Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #653604

Re: Experiments Refute Einstein's 1905 Second Postulate

Path	csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From	Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
Newsgroups	sci.physics.relativity
Subject	Re: Experiments Refute Einstein's 1905 Second Postulate
Date	Sat, 11 May 2024 08:19:51 +0200
Lines	28
Message-ID	<la8h06F5ss1U5@mid.individual.net> (permalink)
References	<b7af7f90-844f-4658-92be-acf893aa9e4c@googlegroups.com> <2469793e-954b-463a-8bf7-5604e4940c3en@googlegroups.com> <175decba26b15a5e$98$1290337$45d3cfde@news.newsgroupdirect.com> <c74b2ec4-d4bd-4eec-ac41-512e334ffbdan@googlegroups.com> <ad3c51f4-bfd2-475d-9216-8931176504a5n@googlegroups.com> <73aa6219-6801-438d-bcb5-9203f4c362f2n@googlegroups.com> <wCWdnZFoT4Uy-sP5nZ2dnZfqlJ9j4p2d@giganews.com> <d912688c-9f7a-457d-8d97-c7822f76e4ecn@googlegroups.com> <vpidnew4a74_I_r5nZ2dnZfqlJxh4p2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version	1.0
Content-Type	text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding	7bit
X-Trace	individual.net hEHN04j/5aH4vx87ZCoukAwOko46Es/KdCqiR2QmkAGqRTozPt
Cancel-Lock	sha1:WFWllWyNvIFbzayP0k2yTGkDV8U= sha256:fWngrTnDjFKclCgdY8yyP4bRUwXJ7WsSTbLTZbU3Tb4=
User-Agent	Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language	de-DE
In-Reply-To	<vpidnew4a74_I_r5nZ2dnZfqlJxh4p2d@giganews.com>
Xref	csiph.com sci.physics.relativity:653604

Show key headers only | View raw

Am Freitag000019, 19.05.2023 um 20:23 schrieb Tom Roberts:
> On 5/12/23 1:27 PM, Tom Capizzi wrote:
>> You "experts" can't even agree on whether length contraction is 
>> physical or not.
> 
> The problem is that "physical" is not well defined -- what do YOU mean
> by that word (be specific)?
> 
> Consider a rod of length L at rest in inertial frame S, aligned along
> the x axis. An inertial frame S' moving relative to S with speed v along
> the x axis will measure its length to be L*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). That
> is what is meant by "length contraction" [#].
> 
> It OUGHT to be obvious that measurements by moving observers cannot
> possibly affect the rod itself. So in that sense, "length contraction"
> is not "physical" -- the rod is not affected [#].

Well, yes.

But actually the measurements of a remote observer, passing by at 
significant velocity, is irrelevant (at least for the rod).

So, it's all BS we're talking about?


...

TH

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: Experiments Refute Einstein's 1905 Second Postulate Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-05-11 08:19 +0200
  Re: Experiments Refute Einstein's 1905 Second Postulate hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2024-05-11 13:25 +0000
    Re: Experiments Refute Einstein's 1905 Second Postulate Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-05-11 16:58 +0200
      Re: Experiments Refute Einstein's 1905 Second Postulate hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2024-05-12 18:22 +0000
        Re: Experiments Refute Einstein's 1905 Second Postulate Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-05-12 20:45 +0200
          Re: Experiments Refute Einstein's 1905 Second Postulate hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2024-05-13 01:40 +0000
            Re: Experiments Refute Einstein's 1905 Second Postulate Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-05-13 07:37 +0200
              Re: Experiments Refute Einstein's 1905 Second Postulate hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2024-05-13 14:38 +0000
                Re: Experiments Refute Einstein's 1905 Second Postulate Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-05-13 17:49 +0200
                Re: Experiments Refute Einstein's 1905 Second Postulate hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2024-05-13 18:46 +0000
                Re: Experiments Refute Einstein's 1905 Second Postulate Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-05-13 21:29 +0200
    Re: Experiments Refute Einstein's 1905 Second Postulate Patric Romão <pt@prrpoxr.pt> - 2024-05-11 21:18 +0000

csiph-web