🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Aug5.210615.18774@sei.cmu.edu>, firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) writes...

>opinion you attribute to me.  Yes, I believe that a lot of SR is
>much less mystical and paradoxical than many people suppose - for
>example, the 'Barn and Pole' paradox that I wrote up for the FAQ
>list seems to me a simple matter of clear postulates plus common
>sense (too bad the editor changed the original numbers).

Just for the record...  Generally speaking, when I have received a FAQ
entry, solicited or otherwise, which seems like useful material, I have 
sent the text out to a third party, also usually a sci.physics participant,
for review.  Of course, I take the liberty of making changes myself when 
I think that I am qualified, and/or have the time.  But while I take 
full responsibility for the contents of the FAQ, I don't always want
to be in the position of becoming completely expert on any topic someone 
wants to put in the FAQ.

In the case of the Barn FAQ (although I certainly could have done it myself  
given the time) the changes were made by a well-intentioned third
party.  I was just several days ago notified by a sharp-eyed reader of the
August FAQ that the numbers did not make sense because the contraction factor
should be the same from both points of view.  I have already made the changes. 

There is no need for anyone to be unhappy with the contents of the FAQ,
whether they are the original submittee or not.  Just drop me some E-mail
and I'll be glad to discuss any changes you think appropriate.  In fact,
many people already do this on a pretty regular basis, which is most of 
why the FAQ changes from month to month.

-Scott

--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"The question seems to be of such a character
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		that if I should come to life after my death
				and some mathematician were to tell me that it
				had been definitely settled, I think I would
				immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver