Re: So... Lerentz Contractions are *physical* not observered?
- From: "Jeckyl" <noone@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2007 11:55:28 +1000
"kenseto" <kenseto@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:468fc9f7$0$14939$4c368faf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"jem" <xxx@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:i8Mji.6075$Oz7.610@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
kenseto wrote:bull
"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
only*** 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
seefor skinny rods and not for objects that are 3 dimensional?? Don't you
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?
Hey idiot that's the point. The concept of geometric projection is bogus
because it only work for skinny rods and not for all objects.
Your lack of understanding is astonding
The 'projection' works just fine for ANY object.
[snip nonsense about crackpot theory]
.
- References:
- So... Lerentz Contractions are *physical* not observered?
- From: mgconsolidated
- Re: So... Lerentz Contractions are *physical* not observered?
- From: Tom Roberts
- Re: So... Lerentz Contractions are *physical* not observered?
- From: kenseto
- Re: So... Lerentz Contractions are *physical* not observered?
- From: jem
- Re: So... Lerentz Contractions are *physical* not observered?
- From: kenseto
- Re: So... Lerentz Contractions are *physical* not observered?
- From: jem
- Re: So... Lerentz Contractions are *physical* not observered?
- From: kenseto
- Re: So... Lerentz Contractions are *physical* not observered?
- From: Jem
- Re: So... Lerentz Contractions are *physical* not observered?
- From: kenseto
- Re: So... Lerentz Contractions are *physical* not observered?
- From: jem
- Re: So... Lerentz Contractions are *physical* not observered?
- From: kenseto
- Re: So... Lerentz Contractions are *physical* not observered?
- From: jem
- Re: So... Lerentz Contractions are *physical* not observered?
- From: kenseto
- So... Lerentz Contractions are *physical* not observered?
- Prev by Date: Re: Proper quantities in SR
- Next by Date: Re: What's the difference between field of charge and electric field?
- Previous by thread: Re: So... Lerentz Contractions are *physical* not observered?
- Next by thread: Re: So... Lerentz Contractions are *physical* not observered?
- Index(es):