Re: The true crackpots


"PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1128718724.713401.183220@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> kenseto wrote:
> > "PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > news:1128626695.040370.318360@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >
> > > mluttgens@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > > I presume that you recognize that the Fermilab experiments couldn't
> > > > prove "length contraction". Indeed,
> > > >
> > > > "In a tevatron, those collisions occur of course head-on.
> > > > Or, according to SR, physical bodies set in motion only shorten in
the
> > > > direction of their motion, meaning that a proton colliding head-on
> > > > with an anti-proton will not observe "length contraction" of the
> > > > anti-proton."
> > > >
> > > > Now you are referring to HERA papers. Please give me a *specific*
> > > > reference where such contraction has been demonstrated. I am pretty
> > > > well convinced that there are none, unless in your imagination, like
> > > > with Fermilab :-)
> > > >
> > > > Marcel Luttgens
> > >
> > > What I'm doing is comparing jet cross sections in two environments:
one
> > > where the source is stationary in the lab (Tevatron) and one where the
> > > source is moving in the lab (HERA). I don't think you're getting that
> > > point.
> > >
> > > Let me see if I can find something that is a little more direct for
> > > your tastes. Since this will be a bit older in the literature, I'll
> > > have to search a little harder.
> > >
> > > At least you are willing to read in the library, which is commendable
> > > and more than what folks like TomGee or Seto are either willing or
able
> > > to do.
> >
> > ROTFLOL....You don't even understand what length contraction means in
SR. In
> > SR the length contraction is not physical. It is an apparent geometric
> > effect. It is the geometric projection of the moving rod onto the
observer's
> > frame.
>
> That's right. Because length itself is a projection of the interval
> between two spacetime events onto the observer's frame. It is therefore
> natural that two different observers will see two different lengths.
> But SR also says there is no deeper or hidden meaning to length.

So you agree that in SR length contraction is not physical.....right??
>
> > From the moving rod point of view the space in the direction of
> > motion is contracted but the physical length of the rod remains the
same.
> > BTW your bogus premise of physical rod contraction has the following
> > problem:
> > 1. Two identical rods A and B and B accelerated away and becomes initial
> > again.
> > 2. A sees B is physically contracted during B journey.
> > 3. B turns around and rejoins A. B's physical rod length returns to the
same
> > length as A.
> > 4. That means that during the return trip B's physical length is
physically
> > expanded.
> > 5. That means that we will have both physical length contraction and
> > expansion. Questions: How is B know when to physically contract and when
to
> > physically expand??
> >
>
> You are assuming that length is a true physical property and not the
> result of the projection of two spacetime events projected onto the
> observer's frame.

It was you who said that length contraction is physical and you said that
many experiments have been performed to confirm this assertion.

>Assuming that is what would force the mental picture
> of something physically happening to the rod to change its length or to
> produce a distorted illusion of something physical that is not really
> changing. Since the assumption is wrong, the mental picture is
> misplaced.

I didn't made that assumption. You did. You said that length contraction is
measurable. All the experiments you cited are based on that space in the
direction of motion is contracted. This is not the same as that a moving rod
is contracted as you said.
BTW space contraction is just a different way of describing that the moving
frame has a higher state of absolute motion. Higher state of absolute motion
produces a higher light path length for a physical rod. That, in turn,
causes the rate of a moving clock to run slower than a stationary stay at
home clock. That, in turn, means that a moving clock second has a longer
duration (absolute time) than a stay at home clock second. That's why a fast
moving moving upper atmosphere muon is able to reach the earth's
surface......the (2.2 us) lifetime of the fast moving muon (in the fast
muon's frame) represents (gamma*2.2 us) lifetime on the earth clock.

>
> SR says that length is not an intrinsic physical property of an object.

This is just a bogus assertion. You have no proof of that.

Ken Seto


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Finally, Special Relativity Is Proven False
    ... Do moving clocks run slow? ... measuring 1 meter in M is equal to a rod D' measuring 1 meter in N. ... contraction occurred when rod D was speeding at 0.995c relative to O, ... moving observers in relativity do not observe length contraction or ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Finally, Special Relativity Is Proven False
    ... Do moving clocks run slow?- ... measuring 1 meter in M is equal to a rod D' measuring 1 meter in N.- ... contraction occurred when rod D was speeding at 0.995c relative to ... Now observer O should measure those moving rods to be 0.1m, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Finally, Special Relativity Is Proven False
    ... Do moving clocks run slow?- ... measuring 1 meter in M is equal to a rod D' measuring 1 meter in N.- ... contraction occurred when rod D was speeding at 0.995c relative to ... comoving clocks, so all your reasoning is flawed. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Finally, Special Relativity Is Proven False
    ... Do moving clocks run slow?- ... measuring 1 meter in M is equal to a rod D' measuring 1 meter in N.- ... contraction occurred when rod D was speeding at 0.995c relative to ... comoving clocks, so all your reasoning is flawed. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Finally, Special Relativity Is Proven False
    ... Do moving clocks run slow?- ... measuring 1 meter in M is equal to a rod D' measuring 1 meter in N.- ... contraction occurred when rod D was speeding at 0.995c relative to ... atomic clock A' in N.- ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)