Re: So... Lerentz Contractions are *physical* not observered?

kenseto wrote:

"jem" <xxx@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:JAqji.565025$6P2.366932@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

kenseto wrote:


"Jem" <xxx@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:6oNii.8415$Zt6.7938@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


kenseto wrote:



"jem" <xxx@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:iEMii.8412$Zt6.3916@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



Duh! Didn't I just tell you that SR says it /isn't/ able to fit
through? Are you working on your Space Cadet certification, or what?


Duh....didn't Roberts and you say that you can rotate a rod to fit

through

the door way? Now you are saying that a circular plate can't rotate and

fit

through the door way. Does that mean that the SR concept of rotation
(geometric projection) is a bunch of bull ***? BTW the SR mutal time
dilation and mutual length contraction are derived from the same SR bull
*** of geometric projection.

Get a 4 year-old to explain to you why a jar's contents can be
extracted with a spoon, but not with the jar's removable top.


So are you saying that the SR concept of geometric projection is valid only
for skinny rods and not for objects that are 3 dimensional?? Don't you see
how stupid such assertion is?

What's the matter, Seto, couldn't you find a 4 year-old? There is *no* way to rotate a circular disk so that it ridgidly fits through a circular hole when the diameter of the hole is less than the diameter of the disk (i.e. *every* geometric projection of the disk overlaps the hole).

In the context of Relativity, there's no orientation at which your metal plate can approach the circular doorway without at least one of the disks diameters being perpendicular to the direction of travel, and there's no length contraction perpendicular to the direction of travel. Get it?
.