Everything that defies common sense is yet to be proven - yours too is equally an inadequate argument.
Religion? Oh please... I consider relativity to be internally consistent, not inconsistent with experiment, so far as I know... and that's it. I really don't care one way or the other if it's a true picture of reality or not. I do find enjoyment in understanding the model, and in picking out my misunderstandings and those of others. Intellectual exercise, don'tcha know. If I wanted to go deeper, as you say you do, I'd spend the time to get properly educated. I'd learn the full relativity model (ie General Relativity). I'd study experiments involving SR and GR in great detail - not just "tests", but also practical applications. I'd determine to my own satisfaction whether time dilation, length contraction, and relative simultaneity are meaningful in their own right, or only as consequences of a larger model (a question I don't think you've considered). Yes, I know you don't like relativity. Yes, I know you haven't seen any personally satisfying proof. But I really don't think you'll find any further answers to your questions here, and you don't appear to have anything more to share on the issue - you've said your piece and that's great. Go learn more. Sounds profound at first glance... but on closer inspection it's just an empty generalisation.
This thread is more useless then my bread-maker... Aer, the two people that you wanted to answer your question have done so, great. Now what? Was there a point to this at all? (other then James R bashing)
Yes, the point was to test their faith - it is as strong as ever as suspected Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! (One only needs to read above). BTW - I didn't want to post the problem - THEY ASKED FOR IT.
I've merely scratched the surface of going deeper. In fact - I really need to brush up on my fundamentals of Relativity, but I don't find such a thing as useful as having looked at the experiments to date - none of them concern themselves with the idea of length contraction, relativity of simultaneity, or reciprocity. They mainly are experiments of time dilation. And as such we can't be sure that any of the other results are physically real. Bummer...
I've a lot more I could share but I choose not to Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I'm still looking over experiments and building off them. I would be happy with either of the following: all results of relativity are fully proved by experiment OR a result of relativity is shown to be erroneous thus requiring the amending of relativity.
It is the only thing they have come up with to explain time dilation and the fact that Earth does not appear to move in an ether. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Aer, If I were to thes length contraction I might do this experiment: Given: One-way time dilation is proven. I would send a small probe into the atmosphere at 0.98c designed to detonate after 2.2us. If it dosen't make it to the earth, no length contraction. If it does, length contraction. Sound familiar? Rejecting proof just because you don't like it is pretty silly. Given that we KNOW one-way time dilation occurrs, length contraction MUST occurr for muons to reach earth the way they do. It's a valid experiment that clearly demonstrates length contraction.
Let's analyse your assumption. One-way time dilation. This means to the probe, time on it's clock is actually running slower than the clock on Earth, no? That is, to the probe, the Earth clock is running faster than his own. If this is not what you mean by one-way time dilation, please elaborate.
You aren't following - we are analysing your example Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! (at least I was trying to, it appears you've prepared a laundry list of experiments I've already seen)
I only mean that we have no observations of mutually observed dilation - reciprocity - (even though by the symmetry of relativity we know it must happen) and I didn't want to upset you by implying that we did.
Well then, you can only say length contraction must occur if you assume mutually observed dilation. Your result of length contraction does not follow from your assumption. We can only conclude that length contraction may or may not occur - quite a conclusion, eh?
