I am very surprised by the total ignorance of many physicists (and even
more cranks) on this notion.

I take advantage of my immense genius, my extraordinary intellectual
abilities, and my great didactic sense, to repeat two things:

FIRST: in the frame of reference of the object studied, and on its own
length, nothing happens at all.
It is only the observer placed "elsewhere" who will perceive variations in length, a bit like the variations of a Doppler effect.
Note that it is not so much the object that appears smaller (or larger, breathe, breathe) but the observed frame of reference itself, that is to
say space itself.

SECOND: physicists have gotten into the habit of publishing erroneous, and often arrogant, publications which stupidly state that relativity predicts
a contraction of length, and a dilation of time. However, this is not AT
ALL what the Poincaré-Lorentz transformations predict. They predict an elasticity of times and lengths, which seems very different to me from a
simple l'=l.sqrt(1-v²/c²) or a simple t'=t/sqrt(1-v²/c² ) which are
only true for an observer watching an object pass transversely.

For lengths the real equation is that of relativistic elasticity, and it
is of the type:
l'=l.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)/(1+cosµ.Vo/c)
The same equation also exists (because it is the same thing) for lengths
and spatial distances.
D'=D.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)/(1+cosµ.Vo/c)

Thank you for your attention.

Doctor Richard Hachel.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Quote: “very different to me from a simple l′ = l × sqrt( 1 – v²/c²)”

rewrite: L′ = L × sqrt( 1 – v²/c² )

sqrt( 1 – v²/c² ) = 1 / gamma

rewrite: L′ = L / gamma

Let v / c = 3 /4

gamma approx = 1.5

rewrite: L′ = 2 / 3 of L

Let stationary L be 10 meters. EDoMB-Section §4 writes no equation. Instead, Section §4 says: “appears shorter.” When stationary L = 10 meters moves at speed, becoming L′, then L′ appears shorter, only 6.66 meters, but the value of L′ is L�
�� = 10 meters.

No good: L′ = L / gamma

No good: L′ = 6.66 meters ← 2 /3 of 10 ← L / gamma

The meter stick pacing off length L′ is shorter than the meter stick pacing off length L, but 10 sticks pace of L and 10 sticks pace of L′, so stick counts are equal: L′ = L.

This is Lorentz Contraction: contraction of the measuring instrument, and it cannot be an equation since both instruments have length of 1 meter. It is also contraction of a “body” if the body at stationary size L moves at speed, and then “APPEARS
shorter”, but size VALUES have not changed: L′ = L.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Le 17/09/2023 à 16:27, xip14 a écrit :

rewrite: L′ = L × sqrt( 1 – v²/c² )

Cette équation n'est pas correcte.

The true equation is : L'=L.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)/(1+cosµ.Vo/c)

R.H.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

My previous blurb of Sept 17 contained a error. Fortunately, I was able to delete. Let’s do a direct interpretation of EDoMB-Section §4.

+++++++++

Section §4 has the minus-sign Lorentz Transforms where unprimed ( right-hand-side ) variables are stationary and primed ( left-hand-side ) variables are moving. Axis X′-primed moves to the right with positive speed-v. We have x′ ( point-ξ ) as a
fixed point on moving axis X′ ( system-k ).

The spatial LT: x′ = gamma × ( x – vt )

Let time t = 0

Not shown: x′ / gamma = x

Not shown: x = x′ / gamma

Shown: x′ = gamma × x

Shown: x′ appears shorter in the ratio 1: ( 1 / gamma )

When time t = 0, so also vt = 0. Then variables x′ and x are different values, but the same extension in space. Conversely, variables the same value are different extensions in space. For example x′ = 5 and x = 5. Those numbers have a physical
interpretation even thought they don’t work in the equation. At time t = 0, axes origins x = 0 and x′ = 0 are momentarily co-located. The rightward extension x = 5 on axis X is greater than the rightward extension x′ = 5 on axis X′ and so the x�
�� = 5 “appears shorter.”

Let x′ ( a fixed distance on the moving axis ) be the 1 meter diameter of a circle at the origin x′ = 0 of moving axis X′. Diameter is specifically the horizontal diameter of the circle.

x′ = 1

Let v / c = 3 /4

gamma approx = 1.5

x′ = gamma × x → 1 meter = 1.5 × 2 / 3 meter

Notice reverse logic. Left-hand-side x′ is known value, x′ = 1 meter. We have solved for right-hand-side unknown x with result: x = 2 / 3 meter.

appears shorter → 1 meter / 1.5 = 2 / 3 meter

The value 2 / 3 meter is not an actual thingumabob. It is the appearance of moving x′ = 1 meter on the stationary axis.

The moving horizontal meter stick is shorter than the vertical meter stick, and also shorter than the stationary meter stick. The horizontal diameter of the moving circle is paced off with this shorter meter stick. The result, observed from the
stationary axis, is quote, “an ellipse.” The horizontal diameter seems to be less than 1 meter. But all diameters of the moving object ( in its own frame of reference ) are 1 meter, and the moving object ( in its own frame of reference ) is a
circle.

Spatial LT is doing what it is supposed to do: make the meter stick on the left-hand-side ( the moving meter stick ) shorter than the meter stick on the right-hand-side ( stationary ).

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 2:20:56 PM UTC-4, Richard Hachel wrote:

I am very surprised by the total ignorance of many physicists (and even
more cranks) on this notion.

I take advantage of my immense genius, my extraordinary intellectual abilities, and my great didactic sense, to repeat two things:

FIRST: in the frame of reference of the object studied, and on its own length, nothing happens at all.
It is only the observer placed "elsewhere" who will perceive variations in length, a bit like the variations of a Doppler effect.
Note that it is not so much the object that appears smaller (or larger, breathe, breathe) but the observed frame of reference itself, that is to
say space itself.

SECOND: physicists have gotten into the habit of publishing erroneous, and often arrogant, publications which stupidly state that relativity predicts
a contraction of length, and a dilation of time. However, this is not AT
ALL what the Poincaré-Lorentz transformations predict. They predict an elasticity of times and lengths, which seems very different to me from a simple l'=l.sqrt(1-v²/c²) or a simple t'=t/sqrt(1-v²/c² ) which are
only true for an observer watching an object pass transversely.

For lengths the real equation is that of relativistic elasticity, and it
is of the type:
l'=l.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)/(1+cosµ.Vo/c)
The same equation also exists (because it is the same thing) for lengths
and spatial distances.
D'=D.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)/(1+cosµ.Vo/c)

Thank you for your attention.

Doctor Richard Hachel.

.

There is no material shrinkage/
A meter stick will remain the same material length in all frames.
However the light-path-length (LPL) of a moving meter stick will be contracted as observed by the observer:
The LPL of a moving meter stick is 1/gamma meters
This is the length contraction physicists are referring to.
definition:
LPL: the length light must travel to cover the material length of a moving meter stick.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 8:35:00 AM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote:

On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 2:20:56 PM UTC-4, Richard Hachel wrote:

I am very surprised by the total ignorance of many physicists (and even more cranks) on this notion.

I take advantage of my immense genius, my extraordinary intellectual abilities, and my great didactic sense, to repeat two things:

FIRST: in the frame of reference of the object studied, and on its own length, nothing happens at all.
It is only the observer placed "elsewhere" who will perceive variations in length, a bit like the variations of a Doppler effect.
Note that it is not so much the object that appears smaller (or larger, breathe, breathe) but the observed frame of reference itself, that is to say space itself.

SECOND: physicists have gotten into the habit of publishing erroneous, and often arrogant, publications which stupidly state that relativity predicts a contraction of length, and a dilation of time. However, this is not AT ALL what the Poincaré-Lorentz transformations predict. They predict an elasticity of times and lengths, which seems very different to me from a simple l'=l.sqrt(1-v²/c²) or a simple t'=t/sqrt(1-v²/c² ) which are only true for an observer watching an object pass transversely.

For lengths the real equation is that of relativistic elasticity, and it is of the type:
l'=l.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)/(1+cosµ.Vo/c)
The same equation also exists (because it is the same thing) for lengths and spatial distances.
D'=D.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)/(1+cosµ.Vo/c)

Thank you for your attention.

Doctor Richard Hachel.

.

There is no material shrinkage/
A meter stick will remain the same material length in all frames.
However the light-path-length (LPL) of a moving meter stick will be contracted
as observed by the observer:
The LPL of a moving meter stick is 1/gamma meters
This is the length contraction physicists are referring to.
definition:
LPL: the length light must travel to cover the material length of a moving meter stick.

Where would length go to?
Lopsided atoms would distort chemistry.
Does your car shrink where you drive it?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 9/19/2023 11:54 AM, sci.physics.relativity wrote:

On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 8:35:00 AM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote:

There is no material shrinkage/
A meter stick will remain the same material length in all frames.

You shouldn't try to make up your own terms, Stupid Ken. The phrase you
are struggling for is the "proper length", which is the length of
something in its own frame. The coordinate length seen in other frames
is how the length will be measured in them.

However the light-path-length (LPL) of a moving meter stick will be contracted
as observed by the observer:
The LPL of a moving meter stick is 1/gamma meters
This is the length contraction physicists are referring to.
definition:
LPL: the length light must travel to cover the material length of a moving meter stick.

Word salad, Stupid Ken. Physicists have SR to explain it and your word
salad isn't on their menu.

Roy a.k.a. Mitch writes:

Where would length go to?

It doesn't go anywhere, Roy. Rotating a ladder so that it fits through a doorway doesn't make the length of the ladder go anywhere, either.

Lopsided atoms would distort chemistry.

Since chemistry takes place between atoms which are moving slowly or are stationary relative to each other, the atoms won't appear to be
"lopsided" relative to each other. No distortion possible.

On the other hand, Roy, if the atoms are moving so fast relative to each
other when they encounter each other that they appear
"flattened"/"lopsided" to each other, they are moving at substantial
fractions of c relative to each other, WAY outside the energy range of
chemical interactions. Their interactions aren't described by chemistry,
but by what happens in particle accelerators or "atom smashers".

Does your car shrink where you drive it?

Compared to the road or pedestrians? Yes but the effect at 60 mph is so
small it's just not measurable.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 10:00:05 AM UTC-7, Volney wrote:

On 9/19/2023 11:54 AM, sci.physics.relativity wrote:

On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 8:35:00 AM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote:

There is no material shrinkage/
A meter stick will remain the same material length in all frames.

You shouldn't try to make up your own terms, Stupid Ken. The phrase you
are struggling for is the "proper length", which is the length of
something in its own frame. The coordinate length seen in other frames
is how the length will be measured in them.

However the light-path-length (LPL) of a moving meter stick will be contracted
as observed by the observer:
The LPL of a moving meter stick is 1/gamma meters
This is the length contraction physicists are referring to.
definition:
LPL: the length light must travel to cover the material length of a moving meter stick.

Word salad, Stupid Ken. Physicists have SR to explain it and your word
salad isn't on their menu.
Roy a.k.a. Mitch writes:

Where would length go to?

It doesn't go anywhere, Roy. Rotating a ladder so that it fits through a doorway doesn't make the length of the ladder go anywhere, either.

Lopsided atoms would distort chemistry.

Since chemistry takes place between atoms which are moving slowly or are stationary relative to each other, the atoms won't appear to be
"lopsided" relative to each other. No distortion possible.

On the other hand, Roy, if the atoms are moving so fast relative to each other when they encounter each other that they appear
"flattened"/"lopsided" to each other, they are moving at substantial fractions of c relative to each other, WAY outside the energy range of chemical interactions. Their interactions aren't described by chemistry,
but by what happens in particle accelerators or "atom smashers".

Does your car shrink where you drive it?

Compared to the road or pedestrians? Yes but the effect at 60 mph is so small it's just not measurable.

Falling through an event horizon atoms and particles go flat.
Yes. You are stupid to believe your car is changing size through
different speeds.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 9/19/2023 9:04 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

Does your car shrink where you drive it?

Compared to the road or pedestrians? Yes but the effect at 60 mph is so
small it's just not measurable.

Falling through an event horizon atoms and particles go flat.

Actually the opposite happens, Roy. In the frame of the infalling
object, tidal forces will stretch it, "spaghettification" they call it.
And unlike SR/GR effects, these are real in the frame of the object.

Yes. You are stupid to believe your car is changing size through
different speeds.

If I am driving the car, it doesn't. If I am standing on the side of the
road the car will technically be shorter but the effect is so small at
60 mph the effect is unmeasurable.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)