http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ball0402/papers/montreal-may04.pdf
"Let us discuss the difference between Einstein’s and Lorentz’spoints
of view still further...It is...of great value that Einstein rendered
the theory independent of any assumptions about the constitution of
matter. Should one, then,...completely abandon any attempt to explain
the Lorentz contraction atomistically? We think the answer to this
question should be No. The contraction of a measuring rod is not an
elementary but a very complicated process. It would not take place
except for the covariance with respect to the Lorentz group of the
basic equations of the electron theory, as well as of those laws, as
yet unknown to us, which determine the cohesion of the electron
itself. We can only postulate that this is so, knowing that then the
theory will be capable of explaining atomistically the behaviour of
moving rods and clocks." (Pauli, Theory of Relativity, 1921)

Einsteinians love Pauli but are reluctant to explain length
contraction "atomistically". They used to teach Einstein zombie world
that the effect is "one of perspective" but now neither teachers nor
students think the effect is "one of perspective". They don't even
think the effect is "not one of perspective". They just don't give a
shit about length contraction or any other idiotic corollary of
Einstein's 1905 false light postulate. Divine Albert's Divine Theory
is not a money-spinner anymore.

Pentcho Valev
pva... at (no spam) yahoo.com

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ball0402/papers/montreal-may04.pdf
"Let us discuss the difference between Einstein’s and Lorentz’spoints
of view still further...It is...of great value that Einstein rendered
the theory independent of any assumptions about the constitution of
matter. Should one, then,...completely abandon any attempt to explain
the Lorentz contraction atomistically? We think the answer to this
question should be No. The contraction of a measuring rod is not an
elementary but a very complicated process. It would not take place
except for the covariance with respect to the Lorentz group of the
basic equations of the electron theory, as well as of those laws, as
yet unknown to us, which determine the cohesion of the electron
itself. We can only postulate that this is so, knowing that then the
theory will be capable of explaining atomistically the behaviour of
moving rods and clocks." (Pauli, Theory of Relativity, 1921)

Einsteinians love Pauli but are reluctant to explain length
contraction "atomistically". They used to teach Einstein zombie world
that the effect is "one of perspective" but now neither teachers nor
students think the effect is "one of perspective". They don't even
think the effect is "not one of perspective". They just don't give a
shit about length contraction or any other idiotic corollary of
Einstein's 1905 false light postulate. Divine Albert's Divine Theory
is not a money-spinner anymore.

Pentcho Valev
pva... at (no spam) yahoo.com

On Jun 15, 7:48 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ball0402/papers/montreal-may04.pdf
"Let us discuss the difference between Einstein’s and Lorentz’spoints
of view still further...It is...of great value that Einstein rendered
the theory independent of any assumptions about the constitution of
matter. Should one, then,...completely abandon any attempt to explain
the Lorentz contraction atomistically? We think the answer to this
question should be No. The contraction of a measuring rod is not an
elementary but a very complicated process. It would not take place
except for the covariance with respect to the Lorentz group of the
basic equations of the electron theory, as well as of those laws, as
yet unknown to us, which determine the cohesion of the electron
itself. We can only postulate that this is so, knowing that then the
theory will be capable of explaining atomistically the behaviour of
moving rods and clocks." (Pauli, Theory of Relativity, 1921)

Einsteinians love Pauli but are reluctant to explain length
contraction "atomistically". They used to teach Einstein zombie world
that the effect is "one of perspective" but now neither teachers nor
students think the effect is "one of perspective". They don't even
think the effect is "not one of perspective". They just don't give a
shit about length contraction or any other idiotic corollary of
Einstein's 1905 false light postulate. Divine Albert's Divine Theory
is not a money-spinner anymore.

Pentcho Valev
pva... at (no spam) yahoo.com

xxein:  I mostly agree, but what is the true physic?  Do you have an
answer?

On Jun 15, 7:48 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ball0402/papers/montreal-may04.pdf
"Let us discuss the difference between Einstein’s and Lorentz’spoints
of view still further...It is...of great value that Einstein rendered
the theory independent of any assumptions about the constitution of
matter. Should one, then,...completely abandon any attempt to explain
the Lorentz contraction atomistically? We think the answer to this
question should be No. The contraction of a measuring rod is not an
elementary but a very complicated process. It would not take place
except for the covariance with respect to the Lorentz group of the
basic equations of the electron theory, as well as of those laws, as
yet unknown to us, which determine the cohesion of the electron
itself. We can only postulate that this is so, knowing that then the
theory will be capable of explaining atomistically the behaviour of
moving rods and clocks." (Pauli, Theory of Relativity, 1921)

Einsteinians love Pauli but are reluctant to explain length
contraction "atomistically". They used to teach Einstein zombie world
that the effect is "one of perspective" but now neither teachers nor
students think the effect is "one of perspective". They don't even
think the effect is "not one of perspective". They just don't give a
shit about length contraction or any other idiotic corollary of
Einstein's 1905 false light postulate. Divine Albert's Divine Theory
is not a money-spinner anymore.

Pentcho Valev
pva... at (no spam) yahoo.com

xxein: I mostly agree, but what is the true physic?

There is a physical explanation here of how motion would slow the

On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 20:53:33 -0700 (PDT),xxein<xxe... at (no spam) bellsouth.net
wrote:





On Jun 15, 7:48 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ball0402/papers/montreal-may04.pdf
"Let us discuss the difference between Einstein’s and Lorentz’spoints
of view still further...It is...of great value that Einstein rendered
the theory independent of any assumptions about the constitution of
matter. Should one, then,...completely abandon any attempt to explain
the Lorentz contraction atomistically? We think the answer to this
question should be No. The contraction of a measuring rod is not an
elementary but a very complicated process. It would not take place
except for the covariance with respect to the Lorentz group of the
basic equations of the electron theory, as well as of those laws, as
yet unknown to us, which determine the cohesion of the electron
itself. We can only postulate that this is so, knowing that then the
theory will be capable of explaining atomistically the behaviour of
moving rods and clocks." (Pauli, Theory of Relativity, 1921)

Einsteinians love Pauli but are reluctant to explain length
contraction "atomistically". They used to teach Einstein zombie world
that the effect is "one of perspective" but now neither teachers nor
students think the effect is "one of perspective". They don't even
think the effect is "not one of perspective". They just don't give a
shit about length contraction or any other idiotic corollary of
Einstein's 1905 false light postulate. Divine Albert's Divine Theory
is not a money-spinner anymore.

Pentcho Valev
pva... at (no spam) yahoo.com

xxein:  I mostly agree, but what is the true physic?

There is a physical explanation here of how motion would slow the
ticking of light clocks.

Understanding the Retardation of the Returned Astronaut's Clock and
GPS Clocks Using the Physical Behaviour of Moving Clockshttp://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/V14N4MCA.pdf

Finding a physical explantion of length contraction is more tricky.

But suppose the average distance of an electron from the nucleus of an
atom (lets assume spherical symmetry for simplicity) is related to the
two way travel time for virtual photons traveling between the nucleus
and the electron.

Then if the atom was moving relative to 3-space and the electron
orbital remained spherically symmetrical in the 3-space frame, the
average two way travel time for virtual photons in the direction
parallel to the motion would become longer than the average two way
travel time perpendicular to the motion.

However, if we assume that the electron tends to adjust its motion to
maintain two way travel times that are the same in all directions[#],
then the orbital of the electron would contract in the direction of
motion, so as to maintain such equal travel times.

       #  Eg. The two way travel time of virtual photons travelling
            between an electron and the nucleus might provide
            the only indication of distance between the two.
            If so, an atom would "believe" it has a spherical
            orbital when the two way travel time for virtual
            photons between the nucleus and the electron in
            the orbital, is the same in all directions.

The relative degree of contraction would be the same as that required
to maintain equal two way travel times for light in vacuum in the two
arms of an MM interferomenter, if one arm was pointing in the
direction of motion and the other was perpendicular to the motion.

-- Surfer.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

proposition: Instead of using words "real, rigid ..." , just discard
them  and call it "measured as...".

measured as would still have 2 meanings..
measured with a beam of light that can bend and cause a path
that will not be straight to get physical measurement accuruacy
of true distance between A and B.

and then you have physical measurement of A to B
using a stright edge (no curving at all)
The physical method always wins.
That is why triangulation is never wrong.
If the physical method (classical) is proven wrong,
Triangulation will really be mad at you.

Use only one meaning, the current meaning which is an operationnal
procedure. It is independent of the theory used, has nothing to do
with straight or bent beams etc. Use the defined procedure to do the
measurement, that is all.

If you mean the defined "use a beam that is not always straight"
compared to "finding a true straight" method instead.

I will ignore the current "definition" for the old and more accurate
"mechanical" method.

You can not detect all gravity waves nor accelerations.

your ruler is still rubber in it's definition.
the lightspeed (a distance and time) being part of the meter
is the infection.

What physicist mean by "real" has changed for them numerous times.

In the past (~1900+) "real" had its usual meaning and Einstein's
length contraction was coined "apparent" (projection, effet de
perspective, etc).
Many years later, (these days) physicist changed their meaning of the
word "real". "Real" now means the value obtained by the measurement,
which was the "effect de perspective". So now the Lor.Contract is
called "real".

The same happened for "mass". We had "mass". Then in the advent of
SR,it was deduced that "mass" changes ( is not an invariant, it
increases when moving) , and "proper mass" was used for the invariant
"mass". Then ~1960, physicist changed their words again. The changing
"Mass" is now called "relativistic mass" and proper mass is now called
just "mass". Quite confusing heh?

What is even funnier, is the concept of rigid bodies. Many SR text
analyze bodies (rods) calling them "rigid" ( Born rigidity) and then
call them "ideal rigid". A rigid rod changes its shape when traveling
in an i-frame, unless it is an "ideal rigid" rod where it no longer
changes its shape *but* where the Lor.Contraction still manifest
itself!!!??? Many text describe it that way. Very confusing for
beginners (and even for professionals) .

proposition: Instead of using words "real, rigid ..." , just discard
them and call it "measured as...".

Use only one meaning, the current meaning which is an operationnal
procedure. It is independent of the theory used, has nothing to do
with straight or bent beams etc. Use the defined procedure to do the
measurement, that is all.

Eg: Length masurement in an i-frame: 1) make sure no accelerations/
grav.effects are detected. 2) send light from head to tail back to
head, take that time * 299792458 and divide by 2. The value obtained
is the "length". (or simultaneously take "marks" of the ends of the
rod...)

Use only one meaning, the current meaning which is an operationnal
procedure. It is independent of the theory used, has nothing to do
with straight or bent beams etc. Use the defined procedure to do the
measurement, that is all.

If you mean the defined "use a beam that is not always straight"
compared to "finding a true straight" method instead.


It doesnt matter if the beam is straight or bent: Send a "beam" from A
to B ( implicitly here, there are no obstructions *detected* and no
grav. field detected etc..). Then B to A if need be. That is all.

I will ignore the current "definition" for the old and more accurate
"mechanical" method.

But as you say, the rod is "rubber". It is far less stable and less
precise than the "beam" method. And the (modern) ether theories show
that both definitions of length ( the physical rod and the light beam
method) are identically equivalent.

You can not detect all gravity waves nor accelerations.

Thats what is meant by " no grav detected". It means that our
apparatus, due to its limitations, detects no grav field. that does
not mean that there aren't any. The op.def. of length (measurement, i-
frame) just requires that no grav field is *detected* ( or well below
a desired threshold).

your ruler is still rubber in it's definition.
the lightspeed (a distance and time) being part of the meter
is the infection.

This is a misconception or badly phrased. The value of 299792458 in
the def. of length is not "the speed of light". It is an
*conventional integer*. The operational definition of length and time
and the definition of speed (X/T) make the speed of light to (always)
be 299792458 m/s. It is a little nuance but very important when one
wants to be precise.

On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 20:53:33 -0700 (PDT),xxein<xxe... at (no spam) bellsouth.net
wrote:

"xxein" <xxe... at (no spam) bellsouth.net> wrote in message

news:32dfd491-bdfd-4fc5-bc36-c734cce2e558 at (no spam) f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 16, 3:52 pm, Surfer <n... at (no spam) spam.net> wrote:

On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 20:53:33 -0700 (PDT),xxein<xxe... at (no spam) bellsouth.net
wrote:

Don't read Bohr or orbiting electrons or clouds here.  Just understand
that we see these seemingly biases all the time.  They are not
peculiar.  They are the physic we seek.  But to which context do we
place it?

Do you believe that there physically exists objects located in space that
have characteristics (e.g., mass and/or charge) that simply are what they
are, and these "intrinsic values" do not at all change regardless of whether
or not these values are being, or attempted to being, observed? For matter,
we know the basic structure presented by nature to the macroscopic world is
atoms bonded to other atoms, for example, a large crystal of iron we can
pick up and hold in our hands. After centuries of theoretical and applied
science, we now know a chunk of pure iron is made up of atoms and the iron
atoms are made up of electrons, protons and neutrons. Consider an electron.
It has mass. Do you believe this mass is somehow fundamentally intrinsic to
the electron? Please try to put aside any "observatory-centric" bias. This
question has nothing to do with measuring this mass, it is a question about
how you think the real world is made up. Your "physic." Is the matter
outside of you mind actually matter "out there," e.g., do you think the
electron that exists in the water in your toilet, right now, is a bit of
matter that has nothing to do with you in terms of what its fundamental
characteristics are? Do you believe in an "external world, independent of
the perceiving subject" (which is how Einstein put it)? Strange, isn't it,
someone who is accorded with the birthing of the idea that "everything is
relative" did in fact believe in a completely independent external world. He
called this belief the "basis of all natural science." If there is an
external world, it's characteristics *must* be independent of observation,
for how else can it be "external"? Certainly we need to shine EM radiation
to observe, and that perturbs atomic systems compared to us not shining, but
when the atom gets perturbed, it is still a completely independent of *you*
event. You set the characteristics of the EM radiation, but exactly what are
the "independent natural laws" that govern the matter/radiation interaction
have nothing to do with what you, me or anyone *thinks* they are. We do not
have the power to change what nature *is*, we only have the power to figure
out how nature *works.* Even if we could completely figure out how nature
works, we couldn't change it. That is, if you believe in an independent
external world, which "works" in whatever way it "works" which we in no way
whatsoever can change.

If there is an absolute "rest mass" some particle has, such as an electron's
"rest mass" this in a certain sense demands an absolute coordinate system
for the universe. There also needs to be some physical mechanism by which an
electron can physically change its mass when it has motion in this absolute
universal coordinate system. I have ideas about how this might happen. On a
level higher, the atoms of a ruler must somehow be physically affected into
a closer-together bonding structure if indeed length contraction is
physically real in an independent external world. The atoms literally get
closer together if the ruler is moving in this absolute universal coordinate
system/frame. If this is indeed what physically happens, this happens
whether or not there are any conscient beings anywhere in the universe, and
the "ruler" were simply a chunk of iron coasting in this big gigantic
universal space completely devoid of any intelligence anywhere.

Steve Bell

"xxein" <xxe... at (no spam) bellsouth.net> wrote in message

news:32dfd491-bdfd-4fc5-bc36-c734cce2e558 at (no spam) f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 16, 3:52 pm, Surfer <n... at (no spam) spam.net> wrote:

On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 20:53:33 -0700 (PDT),xxein<xxe... at (no spam) bellsouth.net
wrote:

Don't read Bohr or orbiting electrons or clouds here. Just understand
that we see these seemingly biases all the time. They are not
peculiar. They are the physic we seek. But to which context do we
place it?

Do you believe that there physically exists objects located in space that
have characteristics (e.g., mass and/or charge) that simply are what they
are, and these "intrinsic values" do not at all change regardless of
whether
or not these values are being, or attempted to being, observed? For
matter,
we know the basic structure presented by nature to the macroscopic world
is
atoms bonded to other atoms, for example, a large crystal of iron we can
pick up and hold in our hands. After centuries of theoretical and applied
science, we now know a chunk of pure iron is made up of atoms and the iron
atoms are made up of electrons, protons and neutrons. Consider an
electron.
It has mass. Do you believe this mass is somehow fundamentally intrinsic
to
the electron? Please try to put aside any "observatory-centric" bias. This
question has nothing to do with measuring this mass, it is a question
about
how you think the real world is made up. Your "physic." Is the matter
outside of you mind actually matter "out there," e.g., do you think the
electron that exists in the water in your toilet, right now, is a bit of
matter that has nothing to do with you in terms of what its fundamental
characteristics are? Do you believe in an "external world, independent of
the perceiving subject" (which is how Einstein put it)? Strange, isn't it,
someone who is accorded with the birthing of the idea that "everything is
relative" did in fact believe in a completely independent external world.
He
called this belief the "basis of all natural science." If there is an
external world, it's characteristics *must* be independent of observation,
for how else can it be "external"? Certainly we need to shine EM radiation
to observe, and that perturbs atomic systems compared to us not shining,
but
when the atom gets perturbed, it is still a completely independent of
*you*
event. You set the characteristics of the EM radiation, but exactly what
are
the "independent natural laws" that govern the matter/radiation
interaction
have nothing to do with what you, me or anyone *thinks* they are. We do
not
have the power to change what nature *is*, we only have the power to
figure
out how nature *works.* Even if we could completely figure out how nature
works, we couldn't change it. That is, if you believe in an independent
external world, which "works" in whatever way it "works" which we in no
way
whatsoever can change.

If there is an absolute "rest mass" some particle has, such as an
electron's
"rest mass" this in a certain sense demands an absolute coordinate system
for the universe. There also needs to be some physical mechanism by which
an
electron can physically change its mass when it has motion in this
absolute
universal coordinate system. I have ideas about how this might happen. On
a
level higher, the atoms of a ruler must somehow be physically affected
into
a closer-together bonding structure if indeed length contraction is
physically real in an independent external world. The atoms literally get
closer together if the ruler is moving in this absolute universal
coordinate
system/frame. If this is indeed what physically happens, this happens
whether or not there are any conscient beings anywhere in the universe,
and
the "ruler" were simply a chunk of iron coasting in this big gigantic
universal space completely devoid of any intelligence anywhere.

Steve Bell