Peri of Pera wrote:
On Feb 11, 3:55 pm, Bryan Olson wrote:
Peri of Pera wrote:
"jeckyl" wrote:
[...]
.. That is what Einstein was talking about. That contraction .. the shorter
measurement of length .. is real. The object *really does* take up less
physical space at a given time in the observer's frame of reference .. and
that is what we are talking about when we talk about measured length.
Jecko,
you have no arguments only assertions: Yes it does, No it doesn't - ad
nauseam.
Well, no... you are missing it. Jeckyl is offering *explanations*.
One could assert they are arguments or argue they are assertions, but
either of those misses the real... uh... explanation.

Peter, what you've been writing about SR has been nonsense. (If you
think asserting that arbitrarily, just look up our recent discussions;
I worked through the details, even the math.) Jeckyl is trying to clue
you in.

Lorentz contraction hypothesis states that bodies moving through space
contract along the direction of motion. Einstein adopted this
position. This is Let and SR.
And that is part of what Jeckyl is emphasizing. As he wrote, "The
object *really does* take up less physical space at a given time
in the observer's frame of reference."

Jeckyl also said "There is no change to the proper length and time
of a body when an observer is moving relative to it." To understand
this bit, you need to understand "proper length" and "proper time".
These are *not* vague/ambiguous hand-waves. These are precise,
specific terms. You could look them up.

Your denial of this fact is just childish. But worse is the number of
times you repeat it.
Peter Riedt

Peter, you claimed, "This aura of complexity and difficulty is
maintained by using ambiguity and vagueness in describing and
defining the theory and defending it with even more ambiguity
and vagueness against logic." No, you are wrong on that. The theory
is definite, precise. Jeckyl's explanations of length or time "in
the observer's frame of reference," and his references to "the
proper length and time" are neither vague nor ambiguous. Furthermore,
the two measures are not the same thing; the "proper" measure is not
the same thing as the measure in a different "observer's frame of
reference."

You will not and cannot understand relativity, nor any other
significant theory, if you are unwilling to accept that it may go
beyond what you already know, or think you know. Terminology is not
ambiguous simply because you personally do not know what it means,
and scientific questions do not remain open just because you refuse
to learn the answers.

--
--Bryan

Bryan,
we are stuck in semantic games.

No; the terms are well-defined within physics. You simply get the
facts wrong.

Jecko keeps talking about what the
observer in another frame may measure. I am not concerned what the
observer rightly or wrongly can or cannot see.

Your willful ignorance of the distinctions SR makes among
different frames of reference is not a point in your favor.

To me it is more
important what actually happens to the moving object regardless if it
can be measured or not either locally or from an external position.

SR says that the object really does have different lengths in
different frames of reference.

Does it contract or does it not? Lorentz says it does and AE accepted
that. Jecko sidesteps this fundamental question and you throw more
confusion on to it. As I said, ambiguity and vagueness is used by the
supporters of SR. You will not answer a simple question.

Sorry, but the explanation of how the universe actually works is not
as simple as you expect. Consider raising your game to where you can
understand modern physics, rather than demanding everything
dumbed-down to the level at which you are currently comfortable.

At one time I was, truth be told, a relativity-denier. I'm glad I
decided to make sure I understood the theory before I would
proclaim myself to be so much smarter than all those renowned
physicists. Further study showed that I was mistaken.



--
--Bryan