🚀 go-pugleaf

PD <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
  296d7c8b-1232-4245-b21b-b5c1dd7a53a4@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com
> On Aug 14, 3:10 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 14, 9:24 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> Y <yanar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> 
>>> fe1defe6-a029-4cbf-af66-0c56ef11f...@p31g2000prf.googlegroups.com
>> 
>>>> Oh look. If an 80m pole dosn't fit in a barn, you will need to bend it
>>>> or something.
>> 
>>> Yes, bend it, break it, or make it go very fast or something.
>> 
>>>> Whoever suggests that the doors can close in instant keeping the pole
>>>> neatly inside for that instant is crackers. If the Maths allow for it,
>>>> the maths are wrong, simple as that.
>> 
>>> No, the maths are right by design.
>>> Perhaps the postulates from wich the math came are wrong.
>>> Or perhaps your intuition was wong.
>>> Or perhaps the "instant when", or better, "the time during which"
>>> the pole was inside, was extremely short.
>> 
>>>> Only thing required to do, is keep testing the math in a friendly way
>>>> to ensure that this falsehood doesn't crop up.
>> 
>>> No need to keep testing the math.
>>> You can however test the physics.
>>> But there is no need to do it in a friendly way.
>> 
>> Something tells me, Cleverest Moortel, that you have somehow
>> understood the idiocy of this "physics". Why don't you test it, on
>> this forum, in a non-friendly way? You should only asume that your
>> brothers have forgotten to reopen the doors of the barn "pretty
>> quickly":
>> 
>> http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/barn_pole.html
>> "These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors
>> at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a
>> switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in
>> the barn....So, as the pole passes through the barn, there is an
>> instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you
>> close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. Of course, you open
>> them again pretty quickly, but at least momentarily you had the
>> contracted pole shut up in your barn."
>> 
>> Pentcho Valev
>> pva...@yahoo.com
> 
> Note that I've already answered this, but that he wants to see what
> you say.

ha... I don't open all Pispo's rants, just every now and then
I look at one of them - it doesn't matter to whom he replies,
since it's always the same anyway.
And I don't really care what he wants to see. He doesn't
seem to care either.

> 
> He seems to be stuck on trying to insist that if the door is shut and
> the pole hits the door, what happens after that point should still be
> a special relativity prediction.
> 
> He also has it stuck in his head that a tangible pole can only
> compress so much, no matter how fast the front of it is decelerated. I
> believe he is willing to entertain a compression of a few cm for an 80
> m long pole, but the notion that the back of the pole could move half
> the pole's length before even knowing that the front of the pole had
> been hit, is just anathema to him.

He first appeared here with his idea of Time Constriction as the
definitive "disproof of time dilation".
I bet it's still in there somewhere.
I *hope* it is still in there.

Dirk Vdm