Re: Who hacked Ken's presentation?

On Aug 26, 9:32 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
<kens...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:666f1ef6-bb37-42b2-bcdf-e59991f3d0c9@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx





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 which I turned over to the FBI. 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

Wrong

ot wrong....SR says that the geometric projection of the pole will fit
into the barn....not the physical length of the pole. Tom roberts
agreed with this interpretation.


the modern interpretation of SR on length contraction is that the
geometric projection of a meter stick moving wrt the observer is
contracted

And that fits inside the barn

No geometric projection is not the physical length of the pole. A long
ladder fit through the door way did not change its physical length.


.....not the physical length of the moving meter stick.

What do you mean by 'the physical length'.

The physical length of a meter stick is its material length.

 If you refer to the space
physically occupied by the rod in the barn frame, then the length of that is
physically shorter.  

No....that's geometric projection the pole is never physically
contracted (shorter) as viewed in any frame (including the barn
frame).

If you mean the intrinsic inherent length of the pole
(in its own frame), then it is not

Intrinsic length is physical length is material length. Material
length is invariant no matter who is looking at it.


This
new interpretation means that the meter stick is not physically
contracted.

See above

See above.


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

There is no such interpretation in SR.  SRT is not a subset of IRT

The SR interpretation that the geometric projection of the pole is
contracted is equivalent to the the IRT interpretation that the light
path length of the pole is shorter than the barn length.


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.

So the pole fits in the barn.

The geometric projection will fit into the barn but not the material
length. When you orient a long ladder through a shorter door way its
material length is not changed.


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.

So does the pole fit in the barn or not?

Can't you read? IRT says that the light path length will fit into the
barn but not its material length. The length contraction equation in
IRT predicts the light path length of the moving pole. Similarly the
length contraction in SRT predicts the geometric projection of the
pole not its material length.


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.

So .. does IRT say the pole fits inside the barn

IRT predicts that the light path length of the pole will fit into the
barn but not its material length.

Ken Seto


?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Who hacked Kens presentation?
    ... pole does fit in the barn. ... interpretation of relativity, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Who hacked Kens presentation?
    ... The barn and the pole paradox need the RoS ... You say IRT contains SR as a subset. ... pole does fit in the barn. ...
    (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: Who hacked Kens presentation?
    ... >>> IRT math contains SR math and thus IRT gives the same prediction as ... The barn and the pole paradox need the RoS ...
    (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)