No ether, but length contraction still happening. And the Lorentz length contraction formula is correct. It was Lorentz's ether explanation that was thrown out the window. Edit: Maybe not. I can't find a good reference to length contraction in an experiment. Shit.
Length contraction is required with Einstein's Relativity - but it has never been observed directly. Most direct observations are those of time dilation. Time Dilation - confirmed. Length Contraction - unconfirmed. Relativity of Simultaneity - unconfirmed. Reciprocity - unconfirmed. What other predictions of special relativity have been confirmed?
Why do you think the list you presented is important? http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#Tests of the poR
It was only the list that came off the top of my head. I was seeking out additions to add to the list.
These are tests of the postulates of relativity. While important it is (ugh, talking like yoda) to test these postulates, there is the possibility that the postulates are not complete (i.e. an important postulate is missing that would completely change the theory). That is why it is important to test the results of a theory.
Interestingly, the fact that we can see certain objects moving at high speed and NOT see length contraction (and I mean literally "see" here) is evidence that length contraction DOES occur. Because otherwise, with the finite speed of light, objects should LOOK distorted at high speeds. Length contraction cancels out those effects, so the objects look normal. And no, I'm not in the mood to elaborate on this right now.
Ok. muons reaching earth. Do you agree that in the muoms frame 2.2us (on average) elapses then the muon decays? If so, then in the muon frame, how could it reach the earth if length contraction did not occurr to reduce the distance from about 6000m to 600m? If the muon had to travel 6000m in any frame, it would never make it. Atmospheric muon experiments are a direct proof of length contraction.
I fully agree, it is a real task to read about BS conspiracies etc......and I do understand why my posts can appear to be of the same ilk..... For some one as ignorant as I am it is very easy to get caught up in it all....but please accept that I always give the science community the benefit of the doubt.
Again, this is assuming SR is correct - length contraction must necessarily exist to get the result. But length contraction is not observed directly.
So you will only accept a 10m long space probe moving very fast with radio beacons at either end transmitting synchronized pulses. And we measure the length contraction by the reduced delay between the beacons. Yes?
Wait a minute, isn't this bar necessarily always 10m long in it's own rest frame? The frame in which the bar is moving with respect to would have to measure it, no? Sometimes I get confused with length contraction :m:
Yes, of course. If the bar is 10m with beacons at each end, the pulses will have a delay between them of 33.3us in its rest frame. As it moves wrt us, it will appear length contracted and the pulse spacing will drop from 33.3us as a function of its relative velocity. The radio beacons are measured here on earth.
Ahh yes, now I see what you are getting at. It is actually a much more simple experiment than one I devised to try to prove reciprocity.
But if the pulses "pulse" simultaneously in the bar's rest frame, then they won't pulse simultaneously in the Earth frame. What does this mean?
When you say "reciprocity" are you speaking in the MacM-sian way or the simple mutually observed dilation way (the correct SR way)?
When I say reciprocity, I am refering to what I believe you call mutual time dilation. I honestly don't really know what MacM thinks reciprocity means in his head.
