Re: The Special Theory of Relativity is dead

Brian Kennelly wrote:
> HenriWilson wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 15:06:19 -0700, Brian Kennelly 
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> > > HenriWilson wrote:
> >
> >
> > > > > You have claimed to be able to prove the invariance, but all you 
> > > > > have to offer are more and more adamant assertions.  Where is your 
> > > > > proof?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The proof is that nothing can get bigger and smaller at the same time.
> > >
> > >
> > > You are attempting to prove your point by establishing a 
> > > contradiction, but there is no reference system in which the rod gets 
> > > bigger and smaller at the same time, so there is no contradiction, 
> > > and no proof.
> >
> >
> >
> > I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that you are nothing but a SRian
> > religious fanatic who ghas no reasoning power at all. Oh, Well. I 
> > suppose that
> > makes you no different from the rest of them.
>
> You cannot establish the contradiction that is the heart of your 
> argument, and you accuse me of faulty reasoning?  I have given you many 
> opportunities to complete your proof, but you never do.
>
> This is very simple.  Where does SR say that something gets bigger and 
> smaller at the same time for any single observer?
To shorten the discussion, I will state what should be obvious.  The 
missing link in your proof is some form of the statement:
"The rod has a single length, which is the same for all observers, so 
all observers must see the same change."

Or perhaps:
"If one observer sees the rod get longer, all observers must agree with 
him."

Either way, it assumes that length is invariant.



-----= 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! =-----