Re: A Flawed SR Concept

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 14:04:30 -0700, Brian Kennelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

>HenriWilson wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 13:15:07 -0700, Brian Kennelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>HenriWilson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>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.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I am not claiming that it does.  I am claiming that it has a different 
>>>length for different observers, not that it changes when they look.
>> 
>> 
>> I will say it once again, there are no observers in my experiment.
>> It merely compares the length of one rod against that of another identical one.
>> 
>Okay, but why do you expect the length to be independent of velocity?

Give me one reason why it should change. I have proved convincingly that it
doesn't. 

>
>> I will make it easier for you to understand. In my experiment, I will move one
>> rod  to the left and the other to the right at the same velocity. Now, if they
>> contract, they will do so by the same amount. Does that make you happy? 
>> I can now establish absolute simultaneity at the ends of each rod (which can be
>> 100LY apart). Having established absolute simultaneity at these points, I can
>> repeat the experiment using one of these clocks and another one. 
>> 
>You have now synchronized the clocks correctly in the reference frame in 
>which the rods move with equal and opposite velocities.  It does not 
>establish absolute simultaneity, only simultaneity in that specific 
>frame.  From another reference frame, e.g. that in which the clocks are 
>at rest, the rods are unequal, the method fails, and the clocks are not 
>properly synchronized.

If you keep snipping the important sections of my posts I will get annoyed. 
Why can't you answer the hard questoins. I don't think I'll bother reading your
messages any more. You are plain dumb!

>


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