Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #356277

Re: On length contraction and the length contraction paradox

Show all headers | View raw

On 7/7/2015 8:05 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
>> On 7/7/2015 9:18 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> On 7/7/2015 1:59 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>>> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/6/2015 1:44 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>> I assume you're discounting man-made interplanetary probes and
>>>>>>>> astronomical bodies, all of which are macroscopic objects moving at
>                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>>>>> relativistic speeds.
>          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>>>> […]
>>>> […]
>>>> Relativity applies at ALL speeds, not just speeds above a certain
>>>> domain.
>>>
>>> Your logic is flawed.  We are not discussing if relativity applies to all
>>> speeds; that was never doubted.  We are discussing which speeds deserve
>>> to be called “relativistic”.
>>>
>>> If the term “relativistic speed” applied to all speeds, then it has no
>>> meaning.
>>
>> Exactly the point that physicists make.
>
> You have no clue what points physicists make.  You do not even know what you
> said just a few postings before.  There is a reminder above.

I see it. A ball rolling on a table is also moving at relativistic 
speeds for certain applications and measurements. What's your point?

>
>> There is no distinct meaning for "relativistic speeds".
>
> There is.  I have just told you.
>
>> It is vague, soft-boundaried, qualitative term that is generally avoided
>> as being without objective meaning.
>
> Assuming for a moment that would be true, you have used it in your argument.

What argument? You're always assuming that everyone must be making an 
argument. I made a comment.

>
> What does that tell you?
>
>
> PointedEars
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: On length contraction and the length contraction paradox udr310515@gmail.com - 2015-07-04 17:19 -0700
  Re: On length contraction and the length contraction paradox "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-07-04 17:32 -0700
    Re: On length contraction and the length contraction paradox udr310515@gmail.com - 2015-07-04 17:40 -0700
      Re: On length contraction and the length contraction paradox "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-07-04 18:19 -0700
        Re: On length contraction and the length contraction paradox Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-07-07 19:18 +0200
        Re: On length contraction and the length contraction paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-07-08 08:05 -0500
          Re: On length contraction and the length contraction paradox Fritz Köhler <fritzk@notrenetwork.net> - 2015-07-25 16:41 +0000
          Re: On length contraction and the length contraction paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-07-25 12:44 -0500
            Re: On length contraction and the length contraction paradox Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-07-25 21:40 +0200
              Re: On length contraction and the length contraction paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-07-25 20:30 -0500
              Re: On length contraction and the length contraction paradox Ignorant Raving Crackpot <ignorantravingcrackpot@gmail.com> - 2015-07-25 23:50 -0700
                Re: On length contraction and the length contraction paradox Ignorant Raving Crackpot <ignorantravingcrackpot@gmail.com> - 2015-07-27 17:24 -0700
                Re: On length contraction and the length contraction paradox Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-07-28 13:33 +0200
              Re: On length contraction and the length contraction paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-07-27 09:38 -0500

csiph-web