Re: Is there length contraction in SRT, uncle Ben?
- From: Martin Hogbin <goatNOSPAM1@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 09:16:56 +0100
Ben Bean wrote:
I'm lost when you ignore the infamous Relativity of Simultaneity. You used the term "in a simultaneous manner" and from there on out it's a blur, sorry. There are countless seeming paradoxes one can recite: the barn door and pole paradox, and I heard one about a bug being squashed or not by a shortened moving thing uh I forget. So what's the dang point I ask?? No sense wading thru all your raucous formulations when the premise itself is misstated. In short, and obvious, is the fact that Relativity stands up to every scrutiny. It's essence is the denial of the feasibility of a God's-Eye View of our universe.
Only in Galilean space and time. In Minkowski spacetime there is no problem
Martin Hogbin
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Is there length contraction in SRT, uncle Ben?
- From: Ben Bean
- Re: Is there length contraction in SRT, uncle Ben?
- References:
- Is there length contraction in SRT, uncle Ben?
- From: xray4abc
- Re: Is there length contraction in SRT, uncle Ben?
- From: Ben Bean
- Is there length contraction in SRT, uncle Ben?
- Prev by Date: Re: The speed of gravity revisited
- Next by Date: Re: A Very Simple But Fundamental Question
- Previous by thread: Re: Is there length contraction in SRT, uncle Ben?
- Next by thread: Re: Is there length contraction in SRT, uncle Ben?
- Index(es):