Re: So... Lerentz Contractions are *physical* not observered?
- From: Jem <xxx@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2007 09:35:51 -0400
kenseto wrote:
"jem" <xxx@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:iEMii.8412$Zt6.3916@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
kenseto wrote:
"jem" <xxx@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:O2sii.3834$Zt6.53@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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?
Yes IRT has an answer as follows:
Dp will not fit through the smaller Db door.
Why?
In IRT the physical length of an object remains the same in all frames
of
reference.... even as viewed by different observers. In IRT the light
path
length of an object is different in different frames. The higher is the
state of absolute motion of an object the longer is it's light path
length.
An IRT observer does not know if the rod moving wrt him is in a higher
or
lower state of absolute motion. That's why IRT has two sets of equations
for
the light path length of a moving rod. When the moving rod is in a
higher
state of absolute motion than the IRT observer then its light path
length is
longer than the light path length of the IRT observer's rod by a factor
of
(gamma). When the moving rod is in a lower state of absolute motion than
the
IRT observer then its light path length is shorter than the light path
length of the IRT observer's rod by a factor of (1/gamma).....BTW this
is
the formula for the SR length contraction.
Same for SR, Seto. Except for the "Why?" part, of course. :)
No its not the same for SR. SR says that a rod is able to fit through the
door way because of rotation of the rod. With my example how is SR able to
explain that the circular plate is able to fit through the door way
Duh! Didn't I just tell you that SR says it /isn't/ able to fit through? Are you working on your Space Cadet certification, or what?
when
rotation will not do the trick? IRT definitely says that the larger
circular plate will not be able to fit through the smaller door way no
matter what speed it is moving..
.
- 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
- Re: So... Lerentz Contractions are *physical* not observered?
- From: jem
- Re: So... Lerentz Contractions are *physical* not observered?
- From: kenseto
- Re: So... Lerentz Contractions are *physical* not observered?
- From: jem
- Re: So... Lerentz Contractions are *physical* not observered?
- From: kenseto
- So... Lerentz Contractions are *physical* not observered?
- Prev by Date: Re: So... Lerentz Contractions are *physical* not observered?
- Next by Date: Re: So... Lerentz Contractions are *physical* not observered?
- 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
|