Uncle Al wrote in message ...
1) There isn't any physical contraction. It is a matter of delay
of information transport and uncertainty of ordering of events
thereform. The layperson explanation is equivalent to contraction.


The "contraction" is due to viewing a bit of space which has been
rotated in a dimention orthogonal to the ordinary three, as seen by an
observer who isn't moving. Or you can view it as space compressed in
one direction. But it's not an illusion caused by information
transport. It's every bit as "real" as the space distortion and radius
excess caused by (say) a spherical mass. If you look at such a radius
across dimpled space caused by a mass from the "outside" (outside the
g field; a long way away) the rulers crossing the gap all look short
(just as if you were looking down on rulers crossing a 2D "dimple"
which you were looking at from above, thinking it should be flat). And
there are too many of them to be explained by plane geometry. But in
their own space, the rulers aren't short. In their own space, they
have normal length but there's just too much circumference space to be
explained by Euclidian flat circles inscribed in flat planes. The same
odd thing happens with a flying ruler.

(Steve Harris ) wrote in message om...
Uncle Al wrote in message ...
1) There isn't any physical contraction. It is a matter of delay
of information transport and uncertainty of ordering of events
thereform. The layperson explanation is equivalent to contraction.


The "contraction" is due to viewing a bit of space which has been
rotated in a dimention orthogonal to the ordinary three, as seen by an
observer who isn't moving. Or you can view it as space compressed in
one direction. But it's not an illusion caused by information
transport. It's every bit as "real" as the space distortion and radius
excess caused by (say) a spherical mass....[deleted]

Very beautiful, again where is the experiment that proves this beauty
actually happens!

(Steve Harris ) wrote in message om...
Uncle Al wrote in message ...
1) There isn't any physical contraction. It is a matter of delay
of information transport and uncertainty of ordering of events
thereform. The layperson explanation is equivalent to contraction.


The "contraction" is due to viewing a bit of space which has been
rotated in a dimention orthogonal to the ordinary three, as seen by an
observer who isn't moving. Or you can view it as space compressed in
one direction. But it's not an illusion caused by information
transport. It's every bit as "real" as the space distortion and radius
excess caused by (say) a spherical mass. If you look at such a radius
across dimpled space caused by a mass from the "outside" (outside the
g field; a long way away) the rulers crossing the gap all look short
(just as if you were looking down on rulers crossing a 2D "dimple"
which you were looking at from above, thinking it should be flat). And
there are too many of them to be explained by plane geometry. But in
their own space, the rulers aren't short. In their own space, they
have normal length but there's just too much circumference space to be
explained by Euclidian flat circles inscribed in flat planes. The same
odd thing happens with a flying ruler.

Another example is a rotating disk. Inhabitants on the disk will
measure more circumference than the radius implies (based on flat
Euclidean geometry.) The geometry of "diskworld" is non-euclidean.

-Bruce

(Bruce Bowen) wrote in message . com...
(Steve Harris ) wrote in message om...
Uncle Al wrote in message ...
1) There isn't any physical contraction. It is a matter of delay
of information transport and uncertainty of ordering of events
thereform. The layperson explanation is equivalent to contraction.


The "contraction" is due to viewing a bit of space which has been
rotated in a dimention orthogonal to the ordinary three, as seen by an [deleted]

Another example is a rotating disk. Inhabitants on the disk will
measure more circumference than the radius implies (based on flat
Euclidean geometry.) The geometry of "diskworld" is non-euclidean.

-Bruce

Diskworld? Okay, gets even better. Like I asked, length contraction is
a wonderful idea based on beautiful suggestions about space etc. -- I
hate to spoil beautiful arguments but is there any experimental proof
of length contraction.

"John Tapper" wrote in message om...
(Bruce Bowen) wrote in message . com...
(Steve Harris ) wrote in message
om...
Uncle Al wrote in message ...
1) There isn't any physical contraction. It is a matter of delay
of information transport and uncertainty of ordering of events
thereform. The layperson explanation is equivalent to contraction.


The "contraction" is due to viewing a bit of space which has been
rotated in a dimention orthogonal to the ordinary three, as seen by an [deleted]

Another example is a rotating disk. Inhabitants on the disk will
measure more circumference than the radius implies (based on flat
Euclidean geometry.) The geometry of "diskworld" is non-euclidean.

-Bruce

Diskworld? Okay, gets even better. Like I asked, length contraction is
a wonderful idea based on beautiful suggestions about space etc. -- I
hate to spoil beautiful arguments but is there any experimental proof
of length contraction.

John, can you tell me what you have learned from what I
have told you?

Dirk Vdm

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote in message ...

John, can you tell me what you have learned from what I
have told you?

Dirk Vdm

Great preacher, I have not learned the answer to the question in the
subject. That is what I care to learn.

"John Tapper" wrote in message om...
"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote in message
...

John, can you tell me what you have learned from what I
have told you?

Dirk Vdm

Great preacher, I have not learned the answer to the question in the
subject. That is what I care to learn.

You have not learned the answer?

I (and others) have given the answer to the question.
The answer was no.
And I have told you why the answer is no.
You might have learned something this way, don't you agree?

Dirk Vdm

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote in message ...
"John Tapper" wrote in message om...
"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote in message
...

John, can you tell me what you have learned from what I
have told you?

Dirk Vdm

Great preacher, I have not learned the answer to the question in the
subject. That is what I care to learn.

You have not learned the answer?

I (and others) have given the answer to the question.
The answer was no.
And I have told you why the answer is no.
You might have learned something this way, don't you agree?

Dirk Vdm

I know why the answer is no! You don't. The answer is no because there
is no length contraction, that is why it can never be observed.

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote in message ...
"John Tapper" wrote in message om...
"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote in message
...

John, can you tell me what you have learned from what I
have told you?

Dirk Vdm

Great preacher, I have not learned the answer to the question in the
subject. That is what I care to learn.

You have not learned the answer?

I (and others) have given the answer to the question.
The answer was no.
And I have told you why the answer is no.
You might have learned something this way, don't you agree?

Dirk Vdm

Okay, I may be seeming baselessly conclusive here, but that is because
you don't know what I know! Later.

John Tapper wrote:

I know why the answer is no! You don't. The answer is no because there
is no length contraction, that is why it can never be observed.

Think in terms of time dilation length contraction duality.
length contraction is observed in muon decay experiments
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...v/muon.html#c3