Re: So... Lerentz Contractions are *physical* not observered?
- From: jem <xxx@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2007 09:20:52 -0400
kenseto wrote:
"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1Sjii.16683$2v1.8259@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
mgconsolidated@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Can anyone provide / point to a definitive answer on whether Lorentz
contractions are physical or an observered effect.
This depends on what you mean by those words.
Here's an analogy: a ladder will fit through a doorway if it is oriented
correctly, and won't fit if it is oriented differently -- is this
difference "physical"? -- after all neither the length of the ladder nor
the width of the doorway change in any way. This is an example of
GEOMETRICAL PROJECTION -- if the projection of the ladder's length onto
the doorway's width is small then it fits, and if that projection is
large then it won't; this depends on their relative orientation.
Instead of the ladder we have a circular metal plate with a diameter of Dp
and the door in the barn is also circular with a diameter of Db. Dp is lager
than Db. Now Dp is accelerated to a relativistic speed will it fit through
the smaller Db door???
Does IRT have an answer, Seto?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- So... Lerentz Contractions are *physical* not observered?
- From: mgconsolidated
- Re: So... Lerentz Contractions are *physical* not observered?
- From: Tom Roberts
- Re: So... Lerentz Contractions are *physical* not observered?
- From: kenseto
- So... Lerentz Contractions are *physical* not observered?
- Prev by Date: Re: Anyone know how Hubble could be very wrong?
- Next by Date: Re: Perhaps still possible to determine where the big bang occured
- Previous by thread: Re: So... Lerentz Contractions are *physical* not observered?
- Next by thread: Re: So... Lerentz Contractions are *physical* not observered?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|