"kenseto" wrote in message
...
"Artful" wrote in message
...
"kenseto" wrote in message
...
"Artful" wrote in message
...
Come on now .. admit that you were wrong. Its not hard. You
completely
stuffed up what SR predicts happens wrt length contraction. Now be a
good boy and admit it .. and an apology for all your unprovoked name
calling
and criticizing my correct position would really show that you are a
person
worth of respect. Or will you be a remain a laughing stock forever?
He is not wrong.
He is. That you agree with him must send up alarms bells to Dono.
He is not wrong.

Yes .. he is. Your opinion that he is right simply confirms the fact that
he is wrong.

LET interprets that the rod will fit into the barn because
LET asserts that the contraction is physical.

LET says nothing about whether the pole is compressed more than the barn or
less than the barn or the same amount (in absolute terms).

LET will still measure that the barn will see the pole fit within it.

So are you saying that SR agree with the LET interpretation?

It's the same math .. you get the same observed prediction.

However, in LET, the pole and barn may ALSO be physically compressed by
differing amounts. LET just adds complications.

[snip]

In SR physical length is invariant....
No. It is frame dependent
You are an idiot...proper length is invariant

You said physical length.

Of course proper length is invariant in SR. I never said otherwise.

and proper length is physical length.

Only in the frame of reference of the object.