Re: IS LENGTH CONTRACTION GEOMETRICAL OR PHYSICAL?

Article View: sci.physics.relativity

Article #6174

Back to sci.physics.relativity Previous Next

#6174

From: RP
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 23:30

30 lines
2917 bytes

On Nov 8, 1:16 pm, "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)

That premise doesn't correspond to the lorentz transform.

Technical Details

Message-ID: <1194564629.305542.135790@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail

References: <1194539288.767643.82100@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <1194549383.143911.202110@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

X-Google-Thread: 10f545,90117d15e24867a3
X-Google-Thread: 10b271,90117d15e24867a3
X-Google-Thread: f74ae,90117d15e24867a3
X-Google-Thread: fa4c1,90117d15e24867a3
X-Google-Thread: 1139f8,90117d15e24867a3
X-Google-Attributes: gid10f545,gid10b271,gidf74ae,gidfa4c1,gid1139f8,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From:  RP <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro,fr.sci.physique,fr.sci.maths
Subject: Re: IS LENGTH CONTRACTION GEOMETRICAL OR PHYSICAL?
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 15:30:29 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <1194564629.305542.135790@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
References: <1194539288.767643.82100@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
   <1194549383.143911.202110@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 75.120.145.138
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1194564630 622 127.0.0.1 (8 Nov 2007 23:30:30 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 23:30:30 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <1194549383.143911.202110@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1.0.3705; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; Media Center PC 4.0),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com; posting-host=75.120.145.138;
   posting-account=ps2QrAMAAAA6_jCuRt2JEIpn5Otqf_w0

Reply to Parent Message