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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #371545

Re: On length contraction

Show all headers | View raw

On 12/7/2015 10:28 AM, rotchm wrote:
> On Monday, December 7, 2015 at 11:01:21 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
>> On 12/6/15 12/6/15 - 10:10 AM, rotchm wrote:
>>> On Saturday, December 5, 2015 at 10:55:53 AM UTC-5, kenseto wrote:
>>>> SRians claim that length contraction is the geometric projection
>>>
>>> No they dont. Stop lying. *Some* SRians *call* it that way, or describe it
>>> that way.
>>
>> No, it is not just "some SRians". The phenomenon known as "length contraction"
>> in SR actually _IS_ a geometric projection.
>
> You totally miss the point. *YOU*, (yes, YOU) should not use the expression "geometric
> projection" to seto because he has no idea what that means and misunderstands it to mean
> something else; you are just maintaining his confusions by saying "geometric projection"...

I agree with this. I understand Tom's insistence on precision and 
completeness in his answers. In parallel with that he often makes the 
comment that the reader is going to have to STUDY the subject to 
understand what he just said. He won't "dumb down" his statements.

As an amateur, I think there's a bridge strategy. For people like Seto 
who don't understand even basic things, you have to dumb things down, 
even to the point where the answer is no longer complete or precise. 
This becomes a "leading answer", where you are providing the first step 
to a better understanding, but where the onus is on the reader to take 
the next step elsewhere.

Seto has the preconception that only material things are real, and this 
gets in the way of just about everything he says. But even Seto has to 
admit that an electric field is real but it is in no way material, or 
that light is real but is in no way material. This *should* be enough to 
get him to stop saying that if it's not material then it's not real. But 
then again, Seto's on a pretty steep decline.

>
>> Not everybody uses those particular words, but that _IS_ what it is;
>
> I never said otherwise..its just with seto, we need to change our words to some expressions
> he can minimally grasp.
>


-- 
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

On length contraction kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-05 07:55 -0800
  Re: On length contraction Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-12-05 18:40 +0100
  Re: On length contraction kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-05 15:49 -0800
  Re: On length contraction Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-05 22:39 -0600
    Re: On length contraction Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-12-06 10:28 +0100
    Re: On length contraction alsor@interia.pl - 2015-12-06 05:40 -0800
      Re: On length contraction Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-06 09:03 -0600
        Re: On length contraction alsor@interia.pl - 2015-12-09 02:37 -0800
      Re: On length contraction fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-12-06 08:14 -0800
        Re: On length contraction fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-12-06 08:27 -0800
          Re: On length contraction fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-12-06 10:37 -0800
    Re: On length contraction kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-06 06:21 -0800
      Re: On length contraction rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-12-06 08:19 -0800
        Stephane Baune tries to correct Ken Shito and, in the process, embarrasses himself "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-12-07 08:35 -0800
  Re: On length contraction Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-06 08:24 +0100
    Re: On length contraction Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-12-06 08:41 +0100
    Re: On length contraction kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-06 07:06 -0800
    Re: On length contraction Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-06 09:20 -0600
      Re: On length contraction Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-06 21:43 +0100
        Re: On length contraction Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-07 09:46 -0600
    Re: On length contraction Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-06 15:09 -0600
      Re: On length contraction Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-07 09:49 -0600
  Re: On length contraction rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-12-06 08:10 -0800
    Re: On length contraction Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-07 10:01 -0600
      Re: On length contraction rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-12-07 08:28 -0800
        Re: On length contraction Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-07 10:57 -0600
          Re: On length contraction mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-12-07 22:58 -0800
          Re: On length contraction Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-08 08:44 +0100
          Re: On length contraction kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-08 14:33 -0800
            Re: On length contraction Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-08 17:56 -0600
            Re: On length contraction moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-12-10 20:07 +0000
              Re: On length contraction kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-10 13:13 -0800
                Re: On length contraction Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-10 17:19 -0600
                Re: On length contraction moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-12-11 02:45 +0000
                Re: On length contraction kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-10 21:11 -0800
                Re: On length contraction rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-12-11 06:57 -0800
                Re: On length contraction kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-11 19:20 -0800
                Re: On length contraction moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-12-11 19:55 +0000
                Re: On length contraction Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-11 23:25 +0000
                Re: On length contraction kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-11 19:25 -0800
                Re: On length contraction pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-12-11 19:48 -0800
                Re: On length contraction pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-12-13 14:33 -0800
                Re: On length contraction moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-12-12 17:27 +0000
                Re: On length contraction Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-14 10:12 -0600
                Re: On length contraction kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-10 21:08 -0800
                Re: On length contraction Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-11 08:04 -0600
    Re: On length contraction kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-08 14:26 -0800
      Re: On length contraction Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-08 22:40 +0000
        Re: On length contraction kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-09 06:50 -0800
          Re: On length contraction alsor@interia.pl - 2015-12-09 09:06 -0800
      Re: On length contraction rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 09:47 -0800
        Re: On length contraction Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-09 18:11 +0000
          Re: On length contraction Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 12:32 -0600
            Re: On length contraction alsor@interia.pl - 2015-12-09 11:18 -0800
            Re: On length contraction kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-10 06:57 -0800
        Re: On length contraction kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-10 06:46 -0800
  Re: On length contraction wugi <brol@brol.be> - 2015-12-06 18:18 +0100
    Re: On length contraction Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-06 12:35 -0600
      Re: On length contraction wugi <brol@brol.be> - 2015-12-06 21:58 +0100
        Re: On length contraction wugi <brol@brol.be> - 2015-12-06 22:31 +0100
        Re: On length contraction Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-07 10:16 -0600
      Re: On length contraction John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-06 13:08 -0800
        Re: On length contraction John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-06 14:26 -0800
          Re: On length contraction John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-06 14:38 -0800
          Re: On length contraction John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-06 15:39 -0800
  Re: On length contraction Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-06 15:07 -0600
    Re: On length contraction benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-14 02:21 -0500
      Re: On length contraction Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-14 10:44 -0600
        Re: On length contraction alsor@interia.pl - 2015-12-14 08:59 -0800
        Re: On length contraction kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-14 09:05 -0800
          Re: On length contraction alsor@interia.pl - 2015-12-14 09:48 -0800
          Re: On length contraction Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-14 12:18 -0600
            Re: On length contraction kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-15 05:49 -0800
              Re: On length contraction Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-15 08:21 -0600
                Re: On length contraction mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-12-15 23:29 -0800
                Re: On length contraction kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-16 07:04 -0800
                Re: On length contraction Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 09:14 -0600

csiph-web