Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!usenet.goja.nl.eu.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Experiments Refute Einstein's 1905 Second Postulate
Date: Sat, 11 May 2024 08:19:51 +0200
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <la8h06F5ss1U5@mid.individual.net>
References: <b7af7f90-844f-4658-92be-acf893aa9e4c@googlegroups.com>
 <2469793e-954b-463a-8bf7-5604e4940c3en@googlegroups.com>
 <175decba26b15a5e$98$1290337$45d3cfde@news.newsgroupdirect.com>
 <c74b2ec4-d4bd-4eec-ac41-512e334ffbdan@googlegroups.com>
 <ad3c51f4-bfd2-475d-9216-8931176504a5n@googlegroups.com>
 <73aa6219-6801-438d-bcb5-9203f4c362f2n@googlegroups.com>
 <wCWdnZFoT4Uy-sP5nZ2dnZfqlJ9j4p2d@giganews.com>
 <d912688c-9f7a-457d-8d97-c7822f76e4ecn@googlegroups.com>
 <vpidnew4a74_I_r5nZ2dnZfqlJxh4p2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net hEHN04j/5aH4vx87ZCoukAwOko46Es/KdCqiR2QmkAGqRTozPt
Cancel-Lock: sha1:WFWllWyNvIFbzayP0k2yTGkDV8U= sha256:fWngrTnDjFKclCgdY8yyP4bRUwXJ7WsSTbLTZbU3Tb4=
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: de-DE
In-Reply-To: <vpidnew4a74_I_r5nZ2dnZfqlJxh4p2d@giganews.com>
Bytes: 2352

Am Freitag000019, 19.05.2023 um 20:23 schrieb Tom Roberts:
> On 5/12/23 1:27 PM, Tom Capizzi wrote:
>> You "experts" can't even agree on whether length contraction is 
>> physical or not.
> 
> The problem is that "physical" is not well defined -- what do YOU mean
> by that word (be specific)?
> 
> Consider a rod of length L at rest in inertial frame S, aligned along
> the x axis. An inertial frame S' moving relative to S with speed v along
> the x axis will measure its length to be L*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). That
> is what is meant by "length contraction" [#].
> 
> It OUGHT to be obvious that measurements by moving observers cannot
> possibly affect the rod itself. So in that sense, "length contraction"
> is not "physical" -- the rod is not affected [#].

Well, yes.

But actually the measurements of a remote observer, passing by at 
significant velocity, is irrelevant (at least for the rod).

So, it's all BS we're talking about?


....

TH