# Re: So why argue about spatial length contraction with SRIANS

*From*: JT <jonas.thornvall@xxxxxxxxxxx>*Date*: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 04:24:38 -0700 (PDT)

On 23 mar, 11:42, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 22, 8:32 am, JT <jonas.thornv...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

So why do i argue about a seemingless not that important part of

special relativity with the SRIANS.

Well it turns out that the contraction of space is a vital assumption

to be able to prove at light move at c and invariant thru space.

No... Not at all.

Yes it is the core of special relativity, it can not work without that

assumption.

And i proved that light do not move invariant thru space without that

assumption. See my correspondence with inertial where he ***must***

use that assumption to prove light to move at c thru space.

And there is quotes where Einstein says that if lightspeed varies

whole special relativity is a juggle work. Just as Androcles, i am not

quotation database.

<< where epsilon_0 and mu_0 are physical constants which

can be evaluated by performing two simple experiments

which involve measuring the force of attraction between

two fixed charges and two fixed parallel current carrying

wires. According to the relativity principle, these experiments

must yield the same values for epsilon_0 and mu_0 in all

inertial frames. Thus, the speed of light must be the

same in all inertial frames. >>http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html

Well what could i expect from a clueless quotation database bot, you

just throw citation in the air. The quote about have nothing to do

with light moving thru space between two spatial separtated points.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space

Well your a bot dreaming what can i say.

It is only a problem when theorists make

un-physical assumptions.

Bwahahaha so i make the unphysical asumption, no the unphysical

assumption is that contraction of spatial separation occur. You see

your citation above only handle propagation delays in media, where the

"stupid idea" is that all acceleration is pointlike on rods, further

assumption the acceleration always from backward to forward. I could

go on all day about special relativities idiotic assumption about what

acceleration is but i do feel like it is worth the time to spend on

it.

You see all those speculative assumptions in the microrealm turn out

to be flawed in the macrorealm.

Coordinate-time, rigid ether, light corpuscles etc.

Well at least my calculation of how to shoot down an object/particle

with a laser will not miss the object with 295 800 km, due to a

fantasy of contracted spatial separation between two objects.

Your both pitiful and laughable, i use realworld scenarios you just 30

meter between the two accelerators instead and fire two particles at

0.9999999999c,

According to relativity two spatially separated sensors ahead would

measure the separation to 4.2 mm between the particles bwhahahahaahah.

Well you better put three sensors there E,F,G. E 30 meter from last

accelerator, F ***4.2 mm from E*** and ***G 30 meter from E***. Now

you compare timings from each sensor F,G with sensor at E.

If F timing is closer to E timing, then contraction occured.

If G timing is closer to E timing, then no contraction occured.

JT

Sue...

JT- Dölj citerad text -

- Visa citerad text -

.

**Follow-Ups**:

**References**:

- Prev by Date:
**Re: So why argue about spatial length contraction with SRIANS** - Next by Date:
**Re: about maths: strictly speaking, off topic, but justified.** - Previous by thread:
**Re: So why argue about spatial length contraction with SRIANS** - Next by thread:
**Re: So why argue about spatial length contraction with SRIANS** - Index(es):