Lorentz Eqs Don't Necessarily imply Length Contraction!
From: John Tapper (xixj_0_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 11/02/04
- Next message: DAH: "dual coherent emitter interference"
- Previous message: Eric Gisse: "Re: The universality of free fall conspiracy"
- Next in thread: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: Lorentz Eqs Don't Necessarily imply Length Contraction!"
- Reply: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: Lorentz Eqs Don't Necessarily imply Length Contraction!"
- Reply: Eugene Shubert: "Re: Lorentz Eqs Don't Necessarily imply Length Contraction!"
- Reply: John Tapper: "Re: Lorentz Eqs Don't Necessarily imply Length Contraction!"
- Reply: puppet_sock_at_hotmail.com: "Re: Lorentz Eqs Don't Necessarily imply Length Contraction!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 2 Nov 2004 06:28:25 -0800
I believe a narrower interpretation of the Lorentz transformations can
be made.
Strictly, nothing in the Lorentz transformations REQUIRES the
interpretation that there is any relative contraction of length in
anything other than observed Length of Travel by the moving object.
Similarly it only states that time dilation holds for Time for This
Travel. We do not need to interpret Lorentz transformations to refer
to coordinates in general. Instead, we can take x,x' and t,t' etc to
Only Represent distances seen to be traveled by the moving object and
the time Corresponding To This Travel. Then we need not have actual
length contraction of a rigid object lying along an axis, only
contraction in the observed distance traveled by the particle being
observed.
x'= (x - vt) / sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
t'= (t - vx/c^2) / sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
y'=y
z'=z
are chosen to satisfy
x^2+y^2+z^2=c^2 t^2
x'^2+y'^2+z'^2=c^2 t'^2
Again, you have been taught that Set of Equations A imply Physical
Meaning B, but they do not necessarily! We can take the equations to
only refer to information regarding the moving particle. Heck, the
particle is a photon so we need not even conclude anything about what
happens when non-photons are observed.
- Next message: DAH: "dual coherent emitter interference"
- Previous message: Eric Gisse: "Re: The universality of free fall conspiracy"
- Next in thread: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: Lorentz Eqs Don't Necessarily imply Length Contraction!"
- Reply: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: Lorentz Eqs Don't Necessarily imply Length Contraction!"
- Reply: Eugene Shubert: "Re: Lorentz Eqs Don't Necessarily imply Length Contraction!"
- Reply: John Tapper: "Re: Lorentz Eqs Don't Necessarily imply Length Contraction!"
- Reply: puppet_sock_at_hotmail.com: "Re: Lorentz Eqs Don't Necessarily imply Length Contraction!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
