🚀 go-pugleaf

On Nov 8, 11:28 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 8, 9:14 am, Don Stockbauer <donstockba...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> sci.physics.relativity:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 8, 12:49 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 7 Nov, 21:01, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > > In SR, neither "length contraction"
> > > > nor "time dilation" are physical -- they are purely geometrical. A
> > > > moving ruler does not physically get any shorter, it is merely MEASURED
> > > > shorter by an observer relative to whom it is moving along its length.
> > > > Ditto for clock tick-rates.
>
> > > >         Simple example: take two meter sticks, A and B, and place
> > > >         them in a V on the ground. Project the end of each
> > > >         perpendicularly onto the other. The length of A projected
> > > >         onto B is less than 1 meter; the length of B projected
> > > >         onto A is likewise less than 1 meter. Yet NEITHER stick
> > > >         is physically shorter. This is easily recognizable as a
> > > >         geometric projection that does not affect the meter sticks
> > > >         at all. In SR, "length contraction" and "time dilation"
> > > >         are PRECISELY the same -- geometric projections that do
> > > >         not affect objects at all.
>
> > > Roberts Roberts you are paid for teaching that length contraction and
> > > time dilation are "purely geometrical", not "physical", and so teach
> > > your French brothers - Thibault Damour and Gilles Cohen-Tannoudji for
> > > instance. However most brothers in Einstein criminal cult teach the
> > > opposite Roberts Roberts - they are paid for explaining how a long
> > > train can be trapped inside a short tunnel, how a 80m long pole can be
> > > trapped inside a 40m long barn, and, what is most important Roberts
> > > Roberts, those brothers of yours tell the "story of what causes the
> > > particles to get closer together, and so what causes the rod to
> > > shrink":
>
> > >http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/threa...
>
> > > Who gives the money for all those good salaries Roberts Roberts?
> > > Taxpayers in Einstein zombie world?
>
> > > Pentcho Valev
>
> > Only Napoleon held aloof. He had declared himself against the windmill
> > from the start.  One day, however, he arrived unexpectedly to examine
> > the plans. He walked heavily round the shed, looked closely at every
> > detail of the plans and snuffed at them once or twice, then stood for
> > a little while contemplating them out of the corner of his eye; then
> > suddenly he lifted his leg, urinated over the plans, and walked out
> > without uttering a word.
>
> A nice story but now you shall return to the problem your masters have
> not solved yet:
>
> 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-

Once you're done with that, maybe you could start contemplating why
people seem to get smaller as they move away from you.