Re: The Impossibility of Spacelike Length Contraction


"RP" <no_mail_no_spam@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1192762138.858103.81590@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
: On Oct 18, 7:28 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
: > "RP" <no_mail_no_s...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
: >
: > news:1192748415.762485.269820@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
: > : On Oct 18, 12:39 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
: > : > "RP" <no_mail_no_s...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
: > : >
: > : >news:1192728253.739317.108700@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
: > : > : On Oct 17, 11:26 pm, Alen <al...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
: > : > : > THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF SPACELIKE LENGTH CONTRACTION
: > : > : >
: > : > :
: > : > : >
: > : > : > !) The laws of physics, as applied to the accelerations, are
: > : > : > independent of their location in the stationary frame. By the
: > : > : > POR, the laws of physics, as applied to the accelerations,
: > : > : > are also independent of their location in any inertial reference
: > : > : > frame moving at any velocity relative to the stationary frame.
: > : > :
: > : > : The laws are the same for all observers at rest wrt some given
: > : > : inertial frame of reference. However, because of differences in
their
: > : > : displacements from moving objects, they won't see things quite
: > : > : identically. At any given instant t_o, the reading on a moving
clock
: > : > : will be different for those observers and will be a function of
the
: > : > : displacement of the clock from the observer along the line of
motion
: > : > : of the clock. This is "relativity of simulatneity", and when
: > : > : overlooked it can lead to false conclusions such as you arrived at
: > : > : here.
: > : >
: > : > Yeah, when Einstein made lightning strike both ends of a train
: > : > simultaneously the strikes weren't simultaneous.
: > : > Trouble is nobody has managed to repeat the experiment to verify
it,
: > : > they keep getting electrocuted, and when an experiment cannot be
: > : > repeated it can lead to false conclusions such as you arrived at
here.
: > :
: > : I disliked the theory up until it was finally shown to me that it has
: > : no internal inconsitencies.
: >
: > Ah, but it does have internal consiStencies; in img22, c+v is used to
: > later prove img76 which says you can't use c+v. That is known as
: > "Catch 22" in modern parlance.
: >
: > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
: > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img76.gif
: >
: > As a simple mnemonic, img22 is Catch 22.
: > "Catch 22" was a story written by Joseph Heller, later made
: > into a movie.
: > img76 may be found at
: > http://www.pjchmiel.com/photo/signs/76truckstop.jpg
: >
: > No need for the rest of your ranting diatribe, what you like or dislike
: > isn't any kind of proof or even a convincing argument. If anything,
: > what you like or dislike is cause for suspicion on the part of the
: > sceptic who will make up his own mind.
: >
: > Wackypedia forms of proof are:
: > 1 Direct proof
: > 2 Proof by induction
: > 3 Proof by transposition
: > 4 Proof by contradiction
: > 5 Proof by construction
: > 6 Proof by exhaustion
: > 7 Probabilistic proof
: > 8 Combinatorial proof
: > 9 Nonconstructive proof
: > 10 Proof nor disproof
: > 11 Elementary proof
: > 12 Proof by "everybody knows".
: >
: > The last is most unacceptable, I'm not everybody. I often
: > encounter proof by "everybody knows" and it has never
: > yet convinced me.
:
: It doesn't seem to have occurred to you that a mathematical simulation
: of nature has no more of a link to reality than it's ability to make
: accurate predictions of it.

Whatever it may *seem* like to you, it hasn't occured to you to
check the mathematics. If you wish to debate the issue then do
so logically, Einstein's garbage is utter nonsense as I've explained
above.


: It only has engineering value. All of the
: terms that find their way into our equations were purely arbitrary
: premises, more or less the result of our direct and human experiences
: of nature. We are limited in that regard to those things that we can
: invent a "measure" of. But a measure of some "percieved" thing in
: nature is not the thing itself, thus no equation in physics is
: anything more than a relationship between measures of a percieved-to-
: be relevant aspects of some otherwise completely unknown qualia. We
: cannot know which theory is correct because it's more likely that no
: theory that we can derive will be a perfect representation of nature,
: and even more likely that we'll continue to get it even more wrong
: that it is as time progresses, because none of the preprints for some
: time have been anything more than hypothetical musings based upon yet
: other musings. Physics is at a perfect dead end until somebody wakes
: up and smells the roses.
:

You disliked the theory up until it was finally shown to you that it has
no internal "inconsitencies".
I've shown you the internal inconsiStencies. If you refuse to look
and wish to muse vacuously on perfect representations of Nature
or hypothetical musings based on other musings or upon subjective
perceptions that lack the objectivity of science then that's your
prejudice and your problem. The internal inconsistencies are there
whether you like them or not and you should reconsider your
subjectivism for the sake of sanity.




.

Quantcast