"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 where a subjectively measured relativeness doesn't
matter? What is the explanation/description for that?

See below, one possible explanation is that by Lorentz.


But as the tools of measurement
(rulers, clocks) are also adjusted relative to the speed, any change
in metres and clock rates will not be noticed by anyone measuring
length or time in his environment (the local frame). Regardless of the
velocity of the local frame, things measured within the local frame by
local frame occupants always have the same size and the local frame
time always flows at the same rate.

That is roughly the way Lorentz formulated the theory, and also close to
Einstein's earliest formulation. Presented like that, it's indeed rather
easy to understand.

: ... as a relative method of measurement.

Indeed, but still more than that: the measurable effects hint at possible
interpretations - which themselves are beyond our reach of verification.

However, the supporters of the relativity theories (both SR and LET)
have introduced the concepts of observed frame and observer frame.

"Observer frame" or "Local frame", what does it matter?! As long as one
knows what is meant. It becomes less good when next "observer frame" is
replaced by "observer": due to such jargon, all too many people fall in
the
trap of confusing inertial coordinate system procedures with
quantum-mechanical "observer" effects.

: C'mon Harry. Qm "observers' just localize it more. It's all the same
frame vs. frame. All qm does is focus more intensely and lose gravity
as a more macro part of the physic.

Hmm... no. In QM observations imply physical interferences with the
observed. Not so in SRT which instead uses coordinate systems that are
assumed NOT to interfere. In that sense, SRT is "classical".

[...]

How will the movement of the two observers relative to the
rod disclose the contracted length of the rod and not a distorted view
of it? How are optical, communicative and angular aspects included in
the measurement? What single fixed co-ordinate system is common to
both observers or is it only relative to observer S or observer S'?

??? "observer S" *is* a co-ordinate system.

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

I think you know my interpretation. ;-)
But no known measurement can directly prove interpretations, and the OP
apparently isn't interested in such philosophical discussions.
BTW, for discussions about such foundational issues you are welcome to give
input in sci.physics.foundations. :-)

How will the experimenter establish that the times t of the two
observers are simultaneous given that SR imposes a whole set of ifs
and buts on simultaneity?

It is *defined* as simultaneous. If the PoR is correct then more cannot be
done, if that is what you mean.

: Poo. I define the PoR as a subjective collection of observation (made
into a physical theory) of measureable relationships with no
underlying physical atributes.

Here I say boo: measurable relationships certainly depend on undelying
physical attributes!

: There is no common thread that unites
the micro to the macro (try gravity) despite the current tries. But I
did mention to you, some time ago, that I was doing it.

Did you succeed?

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?

Newton (as well as Einstein) would probably say that they both have zero
rotational velocity relative to Space, while Mach would say that they have
zero rotational velocity relative to the stars!

It all can be done on paper making assumptions but not as a real test.
The more ardent supporters of the contraction hypothesis assert that
proof is not required. Their argument is that to 'make predictions' is
sufficient or they will do the calculations manually and if these are
rejected or ignored by anyone, they accuse him of being incapable of
the maths and he should study the subject to understand the theory.
With understanding they mean accepting it without reservation.

Certainly not. :-))
Instead, when taking into account every imagined possibility, no other
reasonable option remains.

: The "TR hmm" is in order here. You will say that cavemen cannot make
computers. WHY NOT???

Agree. :-) Immediately after sending I realised that the phrasing was a bit
too dogmatic, and even I myself have looked into the possibility of a
variant. Retake:
When taking into account every imagined possibility that we know of, length
contraction seems to be the only reasonable option (at least in the
direction of motion). For the detailed "why", I can send you a copy of a
conference paper that relates to this topic if you like.

It is
the approach of all monotheistic religions which ostracise all non-
believers, excommunicate them, vilify them, and ultimately stone or
burn them. In this NG it is automatically practised against any member
who dares to reject SR or even question it.

No problem with questioning it - that's science! However, be prepared to
receive answers. :-)

: You seem to believe that you have all the answers already and that no
more are needed or to be considered. Did I get that right?

No, certainly not! There are too many unsolved questions. However, on many
of his questions very solid answers can be given.

Cheers,
Harald

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

[...]

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.

Falling Space theories. I thought that they are incompible with Gravity
probe A. However, I later saw the counter claim that the results are
compatible with both stationary and falling space hypotheses (I haven't seen
the calculation though). If the compatibility is that great, then maybe
we'll never know!

Take care.
Harald

"Bryan Olson" wrote in message
news | 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.

Like you, Jeckyl is a ****headed bigot. (That's not an insult, that's an
explanation.)

"wugi" wrote in message
...
"jeckyl" :

[...]

You missed relativity or simultaneity .. so many people do, yet it is
probably the most important effect

Agreed. A result of an "isotropy of = equality of light clocks" axiom (*),

You could just as well call that ANisotropy... the essence is that isotropy
is set by definition, and only for the chosen reference frame.
See for example Einstein's 1905 paper on electrodynamics, paragraph 1. Thus
it's mistake (although a common one) to claim that isotropy is a "result".
You get out what you put in. ;-)

easily taken for granted in a rest frame, but a real hypothesis when
realising that there is no such thing as an all round rest frame...

Hmm... As illustrated in paragraph 3 of that same paper, all inertial frames
that are moving relative to the "rest" frame S have that - as measured in
S - light rays propagate at speeds other than c relative to them (also
called "closing speed" c-v).

[...]

The Michelson-Morley experiment may with
hindsight be re-interpreted as an attempt to prove light clocks not being
true (isotropic) clocks !

???

Harald

On Feb 10, 6:18*pm, xxein wrote:

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.


This is not necessarily a productive agenda, though it might be
personally entertaining in a quixotic way. Most revolutionary ideas in
fact come from an unanticipated synthesis of already existing ideas --
this has always been the case. Indeed, broad and comfortable
familiarity with the current field of ideas and measurements
*facilitates* this synthesis, and it is the broad grasp of these
existing ideas that marks a notable genius at synthesis. This is what
Einstein is known for, as well as Feynman, Witten, Newton, and
Bardeen, for examples.

Taking the approach that it is better to be original and wrong than
incremental and right is, unfortunately, almost a guarantee that the
outcome will be the former.

This may upset your little apple cart, but it is also a reality check.

PD

On Feb 11, 7:59*am, "harry"
wrote:
"xxein" wrote in message

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

[...]





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.

Falling Space theories. I thought that they are incompible with Gravity
probe A. However, I later saw the counter claim that the results are
compatible with both stationary and falling space hypotheses (I haven't seen
the calculation though). If the compatibility is that great, then maybe
we'll never know!

Take care.
Harald- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

xxein: Hi Harry.

You call them 'falling space theories". I suppose that is generally
correct but I haven't seen one that worked.

I call mine "the ugly duck" because that's how it came to me. It came
as a longshot because I had already quit this (gravity with Lorentz)
effort 3 or 4 times. I was resigned to failure. But out of the blue
came an idea that couldn't work. It did and has worked for 19 years,
despite what I throw at it.

Although logical and organized in my head, I can't seem to put it to
writing. I keep thinking that every word I write has to be defended
against all illogical beliefs with an explanation to suit them.

I usually only offer hints and look stupid to the crowd.

You are welcome to ask and I know that you have some 'set' beliefs
that I would be working against.

.

"Androcles" :

There is no mystery to bull****.
'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...rt/tAB=tBA.gif

4 = 12 according to the cretin Einstein.

You don't understand " tA=tB (S) but t'At'B (S') " ?
It occurs everywhere, also in non-relativistic cases, basic geometry for
instance...

Equivalence of "non-moving" and "moving" light clocks:
http://home.scarlet.be/~pin12499/MyS...6%20axiom4.gif
http://home.scarlet.be/~pin12499/MyS...axiom4%20b.gif
While tA=tB seems "obvious" in the first and tAtB in the second,
t'A=t'B here requires a "mental leap".
Still, a simple transformation exchanges both pictures (the orthogonality of
space and time-axes is fallacious)... there is no uniquely selectable rest
system left.

Actually, the time axis, as one's world line, is being experienced
"directly".
But NO space axis is ever "directly" experienced by any inertial system. To
the point that it leaves a degree of freedom. So, "cretin" Einstein can
define one to his liking if not yours. He chose, cleverly, one that befits
ALL inertial systems in an egalitarian way, no system is selectable as a
special one.

Understanding this is understanding the fabric of spacetime (while remaining
cautious about distinguishing models mixing up space and time, and the
"real" world not doing so:-)

guido
http://home.scarlet.be/~pin12499/paratwin.htm

"wugi" wrote in message
...
| "Androcles" :
|
| There is no mystery to bull****.
| 'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
| light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
| to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein
| http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...rt/tAB=tBA.gif
|
| 4 = 12 according to the cretin Einstein.
|
| You don't understand " tA=tB (S) but t'At'B (S') " ?

No, I ****in' don't understand it or why you wrote it.
Did I or Einstein say tA or did I or Einstein say tAB?
Did I say t'At'B or did I say tABtBA?

I drew a picture. Too bad you are too stupid to understand it,
and no, I do not understand what you are ranting about.


| It occurs everywhere, also in non-relativistic cases, basic geometry for
| instance...
|
| Equivalence of "non-moving" and "moving" light clocks:
| http://home.scarlet.be/~pin12499/MyS...6%20axiom4.gif
| http://home.scarlet.be/~pin12499/MyS...axiom4%20b.gif
| While tA=tB seems "obvious" in the first and tAtB in the second,
| t'A=t'B here requires a "mental leap".

Did Einstein say tA or did Einstein say tAB?
Did Einstein say tB? No, he didn't ****in' mention it at all.

It would take a mental leap for you to learn to ****in' read!



| Still, a simple transformation exchanges both pictures (the orthogonality
of
| space and time-axes is fallacious)... there is no uniquely selectable rest
| system left.

Drool.


|
| Actually, the time axis, as one's world line, is being experienced
| "directly".

More drool.

| But NO space axis is ever "directly" experienced by any inertial system.
To
| the point that it leaves a degree of freedom. So, "cretin" Einstein can
| define one to his liking if not yours. He chose, cleverly, one that befits
| ALL inertial systems in an egalitarian way, no system is selectable as a
| special one.

Yeah, well, NIST defines a second as
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/second.html
the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the
transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the
cesium 133 atom,
which has ****-all to do with the speed of light so the cretin Einstein
is not in agreement with anyone except his stupid disciples.


| Understanding this is understanding the fabric of spacetime (while
remaining
| cautious about distinguishing models mixing up space and time, and the
| "real" world not doing so:-)

When you can read you'll be able to use words like "egalitarian" or "tAB"
and know what they mean, idiot.

On Feb 11, 7:46*am, "harry"
wrote:
"xxein" wrote in message

Saving web ink.

xxein: "Here I say boo: measurable relationships certainly depend on
underlying
physical attributes!". To that I say 'define them' so that all may
know and have a firm background of the universal physic.

I will use this quote out of its intended context. "No, certainly
not! There are too many unsolved questions.". So which is it that you
adhere to?

So? Are we in a condition to understand underlying physical
attributes or are there too many unsolved questions?

I'll keep this as a short reply but you already know that I am looking
forward to a continued dialogue.

Tia.

"xxein" wrote in message
...
On Feb 11, 7:46 am, "harry"
wrote:
"xxein" wrote in message

Saving web ink.

xxein: "Here I say boo: measurable relationships certainly depend on
underlying
physical attributes!".

Geez you stupid ****, that's not an answer.