Re: So... Lerentz Contractions are *physical* not observered?
- From: "Sue..." <suzysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2007 01:26:51 -0700
On Jul 2, 5:12 am, mgconsolida...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Can anyone provide / point to a definitive answer on whether Lorentz
contractions are physical or an observered effect. I thought they were
purely an observed effect of SR until I read the "passing trains"
paradox.
The summary seems to go along the lines of....
Get two trains 100 metres long each heading towards each other on a
single track
Put a passing point between them 80 metres long
At non-reletavistic speeds you simply can't get one train past the
other - however you try, they crash
At relatavistic speeds, each train will observe the passing point less
than 80 metres, but will observe the other train significantly
shorter, due to its much greater speed (relative to themselves) and
there will be no crash
The only sniff of a problem I can see with the above is that you can't
ignore GR in this case, as the original measurements were taken in the
same frame of reference, and the second measurements taken following
acceleration.
Thanks very much
Matt
In the microatomic world observers alter EM paths with a
force 10^32 times stronger than gravity. (Coulomb force)
The contraction is *virtual* where nearfield electrical
and magnetic paths contract (or expand for an absorber).
See equation 511 an relevant text for a microatomic
explanation.
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html
<< Figure 3: The wave impedance measures
the relative strength of electric and magnetic
fields. It is a function of source [absorber] structure. >>
http://www.sm.luth.se/~urban/master/Theory/3.html
Formerly: http://www.conformity.com/0102reflections.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space
http://www-ssg.sr.unh.edu/ism/what.html
Sue...
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: So... Lerentz Contractions are *physical* not observered?
- From: Jeckyl
- Re: So... Lerentz Contractions are *physical* not observered?
- From: mgconsolidated
- Re: So... Lerentz Contractions are *physical* not observered?
- References:
- So... Lerentz Contractions are *physical* not observered?
- From: mgconsolidated
- So... Lerentz Contractions are *physical* not observered?
- Prev by Date: Re: If ligth's path is not euclidean then we could have a Copernical Observation Error?
- Next by Date: Re: What Does Length Contraction Mean in SR?
- Previous by thread: So... Lerentz Contractions are *physical* not observered?
- Next by thread: Re: So... Lerentz Contractions are *physical* not observered?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|