Re: SR consistency is crap.
From: Titan Point (titanpoint_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 11/22/04
- Next message: PhDs.org Webmaster: "New mathematics/physical sciences positions at http://jobs.phds.org, November 22, 2004"
- Previous message: James Pirk: "Monster of a problem...extensions of cyclic groups"
- In reply to: eleaticus: "Re: SR consistency is crap."
- Next in thread: J.E.: "Re: SR consistency is crap."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 22 Nov 2004 01:40:56 -0800
"eleaticus" <eleaticus@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<RV9od.39407$z3.3390@bignews5.bellsouth.net>...
> "J.E." <troubled6man@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:39d6e584.0411211127.47518189@posting.google.com...
>
>
> BTW, have you actually read any of morontill forever's stuff? Would you say
> he contributes ANYTHING besides animus?
There are lots of people who say the same about you.
>
> Innyhoo, in short, as best as I can remember, my response to this article
> would have become something along this line:
>
> SR is supposed to be physics, a theory about the physical. Hence, its basic
> effects must be physical or it is complete nonsense.
>
> Contraction is one of those basic effects and the PoR says both of two
> bodies in relative motion must be contracted relative to the other.
>
> Hence, of two bodies that were of identical size and shape when at rest wrt
> each other and are in motion in the same attitude, body A<B and body B<A
> lengthwise.
"are in motion in the same attitude"? WTF does that mean?
If the two ships are in relative motion then they will measure that
the other ship will be shorter than the proper length of their own
ship, by a factor gamma.
If however they do the calculation sigma^2 = (speed of light x elapsed
time)^2 - (observed length)^2 they will get the same answer and can
therefore calculate that the proper length of the other ship is indeed
the same as their own.
>
> Any talk about modern SR vs AE that is asserted to obviate the absurdity
> must necessarily be 'schizoid' - out of touch with the physical (per
> Alexander Lowen's usage).
>
> Do not speak to sane and intelligent people about how schizoid (abstract)
> math has anything to say that contradicts the (supposed) physical.
Nope. Instead we'll talk about real repeatable experiments using
particles moving at appreciable fractions of the speed of light which
display path length contraction and time dilation.
And you'll ignore every one.
>
> I did not reread - just glance at - the post you ask about so maybe it is
> another to which I was to make some such response as this. This certainly
> does constitute a proper response to much of what I have been seeing this
> past week.
Fortunately physics is not constrained by your personal incredulity.
- Next message: PhDs.org Webmaster: "New mathematics/physical sciences positions at http://jobs.phds.org, November 22, 2004"
- Previous message: James Pirk: "Monster of a problem...extensions of cyclic groups"
- In reply to: eleaticus: "Re: SR consistency is crap."
- Next in thread: J.E.: "Re: SR consistency is crap."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
