Re: what length contraction in only one direction?

On Nov 18, 3:52 pm, Stamenin <task...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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?

Sorry but I say that Einstein is wrong. And just about this topic
Einstein is wrong because makes use of the wrong relation of the
Lorentz transformation. This means that if you put a rode of 1m in the
train and you like to calculate this lengrh from the enbankment you
have to use the relation: x=(vt2+x')/R, and not x'=(x'-vt)/R. Nobody
can understain this Einsten's mistake? Nobody understain what is a
dirrect relation and what is an inverse relation? The problem is that
nobody understain that is not possible to have measured the length of
the rode symultaneously in both coordinate systems systems with the
Lorentz transformation. Think about it. And this is the cause why you
are conviced that there appears a shortenig of the length and not an
icreacing. And if the rode has a mass of 1kg, when v=c, it takes mass
infinite length zero. Is it absurd?


So, again, you're denying the reality of Euclidean geometry. You're
hung up on a technicality involving simple coordinate
transformations. Next you'll probably say that the rod appears to
remain the same length when I rotate it into a direction orthogonal to
your line of sight. Or maybe you could do a little investigation as to
why objects appear to get smaller as you move away from them.






.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: what length contraction in only one direction?
    ... no see that the distance gets infinite length when v=c. ... Here is why if a rod ... of 1m gets infinite mass it must get and an infinite lenght, ... He takes as a base the relation of the Lorentz transformation: ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: what length contraction in only one direction?
    ... no see that the distance gets infinite length when v=c. ... Here is why if a rod ... of 1m gets infinite mass it must get and an infinite lenght, ... He takes as a base the relation of the Lorentz transformation: ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: what length contraction in only one direction?
    ... no see that the distance gets infinite length when v=c. ... Here is why if a rod ... of 1m gets infinite mass it must get and an infinite lenght, ... He takes as a base the relation of the Lorentz transformation: ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: what length contraction in only one direction?
    ... no see that the distance gets infinite length when v=c. ... of 1m gets infinite mass it must get and an infinite lenght, ... He takes as a base the relation of the Lorentz transformation: ... the difference between a coordinate system and a frame. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: what length contraction in only one direction?
    ... no see that the distance gets infinite length when v=c. ... of 1m gets infinite mass it must get and an infinite lenght, ... He takes as a base the relation of the Lorentz transformation: ... Making an analogy between the segments AB and BC, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)