On Thu, Jan 30, 2025 at 11:05 AM Alan Grayson <agrayson2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Thursday, January 30, 2025 at 7:59:32 AM UTC-7 Jesse Mazer wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 30, 2025 at 9:16 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Thursday, January 30, 2025 at 6:48:21 AM UTC-7 Jesse Mazer wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 30, 2025 at 12:51 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wednesday, January 29, 2025 at 6:52:47 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote: > > Whooo! Hoooo! > > Brent > > > Another fool who doesn't get it? Another fool who can't think out of the > box? Jesse claims that the LT preserves what it predicts for local events > AND, according to his lights, using the LT it can be shown that lengths are > EXPANDED. OTOH, it's universally predicted that lengths are CONTRACTED > under the LT. > > > No, it's universally predicted that length in a frame where an object is > *in motion* (coordinate-motion using the term I coined in my previous > comment, to distinguish from your alternate non-standard usage which I > called 'designated-motion') is contracted relative to that object's "proper > length" in the frame where the object is *at rest* (coordinate-rest), the L > in the length contraction equation is always stated to be the proper > length. So, if you use the LT to transform FROM the frame where the object > is in motion (coordinate-motion) TO the frame where the object is at rest > (coordinate-rest), treating the coordinate-motion frame as what you call > the "source frame" and the coordinate-rest frame as what you call the > "target frame" for the LT, in this case the length should be contracted in > the source frame and larger in the target frame, > > > *So, after our exhausting discussion, you still have no clue what I meant > by source and target frames.* > > > So "source frame" doesn't just mean the frame whose information we are > given to start with (i.e. given coordinates values of length/velocity etc. > for the objects we are analyzing) before applying the Lorentz transform to > predict coordinates in the "target frame", i.e. it's not just that > source=unprimed and target=primed in your description of the LT as giving > us x-->x' and t-->t'? If that's not what you meant by "source" and > "target", fine, but that's just a linguistic matter, you can delete all > references to "source frame" and "target frame" in my comment above and > change it to "starting frame" and "predicted frame" or whatever terminology > you want to use for this; it changes nothing about the substantive point I > was making. > > > * I never said anything about a LT from a frame where the object is in > motion. I alway stated I was transforming FROM a rest frame to a moving > frame.* > > > But you made a big deal of the fact that a ruler isn't measured as > contracted in its own frame (and a clock isn't measured as running slow in > its own frame), claiming this shows a divergence between what is PREDICTED > by the LT and what is MEASURED. If you aren't actually using the LT to make > PREDICTIONS about what should be true in the ruler's own frame (the frame > where the ruler is in a state of coordinate-rest), i.e. using the ruler's > frame as what I called the 'predicted frame', then how can this example be > used to show a divergence between LT predictions vs. measurements? > > So you have no response to my comment above? If not, I can only conclude that your earlier emphasis on the point about what was measured in the ruler's own frame was completely incoherent since you don't actually want to use the LT to predict anything about the ruler's own frame. > > > * Is there any textbook which makes your claim? I've never seen it, or > heard about it, or hinted about it, and for this reason I ignored your > mathematics. AG* > > > I don't know that any textbook would go to the trouble of saying something > like "the length of an object may be larger in the primed frame than the > unprimed frame when you use the Lorentz transform to go from unprimed to > primed", but I promise you that no textbook will say anything like > "applying the Lorentz transformation to go from unprimed to primed always > results in the length of any object being shorter in the primed frame than > the unprimed frame". The only real reason to say something like the former > would be to dispel a misconception like the latter, but I doubt this is a > common misconception, I've talked to plenty of people who are confused > about relativity on various forums over the years and never come across > this idea of yours. > > If I looked around a bit I could probably find numerical examples in > textbooks where just looking at the coordinates they give for some object > in the unprimed vs. primed frame (or whatever notation they use to > distinguish coordinates in the 'starting frame' from the 'predicted > frame'), you could verify that the object was longer in the primed than it > was in the unprimed. > > And no response to this? Are you secretly afraid that I would actually be able to find textbook examples like this where the length of some object is greater in the primed frame than the unprimed frame? > > *Since the primed frame is the moving frame, if that were true, then SR > wouldn't predict length contraction! AG* > Here you seem to be using your particular terminology of "moving" which I have called "designated-moving" (where you just designate one frame as 'the rest frame' and the other as 'the moving frame' and refer to them that way throughout the problem) which is distinct from the more standard comparative terminology which I called "coordinate-moving" (for example, to make the comparative statement 'the rod is moving wrt the Earth frame' would mean that in terms of the coordinates used by the Earth frame, the rod's position coordinate changes with coordinate time, and we could also make the symmetrical comparative statement that 'the Earth is moving wrt the rod frame'). Did you read my earlier post where I spelled out the difference, and also pointed to statements of yours that would make no sense if interpreted in terms of coordinate-moving? As I said above, the Lorentz contraction equation is comparing proper length L in the frame where the object is at coordinate-rest and giving the contracted length in the frame where the object is in coordinate-motion; which frame you DESIGNATE as "at rest" or "moving" is irrelevant. In particular, note that it is perfectly possible to have a scenario where the frame where an object is at coordinate-rest is the one we DESIGNATE as "the moving frame" (designated-moving), since these designations are completely arbitrary, like designating one frame as "Fred" and the other as "Barney". These designations should have no effect on any of our physical conclusions about the two frames, or on how we do our calculations (for example, there is no obligation to use the LT to go FROM the designated-rest frame and TO the designated-moving frame, you can just as easily go FROM the designated-moving frame and TO the designated-rest frame). There's nothing wrong per se with designating one frame as "the rest frame" and the other as "the moving frame" as a matter of linguistic convenience (Einstein did this at one point in his very first SR paper, though I think it's much less common with physicists nowadays), but if you think this merely verbal designation can have any effect whatsoever on actual predictions about physical quantities like length in one frame vs. another, or on the calculations to generate those predictions, it's obvious you have become totally confused by your own terminology. Jesse -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAPCWU3JjSs4CVxUpasLhiP0S1nQHb2EZhjbgMUSksXdW11o0GQ%40mail.gmail.com.
