Re: what length contraction in only one direction?
- From: Stamenin <tasko.s@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 10:05:00 -0800 (PST)
On Nov 11, 11:54 am, Igor <thoov...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 9, 7:31 pm, Stamenin <task...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 9, 1:34 pm, cable <h68...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 9, 3:59 am, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 6, 12:16 pm, cable <h68...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
this is amazing wrong
This is illiterate.
literate suck my ass
what do they mean by length contraction in the direction
of motion?
Its likeness should be distorted in both directions, to hug its
lihthorn.
if someone in his space ship turn his head 90 degrees,
will his head deforms without pain?
"will his head deforms" = illiterate
is life impossible at that speed?
what is goen on here?
gibberish
It is very strange that some people who believe that are literate do
no see that the distance gets infinite length when v=c. They do not
know how can apply the Lorentz transformation. Here is why if a rod
of 1m gets infinite mass it must get and an infinite lenght, isn't it?
THE BEHAVIOUR OF MEASURING-RODES AND CLOCKS IN MOTION
In page 37 0f his Relativity Einstein writes about the relativity of
the distance. There is very strange the conclusion that the distance
becomes smaller when the speed v tends to the light speed c.
He takes as a base the relation of the Lorentz transformation:
x'=( x-v.t)/R which gives the distance x' in K' (train) when we know
the x and t in K (embankment). Here is what Einstein says in his
book:
"I place a metre-rod in the x'-axis of K' in such manure that one
end (the beginning) coincides with the point x'=0, whilst the other
end (the end of the rod coincides with the point x'=1. What is the
length of the metre-rod relative to the system K? In order to learn
this, we need only ask where the beginning of the rod and the end of
the rod lie with respect to K at a particular time t of the system K.
By means of the first of the Lorentz transformation the values of
these two points at the time t=0 can be shown to be:
x(beginning of the rod)=0.R
x(end of rod)=1.R
R being the square root of the Lorentz transformation"..
In this way he finds that the distance between the points is D=R=(1-
v^2/c^2)^0.5.
When v=c, the distance D=0.
For me is very strange that nobody observed that the rod gets in this
case an infinite mass and a volume zero!!!
On the other hand the above relation is wrongly used. The real
relation which is valid for this case and allows us to resolve this
problem, is the following:
x=(x'+v.t')/R.
So the distance D becomes bigger and for v=c distance should have an
infinite value. That means that if the train travels with speed c the
two ends of the rode should be one in the infinite and one still here
near us.
This could be a real possibility, isn't it?
But this is true only if the Lorentz transformation is correct. But it
isn't.
So you're saying that Euclid was wrong?
Really not and this is why:
THE EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY AND THE LORENTZ TRANSFORMATION
The affirmation that the Euclidean geometry is errant theory is an
astonishing assumption done by Einstein and it is a wonder how was
that possible not to be criticized by other scientists. How is
possible to negate that the sum of two segments AB and BC is not equal
with AC.
__ __ __
AB + BC=AC
The only argument given for the support of this supposition, are the
magic words: "the evident is not evident". For the word evident
Einstein uses in his book a "stronger" word far better and suggestive:
holds.
He didn't take in consideration that evident means something
obviously plain and clean and something that can be seen. It is a
notorious truth that we can know everything about the nature, about
our environment, only if we can see it. How can we know what is the
infinity of the universe if we can't go there and see what alike is
that? The theories done on the base of experiments are done
practically by the use of the term evident because there is used the
seeing and the experiments in order to know what is going on.
01 02 M1
o----------------o--------------o-----x1, x2
Fig.1.
(This is a short presentation of the two coordinate systems K1 and
K2. 01 and 02 are the origins of the two systems and M1 is the
projections of a material body that is moved with the speed v2 in the
positive direction.)
Einstein doesn't support the former assumption, that the Euclidean
geometry is erroneous with the aid of the theory of the relativity,
for example by using the Lorentz transformation. He left it apart as
if it is understandable by itself. Let us see what the Lorenz
transformation says about this question.
In fig.1 are represented the two coordinate systems of
coordinates, K1 and K2 considered as being inertial systems. The
Lorenz transformation considering that the
motion is done only in the direction of the coordinates x1 and x2
are:
x1=(1/R) (x2+v.t2)........(1) x2=(1/R)(x1-v.t1).........(3)
t1=(1/R)(t2+v.x2/c^2)....(2) t2=(1/R)(t1-v.x1/c^2).....
(4)
Where R=squr(1-v^2/c^2).
Making an analogy between the segments AB and BC, with the segments
0102 and 02M1 shown in fig.1 we can obtain the following results.
From the relation (1) of the Lorenz's transformation we can obtain:0102=(1/R)(v.t2)
0102=v.t1
02M1=x2/R
From the relation (3) of the Lorenz's transformation we can obtain:0102=v.t1/R
0102=v.t2
02M1=x2
So we can put now all these results together, considering that the two
segments must have a unique length.
0102=v.t2/R=v.t1=v.t2=v.t1/
R
02M1=x2/R=x2
Having so many solutions for the above segments we are obliged to put
the following question: Have the two segments one unique length, or
not. If they have more values as it is seen from the above relations,
then the picture at the fig.1 is not correct and has to be modified.
And in addition we have to explain what about these values and how
must be represented in a new picture fig.1. If we admit that the above
segments have one unique length than we can conclude that all these
results are false results. This conclusion brings us to another
important conclusion that the Lorenz transformation is a false
relation, and it doesn't represent the truth about the mechanical
motion of the material bodies.
On the other hand, if we divide these solutions with the speed (v),
would have: t2/R=t1=t2.=t1/R
x2/R=x2
Or if we like separately we have the following relations:
t1=t2/R......5.
t1=t2.........6
t1=t1/R......7
t2=t2/R......8
t2=t1/R......9
x2=x2/R...10
So we can realize that there are represented the LT with the relations
5 and 9, the GT with 6, and absurd relations 7, 8 and 10.
So is this a mess or not?
17/08/2007.
.
- References:
- what length contraction in only one direction?
- From: cable
- Re: what length contraction in only one direction?
- From: Autymn D. C.
- Re: what length contraction in only one direction?
- From: cable
- Re: what length contraction in only one direction?
- From: Stamenin
- Re: what length contraction in only one direction?
- From: Igor
- what length contraction in only one direction?
- Prev by Date: Re: what does E=mc^2 means anyway?
- Next by Date: Re: what does E=mc^2 means anyway?
- Previous by thread: Re: what length contraction in only one direction?
- Next by thread: Re: what length contraction in only one direction?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
