Length Contraction Debunked

[CANGAS]

For the first time in your lifetime, Pete, HEAR sense.

I am accomplished at uttering sense. If you hear me and do not hear sense, we can only lay the blame at your feet.

By the way, Pete, I must have missed your explanation of how you alter the momentum and kinetic energy and the speed of light in a closed system by running a camera in a track overhead. Could you rePete it?

 

[Pete]

Hi CANGAS,
Earlier you suggested that according to special relativity you could double the angular velocity of the Earth in a very few seconds with only 500 ft.lb. of torque.

That doesn't make sense.

Now, you appear to think that velocity, and by extension kinetic energy and momentum, are absolute quantities.

You're welcome to that point of view if you want... but how do you know what your "real" velocity, momentum, and kinetic energy is? When you're cruising in your car with your speedo reading 55mph... is that your "real" velocity?

 

[Physics Monkey]

By the way, Pete, I must have missed your explanation of how you alter the momentum and kinetic energy and the speed of light in a closed system by running a camera in a track overhead. Could you rePete it?

Where did this come from? Even in everyday Newtonian classical mechanics the momentum and kinetic energy of a particle depend on the frame you use to describe it. There is absolutely nothing magical about this at all, but don't tell me that now you think classical mechanics is silly too?

Also, experiment has shown that the speed of light is the same in every frame to very high precision.

 

[MacM]

Hi CANGAS,
Earlier you suggested that according to special relativity you could double the angular velocity of the Earth in a very few seconds with only 500 ft.lb. of torque.

That doesn't make sense.

Now, you appear to think that velocity, and by extension kinetic energy and momentum, are absolute quantities.

You're welcome to that point of view if you want... but how do you know what your "real" velocity, momentum, and kinetic energy is? When you're cruising in your car with your speedo reading 55mph... is that your "real" velocity?

Maybe I missed something here but I got the impression when reading his post that he was equating the change in relative velocity (ke and p) of the earth with respect to the energy (horspower applied) by his car.

Clearly achieving 100 Mph along the surface the cars ke is different than the ke of the earth assuming the SRT view that the car is at rest and the earth has been caused to rotate at that speed.