Re: SR cannot determine Contraction

On Feb 24, 2:37 pm, "Artful" <art...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Dono" <sa...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:c768bdb1-ea99-4360-98ba-c1ae80aa5710@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Feb 24, 5:33 am, "Artful" <art...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Yeup. And, of course, due to that projection, a moving rod really does
tkae
up less physical space at any given time than a stationary rod.

No, it doesn't "take up less physical space".

Yes .. it does

It is just a projective
effect THROUGHOUT.
Read references [9][10] here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction#A_trigonometric_effec...

Sorry .. but you are wrong there. See the rod and barn paradox for a nice
example. A contracted 'moving' rod takes up less physical space in a
'stationary' frame at a given time in that frame.



Jekyll,

I know the paradox, this simple exercise doesn't support your view.
BTW: there is no such thing as a 'stationary' frame in SR. Please try
reading the recommended reference.

The above should not be misconstrued in any form or fashion as my
agreeing with the Ken Shito crackpot.
.

Loading