🚀 go-pugleaf

"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:ho0rr2pg16khti8c2ahfoubmhlob1u3h9f@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 16:51:03 GMT, "MathMagician" <Math@Magic.co.uk> wrote:
> 
>>
>><rotchm@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1169478732.985047.109090@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>> However, the basic reasoning exemplified in the above quoted text
>>>> implies instead of contraction of moving objects the exact contrary:
>>>> contraction of the rigid ether with respect to moving objects. In
>>>> LET (inasfar as it is not "a clever restatement" of SR), contraction
>>>> results from the motion through the ether [3], so contraction of the
>>>> ether with respect to moving objects is impossible.
>>> 
>>> Correct. Your quoted example is wrong. It should be the other way.
>>> 
>>>>Since he is moving at speed v, the length of the object is v*dt, where
>>>>dt is the time it takes him to traverse the length of the object - but
>>>>which  "dt" will he use?  Naturally if he bases his length estimate on
>>>> the  measure of the time interval recorded on a ground clock, he will
>>>>have dt = L/v, so he will judge the object to be v*(L/v) = L
>>> 
>>> That is totally wrong as you noted. The author of that claim has either
>>> screwed up or
>>> is....  <cough, cough>.
>>> 
>>> LET and SR perdict that a measurement of the lenght of the object will
>>> be v*dt where dt is the measured time (clock) and v the measured speed.
>>> The v*dt will yield L/gamma in both theories.
>>
>>Who cares?,  they are both ridiculous.
>>  http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/mmx4dummies.htm
> 
> That is not a good demo.

It's better than any you've made.


> 
> In the MMX, the observer is always at rest wrt the apparatus.

Yeah, so ? 

"To the "stationary" observer on the left the yellow path of the "tip of the ray" as Einstein calls it (which he/she never observes) "

Can't you fucking read, dumbfuck jealous ozzie?


> ....and you have proved again that you are a closet aetherist...
> 
> 
>