Re: The true crackpots


mluttgens@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> PD wrote:
> > mluttgens@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > I described rapidity and experimental design in another post. And the
> > published papers about those experiments, some of which have been done
> > at Fermilab and Brookhaven National Lab, are widely available, as I
> > also pointed.
> >
>
> Sorry, I didn't find an experimental confirmation of length
> contraction. Why don't you give a clear reference of a paper giving an
> unequivocal proof?

Your inability to conduct library research or your quitting in that
endeavor after a few minutes' search is not my problem, Marcel.

PD

>
> Marcel Luttgens

.