Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!micro-heart-of-gold.mit.edu!newsswitch.lcs.mit.edu!nntp.TheWorld.com!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 03:21:19 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: The World : www.TheWorld.com : Since 1989
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <nmhhvf$db0$4@pcls7.std.com>
References: <830ba67c-65ca-4831-b93b-6408ddaeb7e7@googlegroups.com>  <nm6fe8$176b$1@gioia.aioe.org> <98bc4eaf-5569-4738-9978-89e5cb80c403@googlegroups.com>  <nm9699$11jd$1@gioia.aioe.org> <nmal1h$rof$4@gioia.aioe.org>  <nmbo7m$lvq$1@gioia.aioe.org> <nmbtr2$ap7$2@pcls7.std.com>  <1d2d088a-0b5d-4c6e-bdda-a5524941f8a3@googlegroups.com> <nmer6e$q79$1@pcls7.std.com> <dc8d3145-0d5c-41a3-9c80-95ef89f72d43@googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: shell01.theworld.com
X-Trace: pcls7.std.com 1468812079 13664 192.74.137.71 (18 Jul 2016 03:21:19 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@TheWorld.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 03:21:19 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: nn/6.6.5
Xref: csiph.com sci.physics.relativity:387938

kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:

>On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 10:41:05 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> >Hey Idiot Moron-y the tip of the rivet crushed the bug before the head
>> >of the rivet hits the wall of the hole.

>> That depends on your frame of reference, Ken.  In some reference frames
>> (where the hole depth is length contracted) that is true. In other frames
>> (where the rivet shaft is length contracted) that is not true.
>> That was the whole point of that gedanken, to teach ROS.

>Idiot....here you are talking about material length contraction.....

No, I am not.  I am talking about what an observer stationary with the
wall sees, and what an observer stationary with the rivet sees.  Because
they see different things length contracted, they see a different
order of events.  There is no material contraction, because of their
viewpoints they see different things going on.

>here is no such material contraction.....there is abstract contraction
>expressed as geometric projection shortening of  the moving rivet shaft.
>which is not material contraction.

You actually got something correct for once. Because of their different
viewpoints the two observers see different sequences of events.