On Tuesday, January 14, 2025 at 5:43:43 AM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:
On Tuesday, January 14, 2025 at 12:02:11 AM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote: On Monday, January 13, 2025 at 11:54:56 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote: On 1/13/2025 10:39 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: On Monday, January 13, 2025 at 11:20:05 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote: On 1/13/2025 10:04 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: On Monday, January 13, 2025 at 10:21:28 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote: On 1/13/2025 9:02 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: Using the LT, we have the following transformations of Length, Time, and Mass, that is, x --->x', t ---> t', m ---> m', where the primed quantities are the transformed values in the primed frame, given their values in the unprimed frame. The question is this; which of the quantities in the primed frame are actually measured in the primed frame, and which are appearances in the primed frame as seen by unprimed frame? All of them. That's why it's *relativity* theory. x and t are measurements in one frame and x' and t' are measurements in another frame moving *relative* to the unprimed frame. And note the use of "measurements" not "as seen". The two are different when you consider things moving at a significant fraction of the speed of light. *But length in primed frame is contracted from the pov of unprimed frame, but in primed frame it isn't measured as contracted, so it APPEARS contracted from the pov of unprimed frame* No, it will *appear* rotated (c.f. Terrell rotation). It will *measure* contracted (using light and clocks, as with radar). Brent *Terrell rotation over my head, * It's probably within your capability to Google it. *but length contraction allegedly measured in primed frame contradicts the discussion of the paradox, where car and garage lengths aren't contracted when viewing each other. * That doesn't even parse. *Here the garage is in the primed frame but isn't actually contracted. * No object is ever contracted in it's own frame, but you haven't said which is the primed frame, thus introducing ambiguity. *So the LT seems to deal in appearances, not what's actually measured in the primed or transformed frame. AG* *I already told you that LT transforms what it measured NOT what appears. Brent* *Yes, the LT transforms what is measured, and what is transformed is called the primed frame, and as you wrote, no object is ever contracted in its own frame. So the LT doesn't give us what's measured in the primed frame, only how it appears from the pov of unprimed frame. Correct? AG* *I mean the contracted length is what the LT gives us from the pov of the unprimed frame, what the unprimed frame concludes is measured in the primed frame, x --> x', but what's actually measured in that frame is the un-contracted or rest length. From this I conclude that the LT gives us what appears from the pov of the unprimed frame, not what's actually measured measured in the prime or transformed frame. Is this not correct? AG * *As I see it, observer measuring x thinks the LT tells him that observer in primed frame will measure x', but that's not what observer in primed frame measures. He measures his length unchanged. AG * * but NOT measured in primed frame. Same with time and mass? AG * How is this consistent, if it is, with the fact that when doing EM measurements, E' and B' are the actual measurements of the fields in the primed frame, given that E and B are measured in the unprimed frame, but the same cannot be said of some, or all of the measurements of Length, Time, and Mass? TY, The same applies except the electromagnetic field is a tensor, so it transforms by tensor like a sequence of LTs. How is that not consistent? Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e58965d9-8fab-4452-bbc0-86789c190c8en%40googlegroups.com.
