Allow me to interject (of course, you have no choice); and perhaps speak
for John, or least how one reader is interpreting him.
I don't think John is denying the physical "reality" of the projection,
I think he fully appreciates the reality of it; while noting that a part
of that reality is that it is a geometrical "projection", which is a
geometric property ("real" none-the-less) and not an intrinsic property
of the object.
It seems to me that it is "clear", (clear as mud?) that we are dealing
with something that is not an intrinsic property of the object, since
different frames of reference ascribe different "slowing" rates to the
object; hence the "slowing" rate can not be intrinsic to the object.
________________________
Joel Rauber
Department of Physics - SDSU
Joel.Rauber@sdstate.edu
605-688-4293
| -----Original Message-----
| From: Forum for Physics Educators
| [mailto:PHYS-L@list1.ucc.nau.edu] On Behalf Of Bob Sciamanda
| Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2005 8:31 AM
| To: PHYS-L@LISTS.NAU.EDU
| Subject: Re: "moving clock runs slower" (yes)
|
| Thanks for the quick response John! But you speak only of
| projections, etc in a graphical representation of the Lorentz
| transformation. Please address the physical reality. What
| is it in the physical reality that is not real, and only appearance.
|
| Is it not *real* that if two photon clocks are synchronized
| while both are at rest, when they are set in relative motion
| their ticks ( as viewed from either frame) will no longer be
| simultaneous and that the moving clock will
| *really* run slower. What is not real in this *physical* situation?
|
| If c were a much smaller number, these effects would be
| commonplace and accepted as real, prima facie. Presently our
| Galilean experiences prejudice us toward expecting and
| seeking observer independent absolutes.
|
| Bob Sciamanda
| Physics, Edinboro Univ of PA (Em)
| http://www.winbeam.com/~trebor/
| trebor@winbeam.com
| ----- Original Message -----
| From: "John Denker" <jsd@AV8N.COM>
| To: <PHYS-L@LISTS.NAU.EDU>
| Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 11:20 PM
| Subject: Re: "moving clock runs slower" (yes)
|
_______________________________________________
Phys-L mailing list
Phys-L@electron.physics.buffalo.edu https://www.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l