Re: The true crackpots
- From: mluttgens@xxxxxxxxxx
- Date: 5 Oct 2005 03:55:57 -0700
PD wrote:
> mluttgens@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > PD wrote:
> > > kenseto wrote:
> > > > "PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > > > news:1128178941.275246.204110@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > >
> > > > > mluttgens@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > > > > PD wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "... it is clear why the length of an object is *not* an
> > > > > > inherent property of an object and it is much more easily grasped why
> > > > > > this quantity is *of course* observer-dependent and, finally, why two
> > > > > > observers can view each other's (identical) objects and each see them
> > > > > > as shorter and that's not a problem. That is, it no longer is a
> > > > > > "logical aberration".
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, it is a logical aberration, because those observers apply SR,
> > > > >
> > > > > No. Their measurements are their measurements, their observations are
> > > > > their observations. They are not applying SR in any way to make those
> > > > > measurements.
> > > > >
> > > > > > which only takes into consideration the relative motion between them,
> > > > > > and ignores the possibility that they could move at different
> > > > > > velocities wrt a same rest frame (like the track wrt which two trains
> > > > > > are moving). Then, one of them could view the other as longer.
> > > > >
> > > > > Not on your life. Not without making a *correction* that *you* are
> > > > > imposing to their measurements. What SR predicts is what the observers
> > > > > will measure *without* any correction or manipulation. That is the part
> > > > > you fail to understand.
> > > >
> > > > What is the justification that an SR observer will measure all rod moving
> > > > wrt him are contracted.
> > >
> > > In brief, the justification is that the *definition* of length relies
> > > on simultaneity: the locations of the two ends of a moving rod must be
> > > measured at the same time for the measurement to mean anything. The
> > > problem is that there is no way to define absolute simultaneity. Two
> > > events that are simultaneous to observer A will not be simultaneous to
> > > observer B, and vice versa. Since simultaneity is a
> > > reference-frame-dependent property, so is length. There is no deeper
> > > physical meaning to the length of a rod. Now, if you'd like for me to
> > > expand on this in detail, we can do that.
> > >
> > > > Also how do you know what the observer measure is
> > > > what SR predicts??
> > >
> > > Uh, measurement, Ken. In an experiment.
> >
> > Could you propose a design for such experiment? I am looking forward to
> > it.
>
> I don't have to propose it. It's already been measured numerous times.
> See other post.
When and where? By which experiment?
Like most SRists, when in a corner, you try to escape responding.
The truth is that length contraction has never been experimentally
observed.
Marcel Luttgens
Marcel Luttgens
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: The true crackpots
- From: PD
- Re: The true crackpots
- From: Dirk Van de moortel
- Re: The true crackpots
- References:
- Re: The true crackpots
- From: mluttgens
- Re: The true crackpots
- From: mluttgens
- Re: The true crackpots
- From: PD
- Re: The true crackpots
- Prev by Date: Paradox of Zeno.
- Next by Date: Re: The true crackpots
- Previous by thread: Re: The true crackpots
- Next by thread: Re: The true crackpots
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|