On Feb 8, 12:04*pm, Peri of Pera wrote:
The Measurement of Contraction

[...]

But let us ask questions about such a measurement. Event 1 is the
recording of location A of one end of a rod in space at time t by
observers S and S'. Event 2 is the recording of *location B of the
other end of the rod also at time t by the same observers. The
experimenter picks up and analyses the four space time co-ordinates
made by the two observers. Will the answer be the contracted length of
the rod? How will the movement of the two observers relative to the
rod disclose the contracted length of the rod and not a distorted view
of it? How are optical, communicative and angular aspects included in
the measurement? What single fixed co-ordinate system is common to
both observers or is it only relative to observer S or observer S'?
How will the experimenter establish that the times t of the two
observers are simultaneous given that SR imposes a whole set of ifs
and buts on simultaneity? How will any difference in the speed the
observed object, S and S' be taken into account?

It all can be done on paper making assumptions but not as a real test.
The more ardent supporters of the contraction hypothesis assert that
proof is not required. Their argument is that to 'make predictions' is
sufficient or they will do the calculations manually and if these are
rejected or ignored by anyone, they accuse him of being incapable of
the maths and he should study the subject to understand the theory.
With understanding they mean accepting it without reservation. It is
the approach of all monotheistic religions which ostracise all non-
believers, excommunicate them, vilify them, and ultimately stone or
burn them. In this NG it is automatically practised against any member
who dares to reject SR or even question it.

Peter Riedt

One cannot really be surprised if SR appears to people
to be not well or clearly explained. It is in the peculiar
situation of something that is largely correct, and looks
like it could be completely correct, but is actually partly
wrong. In a situation like this, the most brilliant people
can explain it in all ways ad nauseum, and point to the
right final results but, somehow, the mind is always left
partially unsatisfied.

Why? I think that it is like the case of a room with
obstacles in it. No matter how people show you how
you can move about the room, you are always at least
slightly irritated and dissatisfied with the obstacles that
never get out of the way. They can tell you that they are
not obstacles, and you can easily move around them,
but you are not, and never can be persuaded.

A perfectly true theory will be experienced as something
of clarity, with everything manifestly in order, and in its
place. A theory hiding a subtle falsehood, however small,
however, will never give such an experience, and people
will therefore be forever questioning it and feeling perplexed,
even when they cannot put their finger on what it is about
the theory that seems unsatisfactory.

Such is the case with SR

Alen