Jump to content

Poincare's relativity (split from essence of relativity)


Recommended Posts


Hehe yeah. Well, in fact, of course, as discussed all along since post #8, there is (in principle) an empirical difference with the school of teaching according to which the explanation by Poincare that a moving magnetic field causes atoms and molecules to "contract" in that direction is wrong, because, if you had a series of rods with spaces in between, that would not cause the space in between to equally contract.


That school of thought* has died out since the publication of Bell's spaceship paradox. As we now have more than sufficiently discussed here, it has become generally accepted that the space between the rockets will indeed not auto-magically equally contract as the rockets contract (in which case the thin string between the rockets could not break). If, as it seems, the originator of that objection to Poincare won't come back to comment on the discussion that it initiated, then I will also abstain from further comments. ;)


*Wikipedia sketches that now defunct school of thought as follows: "they are all subject to the same Lorentz contraction, so the entire assembly seems to be equally contracted in the S frame with respect to the length at the start."

Edited by Tim88
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honnest, I completely lost track of what the real issue is. Or worse, I probably never understood what it is all about. That's not the first time when I read Tim posts... Mea culpa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.