Re: PD does not understand SR, Part II

On Nov 21, 1:07 pm, ni...@xxxxxxxxx (bjones) wrote:
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 12:13:03 -0800 (PST),

PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 20, 12:38=A0pm, ni...@xxxxxxxxx (bjones) wrote:
'... and as the prime factor involved in this contraction we find,
not the motion in itself, to which we cannot attach any meaning,
but the motion with respect to the body of reference chosen in the
particular case in point.'

If there is a physical contraction, then mere relative motion
cannot be the physical cause.

If you are drawing that conclusion somehow from the quotation above, I
don't see how you got from A to B. If it is your conclusion
independent of what Einstein said, then I'm curious how you arrived at
it.

Happy to explain -

IFF Einstein's 'contraction' is nonphysical (ie merely geometrical)
could observers in each frame find _different_ lengths for one
and the same passing rod.

Yes, they could and do.

This is due to the physical impossibility
of anything that is moving inertially having more than one physical
length, just as a person cannot be aging in more than one way at any
given moment.

I disagree. Something moving inertially has more than one physical
velocity, as the same object will have *different* physical velocities
for different observers in different frames. The same thing is true
for momentum. The same thing is true for kinetic energy. The same
thing is true for electric field. The same thing is true for magnetic
field.

Physics is loaded with *physical* properties that are frame-dependent.
Length just happens to be one of them. There are other properties that
are frame-independent. A long time ago, we thought length was one of
those, but we were wrong.

You apparently have some notion in your head that a *physical*
property of an object can have one and only one value at any one time,
independent of reference frame. I haven't got the foggiest idea where
you came up with that crazy notion.

The fact that some quantities are frame-dependent does not make them
any less real.

[rest unread]


As Einstein went on to say, observers on the Sun would find the
Michelson-Morley ruler to be shorter than would observers on Earth,
so this sort of 'contraction' is merely geometrical, not physical.

Mere geometrical 'contractions' are reciprocal, whereas real or
physical contractions cannot possibly be reciprocal; eg in the
former case, my ruler is 'shorter' than yours at the same time that
your ruler is 'shorter' than mine, whereas we all know that two
rulers cannot really both be shorter than each other. Similarly,
we all know that twins cannot both be younger than each other.

Mere geometrical 'contractions' are also frame-independent, as
Einstein mentioned above, whereas real or physical contractions
cannot be, for my reasons given above.

The mere relative movement of some passing inertial frame cannot
possibly affect your physical aging rate. If it could, then you
would have to age at many different rates at once.

Likewise, the mere relative movement of some passing inertial frame
cannot affect the physical length of any given ruler.

All of this tells us why I said

If there is a physical contraction, then mere relative motion
cannot be the physical cause.

Einstein's mere geometric 'contraction' has nothing to do with the
Michelson-Morley rulers.

But the horizontal ruler must have a different physical length than
the vertical ruler in order for the null result to occur.

The proof is the fact that no one can show the null result for two
frames on paper without also showing a physical length difference.

Einstein cannot do this, you cannot, and neither can Dr. Dirk.

But this did not stop Einstein from trying to use a mere reciprocal
and frame-independent geometrical 'contraction' to 'explain' the MMx
null result.

As I have tried to explain, a physical null result can only be due
to a physical cause, not a math 'cause.'

Similarly, if there is a physical clock slowing, as happens in the
Triplet Case, then it is certain that Einstein's mere relative motion
'cause" cannot be the true physical cause.

Special relativity theory is wrong in declaring that there is
no meaning to absolute motion ('motion in itself'),

Well, it's neither, really. I find it fascinating that you have
concluded that if it isn't relative motion that's responsible for
length contraction, then it must be absolute motion that's
responsible. Logic of this sort I've not seen.

[PD]

Then you have not seen any logic yet.
Nothing could be simpler - since triplets moving inertially age
differently (with no accelerations), this leaves only movement
through space (or absolute motion) as the cause (since the
triplets differ physically only by moving at different speeds
through space).

Experimentally, Paul in Frame A ages differently from Dirk in
Frame B, and yet neither has accelerated. Mere relative motions
cannot affect anyone's aging rate, so it cannot be due to mere
relative motions; this leaves only absolute motions.

/bjones/

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: "Deep Impact" predictions
    ... considered by physics. ... that the laws of gravity do not apply to quantum particles such as in ... the same 3-space motions - but definitely not by geometry alone. ... Geometry has no cause that can initiate motion. ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: "Deep Impact" predictions
    ... considered by physics. ... that the laws of gravity do not apply to quantum particles such as in ... the same 3-space motions - but definitely not by geometry alone. ... Geometry has no cause that can initiate motion. ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: OBarr>Reality!
    ... >>>independent state of motion. ... LET, which is viable as far as present day science allows, shows us that there really could be absolute motion in our reality. ... Your assumed problem exists in simple Newtonian physics. ... Definitely there are differences in these four basic forces, but they all do seem to interact with particles that have charge. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The true crackpots
    ... >> depend on the motion of the observer. ... This does NOT mean that length contraction is a physical ... Length is the result of a measurement. ... this point is available in Spacetime Physics, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: OT: Grand unified theory
    ... He's the PDQ Bach of theoretical physics, ... Einstein's Special and General Theories of Relativity. ... history people have used the sun's apparent motion crossing the sky to ... example, if you add 10 meters per second to 25 meters per second, then ...
    (rec.music.classical.guitar)