Quote:
|
Originally Posted by clj4
Ah, now I see your problem : you think that there is such a thing as reciprocal length contraction and you demand an experiment that proves it.
OK, this is one of the weaker of the two "paradoxes", is the poor cousin of Dingle's paradox. Anyway, reciprocal length contraction does not exist. It is provable in about 1 page of formulas.
Suffice to say that SR DOES NOT CLAIM that reciprocal length contraction exists, quite the contrary, it refutes such a notion. Neither does "mutual time dilation" exist (2 pages of calculations). Happy now?
|
Not entirely correct. I wasn't thinking of reciprocity of length contraction but reciprocity of time dilation. Now time dilation has been demonstrated. At least as far as clock dilation might go. It remains to be seen if clock dilation is actually time dilation.
With respect to length contraction I see no evidence that it exists at all much less with reciprocity.
I find it amazing how many people respond with issues which are not germain and ignore the simple fact which I continue to repeat.
"The trip time of the moving clock is FULLY accounted for by the dilated tick rate of the clock and based on the same distance".
There can be no physical distance change. If distance and time both changed then the affect becomes compounded and you wouldn't get answers that correspond with observaton.
Spatial contraction is a mere mathematical construct based on ignoring the dilated tick rate of the clock used to time the trip. That is you are using an altered measurement standard and ignoring the standard change by setting t' = t.
We know physically that is not true. It is really no different than claiming the football game took two hours instead of one because you are watching it in slow motion.