Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #711796
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics |
| Subject | Re: kilogram to be redefined |
| Date | 2018-11-05 21:56 -0500 |
| Organization | Aioe.org NNTP Server |
| Message-ID | <prqvsf$160o$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink) |
| References | (5 earlier) <269141f5-9fc5-466d-a3a3-f553e276620f@googlegroups.com> <prmrbb$3s1$1@dont-email.me> <26fba10f-70d1-46db-a216-88de7cc2dcd7@googlegroups.com> <prom5c$809$1@dont-email.me> <fa33f85b-673e-427d-b1a3-0106c0a5adf5@googlegroups.com> |
On 11/5/2018 9:44 PM, Steve wrote: > On Monday, November 5, 2018 at 4:28:07 PM UTC+10:30, Libor Striz wrote: >> Steve <steve7600@gmail.com> Wrote in message: >>> The part where this recent statement "Eventual oscillations due gravitational waves are many orders below reproducibility of the metre length, a furthermore, the mean value remains." >> >> He he, it is funny, I was asking what part of the above... :-) >> ------ >>> " reaffirms your original statement"The relativistic length contraction is just a space-time projection effect for moving observer. >> >> Kinematic time dilation and space-time oscillations of G. waves >> are not related. The former happens even in perfectly stable flat >> spacetime. OTOH, for g waves time is not dilated. >> --------- >> Nothing happens to lengths. "I assume thats its purpose?I >> understand that we cant trust our perception of time dilation and >> perceived length of objects. >> >> We know that for most cases the difference is far below the >> resolution of our measurements. Usually , measurements have to be >> specially designed not to be. >> >> It is question of interpretation. >> It can be also said the length of time duration is observer >> dependent and that the "real" values for the observer in rest wrt >> measured phenomena is just our convention. >> ---------- >> > However, I had come to the conclusion that the problem with our >> perception is that it cant perceive the physical variation if we >> travel to different environments alongside the object we are >> assessing. >> >> There are no changes. >> ------- >>> We change uniformly as the object does, so there is no contrast to perceive. >> >> Do you think you shrink when I start moving wrt you ? >> ------------ >> >> You have arrived at a different conclusion, that the effects of >> length contraction are not real, but just a product of our >> distorted perception, caused by time dilation. Do I have this >> generally correct?Do you have a simple argument to defend this >> view? >> >> Every good textbook has arguments for that. The key is to realize >> a motion is not absolute. >> >> _-------------------- >> >>> I suggested that LIGO's method of detecting gravitational waves relys on Length contraction being a physical effect. >> >> No, it does not. >> -------- >> Or else there would be no fluctuation in photon frequency caused >> by LIGO's length contracted arms. >> >> As spacetime oscillates, it would provide it without kinematic >> time dilation. >> -- >> Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer) >> >> "Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity." >> Miloš Forman >> >> >> ----Android NewsGroup Reader---- >> http://usenet.sinaapp.com/ > > Actually, there is something I can do that might test your method of thinking. > > Question for you please? > Do you believe that time dilation imposes no physical manifestation? I ask this because length contraction would be a physical manifestation, but you refute its literal existence, right? You would dismiss it as an illusion of sorts? Length contraction is not a physical manifestation. Things do not change length. > Im not trying to be tricky, so I'll mention before hand. I will be interested to see if youre opinion could be changed based on an empirical derived physical observation, measurement. Can you ignore a tangible quantity in preference for your existing and preferred opinion? This is easily proved by calculating the fields from a charged rod the is moving with constant linear motion. If one inserts the contracted length into the calculation the results obtained are wrong, both from Maxwell retardation calculations and also from the calculations of relativity. The resting length must be used. > I set you this challenge respectfully >
Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
kilogram to be redefined Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-03 14:54 +0000
Re: kilogram to be redefined benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-03 13:26 -0400
Re: kilogram to be redefined Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-03 18:07 +0000
Re: kilogram to be redefined Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-11-03 20:29 +0100
Re: kilogram to be redefined benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-03 16:26 -0400
Re: kilogram to be redefined Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-11-03 21:48 +0100
Re: kilogram to be redefined Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-03 20:57 +0000
Re: kilogram to be redefined Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-11-03 16:01 -0700
Re: kilogram to be redefined yporat08@gmail.com - 2018-11-04 00:46 -0700
Re: kilogram to be redefined Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-11-04 09:00 +0100
Re: kilogram to be redefined Steve <steve7600@gmail.com> - 2018-11-03 20:23 -0700
Re: kilogram to be redefined Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-11-04 08:15 +0100
Re: kilogram to be redefined Steve <steve7600@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 01:11 -0700
Re: kilogram to be redefined Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-11-04 09:35 +0100
Re: kilogram to be redefined Steve <steve7600@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 04:34 -0800
Re: kilogram to be redefined Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-11-04 14:14 +0100
Re: kilogram to be redefined Steve <steve7600@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 19:52 -0800
Re: kilogram to be redefined Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-11-05 06:58 +0100
Re: kilogram to be redefined Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-11-05 07:37 +0100
Re: kilogram to be redefined Steve <steve7600@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 18:33 -0800
Re: kilogram to be redefined Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-11-06 08:19 +0100
Re: kilogram to be redefined Steve <steve7600@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 18:44 -0800
Re: kilogram to be redefined benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 21:56 -0500
Re: kilogram to be redefined Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-11-06 07:53 +0100
Re: kilogram to be redefined yporat08@gmail.com - 2018-11-04 00:36 -0700
Re: kilogram to be redefined Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-11-04 08:51 +0100
Re: kilogram to be redefined Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-05 14:41 -0600
Re: kilogram to be redefined benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 16:33 -0500
Re: kilogram to be redefined Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-05 23:38 -0600
Re: kilogram to be redefined benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-06 17:33 -0500
csiph-web