🚀 go-pugleaf

On Nov 10, 7:17 pm, RP <no_mail_no_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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.- Hide quoted text -

  That's quite understandle why, since the Qunatum wanks
  obviously still haven't didn't pick up on Einstein's other
assumption
  about coordinates, that history is the biggest illusion
  since it was invented.




>
> - Show quoted text -