sci.physics
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Interstitial Bodies & Reference Frames in SR

Subject: Re: Interstitial Bodies & Reference Frames in SR
From: "Jeff Root" <jeff5@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 30 Dec 2006 20:47:38 -0800
Newsgroups: sci.physics, sci.math, sci.astro, alt.sci.physics, sci.physics.relativity
Lester, George,

I haven't yet finished writing replies to some posts in
the earlier thread from more than a week before Christmas,
but there are a couple of things I want to say right now.

First, my offer to Lester of $9,000 to show that there is
a contradiction in special relativity is still open until
the end of the year, my time.  I'm willing to extend that
deadline if you request it.  You may not have taken my
offer seriously, and the whole purpose of the offer is to
motivate you to take seriously the business of supporting
your assertions.  You have since repeated numerous times
the assertion that there is a contradiction, but have not
supported that assertion with any evidence or even an
argument.

I'm willing to extend the deadline because I didn't get
back to you when I should have, after your first reply.
If you disbelieve that I would judge your argument fairly,
we can find a neutral judge.

As George has pointed out, your objection is actually
against your own interpretation of Lorentz's aether theory
rather than against SR, so you may need the extra time to
define what it is you are trying to show.

* * * *

George Dishman replied to Lester Zick December 22, 2006:

>>> SR explains that change of length not as a physical
>>> contraction (like thermal changes) but as a rotation
>>> in the x-t plane due to the relative motion.
>>
>> I don't know what the latter means ..
>
> That is the one area that is at the root of all our
> disagreements.

One of several areas, and not the most fundamental.

But I don't consider it essential to SR that the effect
of relative motion be thought of as a "rotation".  While
that is an accurate and insightful description of what
happens, it is rarely described that way in popular books
and articles on relativity, perhaps because it is easily
misunderstood.  On the other hand, if it is described as
a rotation in "Spacetime Physics" by Taylor and Wheeler,
I will have to agree that it is the way to go, even if it
requires a bit more effort.

Is that how "Spacetime Physics" describes it?
 
  -- Jeff, in Minneapolis


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>