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

"Dono" <sa_ge@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:fa680ace-e352-4eed-a65c-d6b453b61908@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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".

It is

I provided quite
a few citations that disagree that this is what "SR says".

No .. you provided none at all.

We never resolved the issue of "stressless length contraction".

There is no stress involved in length contraction.

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.

Clearly you don't .. otherwise you wouldn't have posted statements that are contrary to what SR predicts. You are also in no position to complain about being talked down to ,as you have done so to me continually in this thread, despite you begin wrong. As soon as I pointed out your error, you started with calling me a 'bozo'. If you wish to be treated with respect, then you should show some.

Please stick to the subject of our
discussion: i.e. is the length contraction a physical or just a
geometric effect?

Yes .. it is both.



.

Relevant Pages