Re: The Special Theory of Relativity is dead

HenriWilson wrote:

> On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 08:58:36 -0700, Brian Kennelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>
> > 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."
>
>
> You obviously cannot grasp the point of this argument at all. 
> It has nothing whatsoever to do with what observers measure.
>  
How did I miss the point?  Is that statement not a necessary link in 
your proof?

> It is the REAL picture.
>
>
> > Or perhaps:
> > "If one observer sees the rod get longer, all observers must agree with 
> > him."
> >
> > Either way, it assumes that length is invariant.
>
>
> This is NOT an assumption. It is a known fact. All SRians know it. Ask Paul
> Andersen.
It is not a known fact, it is what you claim to be able to prove.

And whoever Paul Andersen is, he can answer for himself.



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