Re: Experiments Refute Einstein's 1905 Second Postulate

Am Freitag000019, 19.05.2023 um 20:23 schrieb Tom Roberts:

On 5/12/23 1:27 PM, Tom Capizzi wrote:

You "experts" can't even agree on whether length contraction is physical or not.

 The problem is that "physical" is not well defined -- what do YOU mean
by that word (be specific)?
 Consider a rod of length L at rest in inertial frame S, aligned along
the x axis. An inertial frame S' moving relative to S with speed v along
the x axis will measure its length to be L*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). That
is what is meant by "length contraction" [#].
 It OUGHT to be obvious that measurements by moving observers cannot
possibly affect the rod itself. So in that sense, "length contraction"
is not "physical" -- the rod is not affected [#].

Well, yes.
But actually the measurements of a remote observer, passing by at significant velocity, is irrelevant (at least for the rod).
So, it's all BS we're talking about?
...
TH