🚀 go-pugleaf

On Nov 13, 7:36 pm, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 13, 12:14 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 13, 6:29 pm, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 13, 8:57 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > >http://www.ias.umn.edu/pdf/TimeandRelativity-Janssen.pdf
> > > > Michel Janssen: "Does Minkowski space-time, thus understood, explain
> > > > length contraction and the phenomena examined in this talk? Yes and
> > > > no. It explains them by showing they need no explanation."
>
> > > You forgot to add your usual misinterpretation to this. What
> > > do you think is the significance of that statement in light
> > > of his opening sentence?
>
> > > "I defend the widely held view challenged by Harvey Brown
> > > in his recent book that special relativity is preferable to those
> > > parts of Lorentz's electron theory it replaced because various
> > > phenomena that special relativity reveals to be of purely kinematical
> > > origin were given a dynamical explanation in Lorentz's theory."
>
> > I have neither an interpretation nor a misinterpretation of length
> > contraction
>
> I didn't ask for one. Your common format is to provide
> a misinterpretation of the paper you cite, usually along
> the lines that someone in the "priesthood" is upsetting
> the "orthodoxy".

Yes, but the orthodoxy is not well defined sometimes. Consider this:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/90117d15e24867a3?

Master Tom Roberts claims length contraction is GEOMETRICAL whereas
Master Harvey Brown gets a lot of money by producing bestsellers where
he claims length contraction is PHYSICAL (particles somehow get closer
together). Where is the orthodoxy?

Pentcho Valev