Re: Barn-Pole Nuts & Bolts contradiction

On Aug 28, 1:45 pm, dlzc <dl...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear harry:

On Aug 28, 9:23 am, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@xxxxxxx>
wrote:





"dlzc" <dl...@xxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:1188316488.615852.99520@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
...
From the context, I thought everyone
would have known I meant linear
acceleration. I should have been
more precise in the phrasing so as
not to confuse others.

Acceleration is acceleration, David.
Linear or not. You are already in a
realm where SR does explicitly not
apply. It may be reasonably *extended*
to this problem... but if you are
speaking to posterity, you *are*
confusing the issue.

That's wrong: from the start, SRT applied
to *any* motion (in particular
accelerating electrons) as described
relative to inertial reference frames.

Since this is not a complete sentence, I cannot guess which thing(s)
you disagree with:
- angular and linear accleration both are accelerations,
- Special Relativity is derived for inertial (non-acclerating) frames,
- Special Relativity can be reasonably extended to some special
acclerating frames, and yield verified agreement with experiment,
- David is confusing the issue "for posterity" by claiming there is no
accleration.

[snip rest that seems to disagree with
my explanation].

Disagree with the explanation? The entire motion of the rod is not
important to the analysis. At the "throat" of individual threads, the
motion of the mating surface is entirely parallel to the thread... so
no contraction should occur at this location.

With acceleration,
other things may be expected to be seen other places (your
explanation, I believe),

<< but local to each thread, no contraction
expected to adjacent threads. >>

Does rigourous math ever trump *belief* in scientific
discussion?

<< a general Lorentz transformation preserves the volume
of space-time. Since time is dilated by a factor gamma in a
moving frame, the volume of space-time can only be
preserved if the volume of ordinary 3-space is reduced
by the same factor. As is well-known, this is achieved
by length contraction along the direction of motion
by a factor, gamma . >>
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node114.html

Sue...



David A. Smith- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Barn-Pole Nuts & Bolts contradiction
    ... acceleration. ... Linear or not. ... accelerated motion relative to inertial frames. ... - David is confusing the issue "for posterity" by claiming there is no ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Barn-Pole Nuts & Bolts contradiction
    ... Linear or not. ... - David is confusing the issue "for posterity" by claiming there is no ... Disagree with the explanation? ... With acceleration, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: More on the "Big Bang"...
    ... to support the concept that the universe expanded linearly, ... result is not linear expansion except in the non-physical case of an empty ... the isotropy of the CMBR and the acceleration of the universe in the ... Any scientist knows that the cosmic ray ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Quantum momentum?
    ... > momentum - see ... > Physics confusing? ... > between 1g acceleration on the surface of the Earth and 1g acc. ... > rocket cause the occupant's perception of ST to similarly distort? ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Ricky???
    ... happens the linear motion of the piston becomes purely sinusoidal. ... linear velocity of the piston becomes purely sinusoidal, ... second order components to the displacement, velocity, or acceleration. ...
    (rec.sport.jetski)