Pole and Barn for Dummies
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Uncle Ben - 03 Jul 2009 13:11 GMT "Pole and Barn for Dummies"
I was challenged by "Mike" to write this. It is as if he is forcing Chateau Latour 1982 down my throat.
I don't know why Mike thought this problem deep enough for a challenge. There are many treatments already published, and all I have examined (outside of this newsgroup!) are correct. So I have nothing new really to contribute --
-- except for a brief discussion on how to tell which frame has the primes in the Lorentz Transformation. This detail has tripped up many a student, including our voluble friend with the lion here in s.p.r.
The reader bored with the Pole and Bar "Paradox" may wish to read instead a short dissertation of mine on the subject "How to tell which frame gets the primes" It is published as
"PrimedFrames.txt"
in my shared online directory at
http://tinyurl.com/greenba. ---------------------- A word about writing for "Dummies" for the two or three of you thinking of taking offense. (You know who you are.) Any bookstore will show you hundreds of volumes titled in this fashion. The originator of the series had trouble finding a publisher, because all the stupid publishers thought no one would buy them.
On the contrary, who would buy "Architcture for Experts"? Not many. You would be afraid you would not understand. If it were for dummies, on the other hand, you would be reassured that there are no pre- requisites, and that you WILL understand. I have learned a lot from books in that series. --------------------------
The Pole and Barn question:
This is about the Lorentz Contraction, which says that a straight wooden pole which is 15 m long when at rest, will be only 9.9 m long when moving at 0.75 c to the right, the length being measured in a frame of reference B such as a barn 10 m long, front door (left) to back door (right), fixed to the earth.
Thus the speeding pole will momentarily fit into the barn while in flight through it. If one slammed the doors of the barn at exactly the right moment, the pole would be trapped. But to avoid flying splinters that would frighten the horses, one quickly opens the doors again in time for the pole to escape undamaged. Precision work with nanosecond timing!
The curiosity arises when we regard the pole to be a rest and the barn is moving leftward at 0.75 c. Then the barn is much shorter than the pole when measured in the pole frame of reference P. How can one flick the doors of the barn as in this scenario?
The answer is that, while in frame B the two doors are operated simultaneously, events that are simultaneous in one frame will not be simultaneous in another frame if there is some distance between the events and the second frame is moving with respect to the first in the line of the two events.
In the barn frame of reference B, the first scenario above is correct. But in the pole frame P, the two events are not simultaneous. In fact the moving back door is flicked (closed and opened) just before it hits the right end of the pole, and the moving front door is flicked just after it clears the left end of the pole. --------------------------------------- To show that this is really what the Lorentz Transformation predicts, we will show the LT equations and plug in reasonable numbers.
For the first scenario, we let the pole at rest have ends at two x coordinates, values 0 and 15 m in frame P. Then we set the pole in motion at 0.75c and ask what is the length now in frame B? Lorentz and Einstein teach us that given the P-values 15 and 0, we can relate them to B-values of time and space by
15 = gamma(x1 - v * t1) for the right end 0 = gamma( x2 - v * t2) for the left end
where x's are the coordinates of the pole in B at B-time t of the observation, v = 0.75c, and gamma = 1/sqrt(1 - 0.75 ^2) = 1.51.
So, how long is the pole in B? The coordinate x is changing with time. To measure the length of the moving pole in terms of coordinates, you have to measure the ends at the same time. So t1 = t2.
Subtract the second equation from the first, and you get
15 = gamma (x1-x2), (x1-x2) = 15/gamma, or (x1-x2) = 9.9 meters
which once again yields the Lorentz Contraction.
(I have purposely avoided the notation x' and t' at this stage, for pedagogical reasons. The words control the meanings of x and t.)
----------------------------------- Now for the pole's point of view The pole is 15 m long. The barn is flying to the left at 0.75 c.
The barn's doors are 10 meters apart in B. Let the doors have coordinates in B of 0 and 10 in meters at rest. What are there coordinates in P?
10 = gamma(x1 + v t1) for the rear door of the barn 0 = gamma(x2 + v * t2) for the front door of the barn
where x is the door coordinate in P at P-time t, v = -0.75c gamma = 1.51 (again)
We can ask two questions, each of which has to be treated on its own.
(1) How long is the barn, between doors?
Again, to measure the length of a moving body, you have to note the x coordinates at the same time. So t1=t2, and
10 = gamma (x1-x2) (x1-x2) = 10/gamma = 6.62 m
just as we derived the pole contraction. And yes, the pole is more than twice the length of the barn, in P.
(2) When in P-time do the doors flick? There is more than one way to get the answer.
Simplest. We know the B spatial coordinates of the barn doors and the B-time of their flicking. We want to find the P-time of flicking of each door.
There are four equations in the LT with one spatial dimension, one for x and one for t on the left-hand side, and the corresponding pair for the inverse transformation. . For esthetic reasons, let us choose units in which c=1. Without yet specifying which frame gets the primes and which has naked coordinates, the equations are
(1) x' = gamma(x - vt), the only one we have used so far, (2) t' = gamma(t - vx) (3) x = gamma(x' + vt' ) (4) t = gamma(t' + vx' )
(In MKS units, the term xv becomes xv/cc.)
v is defined as the velocity of the primed system w.r.t. the naked system, and is positive in the direction of increasing x and x' . The function gamma is still 1/sqrt(1-v^2). . We can get the answer to question 2 quickest from (4), the Inverse LT time equation of the LT. But we have to decide which frame gets the primes.
Pay close attention, children, for this is where many people fumble many relativity problems!
The answer comes from elementary physics. In slow motion, gamma approaches 1, and equations (1) and (3) look familiar.
Originally the LT applied to events, not to objects. But if we imagine a pin stuck into an object, the pin represents a continuous stream of events in time. The pin has coordinates in both frames, but in only one frame is it at rest.
With gamma nearly 1, equation (1), x' = x - vt, is classical. It says how a pin fixed to an object at primed point x' on an object at rest moves with time with respect to the naked frame. The primes go to coordinates in the REST FRAME of the object for both (1) and (2). If v is positive, the object moves to the right. Primes go to frame P in the first scenario, since pole is moving in B and P is its rest frame.
In the inverse transform (3), x = x' + vt' says that a pin fixed to an object at point x at rest in the naked frame is moving w.r.t. the primed frame. This is the rule that applies in the second scenario. The primes go with the frame IN WHICH THE OBJECT IS MOVING for both (3) and (4). If v is positive, the object goes to the left. In the second scenario, the barn is moving, and the primes go with frame P again.
I have found this rule very useful in complicated scenarios.
So in question 2, concerning the P frame, the pole is at rest and the barn is moving. Therefore the P-frame get the naked coordinates.. The primed coordinates specify the position and times of the door events in the B-frame.
The two door flicks have coordinates in both systems. In the P frame, as the barn moves with v = 0.75c, it encounters the resting pole first with open doors. The first flick event occurs at the back door just as the door approaches the right end of the pole.
Thus In P: x1= 15, x2 = 0, t1 and t2 unknown
In B: x1' = 10 , x2' = 0, t1' = t2' = 0
v = -0.75c
Applying equation 4, we have
t1 = gamma( t1' + vx1'/cc) = 1.51( 0 - 0.75*10/c) = -1.51* 0.75 * 10 / (3*10^8) sec = -37.75 nanoseconds
t2 = gamma( t2' + vx2'/cc) = 1.51( 0 - 0.75* 0/c) = 0
t1 = -37.75 nanoseconds means:
That the flick at the back door occurred earlier than the flick at the front door, as expected.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary: The long pole gets through the short moving barn with its flicking doors because the back door flicks 37.2 nanoseconds earlier than the front door flicks.
The key to these puzzles is knowing which frame has the primes and which doesn't.
Having this rule would have saved Androcles the embarrassment of having predicted the Einstein Dilation.
Uncle Ben
Androcles - 03 Jul 2009 15:45 GMT > "Pole and Barn for Dummies" > [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > 15 = gamma(x1 - v * t1) for the right end > 0 = gamma( x2 - v * t2) for the left end t1 = t2.
We assume that this definition of synchronism is free from contradictions, and possible for any number of points; and that the following relations are universally valid:--
1.. If the clock at B synchronizes with the clock at A, the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B.
> where x's are the coordinates of the pole in B at B-time t of the > observation, v = 0.75c, and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > coordinates, you have to measure the ends at the same time. So t1 = > t2. Stipulated to.
> Subtract the second equation from the first, and you get > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > which once again yields the Lorentz Contraction. The length of the "at rest" barn is 9.9m and it Einstein Expands to 15m as the pole moves. As Bonehead states, 15 = gamma (x1-x2). The Lorentz Contraction of 9.9 m is NOT 15. Bonehead has his frumes moxed ap.
<fuckup found, rest of drool snipped>
Like Russian dolls, the pole fits in the tube and the tube fits in the barn. pole length =40 (at rest) tube length =25 (at rest) barn length =20 (at rest) pole:barn speed (v) =0.8660254 =v/c pole to barn tube:barn speed (u) =0.6 =u/c tube to barn pole:tube speed (2) =0.5537757 =(v-u)/(1-vu/c^2) barn speed =0 gamma pole:barn =2 gamma tube:barn =1.25 gamma pole:tube =1.20096189
Einstein's barn(pole) =40 Einstein's expansion length for pole Einstein's barn(tube) =25 Einstein's expansion length for tube Einstein's tube(pole) =30.0240474
Lorentz's pole =20 in frame of barn Lorentz's tube =20 in frame of barn Lorentz's v-u =0.2660254 Lorentz's gamma2 =1.03738097 pole:tube Length of pole =38.5586407 in frame of tube
Einstein doesn't dilate the tube enough to fit Lorentz's contracted pole, yet both fit neatly in the barn. Theoretical physicists are incompetent fuckwits. And all I asked was why the cretins call the Einstein expansion a Lorentz contraction... Bonehead is beyond redemption.
Uncle Ben - 03 Jul 2009 15:51 GMT > > "Pole and Barn for Dummies" > [quoted text clipped - 143 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I think your new title
Androcles - 03 Jul 2009 16:02 GMT On Jul 3, 10:45 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
> "Uncle Ben" <b...@greenba.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 149 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I think your new title =========================================== Do you have any empirical evidence to support the absurd claim that you CAN think? The very fact that you posted an incomplete sentence as you so often do is evidence that you can't think at all.
Uncle Ben - 03 Jul 2009 15:52 GMT > "Pole and Barn for Dummies" > [quoted text clipped - 227 lines] > > Uncle Ben Helmut Wabnig - 03 Jul 2009 16:30 GMT >Having this rule would have saved Androcles the embarrassment of >having predicted the Einstein Dilation. > >Uncle Ben You are all too optimistic about Androcles. Andro had his best time a few years ago when he discovered that Einstein divided by ZERO.
Clowns are there to entertain, and teach. Andro's way is, to motivate others teaching.
w.
Dirk Van de moortel - 03 Jul 2009 16:47 GMT Uncle Ben <ben@greenba.com> wrote in message e9bcaebc-d30c-42e8-8773-2d88236b4ca6@c9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com
> "Pole and Barn for Dummies" Are you ever going to stop providing a forum to the usual cranks? I know you like to write this stuff, but I hope you are aware that nobody reads it?
Dirk Vdm
Uncle Ben - 03 Jul 2009 16:57 GMT On Jul 3, 11:47 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote:
> Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Dirk Vdm The usual cranks already have a forum in s.p.r. with about 85% of the posts. So let me dilute the poison a little and have some fun at it in the process.
You don't have to read it!
Regards,
Ben
Dirk Van de moortel - 03 Jul 2009 17:03 GMT Uncle Ben <ben@greenba.com> wrote in message 1c3d3edd-13b0-4db7-afc7-5b7b09a11d62@p29g2000yqh.googlegroups.com
> On Jul 3, 11:47 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" > <dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > You don't have to read it! I don't - and neither do they. You just make them happy.
Cheers, Dirk
> Regards, > > Ben Uncle Ben - 03 Jul 2009 17:21 GMT On Jul 3, 12:03 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote:
> Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Cheers, > Dirk Well, now. I guess I'm spreading a little cheer in a few spots around the world! That makes my day!
Ben
Androcles - 03 Jul 2009 17:38 GMT On Jul 3, 12:03 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote:
> Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Cheers, > Dirk Well, now. I guess I'm spreading a little cheer in a few spots around the world! That makes my day!
Ben ===================================== Clowns make us laugh, you are a gem. How did it go? 15 = gamma *9.9 is the Einstein expansion.
> Like Russian dolls, the pole fits in the tube and the tube fits in the > barn. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Lorentz contraction... > Bonehead is beyond redemption. Uncle Ben - 03 Jul 2009 17:49 GMT > On Jul 3, 12:03 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" > [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Yes, dear, we know. Now take your medicine and get some rest.
Androcles - 03 Jul 2009 21:40 GMT On Jul 3, 12:38 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
> "Uncle Ben" <b...@greenba.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Yes, dear, we know. Now take your medicine and get some rest. =============================================== Simple logic has you completely f.cked, Boneheadtord. Go call your rent boy Dork your "dear" and "darling", you queer bastard, there's a padlock on my arse. Drop dead anytime, we won't mind.
Dirk Van de moortel - 03 Jul 2009 17:58 GMT Uncle Ben <ben@greenba.com> wrote in message c4610033-33c1-40ef-9e21-a42176c14501@i6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com
> On Jul 3, 12:03 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" > <dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Ben If you're not picky about the spots and, more importantly, who's sitting there, fair enough, although I'd spread something of an entirely different nature there...
Enjoy, Dirk Vdm
Dirk Vdm
Mike - 03 Jul 2009 19:15 GMT On Jul 3, 11:47 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote:
> Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I know you like to write this stuff, but I hope you are aware that > nobody reads it? You don't read them because you can only read what you write you old- cranker. You are just afraid something will be exposed (besides you). Yes, the proof he gave exposes the fact that you do not understand relativity.
But you understand the square root.
Dork on "sufficiently restricted inertial frames". Now, isn't that a crank on action?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/ca160ba30ccc3789?hl=en
Google search for "sufficiently restricted inertial frames"
No entries. Only DORK appears. Nothing else. Good work crank. I like your theory. Do you also think you are Napoleon the Great? You are.
Mike
> Dirk Vdm Dirk Van de moortel - 04 Jul 2009 09:40 GMT Mike <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message 71f86f1b-2146-479f-85b7-73d89f1dd73f@x5g2000yqk.googlegroups.com
> On Jul 3, 11:47 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" > <dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Google search for "sufficiently restricted inertial frames" On 18-Sep-2006, you had this one: http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/CheapEducation.html
I now have added this one: "I don't get it - Wooaoua!!!" http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Wooaoua.html
> No entries. Only DORK appears. Nothing else. Good work crank. I like > your theory. Do you also think you are Napoleon the Great? You are. It is on nr. 18 of http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Search/searchresult.html?sw=eleatis Give Google some time to index it as well. Be patient, will you?
Dirk Vdm
Uncle Ben - 03 Jul 2009 18:01 GMT Mischevous little Andy, mental age four, is playing tricks to change the title of the thread I started.
We know how to handle little boys, full of tricks.
Uncle Ben
Androcles - 03 Jul 2009 21:34 GMT > Mischevous little Andy, mental age four, is playing tricks to change > the title of the thread I started. > > We know how to handle little boys, full of tricks. > > Uncle Ben Check the dates, paedophile. "Poles, tubes and barns for morons, cretins and local village idiots. " -- Friday, July 03, 2009 12:32 AM
You are a proven lying tord, Boneheadtord.
Mike - 03 Jul 2009 18:58 GMT > "Pole and Barn for Dummies" > [quoted text clipped - 222 lines] > The key to these puzzles is knowing which frame has the primes and > which doesn't. The key to these puzzles is to understand what not to do. What you did, is what one should not do:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/HFrame.html
Mike
> Having this rule would have saved Androcles the embarrassment of > having predicted the Einstein Dilation. > > Uncle Ben Uncle Ben - 03 Jul 2009 19:28 GMT > > "Pole and Barn for Dummies" > [quoted text clipped - 238 lines] > > - Show quoted text - If you want to discuss it, be more specific.
Uncle Ben - 03 Jul 2009 19:44 GMT > > "Pole and Barn for Dummies" > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > examined (outside of this newsgroup!) are correct. So I have nothing > > new really to contribute -- Never mind, Mike. I see by the link in your reply to Dirk that I have given you more credit than you deserve.
"Sufficiently restricted" regions of space-time for the applicablilty of SR are sufficiently explained in, say, MTW, p. 304 and elsewhere.
I challenge to to cite a single line of my original post that is in error.
Uncle Ben
Androcles - 03 Jul 2009 21:20 GMT On Jul 3, 1:58 pm, Mike <elea...@yahoo.gr> wrote:
> On Jul 3, 8:11 am, Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > examined (outside of this newsgroup!) are correct. So I have nothing > > new really to contribute -- Never mind, Mike. I see by the link in your reply to Dirk that I have given you more credit than you deserve.
"Sufficiently restricted" regions of space-time for the applicablilty of SR are sufficiently explained in, say, MTW, p. 304 and elsewhere.
I challenge to to cite a single line of my original post that is in error.
Uncle Ben ================================================= BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Thought he was going to be on your side, did you? Your to to to to to challenge accepted!
You f.cking useless lying smarmy arse-licking queer poofter, Einstein's Expansion 15 = gamma *9.9 isn't a Lorentz Contraction, 6.56 = 9.9/gamma. Eleaticus deserves more credit than you are capable of giving. He's worth ten of you and even then I plonked the silly prat!
Mike - 03 Jul 2009 23:42 GMT > On Jul 3, 1:58 pm, Mike <elea...@yahoo.gr> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Never mind, Mike. I see by the link in your reply to Dirk that I have > given you more credit than you deserve. Save your credits, you are going to need them for yourself. Dirk is waiting around the corner for you too. He is the most vicious individual I have ever come accross anywhere. Tom Roberts was forces to tell him off ince.
> "Sufficiently restricted" regions of space-time for the applicablilty > of SR are sufficiently explained in, say, MTW, p. 304 and elsewhere. Inventing terminology is not my expetise. SR assumes globally inertial reference frames only. Anyway, the choice of terminology is unfortunate. MTW is out of date, confusing and has many errors:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Administrivia/rel_booklist.html#intro_gr
> I challenge to to cite a single line of my original post that is in > error. I gave you a link where you can compare and see your errors.
Now, it is not nice of you old man that you tried to divert reply to alt.morons. You are a moron because you do not understand relativity and you bite the bate and become victim of the paradox, you think you solved, but hey moron, the paradox cannot be solved like that.
It takes math you won't understand a single line of it to resolve the paradox.
Your post ia an immortal fumble of idiocy.
I think golf is better for you.
> Uncle Ben > ================================================= [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Uncle Ben - 04 Jul 2009 05:59 GMT > > "Uncle Ben" <b...@greenba.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Well! There goes your invitation to my birthday party next week! I'll bet you are sorry now.
Uncle Ben
Dirk Van de moortel - 04 Jul 2009 09:57 GMT Mike <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message 92f49de7-90cd-40d1-adda-1532d9538828@e21g2000yqb.googlegroups.com
>> On Jul 3, 1:58 pm, Mike <elea...@yahoo.gr> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > I think golf is better for you. "The most vicious individual I have ever come accross anywhere": http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/TheMostVicious.html
With google you'll have to wait, but meanwhile, try this: http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Search/searchresult.html?sw=sufficiently% 20restricted%20inertial%20frames
Dirk Vdm - The most vicious individual Eleatis ever has come accross anywhere.
Mike - 05 Jul 2009 18:09 GMT On Jul 4, 4:57 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote:
> Mike <elea...@yahoo.gr> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > Dirk Vdm - The most vicious individual Eleatis ever has come > accross anywhere.- Hide quoted text - Yes, here is proof:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.jokes/msg/abd6fadea0a31456?hl=en
Mike
> - Show quoted text - Eric Gisse - 05 Jul 2009 18:33 GMT > On Jul 4, 4:57 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" > [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] > > > - Show quoted text - Good thing I never tried some dead baby jokes on you.
Uncle Ben - 04 Jul 2009 13:35 GMT > > "Pole and Barn for Dummies" > [quoted text clipped - 238 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Mike, how can I thank you enough for sharing your wisdom with us. I found this example of your superior knowledge here:
http://tinyurl.com/no67ld
Your knowledge is exceeded only by your graciousness.
Uncle Ben
Uncle Ben - 03 Jul 2009 22:07 GMT > "Pole and Barn for Dummies" > [quoted text clipped - 227 lines] > > Uncle Ben Little Johnny Parker, up to his old tricks again.
Naughty, naugthy, messing with the name of this thread.
Androcles - 03 Jul 2009 22:49 GMT > "Pole and Barn for Dummies" > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > wooden pole which is 15 m long when at rest, will be only 9.9 m long > when moving at 0.75 c to the right, We drive on the left in Britain. Your pole is on the wrong side of the road, it must have left-hand drive. <fumbling blunder found, rest snipped>
Uncle Ben - 03 Jul 2009 23:02 GMT > "Pole and Barn for Dummies" > [quoted text clipped - 227 lines] > > Uncle Ben It's still for dummies.
Androcles - 03 Jul 2009 23:46 GMT > "Pole and Barn for Dummies" Insane Bonehead is writing to himself again. Doubtless he likes the replies.
Uncle Ben - 04 Jul 2009 00:19 GMT > "Pole and Barn for Dummies" > [quoted text clipped - 227 lines] > > Uncle Ben Naughty again, Johnny boy. It's still for dummies.
Androcles - 04 Jul 2009 01:23 GMT > "Pole and Barn for Dummies" <snip crap> Bonehead is still writing to himself... How narcissistic! He's so dumb he hallucinates 15 = gamma *9.9 is a "contraction".
Uncle Ben - 04 Jul 2009 03:26 GMT > "Pole and Barn for Dummies" > [quoted text clipped - 227 lines] > > Uncle Ben It is about 2 AM Androcles, he may be asleep by now and not spending his time in a childish game with me to control the name of my thread. So there will probably be a pause the the action.
I am actually not a gay man, but it riles John so much to play one on the net that I sweet talk him enough to get his blood pressure up.
With this post I restore the proper title, until he changes it again tomorrow. After that, it may be no longer of any interest to anybody. The only thing perhaps new in the o.p. is a way to decide which frame gets the primes, and you can always read that in a file "PrimedFrames.rtf" in my public directory
http://tinyurl.com/greenba.
Goodnight Moon!
Uncle Ben
Androcles - 04 Jul 2009 09:21 GMT > "Pole and Barn for Dummies" > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > This is about the Lorentz Contraction, Actually its about the Einstein Expansion, homosexual Ben Green Jr is too f.cking stupid to realise the barn is Einstein Expanded to 15 = gamma*9.9.
|
|
|