🚀 go-pugleaf

On Nov 8, 10:32 pm, "Gerald L. O'Barr" <glob...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> IS LENGTH CONTRACTION GEOMETRICAL OR PHYSICAL?
>
> RP <no_mail_no_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Gerald L. O'Barr" <glob...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> Don Stockbauer <donstockba...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> >>Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>> >>>   In SR, neither "length contraction" nor
> >>> >>> "time dilation" are physical--they are purely
> >>> >>> geometrical.  A moving ruler does
> >>> >>> not physically get any shorter, it is merely
> >>> >>> MEASURED shorter by an observer relative to
> >>> >>> whom it is moving along its length.
> >>> >>> Ditto for clock tick-rates.
>
> O'Barr comments:
>
>
>
>
>
> >> On The Measurements of Lengths!
>
> >>    I, of course, accept LET as the best science we
> >> now have.  It is not perfect, but it is certainly
> >> more perfect than SR.  And LET explains that there
> >> is one
> >> frame in which the actual lengths of rulers are
> >> controlled or affected, and in which the rates of
> >> clocks are controlled or affected.  This one frame
> >> causes all clocks to slow down with their absolute
> >> velocity, and it causes all rulers to shorten with
> >> their absolute velocities, at least in the
> >> direction of their motions.  . . .
> >>  . . .
> >> Gerald L. O'Barr    <globarr...@yahoo.com>
> >>                     (globarr)
> RP <no_mail_no_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > That premise doesn't correspond to the lorentz
> > transform.
>
> O'Barr comments:
>    I sometimes ignore off the cuff comments such as
> this.   You did not state or give a reason for your
> position.  You gave no math or any example of how you
> were right.  But in truth, when Lorentz derived these
> relationships, which he did before Einstein came
> along, these were the only physical facts that he
> had to assumed, along with the constant speed of
> light and by taking the right syncs of clocks.  These
> simple assumptions allowed the Lorentz transforms to
> become valid for all frames.
>     If you do not understand this, do not give up.
> Keep asking questions, and they will all be answered.
>
> Gerald L. O'Barr    <globarr...@yahoo.com>
>                     (globarr)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Lorentz's version of the transform had to be corrected. When it was,
it was no longer consistent wtih his premise. The lorentz transform,
as referred to by Einstein,  contracts the entire x axis, not just
objects along their x dimension.