Re: What is the " ACTUAL " length ?

On Jan 19, 9:06 am, kenseto <kens...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 18, 5:09 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Jan 18, 3:14 pm, kenseto <kens...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 18, 11:19 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 18, 10:08 am, kenseto <kens...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 17, 11:04 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 17, 9:15 am, kenseto <kens...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 16, 10:23 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 16, 9:08 am, kenseto <kens...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 15, 5:42 pm, "Jeckyl" <no...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"kenseto" <kens...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:37675b2a-072e-4818-bcab-6c31f1f7890e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jan 14, 6:20 pm, "Jeckyl" <no...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"kenseto" <kens...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4de2ac38-d906-4756-9326-9d62f4206cdb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jan 13, 1:40 am, "Jeckyl" <no...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"kenseto" <kens...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
In any case, you can't measure length
contraction if length contraction in SR is only a form of geometric
projection.
You do realise that the ONLY thing one can measure is how something
appears
in ones frame of reference. No matter what the theory.
Then give us some experiemtns that measure length contraction of a
moving rod.
That is totally irrelevant to what I claimed.
ROTFLOL....so experiments that can potentially refuting SR is
irrelevant?????

No .. its because they would not refute it .. as explained. That you laugh
at that shows further your compelte ineptitude wrt physics.

And, again, that is ireelevant to what I said. What I said was the the only
thing one CAN measure is how something appears .. reality for physics is
what we measure.

But each observer have different standards for time and length so what
you measure is incomplete. That's why SR has a very l9imited domain of
applicability.

These have already been cited previously.
Those are not experiments that measures length contraction.

The ones I have seen are

You are bull-shiting.

Them methods for how to do it
given. They are simply just not terribly interesting experiments to
perform. At the speeds at which one can do that with something resembling
a
moving rod to any degree that you would accept, the amount of difference
would be undetectable within experimental error, so there is no point in
doing so.
The other possibility is that there is no physical length contraction.

As I understand, other experiments show the length contraction happens ..

Wrong those experiments are not a measure of leng5th contraction. The
rods that suppose to illustrate contraction are stationary with
reaspect to the observer.

just not directly by accelerating rigid rods and measuring them while
moving. Such an experiment in not feasable at the speed necessary to get a
noticable contraction.

As I said there is no experiment that can measure length contraction.
In SR length contraction is a geometric projection. Much like that you
see a buliding from a distance to be shorter than it actually is.
Geometric projection is not measurable.

The leght path of a moving rod is different than the light path length
of the observer's rod and you interpreted that as physical length
contraction.

Noone other than you interprets the light-path length to be the length.

Of course not....IRT is an improved theory of relativity. The IRT
interpretation that the light path length of a moving rod varies has
the following advantages:
1. The physical length of a rod remains unchanged....this is claimed
by SR.

This is NOT what's claimed by SR. What is true is that there is no
physical process or interaction acting to compress the rod. However,
the length of the rod does change nevertheless.

ROTFLOL....you are an idiot. Here's what you claimed:
1. No physical process is happening to the rod.

Yes.

2. The rod is measured to be contracted nevertheless.

Yes.

3. No direct measurement of the length of a contracted rod ever been
performed.

No, I did not say that. I've been telling you just the opposite.

Yes no DIRECT measurement of the length of a moving rod ever been
performed.

Ah, well, that's fine. An indirect measurement, which as I've
patiently explained to you over and over again is frequently
experimentally *superior* in the quality of its results, of the length
of a moving rod has certainly been performed.

So let's recap.
1. No physical process is happening to the rod.
2. The rod is measured to be contracted nevertheless.
3. A highly accurate and indirect measurement of the length of a
moving rod has been performed. Repeatedly.

So lets recap:
The sides of the binds were not moving wrt you so you are not
measuring length contraction indirectly.

"Binds"? Speak English.

The calorimeter rods are moving with respect to the ruler that's
measuring them.

No you are the observer and the calorimeter rods are not moving wrt
you and your ruler.

Yes, the rods are moving with respect to my ruler. Remember my ruler
is the particle distribution from the center of mass of the colliding
system.

Ken, you are blindingly ignorant of experimental practice. Do you
imagine that the observer has to be *right next* to the ruler being
used? If I were to measure the length of a moving train with sensors
on the rails and marks on the rails, do you imagine there is some
reason why I can't be in the next *county* to make this measurement?

If you are talking about the moving particles
there is no observer there to determine if the calorimeter rods are
contracted.

Ken, you are an idiot. Now you are saying there has to be a human
observer right next to the ruler being used to measure the length of a
moving rod.

PD

.

Quantcast