Superconductivity at room temperature??

[Reality Check]

Why do you not go and play marbles: You claim to know physics but do not even know that VOLT is the same as Joule/Coulomb? Can you now see that you are totally incapable and incompetent when it comes to physics.

You claim to know physics but do not even know that VOLT is the same as Joule/Coulomb in SI units?
You claim to be able to read and yet did not read that my citation states this:

Originally Posted by Reality Check
That is wrong: Voltage is a DIFFERENCE IN ELECTRICAL POTENTIAL.
This is easily seen by looking at the units of measurement. Voltage does not have the units of energy, e.g. Joules.

Voltage

Voltage, otherwise known as electrical potential difference or electric tension (denoted ∆V and measured in volts, or joules per coulomb) is the potential difference between two points — or the difference in electric potential energy per unit charge between two points.

You claim to know physics but do not even know that ENERGY is the same as Joule in SI units and so VOLT is not ENERGY?

 

[Farsight]

Sorry, I missed this one:

Farsight, As D'rok notes you need to go back a page. sol invictus brings up an electron in a well. johanfprins states that any standing wave in a cavity has no kinetic energy.

I did, RC. I didn't see anything special. Johan said A standing wave has no momentum which I think is fine because the energy-flow within in it has the momentum whilst the standing wave isn't going anywhere. It now exhibits inertia rather than momentum. He said Since this is a "single electron" standing wave within a well, its energy E is less than that of a "free electron" outside the well. That's the mass-deficit, as per an electron in a hydrogen atom. Its mass is reduced, it hasn't acquired kinetic energy. His statement When you remove one wall, you do not change the energy of the wave but you now allow this energy to propagate as kinetic energy is fine too, along with other posts. The guy is right about this.

The implication is that if you have an electron bouncing around a potential well and then turn that well off the electron will stop dead and remain in one place.

That's an incorrect inference I'm afraid. An electron bouncing around a potential well in a potential well is a 511keV electron plus kinetic energy. It isn't like the electron's 13.7ev mass-deficit in the hydrogen atom.

But: Put an electron in a Penning trap. Any kinetic energy that it had vanishes according to johanfprins. Now turn the trap off. The electron does not stick around. It moves away. It has kinetic energy !

I'm sorry RC, you can't turn the proton off in the hydrogen atom. But if you could, the energy of the electron you're left with is 13.7keV less than a free electron. It isn't going to shoot off anywhere. Instead that's an electron in trouble. Think it through. Think about what would happen if you tried pair production with a 1021keV photon.

 

[ben m]

I did, RC. I didn't see anything special. Johan said A standing wave has no momentum which I think is fine because the energy-flow within in it has the momentum whilst the standing wave isn't going anywhere. It now exhibits inertia rather than momentum. He said Since this is a "single electron" standing wave within a well, its energy E is less than that of a "free electron" outside the well. That's the mass-deficit, as per an electron in a hydrogen atom. Its mass is reduced, it hasn't acquired kinetic energy. His statement When you remove one wall, you do not change the energy of the wave but you now allow this energy to propagate as kinetic energy is fine too, along with other posts. The guy is right about this.

Nope. Instead, you have joined him in his wrongness.

ETA: I can see where you're getting your statements from; you're applying some intuition to your mental picture of the problem. Fine. Even at best, the results are imprecise and inadequate. We don't need intuitive, imprecise mental pictures---we have actual laws of physics, and the laws of physics include a number of extremely precise statements about what momentum means. The particle-in-a-box standing wave is not an eigenstate of momentum, so saying "the momentum of the wave is zero" is nonsense. There is no unique quantity corresponding to "the momentum of the wave". A momentum measurement of this wave returns one of two eigenmomenta. (One leftward, one rightward.) A momentum expectation value measurement yields zero. Which of those two did you mean when you said "the momentum was zero"? How did you know? Does your "the momentum is zero" statement recognize any difference between a "zero-momentum" wave in a square well (where momentum measurements return either of two discrete values) and a "zero-momentum" wave in a parabolic well (where momentum measurements return a continuum of values with a Gaussian distribution)? How does your intuitive picture deal with a non-standing-wave state, which does have a nonzero <p> that bounces back and forth periodically?

(Meanwhile, the rest of us have this wave equation---the Schrodinger equation---that deals with all of this, including every weird subtlety that's ever been subjected to an experiment, just fine.)

An electron bouncing around a potential well in a potential well is a 511keV electron plus kinetic energy. It isn't like the electron's 13.7ev mass-deficit in the hydrogen atom.

Nope. You're making an invalid assumption about the zero-potential reference of the well.

Here's a thought-experiment to help you understand why you're wrong. Make up any potential-well you think you understand. Put an electron in it. (Also, find yourself a hydrogen atom and keep it handy.) Now, pick up the whole experiment and climb to the terminal of a Van de Graaff accelerator, and tell the operator to charge it to -1.0 megavolts below ground. (This is perfectly safe, you're in a Faraday cage.) Think about the well you're in and think about the energies of the electrons you have with you. Now phone up the operator and tell him to charge it to +1.0 megavolts. Think again.

 

[Ziggurat]

Sorry, I missed this one:

I did, RC. I didn't see anything special. Johan said A standing wave has no momentum which I think is fine because the energy-flow within in it has the momentum whilst the standing wave isn't going anywhere. It now exhibits inertia rather than momentum. He said Since this is a "single electron" standing wave within a well, its energy E is less than that of a "free electron" outside the well. That's the mass-deficit, as per an electron in a hydrogen atom. Its mass is reduced, it hasn't acquired kinetic energy.

Either your objection is purely semantic, in which case it has no relevance to johan's misunderstanding of the Fermi energy, or you're simply wrong.

To calculate the energy of a quantum mechanical wave function, we calculate <H> = <p²>/2m + <V>. The term <V> is the potential energy term. The term <p²>/2m is the kinetic energy term, because classically p²/2m = (1/2)mv². You can call it something else if you really want to, but everyone else calls this kinetic energy. And every bound state wave function has a nonzero <p²>/2m term in their energy.

You mentioned that the energy of an electron bound to a hydrogen atom, since it's 13.7 eV less than a free electron, has a reduced mass. That's actually irrelevant here. The point is that you cannot get this energy from calculating the potential alone. If you only calculate the binding potential of the wave function, <V>, you don't get -13.7 eV, you get -26.4 eV. So a bound electron has MORE energy than simply its rest mass energy plus the electrostatic potential energy. Again, if you really want to, you can call this extra energy something else, but everyone in the field calls it kinetic energy.

That's an incorrect inference I'm afraid. An electron bouncing around a potential well in a potential well is a 511keV electron plus kinetic energy. It isn't like the electron's 13.7ev mass-deficit in the hydrogen atom.

Actually, it's exactly like that. In both cases, the kinetic energy is calculated from <p²>/2m, and it's positive in both cases.

 

[Farsight]

As D'rok said, you need to go back further.

I read page 60 and thought it was OK, see above. I'm sure there will be some mistakes by johan because nobody's perfect, I'm not either, but he's really talking sense here about the mass deficit and the free electron.

You misunderstand me. First off, you are the one confused about electrons versus photons, because you didn't go back far enough.

I'm really not confused here Zig. Sure I could go back further, but I'm not confused.

Second, the semantic issue is something completely different. I was referring to whether or not a standing wave photon had kinetic energy. THAT is a semantic issue, and depends on how you define kinetic energy.

I think it's pretty profound actually. See what I said to RC about the bound electron, and switch to a cannonball. When you raise the cannonball you're giving it gravitational potential energy, and when you lift it clear of the Earth's gravitational field this "free cannonball" has more energy in it than a cannonball at the Earth's surface. If you annihilate the cannonball with an anti-cannonball to render it down to gamma photons, they have a higher frequency than their equivalent at the earth's surface. So you've got more kinetic energy. And it was locked up in the cannonball as gravitational potential energy. So going back to the bound electron, even if you say it does have kinetic energy, it's gots less of it than the free electron.

I actually prefer to define it in a manner such that a photon never has kinetic energy, but is always electromagnetic potential energy.

See above, I can appreciate that. I mentioned electromagnetic four-potential in one of my earlier posts (#2443). It's more fundamental than the electromagnetic field. The photon is a pulse of it. Take the derivative of it for the sinusoidal electromagnetic wave.

One would calculate this energy the same way one calculates the potential energy of a charge configuration: it's the integral over space of the field squared (with appropriate constants to get units of energy). But other definitions can work too, such as total energy minus rest mass energy.

Sounds good.

But I know of no sensible definition where a photon's energy is kinetic while in motion but NOT kinetic while resonating in a cavity. It's either never kinetic energy (my preference) or it's always kinetic energy. That's a semantic issue.

It certainly is, and semantics does mean meaning. But think about a cannonball again. If it's going at 400m/s it's got kinetic energy. Now catch it up, and that kinetic energy has apparently vanished. Conservation of energy tells you it hasn't, and you know that its inertial mass has increased just a little. Now repeat with a photon. Say that it has kinetic energy, and catch it up. All the kinetic energy has vanished, and now you see it as mass. Obviously you can't catch up with a photon because you can't travel at the speed of light. But when you trap it in a cavity that's shorter than its wavelength, it's now a standing wave. It's like catching up with the photon. Its kinetic energy is now its mass-energy.

How much energy there is, though, is most definitely not semantic, and me, Sol, and ben will all agree on how much is there even if we prefer different labels.

I would too. Conservation of energy is one of the most important things in physics.

johan, on the other hand, wants to include the energy when it suits him and ignore it when it does not.

I didn't notice that. Do point it out to me next time you see it.

But we were really interested in electrons, not photons. And an electron in a standing wave in a box has kinetic energy under the completely standard definition of kinetic energy in quantum mechanics. johan denies this is true. His denial has no basis in either measurement or theory. It is purely axiomatic for him.

I'm sorry Zig, but you're talking about something different to johan. You're talking about a standing wave in a box which is bouncing back and forth inside another box. That's got kinetic energy. There's no problem with that. But johan is talking about a bound electron with less energy than the standing wave in the box. So it's a standing wave with a lower frequency in a bigger box. There's less energy in there, or kinetic energy, or potential energy, or mass, or whatever else we call it.

Which would be fine if he could accept that as merely defining kinetic energy in some non-standard way. But that still leaves us with energy that johan refuses to account for, because for an electron it is most definitely NOT electromagnetic potential energy, and calling it something other than kinetic energy doesn't make it vanish. And if you can't see that this is what johan is doing, then either you haven't paid enough attention or you haven't gone back far enough in the thread.

I'm sorry, I can't see it. And I'm behind on this thread as it is, I haven't got time to go back further. Not right now.

It doesn't exist, at least not yet. So there's really not much to talk about.

Think Star Trek: It's room-temperature superconduction, Jim, but not as we know it. Light is alternating displacement current, we make electrons from it. It isn't driven by a voltage, and it doesn't stop.

 

[Farsight]

Farsight is doing a fine but thankless job. He will find that it is just not possible to convince religious fanatics to even consider the possibility that they might be wrong. If it is "in the text book" it is "holy scripture" and must not be questioned.

Just give it a bit of time Johan. I've been in this situation before. They know they're rational physicists. When you make it simple enough, they start seeing the picture, feeling the excitement, and coming round. Either that or they go into outrage, lose the plot, and make a total arse of themselves. Meanwhile don't you get riled. You're an experienced hands-on experimental physicist and you're above all that petty insult stuff. Instead of saying ben you're a fool, say ben you're no fool, think it through. Take the moral high ground and smile at every insult that consolidates it for you.

ETA:

Let us try and return it to the real issue of superconduction at room temperature.

That may be what some people here absolutely do not want to discuss. There's nowt so queer as folk. NB: another tip in the cagefighting school of physics is no caps locks. You wind them up, they don't wind you up, they make a mistake, gotcha. Then they go quiet on you. Then we talk RTSC.

 

[Ziggurat]

I read page 60 and thought it was OK, see above. I'm sure there will be some mistakes by johan because nobody's perfect, I'm not either, but he's really talking sense here about the mass deficit and the free electron.

Nobody is disagreeing that a proton and electron bound together have less mass than a free proton and a free electron. That's not what's at issue here. So claiming johan is "talking sense" about that is irrelevant, because that's not where the problem is. The problem is that johan doesn't know what the energy actually is. He doesn't understand that even for a bound state, a component of the energy comes from something other than the electric potential. That component is commonly called the kinetic energy, for reasons I explained above, but the label is irrelevant. It exists, and it's a major component of the energy of electrons in solids. And it's why johan is wrong that the Fermi energy is equivalent to the voltage.

I'm sorry Zig, but you're talking about something different to johan. You're talking about a standing wave in a box which is bouncing back and forth inside another box.

No, I'm not talking about anything remotely like that.

 

[sol invictus]

Johan said A standing wave has no momentum which I think is fine because the energy-flow within in it has the momentum whilst the standing wave isn't going anywhere.

A wave of the type I posted has <p>=0 but <p²> > 0. It's much like a gas confined to a box, where each molecule has a momentum, the average (vector) momentum is zero, but the average of momentum squared is not.

Just like a gas, if the electron is inside a box and you open the box, it leaks out (i.e., experimentally you sometimes find the electron outside, even far outside after some time). Opening the box (carefully) doesn't add or subtract any momentum from the electron. So the fact that the electron is sometimes found outside the box after you open it tells you that <p²> > 0, because if both <p> and <p²> were zero, the electron wouldn't move - it would stay in the box even after you opened it.

An electron bouncing around a potential well in a potential well is a 511keV electron plus kinetic energy.

That's exactly what the wavefunction I posted describes. Johan denies there is any kinetic energy. But in fact there is kinetic energy, and it increases the smaller you make the box. That's why two electrons in two boxes (or metals) can have different energies even if both have <p>=0 and both are at the same electrostatic potential.

 

[ben m]

I'm really not confused here Zig.

Oh! Well, that clears it up. Obviously nobody who says they're not confused could possibly be confused.

You're talking about a standing wave in a box which is bouncing back and forth inside another box.

No, he's very, very specifically not talking about that. You're the only one who has done anything whatsoever in a frame other than the box's rest frame. Please stop doing it.

 

[Reality Check]

The guy is right about this.

The guy is wrong about this.
To put it simply: You have an electron in a trap. According to the guy it has no kinetic energy. So it it has no velocity. Now remove a wall from the trap. The electron cannot escape (no velocity!). Now remove all walls from the trap. The electron will just sit there.

But we know that electrons escape from badly designed Penning traps.
We know that when you turn a Penning trap off, electrons have kinetic energy (they move!).

So this guy is stating the energy is not conserved (as he has done before).

I'm sorry RC, you can't turn the proton off in the hydrogen atom.

I'm sorry, Farsight, you can turn off a Penning trap.

 

[Gods Big Toe]

Farsight, I suggest you read this essay by Johan:
http://www.cathodixx.com/pdfs/RELATIVITY.pdf

In it he claims to prove that quite a few accepted theories in physics are simply wrong, including simultaneity, length contraction and time dilation. I am no expert in those areas, but he seems to butcher those concepts.

The important thing to take from it is that this is just the tip of the iceberg. Johan appears to dispute just about everything in physics. He has stated unequivocally that physics professors do not understand the basic principles of their field. So how can he possibly explain it?

To use an analogy, suppose Johan was an architect. He claims to have built something that others have tried for years to build but have not succeeded. It has enormous commercial applications. Nobody but Johan has actually seen it. Companies who could profit it from it will not even give him the time of day. Patent examiners will not give him a patent.

So he proceeds to tell other architects what he has done. Only he does not give them blueprints. Instead he writes countless pages explaining how his structure worked. The other architects scratch their heads and explain that what he is saying is wrong - the fundamentals are simply incorrect. He claims they do not understand the basics even though they have constructed bridges, stadiums and skyscrapers using these fundamentals.

He continues using the same language they do while also adding terms of his own invention. When it is pointed out to him that he has the meanings wrong, he first accuses them of not understanding the basics. As the arguments continue he reveals that everyone misunderstands the basics except him. Therefore, his logic is sound because everyone else has an incorrect understanding of the fundamentals.

In other words in order for everyone to understand him, he must rewrite numerous textbooks and reinterpret experiments in a way that support his unique understanding of the science of architecture. Only, he says, the church of architecture does not want to engage this heretic.

This continues for a decade. Since he is getting older, he says that rather than simply give away the nitty-gritty details of his process (because he cannot patent them), he will give them to his children upon his death to keep in secret until such time as some other scientist comes to the same conclusion, at which point they will reveal to the world that he got there first and nobody would believe him.

The truly sad part is that the theory is totally unnecessary. Just provide the experiments and allow others to duplicate them.

I also suggest you read this peer review he posted about his book (http://www.cathodixx.com/pdfs/zalm.pdf). In a nutshell his friend reviewed it, found no obvious errors, and pointed out that this was not his field of expertise (so much for peer review). His friend then called in a favor from another friend who was an expert on the subject matter. That person suggested that Johan read some basic books on the subject.

In other words Johan seems to take rejection as vindication that he is the only one who understands. This leads to the obvious question of why the folks I respect here continue to vindicate him. If Johan were a psychic, people would suggest he take the Million Dollar Challenge.

 

[D'rok]

Just give it a bit of time Johan. I've been in this situation before. They know they're rational physicists. When you make it simple enough, they start seeing the picture, feeling the excitement, and coming round.

Is that what happens when you tell physicists about "Relativity+"?

'Cause I've noticed that it isn't.

Either that or they go into outrage, lose the plot, and make a total arse of themselves.

That's happening a lot on this thread. But it isn't the "dogmatic" physicists that are doing it.

That may be what some people here absolutely do not want to discuss. There's nowt so queer as folk. NB: another tip in the cagefighting school of physics is no caps locks. You wind them up, they don't wind you up, they make a mistake, gotcha. Then they go quiet on you. Then we talk RTSC.

What a load of crap. The physicists on this thread are doggedly trying to get Johan to explain his results. Turns out that all his explanations violate standard physics in some way or another. So then explaining RTSC necessarily becomes explaining why physics is wrong and Johan's intuitions are right.

You, on the other hand, simply accept intuitions over physics, as that is the method that you employ. Thus, by defending Johan, you are really only defending your own failed methodology.

You don't seem capable of considering the obvious: RTSC does not exist and Johan has misinterpreted his results.

 

[D'rok]

Farsight, I suggest you read this essay by Johan:
http://www.cathodixx.com/pdfs/RELATIVITY.pdf

Careful. Farsight will likely agree with this paper. The anti-relativity crowd tends to stick together, even if their ideas contradict one another.

Excellent post, BTW.

 

[johanfprins]

Dr. Prins, I would also request that you please address the questions in this post directly, as I believe it could clear up a fair amount of the confusion.

This is a fair request. I will do it in more detail after I have posted all my statements on my superconducting experiment. This is what this thread should be about. But a few expanatory comments at this point might not be out of place:

The simple fact is that for objects, like a cannon ball, its rest mass energy is the same at every position in space and also within any gravitational field. Therefore, one can neglect the rest mass energy as a baseline energy.

But when it comes to an electron within an electric field, this is not true anymore. An electron within the lowest energy state of a hydrogen atom has LESS energy than its rest mass energy. Therefore you cannot assume that you can neglect rest mass as the baseline energy for an electron that is quantum mechanically bound within an electric potential-field, as you can for a cannon ball within a gravitational field. I will, however, return to this topic again after I have completed the statements that explain why my experiments do indeed generate an electron phase that superconducts at room and higher temperatures.

If Sol Ziggurat and Ben, and their "yelping doggie" Reality Check want to keep on posting BS on unrelated topics, they can do so; but I will for the time being ignore them. Farsight is now experiencing how impossible it is to reason with fundamenalist zealots who will always refuse to think outside the dogma that they WANT to believe is correct: No matter how obvious it is that they are wrong.

It is absolutely impossible that ANY standing harmonic wave has ANY kinetic energy even when a part of the energy solution you obtain from the Schroedinger equation can be written as [(hbar)*k]²/m since [(hbar)*k] is ONLY the same as momentum when you have a COHERENT RUNNING wave. If [(hbar)*k]²/m forms part of the energy-solution of a standing wave, this expression cannot be the same as kinetic energy EVER!

 

[johanfprins]

Careful. Farsight will likely agree with this paper. The anti-relativity crowd tends to stick together, even if their ideas contradict one another.

Excellent post, BTW.

My paper is NOT anti-relativity. Why do you people always distort the facts? This is nothing else but criminal lying. I am in full agreement with Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity which is based on the postulates that (i) the laws of physics MUST be the same within any inertial refrence frame and (ii) that therefore the speed of light must be the same relative to any moving object.

What I point out in my paper is that Einstein's explanation of non-simultaneity is wrong since it violates the second postulate. I DID NOT state that it is not true that two simultaneous events within one inertial reference frame are NOT non-simultaneous within another reference fame. The latter is indeed correct, and I give a derivation of this effect that does not violate Einstein's second postulate.

I then prove that owing to this simultaneity-non-simultaneity effect, one cannot see the front and rear of a passing rod at the same instant in time; and that since you cannot see them simultaneously, it is idiotic to talk of the passing rod having any length. The only way that you can measure the length of a passing rod is by using a stop watch and starting the stop watch when the the front of the rod passes you and stopping the stop watch when then rear of the rod passes you. You then find from the Lorentz transformation that the rod does not change in length at all.

 

[D'rok]

My paper is NOT anti-relativity. Why do you people always distort the facts? This is nothing else but criminal lying. I am in full agreement with Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity...

Ah yes. You are in full agreement with Special Relativity, other than these aspects which you conclude are totally wrong:

1. Relativity of simultaneity
2. Time dilation
3. Length contraction

C'mon, Johan.

 

[ben m]

If Sol Ziggurat and Ben, and their "yelping doggie" Reality Check want to keep on posting BS on unrelated topics, they can do so; but I will for the time being ignore them.

Johan, I repeat: you asked us to comment on a statement about electric fields in diode junctions. You are wrong about this electric field; you defended your wrong e-field views by being wrong about bound-state energies. Stop calling this "unrelated".

 

[ben m]

I am in full agreement with Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity which is based on the postulates that (i) the laws of physics MUST be the same within any inertial refrence frame and (ii) that therefore the speed of light must be the same relative to any moving object.

What I point out in my paper is that Einstein's explanation of non-simultaneity is wrong since it violates the second postulate. ...

Let me point out that there's a long crackpot pedigree for this sort of thinking. Tom Bearden, free-energy conspiracy nut, doesn't claim to disagree with Maxwell's equations. He says he's gone back to the true equations that everyone else is misusing. Johan never says he's violating quantum mechanics, he says he's using the original and everyone else has some adulterated "Copenhagen" mistake. And here we are with SR.

Sorry, Johan, if there indeed two version of SR---yours and the one taught in schools---then the version of SR that people use and test is the version taught in schools. That version is right and your version is not.

You then find from the Lorentz transformation that the rod does not change in length at all.

I find the opposite. I also find time dilation, don't you? If you have time dilation but no length-contraction, then the 1st postulate is broken.

 

[johanfprins]

Ah yes. You are in full agreement with Special Relativity, other than these aspects which you conclude are totally wrong:

Please stop being an oaf:

1. Relativity of simultaneity

If you can read, which I doubt, you will see in the amnuscript that I am not "in disagrerement" with the relativity of simultaneity. Only a total moron will conclude this. I am in full agreement with the relativity of simultaneity. What I am pointing out is that Einstein's celebrated explanation of this real effect violates his second postulate; and then I derive the correct explanation forb this effect directly from the Lorentz transformation

2. Time dilation

I do not disagree with this, but derive from the Lorentz transformation that a passing clock is only observed to keep slower time within a reference frame within which it has a velocity. Within its own inertial reference frame it keeps the same time as any other clock keeps within its own inertial reference frame.

3. Length contraction

I then derive that owing to the validity of the relativity of simultaneity, one cannot see the front and rear of a passing rod at the same isnstant in time and therefore one cannot see the length of a passing rod at all. Just as you cannot see the length of a train coming around a corner. I then point out that when you measure the length with a stop watch there is no change in the length.

C'mon, Johan.

Please do not display your ignorance time and again: One day, if you have a conscience, you will regret it that you have made such an utter fool of yourself.

 

[D'rok]

Please stop being an oaf:

If you can read, which I doubt, you will see in the amnuscript that I am not "in disagrerement" with the relativity of simultaneity. Only a total moron will conclude this. I am in full agreement with the relativity of simultaneity. What I am pointing out is that Einstein's celebrated explanation of this real effect violates his second postulate; and then I derive the correct explanation forb this effect directly from the Lorentz transformation
I do not disagree with this, but derive from the Lorentz transformation that a passing clock is only observed to keep slower time within a reference frame within which it has a velocity. Within its own inertial reference frame it keeps the same time as any other clock keeps within its own inertial reference frame.
I then derive that owing to the validity of the relativity of simultaneity, one cannot see the front and rear of a passing rod at the same isnstant in time and therefore one cannot see the length of a passing rod at all. Just as you cannot see the length of a train coming around a corner. I then point out that when you measure the length with a stop watch there is no change in the length.

Please do not display your ignorance time and again: One day, if you have a conscience, you will regret it that you have made such an utter fool of yourself.

I think ben answered this perfectly just above.