Re: Is there length contraction in SRT, uncle Ben?

xray4abc <lemhenyil@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
7da7cea6-b527-49a4-977f-34c02aa86496@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jul 30, 12:30 am, "Ben Bean" <ken_scrapthis_vi...@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
xray4abc wrote:
What SRT does say about length contraction?
Consider a rod along OX axis be resting in IRF K and
moving in frame K’.
Consider 2 observers in the 2 frames, measuring the
length of the rod, setting up measurements at their will,
where they localize the endpoints in a simultaneous
manner, each in his frame.
...
...
3. Now, what can I say, this is what results from the LT which are
the very basics of special relativity theory, aren’t they?
Or not?

Best regards.LL

I'm lost when you ignore the infamous Relativity of Simultaneity. You used the term
"in a simultaneous manner" and from there on out it's a blur, sorry. There are
countless seeming paradoxes one can recite: the barn door and pole paradox, and I
heard one about a bug being squashed or not by a shortened moving thing uh I forget.
So what's the dang point I ask?? No sense wading thru all your raucous formulations
when the premise itself is misstated.
In short, and obvious, is the fact that
Relativity stands up to every scrutiny. It's essence is the denial of the feasibility
of a God's-Eye View of our universe. The universe can truly BE very different, from
differing perspectives. The mastery of EM signals over our mortal concoctive chicanery
is rather manifest. Ah, but I wax poetic.
Hi
You seem to be offended! I am sorry, it was not at
all
my intention. I have stated before (in your thread) that I am not
against
Relativity Theory. What I think that is there, is a more complex
situation
then the current view of SRT.
This results considering the 2 factors, mentioned by Tom Roberts in
your earlier thread : relation with the reference frame and the
measurement
process itself (using limited speed signals).
I tried to illustrate the ideas I came upon, that SRT holds true
but this truth is slightly different from what is perceived commonly.
In the given example, L and L'
appear to have a similar relationships but different operational
values in the 2 frames.

But as I explained, your value L is proper length, whereas your
L' is a useless quantity, namely the difference between end point
distances of a moving object at different times - that is *not* a
"measured length" of anything.

To measure the proper length, you chose to use simultaneous
measurements, which is *not necessary* because the object
isn't going anywhere in its rest frame, and which is *wrong*
because it results in non-simultaneously measured end points
in the moving frame. So you ended up with a useless equation
L' = L * Gamma
comparing a correctly measured proper length (L) with an
incorrectly measured "meaningless non-length".

To measure the proper lenght, you *should* have chosen to
use non-simultaneous measurements in such a way that they
are simultaneous in the *moving* frame. This way you get the
proper lenght (Dx = L) and the correctly measured coordinate
length (Dx' = L') in one equation:
L' = L / Gamma.

See my other reply.

Now, really, many physical parameters differ from one frame to
another. Why would we stick then to the idea that the x, x' set of
coordinates
is an invariant for 2 IRFs? And from there... the L and L' set.
Relationships could be similar, but why exactly the same??
A physical law can not really be *exactly* the same (similar, yes) in
2 IRFs for
a given phenomenon, as the initial conditions can not be the very
same,
in most cases.
We are talking science not religion, don't we ?

We are trying to make you understand the meanings of the
variables in the transformation equations, and how they are
related to the physical situation.

Dirk Vdm

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: SR fundamental contradiction
    ... fundamental part of physics since at least the time of Newton. ... I don't reject Galilean relativity, ... What my transformation predicts is that a moving stick is contracted ... but forgetting that the rest frame remains S, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The Fundamental Flaw of SR
    ... Your thought measurements are based on Galilean ... > what it means to have a reference frame and coordinate system. ... It is based on Galilean Relativity. ... > rulers from the origin to an event. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Doppler effect
    ... of view it is moving toward you at x m/sec. ... relativity we still have a perfectly good object which might be called ... that's _not_ the closing velocity at measured in ... the rest frame of the sink, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: I am Trying To Learn Relativity
    ... relative to a set of coordinates where observers at rest in the frame ... coordinate system to make his measurements. ... This is an axiom of Relativity. ... then relative and closing speeds must mean the same thing. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: I am Trying To Learn Relativity
    ... relative to a set of coordinates where observers at rest in the frame ... If an observer is moving relative to the coordinate ... This is an axiom of Relativity. ... then relative and closing speeds must mean the same thing. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)