Uncle Ben
2009-06-16 16:43:33 UTC
Earlier today, I tried to help poor Androcles (John Parker)understand
how Einstein in 1905 deduced from his new Special Relativity the same
namely that moving objects are shorter than the same objects at rest
because of their motion. We call it the Lorentz-Fitzgerald
Contraction, or often just the "Lorentz Contraction."
Androcles has vacillated on the subject, or so it seems to me from his
various postings. In the most recent version, he has merely claimed
that Lorentz and Einstein derived different formulas, one of which
turns out to be an expansion, not a contraction at all. Androcles
called one "idiotic" and the other "lunatic."
But earlier, I remember clearly that he calculated in SR the length of
a 10 meter pole (10 m when at rest) when it was moving at 0.866 c and
he found it to be 20 meters. He emphasized that it would then not fit
into the farmer's 10 M long barn.
He commented, "Why do the [bleeping] lunatics call it the Lorentz
Contraction?"
It is not difficult at all for an afficianado of SR to show that this
conclusion does not, in fact, follow from the principes of SR.
I will demonstrate.
----------------------------------
The pole is L long when at rest. When moving, is it greater or less
than L?
"If we place x'=x-vt, it is clear that a point at rest in the system k musthow Einstein in 1905 deduced from his new Special Relativity the same
namely that moving objects are shorter than the same objects at rest
because of their motion. We call it the Lorentz-Fitzgerald
Contraction, or often just the "Lorentz Contraction."
Androcles has vacillated on the subject, or so it seems to me from his
various postings. In the most recent version, he has merely claimed
that Lorentz and Einstein derived different formulas, one of which
turns out to be an expansion, not a contraction at all. Androcles
called one "idiotic" and the other "lunatic."
But earlier, I remember clearly that he calculated in SR the length of
a 10 meter pole (10 m when at rest) when it was moving at 0.866 c and
he found it to be 20 meters. He emphasized that it would then not fit
into the farmer's 10 M long barn.
He commented, "Why do the [bleeping] lunatics call it the Lorentz
Contraction?"
It is not difficult at all for an afficianado of SR to show that this
conclusion does not, in fact, follow from the principes of SR.
I will demonstrate.
----------------------------------
The pole is L long when at rest. When moving, is it greater or less
than L?
have a system of values x', y, z, independent of time. " -- Einstein.
It is clear that L = x when v = 0.
Loading Image...
Thus we have a function g(x) = x-vt = L, the length of the rail wagon, which
remains the same tomorrow as it is today. It is "independent of time",
and even though we'd be fucking stupid to imagine it would change
from day to day or hour to hour, Lord Saint Rabbi Einstein the Holy
One states that L is independent of time. He even says "it is clear".
If t = 0, does this agree with the function g()?
Yes it does.
It is clear L = x-v*0 = x
What if v = 0 and time marches on?
It is clear L = x-0*t = x
So Bonehead is right, the pole is L long when at rest.
But Lord Saint Rabbi Einstein the Holy One says x' = x-vt, so it is
clear x' = L
It is clear we have a transform from the track to the wagon,
L = x' = x-vt and the length of the wagon increases as x
increases when the wagon is at rest. It is clear if you have a
longer wagon you need a longer track to put it on.
It is clear once the wagon moves, its length L = x' ceases to change
with x, it is independent of time. It is clear x can be (and is) anywhere
the wagon has moved to but should the wagon ever come to rest
it must immediately stretch itself backwards to the origin of K
so that L = x' = x.
So we are done with the physics, but let's continue with the
Lord Saint Rabbi Einstein the Holy One's confidence trick that
has the incompetent imbecile Bonehead, Doctor of Phrenology,
stupified.
It is clear the Lord Saint Rabbi Einstein the Holy One wishes to
introduce a second function, f(x) = x / sqrt( 1 - u^2/c^2) composed
with the first, and a transform from the k-frame to the kappa-frame
(the Lord Saint Rabbi Einstein the Holy One likes Greek letters, and
Roman 'k' looks a lot like the Greek 'kappa', so it is a good choice
to confuse the idiots like Bonehead).
Thus it is clear f(g(x)) = L' = (x-vt) / sqrt(1- u^2/c^2) where L'
is the changed length of the wagon when it is not at rest.
Loading Image...
It is clear we've dealt with the value of v, the speed of the k-frame w.r.t.
the K-frame. Now all we need to know is the value of u, the speed of the
kappa-frame w.r.t the k-frame.
How fast does the ghost wagon move with respect to the real wagon?
It is clear Bonehead is an incompetent fuckwit, duped by the showman
Einstein.
"Two things are infinite; the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not
sure about the universe." -- Prankster Einstein.
He's talking about you, Bonehead.
"You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people
all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time." --
An American that wasn't a Redneck.
You belong to the group "some of the people all of the time", you are
fucking stooopid.
Now FUCK OFF.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
How anyone come up with such a story and believe it to relevant to
relativity is dumbfounding!
If I didn't already know that you are an arrogant fool, I would
understand it now on the basis of your idiotic post.
Best wishes,
Uncle Bonehead, whose head bone is still doing its job of supporting
his hat.