Re: THE PHYSICAL TRANSFORMATION EQUATIONS
- From: Eric Gisse <jowr.pi@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 02:16:21 -0700
On Jun 9, 8:06 pm, Alen <a...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 10, 1:56 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 9, 7:47 pm, Alen <a...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 10, 1:30 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 9, 7:20 pm, Alen <a...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
But I have the following problem with it, PHYSICALLY:
If there is a spacetime rotation, a moving length is
projected onto a stationary length, and produces length
contraction. Does it not follow that such a length contraction
exists whatever the method used to measure it?
There is no such projection. Yet more ignorance.
What, then, is the mechanism that produces length contraction
in the rotation model? If a moving rod slides past a stationary
ruler, how is length contraction supposed to be produced if
the moving length is not projected onto the stationary length?
Alen
*sigh*
Rotate a rod at an angle. It appears smaller.
Same thing
That's OK if you are talking about ordinary space. Light travels
to the observer from both ends of the rod. Does this also happen
in spacetime? In this case, light is travelling along the time axis
of the moving frame. Is this the case?
Who knows? It isn't worth the effort of thinking about.
Principle of relativity gives you 3 viable group structures. Maxwell's
equations picks out SO(3,1) - relativity. Using Maxwell to determine
the magnitude of the invariant speed is all the thinking of light that
is required,
If light does travel in this way, the result still qualifies as
a projection of the moving length from the rotated moving
frame onto the stationary frame. This means that length
contraction will be observed, whatever method is used to
measure a moving length. On my webpage I have shown that
this is impossible.
Congratulations, nobody cares.
All this babble about light simply clouds the issue. Relativity is
geometry. Stop thinking in terms of Einstein's 1905 paper and start
thinking in terms of geometry.
Alen
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: THE PHYSICAL TRANSFORMATION EQUATIONS
- From: Alen
- Re: THE PHYSICAL TRANSFORMATION EQUATIONS
- References:
- THE PHYSICAL TRANSFORMATION EQUATIONS
- From: Alen
- Re: THE PHYSICAL TRANSFORMATION EQUATIONS
- From: Phil
- Re: THE PHYSICAL TRANSFORMATION EQUATIONS
- From: Alen
- Re: THE PHYSICAL TRANSFORMATION EQUATIONS
- From: Eric Gisse
- Re: THE PHYSICAL TRANSFORMATION EQUATIONS
- From: Alen
- Re: THE PHYSICAL TRANSFORMATION EQUATIONS
- From: Eric Gisse
- Re: THE PHYSICAL TRANSFORMATION EQUATIONS
- From: Alen
- Re: THE PHYSICAL TRANSFORMATION EQUATIONS
- From: Eric Gisse
- Re: THE PHYSICAL TRANSFORMATION EQUATIONS
- From: Alen
- Re: THE PHYSICAL TRANSFORMATION EQUATIONS
- From: Eric Gisse
- Re: THE PHYSICAL TRANSFORMATION EQUATIONS
- From: Alen
- THE PHYSICAL TRANSFORMATION EQUATIONS
- Prev by Date: Re: The velocity of light going pass a moving train.
- Next by Date: Re: Wilsonian EM Control Frames.
- Previous by thread: Re: THE PHYSICAL TRANSFORMATION EQUATIONS
- Next by thread: Re: THE PHYSICAL TRANSFORMATION EQUATIONS
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading