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: "Martin Hogbin" |
|
| Title: Re: Is length contraction of a rod real or perpective??? |
12 Feb 2006 10:32:37 AM |
|
|
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message news:R_IHf.97975$Q11.18493@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
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.
As an official 'runt of the SRians', I am fully qualified to answer
your questions.
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?
I think you are absolutely right! Length contraction is a consequence
of measurement in the universe in which we live, just like perspective
is a consequence of Euclidean space.
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.
Well done Ken, you seem to be getting there.
Martin Hogbin
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Is length contraction of a rod real or perpective??? |
12 Feb 2006 12:44:09 PM |
|
|
"Martin Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS123@hogbin.org> wrote in message
news:dsnnv4$8pk$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:R_IHf.97975$Q11.18493@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
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.
As an official 'runt of the SRians', I am fully qualified to answer
your questions.
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?
I think you are absolutely right! Length contraction is a consequence
of measurement in the universe in which we live, just like perspective
is a consequence of Euclidean space.
So you runts are disagreeing among yourself?? What happen to the united
front that you runts are showing??
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.
Well done Ken, you seem to be getting there.
Thanks;-)
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Hogbin" |
|
| Title: Re: Is length contraction of a rod real or perpective??? |
12 Feb 2006 02:50:55 PM |
|
|
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message news:ZlLHf.98161$Q11.25303@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
"Martin Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS123@hogbin.org> wrote in message
news:dsnnv4$8pk$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:R_IHf.97975$Q11.18493@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
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.
As an official 'runt of the SRians', I am fully qualified to answer
your questions.
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?
I think you are absolutely right! Length contraction is a consequence
of measurement in the universe in which we live, just like perspective
is a consequence of Euclidean space.
So you runts are disagreeing among yourself??
Not really. The idea that length contraction is a consequence of
measurement in the spacetime in which we live has been stated
by physicists on this group many times before.
Length contraction in SR and size reduction with distance
have many similarities, and some important differences. Let us
see if we can agree on some things. Consider the question,
'Do things really get smaller when they are further away from us?'.
'Of course not', would be the answer that most people would
give, but let us consider the evidence.
1) Things certainly look smaller when they are further away.
2)We could compare the lengths of rods by measuring the
angle they subtend from a fixed point. Using this method
of measurement we would actually measure objects to get
smaller when they get further away. (You might argue that
this is simply due to geometry. If you do, 'hold that thought')
3) If you think measurement is not very 'real' then consider
using objects as targets. The smaller an object is the harder
it is to hit. Move it further away and it also gets harder to
hid, that is to say, smaller. How real do you want?
4) If you measure the size of an object by its radar or sonar
reflection it would get smaller as it got further away.
5) I person who walks 100 m away from you does not consider
himself to have got smaller. Of course he does not. He is
100 m away from you, not from himself. Things only get smaller
when they are further away.
That will do for now. Let us see how serious you are about
discussing this subject.
By the way, welcome back Ken. Compared to some of the
crackpots we have here now you seem positively sensible.
Martin Hogbin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mdmeenken" |
|
| Title: Re: Is length contraction of a rod real or perpective??? |
13 Feb 2006 04:35:21 AM |
|
|
"Martin Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS123@hogbin.org> schreef in bericht
news:dso73e$stp$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:ZlLHf.98161$Q11.25303@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
"Martin Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS123@hogbin.org> wrote in message
news:dsnnv4$8pk$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:R_IHf.97975$Q11.18493@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
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.
As an official 'runt of the SRians', I am fully qualified to answer
your questions.
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?
I think you are absolutely right! Length contraction is a consequence
of measurement in the universe in which we live, just like perspective
is a consequence of Euclidean space.
So you runts are disagreeing among yourself??
Not really. The idea that length contraction is a consequence of
measurement in the spacetime in which we live has been stated
by physicists on this group many times before.
Length contraction in SR and size reduction with distance
have many similarities, and some important differences. Let us
see if we can agree on some things. Consider the question,
'Do things really get smaller when they are further away from us?'.
'Of course not', would be the answer that most people would
give, but let us consider the evidence.
1) Things certainly look smaller when they are further away.
2)We could compare the lengths of rods by measuring the
angle they subtend from a fixed point. Using this method
of measurement we would actually measure objects to get
smaller when they get further away. (You might argue that
this is simply due to geometry. If you do, 'hold that thought')
3) If you think measurement is not very 'real' then consider
using objects as targets. The smaller an object is the harder
it is to hit. Move it further away and it also gets harder to
hid, that is to say, smaller. How real do you want?
4) If you measure the size of an object by its radar or sonar
reflection it would get smaller as it got further away.
5) I person who walks 100 m away from you does not consider
himself to have got smaller. Of course he does not. He is
100 m away from you, not from himself. Things only get smaller
when they are further away.
That will do for now. Let us see how serious you are about
discussing this subject.
By the way, welcome back Ken. Compared to some of the
crackpots we have here now you seem positively sensible.
hang on! if someone gets in a spacecraft en goes close to lightspeed,then
he sees the universe ahead of him as a pancake (in front not much
distance,sideways a lot),but he is sure ,when he was still on earth it was
not like a pancake,explain please
Martin Hogbin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Hogbin" |
|
| Title: Re: Is length contraction of a rod real or perpective??? |
13 Feb 2006 02:03:34 PM |
|
|
"Mdmeenken" <mdmeenken@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message news:43f060e4$0$21917$dbd49001@news.wanadoo.nl...
"Martin Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS123@hogbin.org> schreef in bericht
news:dso73e$stp$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:ZlLHf.98161$Q11.25303@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
Length contraction in SR and size reduction with distance
have many similarities, and some important differences. Let us
see if we can agree on some things. Consider the question,
'Do things really get smaller when they are further away from us?'.
'Of course not', would be the answer that most people would
give, but let us consider the evidence.
1) Things certainly look smaller when they are further away.
2)We could compare the lengths of rods by measuring the
angle they subtend from a fixed point. Using this method
of measurement we would actually measure objects to get
smaller when they get further away. (You might argue that
this is simply due to geometry. If you do, 'hold that thought')
3) If you think measurement is not very 'real' then consider
using objects as targets. The smaller an object is the harder
it is to hit. Move it further away and it also gets harder to
hid, that is to say, smaller. How real do you want?
4) If you measure the size of an object by its radar or sonar
reflection it would get smaller as it got further away.
5) I person who walks 100 m away from you does not consider
himself to have got smaller. Of course he does not. He is
100 m away from you, not from himself. Things only get smaller
when they are further away.
That will do for now. Let us see how serious you are about
discussing this subject.
By the way, welcome back Ken. Compared to some of the
crackpots we have here now you seem positively sensible.
hang on! if someone gets in a spacecraft en goes close to lightspeed,then
he sees the universe ahead of him as a pancake (in front not much
distance,sideways a lot),but he is sure ,when he was still on earth it was
not like a pancake,explain please
I am not sure what you are getting at here. It is better to use the
example of a rod rather than using the universe as this adds an
additional layer of complexity.
Martin Hogbin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mdmeenken" |
|
| Title: Re: Is length contraction of a rod real or perpective??? |
14 Feb 2006 01:08:27 PM |
|
|
"Martin Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS123@hogbin.org> schreef in bericht
news:dsqoml$j62$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
"Mdmeenken" <mdmeenken@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
news:43f060e4$0$21917$dbd49001@news.wanadoo.nl...
"Martin Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS123@hogbin.org> schreef in bericht
news:dso73e$stp$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:ZlLHf.98161$Q11.25303@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
Length contraction in SR and size reduction with distance
have many similarities, and some important differences. Let us
see if we can agree on some things. Consider the question,
'Do things really get smaller when they are further away from us?'.
'Of course not', would be the answer that most people would
give, but let us consider the evidence.
1) Things certainly look smaller when they are further away.
2)We could compare the lengths of rods by measuring the
angle they subtend from a fixed point. Using this method
of measurement we would actually measure objects to get
smaller when they get further away. (You might argue that
this is simply due to geometry. If you do, 'hold that thought')
3) If you think measurement is not very 'real' then consider
using objects as targets. The smaller an object is the harder
it is to hit. Move it further away and it also gets harder to
hid, that is to say, smaller. How real do you want?
4) If you measure the size of an object by its radar or sonar
reflection it would get smaller as it got further away.
5) I person who walks 100 m away from you does not consider
himself to have got smaller. Of course he does not. He is
100 m away from you, not from himself. Things only get smaller
when they are further away.
That will do for now. Let us see how serious you are about
discussing this subject.
By the way, welcome back Ken. Compared to some of the
crackpots we have here now you seem positively sensible.
hang on! if someone gets in a spacecraft en goes close to
lightspeed,then
he sees the universe ahead of him as a pancake (in front not much
distance,sideways a lot),but he is sure ,when he was still on earth it
was
not like a pancake,explain please
I am not sure what you are getting at here. It is better to use the
example of a rod rather than using the universe as this adds an
additional layer of complexity.
when I have a twin brother and we have the same length,and he walks away
from me .it looks he get smaller,when I walk up to him again I see it was
not true,an illusion,for my twin brother( who walked away), he and the world
around him never changed,
but for the man in that spacecraft at almost c ,it is not an
illusion,because in the frame (he is in then),the world around him did
really change,for him it is a pancake,the same as it is for us not a
pancake ,
and if that man had never been on earth in our frame ,he never would think
that anything is strange about his surroundings,
it just depends in what frame we are in,
so i think a rod on a distance is not a good example,because it is not the
same as the one in the spacecraft,one is illusion ,the other is real,that
world is real for him in that frame,as it is real for us in our frame
..iow.every frame has his own real world, and that has i.m.o.nothing to do
with seeing thing smaller at a distance
marten
Martin Hogbin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Is length contraction of a rod real or perpective??? |
14 Feb 2006 01:18:34 PM |
|
|
"Mdmeenken" <mdmeenken@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
news:43f22ac3$0$69925$dbd45001@news.wanadoo.nl...
| when I have a twin brother and we have the same length,and he walks away
| from me .it looks he get smaller,when I walk up to him again I see it was
| not true,an illusion,for my twin brother( who walked away), he and the
world
| around him never changed,
Correct,
and the same is true of relative motion,
Speed simply does not change the "reality" of a shape nor a size.
It merely causes observer illusions.
| but for the man in that spacecraft at almost c ,it is not an
| illusion,because in the frame (he is in then),the world around him did
| really change,for him it is a pancake,the same as it is for us not a
| pancake ,
That pancake you are talking about it also based upon
the illusion of motion and/or perspective.
It is not a real change.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Hogbin" |
|
| Title: Re: Is length contraction of a rod real or perpective??? |
14 Feb 2006 04:46:19 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message news:spSdnVWGXe2csG_enZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@comcast.com...
"Mdmeenken" <mdmeenken@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
news:43f22ac3$0$69925$dbd45001@news.wanadoo.nl...
| when I have a twin brother and we have the same length,and he walks away
| from me .it looks he get smaller,when I walk up to him again I see it was
| not true,an illusion,for my twin brother( who walked away), he and the
world
| around him never changed,
Correct,
and the same is true of relative motion,
Speed simply does not change the "reality" of a shape nor a size.
It merely causes observer illusions.
Why do you call them illusions?
Martin Hogbin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Is length contraction of a rod real or perpective??? |
14 Feb 2006 04:51:44 PM |
|
|
"Martin Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS123@hogbin.org> wrote in message
news:dstmjr$2vb$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
|
| "Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:spSdnVWGXe2csG_enZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@comcast.com...
| >
| > "Mdmeenken" <mdmeenken@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
| > news:43f22ac3$0$69925$dbd45001@news.wanadoo.nl...
| > | when I have a twin brother and we have the same length,and he walks
away
| > | from me .it looks he get smaller,when I walk up to him again I see it
was
| > | not true,an illusion,for my twin brother( who walked away), he and the
| > world
| > | around him never changed,
| >
| > Correct,
| > and the same is true of relative motion,
| > Speed simply does not change the "reality" of a shape nor a size.
| > It merely causes observer illusions.
|
| Why do you call them illusions?
Because perspective is an illusion,
If I make something pass within in inch
of your eyes right in front of you.
At a certain speed, you will not even see it
go by.
Does that mean it did not physically go by
your eyes right in front of you?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: Is length contraction of a rod real or perpective??? |
24 Feb 2006 04:21:58 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 17:51:44 -0500, "Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote:
"Martin Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS123@hogbin.org> wrote in message
news:dstmjr$2vb$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
|
| > Correct,
| > and the same is true of relative motion,
| > Speed simply does not change the "reality" of a shape nor a size.
| > It merely causes observer illusions.
|
| Why do you call them illusions?
Because perspective is an illusion,
If I make something pass within in inch
of your eyes right in front of you.
At a certain speed, you will not even see it
go by.
Does that mean it did not physically go by
your eyes right in front of you?
Spacie, when you were away, I renamed these 'illusions caused by light's
finite travel time'.
They are now known as 'Willusions'.... after me, the first to recognize their
fundamental role in astronomy.
I genuinely feel sorry for all those poor astronomers who were indoctinated
from childhood with the belief that all starlight travels at precisely c to
little planet Earth. They fabricate totally irrational theories in an attempt
to model what they believe is real, when in fact all the images they are
viewing are willusions.
Willusions generally don't have much significance here on Earth because a few
milliseconds here or there usually don't matter. It is only when light travels
for many years across space that willusions have to be recognized for what they
are and interpreted accordingly.
The problem is, faced with information that is known to be willusory, how does
one go about establishing the truth from that willusion.....
This raises a fundamental question in logic.
Is it ever possible to establish truth from information that is known to be
wrong?
For instance, how can one determine a person's height from a photograph of that
person standing on top of mountainl..
or...
"Given that the wrong answer is 32794, what is the correct answer?"
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Is length contraction of a rod real or perpective??? |
24 Feb 2006 08:36:41 AM |
|
|
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:omltv11rshupmmkmh0uir7j3u5oj5fedj8@4ax.com...
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 17:51:44 -0500, "Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not>
wrote:
"Martin Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS123@hogbin.org> wrote in message
news:dstmjr$2vb$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
|
| > Correct,
| > and the same is true of relative motion,
| > Speed simply does not change the "reality" of a shape nor a size.
| > It merely causes observer illusions.
|
| Why do you call them illusions?
Because perspective is an illusion,
If I make something pass within in inch
of your eyes right in front of you.
At a certain speed, you will not even see it
go by.
Does that mean it did not physically go by
your eyes right in front of you?
Spacie, when you were away, I renamed these 'illusions caused by light's
finite travel time'.
They are now known as 'Willusions'.... after me, the first to recognize
their
fundamental role in astronomy.
I genuinely feel sorry for all those poor astronomers who were
indoctinated
from childhood with the belief that all starlight travels at precisely c
to
little planet Earth. They fabricate totally irrational theories in an
attempt
to model what they believe is real, when in fact all the images they are
viewing are willusions.
Willusions generally don't have much significance here on Earth because a
few
milliseconds here or there usually don't matter. It is only when light
travels
for many years across space that willusions have to be recognized for what
they
are and interpreted accordingly.
The problem is, faced with information that is known to be willusory, how
does
one go about establishing the truth from that willusion.....
One actually would not, and then when they found problems with
such "constant" lightspeed that causes willusion,
They would be happy to find a nice little trick in math, known
as a tranformation, a sneaky little math trick that does not allow
anyspeed to pass lightspeed so you will always get c again.
So sadly, they have a "repair the problem" math handy for when
light would not be a speed relative to c. and they end up
calling the willusion a reality.
Kinda funny all the brains have accepted a standard of a meter
based upon a speed of light that needs to be corrected for
motion.
LOL
This raises a fundamental question in logic.
Is it ever possible to establish truth from information that is known to
be
wrong?
For instance, how can one determine a person's height from a photograph of
that
person standing on top of mountainl..
or...
"Given that the wrong answer is 32794, what is the correct answer?"
The correct answer would be.
They fell for the malfunctioning clocks and rubber ruler and
light caused willusions.
and have been brainwashed ever since.
:)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: Is length contraction of a rod real or perpective??? |
24 Feb 2006 09:56:37 AM |
|
|
Henri Wilson wrote:
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 17:51:44 -0500, "Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote:
Is it ever possible to establish truth from information that is known to be
wrong?
Yes, since in measurement if it is "known to be wrong"
systematically rather than simply randomly, we have models
with which we can make the appropriate correction.
For instance, how can one determine a person's height from a photograph of that
person standing on top of mountainl..
What is your "information known to be wrong" in this case?
or...
"Given that the wrong answer is 32794, what is the correct answer?"
"Given that the answer is 32794 and that the measurement
adds a bias of +0.24% to the answer, what is the
correct answer?"
I submit that question is answerable.
Closer to your "willusions": ever hear of the archer fish? He
lurks under the water, searching for prey above the water
(for instance an insect sitting on a branch) which he gets
by shooting a jet of water. Because he is under water,
his view of the prey is subject to refraction. The apparent
angular position of the prey is not the right direction to shoot.
Is it possible to determine the correct direction to shoot
given only a wrong view of the prey? Yes. The archer
does it for every meal.
The lowly archer fish can back out the correct answer
from the wrong answer with a model of the distortions.
Can you do as well as our little fish?
- Randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Is length contraction of a rod real or perpective??? |
24 Feb 2006 10:18:40 AM |
|
|
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1140796597.303822.36650@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Yes, since in measurement if it is "known to be wrong"
systematically rather than simply randomly, we have models
with which we can make the appropriate correction.
Like the models you use to correct for clock malfinction (time dilation)?
Oh wait.. you don't "correct for it" you accept it,
and change the other measurement!
LOL
Closer to your "willusions": ever hear of the archer fish? He
lurks under the water, searching for prey above the water
(for instance an insect sitting on a branch) which he gets
by shooting a jet of water. Because he is under water,
his view of the prey is subject to refraction. The apparent
angular position of the prey is not the right direction to shoot.
Is it possible to determine the correct direction to shoot
given only a wrong view of the prey? Yes. The archer
does it for every meal.
The lowly archer fish can back out the correct answer
from the wrong answer with a model of the distortions.
Can you do as well as our little fish?
The archer fish knows it is a willusion, not a reality,
and adjusts to the reality.
A physicist would accept the willusion in his FoR as reality and
miss the bug.
:)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: Is length contraction of a rod real or perpective??? |
24 Feb 2006 10:46:23 AM |
|
|
Spaceman wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1140796597.303822.36650@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Yes, since in measurement if it is "known to be wrong"
systematically rather than simply randomly, we have models
with which we can make the appropriate correction.
Like the models you use to correct for clock malfinction (time dilation)?
Oh wait.. you don't "correct for it" you accept it,
.... if it agrees with experiment. It does.
and change the other measurement!
No, no measurement is changed.
The lowly archer fish can back out the correct answer
from the wrong answer with a model of the distortions.
Can you do as well as our little fish?
The archer fish knows it is a willusion, not a reality,
and adjusts to the reality.
Henri is saying that the poor archer should just say "it's
an illusion, the reality could be anything at all" and starve
to death.
- Randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Is length contraction of a rod real or perpective??? |
24 Feb 2006 11:06:49 AM |
|
|
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1140799583.752766.282500@t39g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
Spaceman wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1140796597.303822.36650@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Yes, since in measurement if it is "known to be wrong"
systematically rather than simply randomly, we have models
with which we can make the appropriate correction.
Like the models you use to correct for clock malfinction (time dilation)?
Oh wait.. you don't "correct for it" you accept it,
... if it agrees with experiment. It does.
and change the other measurement!
No, no measurement is changed.
Really?
so you don't change the speed when you use a
transform?
and you don't change a second, when you move close
to light speed?
LOL
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: Is length contraction of a rod real or perpective??? |
24 Feb 2006 11:27:13 AM |
|
|
Spaceman wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1140799583.752766.282500@t39g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
Spaceman wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1140796597.303822.36650@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Yes, since in measurement if it is "known to be wrong"
systematically rather than simply randomly, we have models
with which we can make the appropriate correction.
Like the models you use to correct for clock malfinction (time dilation)?
Oh wait.. you don't "correct for it" you accept it,
... if it agrees with experiment. It does.
and change the other measurement!
No, no measurement is changed.
Really?
so you don't change the speed when you use a
transform?
and you don't change a second, when you move close
to light speed?
By "you change the measurement", I interpreted you
to be saying that the experimenter disbelieves his
instruments and changes the numbers to agree with
theory.
If you mean, do I think that the transform changes the
results of those measurements, yes I do. It is not the
experimenter changing the readings of his instruments.
- Randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Is length contraction of a rod real or perpective??? |
24 Feb 2006 12:19:23 PM |
|
|
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1140802033.646713.88260@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Spaceman wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1140799583.752766.282500@t39g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
Spaceman wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1140796597.303822.36650@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Yes, since in measurement if it is "known to be wrong"
systematically rather than simply randomly, we have models
with which we can make the appropriate correction.
Like the models you use to correct for clock malfinction (time
dilation)?
Oh wait.. you don't "correct for it" you accept it,
... if it agrees with experiment. It does.
and change the other measurement!
No, no measurement is changed.
Really?
so you don't change the speed when you use a
transform?
and you don't change a second, when you move close
to light speed?
By "you change the measurement", I interpreted you
to be saying that the experimenter disbelieves his
instruments and changes the numbers to agree with
theory.
By changing the measurement,
I mean an SR moron has accepted that a meter
is not the same if you are moving close to lightspeed.
And that is called changing the standard to fit
the bad math.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Neill" |
|
| Title: Re: Is length contraction of a rod real or perpective??? |
24 Feb 2006 12:23:59 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message news:iaSdnaAVhIu202LeRVn-hg@comcast.com...
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1140802033.646713.88260@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
By "you change the measurement", I interpreted you
to be saying that the experimenter disbelieves his
instruments and changes the numbers to agree with
theory.
By changing the measurement,
I mean an SR moron has accepted that a meter
is not the same if you are moving close to lightspeed.
And that is called changing the standard to fit
the bad math.
Then you would be wrong again, as all observers use
the standard measurement tools of the same size
and units. The only difference is that they look
dilated when they are moving at relativistic speeds.
The tools used by any given observer are at rest
with respect to the observer doing the measurement,
so they are never affected by SR dilations.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Is length contraction of a rod real or perpective??? |
24 Feb 2006 05:15:12 PM |
|
|
"Greg Neill" <gneillREM@OVE.THIS.netcom.ca> wrote in message
news:RaILf.25530$%14.643112@news20.bellglobal.com...
By changing the measurement,
I mean an SR moron has accepted that a meter
is not the same if you are moving close to lightspeed.
And that is called changing the standard to fit
the bad math.
Then you would be wrong again, as all observers use
the standard measurement tools of the same size
and units. The only difference is that they look
dilated when they are moving at relativistic speeds.
look dilated?
ROFLOL
your eyes are dilated.
I think you should stop the drugs and wake
up to the real world someday.
where timing is an absolute if you are going to
race something in the real world.
The tools used by any given observer are at rest
with respect to the observer doing the measurement,
so they are never affected by SR dilations.
Yup,
the old "my frame of reference is correct for itself".
even though I can see my clock did not keep the same
timing when I got back.
You are a complete freaking moron.
ROFLOL
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: Is length contraction of a rod real or perpective??? |
26 Feb 2006 05:09:07 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 13:23:59 -0500, "Greg Neill" <gneillREM@OVE.THIS.netcom.ca>
wrote:
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message news:iaSdnaAVhIu202LeRVn-hg@comcast.com...
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1140802033.646713.88260@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
By "you change the measurement", I interpreted you
to be saying that the experimenter disbelieves his
instruments and changes the numbers to agree with
theory.
By changing the measurement,
I mean an SR moron has accepted that a meter
is not the same if you are moving close to lightspeed.
And that is called changing the standard to fit
the bad math.
Then you would be wrong again, as all observers use
the standard measurement tools of the same size
and units. The only difference is that they look
dilated when they are moving at relativistic speeds.
Only a real idiot or a SRian would even attempt to measure something moving
past at high speeds.
The sensible approach is to join the bloody thing and pull out your tape
measure.
Didn't you know that rods do not change in any way due to speed variations.
The tools used by any given observer are at rest
with respect to the observer doing the measurement,
so they are never affected by SR dilations.
There are NO dilations or contractions.
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Is length contraction of a rod real or perpective??? |
27 Feb 2006 12:00:17 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 23:09:07 +0000, HW wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 13:23:59 -0500, "Greg Neill" <gneillREM@OVE.THIS.netcom.ca>
wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Only a real idiot or a SRian would even attempt to measure something moving
past at high speeds.
The sensible approach is to join the bloody thing and pull out your tape
measure.
That is a change in reference frame. A bit difficult to do when the thing
is actually a pi meson or muon going at a substantial fraction of
lightspeed.
And then there are the many ancillary calculations. For example, the LHC
stipulates that 7 TeV protons go only at lightspeed (or just below),
despite the fact that a 7 TeV proton is more than 10,000 times as
energetic as a Newtonian lightspeed proton. Furthermore, if a 7 TeV
proton is merely an allegation on LHC's part and the energy is actually
being wasted, then why build the LHC at all? Why not simply go with a 469
MeV proton accelerator and have done with it?
The answer: because we would have never discovered the tau lepton by
colliding electrons using that particular approach.
[rest snipped]
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: Is length contraction of a rod real or perpective??? |
27 Feb 2006 02:07:07 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 06:00:17 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
<ewill3@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 23:09:07 +0000, HW wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 13:23:59 -0500, "Greg Neill" <gneillREM@OVE.THIS.netcom.ca>
wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Only a real idiot or a SRian would even attempt to measure something moving
past at high speeds.
The sensible approach is to join the bloody thing and pull out your tape
measure.
That is a change in reference frame. A bit difficult to do when the thing
is actually a pi meson or muon going at a substantial fraction of
lightspeed.
And then there are the many ancillary calculations. For example, the LHC
stipulates that 7 TeV protons go only at lightspeed (or just below),
despite the fact that a 7 TeV proton is more than 10,000 times as
energetic as a Newtonian lightspeed proton. Furthermore, if a 7 TeV
proton is merely an allegation on LHC's part and the energy is actually
being wasted, then why build the LHC at all? Why not simply go with a 469
MeV proton accelerator and have done with it?
Why change the subject Ghost?
The answer: because we would have never discovered the tau lepton by
colliding electrons using that particular approach.
[rest snipped]
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Is length contraction of a rod real or perpective??? |
27 Feb 2006 05:00:05 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 08:07:07 +0000, HW wrote:
[snip]
Why change the subject Ghost?
Erm....OK. Are you referring to the original subject is whether the
length contraction of a rod real or perspective?
OK.
The rod's change is illusionary.
Are you happy now?
[rest snipped]
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: Is length contraction of a rod real or perpective??? |
27 Feb 2006 07:12:14 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 11:00:05 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
<ewill3@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 08:07:07 +0000, HW wrote:
[snip]
Why change the subject Ghost?
Erm....OK. Are you referring to the original subject is whether the
length contraction of a rod real or perspective?
OK.
The rod's change is illusionary.
Are you happy now?
No.
The rod's apparent change, if any, is due to measurement error.
[rest snipped]
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: Is length contraction of a rod real or perpective??? |
28 Feb 2006 09:07:03 AM |
|
|
Henri Wilson wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 11:00:05 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
<ewill3@earthlink.net> wrote:
The rod's change is illusionary.
Are you happy now?
No.
The rod's apparent change, if any, is due to measurement error.
But if it's an "error", it's one you can take advantage of. If your
measurement technique for distance L consists in seeing how
long it takes to traverse L at a given speed, then the same
"measurement error" will occur, and your trip will be shorter
than L/v seconds. You could travel 10 light years in a week
of your own subjective time.
Let's hear it for that kind of "error"!
- Randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: Is length contraction of a rod real or perpective??? |
28 Feb 2006 04:42:08 PM |
|
|
On 28 Feb 2006 07:07:03 -0800, "Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 11:00:05 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
<ewill3@earthlink.net> wrote:
The rod's change is illusionary.
Are you happy now?
No.
The rod's apparent change, if any, is due to measurement error.
But if it's an "error", it's one you can take advantage of. If your
measurement technique for distance L consists in seeing how
long it takes to traverse L at a given speed, then the same
"measurement error" will occur, and your trip will be shorter
than L/v seconds. You could travel 10 light years in a week
of your own subjective time.
Let's hear it for that kind of "error"!
stupid post....
- Randy
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Is length contraction of a rod real or perpective??? |
28 Feb 2006 12:00:11 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 01:12:14 +0000, HW wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 11:00:05 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
< > wrote:
[quoted text muted]
No.
The rod's apparent change, if any, is due to measurement error.
OK. How would one measure it correctly, without accelerating? In other
words, if one were to stand at the origin and do something as the rod
passes by...?
[rest snipped]
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: Is length contraction of a rod real or perpective??? |
28 Feb 2006 02:32:53 AM |
|
|
Re: Is length contraction of a rod real or perpective???BUSTED
Group: sci.physics Date: Mon, Feb 27, 2006, 12:30pm From:
GravityPhysics@webtv.net (tj=A0Frazir)
Your all still busted.
1 each atomis putting a force on the next atom.
=A0=A02..each atom moves its self . Orbital changes in each atom moves
the center of mass from the center of gravityand the distance from the
center of the mass to the center of the gravity is F.
=A0=A0=A0=A0BUSTED FOR THIS REASON ::::::::::::::::::::::: I said the
rod is 1 light year long.
No matter how fast you move one end as you push the rd forward ,,,te
other end wount start to move for 1 year !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
=A0=A0You can not dienie that fact .
So then it is not just an illusion .
The faster you go the shorter you get.
Do you fear saying that ?? Sgure motabu Your not even shure you like
what I said.
Your not shure you understand all the facts well enouph to make the
disision.
=A0=A0=A0=A0THE FASTER THE SHORTER
burn burn burn >>>>>
How long will the ROD 1 LY LONG be if you push one end at C for 1 year
at the end of the year ??? what rod =A1=A1=A1=A1=A1
Th faster you go the shorter you are.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Is length contraction of a rod real or perpective??? |
01 Mar 2006 10:00:11 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 03:32:53 -0500, tj Frazir wrote:
Re: Is length contraction of a rod real or perpective???BUSTED
Group: sci.physics Date: Mon, Feb 27, 2006, 12:30pm From:
GravityPhysics@webtv.net (tj Frazir)
Your all still busted.
1 each atomis putting a force on the next atom.
2..each atom moves its self . Orbital changes in each atom moves
the center of mass from the center of gravityand the distance from the
center of the mass to the center of the gravity is F.
BUSTED FOR THIS REASON ::::::::::::::::::::::: I said the
rod is 1 light year long.
[rest snipped]
1 light year is about 9.46 * 10^15 meters, and would be readily
observable (and, if here on Earth, impossible to store without it
sticking out somewhere). Where, precisely, is this rod of yours, Mister
Billionaire, and how thick is it?
A 10 cm diameter rod made of iron would weigh 7874 kg/m^3 * (Pi*0.05^2) *
9.46*10^15 = 5.85 * 10^14 metric tonnes.
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: Is length contraction of a rod real or perpective??? |
28 Feb 2006 04:43:32 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 06:00:11 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
<ewill3@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 01:12:14 +0000, HW wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 11:00:05 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
<ewill3@earthlink.net> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
No.
The rod's apparent change, if any, is due to measurement error.
OK. How would one measure it correctly, without accelerating? In other
words, if one were to stand at the origin and do something as the rod
passes by...?
One doesn't even TRY to measure it while it is moving.
One knows its length does not change due to speed, so one knows its rest length
is the same as its moving length.
[rest snipped]
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
