A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Some troubling assumptions of SR



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old February 10th 07, 11:57 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
Lester Zick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 735
Default Some troubling assumptions of SR

On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 18:42:40 GMT, Sam Wormley
wrote:

Lester Zick wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 15:58:59 GMT, Sam Wormley
wrote:

wrote:
On Feb 10, 8:42 am, Lester Zick wrote:
On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 00:05:08 +0000, Phineas T Puddleduck

wrote:
In article ,
Lester Zick wrote:
Yes it was much too long for me mainly because you don't know what
you're talking about.But that's okay because you're British and aren't
expected to know what you're talking about before you talk about it.
Ho ho.
Ok for now you escaped my killfile as your lunacy was funny. Now the shtick is
just old and boring, plonk.
Come, come, Phin. Are you British too or am I just no longer as funny
as used to be? Bit of a thin skin, what? Certainly my Nielsen ratings
must still be higher than DvdM's who can be amusing at times except
when he's wrong which in the case of SR seems to be pretty much all
the time. I mean do you read my posts for content or just the cartoons
as you would the New Yorker?

Extraneous mockery and rhetorical hyperbolic irony are certainly
perfectly acceptable forensic modalities when opponents refuse to
explain themselves which empirics are wont to do because they aren't
expected to know what they're talking about but nonetheless expect
others to know what they're talking about.

How about if I promise never ever to do it again? Of course it
wouldn't be so funny but I mean if these empirics would just
condescend to proffer reasons for their disagreements instead of
egregiously andecdotal disparagements at least I would have something
humorless to work with instead.

Alas I fear noncewise the most I can offer is that in your absence I
shall miss your pithy critiques of my humorous efforts. So in the
interegnum pith on you.

~v~~
A great enrager of Srians are mild questions about the energy
(kinetic) which vanishes
or miraculously appears depending on which "frame" they chose to place
the particle(s) in.
...........mostly in the form of the pathetic wail "You just don't
UNDERSTAND SR!!!!!!!!!!
Especially bring it into arguement regarding "velocities don't add"; I
love it when they totally disregard conservation of energy.

Jim G
c'=c+v

At one time, Jim, I thought you had come to sci.physics to learn
physics concepts. Why do you post here?


Maybe to learn to spell instead. Certainly can't learn any physics
here.


Not you Lester... The question is for Jim.


Well, Sam, I figger since so many questions regarding SR have gone
begging on these rather meager forums I'd put in my two cents worth.

~v~~
  #22  
Old February 10th 07, 11:58 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.physics.relativity
Lester Zick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 735
Default Some troubling assumptions of SR

On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 20:52:38 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Lester Zick" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 12:05:22 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:

...
The same is true in Newtonian physics, the kinetic
energy of an object is zero in its rest frame
and the value diffes from frame to frame regardless
of what theory you use.


Nonsense, George. There is only one frame of reference in Newtonian
physics, ...


You really need to find out what a frame is, Lester.


I may not know what a frame is, George, but I certainly recognize a
frame up when I see it.

~v~~
  #23  
Old February 11th 07, 12:07 AM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.physics.relativity,sci.math,comp.ai.philosophy
Lester Zick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 735
Default Some troubling assumptions of SR

On 10 Feb 2007 11:15:36 -0800, (Daryl
McCullough) wrote:

Lester Zick says...
"George Dishman" wrote:


The same is true in Newtonian physics, the kinetic
energy of an object is zero in its rest frame
and the value diffes from frame to frame regardless
of what theory you use.


Nonsense, George. There is only one frame of reference in Newtonian
physics, a universal isometric Euclidean-Galilean-Cartesian-Newtonian
frame of reference whose origin can change but whose metric properties
remain constant unlike second order velocitiy dependent anisometric
properties of reference frames in SR.


What in the world are you talking about, Lester? Newtonian physics
certainly has a notion of different frames of reference. That's what
the Galilean transformations are about:

x' = x - vt

Velocity, momentum, kinetic energy are all frame-dependent quantities
in Newtonian physics. The Newtonian notion of "frame of reference" is
pretty much the same as in Special Relativity.


Of course it is. That's exactly why Newtonian frames of reference are
isometric and SR frames of reference are anisometric. Because they're
pretty much the same except for the fact that they're not.

I usually prefer not
to mention frames of reference, and just talk about coordinate systems,
but as it is usually used, a frame of reference is a standard for which
objects are "at rest" and which are not.


Sure it is. That's exactly why anisotropic frames of reference are
second order velocity dependent in SR and isotropic in Euclidean-
Galilean-Cartesian-Newtonian frames of reference.

It's sometimes called a "rest
frame" for that reason. A frame of reference usually also provides a
standard for measuring the distances between events (whether or not
they take place at the same time). It's not exactly the same thing
as a coordinate system, however, because a frame of reference doesn't
specify what is the origin, or what the coordinate axes are.


Nor apparently does it specify the second order velocity dependence
peculiar to anisometric frames of reference in SR where measuring
distances requires a variable metric to accommodate the null results
of relative motion experiments such MM according to FLT.

~v~~
  #24  
Old February 11th 07, 02:20 AM posted to sci.astro
Jeff Root
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 242
Default Some troubling assumptions of SR


Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

If you don't understand the definition of energy, surely
you can't possibly understand conservation of energy.


Dirk,

Can you provide a definition of energy? When I have
replied to the question "What is energy?" asked by others,
I have said that energy is something one learns about
through experience. Since energy is part of everything
that happens, people naturally acquire a great deal of
experience with it.

But still we need to define the term in some way so that
we know we're talking about the same thing when we use the
term. The standard description of energy that I quote when
I answer the question is that "Energy is the ability to do
work". (I'll go on to describe what work is, if need be.)
But that description seems to fall short of a definition.
Granted, all definitions one can find in a dictionary are
ultimately circular, because in reality all understanding
is based on experience. But is it possible to do better?
Can you define "energy"?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

  #25  
Old February 11th 07, 02:02 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.physics.relativity
George Dishman[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,509
Default Some troubling assumptions of SR


"Lester Zick" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 20:52:38 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Lester Zick" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 12:05:22 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:

...
The same is true in Newtonian physics, the kinetic
energy of an object is zero in its rest frame
and the value diffes from frame to frame regardless
of what theory you use.

Nonsense, George. There is only one frame of reference in Newtonian
physics, ...


You really need to find out what a frame is, Lester.


I may not know what a frame is, ..


Perhaps. First I should apologise for my terse response but
when you say "Nonsense" to something that is perfectly true,
it isn't helping Jim to learn these basics.

Consider two objects A and B moving apart with no forces
acting on either. That is they are moving under their own
inertia.

- A B -

As Daryl said, frames are subtly distinct from coordinate
systems but we can make an arbitrary choice of using
rectilinear coordinates with the object at the origin
(rather than say polar) and use that as an example.

Suppose we measure distances from A. We could set up a
grid of lines 1m apart with A at the origin:

-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

| | | | | | | |
2 -+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+-
| | | | | | | |
1 -+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+-
| | | | | | | |
0 -+--A--+--+--+--B--+--+-
| | | | | | | |
-1 -+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+-
| | | | | | | |


You can define the location of B using those coordinates
and then taking the time derivative of those gives you
the velocity of B "in the rest frame of A". Call that V.

You can do the same the other way round, fix the origin
as object B:

-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2

| | | | | | | |
2 -+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+-
| | | | | | | |
1 -+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+-
| | | | | | | |
0 -+--A--+--+--+--B--+--+-
| | | | | | | |
-1 -+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+-
| | | | | | | |

Now B's velocity is obviously zero by definition and we
expect the velocity of A to be -V in the frame of B. That
is true in both classical theory and SR.

Going back to some comments in earlier threads, note that
both frames extend to infinity in all directions hence
overlap everywhere, and the origin of B's frame is moving
at velocity V in A's coordinates.

Notice that I have chosen to defined both grids as being
equally spaced with 1m separation. Of course we are really
talking about measurements using the metre as a basic unit
but either way, distances in the x and y directions are
using equal units so the frames are "isometric" as I think
you are using the term. Again, that is true in both
classical theory and SR.

Where the theories differ is the equations used to work
out the coordinates of an object, or more accurately an
event, in one frame given the coordinates of the same event
in the other frame. That's where the Galilean and Lorentz
transforms come in.

George


  #26  
Old February 11th 07, 05:58 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.physics.relativity,sci.math,comp.ai.philosophy
Lester Zick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 735
Default Some troubling assumptions of SR

On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 13:02:55 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Lester Zick" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 20:52:38 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Lester Zick" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 12:05:22 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:
...
The same is true in Newtonian physics, the kinetic
energy of an object is zero in its rest frame
and the value diffes from frame to frame regardless
of what theory you use.

Nonsense, George. There is only one frame of reference in Newtonian
physics, ...

You really need to find out what a frame is, Lester.


I may not know what a frame is, ..


Perhaps. First I should apologise for my terse response but
when you say "Nonsense" to something that is perfectly true,
it isn't helping Jim to learn these basics.

Consider two objects A and B moving apart with no forces
acting on either. That is they are moving under their own
inertia.

- A B -

As Daryl said, frames are subtly distinct from coordinate
systems but we can make an arbitrary choice of using
rectilinear coordinates with the object at the origin
(rather than say polar) and use that as an example.

Suppose we measure distances from A. We could set up a
grid of lines 1m apart with A at the origin:

-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

| | | | | | | |
2 -+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+-
| | | | | | | |
1 -+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+-
| | | | | | | |
0 -+--A--+--+--+--B--+--+-
| | | | | | | |
-1 -+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+-
| | | | | | | |


You can define the location of B using those coordinates
and then taking the time derivative of those gives you
the velocity of B "in the rest frame of A". Call that V.

You can do the same the other way round, fix the origin
as object B:

-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2

| | | | | | | |
2 -+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+-
| | | | | | | |
1 -+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+-
| | | | | | | |
0 -+--A--+--+--+--B--+--+-
| | | | | | | |
-1 -+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+-
| | | | | | | |

Now B's velocity is obviously zero by definition and we
expect the velocity of A to be -V in the frame of B. That
is true in both classical theory and SR.

Going back to some comments in earlier threads, note that
both frames extend to infinity in all directions hence
overlap everywhere, and the origin of B's frame is moving
at velocity V in A's coordinates.

Notice that I have chosen to defined both grids as being
equally spaced with 1m separation. Of course we are really
talking about measurements using the metre as a basic unit
but either way, distances in the x and y directions are
using equal units so the frames are "isometric" as I think
you are using the term. Again, that is true in both
classical theory and SR.

Where the theories differ is the equations used to work
out the coordinates of an object, or more accurately an
event, in one frame given the coordinates of the same event
in the other frame. That's where the Galilean and Lorentz
transforms come in.


George, what makes you think you can lay out an isometric coordinate
system and then just say the equations used to work with coordinates
are different in different systems when the very basis of equations is
the metric system used and the whole point of anisometry in SR is that
coordinate systems or spatial metrics are velocity dependent and not
isometric or MM should work?

All you've shown is a Euclidean-Galilean-Cartesian-Newtonian frame of
reference for both A and B that applies isometrically throughout space
and I agree.What you haven't shown however is Einstein's SR anisometry
which describes the variable spatial metric needed to make a constant
relative isotropic c both for A and B when their velocities differ.

And if A and B traverse space at different v's and light for both A
and B is assumed to traverse space independently of A and B then those
velocity dependent second order anisometric spatial metrics in SR
conflict. There simply is no way around it that I can see. And if I
say it rather abruptly I apologize but we've been over and over the
point and you just refuse to take it. So if Jim or whoever asked the
question is going to learn what's right instead of what's wrong he
might just as well start right here.

~v~~
  #27  
Old February 11th 07, 07:43 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.physics.relativity,sci.math,comp.ai.philosophy
Daryl McCullough
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 196
Default Some troubling assumptions of SR

Lester Zick says...
(Daryl McCullough) wrote:

Nonsense, George. There is only one frame of reference in Newtonian
physics, a universal isometric Euclidean-Galilean-Cartesian-Newtonian
frame of reference whose origin can change but whose metric properties
remain constant unlike second order velocitiy dependent anisometric
properties of reference frames in SR.


No, there are infinitely many frames of reference in Newtonian physics.

What in the world are you talking about, Lester? Newtonian physics
certainly has a notion of different frames of reference. That's what
the Galilean transformations are about:

x' = x - vt

Velocity, momentum, kinetic energy are all frame-dependent quantities
in Newtonian physics. The Newtonian notion of "frame of reference" is
pretty much the same as in Special Relativity.


Of course it is. That's exactly why Newtonian frames of reference are
isometric and SR frames of reference are anisometric.


You don't know what you are talking about, Lester. In both Newtonian
physics and SR, a frame of reference is a particular way of choosing
a 3D spatial slice for each moment of time. Those 3D slices are
isotropic in both Newtonian frames of reference and SR frames of
reference. I have no idea what you mean by "isometric" and "anisometric".

You seem very confused.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

  #28  
Old February 12th 07, 12:41 AM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.physics.relativity,sci.math,comp.ai.philosophy
Lester Zick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 735
Default Some troubling assumptions of SR

On 11 Feb 2007 10:43:54 -0800, (Daryl
McCullough) wrote:

Lester Zick says...
(Daryl McCullough) wrote:

Nonsense, George. There is only one frame of reference in Newtonian
physics, a universal isometric Euclidean-Galilean-Cartesian-Newtonian
frame of reference whose origin can change but whose metric properties
remain constant unlike second order velocitiy dependent anisometric
properties of reference frames in SR.


No, there are infinitely many frames of reference in Newtonian physics.


Well, Daryl, perhaps I should have said there is only one uniform
metric instead since the Euclidean-Galilean-Cartesian-Newtonian
reference frame is universally isometric and is not a dependent
variable of velocity, gravitation, or anything else. In other words it
is not anisometric and isometry the only form of non anisometry.

What in the world are you talking about, Lester? Newtonian physics
certainly has a notion of different frames of reference. That's what
the Galilean transformations are about:

x' = x - vt

Velocity, momentum, kinetic energy are all frame-dependent quantities
in Newtonian physics. The Newtonian notion of "frame of reference" is
pretty much the same as in Special Relativity.


Of course it is. That's exactly why Newtonian frames of reference are
isometric and SR frames of reference are anisometric.


You don't know what you are talking about, Lester.


Good. I'm glad we've cleared that up. Of course technically the more
precise way of phrasing the comment would be that I don't know what
you're talking about.

In both Newtonian
physics and SR, a frame of reference is a particular way of choosing
a 3D spatial slice for each moment of time. Those 3D slices are
isotropic in both Newtonian frames of reference and SR frames of
reference. I have no idea what you mean by "isometric" and "anisometric".


Just what the words say. Einstein's postulate of an isotropically
constant relative c requires a variably dependent spatial geometry.
There is no special mystery about this. It's in the source document.
In order to comply with FLT and his postulate of an isotropically
constant relative c, spatial geometry in the direction of v must be
contracted by a second order function of v.

In other words FLT specifies that the bidirectional relative velocity
of light MM was designed to detect was c(1-vv/cc) in the direction of
motion for an experimental platform and by the square root of that
amount transverse to the direction of motion and that for a postulate
of constant relative c to be realized there had to be an anisometric
spatial contraction in the direction of motion equal to their ratio.

That's why a frame of reference is what it is in SR. A reference frame
in SR is a lot more than just a 3D geometric spatial snapshot. It has
to provide a second order velocity dependent anisometry must exist and
be present or his own postulate of a constant relative c could not be
true and MM would have to yield positive results. The "anisometry" is
just the second order velocity dependent spatial geometry needed to
preclude such positive results.And it is peculiar to each and every v.

The difficulty comes when different velocity dependent anisometries
overlap common areas of space and light has to travel through them
independent of experimental platforms. Then no uniform contraction
factor can apply to those overlapping regions and we must conclude
under specific conditions MM can yield positive results and Einstein's
postulate of isotropically constant relative c cannot be true for all
frames of reference in SR.

You seem very confused.


Perhaps, just not as confused as yourself, Daryl.

~v~~
  #29  
Old February 12th 07, 01:30 AM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.physics.relativity,sci.math,comp.ai.philosophy
George Dishman[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,509
Default Some troubling assumptions of SR


"Lester Zick" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 13:02:55 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Lester Zick" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 20:52:38 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Lester Zick" wrote in message
m...
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 12:05:22 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:
...
The same is true in Newtonian physics, the kinetic
energy of an object is zero in its rest frame
and the value diffes from frame to frame regardless
of what theory you use.

Nonsense, George. There is only one frame of reference in Newtonian
physics, ...

You really need to find out what a frame is, Lester.

I may not know what a frame is, ..


Perhaps. First I should apologise for my terse response but
when you say "Nonsense" to something that is perfectly true,
it isn't helping Jim to learn these basics.

Consider two objects A and B moving apart with no forces
acting on either. That is they are moving under their own
inertia.

- A B -

As Daryl said, frames are subtly distinct from coordinate
systems but we can make an arbitrary choice of using
rectilinear coordinates with the object at the origin
(rather than say polar) and use that as an example.

Suppose we measure distances from A. We could set up a
grid of lines 1m apart with A at the origin:

-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

| | | | | | | |
2 -+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+-
| | | | | | | |
1 -+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+-
| | | | | | | |
0 -+--A--+--+--+--B--+--+-
| | | | | | | |
-1 -+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+-
| | | | | | | |


You can define the location of B using those coordinates
and then taking the time derivative of those gives you
the velocity of B "in the rest frame of A". Call that V.

You can do the same the other way round, fix the origin
as object B:

-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2

| | | | | | | |
2 -+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+-
| | | | | | | |
1 -+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+-
| | | | | | | |
0 -+--A--+--+--+--B--+--+-
| | | | | | | |
-1 -+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+-
| | | | | | | |

Now B's velocity is obviously zero by definition and we
expect the velocity of A to be -V in the frame of B. That
is true in both classical theory and SR.

Going back to some comments in earlier threads, note that
both frames extend to infinity in all directions hence
overlap everywhere, and the origin of B's frame is moving
at velocity V in A's coordinates.

Notice that I have chosen to defined both grids as being
equally spaced with 1m separation. Of course we are really
talking about measurements using the metre as a basic unit
but either way, distances in the x and y directions are
using equal units so the frames are "isometric" as I think
you are using the term. Again, that is true in both
classical theory and SR.

Where the theories differ is the equations used to work
out the coordinates of an object, or more accurately an
event, in one frame given the coordinates of the same event
in the other frame. That's where the Galilean and Lorentz
transforms come in.


George, what makes you think you can lay out an isometric coordinate
system and then just say the equations used to work with coordinates
are different in different systems ..


I can say it because those are the facts Lester, you
seem to have some unusual misconceptions about SR.

.. when the very basis of equations is
the metric system used and the whole point of anisometry in SR is that
coordinate systems or spatial metrics are velocity dependent and not
isometric or MM should work?


The MMx does work lester. It is not the coordinate systems
themselves that change but the relationships between them.

Take two points P and Q a distance D apart both at rest in
frame "A". Let a photon move from P to Q in time t=D/c. Now
translate the event coordinates of emission at P and
reception at Q into frame "B" and calculate the speed. If
you use the Galilean Transforms, the answer is c-V but if
you use the Lorentz Transforms the answer is c.

If you lay out an MMx in the "A" frame with a null result
and then transform the coordinates of the events to the
"B" frame using the Lorentz Transforms, you will find the
result is also a null, just as is found in real life.

All you've shown is a Euclidean-Galilean-Cartesian-Newtonian frame of
reference for both A and B that applies isometrically throughout space
and I agree.


1) The spatial part is Euclidean.

2) I choose Cartesian for simplicity but I could equally
well have used Polar coordinates, and as Daryl says the
coordinate system is not fundamental to the definition
anyway.

3) It is not specified whether it is Galilean or Lorentzian,
the frames are the same in both. If you translate between
the frame using the Galilean Transforms, you get the
Newtonian view and if you translate with the Lorentz
Transforms you get SR.

What you haven't shown however is Einstein's SR anisometry


That's because there is no "anisometry" in SR, that is your
misconception. Try the test I suggested above, work out the
event coordinates of an MMX and apply the Lorentz Transforms
and you will find it works just fine.

which describes the variable spatial metric needed to make a constant
relative isotropic c both for A and B when their velocities differ.

And if A and B traverse space at different v's and light for both A
and B is assumed to traverse space independently of A and B then those
velocity dependent second order anisometric spatial metrics in SR
conflict. There simply is no way around it that I can see. And if I
say it rather abruptly I apologize but we've been over and over the
point and you just refuse to take it.


I too will be blunt then, the reason nobody is taking your
point is because your understanding of SR is flawed and the
point is simply wrong. Frames in SR are exactly the same as
those in Newtonian physics, it is the Transforms that convert
event coordinates between frames that differ.

So if Jim or whoever asked the
question is going to learn what's right instead of what's wrong he
might just as well start right here.


Indeed, he can learn that your statement:

Nonsense, George. There is only one frame of reference in Newtonian
physics, ...


was wrong. You can now see that we have laid out two different
frames regardless of whether we are discussing Newtonian physics
or SR. At least that is one point that has been cleared up.

George


  #30  
Old February 12th 07, 04:07 AM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.physics.relativity,sci.math,comp.ai.philosophy
Daryl McCullough
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 196
Default Some troubling assumptions of SR

Lester Zick says...

Einstein's postulate of an isotropically
constant relative c requires a variably dependent spatial geometry.


No, it doesn't.

There is no special mystery about this. It's in the source document.
In order to comply with FLT and his postulate of an isotropically
constant relative c, spatial geometry in the direction of v must be
contracted by a second order function of v.


You are confused. Time dilation and length contraction are
effects involving transformations between two different
inertial coordinate systems. Look at the analogous transformation
in Euclidean coordinates. You have one coordinate system with
coordinates x and y. In another coordinate system rotated relative
to the first, the coordinates are x' and y' related to x and y
through

x' = x cos(theta) + y sin(theta)
y' = y cos(theta) - x sin(theta)

To see the analogy with the Lorentz transformations more clearly,
let's introduce a parameter m = tan(theta). This is the "slope"
of the x' axis measured relative to the x axis. In terms of m,
we have

x' = 1/square-root(1+m^2) (x + m y)
y' = 1/square-root(1+m^2) (y - m x)

Would you say that in the rotated coordinate system,
that the x' axis is "contracted" by an amount related
to the slope m? No, not at all. Rotating a coordinate
system by a slope m doesn't cause it to contract any
more than moving it at speed v does in Special Relativity.

You seem very confused.


Perhaps, just not as confused as yourself, Daryl.


I'm confused about a good many things, but Special
Relativity is not one of them. On this particular
subject, you don't know what you are talking about
and I do. I'm sure there is a topic where you know
what you are talking about, but physics apparently
is not one of them.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
plate tectonics is based on what assumptions? don findlay Astronomy Misc 0 September 11th 06 12:59 AM
plate tectonics is based on what assumptions? don findlay Astronomy Misc 0 September 9th 06 04:18 AM
Some Troubling Assumptions of SRT brian a m stuckless Policy 5 November 29th 05 04:15 PM
Some Troubling Assumptions of SRT brian a m stuckless Astronomy Misc 5 November 29th 05 04:15 PM
Incorrect assumptions about the speed of light Arobinson319 Amateur Astronomy 16 September 29th 03 05:04 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.