Re: SR consistency is crap.

From: Eric Gisse (fsegg_at_uaf.edu)
Date: 11/23/04 

Date: 22 Nov 2004 16:53:46 -0800

"eleaticus" <eleaticus@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<_6iod.39575$z3.17781@bignews5.bellsouth.net>...
> "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:929ed0f8.0411220041.4656e535@posting.google.com...
> > "eleaticus" <eleaticus@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:<RV9od.39407$z3.3390@bignews5.bellsouth.net>...
> > > 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.
>
> > Thats not what the principle of relativity states. That is a result
> > derived from special relativity. Learn the difference.
>

Mark your snips. I am not sure why I complain because you have made it
obvious that intellectual honesty is not one of your strong suites.

> How do you manage to be such an idiot on what must be such short notice?

The same way you have managed to be an idiot your whole life. Which is
to say there is no reason, that is just how I am.

>
> SR says no such thing. SR says a inertialy moving object contracts. Period.

No.

Again, that is a result derived from SR not an initial assumption.

> It is the PoR that says if that is so then the stationary object must also
> contract because it too is moving inertially, wrt the supposed moving
> object.

No, it is you who says that - not the PoR. It is never surprising to
see a false conclusion drawn from an invalid premise.

Tell us, eleaticus: How long have you been misinterpeting relativity?
If you have been doing math before Robert Kolker was born, you would
have to be in your 80's, at least.

>
> eleaticus

[Google cries 'internal server error', Repost #1]

Relevant Pages

  • Re: SR fundamental contradiction
    ... fundamental part of physics since at least the time of Newton. ... I don't reject Galilean relativity, ... What my transformation predicts is that a moving stick is contracted ... but forgetting that the rest frame remains S, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: SR fundamental contradiction
    ... fundamental part of physics since at least the time of Newton. ... I don't reject Galilean relativity, ... What my transformation predicts is that a moving stick is contracted ... when a moving clock shows a time ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Doppler effect
    ... of view it is moving toward you at x m/sec. ... relativity we still have a perfectly good object which might be called ... that's _not_ the closing velocity at measured in ... the rest frame of the sink, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Problem with Einsteins Train Thought Experiment
    ... object is not moving directly towards the observer. ... There is no physics in the thought experiment. ... laws of motion take the same form in all inertial frames. ... relativity by asserting that all laws of physics take the ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: "How Does Light Know How Fast to Travel?"
    ... Is that by him moving faster in the medium, ... Einstein stated that relativity 'puts forward no specific hypothesis' he at least understood that relativity lacks a credible theoretical structure having tried and failed to come up with one. ... By adopting the 'no aether doctrine' physics has probably ensured that it will never have a theoretical structure so physics has redefined itself to say that physical interpretation is an unnecessary adjunct to a mathematical model. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)