Re: TOM ROBERTS - Dono is confused, please help him out (was SR cannot determine Contraction)

On Feb 26, 3:21 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 26, 4:50 pm, Dono <sa...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Feb 26, 2:44 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 26, 4:37 pm, Dono <sa...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 26, 2:19 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 26, 3:53 pm, Dono <sa...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 26, 12:30 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

2. can you send me the original paper, I would highly appreciate it.

I'll have to hunt for it. It's a paper comparing ISR (collider)
rapidity distributions with those at FNAL (fixed target), if I
remember right. I think I remember seeing some references in Don
Perkins' book on particle physics, too.

Would be nice to have a look at it, I bet that Tom would like to see
it as well.

Tom and I have talked about it. He doesn't view as direct enough a
test to put it into the FAQ. I disagree, but it's not my FAQ. I
respect Tom a ton, but I don't always go to him as the authority on
relativity either.

Interesting,

I provided Tom with a few papers as well and he rejected them. I
agreed with him. Why did he reject the one we are talking about? What
was his exact answer?

Oh, frankly, I don't recall the exact words and am not in the spirit
to look up the transcript. You could ask him.

PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hopefully he's watching this discussion and he'll answer. His answer
will be even more interesting than the papers themselves :-)

OK, while you wait for that, let's get back to what SR *says* about
the barn and pole paradox.
First of all, do you understand that *SR* says any of the following
equivalent things:
1. That if the doors are shut simultaneously and briefly in the frame
in which the barn is at rest, it will be possible to have both doors
shut (if only briefly) with neither door touching the pole.

This is what the text of the badly phrased paradox says. You are
stretching when you say that this is what "SR says". I provided quite
a few citations that disagree that this is what "SR says".
We never resolved the issue of "stressless length contraction". We
left off at your providing the actual paper. We also discovered that
Tom turned down the paper for reasons that are yet unknown. This does
not bode well for the theory of "stressless length contraction"



3. That if there is only one door to the barn, then it is possible to
have the rear of the pole pass through the door BEFORE the front of
the pole hits the back wall of the barn.

Likewise, do you understand how an observer at rest relative to the
pole would account for those events, and how that is *completely
consistent* with SR and the laws of physics?


None of the above is part of our discussion. Please don't talk down to
me, I understand all these issues. Please stick to the subject of our
discussion: i.e. is the length contraction a physical or just a
geometric effect?




.

Relevant Pages