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?

In case you've forgotten:

"There is a large class of thought experiments (the pole in the barn being
one of them) that rely on the misguided idea that length contraction allows
larger objects (like the pole) to fit inside smaller enclosures (like the
barn) as a byproduct of rapid relative motion. This is not the case"

"Uniform relative motion cannot make a longer object (the pole) fit inside a
shorter box (the barn). I was very clear on this from the very beginning."

"When compared at rest wrt each other, the pole in the problem is much
larger than the barn. Uniform relative motion cannot
make it fit inside the closed barn. This is what I am trying to convey"

"If the pole is in UNIFORM motion and you try to close the barn doors
simultaneously in the barn frame, you will hit the pole. The pole has not
become magically shorter simply through UNIFORM RELATIVE motion"

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_...tric_effect.3F

"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?

In case you've forgotten:

"There is a large class of thought experiments (the pole in the barn being
one of them) that rely on the misguided idea that length contraction allows
larger objects (like the pole) to fit inside smaller enclosures (like the
barn) as a byproduct of rapid relative motion. This is not the case"

It is not clear to me who said what, but according to SR you can
(very briefly) fit a long pole into a short barn.


--
Martin Hogbin

"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.

It is you who mis-interpreted the SR prediction.

No .. I (and the others here like Tom and PD) get it right

SR
predicts that length contraction is a geometric projection effect

Yes .. that is the model that describes what happens in SR.

and
geometric projection is not real physical effect....

It says nothing of the sort .. You don't understand SR, nor the terms used
in physics, so really, you are in no position to comment.

much like you see me to
be shorter from a distance and I see you to be shorter from a distance
even
though we are of the same height. A physically longer pole will not fit
into
a physically shorter barn pole because the pole is moving at a high speed
toward the barn.

That is what SR predicts. Whether you agree about the reality of it is a
different matter. But what SR PREDICTS will happen is that it will fit.

In SR physical length is invariant....

No. It is frame dependent

what is variant is
the light path of a rod [snip nonsense and drivel from kenseto .. he has
stopped talking physics now]

"Martin Hogbin" 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?

In case you've forgotten:

"There is a large class of thought experiments (the pole in the barn
being
one of them) that rely on the misguided idea that length contraction
allows
larger objects (like the pole) to fit inside smaller enclosures (like the
barn) as a byproduct of rapid relative motion. This is not the case"

It is not clear to me who said what, but according to SR you can
(very briefly) fit a long pole into a short barn.

Indeed you can. Dono said very clearly and firmly that it won't.

He is, of course, trying to weasel out of it now, as he must have realized
his mistake after so many people explaining that he was wrong, but his ego
won't permit him to admit it. He'd rather lie and distort what he and
others said than admit a mistake.

But thanks for adding your voice to the many that have disagreed with his
clear (and wrong) position. The only ones agreeing with Dono's position are
kenseto, androcles and henri .. the coven of crackpots .. if I were Dono,
that would worry me

In sci.physics.relativity, kenseto

wrote
on Sat, 1 Mar 2008 08:57:13 -0500
:

"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. LET interprets that the rod will fit into the barn because
LET asserts that the contraction is physical. So are you saying that SR
agree with the LET interpretation?

The point is moot for most interpretations of "rod" and "barn".

If the rod is, say, 10m long and moving at 0.8c, and the
barn door is 10m in width, the rod will be able to fit
through the barn door (from the barn's point of view) for
about 4m/(0.8 * 3 * 10^8) = 16.7 ns, assuming the rod is
properly oriented.

[snip for brevity]

In SR physical length is invariant....

No. It is frame dependent

You are an idiot...proper length is invariant and proper length is physical
length.

Kenseto is correct if one defines "proper length" with
respect to a single fixed reference frame (e.g., centered
around the Sun). Most people, however, don't define it
that way. ;-)


Ken Seto


--
#191,
"Woman? What woman?"

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"kenseto" wrote in message
...

"Martin Hogbin" 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?

In case you've forgotten:

"There is a large class of thought experiments (the pole in the barn
being
one of them) that rely on the misguided idea that length contraction
allows
larger objects (like the pole) to fit inside smaller enclosures (like
the
barn) as a byproduct of rapid relative motion. This is not the case"

It is not clear to me who said what, but according to SR you can
(very briefly) fit a long pole into a short barn.

This is what LET says. LET says that the contraction is physical. So are
you
saying that SR also says that the contraction is physical???

You understand neither theory well enough to comment.

"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.