"xxein" wrote in message
...
On Feb 8, 4:42 am, "harry" wrote:
"Peri of Pera" wrote in
...

The Measurement of Contraction

The theory of relativity is presented as one that cannot be understood
by most people. 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.
But what is it really? Stripped of all esoteric language it simply
means that physical objects (we may call them frames) that are capable
of motion (cars, trains, planes, the earth, planets, stars) will
shrink along the axis parallel to the motion and have their clocks
slow down. The effects are in proportion to the velocity of the object
and are called length contraction and time dilation. They can be
calculated using the transformation formulas that are the substance of
the Lorentz contraction hypothesis.

Note: the transformation formulas do much more than that: they also
account
for time dilation and define relativity of simultaneity.

xxein: Hi, Harry. Standard explanation, but what about the
unobserved physic

What unobserved physic?

where a subjectively measured relativeness

There is no subjectively measured relativeness in SR

doesn't matter?

It doesn't amtter anyway

What is the explanation/description for that?

There is no 'that'


[snip]
So is the observer S'. They are different. What defines the physic
for this difference (and not just their relative difference)?

SR does .. the only difference in SR is how tow different observers measure
some other object

How will any difference in the speed the
observed object, S and S' be taken into account?

??? S and S' *are* the co-ordinate systems.

Yeaaaay. So what unites them in the underlying physic?

What underlying 'phsysic' .. and in what way do you think they are 'united'

"Alen" wrote in message
...
Gifted or not, I can see perfectly well what is the
reason for a hyperbolic spacetime, and what it is
supposed to achieve, but I can also see that it is
a conceptual hogs breakfast, as someone else
remarked, and can never actually work as a
physical reality!

Its a model for what reality is .. and it work very well indeed. Noone
claims a model in physics *is* reality .. it is just a
conceptual/mathematical model of reality as we observe/measure it.

"Peri of Pera" wrote in message
...
On Feb 8, 9:25 am, "jeckyl" wrote:
"Peri of Pera" wrote in
...

The Measurement of Contraction

Jecko,
Your version of SR is a very strange one.

No .. it is the standard one. Maybe that's why you think it is strange,
because you don't understand SR.

I said: Physical objects (we may call them frames) that are
capable of motion (cars, trains, planes, the earth, planets, stars)
will
shrink along the axis parallel to the motion and have their clocks
slow down.

No .. they don't shrink or have their clock slowed .. nothing happens ot the
object. Like when you hear a whistle from a moving train, the sounds is a
different pitch. Does that mean something happened to the whistle on the
train itself .. no .. its still got the same pitch as always .. it is just
an observer measures/hears the pitch as different.

You replied: No .. nothing happens to the object .. it can't do.

That's right

Someone moving
quickly past you does not change you.

That's right

But something happens to how
they are measured by things that move relative to them.

Nothing 'happens to' how they are measured .. that's just how how much
spacetime the moving object occupies.

Einstein writes in 1916 (Relativity: The Special and General Theory,
Chapter 16): "The contraction of moving bodies follows from the two
fundamental principles of the theory". This statement by AE is
unqualified. It does not assume as you do that something happens to
moving bodies because they are measured by things that move relative
to them.

No .. that was *your* assumption .. I said the *nothing* happens. Can't you
even read what was written?

Utter nonsense.

Yes .. what you wrote was utter nonsense.

Don't try to re-interpret SR in order to
defend it and study it before you lecture on it.

I am not reintpretting SR. *You* are the one trying to do so, even though
you have problems understanding it. What I say is completely in line with
what SR says. There is no change to the proper length and time of a body
when an observer is moving relative to it. Ther eis a difference in the
measured length and times by the moving observer .. that is call 'length
contraction' and 'time dilation' (and don't forget the simultaneity effects)
... 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.

"Peri of Pera" wrote in message
...
However, the
point I am trying to make is that contraction has not (as you
agreed)and can not be made visible by any procedure

Yes .. it can
because it does not eventuate in nature

Yes. . it does

but is only a hypothetical mathematical exercise.

No .. it is not

It all started with the misunderstood MMX and Lorentz's
attempt to explain the null result by conjecture.

No .. it didn't

You really are *very* confused. Please.. go and study and (more
importantly) learn.

"Peri of Pera" :

Dirk Vdm

Dirk,
thank you for your comments which will help me somewhat. However, the
point I am trying to make is that contraction has not (as you
agreed)and can not be made visible by any procedure because it does
not eventuate in nature but is only a hypothetical mathematical
exercise.

- - -
Even if it remained so (you are well aware that macro-"solids" and
relativitic speeds combine with difficulty:-) there is no point in doubting
about it.
You're worried about the reciprocal conclusions, as Andro seems to do?
"If a shrinks to b, how can b shrink to a?"
" If a lags behind b, how can b lag behind a?"
You're baffled by the pole-barn paradox?
There's nothing weird or exclusively Einsteinian to that, it occurs in
non-relativistic cases at will...
There are really 4 quantities to be compared, say, a and a', b and b', ie a
"proper" (a,b) and a third party (a',b') one.
As for the relativistic case, this is the situation:
http://home.scarlet.be/~pin12499/MyS...ntzObjects.PNG
see
http://home.scarlet.be/~pin12499/paratwin.htm

guido

On Feb 9, 3:45*pm, "jeckyl" wrote:
"Alen" wrote in message

...

Gifted or not, I can see perfectly well what is the
reason for a hyperbolic spacetime, and what it is
supposed to achieve, but I can also see that it is
a conceptual hogs breakfast, as someone else
remarked, and can never actually work as a
physical reality!

Its a model for what reality is .. and it work very well indeed. *Noone
claims a model in physics *is* reality .. it is just a
conceptual/mathematical model of reality as we observe/measure it.

A DVD player can reproduce a very good observational
likeness of a reality on its screen, but no one would
conclude that there must be a giant DVD_player_like
source as the basis of the reality of the earth or the
cosmos. That is, a DVD player can reproduce an
observational likeness of reality, but it doesn't model
the manner in which the reality itself produces it.

Likewise, hyperbolic spacetime may produce some
results consistent with experiment, but it doesn't
follow that it models the mechanism in nature by
which such results are produced. If it doesn't, some
people may find it satisfactory nevertheless. But I
say that, if a model in science doesn't model the
mechanism that produces the results, as well as
the results themselves, then it contributes nothing to
what could be called the 'understanding' of nature.

Hyperbolic spacetime is in this category of models
which are useless for the 'understanding' of reality.

Alen

On Feb 8, 11:43*pm, "jeckyl" wrote:
"xxein" wrote in message

...
On Feb 8, 4:42 am, "harry" wrote:





"Peri of Pera" wrote in
...

The Measurement of Contraction

The theory of relativity is presented as one that cannot be understood
by most people. 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.
But what is it really? Stripped of all esoteric language it simply
means that physical objects (we may call them frames) that are capable
of motion (cars, trains, planes, the earth, planets, stars) will
shrink along the axis parallel to the motion and have their clocks
slow down. The effects are in proportion to the velocity of the object
and are called length contraction and time dilation. They can be
calculated using the transformation formulas that are the substance of
the Lorentz contraction hypothesis.

Note: the transformation formulas do much more than that: they also
account
for time dilation and define relativity of simultaneity.

xxein: *Hi, Harry. *Standard explanation, but what about the
unobserved physic

What unobserved physic?

where a subjectively measured relativeness

There is no subjectively measured relativeness in SR

doesn't matter?

It doesn't amtter anyway

What is the explanation/description for that?

There is no 'that'

[snip]

So is the observer S'. *They are different. *What defines the physic
for this difference (and not just their relative difference)?

SR does .. the only difference in SR is how tow different observers measure
some other object

How will any difference in the speed the
observed object, S and S' be taken into account?

??? S and S' *are* the co-ordinate systems.

Yeaaaay. *So what unites them in the underlying physic?

What underlying 'phsysic' .. and in what way do you think they are 'united'- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

xxein: If you would study physics, rather than memorizing a text and
a specific math, you might have a chance to find out. Try inventing
concepts instead of adopting from already existing ones.

Co-ordinate systems and their usefulness is not the issue here. The
issue is the physical structure they attempt to describe within their
overall functional domain. The mapping we presently use has it's
basis in static condition. We modified it to include, not only
movement, but gradient movement that is defined by non-linear fields
like gravity. What we did was to simply put a field overlay onto a
pre-existing static system. We did NOT put a dynamic into the co-
ordinate system itself.

The universe is fluid, not static. Its co-ordinates are fluid. Point
"A" is not here anymore. It is now over there. What we presently do
is overlay pertinent fields onto a static map. One for each bit of
gravitational matter. We say, then, that particle "Z" has moved from
point "A" to point "B".

It would seem that either will map the whole system (universe), but
the conceptual difference allows for a different understanding of what
inertial movement IS. You might think that there is no problem
there. But there is.

The gedanken here is that there is a lone large body and a small
(test) pebble located parsecs away. Both temporarily static (a
gedanken, after all). The pebble will "gravitate" toward the mass
(don't even quibble about the mass also moving toward the pebble ---
granted). As the pebble gets closer, has its velocity changed? How
about wrt the speed of light?

You might argue that there is no practical or significant difference
that is very meaningful. Then, I would say that you don't really know
how the underlying physic unites.

The pebble either has an increasing inertial velocity in the presently
used co-ordinate system or its inertial velocity remains unchanged in
a fluid co-ordinate system. In one, its speed varies wrt c. In the
other its speed remains constant wrt c. Exit gedanken.

We can test this rather easily. We can do this with a modified Pound-
Rebka, Pound-Snider. Evacuate a vertical tube and send a radioactive
sample past a counter-clock with photo-electric detectors to control
the on-off for the measuring cycle. Set up trapped adjustable springs
to provide velocity for up and down velocities. Use another clock
merely to adjust the springs and verify the speed of the material as
it passes the photo-electric detectors both up and down.

In this way, you can measure the amount of emitted particles (Geiger)
for a fixed distance of transit and verify that the transit time
remained the same. My predictive result is a ratio that depends on
the selected velocity. For a velocity of 1k m/s, each detection would
increase by 1.3E-10:1 in the downward direction and decrease by
1.19E-10:1 for the upward direction compared to a "parked" detection
(1:1).

This means that a rising clock has a slower timerate than a falling
clock at the same place and time. The conclusions drawn from Pound-
Rebka-Snider are just assumptively based. Some have merit, some are
just imaginary based upon the whole concept. This (mine vs. Pound) is
not addressed by GR. There is no conclusion that can be extracted
from GR. It is simply an assumption of GR that the clocks will have
the same timerate. Do you trust that assumption?

Can you now see how the concept of a co-ordinate system either steers
or prevents an understanding of the physic?

Nobody can claim to be an expert in these matters. We may get
numerous degrees from teaching establishments that tell us so, but we
are all novices. There are many that graduated from GR U., but not
from gravity U. I started in gravity U. in 1989 (~age 45). The first
minute of the "introductory course" is what you are getting right now.

I know that similar thoughts and ideas have been presented before. I
have found the same major faults as you all have. I only wish that I
could find fault with mine to force me out of this crazy arena. But I
almost did, once. This is cool stuff. Listen.

In 1985, I wanted to explore and understand Einstein's theories. They
did not contain a physical logic to me. If Lorentz hadn't existed, I
could have created him. All good until I remembered that we have
gravity. I tried like hell to 'fit' a gravity. I quit 3 or 4 times
over this. Just a good math exercise to nowhere.

One day, out of that nowhere, a concept came to me. It was genuinely
stupid for any thinking I had at the time. But out of novelty, I
wanted to dismiss it with a proof. It did not happen no matter how
hard I tried. Test after test, it remained viable. And tested to
this day. I've got gravity.

How are you doing with that?

You can color me stupid and continue to ride on the bandwagon if you
want, but all that wagon can do right now is go around in the same
circle and hope it finds recyclable trash to use in a different way
and call it a new technology. That's not bad until you compare it to
a new science.

Have a nice day and don't bother to respond unless you want to learn
something new.

What! There's nothing new to learn?

On Feb 9, 12:54*pm, "jeckyl" wrote:
"Peri of Pera" wrote in ...

On Feb 8, 9:25 am, "jeckyl" wrote:
"Peri of Pera" wrote in
...

The Measurement of Contraction

Jecko,
Your version of SR is a very strange one.

No .. it is the standard one. *Maybe that's why you think it is strange,
because you don't understand SR.

I said: Physical objects (we may call them frames) that are
capable of motion (cars, trains, planes, the earth, planets, stars)
will
shrink along the axis parallel to the motion and have their clocks
slow down.

No .. they don't shrink or have their clock slowed .. nothing happens ot the
object. *Like when you hear a whistle from a moving train, the sounds is a
different pitch. *Does that mean something happened to the whistle on the
train itself .. no .. its still got the same pitch as always .. it is just
an observer measures/hears the pitch as different.

You replied: No .. nothing happens to the object .. it can't do.

That's right

Someone moving
quickly past you does not change you.

That's right

But something happens to how
they are measured by things that move relative to them.

Nothing 'happens to' how they are measured .. that's just how how much
spacetime the moving object occupies.

Einstein writes in 1916 (Relativity: The Special and General Theory,
Chapter 16): *"The contraction of moving bodies follows from the two
fundamental principles of the theory". This statement by AE is
unqualified. It does not assume as you do that something happens to
moving bodies because they are measured by things that move relative
to them.

No .. that was *your* assumption .. I said the *nothing* happens. *Can't you
even read what was written?

Utter nonsense.

Yes .. what you wrote was utter nonsense.

Don't try to re-interpret SR in order to
defend it and study it before you lecture on it.

I am not reintpretting SR. **You* are the one trying to do so, even though
you have problems understanding it. *What I say is completely in line with
what SR says. *There is no change to the proper length and time of a body
when an observer is moving relative to it. *Ther eis a difference in the
measured length and times by the moving observer .. that is call 'length
contraction' and 'time dilation' (and don't forget the simultaneity effects)
.. 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.

Lorentz contraction hypothesis states that bodies moving through space
contract along the direction of motion. Einstein adopted this
position. This is Let and SR.

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

"xxein" wrote in message
...
On Feb 8, 11:43 pm, "jeckyl" wrote:
"xxein" wrote in message

...
On Feb 8, 4:42 am, "harry" wrote:





"Peri of Pera" wrote in
...

The Measurement of Contraction

The theory of relativity is presented as one that cannot be understood
by most people. 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.
But what is it really? Stripped of all esoteric language it simply
means that physical objects (we may call them frames) that are capable
of motion (cars, trains, planes, the earth, planets, stars) will
shrink along the axis parallel to the motion and have their clocks
slow down. The effects are in proportion to the velocity of the object
and are called length contraction and time dilation. They can be
calculated using the transformation formulas that are the substance of
the Lorentz contraction hypothesis.

Note: the transformation formulas do much more than that: they also
account
for time dilation and define relativity of simultaneity.

xxein: Hi, Harry. Standard explanation, but what about the
unobserved physic

What unobserved physic?

where a subjectively measured relativeness

There is no subjectively measured relativeness in SR

doesn't matter?

It doesn't amtter anyway

What is the explanation/description for that?

There is no 'that'

[snip]

So is the observer S'. They are different. What defines the physic
for this difference (and not just their relative difference)?

SR does .. the only difference in SR is how tow different observers
measure
some other object

How will any difference in the speed the
observed object, S and S' be taken into account?

??? S and S' *are* the co-ordinate systems.

Yeaaaay. So what unites them in the underlying physic?

What underlying 'phsysic' .. and in what way do you think they are
'united'- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

xxein: If you would study physics, rather than memorizing a text and
a specific math, you might have a chance to find out. Try inventing
concepts instead of adopting from already existing ones.

Geez you stupid ****.

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