From: Ian Goddard (igoddard@netkonnect.net)
Date: Sat Jun 20 1998 - 17:01:35 MDT
At 11:53 AM 6/20/98 -0400, Daniel Fabulich wrote:
>> Because size is relative, A appears to in-
>> crease in size when measuring B.
>
>A does not increase in size relative to itself; so A relative to A must
>always be 0. A DECREASES in size relative to B. There is no perspective
>from which A increases in size. I might accept a second matrix if it were
>valid, but that particular one isn't.
>
>> As A looks
>> at B, observer A could equally assume he had
>> increased in size just as the observer in one
>> train looking at another train next to him out
>> the window seeing motion and may assume either
>> his train or the other is in motion, and either
>> assumption is equally correct. Observer B also
>> assumes he may have increased in size. So net
>> difference is found in the sum of the matrices.
>> One size-matrix doesn't contain all difference.
>
>This would be true if A were actually stretching relative to anything.
>However, NO perspective sees A increase in size. I would grant you that
>in normal Newtonian physics if you saw me shrinking relative to you, it
>would be a safe presumption that you were stretching relative to me, but
>not in special relativity. I am shrinking relative to you AND you are
>shrinking relative to me.
>
>> Dan, it's a great counter(!) worthy of further
>> investigation, but it can only be sustained if
>> it can be shown that size is not relative and
>> thus that one matrix is more valid, but even
>> that "more vs less" valid is another 0 sum.
>
>Well, perhaps you meant a different second matrix; any matrix which shows
>A non-zero relative to itself is fishy, I'd say. Perhpas you'd want to
>say that:
>
> A B
>A 0 +
>B + 0
IAN: My placing the + under A was an error.
What you write is the proper "got larger" matrix,
and as I shall show, it's as valid as the first.
>is true if we compare the second situation to the first, rather than the
>first to the second. The only problem with this matrix is that it is
>never true; B is never large relative to A. B is never large relative to
>ANYTHING; at rest it is zero,
>and in motion it is negative relative to A.
>Since you cannot find any perspective in which A or B are positive, I
>sincerely doubt your ability to get back to 0 from the -.
IAN: A reduction (-) of B in size by 1
unit relative to A (0) is expressed as
-1. -1 is LESS than 0, 0 is 1 more (+)
then -1, so in fact A has gotten larger!
Size is 100% relative. There is no absolute
size, and that's what your case requires.
That the second matrix is valid is clearly
proven by the fact that -1 is less than
0 and 0 is 1 more than -1. If we have 2
things in the universe, A and B, and B
gets smaller, it's equally true that A
gets larger, because size is relative.
So the second matrix that defines the
zero sum of all valid data = valid data.
**************************************************************
VISIT IAN WILLIAMS GODDARD --------> http://Ian.Goddard.net
______________________________________________________________
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its
opponents and making them see the light, but rather because
its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows
up that is familiar with the idea from the beginning."
Max Plank - Nobel physicist
"The smallest minority on earth is the individual.
Those who deny individual rights cannot claim
to be defenders of minorities." Ayn Rand
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:12 MST