On Feb 16, 5:28*pm, "wugi" wrote:
"Peri of Pera" :

Guido,
I am well aware that a local observer cannot detect any contraction or
time dilation in his own system and did not ask a question about it.

That's what I understood from your earlier post, see next.

The issue is that Jecko and others in this thread denied that Lorentz
proposed length contraction of moving objects and that is plain silly.

I don't see any saying like that from him.

(and earlier)

Bryan,
we are stuck in semantic games. Jecko keeps talking about what the
observer in another frame may measure. I am not concerned what the
observer rightly or wrongly can or cannot see. To me it is more
important what actually happens to the moving object regardless if it

"what actually happens" can't be an "absolute" statement. You've got to
specify what witness of the happening you wish to involve.

can be measured or not either locally or from an external position.
Does it contract or does it not? Lorentz says it does and AE accepted
that. Jecko sidesteps this fundamental question and you throw more
confusion on to it. As I said, ambiguity and vagueness is used by the
supporters of SR. You will not answer a simple question.
Peter Riedt

So I said:
- an inertial object detects no movement, and no contraction or dilation, by
and about itself.
- an external observer in a different inertial state detects those things
upon the object (but you're not asking about that)

So I suppose you're wondering
- is there an "absolute" authority witnessing these changes, on any inertial
object at that?

That's what I think Lorentz and others felt (some stay stuck with it even
nowadays):
the changes would be absolute (eg in an aetherial milieu) but,
"unfortunately", in a way that makes them undetectable for one to oneself,
only mutual observations between "moving" objects being left accessible and,
"weirdly", yielding the proper results.

What they could and would not get to grasp, was that they were up to a
universal relativity principle. They prefered to remain stuck with a FALSE
relativity, with at its core an absolute, though undetectable, reference
frame.

guidohttp://home.scarlet.be/~pin12499/paratwin.htm

Guido,
I agree but perhaps we are now stuck with the original theory and
another updated but equally incorrect one.
Peter Riedt