🚀 go-pugleaf

On Dec 7, 03:45, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:
> Stamenin wrote:
> > WHY THE LENGTH IS SHORTENING IN EINSTEIN RELATIVITY?
> > This question is very often reopened in many discussions, and still is
> > not clarified.
>
> It is only "not clarified" to people like yourself who REFUSE to learn
> about relativity, and what it ACTUALLY says. So you waste your time
> trying to guess.
>
> Your "calculation" is completely wrong for the simple reason that you
> are not computing a MEASUREMENT. To get the right answer you must
> specify how an observer at rest in the earth frame measures the length
> between two events that are separated by 1m in the train frame. You
> didn't do that, and obtained nonsense.
>
>         Hint: to measure the length of a moving object you must
>         mark its endpoints SIMULTANEOUSLY and then measure the
>         distance between marks. Your "computation" essentially
>         marks the endpoints simultaneously in the train frame,
>         not the earth frame, so it's no wonder you get the wrong
>         answer.
>
> You need to STUDY. Nobody ever learned anything with their mouth open
> (or the usenet equivalent: posting nonsense to the net).
>
> Tom Roberts

Roberts Roberts how many red herrings can you place in a single
message? The real problem is that you and your criminal brothers have
destroyed any rationality in Einstein zombie world by teaching both
the idiotic "geometrical" interpretation of length contraction and the
equally idiotic "physical" interpretation:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/69494989e198f9b0?
Tom Roberts, May 1, 2006: "Here's a directly related example: When you
look at a building from directly in front, it appears to be wider than
when you look at it from a corner. This effect does not affect the
building itself, of course, and is purely due to your point of view.
And because this is purely a geometrical effect, it would not matter
if the front corners of the building were replaced with markers, there
being no object between them. Similarly in SR, "length contraction" is
purely a geometrical effect, an artifact of one's point of view, and
it does not matter if there is an object between the endpoints, or if
there are just markers with no object between."

http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=6603
"There are many things I might be asking when I ask someone to explain
length contraction. I might be asking, "Why do different inertial
observers (who are not at relative rest) disagree about the length of
a given (inertially moving) rod?" Or I might be asking, "Why is a
moving rod shorter than its stationary counterpart (of the same proper
length)?" Or I might be asking, "If you take a rod that is initially
at rest (in your frame of reference), and accelerate it, why is it
shorter after you accelerate it than it was before you accelerated
it?"......I'm not sure what Brown thinks about geometrical answers to
the first why-question, but he certainly thinks that GEOMETRICAL
ANSWERS TO THE SECOND TWO WHY-QUESTIONS ARE BAD EXPLANATIONS. He
thinks that good answers to these questions say something about the
way in which the FORCES HOLDING THE PARTS OF THE ROD TOGETHER depend
on velocity of the rod. Only that is a story of what causes the
PARTICLES TO GET CLOSER TOGETHER, and so what causes the rod to
shrink."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com