Imatfaal,

You are, of course, correct. There is no physical contraction in frame K’ and there is no preferred state of rest.

*Relative* to the rest frame K, length in the direction of motion L’(x) in the moving frame K’ is contracted by the factor gamma.

And *relative* to the rest frame K, time in the moving frame is dilated by the factor 1/gamma.

So, even though there is no “cause and effect” the fact remains that per Special Relativity the relationship of L’(x) and L(x) can be defined as:

L’(x)= L(x)*gamma*1/gamma= L(x)

Substitution of actual values for their variables bares this out and serves as proof of validity.

With that, L’(x) and L’(y) are lengths with no particular attributes specific to either within the frame that is in relative motion because “there is no contraction nor dilation within the frame that measurement takes place in”.

Previously stated: relative to the rest frame K, time in the moving frame is dilated by the factor 1/gamma. But relative to the rest frame K, length perpendicular the direction of motion L’(y) in the moving frame K’ is NOT contracted by the factor gamma. Then following the same logic used for L’(x) it follows that:

L’(y)= L(y)*1/gamma= L(y)

That, however, only holds true if v equals zero in which case gamma=1. That is the only case that L’(y)= L(y) as prescribed by Special Relativity.

Thank you,

Butch

By the way, you have probably heard that neutrinos at CERN have very likely exceeded the speed of light. That is consistent to the prediction I made in my post The Special Relativity Discovery MMXI.0 on the BAUTforum and directly relates to this thread.