Re: Length Contraction is not physical.


"Uncle Ben" <ben@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:b562583e-c155-4502-84c5-6d5921dcba73@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jul 31, 9:05 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
...........
====================================
Yep, so it is bad logic. x'/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) IS an expansion, only
a fuckwit like you wouldn't understand simple algebra.
In SR length expansion due to motion can stretch the meter stick
to almost infinity.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Le

What does "Le" mean? And by what bizarre logic does Androcles claim that
the
length of a moving rod is x'/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Pete, I don't know. I do know how Androcles confused h9imself. See
my pages, linked below. Look in directory Relativity and find the
file with "Androcles" in the title.

Uncle Benhttp://greenba.com
==========================================
Bwhahahahahahaha!
You don't know why you wrote "Le" or you don't know
Einstein's bizarre paper
ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS
OF MOVING BODIES
By A. Einstein
June 30, 1905

wherein it says
x' = x-vt,
xi = beta * (x-vt)
beta = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2),
that poor Piggy Mad Brown has never read or will ever understand ?

You should at least explain that to the poor moron.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Pete, you can see it right there in his post above. The poor guy
writes those three equations correctly, but he doesn't know what the
symbols mean.

x' = x (the K coordinate of the r.h. end of the rod)
minus vt (the K coordinate of the l.h. end of the rod)
and thinks that it is the *rest* length of the rod. ROFLMAO. It is,
of
course, the length L in the frame in which the rod is moving.


In the next equation, he write "xi =" but does not know that the
greek
letters are coordinates in the rest frame of the rod, k. So xi = L0.
And x' is the *movig* length of the rod.


He thinks that since k is a frame *moving* w.r.t. K, the length of
the
rod in k is the moving length. He cannot grasp that the rod is
moving
WITH k, which makes k the rest frame of the rod. He cannot grasp that
a moving rod in a moving frame is at rest w.r.t. that frame if the
speeds are the same.


So Einstein's correct contraction display is got backward by John,
who
gloats over the "fact" that Einstein proved an expansion. It is so
simple, and other people's derivations are even simpler (like mine),
but he has seized on a supposed mistake by Einstein and is playing a
stupid game of "gotcha" that makes him look as ridiculous as he
really is.


To cap off this wonderful idiocy, he is too arrogant to admit he made
a mistake even when he realizes that hs is wrong.


It is a classic cautionary tale worth telling to school chldren.


Uncle Ben
=============================================
Bonehead is too stupid to understand how Einstein's length expansion
of the moving barn in the frame of the pole is a violation of Einstein's
suggestion that the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be
valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics
hold good.
In other words, xi = x'/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) = xi does NOT imply
x' = xi * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) according to the PoR, AND Bonehead is a
babbling cretin.
It is a classic cautionary tale worth telling to school children.

Of course there is no problem if pole and barn are the same length,
which they are regardless of relative velocity when the pole is at rest
in the pole frame and the barn is at rest in the barn frame.
It is a classic cautionary tale worth telling to school children.

To cap off this wonderful idiocy, Bonehead is too arrogant to admit he
made a mistake calling the Einstein Expansion a "Lorentz Contraction"
even when he realizes that he is wrong.
It is a classic cautionary tale worth telling to school children.


.

Quantcast