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

"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

"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

===================