It was requested that I establish a new thread and defend the concept of no spatial contraction.

I have previously posted logical alternatives and have pointed out that there is (has been) no supporting emperical data in the 100 years of relativity for the concept of spatial length contraction.

That LC is nothing more than a mathematical construct based on the prior assumption made in SR with respect to the non-existance of an absolute frame (note that "Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence").

Since it is not possible to prove a negative it appears to me that in contrast to Rule #13, it becomes incumbant upon objectors to post data showing that length contraction has been demonstrated and my concept therefore is false.

Saying SR has been thoroughly tested and passed every test in no manner proves that which has not been observed nor tested since the test data collected is not to the exclusion of alternative explanations.

Beyond that I do not have further comment or arguement on the subject.