Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #371494

Re: On length contraction

Newsgroups	sci.physics.relativity
Date	2015-12-06 08:19 -0800
References	<480b34d8-19e3-4189-a293-4cf298956389@googlegroups.com> <8KKdnZMuCL9sJv7LnZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com> <bee9151a-b5d5-466d-9d6e-2b99a8982c83@googlegroups.com>
Message-ID	<0ebae3b4-5982-4950-8d3e-ec49be8300a2@googlegroups.com> (permalink)
Subject	Re: On length contraction
From	rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On Sunday, December 6, 2015 at 9:21:54 AM UTC-5, kenseto wrote:

> So there is no material contraction....

SR never said so, nor otherwise. SR says that if you *measure* it, you will get this or that value.

> then there is no need for the bogus concept of relativity of 
> simultaneity to explain the paradoxes of SR....right?

Since there are no paradoxes [contradictions] in SR, RoS is not used to explain away the said paradoxes. 

> No it is not real....it does not affect physcal measurements. 

SR simply says that that if you *measure* it, you will get this or that value.
SR says " L = L/g". It says nothing about the very ambiguous expression "real".

> It affects the light-path length of a moving meter stick.

Another irrelevant expression. SR simply says that if you measure it you will get the value "L = Lo/g"

> But a clock will accumulate less clock seconds after a journey. 
> So that means that "time dilation" is real.

Irrelevant expressions. SR simply says that if you measure it, you will get the value "T = To/g". 

> That's because material length contraction is not real....

"because", "material length", "real" are all irrelevant words, and of which you dont understand their meanings. SR simply says that if you measure it, you will get the value "L = Lo/g".

Thread

On length contraction kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-05 07:55 -0800
  Re: On length contraction Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-12-05 18:40 +0100
  Re: On length contraction kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-05 15:49 -0800
  Re: On length contraction Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-05 22:39 -0600
    Re: On length contraction Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-12-06 10:28 +0100
    Re: On length contraction alsor@interia.pl - 2015-12-06 05:40 -0800
      Re: On length contraction Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-06 09:03 -0600
        Re: On length contraction alsor@interia.pl - 2015-12-09 02:37 -0800
      Re: On length contraction fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-12-06 08:14 -0800
        Re: On length contraction fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-12-06 08:27 -0800
          Re: On length contraction fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-12-06 10:37 -0800
    Re: On length contraction kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-06 06:21 -0800
      Re: On length contraction rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-12-06 08:19 -0800
        Stephane Baune tries to correct Ken Shito and, in the process, embarrasses himself "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-12-07 08:35 -0800
  Re: On length contraction Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-06 08:24 +0100
    Re: On length contraction Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-12-06 08:41 +0100
    Re: On length contraction kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-06 07:06 -0800
    Re: On length contraction Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-06 09:20 -0600
      Re: On length contraction Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-06 21:43 +0100
        Re: On length contraction Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-07 09:46 -0600
    Re: On length contraction Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-06 15:09 -0600
      Re: On length contraction Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-07 09:49 -0600
  Re: On length contraction rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-12-06 08:10 -0800
    Re: On length contraction Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-07 10:01 -0600
      Re: On length contraction rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-12-07 08:28 -0800
        Re: On length contraction Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-07 10:57 -0600
          Re: On length contraction mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-12-07 22:58 -0800
          Re: On length contraction Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-08 08:44 +0100
          Re: On length contraction kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-08 14:33 -0800
            Re: On length contraction Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-08 17:56 -0600
            Re: On length contraction moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-12-10 20:07 +0000
              Re: On length contraction kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-10 13:13 -0800
                Re: On length contraction Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-10 17:19 -0600
                Re: On length contraction moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-12-11 02:45 +0000
                Re: On length contraction kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-10 21:11 -0800
                Re: On length contraction rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-12-11 06:57 -0800
                Re: On length contraction kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-11 19:20 -0800
                Re: On length contraction moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-12-11 19:55 +0000
                Re: On length contraction Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-11 23:25 +0000
                Re: On length contraction kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-11 19:25 -0800
                Re: On length contraction pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-12-11 19:48 -0800
                Re: On length contraction pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-12-13 14:33 -0800
                Re: On length contraction moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-12-12 17:27 +0000
                Re: On length contraction Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-14 10:12 -0600
                Re: On length contraction kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-10 21:08 -0800
                Re: On length contraction Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-11 08:04 -0600
    Re: On length contraction kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-08 14:26 -0800
      Re: On length contraction Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-08 22:40 +0000
        Re: On length contraction kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-09 06:50 -0800
          Re: On length contraction alsor@interia.pl - 2015-12-09 09:06 -0800
      Re: On length contraction rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 09:47 -0800
        Re: On length contraction Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-09 18:11 +0000
          Re: On length contraction Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 12:32 -0600
            Re: On length contraction alsor@interia.pl - 2015-12-09 11:18 -0800
            Re: On length contraction kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-10 06:57 -0800
        Re: On length contraction kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-10 06:46 -0800
  Re: On length contraction wugi <brol@brol.be> - 2015-12-06 18:18 +0100
    Re: On length contraction Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-06 12:35 -0600
      Re: On length contraction wugi <brol@brol.be> - 2015-12-06 21:58 +0100
        Re: On length contraction wugi <brol@brol.be> - 2015-12-06 22:31 +0100
        Re: On length contraction Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-07 10:16 -0600
      Re: On length contraction John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-06 13:08 -0800
        Re: On length contraction John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-06 14:26 -0800
          Re: On length contraction John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-06 14:38 -0800
          Re: On length contraction John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-06 15:39 -0800
  Re: On length contraction Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-06 15:07 -0600
    Re: On length contraction benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-14 02:21 -0500
      Re: On length contraction Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-14 10:44 -0600
        Re: On length contraction alsor@interia.pl - 2015-12-14 08:59 -0800
        Re: On length contraction kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-14 09:05 -0800
          Re: On length contraction alsor@interia.pl - 2015-12-14 09:48 -0800
          Re: On length contraction Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-14 12:18 -0600
            Re: On length contraction kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-15 05:49 -0800
              Re: On length contraction Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-15 08:21 -0600
                Re: On length contraction mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-12-15 23:29 -0800
                Re: On length contraction kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-16 07:04 -0800
                Re: On length contraction Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 09:14 -0600

csiph-web