🚀 go-pugleaf

On 9/17/2011 11:37 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> On Sep 17, 5:05 pm, Tom Roberts<tjrob...@sbcglobal.net>  wrote in
> sci.physics.relativity:
>> On 9/14/11 9/14/11 - 10:07 AM, Ron Aikas wrote:
>>> If there are no intrinsic length contractions in the SR model of
>>> the world, then the SR model is dead wrong because the only way
>>> to have the MMx null result is via an intrinsic contraction.
>>
>> I repeat: you are WRONG. SR applies to the MMX, predicts a null result, and has
>> no "intrinsic length contraction".
>
> Superior brothers Einsteinians deduce from special relativity that an
> 80m pole can be trapped inside a 40m barn. Has the trapped pole
> undergone "intrinsic length contraction", Honest Roberts? Or is it
> just "geometrical projection"? If special relativity does not imply
> that arbitrarily long objects can be trapped inside arbitrarily short
> containers, why do superior brothers Einsteinians teach this
> absurdity? Just to confuse additionally believers' minds?

I normally do not enter the "Who is smarter than Einstein" contest here, 
but I'll make this comment: Mostly the "physicists" out there making 
absurd statements like shrinking poles and slowing clocks haven't a clue 
about the difference between what one might MEASURE and the actually 
physical properties of the objects. Basically they are all "dumber than 
Einstein".

In case you don't know, the "smarter than Einstein prize goes to Oleg D. 
Jefimenko. The late backwater scientist and alleged loon who has done 
some excellent thinking on traditional explanations of MANY things. 
Allow me to Quote:

"There is a widespread belief that according to relativity theory the 
length of a body becomes shorter when the body moves. This is incorrect. 
The LENGTH of a body is defined as the length measured when the body is 
at rest relative to the observer and is an invariant quantity."

And later he concludes:

"The answer is simple: As a physical phenomenon the relativistic 
(kinematic) Lorentz contraction does not exist. And the fact that 
several revisions of this concept had no ill effect on relativistic 
electrodynamics or on any other branch of physics is an excellent 
indication that the concept does not represent a physical phenomenon in 
the conventional sense."

So, Pentcho, go tell your critics to buy a copy of the book 
"Electromagnetic Retardation and Theory of Relativity" and be 
enlightened. They can then come back and explain where Jefimenko made a 
mistake! (this will be rich!)

Benj signing off.