rbwinn wrote in
:

On May 15, 10:14Â*am, bz wrote:
rbwinn wrote in news:14a9254a-5835-4483-b00d-
:





On May 15, 2:24�am, PD wrote:
On May 14, 11:31�pm, rbwinn wrote:

� � However, it defies all of the laws of physics and
ma
thematics for
a train to shrink to a fraction of its length just because it is
moving.

What laws of physics and mathematics would that be?

In the interest of foreshortening the conversation, note that
neither the Galilean nor Lorentz transforms are laws of physics.
Perhaps you could start by listing a few laws of physics you know,
and then select out of that pool the ones you think are defied by
having length be a frame-dependent quantity.

While you're at it, note that kinetic energy of an object is a
frame- dependent quantity, even in Galilean physics. And note that
energy conservation is one of the laws you're looking for. This
would be a good opportunity to point out also why no laws of physics
are violated by this frame-dependence.

PD

Well, according to Einstein's interpretation of the Lorentz
equations, and also Lorentz's, one frame of reference actually
shrinks relative to the other. Â*Not only that, but the one that
shrinks is also its
own
size in its own frame of reference, and the other frame of reference
is shrinking. Â*So there are several things going wrong at once here
.

....

What things are wrong?

Since [from the trains FoR] the strike at the front occurs first,
followed

by the strike at the rear, AND [from the trains FoR] the track is
SHORTENED,
it should come as no surprise that to the observer on the train, the
marks

on the track are closer together than the length of the train.
After all, the front of the train has passed the front mark by the time
th
e
rear strike/mark is made.

--
Well, as I was saying, that is the scenario that scientists present.
The part I do not believe is where the little short train passes in
front of the observer by the track, and lightning strikes
simultaneously in his frame of reference , making two marks on the
track the length of the short little train which was smashed to that
length by the distance contraction.

The nice thing about science is that it is that no 'faith' or belief is
required. Only observation.

If you want to disprove Einstein's theory then you must propose an
experiment that can be done. Einstein's theory must predict a certain
result. Your theory must predict a different result.

Run the experiment.

If the results fail to support Einstein's theory but are consistent with
your theory, then you publish your results. Others attempt to replicate
your experiment. If, indeed, Einstein's theory is falsified, then you will
have succeeded and will probably get a Nobel prize.

I will tell you what will not work: posting here that you disagree with
what Einstein's theory predicts.

That will not work because that is not how science works.

Another thing that will not work is misinterpreting Einsteins theory and
claiming that it says something different from what it actually says. Seto
and others frequently do this. You have just done it when you used the
words ''short little train which was smashed''.

You know quite well that Einstein never said the train would be smashed.
He only said that the observer riding on the train would observe the
flashes as not being simultaneous. He goes on and shows that the Lorentz
equations can be used to predict how the measured length of moving objects
will be effected by their motion.

He never said the train will be 'smashed'. In fact, his equations show
that, to the observer riding on the train, the length will be unchanged.
As the observer and his measuring tools ALL change together.

Your word choice shows that you are attempting to use propaganda
techniques to makes Einstein's predictions seem ridiculous.

You are attempting to use emotion to persuade rather than logic.

The problem with this is that you can not convince anyone important with
this approach.

You want to convince scientists that Einstein is wrong. You must know the
science as well as they do.

If someone tried to tell you that they could weld aluminum to steel using
only the steam from a tea kettle, would you believe them?

Of course not. You know that wouldn't work. You would know that they were
completely ignorant of welding and how it works. What would you tell them?
After you tried 10 or 15 different ways to convince them that they were
wrong, what would you say?




--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap