Re: A Flawed SR Concept

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 17:28:21 -0700, Brian Kennelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

>HenriWilson wrote:
>

>>>>
>>>>There is no PHYSICAL length change. Ask Paul Anderson.
>>>>
>>>
>>>That is ambiguous.  There is no change in proper length, but a real 
>>>change in the measured length can be deduced from the postulates of SR. 
>>> Because you use a premise that contradicts those postulates, your 
>>>"proof" says nothing about SR, which is fully consistent.
>> 
>> 
>> You just don't get it do you. THE ROD DOES NOT CHANGE IN LENGTH. That is all
>> that matters. Who cares about observers? Nobody has to measure the rod's length
>> in my experiment. There aren't any observers.
>> 
>I have asked you to prove your assumption that the length does not 
>depend on velocity.  Maybe you need to figure out how to measure the 
>length.  Then we can see how your method holds up to analysis.

One does not have to measure the length to know that is does not and CANNOT
depend on velocity.
 
The universe existed and things happened long before human observers were
around, you know!

>
>
>> 
>>>*If the postulates of SR are true, your method will fail.*
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>The ideal way to perform the train expt is to place two light sources on the
>>>>>>track and two light sources in the ends of trhe train. The ones on the track
>>>>>>must be separated by exactly the length of the train.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>A______train___________B-->v
>>>>>>       C________track_________D
>>>>>>
>>>>>>When the train ends are adjacent to the track sources, the four of them send a
>>>>>>light pulse towards the centre.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>This again assumes that there is no length contraction.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>There isn't one. It is an illusion. See my trivial proof.
>>>>www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/contractions.exe
>>>>
>>>
>>>Your proof is circular.  Try again.
>> 
>> 
>> Let me explain:
>> 
>> A________SPACESHIP->v__________B->2v
>> 
>> Observer A sees spaceship moving right at v. Observer B sees spaceship moving
>> left at v. 
>> Spaceship fires engine for short period.
>> 
>> A_________>>>>>SPACESHIP->v+dv_______________B->2v
>> 
>> Observer A now sees spaceship moving right at v+dv. Observer B sees spaceship
>> moving left at v-dv.
>> 
>> So has the spaceship increased or decreased its speed?
>> 
>> Does the value of 'v' in your sacred 'gamma' increase or decrease?
>> 
>It depends on the observer.  No problem.

Can you not then reach a sane conclusion. 

The length obviously DOES NOT PHYSICALLY change every time a different observer
happens to look at it.

You are making the same fundamental error that besets all those who are
infected with SR.
The LT's are illusions. Nothing REAL happens..

>> 
>> 
>> If all observations are made using arrays of absolutely synched clocks (whose
>> proper rates DO NOT vary with movement), then any particular event will be
>> registered at the same absolute instant in all moving frames.
>> 
>You have yet to prove that such clocks exist.

I have.
I did again above.
>
>
>
>-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>-----==  Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----


Henri Wilson. 
See the Stupidity of Relativity.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm