Re: Lorentz Contraction for the even dumber

On Jun 18, 5:40 pm, "Whoever" <no...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.ander...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in messagenews:4A3A1E6E.9080807@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Lets look at Uncle Ben's original statement:
| We consider an event at one end of the pole with coordinates

That was his problem that upset dono .. using the word "coordinates".
Should have just said "where" as he did two lines further down ...

| x' = 0, t = 0, and x = 0
| and an event at the other end of the pole where
| x' = L, t = 0,

And maybe even nicer if he had said something along the lines of:

| We consider an event with coordinate
| P(x,t) in S and P'(x',t') in S'
| at one end of the pole, where
| x' = 0, t = 0, and x = 0
| and another event with coordinates
| Q(x,t) in S and Q'(x',t') in S'
| at the other end of the pole, where
| x' = L, t = 0,

It wasn't wrong as it was, just could have been a little better worded.
Dono's claims that there was frame jumping involved were themselves wrong ..
he was a bit over-critical to the point of making incorrect accusations.
Hopefully his heart was in the right place and he just wanted to help
improve Uncle Ben's presentation.


You are correct, this was a good summary.
Perhaps we can all move on.
.

Relevant Pages