compiz wrote:
[...]

When you look at a building from the front, it is very wide. When you
look at it from a corner, it is not nearly as wide. Where is the
"missing width" stored?

The usage of the word "stored" is completely inappropriate here, and in
your post. Ditto for the word "missing".


Tom Roberts

On Feb 2, 2:25 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
compiz wrote:
[...]

never snip words you cant answer


When you look at a building from the front, it is very wide. When you
look at it from a corner, it is not nearly as wide. Where is the
"missing width" stored?

The usage of the word "stored" is completely inappropriate here, and in
your post. Ditto for the word "missing".

Tom Roberts

looks like totally bogus analogy

tha muon dont "see" from your "corner"

becus if he only was seeing, there would
be no problems

he is in its physically different world

this is why you dont understand your own
theory

all his physics has a deformed consistency

he really thinks our world physics is deformed
for no reason

where is this deformation in entropy and
physics stored?

compiz wrote:
On Feb 2, 2:25 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
When you look at a building from the front, it is very wide. When you
look at it from a corner, it is not nearly as wide. Where is the
"missing width" stored?
The usage of the word "stored" is completely inappropriate here, and in
your post. Ditto for the word "missing".

looks like totally bogus analogy

But it is a direct and cogent analogy. In SR, motion between frames is
DIRECTLY analogous to the spatial rotation involved in changing one's
viewpoint of a building. That is, the Lorentz transform is a ROTATION in
the x-t plane (for motion along the x axis). Just as my analogy is a
rotation in the x-y plane (with z upward). The x-t rotation is
hyperbolic, not circular, but that's a minor point and does not destroy
the analogy.


Tom Roberts

Tom Roberts wrote:
compiz wrote:
On Feb 2, 2:25 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
When you look at a building from the front, it is very wide. When you
look at it from a corner, it is not nearly as wide. Where is the
"missing width" stored?
The usage of the word "stored" is completely inappropriate here, and in
your post. Ditto for the word "missing".

looks like totally bogus analogy

But it is a direct and cogent analogy. In SR, motion between frames is
DIRECTLY analogous to the spatial rotation involved in changing one's
viewpoint of a building. That is, the Lorentz transform is a ROTATION in
the x-t plane (for motion along the x axis). Just as my analogy is a
rotation in the x-y plane (with z upward). The x-t rotation is
hyperbolic, not circular, but that's a minor point and does not destroy
the analogy.


Tom Roberts

thanks, but still not convinced

if it is only a vision issue, why they say
that the contraction is real and in only
one direction?

people have 2 eyes, and if the building
becomes smaller in one direction it becomes
thicker in the orthogonal direction

this depth deformation easily can be seen with 2 eyes

but seeing a relativity length contraction makes
apparently no any sense, namely because the
speed of light limitations

"compiz" wrote in message
...


Tom Roberts wrote:
compiz wrote:
On Feb 2, 2:25 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
When you look at a building from the front, it is very wide. When you
look at it from a corner, it is not nearly as wide. Where is the
"missing width" stored?
The usage of the word "stored" is completely inappropriate here, and
in
your post. Ditto for the word "missing".

looks like totally bogus analogy

But it is a direct and cogent analogy. In SR, motion between frames is
DIRECTLY analogous to the spatial rotation involved in changing one's
viewpoint of a building. That is, the Lorentz transform is a ROTATION in
the x-t plane (for motion along the x axis). Just as my analogy is a
rotation in the x-y plane (with z upward). The x-t rotation is
hyperbolic, not circular, but that's a minor point and does not destroy
the analogy.


Tom Roberts

thanks, but still not convinced

if it is only a vision issue,

Its not just a vision thing

why they say
that the contraction is real

Because reality is what we measure (whether with rulers and clocks or with
our senses)

and in only
one direction?

Because it only moves in onedirection.

people have 2 eyes, and if the building
becomes smaller in one direction it becomes
thicker in the orthogonal direction
this depth deformation easily can be seen with 2 eyes

You are taking the anlaogy too far.

but seeing a relativity length contraction makes
apparently no any sense, namely because the
speed of light limitations

It is the light speed limitation that require length contraction, time
dilation, and relativity of simultaneity. But you need all three for it to
make sense .. just looking at length contraction on its own (say) without
taking the other two effects into account ends up self-contradictory.

"compiz" wrote in message
...


Tom Roberts wrote:
compiz wrote:
On Feb 2, 2:25 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
When you look at a building from the front, it is very wide. When you
look at it from a corner, it is not nearly as wide. Where is the
"missing width" stored?
The usage of the word "stored" is completely inappropriate here, and
in
your post. Ditto for the word "missing".

looks like totally bogus analogy

But it is a direct and cogent analogy. In SR, motion between frames is
DIRECTLY analogous to the spatial rotation involved in changing one's
viewpoint of a building. That is, the Lorentz transform is a ROTATION in
the x-t plane (for motion along the x axis). Just as my analogy is a
rotation in the x-y plane (with z upward). The x-t rotation is
hyperbolic, not circular, but that's a minor point and does not destroy
the analogy.


Tom Roberts

thanks, but still not convinced

if it is only a vision issue, why they say
that the contraction is real and in only
one direction?

Well seen, it's definitely not only a vision issue. Nevertheless, there
certainly is no "missing" width that is "stored" somewhere. :-)

people have 2 eyes, and if the building
becomes smaller in one direction it becomes
thicker in the orthogonal direction

Only if someone tries to squeeze it! If the building becomes smaller in one
direction due to winter, it becomes smaller in all directions. Thus it
depends on the physical cause. And in case of relativity, people disagree
about the physical cause. Different explanations provide different ways to
make sense of it.

this depth deformation easily can be seen with 2 eyes

but seeing a relativity length contraction makes
apparently no any sense, namely because the
speed of light limitations

??? I'm afraid that that argument needs some development. :-)

Regards,
Harald

harry wrote:
"compiz" wrote in message
...


Tom Roberts wrote:
compiz wrote:
On Feb 2, 2:25 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
When you look at a building from the front, it is very wide. When you
look at it from a corner, it is not nearly as wide. Where is the
"missing width" stored?
The usage of the word "stored" is completely inappropriate here, and
in
your post. Ditto for the word "missing".

looks like totally bogus analogy

But it is a direct and cogent analogy. In SR, motion between frames is
DIRECTLY analogous to the spatial rotation involved in changing one's
viewpoint of a building. That is, the Lorentz transform is a ROTATION in
the x-t plane (for motion along the x axis). Just as my analogy is a
rotation in the x-y plane (with z upward). The x-t rotation is
hyperbolic, not circular, but that's a minor point and does not destroy
the analogy.


Tom Roberts

thanks, but still not convinced

if it is only a vision issue, why they say
that the contraction is real and in only
one direction?

Well seen, it's definitely not only a vision issue. Nevertheless, there
certainly is no "missing" width that is "stored" somewhere. :-)

people have 2 eyes, and if the building
becomes smaller in one direction it becomes
thicker in the orthogonal direction

Only if someone tries to squeeze it! If the building becomes smaller in one
direction due to winter, it becomes smaller in all directions. Thus it
depends on the physical cause. And in case of relativity, people disagree
about the physical cause. Different explanations provide different ways to
make sense of it.

this depth deformation easily can be seen with 2 eyes

but seeing a relativity length contraction makes
apparently no any sense, namely because the
speed of light limitations

??? I'm afraid that that argument needs some development. :-)

this is easy, i hope

we need a much highr speed than speed of light
in order for us to observe tha deformation of done
on an object traveling close ta speed of light

but thay pretend that we dont have such a speed
much higher than speed of light

consequently, they never can prove empirically that
that object experience anything at all at that speed



Regards,
Harald

"compiz" wrote in message
...
this is easy, i hope

No .. its not

we need a much highr speed than speed of light
in order for us to observe tha deformation of done
on an object traveling close ta speed of light

No .. we don't. We just need speed relative to us that are not so
incredibly tiny compared to that of light. The problem with what most
relativity-doubters would like ot see, is that getting some macroscopis
object up to that sort of speed (or finding one passing by) is very
difficult, as are the technical difficulties in measureing its length when
it is travelling so fast. The things we CAN easily get up to high speeds
are either point-particles or things that are so very small that we can't
easily directly measure them. There are other ways of finding evidence of
lenght contraction though than just sticking a ruler up as a fast meter rod
passes by.

but thay pretend that we dont have such a speed
much higher than speed of light

Of course there are speeds greater than light .. but nothing with mass, and
no information, can travel at them. The reason is that either there is a
maximum speed for information transfer, or there is no limit (which imples
you can have action-at-a-distance instantly across the universe). If there
is a limit, then light (it turns out) must travel at that speed. The
evidence is that that is the case.

consequently, they never can prove empirically that
that object experience anything at all at that speed

Relativistic effects happen at every speed .. they are just very very small
speed is very small. And indeed, as no object with mass can go at the speed
of light, it doesn't really make sense to talk about the effects of
relativity at the speed.

On Feb 4, 11:43 pm, "Jeckyl" wrote:
"compiz" wrote in message

...

this is easy, i hope

No .. its not

you do alot a mistakes here, i hope


we need a much highr speed than speed of light
in order for us to observe tha deformation of done
on an object traveling close ta speed of light

No .. we don't. We just need speed relative to us that are not so
incredibly tiny compared to that of light. The problem with what most
relativity-doubters would like ot see, is that getting some macroscopis
object up to that sort of speed (or finding one passing by) is very
difficult, as are the technical difficulties in measureing its length when

thats why we need a speed of light might higher than tha previous
speed of light

becus you cannot observe tha catastrophes of a
speed of light with
another speed of light
haveing tha same speed


it is travelling so fast. The things we CAN easily get up to high speeds
are either point-particles or things that are so very small that we can't
easily directly measure them.

bull****

you dont understan my ralativity


There are other ways of finding evidence of
lenght contraction though than just sticking a ruler up as a fast meter rod
passes by.

this other is very gay


but thay pretend that we dont have such a speed
much higher than speed of light

Of course there are speeds greater than light .. but nothing with mass, and
no information, can travel at them. The reason is that either there is a
maximum speed for information transfer, or there is no limit (which imples
you can have action-at-a-distance instantly across the universe). If there
is a limit, then light (it turns out) must travel at that speed.

you do a quite a big mistake here, i hope

you equate information to mass

mass is not information, learn this

for instance prediction is information

you cannot do prediction to matter

this is gay

The
evidence is that that is the case.

no sucha evidence exists


consequently, they never can prove empirically that
that object experience anything at all at that speed

Relativistic effects happen at every speed .. they are just very very small

you just said that you cannot observe any
relativity effects,
aka contraction and time dilation

this is gay

you pretend canning somthin but you cant

speed is very small. And indeed, as no object with mass can go at the speed
of light, it doesn't really make sense to talk about the effects of
relativity at the speed.

you see, i was right

you did many mistakes

"compiz" wrote in message
...
On Feb 4, 11:43 pm, "Jeckyl" wrote:
"compiz" wrote in message
...
this is easy, i hope
No .. its not
you do alot a mistakes here, i hope

You are talking complete nonsense

[snip rest of post, as I make the same response to each of your bits of
nonsense]