[GoC (OP)]

David to continue our conversation on our own thread from the "invariant speed of light" topic.

SR mechanically follows Relativity with the spin Aether c. Lets look at an example at relative half the speed of light by mass. We have two mirrors set parallel 90 degrees to vector speed. The light just hit one mirror (Light is a spherical propagation wave on the Aether spin c). The event in space now becomes a race to the other mirror already moving through space. So light sphere goes twice as fast as the mirror but there is no perpendicular view with vector velocity. The sphere of light produced reaches the second mirror at a angle of 30 degrees producing a 30,60,90 triangle. The travel distance is the hypotenuse length for the light. Cos 30 = 0.866025 for the percentage of a second at rest and the inverse is 1.133075 vs. 1 for the extra distance the light traveled. The contraction of view for an image is the angle different from perpendicular. You claim science believes time is a dimension. That is a definition based on the unknown for what produces motion. If we have a mechanical Aether c spin producing all motion as the energy source time definition would be motion c = energy available to space = time. Time measurement is a cycle of distance used for a vector distance. They both require a distance either light between mirrors or the electron cycle. Motion measuring motion. How is that a dimension in and of itself?
Aether c spin of the complimentary 2d grid pattern offset by 45 degrees and 90 degrees spin to the first 2d sheet is quantum mechanics that move the waves on the spectrum and move the electrons of mass. A virtual photon describes a spectrum of Aether spin c propagation of a wave on particles with no need for a particle to carry energy. Relativity math would not allow it to be a particle that is why virtual was used as a weasel word to get around relativity's objection to main streams model.

GR is a dilation of Aether spin c particles. So energy is diluted and the wave created has a lower frequency. mass is expanded physically in GR. Mass is expanded visually in SR. That is the equivalence between GR and SR where g=a.

[David Cooper]

SR mechanically follows Relativity with the spin Aether c. Lets look at an example at relative half the speed of light by mass. We have two mirrors set parallel 90 degrees to vector speed. The light just hit one mirror (Light is a spherical propagation wave on the Aether spin c). The event in space now becomes a race to the other mirror already moving through space. So light sphere goes twice as fast as the mirror but there is no perpendicular view with vector velocity. The sphere of light produced reaches the second mirror at a angle of 30 degrees producing a 30,60,90 triangle. The travel distance is the hypotenuse length for the light. Cos 30 = 0.866025 for the percentage of a second at rest and the inverse is 1.133075 vs. 1 for the extra distance the light traveled. The contraction of view for an image is the angle different from perpendicular.

That needs a diagram. I can't see how light chasing a mirror has to hit it at 30 degrees.

You claim science believes time is a dimension.

I do no such thing. SR is a model which uses a time dimension. Anything that has no time dimension is not SR. Your model, for example, is not SR, but a rival theory of relativity.

That is a definition based on the unknown for what produces motion. If we have a mechanical Aether c spin producing all motion as the energy source time definition would be motion c = energy available to space = time. Time measurement is a cycle of distance used for a vector distance. They both require a distance either light between mirrors or the electron cycle. Motion measuring motion. How is that a dimension in and of itself?

Time in SR is a dimension. In your theory, it isn't, so in discussing your model it would be wrong to refer to your model's kind of time as a dimension, just as in LET (Lorentz Ether Theory - the theory which I rate the highest) time isn't a dimension.

Aether c spin of the complimentary 2d grid pattern offset by 45 degrees and 90 degrees spin to the first 2d sheet is quantum mechanics that move the waves on the spectrum and move the electrons of mass. A virtual photon describes a spectrum of Aether spin c propagation of a wave on particles with no need for a particle to carry energy. Relativity math would not allow it to be a particle that is why virtual was used as a weasel word to get around relativity's objection to main streams model.

Again that needs a diagram before anyone will be able to make sense of it.

From the other thread:-

You said there is no time dimension, so how do you now have a time dimension that's a dimension of size?

Aether Particles spin and Mass dilates the Aether particles so energy density decreases in the presents of mass. The measuring stick increases in size to measure a different mile than less dilated mass. You always measure the same speed of light in both GR dilation and SR visual increase in length. The hypotenuse of SR and the dilation of GR has equivalence in Euclidean space.

There is no visual increase in length - the opposite should occur.

2d complimentary spin on one sheet than a 90 degree at a 45 degree offset for the next sheet. Axils cannot be the same between sheets and this allows flex. The third sheet is the same as the first. The funny thing it would look like a string vibrating. The electron moves as a rotation around a half string. Energy pushes the electron along. One atom dilates space energy. The electron moves out of the proton at the rotation motion of the speed of light. Space becomes less dilated and the friction with energy curves the electron back to the proton where another electron moves out to cycle. There is one more negatron than positron in protons and neutrons are equal matter to antimatter electrons. Each spin state is complimentary when they pass for less resistance keeping the proton together. Gravity is mass attracted to the most dilated space of least resistance.

Again this needs a diagram to make it possible to follow. Let's just do one thing at a time though and start with something really simple. Let's start with a stationary object one metre long. If this object is then moved lengthways at 0.5c, it should appear to shorten to 867mm. In LET, this shortening is accounted for by the atoms settling closer together so that the communication distances between atoms are the same in the direction of travel of the object as they are sideways. What does your theory say about what's going on in the same situation?

[GoC (OP)]

Again this needs a diagram to make it possible to follow. Let's just do one thing at a time though and start with something really simple. Let's start with a stationary object one metre long. If this object is then moved lengthways at 0.5c, it should appear to shorten to 867mm. In LET, this shortening is accounted for by the atoms settling closer together so that the communication distances between atoms are the same in the direction of travel of the object as they are sideways. What does your theory say about what's going on in the same situation?

I think for myself and do not trust others to do my subjective interpretations. I never thought of my interpretation as a rival. Reading Einstein's papers gave me the interpretation I have about relativity.
What you want is the discussion on the reflection of light. OK. Lets look at light coming from the opposite direction of travel to the meter stick. Light hits the front of the stick while the stick is going half the speed of light. The light travels down the stick while the back of the stick moves towards the light for reflection. So the light reflects off of 2/3rds of the stick. So the contraction in this case is 2/3rds length but remains physically 1 meter long. Because of the finite speed of a photon (whatever you believe to be a photon) non can move fast enough to cover the whole meter stick.

Now lets look at light following that same stick. Light reaches the back of the meter stick. The front is still moving forward. The reflective light follows the meter stick for two whole lengths of the stick. So the meter stick becomes two meters long for the view while the meter stick is only one meter long.

Clocks oriented in any angle to vector velocity will tick at the same rate. Both mechanical (electrons) and light clocks. So you need to be more specific in what you are asking. There is no physical contraction in SR. Where would you get such an idea? 

[David Cooper]

If you don't have a proper way of handling length-contraction, your theory is dead in the water - it cannot simply be written off as a visual effect.

Imagine a large blue circular ring in space, neither moving nor rotating. Around this ring, we will place a second ring made from eight rectangular objects, each touching the one ahead and the one behind. The rectangles are either yellow or red (four of each colour), alternating between one colour and the other as you look from one rectangle to the next around the ring. I will point you to a diagram that's very similar to this in a moment, but it has a couple of differences, one of which is that the rectangles aren't stationary in the diagram. So, to make it more like the diagram, we now have to move the ring of yellow and red triangles around the blue ring, speeding them up until they're all moving at 86.7%c around the blue ring, thereby length-contracting them to half their rest length. We now see that the length-contraction is actual - there are now such big gaps between the rectangles that we could fit twice as many rectangles into the same space. If the length-contraction was just an illusion, each rectangle would continue to touch the one ahead and the one behind it, but that doesn't happen in the real universe - they really do contract to half their rest length at 0.867c.

Here's the diagram. When you get there you'll need to click on the "Load example objects" button, then type "d" to load the fourth set of example objects, then the Return key to make them appear. http://www.magicschoolbook.com/science/ref-frame-camera.htm

You should now see the blue ring with the eight rectangles around its edge (although these items are only shown using a few dots here and there, the rectangles only having four dots each to mark the corners - I had to draw them this way due to the severe limitations of JavaScript (the more dots that I use, the slower the program runs, so it has to be kept minimal). You should imagine the blue ring as a complete ring - don't pay any attention to the distance between the blue dots round the circumference of that ring as I simply placed a few wherever it was easiest to calculate their positions).

There's another difference with the diagram though, because the program hasn't been designed to allow objects to follow curved paths, so when you run it by pressing the "s" key, the rectangles all move on tangents to the blue ring instead, but it doesn't take a lot of imagination to realise that if they were to go round the blue ring instead, they would be length-contracted to the same extent. Assuming you're accessing this on a proper computer with a keyboard, if you press "d" you can change their direction of travel, and pressing "s" toggles between moving them and freezing the action. (If you're using a tablet, hopefully the buttons will serve the same job, but that will involve scrolling up to them and then going back down to see the action.)

To see the length of one of the rectangles without length-contraction acting on it, you can switch to a frame of reference in which it's stationary. Different frames have been assigned to number keys, so if you press "1" you get the original frame, while "2" and "3" take you to other frames where in each case one of the red rectangles will be stationary, except that the "camera" always follows the blue ring to keep it central, so the stationary rectangle will move across the screen. (If you don't have a keyboard, you'll have to use the "Set Frame velocity" button instead, typing in values such as 0.866 for X and 0 for Y.)

All of that should give you an idea of what your theory needs to account for if it's to match up with what the universe does. In the LET model, the length-contraction is absolutely real. In the SR model, the length contraction is real for the frame of reference chosen, but some of its actual length has been hidden by a trick that uses the time dimension. LET can fit 16 of those rectangles into the space around the blue ring if they are all moving at 0.866c, and each of those rectangles would be touching the one ahead and the one behind. SR can also fit 16 of those rectangles around the blue ring by playing games with the timing as to where the back end of each rectangle is relative to the front end, and that's only possible with a Spacetime model (with a time dimension). Your theory doesn't have a time dimension, so if it doesn't have length-contraction either, you've got a major problem as the eight rectangles will remain in contact with each other at all speeds of travel around the blue ring.

Given that your theory can't handle that, I have to wonder what else it can't handle. You need to study relativity in a lot more detail to find out what the universe requires a theory to account for, and then you need to study SR in sufficient depth to understand what it asserts. As it stands, you keep defending SR on the basis that your theory (which doesn't fit the facts) has some things in common with SR, but you've completely failed to notice the chasm of incompatibility between SR and your own theory.

[GoC (OP)]

David

   We view things differently. The subjective view of contraction being real has no real basis in main streams view of nothing in space for resistance to mass. Your model and math was chosen for contraction. In my model there is no contraction physically in SR. But there is a visual contraction by angle of view. Your model is based on the object and the view being in the same place. You cannot measure the position and the speed at the same time using light.

There is no perpendicular view for light even in the same frame. The angle of light reaching you different from perpendicular is the visual contraction. The angle of light is changed by the Doppler. Which you removed from your program. Your understanding of the Doppler's affect on light is different from my understanding. The Doppler is an integral part of relativity view.

Two mirrors perpendicular to vector velocity at half the speed of light and the postulate light being independent of the source creates a 30,60,90 triangle between the mirrors for the path of light. The light reflection follows the 30 degree angle. Cos 30 = 0.866025 and this is the percentage 86.6% of a second at rest. The 30 degree angle contracts the view to 86.6% of its visual length. Simple Euclidean geometry. The subjective view of perpendicular is impossible following relativity postulates in Euclidian space.

[David Cooper]

Your model and math was chosen for contraction. In my model there is no contraction physically in SR.

You aren't doing SR - you're doing something radically different, and it fails to describe the real universe. Any model that is meant to match up to the real universe has to be able to handle that contraction.

But there is a visual contraction by angle of view. Your model is based on the object and the view being in the same place. You cannot measure the position and the speed at the same time using light.

What the reference frame camera program shows is the positions of all objects at a single moment of time according to the clock of a selected frame of reference, but there's nothing wrong with that - it represents what must actually be happening in the real universe rather than giving a picture distorted by communication delays. A model that can handle objects contracting to half their rest length at 0.866c as they circle a ring such that twice as many can fit in the same space as the can at rest is a model that matches up to the real universe, whereas a model that can't handle that does not. The first thing that you should be trying to account for with your model is MMX. Look at the first two interactive diagrams at the top of http://www.magicschoolbook.com/science/relativity.html again to see what happens if you don't length-contract the arm that's aligned with the direction of travel of the apparatus - it's only in the second version that you can get the null result that the real experiment generates.

There is no perpendicular view for light even in the same frame. The angle of light reaching you different from perpendicular is the visual contraction.

If all the action is taking place on a plane that's set perpendicular to the direction you're looking in, the further away you are from that action, the closer your view gets to the "God view" (which is the view used in the interactive diagrams and simulations). Viewed from far enough away, the difference between what you see and the "God view" becomes so small as to become irrelevant, the Doppler effect being as good as removed from it. You don't have to go to such extremes though as you can take photographs of the action from close to with each pixel right up against whatever it's photographing, which is the idea that my reference frame camera is based on - you just have to synchronise all the pixel clocks for a specific frame of reference and you are taking "God view" pictures.

The angle of light is changed by the Doppler. Which you removed from your program. Your understanding of the Doppler's affect on light is different from my understanding. The Doppler is an integral part of relativity view.

The Doppler effect is something that can be corrected for to provide the "God view", so it isn't the issue you imagine it to be - it merely complicates the calculations when you're trying to view things from unfavourable locations. It's a massive mistake to imagine that by viewing things from unfavourable positions you can avoid the need for length-contraction in a theory.

Two mirrors perpendicular to vector velocity at half the speed of light and the postulate light being independent of the source creates a 30,60,90 triangle between the mirrors for the path of light.

When you say perpendicular, do you actually mean parallel? What you're describing though sounds very similar to the interactive diagrams I've used for the MMX, so if you can't produce diagrams of your own, why not just refer to mine and switch the numbers around to match (I use a speed of 0.867c instead of 0.5c, leading to 60 degree angles where you have 30 and 30 where you have 60, and where I have length-contraction to 0.5, you should have it to 0.867).

The big issue for you to deal with first though is the length-contraction which you claim not to need, so that means your model fits the first of the two interactive diagrams (which doesn't match up to the real universe) rather than the second interactive diagram (which SR and LET both match up to). What is your fix for this? Do you deny the null result of MMX or do you want to maintain that the length-contraction is imaginary and that the Doppler effect has a role in producing the null result instead? The Doppler effect can confuse things where one-way trips are involved, but the MMX uses light on round trips where they go from one mirror to another and back again, and if you don't length-contract an arm that's perpendicular to the direction of travel of the apparatus, it must take longer for light to complete the round trip on that path than it takes on the other arm, which means there shouldn't be a null result - the Doppler effect has no impact on the result of this experiment whatsoever.

[GoC (OP)]

You aren't doing SR - you're doing something radically different, and it fails to describe the real universe. Any model that is meant to match up to the real universe has to be able to handle that contraction.

Of course. But it is not physical contraction only visual because of the finite speed of light. We can never view an object where it resides in space. There is no perpendicular view only an angle different from perpendicular. It is the angle of view that causes contraction of view. I am beginning to understand your subjective training in relativity. Your belief in contraction as physical is not a Euclidean understanding. I can explain why its only visual using plane geometry. A physical contraction is impossible in relativity postulates. The postulate light being independent of the source contracts the view by angle. If there is also a physical contraction it would not follow observations.

There is a visual contraction by angle of view. Your model is based on the object and the view being in the same place. You cannot measure the position and the speed at the same time using light.

What the reference frame camera program shows is the positions of all objects at a single moment of time according to the clock of a selected frame of reference, but there's nothing wrong with that - it represents what must actually be happening in the real universe rather than giving a picture distorted by communication delays. A model that can handle objects contracting to half their rest length at 0.866c as they circle a ring such that twice as many can fit in the same space as the can at rest is a model that matches up to the real universe, whereas a model that can't handle that does not. The first thing that you should be trying to account for with your model is MMX. Look at the first two interactive diagrams at the top of http://www.magicschoolbook.com/science/relativity.html again to see what happens if you don't length-contract the arm that's aligned with the direction of travel of the apparatus - it's only in the second version that you can get the null result that the real experiment generates.

There is no perpendicular view for light even in the same frame. The angle of light reaching you different from perpendicular is the visual contraction.

If all the action is taking place on a plane that's set perpendicular to the direction you're looking in, the further away you are from that action, the closer your view gets to the "God view" (which is the view used in the interactive diagrams and simulations). Viewed from far enough away, the difference between what you see and the "God view" becomes so small as to become irrelevant, the Doppler effect being as good as removed from it. You don't have to go to such extremes though as you can take photographs of the action from close to with each pixel right up against whatever it's photographing, which is the idea that my reference frame camera is based on - you just have to synchronise all the pixel clocks for a specific frame of reference and you are taking "God view" pictures.

The God's view you are referring to is the real position of an object which in relativistic view of finite speed of light is impossible. Your program cannot show a view other than position being the same as the view as perpendicular in the same frame. The same frame does not have a perpendicular view In my SR following the postulates properly.

The angle of light is changed by the Doppler. Which you removed from your program. Your understanding of the Doppler's affect on light is different from my understanding. The Doppler is an integral part of relativity view.

The Doppler effect is something that can be corrected for to provide the "God view", so it isn't the issue you imagine it to be - it merely complicates the calculations when you're trying to view things from unfavourable locations. It's a massive mistake to imagine that by viewing things from unfavourable positions you can avoid the need for length-contraction in a theory.

No, God's view allows a perpendicular view the relativity postulates do not. This is a simple issue. What is the problem?

Two mirrors perpendicular to vector velocity at half the speed of light and the postulate light being independent of the source creates a 30,60,90 triangle between the mirrors for the path of light.

When you say perpendicular, do you actually mean parallel? What you're describing though sounds very similar to the interactive diagrams I've used for the MMX, so if you can't produce diagrams of your own, why not just refer to mine and switch the numbers around to match (I use a speed of 0.867c instead of 0.5c, leading to 60 degree angles where you have 30 and 30 where you have 60, and where I have length-contraction to 0.5, you should have it to 0.867).

Half the speed of light is simple to understand the hypotenuse is the angle between parallel mirrors that light takes through space. ).866 causes a clock to tick at half the tick rate of an observer at rest. Got to go to work

The big issue for you to deal with first though is the length-contraction which you claim not to need,

Not true it is a visual length contraction. The reason is simple Euclidean plane Geometry and relativity. There is no perpendicular view even in the same frame. The view is a different angle that cause a contraction of view.

so that means your model fits the first of the two interactive diagrams (which doesn't match up to the real universe) rather than the second interactive diagram (which SR and LET both match up to). What is your fix for this?

Show you relativity postulates cause contraction of view and if you contracted them a second time physically they would no longer represent the world view.

Do you deny the null result of MMX or do you want to maintain that the length-contraction is imaginary and that the Doppler effect has a role in producing the null result instead?

The Doppler only sets the angle of view. What you believe to be perpendicular when you set the mirrors are self adjusting when you test the angle with light. Of course you get a null result. The two way distance for light with velocity in any direction will always be the same in Euclidean Space. It was main streams expectation of the experiment where light would be affected by direction that was incorrect. Its the same as clocks tick the same in any angle to velocity.

The Doppler effect can confuse things where one-way trips are involved, but the MMX uses light on round trips where they go from one mirror to another and back again, and if you don't length-contract an arm that's perpendicular to the direction of travel of the apparatus, it must take longer for light to complete the round trip on that path than it takes on the other arm, which means there shouldn't be a null result - the Doppler effect has no impact on the result of this experiment whatsoever.

You are correct about what should be with your understanding of no contraction. That is not my understanding. The Doppler has little affect in the clock. It is the angle of light with vector velocity that slows the clock using light as independent of the source. Why do you have a block there?

You have to unlearn your subjective interpretation to follow relativity and the finite speed of light by the angles created with velocity changing the angle of view.

[David Cooper]

But it is not physical contraction only visual because of the finite speed of light. We can never view an object where it resides in space. There is no perpendicular view only an angle different from perpendicular. It is the angle of view that causes contraction of view.

As I've already told you, the further away you view the action from (if it's happening on a plane perpendicular to the direction you're looking at it from), the closer you get to seeing the "God view", and you can easily get to the point where you see something so close to the "God view" that you can't measure the difference between the two. I have also pointed out to you that when things form a ring that's going round in a circle, they contract in length and allow more objects to be fitted into that ring, so it is not something you can write off as just a visual effect - the contraction is actual. I have also pointed out to you that MMX can't produce a null result without actual contraction.

I am beginning to understand your subjective training in relativity.

I very much doubt that.

Your belief in contraction as physical is not a Euclidean understanding. I can explain why its only visual using plane geometry. A physical contraction is impossible in relativity postulates. The postulate light being independent of the source contracts the view by angle. If there is also a physical contraction it would not follow observations.

That is not an adequate explanation, indicating a failure of understanding. Look at my interactive diagrams of the MMX again and watch the red blobs of light moving across the screen. Click the "Hide" button and watch the speed of the dots carefully - they travel at the same speed across the screen throughout (ignoring the times when they're stuck in the laser or detector at the start and finish of the experiment). In the first of these interactive diagrams we can see very clearly what happens if you don't contract the arm that's aligned with the direction of travel of the apparatus - it takes longer to complete the round trip along that arm than the light takes to do the round trip on the other arm, and that is not a null result. It is only when actual length-contraction is introduced that we get the null result. If you were viewing the action from close to with the Doppler effect warping the picture, you would see something very different from the "God view" with the lengths being harder to measure, but if you were viewing from a long way off, the Doppler effect would diminish and the view would get closer and closer to the "God view" as you look from further away, revealing the length-contraction clearly, but even if you were viewing from close to, you could adjust your measurements to take it into account in order to calculate the actual lengths, at which point you would produce measurements that show up the length contraction.

The most important thing for you to understand here though is this: if you still refuse to accept that there is length-contraction involved in this, you need light to complete both round trips in the same length of time, and that requires your light to exceed the speed of light when moving along the arm that's aligned with the direction of travel of the apparatus. Until you understand this, you haven't grasped the most fundamental issue in relativity. The contraction cannot be explained away as a visual effect.

There is a visual contraction by angle of view.

If you're observing an object moving away from you, there is a visual contraction caused by the delay in seeing the leading end of the object compared with the trailing end, but if you're observing that object moving towards you, there's a visual lengthening caused by the delay in seeing the trailing end compared with the leading end. If you average these out, you get the true length, and that will show up the actual length-contraction of the object. Your misunderstanding of relativity comes from your assumption that the first sentence of this paragraph is the explanation for length-contraction, but it has nothing to do with it - it is a separate visual contraction which has nothing to do with relativity.

The God's view you are referring to is the real position of an object which in relativistic view of finite speed of light is impossible.

The "God view" represents what the universe must actually be doing rather than what we see with distortions caused by communication delays, so it is a better representation than the views we see. But as I've already said, we can calculate the "God view" from our direct view, and if we view from far away we can see something that would in a photo look identical to a "God view" photo, the differences being too small to show up once you're beyond a certain distance (related to the photo resolution).

Your program cannot show a view other than position being the same as the view as perpendicular in the same frame. The same frame does not have a perpendicular view In my SR following the postulates properly.

If I programmed it to show the scene from a finite distance far enough away from the action, it would display everything exactly the same way it does now (because the communication distances between the objcets being viewed and the camera would be near identical - you should do a little maths on this to check how small the differences are and to see how they tend towards zero as you move the camera further away), so you need to abandon your failed argument.

If I had time to write a new version of the program to show a close-up view in which delays have a role, all that would do is hide the true lengths by showing warped representations of them. To calculate the true lengths you would then have to convert the measurements to remove the distortions from them, at which point you'd produce the "God view" measurements and discover that the length-contraction has to be actual rather than visual.

The angle of light is changed by the Doppler. Which you removed from your program. Your understanding of the Doppler's affect on light is different from my understanding. The Doppler is an integral part of relativity view.

The Doppler effect is something you need to eliminate from your measurements before you can start measuring the relativistic effects. How long is it going to take before the penny drops? You have completely misunderstood what relativity is about because you've mistaken some aspects of the Doppler effect for relativity, and you've only half understood the visual distortions even then, failing to notice that these distortions make things look longer just as often as they make things look shorter.

No, God's view allows a perpendicular view the relativity postulates do not. This is a simple issue. What is the problem?

It is indeed a simple issue - the "God view" is a representation of the actuality with all the visual distortions removed from it, and any length-contraction in the "God view" represents actual length-contraction which cannot be written off as visual distortion. Not allowing actual length-contraction either requires you to have light going faster than c or to have MMX not produce a null result, either of which takes you into a universe that isn't the one we live in.

Half the speed of light is simple to understand the hypotenuse is the angle between parallel mirrors that light takes through space. ).866 causes a clock to tick at half the tick rate of an observer at rest.

If your mirrors are set up parallel to the direction they're moving in rather than perpendicular to that direction, then your numbers make sense, but if you aren't going to provide diagrams you need to work harder to get your wording right.

Show you relativity postulates cause contraction of view and if you contracted them a second time physically they would no longer represent the world view.

But your visual contractions become visual lengthenings when viewed from the other end, averaging out at no contraction at all. When actual length-contraction is applied, the correct numbers are generated.

The Doppler only sets the angle of view. What you believe to be perpendicular when you set the mirrors are self adjusting when you test the angle with light. Of course you get a null result. The two way distance for light with velocity in any direction will always be the same in Euclidean Space. It was main streams expectation of the experiment where light would be affected by direction that was incorrect. Its the same as clocks tick the same in any angle to velocity.

If what you're doing with your mirrors is having light travel between them on a zigzag path as the mirrors move along (like the vertical arm of the MMX in my diagrams), you should generate the right numbers without needing length-contraction. If you're failing to do the same experiment though with the mirrors set up like on the horizontal arm, then you're missing the important part of the action where length-contraction has to be brought in.

The Doppler has little affect in the clock. It is the angle of light with vector velocity that slows the clock using light as independent of the source. Why do you have a block there?

Use a light clock and align it with the direction of travel of that clock through space - then you'll find that length-contracting it is essential.

You have to unlearn your subjective interpretation to follow relativity and the finite speed of light by the angles created with velocity changing the angle of view.

I can't correct your misunderstanding of relativity by breaking my understanding of it. Get some paper, a pencil, a ruler and a calculator and do some work on the idea of a light clock in which the light moves between two mirrors on a path that's aligned with the direction of travel of the light clock. If you do that correctly, you will find that actual length-contraction has to be brought up to make it tick at the same rate as a light clock set up perpendicular to it. (You shouldn't need to do that though as I've already done the work on that and pointed you to it - my interactive diagrams of the MMX cover the same ground and show you why failure to contract one of the arms produces results incompatible with our universe, although you're refusal to accept the validity of the "God view" as a representation of reality with all the visual distortions caused by delays removed is not going to do you any favours.)

[guest39538]

We have two mirrors set parallel 90 degrees to vector speed.

Observer affect.

[guest39538]

David to continue our conversation on our own thread from the "invariant speed of light" topic.

SR mechanically follows Relativity with the spin Aether c. Lets look at an example at relative half the speed of light by mass. We have two mirrors set parallel 90 degrees to vector speed. The light just hit one mirror (Light is a spherical propagation wave on the Aether spin c). The event in space now becomes a race to the other mirror already moving through space. So light sphere goes twice as fast as the mirror but there is no perpendicular view with vector velocity. The sphere of light produced reaches the second mirror at a angle of 30 degrees producing a 30,60,90 triangle. The travel distance is the hypotenuse length for the light. Cos 30 = 0.866025 for the percentage of a second at rest and the inverse is 1.133075 vs. 1 for the extra distance the light traveled. The contraction of view for an image is the angle different from perpendicular. You claim science believes time is a dimension. That is a definition based on the unknown for what produces motion. If we have a mechanical Aether c spin producing all motion as the energy source time definition would be motion c = energy available to space = time. Time measurement is a cycle of distance used for a vector distance. They both require a distance either light between mirrors or the electron cycle. Motion measuring motion. How is that a dimension in and of itself?
Aether c spin of the complimentary 2d grid pattern offset by 45 degrees and 90 degrees spin to the first 2d sheet is quantum mechanics that move the waves on the spectrum and move the electrons of mass. A virtual photon describes a spectrum of Aether spin c propagation of a wave on particles with no need for a particle to carry energy. Relativity math would not allow it to be a particle that is why virtual was used as a weasel word to get around relativity's objection to main streams model.

GR is a dilation of Aether spin c particles. So energy is diluted and the wave created has a lower frequency. mass is expanded physically in GR. Mass is expanded visually in SR. That is the equivalence between GR and SR where g=a.

As  for the rest, the entire event you just explained happens in the present , the background of space in your entire thought is always present.
Mirrors , zig zagging c etc, all subjective garbage.

[guest39538]

David

The subjective view of contraction being real has no real basis in main streams view of nothing in space for resistance to mass.

Correct, the distance of near angle is shorter than the distance of far angle for the light to travel.  Molecules do not compress together contracting physical length it would oblate.

The contraction in length contraction is the contraction of geometrical points not of space itself or the object in motion.

[GoC (OP)]

I can't correct your misunderstanding of relativity by breaking my understanding of it.

So you judge the lack of understanding is in my court. That fine. I understand your position and found it to be illogical to be physical contraction. I also found visual contraction to be necessary with the finite speed of light using the relativity postulates. I understand you have to ignore facts that are inconsistent with your understanding (beliefs). There lies the problem'

Our issue so far is you believe length contraction is physical and I believe it to be visual only. Now.

1. You created a visual example of your belief in physical contraction. You put in the program the conditions of relativity measurements to try and prove your hypothesis. That is just circular reasoning and not proof of physical contraction. You accept that as proof and your mind is made up. Fine.
2. By relativity it is only length contraction and not width contraction. So lets look at that and what we know about light clocks. So if you orient a clocks mirrors 180 degrees with the length contraction will shorten the mirrors fully for the velocity and tick faster. When we orient the mirrors 90 degrees we don't have width contraction so the length is greater for a slower tick rate. This does not happen in the real world. Clocks tick at the same rate no matter what the orientation. So your understanding fails real world observations. Try your program with mirrors and physical length contraction using light being constant. Physical contraction is not relativity of view.

Here is my interpretation:
We have the parallel mirrors going through space with fixed space positions that mass travels through. All fixed space positions have energy c as rotation of grid particles of special complimentary spins that actually move the electrons in a rotation like DNA (which is possibly why life was created). Even religionists can claim we were created from the body of God. Sorry I digress.

Try and follow my reasoning using energy c of motion for time (QM) to create relativity. Follow the postulates of relativity, c being constant and light being independent of the source. Your issue is with the source having a fixed position in space and mass. Your understanding is just a fixed position in mass. This allows you to believe in perpendicular light with velocity. That is not relativity! That is just a subjective interpretation of what you were taught by lesser minds not able to follow relativity mechanically only mathematically. So lets look at Euclidean geometry as it relates to Relativity. My example is my best effort to explain visual contraction. Try to follow but if you cannot I will understand. I visualize in my mind not needing paper.

We have a ship going half the speed of light as it relates to a observer at rest. The observer at rest has the Gods view of light moving through space. The ship has mirrors 90 degrees to vector velocity. This would be the same as a clock oriented 90 degrees. On the ship you would believe light is going perpendicular at half the speed of light. From the observer at rest (Gods view) you watch the light traveling at a 30,60,90 triangle between the mirrors. Your understanding is both views are equivalent. Not true that understanding is illogical. Now the observer at rest observes the hypotenuse (Gods view) and can measure the extra distance light has to travel between mirrors. So lets do a little math. Cos 30 = 0.866075 vs. the observers view of the perpendicular distance being 1 as a ratio of distance. So the tick rate of a clock would be slowed by 13.3025%. Same as the Lorentz contraction you claim to be physical. The distance for light is 1.133025 vs. 1 for the observer at rest. So we have the clocks geometry following relativity. No lets look at the contraction of view. Remember the Gods eye view? On board the ship the view of everything is 30 degrees off of 90 degrees because the image is from the past position. Here is another difficult point to understand. We have a measuring tape on the side of the ship. You are still traveling at half the speed of light. The front of the measuring sticks reflected light reaches you while the back of the measuring sticks reflection is still traveling towards you. You observe a longer measuring stick. Your measuring stick always matches the length of your ship and measures the same speed of light in a vacuum. Even though the distances of light are different.


I cannot control what you believe only you have that ability. We all have fool control of our beliefs

[David Cooper]

I'm going to give this one last go, and then I'll have to give up as I have other demands on my time. You're still not doing relativity because you have never grasped one of its key fundamentals, so I have built a really simple thought experiment for you to work with which should force you to recognise your error.

Imagine that you're standing at one end of a table. Now imagine a straight line down the middle of the table running from your end to the far end of the table. This line divides the table into two halves (lengthways). To either side of this line, we will lay an oval railway track (that's two oval railway tracks, one on one side of the table and one on the other), each oval being the same shape as is used for the running tracks (in athletics). Each of these railway tracks has one of its long straight edges running directly alongside the imaginary line down the middle of the table. On the imaginary line, between the two oval tracks we will build a railway platform which stretches for the same distance as the length of the straight sections of the railway tracks beside it, so we have a straight stretch of railway track on either side of the platform. The platform is a metre long. On each track we will put a train right next to the platform, and both of these trains are a metre long. The ends of the trains are right next to the ends of the platform, so we can see at a glance that both trains and platform are the same length as each other.

Now lets get our trains moving round their oval tracks, accelerating them up to 0.867c before allowing them to settle at that speed for a little while so as to iron out any temporary compression or stretch caused by the way the acceleration was applied - we don't want that to interfere with our measurements of their length because such compression or stretching due to acceleration has nothing to do with relativity and must not be mixed up in it. Both trains are now moving clockwise round their track at a constant 0.866c, and they always pass the platform in opposite directions. If length-contraction is actual, these trains will now be 50cm long, but if length-contraction is merely a visual effect, they will still be 1m long. On every lap, the middles of each train always pass each other exactly when they reach the midpoint of the platform.

Let's now label a few points on the platform. The nearest end of the platform to you is called A, while the furthest point away from you is called E. Those points mark the two ends of the platform. The midpoint of the platform is called C, and the points halfway between the midpoint and the ends are called B and D, with B being half way between A and C while D is half way between C and E. We also need names for our trains, so lets call the one on the left L and the one on the right R.

SR and LET both say that because the trains are length-contracted to half their rest length at this speed, the front of train R and tail of train L will pass each other on each lap at point D, while the tail of train R and front of train L will pass each other at point B. Your model maintains that the front of R and tail of L pass each other at point E instead, while the tail of R and front of L meet up at point A. That is a major difference between SR and your faulty version of "SR". I will now show you why SR and LET both disagree with your faulty "SR".

Firstly, what do the trains look like when they're passing each other as viewed from where you're standing? At these times, you'll always see train R moving away from you, so it takes longer for the light from the front end of the train to reach you than the light from the tail end, and that means you'll see this train looking much shorter than it would if light travelled infinitely fast. In the same way, you'll see train L coming towards you, so it takes longer for the light from the tail end to reach you than the light from the front end, and that means you will see this train looking much longer than you would if light travelled infinitely fast. This apparent shortening and lengthening has absolutely nothing to do with relativity.

Now I want you to relocate. I want you to hover directly over the middle of the table to look down on it instead of looking along from one end. Now what do you see? When the midpoints of the trains pass each other (at the midpoint of the platform), how far away from you are the front ends and tail ends of the trains? The answer is that these four points (the ends of the trains) are all exactly the same distance away from you (regardless of whichever altitude you decided to hover at), so the light from them reaches your eyes at the same time. This means you will see not see any shortening or lengthening of the trains caused by visual distortions. If you are capable of understanding that, you should not be capable of failing to recognise that the apparent shortenings and lengthenings from your previous viewpoint at the end of the table were visual illusions which hide real lengths from you, and that they are visual illusions which don't show up from your new viewpoint over the table. Relativity deals with the real lengths and has no interest in the illusions, which means that when relativity tells you there is length-contraction, that contraction will show up from your new position hovering over the middle of the table.

I remind you that SR and LET both say that when the midpoints of the trains pass each other at the midpoint of the platform, the ends of the trains are at points B and D, and that's what you'll see from your new position directly over the middle of the table. But you continue to disagree with SR and LET, claiming instead that SR would put the ends of the trains at points A and E at that moment. So, how can we settle the matter of whether the trains are really contracted or not? We need to look at how fast light can move along the moving trains.

Let's build a light clock into each train, each aligned so that when the train is at rest the light has to travel from the tail end of one carriage to the front end of that carriage and back again. Each carriage is 10cm long, so when the trains are at rest the light must move 20cm for each tick of the clock. We will keep an identical light clock on the platform. The speed the light travels at in the light clocks on the trains is never allowed to go faster than the light in the platform's light clock - clearly if it could go faster, it would be possible for the platform's light clock to tick faster by sending it's light forwards inside one of the trains at a higher speed than it can go at on the platform, but that's clearly breaking the laws of physics as it would allow for superluminal communication.

So, how well does your model handle this? The big question you need to ask yourself is this: how far will the trains move before light can get from the tail end of a carriage to its front end to complete half a tick? How far has that light actually travelled relative to the platform by the time it's caught up with the front end of the carriage which is racing away from it at 0.87c? This is one of the very first things you should have done when you began to study relativity, but you clearly didn't bother.

The train (and we only need to consider one train from now on) is moving at 0.867c, a speed which means that its clock should tick half as often as the platform's clock. Let's imagine that the light is sent out from the tail end of the carriage at the same moment as from the light clock on the platform and that the locations of these two events are adjacent. The two light pulses are therefore moving along side by side, one over the platform and one inside the train. When the light in the platform clock has travelled 10 cm it hits the mirror at the far end of its light clock and begins its journey back again. At this point, the train has moved 8.67cm along the track while the pulse of light in the carriage has moved a full 10cm, starting from 10cm behind the front of the carriage, which means the light pulse in its clock has only managed to move 1.33cm closer to the its mirror at the front of the carriage and still has 8.67cm to make up, which you should see straight away is going to take it a heck of a long time.

Our platform clock completes its tick when the light has travelled 10cm back the way, doing a total of 20cm. By this point, our train has moved another 8.67cm along the track and the light pulse inside it has made another 1.33cm of progress through its carriage towards its mirror. Let's allow the platform clock to tick again, because we know that it should tick twice for every tick of the train's clock. That means our train will move another two lots of 8.67cm along the track. In total then, our carriage has moved 34.6cm since the pulse of light was generated and the light in its light clock has moved 40cm, and given that it started 10cm behind the front of the carriage, is is still 4.6cm short of reaching the mirror which it needs to catch up with before it can turn round and go back. But the light clock on the platform has now ticked twice, so the light pulse in the train should have hit the mirror and returned to the back of the carriage too by this time, and yet it manifestly cannot have done so. How long will it actually take to complete a tick then? By the time the light clock on the platform has completed a third tick, our light pulse in the train's light clock has still not reached the mirror at the front of its carriage - it has gained on it by another two lots of 1.33cm but is still 2cm short of the mirror! (The light has moved 60cm and the train has moved 52cm.)

The platform's clock gets to 3.5 ticks and the light pulse in the train's clock is another 1.33cm closer to the mirror at the front of the carriage, and even now it still hasn't caught it! The light pulse in the train only reaches its mirror when the platform's clock has notched up 3.723 ticks, and then it turns around at last. The light pulse now races back the other way as the back end of the carriage races towards it (the light having to cover a little more than 5cm relative to the platform while the back of the carriage covers a little less than 5cm), and they meet very quickly this time - the train's clock completes its first tick when the platform's clock completes its fourth. That is twice as much time dilation as there should be. To get the correct time dilation you need to length-contract the train to half its rest length.

If you can't get this stuff now after all the help I've given you, then there's probably no hope for you - you will never get up to speed with relativity, but I can't tell how stuck in the mud you are - maybe, just maybe, you'll have sufficient intelligence to extract yourself from your predicament. In my experience, very few people ever do, but you might be an exception, so I wish you well. Good luck, but for pity's sake, please do the maths to test your beliefs properly.

[guest39538]

Relativity deals with the real lengths and has no interest in the illusions, which means that when relativity tells you there is length-contraction, that contraction will show up from your new position hovering over the middle of the table.

Quite clearly  by the wrongness of your statement you have never placed a small light on a bicycle wheel and spun it .
For looking down on your railway track   you will not observe any length contraction of the train, however you will observe a length expansion of light as the train appears to be longer and now takes up the entire track  length.

[GoC (OP)]

If you can't get this stuff now after all the help I've given you, then there's probably no hope for you - you will never get up to speed with relativity, but I can't tell how stuck in the mud you are - maybe, just maybe, you'll have sufficient intelligence to extract yourself from your predicament. In my experience, very few people ever do, but you might be an exception, so I wish you well. Good luck, but for pity's sake, please do the maths to test your beliefs properly.

I understand main streams belief in physical contraction. I understand the math that is used. I did not understand the issue with dimension of time as you described it. That understanding of time is just foolish. Unfortunately the training of linear thinkers which makes one good at math rarely have the more abstract flexibility and tend to ignore issues that are inconsistent with their own understanding. And you were correct again apparently my understanding is not the same as main stream's. I agree with all observations and postulates of relativity. Even that there is no preferred frame because no frame is valid. All frames are equally valid because none are a valid representation of an objects positions.

Your busy I am busy but this is interesting to me so I will devote some time.

Small steps. You ignored my example and made one of your own. Here is one inconsistent with physical contraction of length. You cannot get around this observation with your belief in physical contraction. If you can find a way around it I will have to reconsider physical length contraction. I discarded physical contraction because of this observation.

All light clocks tick at the same rate independent of their orientation. Using the postulate light being independent of the source and light is constant lets look at orientation.

When mirrors are aligned with the direction of travel and light being constant, length contraction would have a faster tick rate than when the mirrors are 90 degrees to vector speed.

My relativity uses Euclidean space, Euclidean time based on c with no physical contraction. All observations remain the same using relativity mathematics. E=c and E=mc^2 because c moves the electrons.

I will understand if you still maintain a physical contraction belief but will not understand your reasoning. I was taught physical contraction but could not resolve the light clock by orientation. If one observation fails the theory fails.

For me physical contraction failed while visual contraction is a natural result of the relativity postulates.
.

[David Cooper]

Relativity deals with the real lengths and has no interest in the illusions, which means that when relativity tells you there is length-contraction, that contraction will show up from your new position hovering over the middle of the table.

Quite clearly  by the wrongness of your statement you have never placed a small light on a bicycle wheel and spun it .
For looking down on your railway track   you will not observe any length contraction of the train, however you will observe a length expansion of light as the train appears to be longer and now takes up the entire track  length.

Dear Mr/Mrs/Ms Box,

You are going off on a diversion. Clearly if the trains moved at 0.866c on a small tabletop our eyes would see a blur and not be able to make out anything as a train at all, but you are expected to have sufficient intelligence to separate out irrelevant issues from the ones that matter in the thought experiment so that you don't prevent yourself from understanding what's being illustrated. It's your job to fix all the small details for yourself, such as giving yourself better eyesight with a superior frame rate so that you can see the action properly, and this can be done by using a special camera which can record the action and play it back to you, thereby showing up the length-contraction on the trains. If you can't conceive of such advanced camera technology, you can go in a different direction by scaling up the experiment, perhaps using a table a light-minute long (apx. ten million miles). That is your job and not mine. It is also your job to design ways of developing trains capable of cornering at such a high speed without coming off the rails or vaporising them. Thought experiments require you do do some work in thinking your way round them - you are supposed to focus on relevant aspects of them and not waste your time trying to undermine them in ways that have no bearing on the principles being explored. Unless you approach them the right way, you are hampering your learning, which explains why there is still no evidence on show that you have ever managed to do any.

[David Cooper]

You ignored my example and made one of your own.

I couldn't follow yours as it wasn't defined well enough to make sense of it without a diagram, but from what I could make of it it was only exploring light on a zigzag path again, which means it was effectively looking at a light clock arranged perpendicular to its direction of travel, and at that angle there is no length-contraction involved in what happens to it. You need to move on from that and start exploring the maths of a light clock aligned with its direction of travel (which means all that 30 and 60 degree stuff isn't involved in it).

Here is one inconsistent with physical contraction of length. You cannot get around this observation with your belief in physical contraction. If you can find a way around it I will have to reconsider physical length contraction. I discarded physical contraction because of this observation.

You are the one with the inconsistency - I've shown you how long it takes for light starting from the back of a carriage to reach the mirror at the front end and it cannot cover that distance quickly enough unless you allow it to go faster than the speed of light or if you contract the length of the carriage. If we have a light clock perpendicular to the carriage, the light will follow a zigzag path and tick faster than a light clock aligned with the carriage. With the carriage moving at 0.867c, the platform clock ticks twice for every tick of the light clock in the carriage that's aligned across the carriage, and it will tick four times for every tick of the light clock in the carriage that's aligned lengthways along the carriage. That is what the MMX guys expected to show up with their experiment, but it produced a null result instead every time (and continues to do so a century later with much better equipment). That is why the length-contraction must be real.

All light clocks tick at the same rate independent of their orientation. Using the postulate light being independent of the source and light is constant lets look at orientation.

When mirrors are aligned with the direction of travel and light being constant, length contraction would have a faster tick rate than when the mirrors are 90 degrees to vector speed.

Your description is insufficient to understand which way your mirrors are aligned. When I go with the most obvious way to interpret your description, I get the opposite conclusion to the one you've provided. A mirror occupies a plane, and if that plane is perpendicular to the direction in which the mirrors are moving (with the mirrors parallel to each other), then the light moving between them will be moving in the same direction as the mirrors some of the time and in the opposite direction the rest of the time, and in this case the clock will tick less often rather than more often - this is the equivalent of the light clock in the carriage where the light starts from the back of the carriage and has to chase after the mirror at the front end for a long time before it can bounce off it and return to the start, and as I've shown you, it takes a very long time for it to catch up with the leading mirror.

My relativity uses Euclidean space, Euclidean time based on c with no physical contraction. All observations remain the same using relativity mathematics. E=c and E=mc^2 because c moves the electrons.

That's lovely, but you have to follow the rules of Euclidean space and time and not have light go faster than the speed of light. If the carriage is 10cm long, at 0.867c and with no length-contraction it will take nearly seven times as long for light to get from the back end of it to the front end as it would take it with the carriage stationary, but the moving clock has to click once for every two ticks of the stationary clock. I've shown you the numbers that demonstrate that the moving clock can only tick once for every four ticks of the stationary clock unless you contract its length. How do you handle that without applying contraction and without having the light move at twice the speed of light?

I will understand if you still maintain a physical contraction belief but will not understand your reasoning. I was taught physical contraction but could not resolve the light clock by orientation. If one observation fails the theory fails.

Have you still not crunched the numbers to see for yourself? I've given you a set of numbers for 0.867c, so do you think they're wrong? The carriage is moving at 0.866c and light is moving at c, so how long do you think it takes for light to get from the back of the carriage to the front? You don't have to believe my numbers - you can generate your own and see if they match up. What you really ought to do though is try it out with a speed of your own choice, such as 0.5c for the speed of the train. How long will light take to get from the back of the carriage to the front at that speed and how long will it take to go back from the front to the back to complete a tick. If you do the maths correctly, you'll find that you need to contract the moving carriage from 10cm to 8.67cm for your clock to tick at the right rate relative to the stationary clock on the platform. The maths at 0.5c is more awkward than with my 0.867c example, so I can understand why you've never bothered to try to work out the answer before, but you need to do this if you are to begin to understand relativity.

For me physical contraction failed while visual contraction is a natural result of the relativity postulates.

And you will remain stuck with that misunderstanding so long as you fail to do the maths to check whether it hangs together or not. Look at my numbers and ask yourself how a light clock aligned lengthways in a carriage moving at 0.867c can possibly tick half as often as a stationary clock on the platform when it takes light four times as long to complete a round trip within the moving clock. Look at my interactive diagrams of the MMX again and study how fast the red light pulses move across the screen and how far they travel relative to the apparatus. It's only in the second one with length-contraction that the light on the horizontal arm is able to complete its round trip in the same time as the light on the vertical arm to produce a null result. I've put it all in front of your eyes in clear view and there's nothing more I can do for you if you still can't see it.

Study the first interactive diagram of the MMX again and remember that the two arms are equivalent to a pair of light clocks. On the left you have a stationary MMX showing a tick completed in 250 units of the time counter underneath, and then on the right there's a moving MMX with no length-contraction. On the vertical arm you see a tick being completed at 500 units of counter time, but on the horizontal arm the light has not finished its round trip. If you then look at the second interactive diagram instead (with length-contraction applied to the horizontal arm, halving it's length as required for the speed of 0.867c), you can see the light completing a tick in 500 time units on both arms of the apparatus, and that's what matches up with the real universe.

[guest39538]

Relativity deals with the real lengths and has no interest in the illusions, which means that when relativity tells you there is length-contraction, that contraction will show up from your new position hovering over the middle of the table.

Quite clearly  by the wrongness of your statement you have never placed a small light on a bicycle wheel and spun it .
For looking down on your railway track   you will not observe any length contraction of the train, however you will observe a length expansion of light as the train appears to be longer and now takes up the entire track  length.

Dear Mr/Mrs/Ms Box,

You are going off on a diversion. Clearly if the trains moved at 0.866c on a small tabletop our eyes would see a blur and not be able to make out anything as a train at all, but you are expected to have sufficient intelligence to separate out irrelevant issues from the ones that matter in the thought experiment so that you don't prevent yourself from understanding what's being illustrated. It's your job to fix all the small details for yourself, such as giving yourself better eyesight with a superior frame rate so that you can see the action properly, and this can be done by using a special camera which can record the action and play it back to you, thereby showing up the length-contraction on the trains. If you can't conceive of such advanced camera technology, you can go in a different direction by scaling up the experiment, perhaps using a table a light-minute long (apx. ten million miles). That is your job and not mine. It is also your job to design ways of developing trains capable of cornering at such a high speed without coming off the rails or vaporising them. Thought experiments require you do do some work in thinking your way round them - you are supposed to focus on relevant aspects of them and not waste your time trying to undermine them in ways that have no bearing on the principles being explored. Unless you approach them the right way, you are hampering your learning, which explains why there is still no evidence on show that you have ever managed to do any.

Maybe your learning is hampered by ones own pride, for one who is objective knows that for the train to contract in physical length in reality , the front of the train would have to be travelling slower than the rear or the vice versus, so therefore the laws of physics and force , says you are full of ''beans'' with this notion because the physics of your notion breaks down at the rudiment of the  thought.

[David Cooper]

Maybe your learning is hampered by ones own pride...

Where does pride come into the issue? All I do is pursue truth by pushing things to breaking point. When my ideas break, I change them, and where other people's ideas break, I show them where they break and they generally dig in to defend them regardless of how broken they are, although there are some who are adaptable enough to learn and advance.

... for one who is objective knows that for the train to contract in physical length in reality , the front of the train would have to be travelling slower than the rear or the vice versus...

And how long does that difference in speed need to last? If you accelerate something to a high speed and then let it settle down to that high speed, the length will adjust until the atoms are sitting the right distance apart for it to be neither stretched nor compressed. There will be times during this adjustment when the trailing end is moving faster than the leading end, but once it's settled down the speeds of both ends will match.

..., so therefore the laws of physics and force , says you are full of ''beans'' with this notion because the physics of your notion breaks down at the rudiment of the  thought.

To your mind, everything that makes sense breaks down and everything irrational is good. The result is that you go round scrawling your ignorance all over hundreds of threads in the forum. Perhaps it's an art project of some kind, but it isn't one that I care for.

[guest39538]

Maybe your learning is hampered by ones own pride...

Where does pride come into the issue? All I do is pursue truth by pushing things to breaking point. When my ideas break, I change them, and where other people's ideas break, I show them where they break and they generally dig in to defend them regardless of how broken they are, although there are some who are adaptable enough to learn and advance.

Likewise I break things down ''things'' down to the naked science, the bare essentials and rudiment of thought, thus being why it is always best to start at the ''beginning''. Maybe in your own mind you think you are breaking things down, however how far can your mind go before it hits the ''wall'' and can go no further.
For one to understand one must firstly want to listen, there is not many who like to listen but prefer their own voice .

... for one who is objective knows that for the train to contract in physical length in reality , the front of the train would have to be travelling slower than the rear or the vice versus...

And how long does that difference in speed need to last? If you accelerate something to a high speed and then let it settle down to that high speed, the length will adjust until the atoms are sitting the right distance apart for it to be neither stretched nor compressed. There will be times during this adjustment when the trailing end is moving faster than the leading end, but once it's settled down the speeds of both ends will match.

For something to contract there would be ''cracks'' and once returned to normal velocity we could quite clearly observe no ''cracks''.  This is why we have stress levels etc, the sort of science that is real. 
Also The object would deform , more than likely curve like,

..., so therefore the laws of physics and force , says you are full of ''beans'' with this notion because the physics of your notion breaks down at the rudiment of the  thought.

To your mind, everything that makes sense breaks down and everything irrational is good. The result is that you go round scrawling your ignorance all over hundreds of threads in the forum. Perhaps it's an art project of some kind, but it isn't one that I care for.

Maybe you are not clever enough to understand me and I am beyond your inability to break down.

P.s Please feel free to try breakdown my ideas about time in other thread. (you will fail)