From: helbig@asclothestro.multivax.de
In article <6e40df1c-9f0c-4ad3-a3c0-cf98c3ade13d@googlegroups.com>,
Nicolaas Vroom writes:
> On Sunday, 24 September 2017 22:56:52 UTC+2, Phillip Helbig (undress to
reply)
> wrote:
> > > The LHC experiment tries to contradict SR in the sense that SR predicts
> > > length contraction. The issue is what exactly is meant with length
> > > contraction. Is it physical (like heat increases and cold decreases)
> > > yes or no.
> > > If it is physical than the LHC experiment should demonstrate this.
>
> What I meant with this sentence is when length contraction is physical, then
> the space between the first and last train should increase and it should be
> physical possible to place more trains on the track.
What is wrong with this: When length contraction is physical, then the
spaces, being lengths, should decrease, so the space between the first
and last train should decrease?
> > It is obviously not physical.
>
> Does that mean that the space between the first and last train does not
> increase?
Think of it this way: Instead of trains, have pins marking the front and
back of the trains, but not the trains themselves. This defines a
length. Does it decrease? Does it matter if it is the distance between
the front and back of one train or between the back of one and the front
of another?
It is obviously not physical in any meaningful sense, as it depends
solely on relative motion. Different observers will see different
amounts. Since it is not physical, it affects spaces between objects
just as much as the objects themselves.
> > Instead of the trains running around the
> > track, we could have two observers circling around the track---at
> > different speeds. What they will observe will be different.
> That means the train are at rest?
Relative to the track, yes.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
