Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #388227 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-07-23 07:24 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-07-27 08:19 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 224 — 13 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-23 07:24 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-23 10:47 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-24 06:24 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-24 06:45 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-24 12:08 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-24 15:04 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-25 08:50 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 11:01 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-24 15:51 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-25 08:54 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 11:03 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-25 10:19 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 12:23 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 12:26 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-25 10:50 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 13:50 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-26 08:26 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-26 15:57 +0000
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-26 18:13 +0200
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-26 17:29 +0000
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-26 14:35 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 14:56 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-27 17:47 +0200
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-27 17:47 +0200
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 11:07 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 09:30 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 12:49 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 20:31 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 09:13 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 14:53 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2016-07-27 18:40 +0200
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-27 18:57 +0200
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2016-07-27 20:55 +0200
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-27 23:24 +0200
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2016-07-27 23:32 +0200
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 16:38 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 12:53 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2016-07-27 21:13 +0200
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 08:47 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2016-07-28 22:16 +0200
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 09:07 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-29 07:13 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-26 10:36 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-26 18:50 +0000
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-27 04:59 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-27 13:52 +0000
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 17:10 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-27 05:30 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 08:03 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 08:30 -0700
Pretender Stephane Baune lectures his peer, Ken Shito "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-27 16:35 -0700
Re: Pretender Stephane Baune lectures his peer, Ken Shito rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 17:43 -0700
Re: Pretender Stephane Baune lectures his peer, Ken Shito "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-27 19:29 -0700
Re: Pretender Stephane Baune lectures his peer, Ken Shito rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 20:15 -0700
Re: Pretender Stephane Baune lectures his peer, Ken Shito "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-27 20:48 -0700
Re: Pretender Stephane Baune lectures his peer, Ken Shito rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 21:58 -0700
Re: Pretender Stephane Baune lectures his peer, Ken Shito "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-28 00:56 -0700
Re: Pretender Stephane Baune lectures his peer, Ken Shito Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 08:59 -0500
Re: Pretender Stephane Baune lectures his peer, Ken Shito "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-28 07:18 -0700
Re: Pretender Stephane Baune lectures his peer, Ken Shito rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 09:28 -0700
Re: Pretender Stephane Baune lectures his peer, Ken Shito "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-28 09:35 -0700
Re: Pretender Stephane Baune lectures his peer, Ken Shito kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-28 07:40 -0700
Re: Pretender Stephane Baune lectures his peer, Ken Shito Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 09:55 -0500
Re: Pretender Stephane Baune lectures his peer, Ken Shito kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-29 06:10 -0700
Re: Pretender Stephane Baune lectures his peer, Ken Shito moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-31 22:46 +0000
Re: Pretender Stephane Baune lectures his peer, Ken Shito rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 09:17 -0700
Re: Pretender Stephane Baune lectures his peer, Ken Shito "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-28 09:21 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-25 15:29 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-24 15:00 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation pcardinale@volcanomail.com - 2016-07-24 19:40 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-07-24 08:01 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-24 12:23 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-24 15:04 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-07-24 18:35 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-24 23:03 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-07-25 11:34 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-25 17:22 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-07-26 11:56 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-25 04:59 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 06:02 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-25 08:34 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 10:57 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-25 12:53 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-25 11:58 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 15:45 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-26 08:33 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 15:10 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-27 05:23 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 08:02 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-27 09:10 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 12:38 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-28 06:31 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 09:22 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-28 07:29 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 10:35 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-28 08:47 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 14:29 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 15:17 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 09:06 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-29 07:11 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 07:54 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-29 08:15 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 14:54 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-29 16:09 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 10:51 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-31 23:27 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 08:49 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 08:17 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-29 08:26 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 11:07 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-29 09:47 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 12:52 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 12:59 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-29 11:09 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-30 13:22 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-30 11:47 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 14:01 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-31 14:11 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-29 11:12 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-29 20:40 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-29 19:04 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-29 19:07 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-30 09:17 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-30 07:34 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-30 08:43 -0700
Poser Stephane Baune is back "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-30 08:56 -0700
Re: Poser Stephane Baune is back rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-30 09:13 -0700
Re: Poser Stephane Baune is back "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-30 09:20 -0700
Re: Poser Stephane Baune is back rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-30 11:37 -0700
Re: Poser Stephane Baune is back "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-30 11:45 -0700
Re: Poser Stephane Baune is back rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-30 13:30 -0700
Re: Poser Stephane Baune is back "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-30 16:52 -0700
Re: Poser Stephane Baune is back rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-30 17:29 -0700
Re: Poser Stephane Baune is back "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-30 17:57 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-30 12:10 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-30 10:47 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-31 20:27 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-29 11:05 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-29 06:06 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-29 06:25 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-29 06:52 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-29 07:09 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-28 08:02 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 10:30 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-29 06:20 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 09:18 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-29 07:22 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 09:47 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-29 15:29 +0000
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-29 08:34 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-29 12:07 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 14:17 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-30 05:27 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-30 12:19 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-29 06:04 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 09:05 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-29 12:24 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 14:39 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 17:48 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-28 07:46 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 09:57 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-28 08:14 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-29 06:15 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 09:16 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-29 07:19 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 09:45 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-29 12:33 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 15:17 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-30 05:55 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-30 12:22 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-30 12:42 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-30 20:19 +0000
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-30 13:44 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-30 14:19 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-30 16:54 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-31 04:20 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-31 04:34 +0000
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 14:01 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-31 17:16 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 08:19 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-01 07:05 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 09:01 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-02 06:17 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 15:12 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-02 06:06 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-02 23:55 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-03 05:13 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 07:38 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-03 10:19 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 12:42 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-03 15:12 +0000
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-08-05 09:18 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-28 15:54 +0000
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-29 06:29 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-29 15:10 +0000
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 10:52 -0500
Pretender Stephane Baune on idiocy par with Ken Shito "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-28 08:06 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 19:52 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-28 07:28 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-28 07:31 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-07-29 12:23 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 14:37 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-07-31 11:11 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-26 00:03 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-26 06:56 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 17:10 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-07-26 12:01 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 22:22 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 23:42 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 09:15 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-07-25 22:35 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-26 07:43 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-07-26 20:59 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-27 05:33 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-07-27 08:18 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 14:26 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-29 06:34 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-07-24 14:43 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-25 08:52 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 11:02 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-25 10:09 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 12:14 -0500
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-25 17:37 -0700
Re: Interpreting the Length Contraction Equation rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 08:19 -0700
Page 2 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 12 Next page →
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-26 14:35 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <5pqdnS2oVIb0JgrKnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #388466 |
On 7/26/16 7/26/16 12:29 PM, Michael Moroney wrote: > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> writes: > >> Because the principle of relativity states that *all* observers' proper >> observations are *equally* valid. What is "in motion" is always only truly >> in motion *relative* *to* *the* *observer*. Well, relative to the relevant (specified) coordinates, which of course could be those of a particular observer. > Einstein wrote of the "stationary frame" and the "moving" frame which > is confusing since that implies the stationary frame is special. You have to read his paper. Carefully. Right up front in section I.1 he said: Let us take a system of co-ordinates in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good. In order to render our presentation more precise and to distinguish this system of co-ordinates verbally from others which will be introduced hereafter, we call it the “stationary system.” That is, "stationary system" is merely a LABEL, and the system of coordinates to which it refers is COMPLETELY ARBITRARY. After all, both then and now this is a common way to specify an arbitrary quantity with specific properties. So his "stationary frame" is not special in any way, except that the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good in them. You must NOT attempt to imbue his words with your prejudices about their meaning. >> It is only easier to compare values of measured properties against those >> measured in an observed object's rest frame, but that does not mean that >> those are in any way the "right" values. Such values in an object's rest frame are, of course, its INTRINSIC values. A meterstick does have an intrinsic length of 1 meter. It's hard to see what other value could possibly be "right". > In the rest frame of the object, the length contraction is zero and > its length is its material length, so it really is "right". IMHO "intrinsic" is a better word for this than "right". Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-26 14:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nn8fa3$1gb8$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #388475 |
On 7/26/2016 2:35 PM, Tom Roberts wrote: > IMHO "intrinsic" is a better word for this than "right". Unless, of course, one just carefully notes that there is no such thing as an intrinsic length, any more than there is an intrinsic kinetic energy. What one can do is to say, "Suppose we were to grope around, desperate to find SOMETHING we could call an 'intrinsic' length. Then in that case, the rest length would be the most apt to give that rather arbitrary designation." -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-27 17:47 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <5180742.lOV4Wx5bFT@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #388478 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/26/2016 2:35 PM, Tom Roberts wrote: >> IMHO "intrinsic" is a better word for this than "right". > > Unless, of course, one just carefully notes that there is no such thing > as an intrinsic length, any more than there is an intrinsic kinetic > energy. What one can do is to say, "Suppose we were to grope around, > desperate to find SOMETHING we could call an 'intrinsic' length. Then in > that case, the rest length would be the most apt to give that rather > arbitrary designation." Full ACK. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-27 17:47 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <4954235.DvuYhMxLoT@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #388475 |
Tom Roberts wrote: > On 7/26/16 7/26/16 12:29 PM, Michael Moroney wrote: >> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> writes: >>> It is only easier to compare values of measured properties against those >>> measured in an observed object's rest frame, but that does not mean that >>> those are in any way the "right" values. > > Such values in an object's rest frame are, of course, its INTRINSIC > values. A meterstick does have an intrinsic length of 1 meter. It's hard > to see what other value could possibly be "right". I do not see anything that would be “of course” about this. “right” and “intrinsic” are just labels, too, and their meaning presupposes an inequality of observers, in particular that the observer in the rest frame of the observed object would be privileged compared to all other observers. That contradicts all versions of the principle of relativity that have been postulated so far. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-27 11:07 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nnam8c$ncg$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #388513 |
On 7/27/2016 10:47 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Tom Roberts wrote: > >> On 7/26/16 7/26/16 12:29 PM, Michael Moroney wrote: >>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> writes: >>>> It is only easier to compare values of measured properties against those >>>> measured in an observed object's rest frame, but that does not mean that >>>> those are in any way the "right" values. >> >> Such values in an object's rest frame are, of course, its INTRINSIC >> values. A meterstick does have an intrinsic length of 1 meter. It's hard >> to see what other value could possibly be "right". > > I do not see anything that would be “of course” about this. “right” and > “intrinsic” are just labels, too, and their meaning presupposes an > inequality of observers, in particular that the observer in the rest frame > of the observed object would be privileged compared to all other observers. > That contradicts all versions of the principle of relativity that have been > postulated so far. > I completely agree with this statement, and is central to the disagreement I've been having with Tom on this. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-27 09:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <17ea6da3-951c-4709-939d-b729f3b03ec8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388515 |
On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 11:07:49 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/27/2016 10:47 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > > Tom Roberts wrote: > > > >> Such values in an object's rest frame are, of course, its INTRINSIC > >> values. A meterstick does have an intrinsic length of 1 meter. It's hard > >> to see what other value could possibly be "right". > > > > I do not see anything that would be “of course” about this. “right” and > > “intrinsic” are just labels, too, and their meaning presupposes an > > inequality of observers, in particular that the observer in the rest frame > > of the observed object would be privileged compared to all other observers. > > That contradicts all versions of the principle of relativity that have been > > postulated so far. > > > > I completely agree with this statement, and is central to the > disagreement I've been having with Tom on this. I would disagree. To paraphrase Animal Farm, all frames are equal, but some are more equal than others. By analogy, in a table of particle properties, I see the mass of the electron listed as 0.5109989461(31) MeV/c^2. If all observers are to be regarded as equally privileged, then it would make no sense to list that value as the mass of the electron. Why should I not be able to state that the "intrinsic length" of a meterstick is 1 meter? To state that holding such a position "contradicts all versions of the principle of relativity that have been postulated so far" appears to me to be a semantic quibble. Tom is adopting the sensible position on this issue.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-27 12:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nnas6v$11l0$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #388517 |
On 7/27/2016 11:30 AM, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 11:07:49 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/27/2016 10:47 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>> Tom Roberts wrote: >>> >>>> Such values in an object's rest frame are, of course, its INTRINSIC >>>> values. A meterstick does have an intrinsic length of 1 meter. It's hard >>>> to see what other value could possibly be "right". >>> >>> I do not see anything that would be “of course” about this. “right” and >>> “intrinsic” are just labels, too, and their meaning presupposes an >>> inequality of observers, in particular that the observer in the rest frame >>> of the observed object would be privileged compared to all other observers. >>> That contradicts all versions of the principle of relativity that have been >>> postulated so far. >>> >> >> I completely agree with this statement, and is central to the >> disagreement I've been having with Tom on this. > > I would disagree. To paraphrase Animal Farm, all frames are equal, but some are > more equal than others. > > By analogy, in a table of particle properties, I see the mass of the electron > listed as 0.5109989461(31) MeV/c^2. If all observers are to be regarded as > equally privileged, then it would make no sense to list that value as the mass > of the electron. I disagree. The mass as listed in http://pdg.lbl.gov is a quantity that is CONSTRUCTED to be identical in all frames. That is, it is sqrt(E^2 - p^2) in all frames (natural units). The fact that this HAPPENS to be the mass in the rest frame is for obvious reasons. However, this is a deliberate construct called the "invariant mass", where in contrast there is no such thing as an "invariant length" defined by physicists as far as I can tell. Now, there IS a thing called an "invariant interval" which is inherently a scalar calculated from a 4D description of a pair of events, in a way analogous to the invariant mass. It happens to coincide with rest length in the special case where the two events are spacelike separated, and so there is a frame in which the two events are simultaneous, which meets the operational definition of length. But this condition does not apply in general, and I frankly don't consider "spacetime interval in the case of spacelike-separated events" to be synonymous with "invariant length" in any of the readings I've dived into. I agree with you that it's a semantic issue. But as Tom frequently points out, you have to be careful with the terms you use and not be cavalier about them or you end up with unintended PUNS. Here, I think the PUN is on length, which has an established operational meaning, and conflating that with "invariant interval in the case of spacelike-separated events", which is the ONLY equivalence which could be said to be true. > > Why should I not be able to state that the "intrinsic length" of a meterstick > is 1 meter? To state that holding such a position "contradicts all versions of > the principle of relativity that have been postulated so far" appears to me to > be a semantic quibble. Tom is adopting the sensible position on this issue. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-27 20:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <75a9d721-aef9-4d68-a124-2c79c0ce450f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388524 |
On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 12:49:23 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/27/2016 11:30 AM, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 11:07:49 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 7/27/2016 10:47 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > >>> Tom Roberts wrote: > >>> > >>>> Such values in an object's rest frame are, of course, its INTRINSIC > >>>> values. A meterstick does have an intrinsic length of 1 meter. It's hard > >>>> to see what other value could possibly be "right". > >>> > >>> I do not see anything that would be “of course” about this. “right” and > >>> “intrinsic” are just labels, too, and their meaning presupposes an > >>> inequality of observers, in particular that the observer in the rest frame > >>> of the observed object would be privileged compared to all other observers. > >>> That contradicts all versions of the principle of relativity that have been > >>> postulated so far. > >>> > >> > >> I completely agree with this statement, and is central to the > >> disagreement I've been having with Tom on this. > > > > I would disagree. To paraphrase Animal Farm, all frames are equal, but some are > > more equal than others. > > > > By analogy, in a table of particle properties, I see the mass of the electron > > listed as 0.5109989461(31) MeV/c^2. If all observers are to be regarded as > > equally privileged, then it would make no sense to list that value as the mass > > of the electron. > > I disagree. The mass as listed in http://pdg.lbl.gov is a quantity that > is CONSTRUCTED to be identical in all frames. That is, it is sqrt(E^2 - > p^2) in all frames (natural units). The fact that this HAPPENS to be the > mass in the rest frame is for obvious reasons. > > However, this is a deliberate construct called the "invariant mass", > where in contrast there is no such thing as an "invariant length" > defined by physicists as far as I can tell. Now, there IS a thing called > an "invariant interval" which is inherently a scalar calculated from a > 4D description of a pair of events, in a way analogous to the invariant > mass. It happens to coincide with rest length in the special case where > the two events are spacelike separated, and so there is a frame in which > the two events are simultaneous, which meets the operational definition > of length. But this condition does not apply in general, and I frankly > don't consider "spacetime interval in the case of spacelike-separated > events" to be synonymous with "invariant length" in any of the readings > I've dived into. > > I agree with you that it's a semantic issue. But as Tom frequently > points out, you have to be careful with the terms you use and not be > cavalier about them or you end up with unintended PUNS. Here, I think > the PUN is on length, which has an established operational meaning, and > conflating that with "invariant interval in the case of > spacelike-separated events", which is the ONLY equivalence which could > be said to be true. I would guess that only a minority of professional physicists would agree with you on this point, but that's only a guess. We have only one such person participating in this thread, so polling him to work out statistics such as percentage in agreement/disagreement, standard error of estimate, etc. would be pretty meaningless. > > Why should I not be able to state that the "intrinsic length" of a meterstick > > is 1 meter? To state that holding such a position "contradicts all versions of > > the principle of relativity that have been postulated so far" appears to me to > > be a semantic quibble. Tom is adopting the sensible position on this issue. > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-28 09:13 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nnd3u2$5c3$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #388570 |
On 7/27/2016 10:31 PM, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > I would guess that only a minority of professional physicists would agree with > you on this point, but that's only a guess. We have only one such person > participating in this thread, so polling him to work out statistics such as > percentage in agreement/disagreement, standard error of estimate, etc. would be > pretty meaningless. This may be true. I'm only going by what I've read. In what I've read, length is referred to as a 3D property, which like many 3D properties, cannot possibly be frame-invariant. (To be more precise, it is a quantity that is constructed from spacelike components of a 4-vector, where it is well known that the components and this construction -- based on the projection of the 4-vector -- will not be frame-invariant.) The invariant property is called interval precisely to separate itself from length. It is understood that the interval may be equal to the length in a particular frame, of course. > >>> Why should I not be able to state that the "intrinsic length" of a meterstick >>> is 1 meter? To state that holding such a position "contradicts all versions of >>> the principle of relativity that have been postulated so far" appears to me to >>> be a semantic quibble. Tom is adopting the sensible position on this issue. >>> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-26 14:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nn8f4b$1gb8$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #388466 |
On 7/26/2016 12:29 PM, Michael Moroney wrote: > In the rest frame of the object, the length contraction is zero and > its length is its material length, so it really is "right". I've written about this before, and Tom Roberts and I don't entirely agree about this. Since length is operationally defined (measuring the locations of endpoints at the same time), then the length measured in the rest frame of the object is really no more "legitimate" than the length measured by the *same procedure* in any other frame. What is true is that the length is *maximal* in the rest frame, which is an interesting accident, but I don't see any more physical value in that than noting that the kinetic energy of an object is minimal in its rest frame. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-27 18:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nnao59$r1c$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #388476 |
Op 26-jul-2016 om 21:53 schreef Odd Bodkin: > On 7/26/2016 12:29 PM, Michael Moroney wrote: >> In the rest frame of the object, the length contraction is zero and >> its length is its material length, so it really is "right". > > I've written about this before, and Tom Roberts and I don't entirely > agree about this. > > Since length is operationally defined (measuring the locations of > endpoints at the same time), then the length measured in the rest frame > of the object is really no more "legitimate" than the length measured by > the *same procedure* in any other frame. But in the restframe of the object, there is no need to measure the locations of the endpoints at the same time. The procedures are essentially different. > > What is true is that the length is *maximal* in the rest frame, which is > an interesting accident, but I don't see any more physical value in that > than noting that the kinetic energy of an object is minimal in its rest > frame. But different objects have different "intrinsic" (non-zero) lengths, but they all have the same intrinsic (zero) kinetic energy. So the former is useful where the latter is useless. Just a quibble... Dirk Vdm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-27 18:57 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1994658.ElGaqSPkdT@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #388518 |
Dirk Van de moortel wrote: > But in the restframe of the object, there is no need to measure > the locations of the endpoints at the same time. Why not? > The procedures are essentially different. Why? >> What is true is that the length is *maximal* in the rest frame, which is >> an interesting accident, but I don't see any more physical value in that >> than noting that the kinetic energy of an object is minimal in its rest >> frame. > > But different objects have different "intrinsic" (non-zero) lengths, I am not sure what you mean with this. Different objects of different lengths in the rest frame, have, when observed by the same observer, different observed lengths, no matter whether the observer is a co-moving one. > but they all have the same intrinsic (zero) kinetic energy. True. > So the former is useful where the latter is useless. Neither is useless, as the relative velocity of the observed object can be measured, and Lorentz transformations applied. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-27 20:55 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nnb036$17r0$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #388519 |
Op 27-jul-2016 om 18:57 schreef Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn: > Dirk Van de moortel wrote: > >> But in the restframe of the object, there is no need to measure >> the locations of the endpoints at the same time. > > Why not? Because in the restframe of the object the endpoints are going nowhere. No need to measure their positions at the same time. > >> The procedures are essentially different. > > Why? Because there is no need to measure the locations of the endpoints at the same time in the restframe. There is therefore a difference in the procedures: simultaneity of the location measurements is only essential when the object is moving. > >>> What is true is that the length is *maximal* in the rest frame, which is >>> an interesting accident, but I don't see any more physical value in that >>> than noting that the kinetic energy of an object is minimal in its rest >>> frame. >> >> But different objects have different "intrinsic" (non-zero) lengths, > > I am not sure what you mean with this. Different objects of different > lengths in the rest frame, have, when observed by the same observer, > different observed lengths, no matter whether the observer is a co-moving > one. Yes, that's what I mean. Not all objects have the same "intrinsic length" ==> useful. All objects do have the same "intrinsic KE" ==> useless (see below). > >> but they all have the same intrinsic (zero) kinetic energy. > > True. > >> So the former is useful where the latter is useless. > > Neither is useless, as the relative velocity of the observed > object can be measured, and Lorentz transformations applied. I was talking about intrinsic properties only. But even then, knowing the relative velocity of an object in motion is sufficient to calculate its "coordinate length" from the intrinsic length, but is not sufficient to calculate the "coordinate KE" from the intrinsic KE. In that sense, I called the latter "useless": it has the same trivial value for every conceivable object, and thus brings no useful information. Dirk Vdm.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-27 23:24 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <4193000.GXAFRqVoOG@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #388528 |
Dirk Van de moortel wrote: > Op 27-jul-2016 om 18:57 schreef Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn: >> Dirk Van de moortel wrote: >>> But in the restframe of the object, there is no need to measure >>> the locations of the endpoints at the same time. >> Why not? > > Because in the restframe of the object the endpoints are going > nowhere. No need to measure their positions at the same time. That argument ignores the fact of the relativity of simultaneity. You cannot measure the positions of the end points of an object at the same time because the information from them does not travel instantly to you; it travels at most at c. What you can measure is the time that a light signal emitted from one end point takes to the other and from that, assuming that neither end point has moved, calculate the length. Therefore, nowadays precise distance measurements are done using electromagnetic radiation, e.g. with lasers or radar. For example, there are mirrors on the surface of Luna put there by Apollo astronauts, and lasers from Terra can be directed at them, to determine the distance between Terra and Luna on a given day (LLR). And the distance between Curiosity and Mars’ surface, and the speed of descent, in order to know when to enter into each of the phases of EDL, was determined with a radar altimeter. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Science_Laboratory> >>>> What is true is that the length is *maximal* in the rest frame, which >>>> is an interesting accident, but I don't see any more physical value in >>>> that than noting that the kinetic energy of an object is minimal in its >>>> rest frame. >>> >>> But different objects have different "intrinsic" (non-zero) lengths, >> >> I am not sure what you mean with this. Different objects of different >> lengths in the rest frame, have, when observed by the same observer, >> different observed lengths, no matter whether the observer is a co-moving >> one. > > Yes, that's what I mean. ISTM you have not read carefully or you have misunderstood what I wrote: > Not all objects have the same "intrinsic length" ==> useful. To emphasize what is meant by my previous statement: That not all objects would have the same “intrinsic length” (i.e. length in the rest frame) is irrelevant, because the same objects also would not have the same observed length when observed by the same observer in relative motion to them (_not_ co-moving with them). I can see only one caveat: If the difference between the observed lengths of two co-moving objects, i.e. after Lorentz transformation, falls below the Planck length, an observer would no longer be able to tell their lengths apart and would have to assume they are of equal length even though in their rest frame they might not. >>> So the former is useful where the latter is useless. >> >> Neither is useless, as the relative velocity of the observed >> object can be measured, and Lorentz transformations applied. > > I was talking about intrinsic properties only. With the exception of Lorentz-invariant ones, there are no intrinsic properties; to assume there were is an illusion. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-27 23:32 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nnb9ag$1m4q$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #388535 |
Op 27-jul-2016 om 23:24 schreef Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn: > Dirk Van de moortel wrote: > >> Op 27-jul-2016 om 18:57 schreef Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn: >>> Dirk Van de moortel wrote: >>>> But in the restframe of the object, there is no need to measure >>>> the locations of the endpoints at the same time. >>> Why not? >> >> Because in the restframe of the object the endpoints are going >> nowhere. No need to measure their positions at the same time. > > That argument ignores the fact of the relativity of simultaneity. You > cannot measure the positions of the end points of an object at the same time > because the information from them does not travel instantly to you; I think I'll stop wasting your time here :-) Dirk Vdm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-27 16:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <01e99e15-0fc7-492e-899c-49f9f30f8549@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388536 |
On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 4:33:08 PM UTC-5, Dirk Van de moortel wrote: > Op 27-jul-2016 om 23:24 schreef Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn: > > Dirk Van de moortel wrote: > > > >> Op 27-jul-2016 om 18:57 schreef Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn: > >>> Dirk Van de moortel wrote: > >>>> But in the restframe of the object, there is no need to measure > >>>> the locations of the endpoints at the same time. > >>> Why not? > >> > >> Because in the restframe of the object the endpoints are going > >> nowhere. No need to measure their positions at the same time. > > > > That argument ignores the fact of the relativity of simultaneity. You > > cannot measure the positions of the end points of an object at the same time > > because the information from them does not travel instantly to you; > > I think I'll stop wasting your time here :-) Lahn's response doesn't seem to be headed in a very productive direction... :-(
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-27 12:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nnasdu$122a$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #388518 |
On 7/27/2016 11:40 AM, Dirk Van de moortel wrote: > Op 26-jul-2016 om 21:53 schreef Odd Bodkin: >> On 7/26/2016 12:29 PM, Michael Moroney wrote: >>> In the rest frame of the object, the length contraction is zero and >>> its length is its material length, so it really is "right". >> >> I've written about this before, and Tom Roberts and I don't entirely >> agree about this. >> >> Since length is operationally defined (measuring the locations of >> endpoints at the same time), then the length measured in the rest frame >> of the object is really no more "legitimate" than the length measured by >> the *same procedure* in any other frame. > > But in the restframe of the object, there is no need to measure > the locations of the endpoints at the same time. The procedures > are essentially different. While this is true, in my understanding, the operational definition of length DOES have that specification (simultaneous endpoint location) precisely so that it serves as a FRAME-INDEPENDENT procedure. I'm not aware of any definition of "intrinsic length" that specifies: This is the length that stays the same whether you measure the endpoints at the same time or not. This is in effect the standard you are suggesting, but I just don't think physicists call this out. > >> >> What is true is that the length is *maximal* in the rest frame, which is >> an interesting accident, but I don't see any more physical value in that >> than noting that the kinetic energy of an object is minimal in its rest >> frame. > > But different objects have different "intrinsic" (non-zero) lengths, > but they all have the same intrinsic (zero) kinetic energy. > So the former is useful where the latter is useless. I don't think that's good ground to say that "intrinsic length" has meaning where "intrinsic KE" has no meaning. But maybe that's just me. > > Just a quibble... > > Dirk Vdm > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-27 21:13 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nnb15e$19lh$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #388525 |
Op 27-jul-2016 om 19:53 schreef Odd Bodkin: > On 7/27/2016 11:40 AM, Dirk Van de moortel wrote: >> Op 26-jul-2016 om 21:53 schreef Odd Bodkin: >>> On 7/26/2016 12:29 PM, Michael Moroney wrote: >>>> In the rest frame of the object, the length contraction is zero and >>>> its length is its material length, so it really is "right". >>> >>> I've written about this before, and Tom Roberts and I don't entirely >>> agree about this. >>> >>> Since length is operationally defined (measuring the locations of >>> endpoints at the same time), then the length measured in the rest frame >>> of the object is really no more "legitimate" than the length measured by >>> the *same procedure* in any other frame. >> >> But in the restframe of the object, there is no need to measure >> the locations of the endpoints at the same time. The procedures >> are essentially different. > > While this is true, in my understanding, the operational definition of > length DOES have that specification (simultaneous endpoint location) > precisely so that it serves as a FRAME-INDEPENDENT procedure. Is there somewhere a book with "official operational definitions" where they describe how to measure lengths of objects? I looked with Google Books and Google Scholar, but I can't find any. > > I'm not aware of any definition of "intrinsic length" that specifies: > This is the length that stays the same whether you measure the endpoints > at the same time or not. This is in effect the standard you are > suggesting, but I just don't think physicists call this out. When they need an accurate measurement of the length of the old standard Pt-Ir meter bar, I don't think they go about "measuring the locations of the endpoints at the same time". I'm sure they would use light and a clock. No? Dirk Vdm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-28 08:47 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nnd2cm$2hq$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #388531 |
On 7/27/2016 2:13 PM, Dirk Van de moortel wrote: > Op 27-jul-2016 om 19:53 schreef Odd Bodkin: >> On 7/27/2016 11:40 AM, Dirk Van de moortel wrote: >>> Op 26-jul-2016 om 21:53 schreef Odd Bodkin: >>>> On 7/26/2016 12:29 PM, Michael Moroney wrote: >>>>> In the rest frame of the object, the length contraction is zero and >>>>> its length is its material length, so it really is "right". >>>> >>>> I've written about this before, and Tom Roberts and I don't entirely >>>> agree about this. >>>> >>>> Since length is operationally defined (measuring the locations of >>>> endpoints at the same time), then the length measured in the rest frame >>>> of the object is really no more "legitimate" than the length >>>> measured by >>>> the *same procedure* in any other frame. >>> >>> But in the restframe of the object, there is no need to measure >>> the locations of the endpoints at the same time. The procedures >>> are essentially different. >> >> While this is true, in my understanding, the operational definition of >> length DOES have that specification (simultaneous endpoint location) >> precisely so that it serves as a FRAME-INDEPENDENT procedure. > > Is there somewhere a book with "official operational definitions" > where they describe how to measure lengths of objects? > I looked with Google Books and Google Scholar, but I can't find > any. There's a pretty good document at NIST about operational definitions of standards-supported physical quantities. Looking for it.... > >> >> I'm not aware of any definition of "intrinsic length" that specifies: >> This is the length that stays the same whether you measure the endpoints >> at the same time or not. This is in effect the standard you are >> suggesting, but I just don't think physicists call this out. > > When they need an accurate measurement of the length of the > old standard Pt-Ir meter bar, I don't think they go about > "measuring the locations of the endpoints at the same time". > I'm sure they would use light and a clock. No? One clock? Describe how, please. > > Dirk Vdm -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-28 22:16 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nndp6h$169o$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #388573 |
Op 28-jul-2016 om 15:47 schreef Odd Bodkin: > On 7/27/2016 2:13 PM, Dirk Van de moortel wrote: >> Op 27-jul-2016 om 19:53 schreef Odd Bodkin: [snip] >>> I'm not aware of any definition of "intrinsic length" that specifies: >>> This is the length that stays the same whether you measure the endpoints >>> at the same time or not. This is in effect the standard you are >>> suggesting, but I just don't think physicists call this out. >> >> When they need an accurate measurement of the length of the >> old standard Pt-Ir meter bar, I don't think they go about >> "measuring the locations of the endpoints at the same time". >> I'm sure they would use light and a clock. No? > > One clock? Describe how, please. Make that two. Or one and a mirror :-) Dirk Vdm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 12 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web