{"id":3186,"date":"2012-06-25T08:30:24","date_gmt":"2012-06-25T07:30:24","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ekkehard-friebe.de\/blog\/?p=3186"},"modified":"2012-07-10T09:07:32","modified_gmt":"2012-07-10T08:07:32","slug":"the-loss-of-meaning-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ekkehard-friebe.de\/blog\/the-loss-of-meaning-2009\/","title":{"rendered":"The loss of meaning (2009)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\"\"<\/dt>\n<\/dl>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/strong>By Gertrud Walton<\/strong> [U.K.] <\/em><\/p>\n

Beitrag aus dem GOM-Projekt: 2394 weitere kritische Ver\u00f6ffentlichungen<\/span> <\/a>
\n<\/strong>zur Erg\u00e4nzung der Dokumentation<\/span><\/a><\/strong> Textversion 1.2 \u2013 2004, Kapitel 4.\n<\/p>\n

The loss of meaning: last revised: 23 August 2009 \/ 16 S.\u00a0<\/p>\n

URL: <\/strong>http:\/\/home.btconnect.com\/sapere.aude\/page2.html<\/span><\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

Stellt im Rahmen einer vielf\u00e4ltigen Kritik z. B. die einander widersprechenden Erkl\u00e4rungen der Relativistik-Autoren bez\u00fcglich des Wesens der angeblichen relativistischen Effekte (Realit\u00e4t\/Anschein) zusammen. Die \u00dcbersicht wird im Folgenden nur mit den Hauptpunkten, also ohne Kennzeichnungen stark gek\u00fcrzt wiedergegeben; alle n\u00e4heren Kommentare und Quellennachweise gibt die Autorin am Ende des Artikels.<\/p>\n

S. 5-6: "On the nature of relativistic effects. The reciprocal effect of length contraction and time dilation, which appears by logical necessity to emerge from the kinematic part of the special theory of relativity, has been variously explained as: 1. true but not really true – 2. real – 3. not real – 4. apparent – 5. the result of the relativity of simultaneity – 6. determined by measurement – 7. a perspective effect – 8. mathematical. Here is a small selection from the literature:<\/p>\n

1. Effects are true but not really true:
\nPride of place goes to Eddington [1928, 33-34]: "The shortening of the moving rod is true, but it is not really true."<\/p>\n

2. Effects are real:
\nArzelies [1966, 120-121]: The Lorentz Contraction is a Real Phenomenon. … Several authors have stated that the Lorentz contraction only seems to occur, and is not real. This idea is false. So far as relativistic theory is concerned, this contraction is just as real as any other phenomenon. Admittedly … it is not absolute, but depends upon the system employed for the measurement; it seems that we might call it an apparent contraction which varies with the system. This is merely playing with the words, however.
\nWe often encounter the following remark: The length of a ruler depends upon its motion with respect to the observer. … From this, it is concluded once again that the contraction is only apparent, a subjective phenomenon. … such remarks ought to be forbidden.\n<\/p>\n

Krane [1983, 23-25]: It must be pointed out that time dilation is a real effect … The length measured by the moving observer is shorter. It must be emphasized that this is a real effect.<\/p>\n

Matveyev [1966, 305]: A body is, therefore, "flattened" in the direction of motion. This effect is a real effect … M\u00f8ller [1972, 44]: Contraction is a real effect observable in principle by experiment. It expresses, however, not so much a quality of the moving stick itself as rather a reciprocal relation between measuring-sticks in motion relative to each other. … According to relativistic conception, the notion of the length of a stick has an unambiguous meaning only in relation to a given inertial frame.
\n… This means that the concept of length has lost its absolute meaning.\n<\/p>\n

Pauli [1981, 12-13]: We have seen that this contraction is connected with the relativity of simultaneity, and for this reason the argument has been put forward that it is only an "apparent" contraction, in other words, that it is only simulated by our space-time measurements.\u00a0 If a state is called real only if it can be determined in the same way in all Galilean reference systems, then the Lorentz contraction is indeed only apparent, since an observer at rest in K‘ will see the rod without contraction.\u00a0 But we do not consider such a point of view as appropriate, and in any case the Lorentz contraction is in principle observable.<\/p>\n

Schwinger [1986, 52]: Each will observe the other clock to be running more slowly. This is an objective fact. It is not a property of clocks but of time itself.<\/p>\n

Tolman [1987, 23-24]: Entirely real but symmetrical.<\/p>\n

3. Relativistic effects are not physically real:
\nTaylor & Wheeler [1992, 76]: Does something about a clock really change when it moves, resulting in the observed change in the tick rate? Absolutely not! Here is why: Whether a clock is at rest or in motion … is controlled by the observer. You want the clock to be at rest? Move along with it. … How can your change of motion affect the inner mechanism of a distant clock? It cannot and it does not.<\/p>\n

4. Relativistic effects are apparent:
\nAharoni [1985, 21]: The moving rod appears shorter. The moving clock appears to go slow.\n<\/p>\n

Cullwick [1959, 65, 68]: [A] rod which is at rest in S‘ … appears to the observer O to be contracted … Similarly, a rod at rest in S will appear in S‘ to be contracted…. Jackson [1975, 520]: The time as seen in the rest system is dilated.<\/p>\n

Joos [1958, 243-244]: The interval appears to the moving observer to be lengthened. A body which appears to be spherical to an observer at rest will appear to a moving observer to be an oblate spheroid.<\/p>\n

McCrea [1954, 15-16]: The apparent length is reduced. Time intervals appear to be lengthened; clocks appear to go slow.<\/p>\n

Nunn [1923, 43-44]: A moving rod would appear to be shortened. An interval is always less than measured by the other observer.<\/p>\n

Whitrow [1980, 255]: Instead of assuming that there are real, i.e. structural, changes in length and duration owing to motion, Einstein’s theory involves only apparent changes, and these are independent of the microscopic constitution and hidden mechanisms controlling the structure of matter. [Unlike]… real changes, these apparent phenomena are reciprocal.<\/p>\n

5. Relativistic effects are the result of the relativity of simultaneity:
\nBohm [1965, 59]: When measuring lengths and intervals, observers are not referring to the same events.\n<\/p>\n

French [1968, 97] – Rosser [1967, 37] \u2013 Stephenson & Kilmister [1987, 38-39]: Measurements of lengths involve simultaneity and yield different numerical values.<\/p>\n

6. Relativistic effects are determined by measurements:
\nSchwartz [1972, 113]: Each observer determines distances to be foreshortened.<\/p>\n

7. Relativistic effects are comparable to perspective effects:
\nRindler [1991, 25-29]: Moving lengths are reduced, a kind of perspective effect. But of course nothing has happened to the rod itself. Nevertheless, contraction is no illusion, it is real. Moving clocks go slow, a ‚velocityperspective‘ effect. Nothing at all happens to the clock itself. Like contraction, this effect is real.<\/p>\n

8. Relativistic effects are mathematical:
\nEddington [1924, 16-18]: The connection between lengths and intervals are problems of pure mathematics. A travelling clock gives a low reading.\n<\/p>\n

Minkowski [1908, 81]: [The] contraction is not to be looked upon as a consequence of resistances in the ether, or anything of that kind, but simply as a gift from above, – as an accompanying circumstance of the circumstance of motion.<\/p>\n

Rogers [1960, 496]: Thus we have devised a new geometry, with our clocks and scales conspiring, by their changes, to present us with a universally constant speed of light."<\/p>\n

— Diese Zusammenstellung zeigt, wie viel Unterhaltungswert eine physikalische Theorie liefern kann. – Der erste Preis geb\u00fchrt zweifellos Eddington 1928: "true, but not really true". \u2013 Arzelies 1966 m\u00f6chte Aussagen, die Effekte seien nur scheinbar, am liebsten verbieten: "such remarks ought to be forbidden". – M\u00f8ller 1972 erkl\u00e4rt die LK f\u00fcr real (<\/em>Contraction<\/em> <\/em>is<\/em> a real <\/em>effect<\/em> <\/em>observable<\/em> in <\/em>principle<\/em> <\/em>by<\/em> <\/em>experiment<\/em>), aber das Beobachtete hat keine absolute Bedeutung mehr (<\/em>the<\/em> <\/em>concept<\/em> of <\/em>length<\/em> has lost <\/em>its<\/em> <\/em>absolute <\/em>meaning<\/em>), womit sich wieder ein Widerspruch auch noch innerhalb desselben Autor auftut. \u2013 Taylor & Wheeler 1992 liefern eine auch bei manchen Kritikern zu lesende starke Argumentation, da\u00df die angeblichen Effekte nur Anschein sein k\u00f6nnen: "<\/em>How<\/em> <\/em>can<\/em> <\/em>your<\/em> <\/em>change<\/em> of <\/em>motion<\/em> <\/em>affect<\/em> <\/em>the<\/em> inner <\/em>mechanism<\/em> of a <\/em>distant<\/em> <\/em>clock<\/em>? It <\/em>cannot<\/em> and it <\/em>does<\/em> not." – Whitrow 1980 stellt einen wichtigen Zusammenhang heraus: reale Ver\u00e4nderungen k\u00f6nnten gar nicht gegenseitig sein; nur scheinbare Ph\u00e4nomene sind gegenseitig (reziprok): "[<\/em>Unlike<\/em>]… real <\/em>changes<\/em>, <\/em>these<\/em> <\/em>apparent<\/em> <\/em>phenomena<\/em> <\/em>are<\/em> <\/em>reciprocal<\/em>".
\nDa die Reziprozit\u00e4t bekanntlich f\u00fcr alle Inertialsysteme gelten soll, ist damit der Anscheincharakter der angeblichen Effekte die zwangsl\u00e4ufige Folge. Deshalb lassen die Relativistik-Autoren die Reziprozit\u00e4t – eventuell nach einer kurzen Erw\u00e4hnung – gern unter den Tisch fallen. – Auch Rindler 1991 schrickt vor dem Selbstwiderspruch nicht zur\u00fcck: "<\/em>But<\/em> <\/em>of <\/em>course<\/em> <\/em>nothing<\/em> has <\/em>happened<\/em> to <\/em>the<\/em> rod <\/em>itself<\/em>. <\/em>Nevertheless, contraction is no illusion, it is real". \u2013 <\/em>Das<\/em> <\/em>uns\u00e4gliche<\/em> "<\/em>Geschenk<\/em> von <\/em>oben<\/em>" von Minkowski 1908 <\/em>erhalten<\/em> <\/em>wir<\/em> <\/em>hier<\/em> <\/em>auch<\/em> <\/em>noch<\/em> in <\/em>der<\/em> <\/em>englischen<\/em> Version: "a gift from above, – as an accompanying circumstance of the circumstance of motion." <\/em>\n<\/p>\n

Lesen Sie bitte hier<\/span><\/a><\/strong> weiter!<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

\u00a0By Gertrud Walton [U.K.] Beitrag aus dem GOM-Projekt: 2394 weitere kritische Ver\u00f6ffentlichungen zur Erg\u00e4nzung der Dokumentation Textversion 1.2 \u2013 2004, Kapitel 4. The loss of meaning: last revised: 23 August 2009 \/ 16 S.\u00a0 URL: http:\/\/home.btconnect.com\/sapere.aude\/page2.html<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3186","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-projekt"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ekkehard-friebe.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3186"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ekkehard-friebe.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ekkehard-friebe.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ekkehard-friebe.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ekkehard-friebe.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3186"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/ekkehard-friebe.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3186\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ekkehard-friebe.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3186"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ekkehard-friebe.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3186"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ekkehard-friebe.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3186"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}