"Androcles"


| Does it contract or does it not? Lorentz says it does and AE accepted
|
| No it doesn't and no Lorentz doesn't.

No it doesn't and yes Lorentz does.
The crank clearly stated that it was pressure from the aether on the
molecules in the direction of motion that caused the contraction.

That's what a third party system will conclude about the moving object. It's
not what Peri asked: the moving object detects nothing particular about
itself. Please read questions.

You've obviously never read anything the crank Lorentz wrote.

Please read texts.

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

On Feb 13, 12:02*pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Feb 12, 4:38 pm, 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. 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. 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.

Therein lies the problem. Well, one of them.

What "actually happens" is an irrelevant question since what "actually
happens" depends on how the looking is done.

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.
Peter Riedt

It is only ambiguous and vague to those who are unwilling and/or
unable to take the time to learn the terminology as well as the theory
described by the words.

Since so few physicists have trouble with either the theory or the
words, you might want to consider that the problem is at /your/ end.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Eric,
OK. I must accept Jecko's view. There is no contraction at all, only
the perception of the observer. If he is drunk, the object is larger.
If he is drugged, the object is smaller. If he is neither, the object
is the same. I will thank Jecko for such profound insight. We wasted
100 years on SR but now the darkness has gone.
Peter Riedt

"wugi" wrote in message
...
| "Androcles"
|
|
| | Does it contract or does it not? Lorentz says it does and AE accepted
| |
| | No it doesn't and no Lorentz doesn't.
|
| No it doesn't and yes Lorentz does.
| The crank clearly stated that it was pressure from the aether on the
| molecules in the direction of motion that caused the contraction.
|
| That's what a third party system will conclude about the moving object.
It's
| not what Peri asked: the moving object detects nothing particular about
| itself. Please read questions.
|
| You've obviously never read anything the crank Lorentz wrote.
|
| Please read texts.

The crazy cranks Lorentz and Fitzgerald said the contraction is real and
applies to the ruler doing the measuring too.
Don't tell me to read it when I have read it. YOU go and read the
papers, you ****headed little twerp.

On Feb 14, 3:13*pm, "wugi" wrote:
"Androcles"

| Does it contract or does it not? Lorentz says it does and AE accepted
|
| No it doesn't and no Lorentz doesn't.

No it doesn't and yes Lorentz does.
The crank clearly stated that it was pressure from the aether on the
molecules in the direction of motion that caused the contraction.

That's what a third party system will conclude about the moving object. It's
not what Peri asked: the moving object detects nothing particular about
itself. Please read questions.

You've obviously never read anything the crank Lorentz wrote.

Please read texts.

guidohttp://home.scarlet.be/~pin12499/paratwin.htm

Guido,
I am well aware that a local observer cannot detect any contraction or
time dilation in his own system and did not ask a question about it.
The issue is that Jecko and others in this thread denied that Lorentz
proposed length contraction of moving objects and that is plain silly.
Peter Riedt

"Peri of Pera" :

Guido,
I am well aware that a local observer cannot detect any contraction or
time dilation in his own system and did not ask a question about it.

That's what I understood from your earlier post, see next.

The issue is that Jecko and others in this thread denied that Lorentz
proposed length contraction of moving objects and that is plain silly.

I don't see any saying like that from him.

(and earlier)
Bryan,
we are stuck in semantic games. 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. To me it is more
important what actually happens to the moving object regardless if it

"what actually happens" can't be an "absolute" statement. You've got to
specify what witness of the happening you wish to involve.

can be measured or not either locally or from an external position.
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.
Peter Riedt

So I said:
- an inertial object detects no movement, and no contraction or dilation, by
and about itself.
- an external observer in a different inertial state detects those things
upon the object (but you're not asking about that)

So I suppose you're wondering
- is there an "absolute" authority witnessing these changes, on any inertial
object at that?

That's what I think Lorentz and others felt (some stay stuck with it even
nowadays):
the changes would be absolute (eg in an aetherial milieu) but,
"unfortunately", in a way that makes them undetectable for one to oneself,
only mutual observations between "moving" objects being left accessible and,
"weirdly", yielding the proper results.

What they could and would not get to grasp, was that they were up to a
universal relativity principle. They prefered to remain stuck with a FALSE
relativity, with at its core an absolute, though undetectable, reference
frame.

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

On Feb 16, 5:28*pm, "wugi" wrote:
"Peri of Pera" :

Guido,
I am well aware that a local observer cannot detect any contraction or
time dilation in his own system and did not ask a question about it.

That's what I understood from your earlier post, see next.

The issue is that Jecko and others in this thread denied that Lorentz
proposed length contraction of moving objects and that is plain silly.

I don't see any saying like that from him.

(and earlier)

Bryan,
we are stuck in semantic games. 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. To me it is more
important what actually happens to the moving object regardless if it

"what actually happens" can't be an "absolute" statement. You've got to
specify what witness of the happening you wish to involve.

can be measured or not either locally or from an external position.
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.
Peter Riedt

So I said:
- an inertial object detects no movement, and no contraction or dilation, by
and about itself.
- an external observer in a different inertial state detects those things
upon the object (but you're not asking about that)

So I suppose you're wondering
- is there an "absolute" authority witnessing these changes, on any inertial
object at that?

That's what I think Lorentz and others felt (some stay stuck with it even
nowadays):
the changes would be absolute (eg in an aetherial milieu) but,
"unfortunately", in a way that makes them undetectable for one to oneself,
only mutual observations between "moving" objects being left accessible and,
"weirdly", yielding the proper results.

What they could and would not get to grasp, was that they were up to a
universal relativity principle. They prefered to remain stuck with a FALSE
relativity, with at its core an absolute, though undetectable, reference
frame.

guidohttp://home.scarlet.be/~pin12499/paratwin.htm

Guido,
I agree but perhaps we are now stuck with the original theory and
another updated but equally incorrect one.
Peter Riedt

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

"Bryan Olson" wrote in message
et...

| 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.


What is it you understand that you are mistaken about?

Androcles wrote:
"Bryan Olson" wrote:

| 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.

What is it you understand that you are mistaken about?

I went through several misunderstandings. At one time, I had
thought the symmetry of the transform of inertial frames to
be contradictory. X slow in Y's frame while Y is slow in X's
frame didn't make sense, as far as I had studied the theory.
Later, I thought relativity was merely a complicated way of
looking at what I already expected from simpler principles.

At my worst, I had a not-even-wrong theory of why relativity
would be a persistent illusion. In my defense, I thought I
was listening to good sources, and thought the math would
work out. Not a great defense, since I could never actually
get the predictions to come out consistently, let alone the
observations.

Understanding SR was a long haul for me. My understanding of
GR is a work in progress.


--
--Bryan

"Bryan Olson" wrote in message
.. .
| Androcles wrote:
| "Bryan Olson" wrote:
|
| | 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.
|
| What is it you understand that you are mistaken about?
|
| I went through several misunderstandings. At one time, I had
| thought the symmetry of the transform of inertial frames to
| be contradictory. X slow in Y's frame while Y is slow in X's
| frame didn't make sense, as far as I had studied the theory.
| Later, I thought relativity was merely a complicated way of
| looking at what I already expected from simpler principles.
|
| At my worst, I had a not-even-wrong theory of why relativity
| would be a persistent illusion. In my defense, I thought I
| was listening to good sources, and thought the math would
| work out. Not a great defense, since I could never actually
| get the predictions to come out consistently, let alone the
| observations.
|
| Understanding SR was a long haul for me. My understanding of
| GR is a work in progress.
|
|
What is it that you understand about Einstein's third postulate:
"the "time" required by light to travel from A to B equals the "time"
it requires to travel from B to A' (in all frames of reference because
Einstein says so) that I don't, and what evidence do you have
to support such a ridiculous assertion (aside from H.G. Wells'
"Time Machine" that the crank Einstein read as a teenager before
he went cuckoo over Swiss cuckoo clocks in a patent office)?