|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Spacetime is Absolute (only Space & Time Relative)
On Dec 3, 5:25*pm, Tom Roberts wrote in
sci.physics.relativity: But certainly "length contraction" and "time dilation" in relativity do not involve any sort of "change" in the object itself, they are indeed due to being "seen, so to speak, from different angle" (4-d angles, of course). Tom Roberts Absolutely correct, Honest Roberts. Silly brothers Einsteinians claim that the pole is "trapped IN A COMPRESSED STATE inside the barn": http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...barn_pole.html "These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in the barn. (...) If it does not explode under the strain and it is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be trapped IN A COMPRESSED STATE inside the barn." http://www.parabola.unsw.edu.au/vol3...ol35_no1_2.pdf Parabola Volume 35, Issue 1 (1999), LENGTH AND RELATIVITY by John Steele: "Suppose you want to fit a 20m pole into a 10m barn. (...) Hence in both frames of reference, the pole fits inside the barn (and will presumably shatter when the doors are closed)." ....but clever brothers Einsteinians (you are among them, Honest Roberts) know that there can be no compression, shattering etc. If silly brothers could look at the trapped pole from the correct angle, they would see no compression, shattering etc. Am I right, Honest Roberts? Pentcho Valev |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Spacetime is Absolute (only Space & Time Relative)
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message ... On Dec 3, 5:25 pm, Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity: But certainly "length contraction" and "time dilation" in relativity do not involve any sort of "change" in the object itself, they are indeed due to being "seen, so to speak, from different angle" (4-d angles, of course). Tom Roberts Absolutely correct, Honest Roberts. Silly brothers Einsteinians claim that the pole is "trapped IN A COMPRESSED STATE inside the barn": http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...barn_pole.html "These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in the barn. (...) If it does not explode under the strain and it is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be trapped IN A COMPRESSED STATE inside the barn." http://www.parabola.unsw.edu.au/vol3...ol35_no1_2.pdf Parabola Volume 35, Issue 1 (1999), LENGTH AND RELATIVITY by John Steele: "Suppose you want to fit a 20m pole into a 10m barn. (...) Hence in both frames of reference, the pole fits inside the barn (and will presumably shatter when the doors are closed)." ....but clever brothers Einsteinians (you are among them, Honest Roberts) know that there can be no compression, shattering etc. If silly brothers could look at the trapped pole from the correct angle, they would see no compression, shattering etc. Am I right, Honest Roberts? Pentcho Valev ================================================= Bwahahahaha! Let's Humpty Roberts squirm. And what is really funny is that according to the arithmetic the pole shrinks when it comes to rest. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/SR4kids/x'=x-vt.gif |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Spacetime is Absolute (only Space & Time Relative)
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message ... On Dec 3, 5:25 pm, Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity: But certainly "length contraction" and "time dilation" in relativity do not involve any sort of "change" in the object itself, they are indeed due to being "seen, so to speak, from different angle" (4-d angles, of course). Tom Roberts Absolutely correct, Honest Roberts. Silly brothers Einsteinians claim that the pole is "trapped IN A COMPRESSED STATE inside the barn": ==================== Not a "COMPRESSED STATE", Valev. They, some of them, can envision potentially larger possibilities (some possibilities vastly differing from others), however far out, than apparently you can ever even begin to imagine. That longer pole, without compressing, or being compressed, one little bit, could actually -possibly- fit in that shorter barn with both doors closing, and closed, upon it. Try a velocity for the traveling -longer- pole (relative to the shorter barn) negative to the barn's RELATIVE zero of velocity. Without 'compressing' in the least bit within its own frame, that pole would become *apparently* shorter and ever shorter, *apparently* smaller and ever smaller (physically more distant and ever more distant from the barn into the greater depths of the Universe / Multiverse), within the frame of the [at rest] barn....between the two closing, and closed, doors of the barn [at rest]. Or do you think that barn sitting there is doing an absolute of zero velocity in the Universe. That nothing, nothing at all, in the Multiverse can travel slower than it, relatively speaking, that is. I can envision the barn's immediate frame ("frame" in more senses of 'frame' than just one) an expanding universe relative to the pole's immediate frame, the pole's local universe a contracting universe relative to the surrounding barn's local universe. The pole's departing the barn (also the Earth, the Solar System, and maybe even the galaxy (and maybe even the local universe of the galaxy)) by another route than the doors, the walls, the ceiling or the floor, under negative way: under a *relative* velocity negative to zero. So the pole would not at all be "trapped IN A COMPRESSED STATE inside the barn". You've got terrible vision, Valev, really terrible. Your mind's eyes need glasses....glasses with strong (thick) lenses. GLB =================== |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Finding relative and absolute luminosity from abs mag? | canopus56 | Amateur Astronomy | 1 | February 14th 06 06:30 PM |
absolute and relative launch pad | brian a m stuckless | Policy | 0 | November 18th 05 05:43 PM |
absolute and relative launch pad | brian a m stuckless | Astronomy Misc | 0 | November 18th 05 05:43 PM |
Re; absolute time | Oriel36 | Research | 0 | June 13th 04 07:40 PM |
Absolute and relative time | Jonathan Silverlight | Research | 1 | June 12th 04 11:04 AM |