Re: The Measurement of Contraction

On Feb 8, 11:43 pm, "jeckyl" <no...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"xxein" <xx...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:7fa0ee4e-3f9a-448e-81ae-80eab04fb546@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Feb 8, 4:42 am, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@xxxxxxx> wrote:





"Peri of Pera" <rie...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
messagenews:68d664bf-7cbc-4725-97c7-b271ca2df145@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

The Measurement of Contraction

The theory of relativity is presented as one that cannot be understood
by most people. This aura of complexity and difficulty is maintained
by using ambiguity and vagueness in describing and defining the theory
and defending it with even more ambiguity and vagueness against logic.
But what is it really? Stripped of all esoteric language it simply
means that physical objects (we may call them frames) that are capable
of motion (cars, trains, planes, the earth, planets, stars) will
shrink along the axis parallel to the motion and have their clocks
slow down. The effects are in proportion to the velocity of the object
and are called length contraction and time dilation. They can be
calculated using the transformation formulas that are the substance of
the Lorentz contraction hypothesis.

Note: the transformation formulas do much more than that: they also
account
for time dilation and define relativity of simultaneity.

xxein:  Hi, Harry.  Standard explanation, but what about the
unobserved physic

What unobserved physic?

where a subjectively measured relativeness

There is no subjectively measured relativeness in SR

doesn't matter?

It doesn't amtter anyway

What is the explanation/description for that?

There is no 'that'

[snip]

So is the observer S'.  They are different.  What defines the physic
for this difference (and not just their relative difference)?

SR does .. the only difference in SR is how tow different observers measure
some other object

How will any difference in the speed the
observed object, S and S' be taken into account?

??? S and S' *are* the co-ordinate systems.

Yeaaaay.  So what unites them in the underlying physic?

What underlying 'phsysic' .. and in what way do you think they are 'united'- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

xxein: If you would study physics, rather than memorizing a text and
a specific math, you might have a chance to find out. Try inventing
concepts instead of adopting from already existing ones.

Co-ordinate systems and their usefulness is not the issue here. The
issue is the physical structure they attempt to describe within their
overall functional domain. The mapping we presently use has it's
basis in static condition. We modified it to include, not only
movement, but gradient movement that is defined by non-linear fields
like gravity. What we did was to simply put a field overlay onto a
pre-existing static system. We did NOT put a dynamic into the co-
ordinate system itself.

The universe is fluid, not static. Its co-ordinates are fluid. Point
"A" is not here anymore. It is now over there. What we presently do
is overlay pertinent fields onto a static map. One for each bit of
gravitational matter. We say, then, that particle "Z" has moved from
point "A" to point "B".

It would seem that either will map the whole system (universe), but
the conceptual difference allows for a different understanding of what
inertial movement IS. You might think that there is no problem
there. But there is.

The gedanken here is that there is a lone large body and a small
(test) pebble located parsecs away. Both temporarily static (a
gedanken, after all). The pebble will "gravitate" toward the mass
(don't even quibble about the mass also moving toward the pebble ---
granted). As the pebble gets closer, has its velocity changed? How
about wrt the speed of light?

You might argue that there is no practical or significant difference
that is very meaningful. Then, I would say that you don't really know
how the underlying physic unites.

The pebble either has an increasing inertial velocity in the presently
used co-ordinate system or its inertial velocity remains unchanged in
a fluid co-ordinate system. In one, its speed varies wrt c. In the
other its speed remains constant wrt c. Exit gedanken.

We can test this rather easily. We can do this with a modified Pound-
Rebka, Pound-Snider. Evacuate a vertical tube and send a radioactive
sample past a counter-clock with photo-electric detectors to control
the on-off for the measuring cycle. Set up trapped adjustable springs
to provide velocity for up and down velocities. Use another clock
merely to adjust the springs and verify the speed of the material as
it passes the photo-electric detectors both up and down.

In this way, you can measure the amount of emitted particles (Geiger)
for a fixed distance of transit and verify that the transit time
remained the same. My predictive result is a ratio that depends on
the selected velocity. For a velocity of 1k m/s, each detection would
increase by 1.3E-10:1 in the downward direction and decrease by
1.19E-10:1 for the upward direction compared to a "parked" detection
(1:1).

This means that a rising clock has a slower timerate than a falling
clock at the same place and time. The conclusions drawn from Pound-
Rebka-Snider are just assumptively based. Some have merit, some are
just imaginary based upon the whole concept. This (mine vs. Pound) is
not addressed by GR. There is no conclusion that can be extracted
from GR. It is simply an assumption of GR that the clocks will have
the same timerate. Do you trust that assumption?

Can you now see how the concept of a co-ordinate system either steers
or prevents an understanding of the physic?

Nobody can claim to be an expert in these matters. We may get
numerous degrees from teaching establishments that tell us so, but we
are all novices. There are many that graduated from GR U., but not
from gravity U. I started in gravity U. in 1989 (~age 45). The first
minute of the "introductory course" is what you are getting right now.

I know that similar thoughts and ideas have been presented before. I
have found the same major faults as you all have. I only wish that I
could find fault with mine to force me out of this crazy arena. But I
almost did, once. This is cool stuff. Listen.

In 1985, I wanted to explore and understand Einstein's theories. They
did not contain a physical logic to me. If Lorentz hadn't existed, I
could have created him. All good until I remembered that we have
gravity. I tried like hell to 'fit' a gravity. I quit 3 or 4 times
over this. Just a good math exercise to nowhere.

One day, out of that nowhere, a concept came to me. It was genuinely
stupid for any thinking I had at the time. But out of novelty, I
wanted to dismiss it with a proof. It did not happen no matter how
hard I tried. Test after test, it remained viable. And tested to
this day. I've got gravity.

How are you doing with that?

You can color me stupid and continue to ride on the bandwagon if you
want, but all that wagon can do right now is go around in the same
circle and hope it finds recyclable trash to use in a different way
and call it a new technology. That's not bad until you compare it to
a new science.

Have a nice day and don't bother to respond unless you want to learn
something new.

What! There's nothing new to learn?
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Relativistic Physics - Science or Religion?
    ... >Modern physics, at least that part which is based upon Dr. Einstein's work, is ... >compared the time recorded by that clock with the time recorded by an identical ... He did not accept the possibility that the velocity of the trip ... but neither theory is a theory of gravity. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: The Measurement of Contraction
    ... pebble located parsecs away. ... has its velocity changed? ... a fluid co-ordinate system. ... I thought that they are incompible with Gravity ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!
    ... air resistance has something to do with gravity is too silly to ... I looked up the world record for a free-fall velocity ... A relatively common choice for a resistive force that works fairly ... Why don't you try actually figuring out the physics before trying ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!
    ... air resistance has something to do with gravity is too silly to ... I looked up the world record for a free-fall velocity ... A relatively common choice for a resistive force that works fairly ... Why don't you try actually figuring out the physics before trying ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!
    ... air resistance has something to do with gravity is too silly to ... I looked up the world record for a free-fall velocity ... A relatively common choice for a resistive force that works fairly ... Why don't you try actually figuring out the physics before trying ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
Loading