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

kenseto wrote:
"jem" <xxx@xxxxxxx> wrote in message news:oL5ki.2618$Sb4.724@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

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?


Yes geometric projection should shrink the object in all three dimensions.
Just as we see a building from a distance it shrinks in all three
dimensions.

Evidently it comes as a surprise to you that the theory you've claimed to understand for the last decade plus, and claim is a subset of your own theory, indicates that length contraction is a one dimensional effect. :)

BTW, you said that the moving rod only shrinks in the direction of motion.
Does that mean that you are accepting that the rod is in a state of
individual motion? and that individual motion have a specific direction in
space? If so is that individual motion is the absolute motion of the rod?

Of course not, Seto. The moving rod doesn't shrink - the rod is measured to be shorter from a reference frame in which it's moving than the reference frame in which it's at rest, simply because moving frame observers mark the locations of the rod's endpoints with a different definition of simultaneity than do rest frame observers.



.

Quantcast