they a measurements as well - simply measurements that are invariant.
>
> >
> > As to your second sentence, the observations ARE the measurements. So
> > what's your point?
>
> This is getting into real semantic territory but observations in the
context
> of relativity are usually meant what we would see say with our eyes. It
is
> well known that analyzing observing (ie watching it) a fast moving rod is
a
> rather difficult problem that was not solved until many years after SR was
> developed and what actually happens is rather surprising
> http://modeling.asu.edu/R&E/SecretsGenius.pdf
>
> 'This is called the "Lorentz contraction," because Lorentz wrote down the
> formula before Einstein. The very name suggests the confusion of more than
a
> few physicists who failed to realize that the respective meanings given to
> the formula by Lorentz and Einstein were incompatible. For Lorentz the
> formula described a physical contraction of the rod in the direction of
its
> motion, whereas for Einstein it merely related measurements performed in
> different ways.
As that may easily be misunderstood:
- Lorentz described a physical contraction of the rod in the direction of
its motion *wrt the ether*, while Poincare and Einstein showed that the same
equation is valid to describe observations from any inertial reference
frame. Lorentz agreed with that when it was pointed out to him, there is no
incompatibility in that sense.
- Also, different people understand different things by "physical", and
perhaps everything in nature was "merely measurements" for Einstein (think
of the movie "Matrix")? Einstein 1905:
"Physical Meaning of the Equations Obtained in Respect to Moving Rigid
Bodies and Moving Clocks [...] A rigid body which, measured in a state of
rest, has the form of a sphere, therefore has in a state of motion--viewed
from the stationary system--the form of an ellipsoid "
Cheers,
Harald
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Simple Sagnac
- Next by Date: Re: What are String Theories Laws? What Are String Thoery's Postulates? Has String Theory Accomplished Anything? How Much Has String Theory Cost Us?
- Previous by thread: Re: GPS 'GR Correction' Myth.
- Next by thread: Re: What are String Theories Laws? What Are String Thoery's Postulates? Has String Theory Accomplished Anything? How Much Has String Theory Cost Us?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
