"Spaceman" wrote in message
. ..

"OG" wrote in message
...
| But you seem to say that in order that you can measure the distance
between
| the lines you have to stop moving relative to the lines.

To physically measure such, yes.
and if you are going to use an abstract measurement,
you should not be using an abstract measurement that lost
all physical measurements now, such as the meter has.
this sad length contraction crap is only proof
that lightspeed is not "constant to all"
and the distance being different to a moving observer
compared to an "at rest" observer is proof you have a
problem with the new "standard" of a meter.
(you should not need transformations to measure stuff.)
If the ship is passing by 186,000 miles per second.
then that is what it is doing,
If you have some crap that comes up with it is not doing such,
your crap is broken in some form of it's abstraction of
the speed.

You say "you should not need transformations to measure stuff.", and indeed
you don't need transformations to measure stuff. What you do need is
transformations to take measurements in one reference frame (B) and express
them in another reference frame (A). Measurement isn't a problem so long as
you stick to the same frame of reference.


| I think it's now time that we go back to the question I asked in one of
my
| original responses:-
| How would (B) measure the separation of the lines whilst they are
whipping
| past at .5c ?

Ok,
more gedanken stuff here so bear with it.
If a wheel was placed on the gedanken ground we
created, and it was 1 mile in circumference,
(1 roll per line)
would it not spin at 93,000 rotations per second
if traveling at 0.5c past such lines?

You won't want to hear this, but if the wheel is spinning at that speed, (B)
would find that the diameter is no longer 1/2pi miles.