Re: A question about physicists and Einsteins SR Theory
From: Eugene Shubert (http://www.everythingimportant.org)
Date: 12/08/04
- Next message: Henri Wilson: "Re: How to Measure OWLS Equal to c Experimentally."
- Previous message: jahn: "Re: O'Barr 27 Nov 2004: Reasons for an ether."
- In reply to: Bill Hobba: "Re: A question about physicists and Einsteins SR Theory"
- Next in thread: Androcles: "Re: A question about physicists and Einsteins SR Theory"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 15:53:53 -0600
"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
news:lq8td.62096$K7.55813@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Popular accounts sometime obscure rather than illuminate.
> Consider a rod placed on the x axis. Rotate it - the rods
> length remains the same but the x component is different.
> Now is the x component any less real than before? Of
> course not - it is just different. Exactly the same thing is
> happening in SR. When you are moving relative to a
> stationary rod all you are doing is rotating the rod
> through what is technically called a 'hyperbolic rotation'.
> It length has not changed simply its projection onto our
> coordinate system. That projection is just as real as when
> it was at rest. Similar comments apply to clocks as
> well. Tom Roberts has posted at length on this.
Religious relativists are extraordinarily pompous and asinine.
That is truly the most worthless response for a layman that
I've ever read.
Eugene Shubert
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
- Next message: Henri Wilson: "Re: How to Measure OWLS Equal to c Experimentally."
- Previous message: jahn: "Re: O'Barr 27 Nov 2004: Reasons for an ether."
- In reply to: Bill Hobba: "Re: A question about physicists and Einsteins SR Theory"
- Next in thread: Androcles: "Re: A question about physicists and Einsteins SR Theory"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
