Re: Who hacked Ken's presentation?

On Aug 26, 8:21 pm, "kens...@xxxxxxxxxx" <kens...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Aug 26, 8:38 am, PD <thedraperfam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Aug 25, 5:10 pm, "kens...@xxxxxxxxxx" <kens...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Aug 25, 1:53 pm, rotchm <rot...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Tempted to put my word here...

IRT math contains SR math and thus IRT gives the same prediction as
SRT...

That is well know. However, many of the math you do in your own theory
is wrong.. you make many math calculations but some are correct.

The bogus concept of
relativity of simultaneity is not needed to explain all the paradoxes
of SRT.

That to is well known. Even Einstein claimed that. Some prefer to use
SR, some dont.

No this is not well known. The barn and the pole paradox need the RoS
to resolve. In IRT there is no paradox.....the pole does not fit into
the barn no matter how fast it moves.

There seems to be a problem here.

I don't normally read your post. The reason is that you sent a
threatening letter to my Daughter

I did no such thing.

which I turned over to the FBI.

Good for you. I've not been contacted by the FBI. Did you report the
vandalism on your internet presentation to the FBI? Do you have a case
number?

I
answer this post because you made false statement about my theory.

You say IRT contains SR as a subset. SR definitely asserts that the
pole does fit in the barn (and equivalent experiments have been done).

No the modern interpretation of SR on length contraction is that the
geometric projection of a meter stick moving wrt the observer is
contracted.....not the physical length of the moving meter stick. This
new interpretation means that the meter stick is not physically
contracted.

Sorry, this is in no way a "modern" or "new" or "different"
interpretation of relativity, and moreover it is wrong. The statements
of relativity have not changed.

The statement of relativity is that the pole DOES fit in the barn,
regardless whether you call it a physical contraction or a geometric
projection or changes the physical length of the pole or what.

The statement of relativity is that the pole DOES fit in the barn.

IRT claims that it does not.

IRT then is buying into an internal contradiction if it includes SR as
a subset.

This new interpretation agrees with the IRT interpretation
that the light path length of a moving meter stick is shorter than the
light path length of the IRT observer's meter stick.....the light path
length of IRT observer's meter stick is assumed to be the physical
length of his meter stick.

Therefore IRT contains the statement that the pole fits in the barn.

No ....the new SR interpretation says that the physical length of the
pole does not fit into the barn.....the geometric projection will fit
into the barn.

SR makes no such statement that the physical length of the pole does
not fit into the barn. Wherever did you get that fool idea?

The IRT interpretation is that the light path length of the moving
pole is predicted to be shorter than the barn and thus it is able to
fit into the barn. However, the physical length of the pole is not
able to fit into the barn.

Yet IRT also contains the statement that the pole does not fit into
the barn, according to what you just said. Therefore, IRT is self-
contradictory.

The contradiction is invented by you due to your poor understanding of
SR and IRT. Any third grader can see that. Bye.

Ken Seto

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Who hacked Kens presentation?
    ... In IRT there is no paradox.....the pole does not fit into ... pole does fit in the barn. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Poles, tubes and barns for morons, cretins and local village idiots.
    ... relativity, I think I can handle the pole-barn "paradox" without ... Bonehead hallucinates that a 25 foot tube will fit in a 20 foot barn ... now travelling at -0.866c relative to the pole. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: SR cannot determine Contraction
    ... What I asked is can the pole fit in the ... > barn with both doors closed simultaneously in the barn frame? ... but observations made from another frame cannot possibly affect ... The issue was that you asserted VERY clearly that in the thought experiment, SR would predict that the rod would NOT fit within the barn. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: TOM ROBERTS - Dono is confused, please help him out (was SR cannot determine Contraction)
    ... "There is a large class of thought experiments (the pole in the barn being ... larger objects to fit inside smaller enclosures (like the ... "Uniform relative motion cannot make a longer object fit inside a ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Lorentz Contraction for Dummies
    ... how Einstein in 1905 deduced from his new Special Relativity the same ... or often just the "Lorentz Contraction." ... into the farmer's 10 M long barn. ... The pole is L  long when at rest. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading