Dear alen:

"alen" wrote in message
news:01c37ebc$30d7b420$0a7ea6cb@default...
(formerly) wrote:

"Length contraction" is not a compression problem, but a problem in
perspective. If you look out your window, and look between your thumb
and
finger, you can usually find some really large object which can be
viewed
in its entirety through the space found in your hand.

Length contraction is similar, in that distances in space (and time,
for
time dilation) are a function of the differences in *velocity* (as
opposed
to *distance* in my simile) between the observer and the observed.

The perspective idea is quite good, but not without problems. You have
to see velocity as the equivalent of 'distance', which is not easy. Also,
it must not have the properties of distance. That is, a foreshortened
object can collide with an object in the stationary frame, which is not
possible in the case of perspective due to distance.

To (mis)quote tadchem
similes are like string
- you can pull them pretty well, but
- you can't push them at all

.... which is itself a simile... ;}

David A. Smith

(formerly) wrote:

To (mis)quote tadchem
similes are like string
- you can pull them pretty well, but
- you can't push them at all

... which is itself a simile... ;}

David A. Smith

O.K. - but SR remains without a complete and
comprehensible explanation, which cannot be achieved
by simile alone. I suspect that this has a lot to
do with the appearance of numbers of people
attempting to overthrow SR. I suspect that they
feel that SR is both counter-intuitive and ill explained;
and ill explained because it cannot be explained,
because it is not only suspect, but actually wrong.

I don't share that view, but I do think that SR is not
fully explained.

Alen

"alen" wrote in message
news:01c37eba$170dc0e0$0a7ea6cb@default...
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:

The great accelerator Cern has proven objects get shorter in the
direction they are going(noticably close to "C") I have a theory that
space contracts in front of an object going close to "C".

I am not calling into question the existence of foreshortening. The
question is, is it 'space-like'? That is, is a frame moving at velocity,
v, foreshortened, in only one way, from minus infinity to plus infinity,
in an instantaneous, space-like manner, rather than due to photon
travel?

Alen

No.
--
___________________________
Bonnie Granat
Granat Editorial Services
http://www.editors-writers.info
Fast | Accurate | Affordable

"alen" wrote in message
news:01c37f3e$8c45f240$457ea6cb@default...
(formerly) wrote:

To (mis)quote tadchem
similes are like string
- you can pull them pretty well, but
- you can't push them at all

... which is itself a simile... ;}

David A. Smith

O.K. - but SR remains without a complete and
comprehensible explanation, which cannot be achieved
by simile alone. I suspect that this has a lot to
do with the appearance of numbers of people
attempting to overthrow SR. I suspect that they
feel that SR is both counter-intuitive and ill explained;
and ill explained because it cannot be explained,
because it is not only suspect, but actually wrong.

I don't share that view, but I do think that SR is not
fully explained.

Alen


From http://users.pandora.be/nicvroom/lengthcr.htm#Mesg10


10 Length contraction reality
Van: "Stephen Speicher"
Onderwerp: Length contraction reality
Datum: zaterdag 19 oktober 2002 19:14
On Sat, 19 Oct 2002, Nicolaas Vroom wrote:

"Stephen Speicher" schreef in bericht
...

First, note that John mentions "intrinsic lengths," meaning the
proper distance of an object as measured in its own frame. This is
distinguished from measurements made of the object's length by observer's
who are in relative motion to the object.

As to Einstein's seminal 1905 paper: the most relevant statement that
must first be understood is where Einstein concludes:

"So we see that we cannot attach any absolute signification to the
concept of simultaneity, but that two events which, viewed from a system of
co-ordinates, are simultaneous, can no longer be looked upon as simultaneous
events when envisaged from a system which is in motion relatively to that
system.

The measurement of the length of an object is nothing more than the
measurement of two events taken simultaneously, i.e., we simultaneously mark
the two end points of the object and that distance represents its length.
So, later on, Einstein states:

"Thus, whereas the Y and Z dimensions of the sphere (and therefore of
every rigid body of no matter what form) do not appear modified by the
motion, the X dimension appears shortened in the ratio 1 : sqrt(1 -
(v/V)^2)..."

Note Einstein says "appears shortened," meaning that such an
_appearance_ is a consequence of the measurement process made by an observer
in relative motion to the object, and in no way reflects any change to the
intrinsic length of the object itself.

My interpretation of this is ...



Your "interpretation" does not matter, since you continue to live in a world
of self-imposed ignorance.

-- Stephen


Ignorance is just a placeholder for knowledge.

Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
---------------------




--
___________________________
Bonnie Granat
Granat Editorial Services
http://www.editors-writers.info
Fast | Accurate | Affordable

"alen" wrote in message news:01c37f3e$8c45f240$457ea6cb@default...
(formerly) wrote:

To (mis)quote tadchem
similes are like string
- you can pull them pretty well, but
- you can't push them at all

... which is itself a simile... ;}

David A. Smith

O.K. - but SR remains without a complete and
comprehensible explanation, which cannot be achieved
by simile alone. I suspect that this has a lot to
do with the appearance of numbers of people
attempting to overthrow SR. I suspect that they
feel that SR is both counter-intuitive and ill explained;
and ill explained because it cannot be explained,
because it is not only suspect, but actually wrong.

I don't share that view, but I do think that SR is not
fully explained.

To be honest, for someone who wrote
http://home.westserv.net.au/~alen1/Physics/index.htm
and claims to know better than everyone else, and who has
been corrected on
http://superstringtheory.com/forum/r...sages18/9.html
and in the subthread
http://groups.google.com/groups?&threadm=01c351ec$f5392300$437ea6cb@default ,
who consequently made it even worse with
http://home.westserv.net.au/~alen1/Physics/Changes.htm ,
and who refuses to use spacetime diagrams and decided
to confuse himself with stuff like
http://home.westserv.net.au/~alen1/P...ckTimesPic.htm ,
your view does not come as a surprise.

Maybe it's time for you to start with the basics.

But of course, in order not to be forced to learn anything
new, you will reply with a nice variant of:
| "The sum total of your remarks is nothing more
| than simply that you don't agree with me."
or
| "Yes, I'm not listening because I don't agree"
or
| ""
right?

Dirk Vdm

"alen" wrote in message news:01c37eb9$56f2ad20$0a7ea6cb@default...
Paul Cardinale wrote:

Your error is in assuming that the accelerations of two spatially
separated objects can the identical both frames, when, in fact, they
can only be indentical in one frame.

If they are identical in one frame, can you describe which one is in some
way 'preferred' in the other frame?


I don't know what your trying to ask. Neither acceleration is
'preferred'.

I can see that the posts would not be identical in the view of either of
the
stationary observers alone. If they are viewed by only one observer, a
photon must travel to him from the other post, which makes the other post
different. But I don't see that they would be different in the views of
their
respective observers. That is, there appears to be no difference between
them in a space-like sense?


Spatial separation does not make the posts appear different in any
frame (other than the fact that a more distant object has a smaller
angular size).

Paul Cardinale

Dear alen:

"alen" wrote in message
news:01c37f3e$8c45f240$457ea6cb@default...
(formerly) wrote:

To (mis)quote tadchem
similes are like string
- you can pull them pretty well, but
- you can't push them at all

... which is itself a simile... ;}

O.K. - but SR remains without a complete and
comprehensible explanation, which cannot be achieved
by simile alone.

Agreed. However early indoctrination of children by teachers of 16th
century physics, and a general abhorence of mathematics limtis one's
choices.

I suspect that this has a lot to
do with the appearance of numbers of people
attempting to overthrow SR. I suspect that they
feel that SR is both counter-intuitive and ill explained;
and ill explained because it cannot be explained,
because it is not only suspect, but actually wrong.

It actually is less wrong than it was when Gallileo proposed it. The
"numbers of people" are easy prey for the likes of EinsteinHoax (and many
others) who feed off the mass's ignorance. As to being ill-explained, that
is where indoctrination in 16th century physics tends to make one blind.

I don't share that view, but I do think that SR is not
fully explained.

Fully is as fully does. It is easy to judge a single theory, like a book
by its cover, by the half-remembered conundra some friends may remember and
properly relate. The story is *much* deeper than that. I hope you can
keep your eyes open long enough to find some enlightenment. It is not a
story that has ended yet, I think.

David A. Smith