"Len Gaasenbeek" wrote in message
...
To Tom,

When one observes a distant moving body, the best one can do is take
measurements of its photographic image and/or analyse its radiation or
movement. This is what I am proposing and what constitutes good physics.

To measure something 'in regard its coordinates as in special relativity'
is
so much double talk. Nor 'can one arrange to mark both ends of the rod
simultaneously in one's own frame and then measure the distance between
those marks'. This not only is equally silly, but can't be done.

No observer can study an object more effectively than when he uses
cognitive
means which travel at the speed of light towards him. That is why
astronomers use telescopes to study the cosmos.

Consequently the best they can do is study Observed Reality, even if it is
thousands of light years away and presents them with a picture of what
things used to look like thousands of years ago, BECAUSE NO ONE CAN DO
BETTER THAN THAT!

All the rest of what you are suggesting is just pie in the sky!
I don't like to say this, but you are a typical example of a cult member
who
tries to convert his critics by preaching his religious jargon. This of
course has nothing to do with scientific debate.

"If you want to find out anything from the theoretical physicists about
the
methods they use, I advise you to stick closely to one principle: Don't
listen to their words, fix your attention on their deeds."
Albert Einstein,
The World As I See It.

Len.

Have a series of laser beams spaced half a centimeter apart, shining
perpendicular to the direction of the motion of the rod, with electronic
eyes on the other side, attached to separate clocks. Record time readouts
and readouts of the eyes. Find the maximum distance between breaks in the
laser beam at any one particular time. Round to the nearest centimeter.

The calculations used to derive SR assume perfect measurement of actual
length, regardless of how a real experimenter would have to measure things.
Also, true length could simply be calculated from the length measured in a
photographic image. SR always assumes compensation where necessarry, such
as in calculations for simultaneity (where the observer compensates for the
speed of light in determining when events took place).

You have to understand that for your described effects to be the length
contractions of SR, the effect you've described would have to be factored
into the derivation, which it isn't. And since your described effect can
also lead to length expansion, and actually leads to an observed *rotation*
as well, that should give you a clue that it is unrelated to length
contractions. The phenomenon you have described is well documented in
physics texts, as a separate phenomenon from SR. The formula for length
contraction in SR, BTW, is l*sqr(1-v^2/c^2), so the two things can't be the
same anyway.

It is also ridiculous to assume that the actual length of a moving rod
cannot, even in principle, be discovered.