Science > Physics > Is length contraction of a rod real or perpective???
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"kenseto" |
| Date: |
12 Feb 2006 10:02:57 AM |
| Object: |
Is length contraction of a rod real or perpective??? |
Is length contraction of a rod real or perpective???
Some runts of the SRians argued that length contraction of a rod is real. I
disagreed. I think length contraction of a rod is a perspective effect.
Here's why:
1. observers A, B and C are looking at a meter stick moving wrt them.
2. observer A calculates its length to be 0.9 meter.
3. observer B calculates its length to be 0.5 meter.
4. observer C calculates its length to be 0.2 meter.
Now if length contraction is real that would mean that the meter stick would
have to have three different real length simultaneously. I think such an
assertion is a bunch of bull. What do you think?
OTOH, if length contraction is a perspective effect then there is no problem
with the above calculated lengths of the meter stick by the different
observers.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is length contraction of a rod real or perpective??? |
12 Feb 2006 01:40:06 PM |
|
|
The bottom line: be carefull on what definitions of *length* one is
using. In different theories or situations, those definitions are
different.
I bet that you can define black as white. shrug.
Yes one can. I dont though.
In modern physics , what one *measures* for length, is by definition
the "real" lenght.
That is the definition of "real" (and lenght). You might not like
those definitions but that is what they use...
If you want to understand SR books, we must understand the words used
in those books. Those words often do not have the same
meanings/definitions as in a "usual" conversation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Is length contraction of a rod real or perpective??? |
13 Feb 2006 10:07:59 AM |
|
|
<rotchm@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139773206.395940.84680@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The bottom line: be carefull on what definitions of *length* one is
using. In different theories or situations, those definitions are
different.
I bet that you can define black as white. shrug.
Yes one can. I dont though.
In modern physics , what one *measures* for length, is by definition
the "real" lenght.
That is the definition of "real" (and lenght). You might not like
those definitions but that is what they use...
It seems that you don't know the meaning of the word "measures". In real
life you don't measure length of a moving rod. You measure its velocity
relative to you and then calculate its projected length using the SR
equation. That calculated length is not real. It is the projected length of
the moving rod onto your frame. Much like you see a building from a distance
to be shorter whereas the actualy length of the building remain unchanged.
Ken Seto
If you want to understand SR books, we must understand the words used
in those books. Those words often do not have the same
meanings/definitions as in a "usual" conversation.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Is length contraction of a rod real or perpective??? |
12 Feb 2006 01:55:20 PM |
|
|
<rotchm@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139773206.395940.84680@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| In modern physics , what one *measures* for length, is by definition
| the "real" lenght.
So when I move a 10 foot pole far enough away from me
to cause a perspective that I can not even see the pole anymore
nor measure it's length.
It now does not exist at all..
So the pole is "really" not even there now!
LOL
What a bunch of *****.
It is amazing people can eat such ***** and act as if it
is steak.
:)
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is length contraction of a rod real or perpective??? |
12 Feb 2006 02:15:34 PM |
|
|
If you use the standard measuring procedures as prescribed by SR (or
modern physics), then you will measure the lenght of the pole to be
still 10 feet, even though YOU can not "see" the pole due to is
distance from you.
If you can not measure the lenght of the pole for some reason, that
does not mean that the pole does not exist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Is length contraction of a rod real or perpective??? |
12 Feb 2006 02:22:17 PM |
|
|
<rotchm@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139775334.483951.78250@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| If you use the standard measuring procedures as prescribed by SR (or
| modern physics), then you will measure the lenght of the pole to be
| still 10 feet, even though YOU can not "see" the pole due to is
| distance from you.
Nope.
If I use the ***** of SR , I merely get smelly.
| If you can not measure the lenght of the pole for some reason, that
| does not mean that the pole does not exist.
Perspective is false then,
So you just agreed length contraction does not occur
in reality itself.
:)
bummer for you.
:)
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is length contraction of a rod real or perpective??? |
12 Feb 2006 02:54:17 PM |
|
|
Nope.
If I use the ***** of SR , I merely get smelly.
Wow! I never seen that argument in journals.. you should submit it!
Note that it is not SR that prescribes (or defines) the measuring
procedures. It is modern physics and international standards agencies.
Using *thier* meauring procedures (which were the procedures proposed
by SR in its beginning) , one *measures* the length to be contracted.
Perspective is false then,
False? Define "perspective". To "see", to "measure".... those are not
quite the same notions.
So you just agreed length contraction does not occur
in reality itself.
No, I did not agree to that *formulation*.
I agree that when one *measures* the lenght of a moving object, our
measurement will give a Lorentz contracted value.
Call this contraction real or not... doesnt quite bother me. Debate the
definition of 'real' with others.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Is length contraction of a rod real or perpective??? |
12 Feb 2006 03:21:58 PM |
|
|
<rotchm@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139777656.969721.218470@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Note that it is not SR that prescribes (or defines) the measuring
| procedures. It is modern physics and international standards agencies.
| Using *thier* meauring procedures (which were the procedures proposed
| by SR in its beginning) , one *measures* the length to be contracted.
Oh ya!
the standard meter is based upon the speed of light.
that silly
a length = a speed
goofup that the morons have accepted.
:)
| False? Define "perspective". To "see", to "measure".... those are not
| quite the same notions.
Correct, so observers that supposedly measure different
than the physical measurement are complete morons
and should check the methods they use to take such
"non physical" measurements.
| >So you just agreed length contraction does not occur
| >in reality itself.
|
| No, I did not agree to that *formulation*.
| I agree that when one *measures* the lenght of a moving object, our
| measurement will give a Lorentz contracted value.
Only because of a really stupid definition of a meter.
:)
| Call this contraction real or not... doesnt quite bother me. Debate the
| definition of 'real' with others.
It is not "real" it is an optical problem,
combined with a problem of a meter being as stupid as...
a length = a speed
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is length contraction of a rod real or perpective??? |
12 Feb 2006 03:47:52 PM |
|
|
that silly a length = a speed
goofup that the morons have accepted.
Definitions are not debatable. And, that definition, used with SR,
works!
Correct, so observers that supposedly measure different
than the physical measurement are complete morons
?? Now to talk about "physical measurement", we must define or indicate
what we mean.
I agree that when one *measures* the lenght of a moving object, our >>
measurement will give a Lorentz contracted value.
Only because of a really stupid definition of a meter.
Correct. But "stupid definition" is.... stupid. Definitions are
non-debatable, no matter how weird it might be.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Is length contraction of a rod real or perpective??? |
12 Feb 2006 04:06:49 PM |
|
|
<rotchm@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139780872.444335.22780@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
| Definitions are not debatable. And, that definition, used with SR,
| works!
Wrong, definitions are debatable. (If they were not.)
we would still use the kings foot, or the cubit,
as a standard measurement of length.
The meter of today,
(a distance = a speed) is very debatable.
| ?? Now to talk about "physical measurement", we must define or indicate
| what we mean.
Physical is a measurement that does not use time.
such as length or distance.
Once you use "time" you have added an abstract measurement.
| Correct. But "stupid definition" is.... stupid. Definitions are
| non-debatable, no matter how weird it might be.
Wrong again
Definitions are not "laws of the universe"
they are debatable and always should be if there
could be any questions about it not being correct.
The standard meter is very debatable.
a distance = a speed.
It is a very stupid mix of "different measurements,
(and one actually uses the other inside it.)
Might as well make a new definition for
volume.. oh wait..
volume is screwed because of the meter..
nevermind.
It is already screwed up since the meter is also screwed up.
LOL
In short, If length contraction occurs at high speed,
then volume also does too. and of course.
if volume is also screwed than density becomes screwed.
Wow..
a really fast object (close to lightspeed)
changes in length, volume, and density.
sheesh!
Some bad measurement going on there!
LOL
So what happens to a planck length at the speed of light?
LOL
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is length contraction of a rod real or perpective??? |
12 Feb 2006 04:17:55 PM |
|
|
Definitions are not "laws of the universe"
Correct.
they are debatable and always should be if there
could be any questions about it not being correct.
Definitions are not debatable in the following sence: Used as a
"definition" or as a premise for a logical deduction. Thats what meant
by "non-debatable".
They are debatable in the sence of their usefullness in every day life
or for every day life of physicists. In this later case "they" have
accepted lenght/meter defined as time of travel of light because it is
ore usefull for physicists and their measurements.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Is length contraction of a rod real or perpective??? |
12 Feb 2006 04:37:12 PM |
|
|
<rotchm@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139782675.683077.147880@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
| Definitions are not debatable in the following sence: Used as a
| "definition" or as a premise for a logical deduction. Thats what meant
| by "non-debatable".
So the logical deduction I have come up with is that
the standard meter is a complete joke since it is basically stating
a distance = a speed.
hence in other words
d=d/t
the meter (d) = the distance (the same (d)) per a time(t).
:)
That is one sad ***** constant unit.
LOL
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is length contraction of a rod real or perpective??? |
12 Feb 2006 05:03:06 PM |
|
|
the standard meter is a complete joke
You are allowed to find the definition of meter funny.
basically stating a distance = a speed.
Well yes, sort of. (actually its distance = time hence "spacetime" and
not "space and time"); Distance is derfined as a time measurement.
Its true that those (modern) definitions of distance, time... are
different from your usual highscool definitions but physicists have
adopted these modern (but weird) definitions because its more usefull
to them, and couplled with SR makes correct predictions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Is length contraction of a rod real or perpective??? |
12 Feb 2006 05:09:45 PM |
|
|
<rotchm@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139785386.199528.250050@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| >the standard meter is a complete joke
|
| You are allowed to find the definition of meter funny.
|
| >basically stating a distance = a speed.
|
| Well yes, sort of. (actually its distance = time hence "spacetime" and
| not "space and time"); Distance is derfined as a time measurement.
|
| Its true that those (modern) definitions of distance, time... are
| different from your usual highscool definitions but physicists have
| adopted these modern (but weird) definitions because its more usefull
| to them, and couplled with SR makes correct predictions.
Yup,
a distance (d) = a speed (d/t)
in short
d=d/t
is a perfect SR helper..
LOL
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Is length contraction of a rod real or perpective??? |
12 Feb 2006 06:36:25 PM |
|
|
Spaceman wrote:
a distance (d) = a speed (d/t)
in short
d=d/t
is a perfect SR helper..
LOL
No!
Velocity
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Velocity.html
Speed
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Speed.html
Meter
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Meter.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Is length contraction of a rod real or perpective??? |
12 Feb 2006 06:48:02 PM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:dwQHf.763527$x96.580661@attbi_s72...
| No!
|
| Velocity
| http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Velocity.html
Who cares.
| Speed
| http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Speed.html
Correct.
| Meter
| http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Meter.html
Correct as definition, and if you look closely to such crap.
It comes up with
meter (a distance) = length of the path traveled by light per 1/299792458
second
(a speed)
hence a stupid
d = d/t
Too bad you can't see the problem
Of course, why would you.
You need it to keep your ignorance factor high..
LOL
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Is length contraction of a rod real or perpective??? |
12 Feb 2006 06:54:30 PM |
|
|
Spaceman wrote:
a distance (d) = a speed (d/t)
in short
d=d/t
is a perfect SR helper..
LOL
No!
Velocity
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Velocity.html
Speed
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Speed.html
Meter
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Meter.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Is length contraction of a rod real or perpective??? |
12 Feb 2006 06:58:53 PM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:aNQHf.771690$_o.609456@attbi_s71...
| No!
Yes
by definition
a meter = a speed.
Only fools can not actually see such.
LOL
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Is length contraction of a rod real or perpective??? |
12 Feb 2006 07:02:15 PM |
|
|
Spaceman wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:aNQHf.771690$_o.609456@attbi_s71...
| No!
Yes
by definition
a meter = a speed.
Only fools can not actually see such.
LOL
Spitshit is wrong again... here are the definitions.
Velocity
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Velocity.html
Speed
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Speed.html
Meter
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Meter.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Is length contraction of a rod real or perpective??? |
12 Feb 2006 07:18:14 PM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:rUQHf.763593$x96.218433@attbi_s72...
| Spitshit is wrong again... here are the definitions.
|
| Velocity
| http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Velocity.html
|
| Speed
| http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Speed.html
|
| Meter
| http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Meter.html
Sam,
you can post such all you want,
It only keeps showing people that
there is a speed being used to define a meter.
LOL
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Is length contraction of a rod real or perpective??? |
13 Feb 2006 12:00:18 AM |
|
|
In sci.physics.relativity, Spaceman
<Realspace@comcast.not>
wrote
on Sun, 12 Feb 2006 20:18:14 -0500
<uYmdnQf-IY_MQ3LeRVn-vQ@comcast.com>:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:rUQHf.763593$x96.218433@attbi_s72...
| Spitshit is wrong again... here are the definitions.
|
| Velocity
| http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Velocity.html
|
| Speed
| http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Speed.html
|
| Meter
| http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Meter.html
Sam,
you can post such all you want,
It only keeps showing people that
there is a speed being used to define a meter.
LOL
A speed and a time. You missed that part, methinks.
1 m = the length traversed by light in 1/299792458th of a second.
1 s = 9192631770 vibrations of a certain Cs-133 hyperfine transition.
Now, is this clear enough or shall I have to beat you over the
head with a hypothetical meter stick? :-)
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Is length contraction of a rod real or perpective??? |
13 Feb 2006 09:22:25 AM |
|
|
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:bch5c3-une.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
In sci.physics.relativity, Spaceman
<Realspace@comcast.not>
wrote
on Sun, 12 Feb 2006 20:18:14 -0500
<uYmdnQf-IY_MQ3LeRVn-vQ@comcast.com>:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:rUQHf.763593$x96.218433@attbi_s72...
| Spitshit is wrong again... here are the definitions.
|
| Velocity
| http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Velocity.html
|
| Speed
| http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Speed.html
|
| Meter
| http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Meter.html
Sam,
you can post such all you want,
It only keeps showing people that
there is a speed being used to define a meter.
LOL
A speed and a time. You missed that part, methinks.
1 m = the length traversed by light in 1/299792458th of a second.
But the passage of a clock second in one frame does not correspond to the
passage of a clock second in another frame. Does this mean that the speed of
light is different in different frame? Or does this mean that the speed of
light is merely a constant math ratio as follows:
Light path length of rod (299,792,458m)/the absolute time content for a
clock second co-moving with the rod.
Ken Seto
1 s = 9192631770 vibrations of a certain Cs-133 hyperfine transition.
Now, is this clear enough or shall I have to beat you over the
head with a hypothetical meter stick? :-)
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Is length contraction of a rod real or perpective??? |
14 Feb 2006 09:00:55 AM |
|
|
In sci.physics.relativity, kenseto
<kenseto@erinet.com>
wrote
on Mon, 13 Feb 2006 15:22:25 GMT
<Ru1If.79842$tK4.4747@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>:
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:bch5c3-une.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
In sci.physics.relativity, Spaceman
<Realspace@comcast.not>
wrote
on Sun, 12 Feb 2006 20:18:14 -0500
<uYmdnQf-IY_MQ3LeRVn-vQ@comcast.com>:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:rUQHf.763593$x96.218433@attbi_s72...
| Spitshit is wrong again... here are the definitions.
|
| Velocity
| http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Velocity.html
|
| Speed
| http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Speed.html
|
| Meter
| http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Meter.html
Sam,
you can post such all you want,
It only keeps showing people that
there is a speed being used to define a meter.
LOL
A speed and a time. You missed that part, methinks.
1 m = the length traversed by light in 1/299792458th of a second.
But the passage of a clock second in one frame does
not correspond to the passage of a clock second in
another frame. Does this mean that the speed of
light is different in different frame?
No, because the reference length is also subject to the gamma
correction.
There *is* a problem in GTR -- but for most measurements of the
Pound-Rebka type the error is extremely tiny.
Or does this mean that the speed of
light is merely a constant math ratio as follows:
Light path length of rod (299,792,458m)/the absolute time content for a
clock second co-moving with the rod.
Ken Seto
1 s = 9192631770 vibrations of a certain Cs-133 hyperfine transition.
Now, is this clear enough or shall I have to beat you over the
head with a hypothetical meter stick? :-)
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Is length contraction of a rod real or perpective??? |
13 Feb 2006 08:34:57 AM |
|
|
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:bch5c3-une.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
| A speed and a time. You missed that part, methinks.
|
| 1 m = the length traversed by light in 1/299792458th of a second.
yup you have
d(1) = d(1)/t
It is a joke to a standard and also
to basic math.
:)
| 1 s = 9192631770 vibrations of a certain Cs-133 hyperfine transition.
Can you freeze Cs-133?
Does it change rate from heating it to a higher temp?
That is a crap standard.
| Now, is this clear enough or shall I have to beat you over the
| head with a hypothetical meter stick? :-)
I think you should hit yourself a few times
and think about how stupid
d=d/t really is.
:)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Neill" |
|
| Title: Re: Is length contraction of a rod real or perpective??? |
13 Feb 2006 08:44:42 AM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message news:86-dnf-r3beXBG3eRVn-pQ@comcast.com...
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:bch5c3-une.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
| A speed and a time. You missed that part, methinks.
|
| 1 m = the length traversed by light in 1/299792458th of a second.
yup you have
d(1) = d(1)/t
It is a joke to a standard and also
to basic math.
You're the joke. The equation is:
d = c*t
:)
| 1 s = 9192631770 vibrations of a certain Cs-133 hyperfine transition.
Can you freeze Cs-133?
Sure.
Does it change rate from heating it to a higher temp?
Nope. Hyperfine transitions are not affected by
bulk atomic motion.
That is a crap standard.
| Now, is this clear enough or shall I have to beat you over the
| head with a hypothetical meter stick? :-)
I think you should hit yourself a few times
and think about how stupid
d=d/t really is.
James cannot do math, no matter how trivial.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Is length contraction of a rod real or perpective??? |
14 Feb 2006 09:00:53 AM |
|
|
In sci.physics.relativity, Spaceman
<Realspace@comcast.not>
wrote
on Mon, 13 Feb 2006 09:34:57 -0500
<86-dnf-r3beXBG3eRVn-pQ@comcast.com>:
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:bch5c3-une.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
| A speed and a time. You missed that part, methinks.
|
| 1 m = the length traversed by light in 1/299792458th of a second.
yup you have
d(1) = d(1)/t
It is a joke to a standard and also
to basic math.
:)
If you say so. I for one don't get it; most jokes I know are
of the form "two strings walk into a bar..."... :-)
In any event, if one has a car moving at 60 mph (a speed) and
travels in it for 3 hours, one has traveled 180 miles.
If one has a beam of light traveling at 299792458 m/s and
allows it to travel for 1/299792458'th of a second, how
far has one traveled?
| 1 s = 9192631770 vibrations of a certain Cs-133 hyperfine transition.
Can you freeze Cs-133?
MP 301.59 k (28.44 C)
BP 944 K
http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/Cs/heat.html
Does it change rate from heating it to a higher temp?
That is a crap standard.
So think of a better one, then. The only other one I know of
is based on mercury ion, and I don't know if that one's been
adopted yet.
Bear also in mind that the Cs atoms are in a highly attenuated
environment, arcing in a fountain.
| Now, is this clear enough or shall I have to beat you over the
| head with a hypothetical meter stick? :-)
I think you should hit yourself a few times
and think about how stupid
d=d/t really is.
:)
Must....restrain.....myself....
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Is length contraction of a rod real or perpective??? |
14 Feb 2006 10:32:17 AM |
|
|
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:8469c3-kjd.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
| In sci.physics.relativity, Spaceman
| <Realspace@comcast.not>
| wrote
| on Mon, 13 Feb 2006 09:34:57 -0500
| <86-dnf-r3beXBG3eRVn-pQ@comcast.com>:
| >
| > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
message
| > news:bch5c3-une.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
| > | A speed and a time. You missed that part, methinks.
| > |
| > | 1 m = the length traversed by light in 1/299792458th of a second.
| >
| > yup you have
| > d(1) = d(1)/t
| > It is a joke to a standard and also
| > to basic math.
| >:)
|
| If you say so. I for one don't get it; most jokes I know are
| of the form "two strings walk into a bar..."... :-)
Oh,
I am sorry
a meter runs into a bar at the speed of light
The bartender says, "Dang I am quitting drinking you look shorter".
|
| In any event, if one has a car moving at 60 mph (a speed) and
| travels in it for 3 hours, one has traveled 180 miles.
|
| If one has a beam of light traveling at 299792458 m/s and
| allows it to travel for 1/299792458'th of a second, how
| far has one traveled?
1 meter and irrelevant.
a distance should not be dependant on lightspeed.
at all.
|
| >
| > | 1 s = 9192631770 vibrations of a certain Cs-133 hyperfine transition.
| >
| > Can you freeze Cs-133?
|
| MP 301.59 k (28.44 C)
| BP 944 K
|
| http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/Cs/heat.html
|
| > Does it change rate from heating it to a higher temp?
| > That is a crap standard.
|
| So think of a better one, then. The only other one I know of
| is based on mercury ion, and I don't know if that one's been
| adopted yet.
The standard needs updating badly.
| Bear also in mind that the Cs atoms are in a highly attenuated
| environment, arcing in a fountain.
Highly attenuated and still effected by gravity and other
non shieldable realities..
:)
| Must....restrain.....myself....
You should if you think a distance based upon
a speed is a good standard at all.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Is length contraction of a rod real or perpective??? |
15 Feb 2006 07:00:15 AM |
|
|
In sci.physics.relativity, Spaceman
<Realspace@comcast.not>
wrote
on Tue, 14 Feb 2006 11:32:17 -0500
<jdadnYALiO6Vm2_eRVn-iA@comcast.com>:
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:8469c3-kjd.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
| In sci.physics.relativity, Spaceman
| <Realspace@comcast.not>
| wrote
| on Mon, 13 Feb 2006 09:34:57 -0500
| <86-dnf-r3beXBG3eRVn-pQ@comcast.com>:
| >
| > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
message
| > news:bch5c3-une.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
| > | A speed and a time. You missed that part, methinks.
| > |
| > | 1 m = the length traversed by light in 1/299792458th of a second.
| >
| > yup you have
| > d(1) = d(1)/t
| > It is a joke to a standard and also
| > to basic math.
| >:)
|
| If you say so. I for one don't get it; most jokes I know are
| of the form "two strings walk into a bar..."... :-)
Oh,
I am sorry
a meter runs into a bar at the speed of light
The bartender says, "Dang I am quitting drinking you look shorter".
1/2 a Ha.
|
| In any event, if one has a car moving at 60 mph (a speed) and
| travels in it for 3 hours, one has traveled 180 miles.
|
| If one has a beam of light traveling at 299792458 m/s and
| allows it to travel for 1/299792458'th of a second, how
| far has one traveled?
1 meter and irrelevant.
a distance should not be dependant on lightspeed.
at all.
OK. What should it depend on?
|
| >
| > | 1 s = 9192631770 vibrations of a certain Cs-133 hyperfine transition.
| >
| > Can you freeze Cs-133?
|
| MP 301.59 k (28.44 C)
| BP 944 K
|
| http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/Cs/heat.html
|
| > Does it change rate from heating it to a higher temp?
| > That is a crap standard.
|
| So think of a better one, then. The only other one I know of
| is based on mercury ion, and I don't know if that one's been
| adopted yet.
The standard needs updating badly.
OK. Update it, then. What should we use for 1 second?
| Bear also in mind that the Cs atoms are in a highly attenuated
| environment, arcing in a fountain.
Highly attenuated and still effected by gravity and other
non shieldable realities..
:)
It's an error, true. If my computations are correct it's about 10^-17
or thereabout, though it depends on the size of the resonation cavity.
| Must....restrain.....myself....
You should if you think a distance based upon
a speed is a good standard at all.
OK. Which would you prefer?
[1] A length of a pendulum with a half-period of 1 second?
[2] 1/10^7 of the length of the Earth's meridian along a quadrant?
[3] a prototype platinum-iridium bar?
[4] 1650763.73 times the vacuum wavelength of Kr-86 light?
[5] the current definition, the distance light travels
in 1/299792458 sec?
[6] other?
(Note that [4] was eventually discarded as it wasn't precise enough.)
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Is length contraction of a rod real or perpective??? |
15 Feb 2006 10:43:09 AM |
|
|
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:2ojbc3-ucu.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
| In sci.physics.relativity, Spaceman
| <Realspace@comcast.not>
| wrote
| on Tue, 14 Feb 2006 11:32:17 -0500
| <jdadnYALiO6Vm2_eRVn-iA@comcast.com>:
| >
| > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
message
| > news:8469c3-kjd.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
| > | In sci.physics.relativity, Spaceman
| > | <Realspace@comcast.not>
| > | wrote
| > | on Mon, 13 Feb 2006 09:34:57 -0500
| > | <86-dnf-r3beXBG3eRVn-pQ@comcast.com>:
| > | >
| > | > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
| > message
| > | > news:bch5c3-une.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
| > | > | A speed and a time. You missed that part, methinks.
| > | > |
| > | > | 1 m = the length traversed by light in 1/299792458th of a second.
| > | >
| > | > yup you have
| > | > d(1) = d(1)/t
| > | > It is a joke to a standard and also
| > | > to basic math.
| > | >:)
| > |
| > | If you say so. I for one don't get it; most jokes I know are
| > | of the form "two strings walk into a bar..."... :-)
| >
| > Oh,
| > I am sorry
| > a meter runs into a bar at the speed of light
| > The bartender says, "Dang I am quitting drinking you look shorter".
|
| 1/2 a Ha.
:)
| > | In any event, if one has a car moving at 60 mph (a speed) and
| > | travels in it for 3 hours, one has traveled 180 miles.
| > |
| > | If one has a beam of light traveling at 299792458 m/s and
| > | allows it to travel for 1/299792458'th of a second, how
| > | far has one traveled?
| >
| > 1 meter and irrelevant.
| > a distance should not be dependant on lightspeed.
| > at all.
|
| OK. What should it depend on?
A physical length at a certain temp in normal air, at 1g, etc.
Sort of like has been done with "mass or net weight" basically.
| > | So think of a better one, then. The only other one I know of
| > | is based on mercury ion, and I don't know if that one's been
| > | adopted yet.
| >
| > The standard needs updating badly.
|
| OK. Update it, then. What should we use for 1 second?
We can use that same second, but it has to be at a certain
gravitational strength on such a clock.
(such as 1 g of Earth and not the lesser g in space)
(again, such as "net weight or mass" is using)
|
| >
| > | Bear also in mind that the Cs atoms are in a highly attenuated
| > | environment, arcing in a fountain.
| >
| > Highly attenuated and still effected by gravity and other
| > non shieldable realities..
| >:)
|
| It's an error, true. If my computations are correct it's about 10^-17
| or thereabout, though it depends on the size of the resonation cavity.
Still affected by gravity differences etc.
the caesium is not gravity etc immune.
such problems should be taken into account like
we have done with the mass/weight standard.
| OK. Which would you prefer?
|
| [1] A length of a pendulum with a half-period of 1 second?
| [2] 1/10^7 of the length of the Earth's meridian along a quadrant?
| [3] a prototype platinum-iridium bar?
| [4] 1650763.73 times the vacuum wavelength of Kr-86 light?
| [5] the current definition, the distance light travels
| in 1/299792458 sec?
| [6] other?
As long as the standard accounts for temp, gravity, etc changes
It would not matter.
| (Note that [4] was eventually discarded as it wasn't precise enough.)
Nothing is truly constant to all,
we always have to make a constant up by having
rules about the changes that can happen to such a constant that
we want to make since the universe could care less
about things being "constant"
:)
the mass = the "net weight" today, simply because we
..
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Is length contraction of a rod real or perpective??? |
12 Feb 2006 04:40:42 PM |
|
|
Spaceman wrote:
<rotchm@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139782675.683077.147880@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
| Definitions are not debatable in the following sence: Used as a
| "definition" or as a premise for a logical deduction. Thats what meant
| by "non-debatable".
So the logical deduction I have come up with is that
the standard meter is a complete joke since it is basically stating
a distance = a speed.
hence in other words
d=d/t
the meter (d) = the distance (the same (d)) per a time(t).
Idiot spaceshit.
d = v*t
:)
That is one sad ***** constant unit.
LOL
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Is length contraction of a rod real or perpective??? |
12 Feb 2006 05:01:56 PM |
|
|
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139784042.044206.318510@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|
| Spaceman wrote:
| > <rotchm@gmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:1139782675.683077.147880@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
| > | Definitions are not debatable in the following sence: Used as a
| > | "definition" or as a premise for a logical deduction. Thats what meant
| > | by "non-debatable".
| >
| > So the logical deduction I have come up with is that
| > the standard meter is a complete joke since it is basically stating
| > a distance = a speed.
| > hence in other words
| > d=d/t
| > the meter (d) = the distance (the same (d)) per a time(t).
|
| Idiot spaceshit.
|
| d = v*t
The idiot is you Eric.
the meter (d) = a speed. (d/t)
hence you have accepted
d=d/t
without even knowing it.
LOL
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
