TOM ROBERTS WILL EXPLAIN LENGTH CONTRACTION

Pentcho Valev wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
kenseto wrote:
1. Length contraction: In SR is length contraction a real physical
process or just merely the projection of the length of the observed
rod onto the observer's frame?

It is of course a projection of an object's proper length onto the
coordinates used by an observer to make a measurement of its length.

Is this a valid measurement of the length of a moving train: mark its
back end at time 12:00 and its front end at time 13:00, and then measure
the distance between marks? OF COURSE NOT! To qualify as a "measurement
of the length of a moving object" it is absolutely necessary that one
mark the front and back ends SIMULTANEOUSLY. This is INHERENTLY a
projection of the moving object's length onto the coordinates used.

Bravo Roberts bravo Tom bravo Albert Einstein of our generation
(Hawking has been dismissed). Now it is time for you to tackle even
the most difficult problems related to the concept of length
contraction. See Problem 7 ("Seeing behind the stick"), p. 47
(solution on p. 54), in

http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~...tbook/ch10.pdf

Imagine that the mark seen "behind the stick" possesses a pawl which,
released by the back end of the stick, erects so that the stick
remains trapped between the pawl and the wall. If one sees the mark,
one sees the erection of the pawl and then the trapped stick as well.
How long is the trapped stick? If you are really the Albert Einstein
of our generation, you will be able to twist and turn and camouflage
the absurdity in the end. Let us see.

Roberts Roberts you are still keeping your head in the sand but your
brothers etherists will resolve the problem at this conference:

http://physicsweb.org/events/11134
Mathematics, Physics and Philosophy in the Interpretations of
Relativity Theory
http://www.phil-inst.hu/PIRT_Budapest
07 Sep 2007 - 09 Sep 2007
Budapest, Hungary
"While the organizing committee encourages critical investigations and
welcomes both Einsteinian and non-Einsteinian (Lorentzian, etc.)
approaches, including the recently proposed ether-type theories, it is
assumed that the received formal structure of the theory is valid and
anti-relativistic papers will not be accepted."

At the conference your brothers etherists will discuss "the
ontological status of length-contraction and time-dilatation":

http://www.cet.sunderland.ac.uk/webe...e/Brochure.htm

Do you know anything about "the ontological status of length-
contraction and time-dilatation", Roberts Roberts? No? That is the
reason why you Roberts Roberts, although the Albert Einstein of our
generation (Hawking is no longer etc.), cannot resolve the "Seeing
behind the stick" problem. Only brothers etherists can.

Pentcho Valev