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?

Do you think geometric projection isn't "valid" unless it can get the jar's top inside the jar?
.

Loading