On May 6, 4:11*pm, PD wrote:
On May 6, 2:45*pm, kenseto wrote:

On May 6, 11:18*am, PD wrote:

[Not going to respond to the rest of this, since it is clear that Ken
is completely and utterly beyond hope. But I'll focus on one point
that appears to be new.]

ROTFLOL....you are not responding because you don't have a valid
argument. I am not going to respond the rest of your post until you
admit that Einstein did stipulate that the lightning strikes occur
simultaneously and that:
1. the track observer sees them to be simultaneous because he is not
moving wrt the light fronts.
2. the train observer sees them to be not simultaneous because he is
moving wrt the light fronts.

Ken Seto


Yes, it is really physically contracted. This does NOT mean that
something physical had to happen to the pole to make that happen.

Sure it does mean that. Both ends of the pole cannot be inside the
barn if the pole did not under go physical change.

Note
that I didn't have to do ANYTHING to the rock to have its kinetic
energy be different in different reference frames. You seem to have
difficulty accepting this reality. You have an assumption that you
simply cannot let go of.

Energy is not physical.

Now, THAT's a remarkable statement, Ken.

Interestingly, linear momentum of an object can also be different in
different reference frames, without doing anything to the object, in
exactly the same way this is true for kinetic energy.
I suppose you're going to tell me that linear momentum is not
physical, either, which would be an equally remarkable statement.

Don't you find it interesting, Ken, that two of the most important
laws of physics are conservation of energy and conservation of linear
momentum, and yet you regard these as being unphysical quantities?

Isn't it interesting that you consider length to be more physical
(where is there a conservation of length law?) than momentum and
energy? I wonder on what basis you make that statement.

Would you like to go back home to fetch your copy of Halliday and
Resnick and see what they say about the physicality of momentum and
energy?

Isn't it interesting, Ken, that in the last few months, you've
asserted that not only did Einstein get it wrong, but Halliday and
Resnick have it all wrong, Newton had it wrong, Galileo had it wrong
-- and in fact there is NOTHING that any of these people have said
that you accept as true? Isn't it interesting that there isn't ONE
THING that you can claim you understand and agree with from the world
of physics?

PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -