the experiments mentioned in the paper are very well known...

Test of two way SOL

[1] Michelson, A. A., Pease, F. G., & Pearson, F. (1935). "Measurement of the Velocity of Light in a Partial Vacuum." Astrophysical Journal, 82, 26.

[2] Essen, L., & Gordon-Smith, A. C. (1948). "The Velocity of Propagation of Electromagnetic Waves Derived from the Resonant Frequencies of a Cylindrical Cavity Resonator." Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences, 194(1038), 348-361.

[3] Evans, J., & Eisenhower, E. (1951). "An Interference Method for the Measurement of the Speed of Light." American Journal of Physics, 19(4), 356-359.

[4]. Hall, J. L., & Borde, C. J. (1976). "Measurement of the Speed of Light Using Laser Techniques." Applied Optics, 15(2), 300-304.

Test of Sagnac effect

[5] Ring laser gyro https://arxiv.org/pdf/2306.15603

Test of time dilation twin effect

[6] J. Bailey “Measurements of relativistic time dilatation for positive and negative muons in a circular orbit” Nature, 268-5618,pp. 301-305, (1977).

[7] D. Hasselkamp, E. Mondry, A. Scharmann, “Direct observation of the transversal Doppler-shift” A. Z Physik A, 289: 151, (1979).

[8] B. Botermann et al, “Test of Time Dilation Using Stored Li+ Ions as

Clocks at Relativistic Speed” Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 239902 (2015).

If you want to understand length-contraction PHYSICALLY based from theory see also:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUhxF-ouTaQ

(30 years in 600 s)

I strongly suggest to have a look on Lev:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Lev-Verkhovsky

and his only recently to English translated paper written about 20+ years ago in russian showing imho without any reasonable doubt that the crucial missing factor to understand and solve paradoxes of both SRT and GR - eliminated by the founders of theory of relativity by setting such factor intentionally to 1 so effectively eliminating it and by same argument showing to not have understood (!) - is the „simple“ Doppler effect of light equation relation which should have been used instead (of 1):

Preprint Memoir on the Theory of Relativity and Unified Field Theory

See for yourself here, to my physical understanding, gut feeling, intuition - call it whatever you will - that is (or would have been!) the way to go (out if this paradox mess SRT and GR resemble these days).

For a totally different kind of hint (incompatibility) can be seen by iSpacei theory (able to derive 50+ constants of nature in exact symbolic integer geometric simple first order multiplicative form) then - and only then - when instead of GRs logically incompatible assumptions, a strictly LEGO style 10D space/subspace/time assumption is made, just like String theory at least in principle also suggests.

Stefano

In your explanation, the first and third events are the same. You should eliminate the first then renumber the rest to make all more clear.

Justo Pastor Lambare ,

I will perform some updates also relevant to the references which are not yet present.

Thank you

Here is the latest update of the script presenting also the requested modifications..

Preprint Length contraction as a necessary consequence of the two-way...

Stefano Quattrini ...the only solution is to assume that the length contraction first discovered by Oliver Heaviside, is a real physical effect.

It must be a physical real effect. GR+TD says time dilation when using Energy Conservation instead (EP) is due to mass dilation. So

m*c^2=h*f=h*1/T.

So m changes if electron in an atomic clock are "working" at different places.

S=m*c*r (if m changes so must r, the wave-radius) 4*pi*r=lamda_Compton https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUhxF-ouTaQ

Experiment:

Research Proposal SR time dilation & GR mass dilation

Stefano Quattrini

I will leave a comment directed to JD in the other thread.

K. Kassner ,

I am posting the following from your direct comments on my paper.

"SQ: You are completely really distorting the logic.

In such case Einstein's synchronization can be performed since the "frame" is requested isotropic. This does not mean that such synchronization is actually used, this is the most illogic affirmation I've heard ever since."

it is possible to use Einstein synchronization which, in that case, would match with absolute synchronization (SAME PLACE, SAME TIME), this does not mean at all that it is used. I see you have an obsession with Einstein synchronization.

For synchronization to be implemented one needs to place time keepers, full stop. It is true though that synchronization and simultaneity match in a isotropic frame.

You should get out of your head synchronization when it is not needed or performed.

there are configurations where it is necessary to use it.

Yes, that is a very good point.

You must consider though that the outcome of the experiment performed by assuming the isotropic frame of the embankment must stay the same.

If the outcome comes out different, then it is a problem...because the reality is one, Nature can have only one outcome given a configuration.

>

sure, it is quite unlikely but I do not assume exactly what you meant.

As you accuse me not to be willing to understand I also do the same with you.

I have never said that the embankment is an absolute frame, I said that it is the preferred frame in that physical problem, having assumed that it is an isotropic frame.

If you prefer the embankment is a more preferred frame than the train moving on it, like the center of earth is a more preferred frame than the embankment...there is an hierarchy which many relativists seem to ignore thoroughly.

>

So in a physical problem, the embankment (stationary with the surface of earth) will be a good approximation of an isotropic frame for the wagon moving on it.

this is to a certain extent what Heavisde, Larmor, Fitzgerald thought.

this is not clear.. how can be the train at rest in the absolute frame.

their *non reality* is just falsified by the two-way SOL, experimentally verified (since the experiment of Michaelson an MOrely) which would not be complied otherwise. So it must be measurable and non reciprocal.

it can be considered a local absolute in the hierarchy I provided.

Mind that you cannot treat properly electrodynamics without considering its boundaries, that is one of the reasons why EM and gravitation did not receive yet a unification.

there is a distortion of lengths and times which the local observer does not notice.

What they measure locally are "apparent lengths" for observers in motion...

If one performs experiments inside the wagon it will be the wagon to have "less apparent" lengths than the object in motion within the wagon.

Lengths are real for the stationary observer in the embankment (up to a certain degree of approximation, unless postulated), at rest in ECIF they are real...then gravitation comes into play for comparisons of length between ECIF, SCIF or other planets or Sagittarius A reference frame.

Contrary to what SR supports,

assuming a background, locally measured lengths or proper lengths are in general "apparent lengths" due to the intrinsic limitations of the local observer.

They become real ones only if stationary with the background.

K Kassner in Comments to the preprint by @Stefano Quattrini put at

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381597873_Length_contraction_as_a_necessary_consequence_of_the_two-ways_constancy_of_lightspeed_to_train_and_embankment/comments

stated

Here is response by SQ in #1.9

《Contrary to what SR supports,

assuming a background locally measured lengths or proper lengths are in general apparent lengths due to the intrinsic limitations of the local observer.

They become real only if stationary in the background.》

The response is not consistent with SRTheory, which does not use the notion of background [locally measured length]. My critique does not exclude possibility of constructing a NewSRTheory by Stefano, however up to now no such consistent theory has been presented.

Joachim Domsta ,

that is why SR gets singled out..because the nature of length contraction must be real and non-reciprocal.

it is sufficient to read Heaviside, Abraham or Larmor electrodynamics to get some valid hints.

Unfortunately by reinstating the equivalence of inertial frames, brought physics back to Galilei with some additional insights, less than the ones already made by the Giants of '800.

Inertial frames are equivalent... hence for most of "scientists" there is nothing to understand. Accept it or not.

Then, once the above is accepted (it "seems" quite obvious to accept it), if one adds only the experimentally verified 2-way SOL, then the one-way SOL comes out as a necessity and Lorentz Transformations in Einstein and Poincarè form are obtained, which is what is needed for SR.

To my understanding, it is evident that such a line of reasoning is very appealing, especially for the ones who never had any "physical intuition".

It is strictly logical and mathematically sound, but for several reasons, the inertial frame equivalence can hold only as a first approximation (GALILEAN).

MAXWELL, HELMOLTZ, LARMOR, HERTZ, FARADAY, HEAVISIDE, ABRAHAM etc. appealed to the necessity of a background (I add with positive energy) is the only way out to give account in a proper way to most of the experimental evidences.

Phsyics is dynamics not kinematics, NATURE is hierarchical not "relativistic"..

Einstein did a tremendous job having an incredible intuition, in proposing SR, since "at first sight" it reconciliated in one shot what otherwise was haunted in confusion.

Unfortunately this has been found to have paradoxical consequences which were claimed by several Scientists since its inception..

One of the most serious is the assumption of negative energies as a consequence of merging it with quantum mechanics.

Eisntein himself recognized (also Vladimir Fock and others) that Lorentz Transformations were not suitable for dynamics hence he wanted to generalize the relativity theory... and with the help of Levi Civita he reached that paramount achievement.

With GR it is possible to have several good predictions. It has been found out recently that, what expressed with tensors, can be expressed also with a perfect fluid using Stokes-Navier equations.

On the other hand, GR misses unfortunately a degree of freedom ( as Penrose recognized) which prevents it from describing for the important but neglected role of "gravitational energy" (BARYSHEV and NASH).

Besides that, we are stuck with the negative gravitational energy density of Newtonian gravitation having assumed that the potential is 0 at infinity.

People like MAXWELL, HELMOLTZ, HERTZ, FARADAY, HEAVISIDE, ABRAHAM, THOMSON, KELVIN, SAGNAC, LARMOR, were Giants all of them have in common the conception of a background where the physical laws sit, which is not in agreement with SR which is void.

This author suggested by James Marsen ,

Ching-Chuan Su, “A local-ether model of propagation of electromagnetic wave”. European Physical Journal C, 21, pp. 701-715, Sept. 2001, DOI:10.1007/s100520100759,Article A Local-Ether Model of Propagation of Electromagnetic Wave

proposed concepts inline with the GIANTS of the '800.

Joachim Domsta

I will give you my interpretation of SQ's reasoning regarding your comments.

As far as I understand he is not using SRT but he wants to produce a sort of verified experiment that contradicts SRT.

Of course, he failed to do that as should be clear from the discussion on the other thread.

He did not provide an actual experimental refutation nor a thought experiment producing a contradiction.

The reason is simple, if you use SRT the proper length remains the same and the length in motion is indeed like he proved, i.e., the contracted length.

His egregious mistake is to declare as experimental facts a mere interpretation that contradicts SRT, namely, that the contraction effect is not kinematical but real according to the Lorentz-Fitzgeral interpretation.

Let me point out two mistakes that reveal SQ does not understand what he is talking about. I am sorry I have to point out this but it is necessary to clarify things:

1) In a previous discussion he claims that the E-TETE would lead to the same conclusions (relative simultaneity) using sound waves.

That means he has no idea that relative simultaneity is a necessary consequence of the light principle.

Einstein's example is necessary even before any mathematical treatment of the LT, if you do not understand E-TETE, you better stop there and look for another hobby.

2)

Absolute synchronization definitively does not mean same place, same time.

In relativity (SRT and GR) same place, same time is the definition of an event.

Events are absolute, the whole set of events forms the spacetime manifold which is an absolute geometric concept in the theory of relativity.

What TT theorists mean by absolute synchronization is absolute distant simultaneity, i.e., different distant places, the same time.

According to relativity different places at the same time constitute two different events and the simultaneity of those events is relative.

So, my dear friend JD, how can you expect to maintain a consistent discussion under these circumstances?

Justo Pastor Lambare

Yes, you said it, according to "relativity". Nevertheless what is said in the paper has nothing to do with relative simultaneity, so it is the nth strawman attack.

if length contraction is reciprocal/symmetrical according to SR, the SR fails

we are back to Dingle objects but not about time dilation, but length contraction...

sufficient condition of two emission to be in absolute simultaneity hence absolute synchronization if they are emitted from the same place at the same time. I did not say that is a necessary and sufficient condition.

Dear Justo,

my interests in this dispute is certainly not take the line to guess what the author wanted or should say. Nevertheless I hope some false steps should be criticised precisely. Therefore I am now focused on one issue as fillows:

KK:

Here is a response by SQ in #1.9

《Contrary to what SR supports,

assuming a background locally measured lengths or proper lengths are in general apparent lengths due to the intrinsic limitations of the local observer.

They become real only if stationary in the background.》

It is formulated as if the claims by @K. Kassner were contradicting SRT.

Next after I have noted that "The response [to KK by SQ] is not consistent with SRTheory, which[/since it] does not use the notion of background [locally measured length]."

the readers got to know from Stefano:

《that is why SR gets singled out》!!!

I think it is a very good reason: The SRTheory is singled out by one of the facts (or both):

"Some claims in the response [by SQ] given as if they were from the SRTheory are not consistent with SRTheory"

or

"Some CORRECT K.Kassner's statement of SRTheory seem incorrect for Stefano."

PS: The readers should consider that the euphemism "singled out" might be used for making softer impression than by eg. "kicked out" (that's my subjective association after reading all "evidences" presented by Stefano till now).

Joachim Domsta ,

as usual either you give your own personal (distorted) interpretation or you do not understand what people want to mean.

SQ:

Right! The paper uses assumptions which evidently IMPLY (though, implicitly) usage of the TT. Thus again it "singles out SRT" because the assumptions of SRT MUST be other than they are in the SRT.

@Stefano Quattrini, can you please answer what is incorrect in the following statement by @K. Kassner

KK:

which you replies as follows:

《Contrary to what SR supports,

assuming a background locally measured lengths or proper lengths are in general apparent lengths due to the intrinsic limitations of the local observer.

They become real only if stationary in the background.》

Nature with Experimental evidence decides not theories, this has to be impressed in your mind because we are talking about Physics.

Stefano Quattrini

I am sorry but I am not attacking the person. I am attacking the mistakes and inconsistencies in your arguments. So, it should not be taken personally.

You just confirming that you do not understand the meaning of absolute/relative simultaneity.

That means you also do not know or understand the fundamental concept of "event" as defined in relativity.

Justo Pastor Lambare

Yes, put it like that, if it makes you feel safer....LOL

Joachim Domsta

My view about our discussions with our great friend SQ here perhaps is a little different.

After many frustrating discussions, now I realize that the problems begin at the most elemental level.

Now I concentrate on the most basic concepts before even entering any further discussions.

Discussing applications of the LT or TT and relativistic effects like the Lorentz contraction, simultaneity, etc. is pointless unless the most fundamental concepts and rules are clear.

It is like trying to discuss integrals or differentiation without knowing what a function is or the algebraic rules for summing and multiplying.

Our problems reside in the logical rules of inference which is a prerequisite for any consistent exchange of views and opinions.

this is the behavior of Lambare, which has been shown already for 7 times:

consisting in the discredit of the abilities of the opponent. He needs to feel safer...

It seems, he does not want to study or get deeper in the scripts of the GIANTS of '800 and not only (contemporaries like DIRAC , and living Laughlin, Wilczek, Tangherlini too)... thinking that with a stroke of a sponge, it was possible at the beginning of '900, to erase the conclusions given by these people and go back by 250 years...

Stefano Quattrini

Dear Stefano, now you are psychoanalyzing me. I guess that is fair enough. You see, unlike you (and your kind), I can recognize what I say and do.

I believe the analysis of your kind is perfectly described in this website that I am referencing for the nth time:

http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html

That is a Judo-like maneuver. Now it's me who denies well-established science!

ABOUT TWO QUOTES:

JoaD: "The paper uses assumptions which evidently IMPLY (though, implicitly) usage of the TT."

Author:

--------

Remark 1. The comment by the Author is certainly not related to the quote from my posts because the assumptions leading to the concluded usage of TT are only the following EXPERIMENTALLY confirmed features:

-- the time delay holds in the form t'=t/γ

-- in the preferred frame 1WSOL=c

-- in moving objects 2WSOL=c.

-----------

R2: These features are EXACTLY those which are admitted amd exploited by the Author for his considerations in the paper currently under discussion. Hence his reference to my mind is rather a big mistake, which he will recognise soon (I hope so, naive!).

----------

R3: The derivation of the conclusion has been performed for the Science already by Tangherlini, one of the GIANTS. My humble repetition has been presented for convenience of the RG participants (the Author among them) within some posts earlier.

------------

R4. Here is (as a reminder only) an exemplary rigorous formulation of the proposition which should be referred to as the Tangherlini Theorem:

===== case of (1+1)D space-time ====

IF the linear transformation

x'=A(x-vt), t'=t/γ, where γ=1/sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}

maps the light beams satisfying "1WSOL=c" into such world lines that they satisfy "2WSOL=c",

THEN the constant A must be equal γ.

=========

So I think it is the case to understand what are the conclusions of SR about the result of the proposed configuration.

To my understanding K. Kassner said clearly that length contraction is reciprocal in SR .

RECIPROCITY MEANS THAT

given L as the proper length of the embankment and L the proper length of the train,

in the embankment frame the train will be detected having length L/gamma.

in the wagon's frame the embankment will be measured with a length L/gamma.

So why also time dilation isn't then reciprocal as well?

It is also interesting to check how the problem is solved by SR from the viewpoint of the train then.

Considering that the embankment as the preferred frame in the proposed configuration, on the contrary, the relevant physics is exaclty the same, there cannot be any reciprocity..

Maybe for somebody this is interesting...

Article Oliver Heaviside's electromagnetic theory

it is reciprocal when it does make the calculation come right?

then in other cases it might not be?

Dingle's objection was solved by assuming asymmetries.

To my understanding it is reciprocal only when there is not: for example for two wagons travelling in opposite direction and same squared speed v2, relevant to an embankment.

SQ:

Yes. Anybody interested has got the opportunity to read my former posts.

Eg. #9 on p. 461 [my first of July 3, 2024] within

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_spacetime_an_elastic_medium_that_propagates_waves?

proves reciprocity of time delay in SRT.

The scenario of the preprint is analysed in MANY OTHER of my posts.

Admittedly, the reciprocal effect and the Twin paradox are related.

I do not know what Dingle said about the twin paradox. Still, his questioning I read which is already in the preface of his book concerns the contradiction (according to him) of the reciprocal effect, not the twin paradox, i.e., his example does not require the meeting of the two clocks.

It is as the question originally posted by Guzman de Rojas

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_there_a_solid_counter-argument_against_Dingles_old_objection_to_Relativity_Theory?_tp=eyJjb250ZXh0Ijp7ImZpcnN0UGFnZSI6InByb2ZpbGUiLCJwYWdlIjoicHJvZmlsZSIsInByZXZpb3VzUGFnZSI6InByb2ZpbGUiLCJwb3NpdGlvbiI6InBhZ2VDb250ZW50In19

I guess not, hence it is an ill posed problem.

It depends. According to SRT is an ill-posed problem so Dingle's argument is a sophism.

On the other hand, if we assume that simultaneity is absolute, Dingle's reasoning is correct but it is worthless as proof of SRT inconsistency because you cannot prove the inconsistency of a theory by inferring the consequences of not accepting its premises.

That point is a problem of logical reasoning that neither Dingle nor those who believe he was right are capable of grasping.

Justo Pastor Lambare ,

Of course, otherwise acceleration would be relative, not absolute which would contradic not only relativity but also Newtonian mechanics.

This one is an additional support for a local preferred frame..

Preprint CONSERVATION LAWS -LIMITS in the applicability OF THE EQUIVA...

Stefano Quattrini , @Preston Guynn,

while your derived value of QHR from SRT is indeed impressive, it is by no means 12 digits precision, rather 10+ error bars. The complexity of the technically required input for your calculation of QHR is however rather not impressive at all - they lack to explain physical reasoning for 10^7 SI human artefact factor as alike the c/(1m/s) to fix your units is likewise physically rather questionable.

iSpace theory on the other hand does entropy wise not even need an A4 page for exact derivaton of both value and proper quantum based integer geometry in a single, purely multiplicative physical resoned equation:

QHR = quantum of Volt / quantum of Ampere

or (with Pi3=3 changed distance definition and 1/6961 iSpaceSecond a result of the derived and predicted quantum of time (!))

QHR = (2 * Pi3 * 6961 Volt) / (GoldenRatio Ampere)

(iSpaceVolt / iSpaceAmpere, in iSpace-IQ unit system to be precise, the first unit system able to do away with any human artefacts whatsoever)

That is the true quantum integer geometric reason for the true physical value of QHR and has absolutely nothing to do with any aspect of theory of relativity - and rightly so!

The exact value of which is the following:

25.812,80757412811… Volt/Ampere [Ohm]

That is what any Occam style theory does:

Method iSpace - Quick check of α and Φ0 from Markoulakis & Antonidakis

no because there is gravitation which plays a paramount role in defining how and where light propagates hence the background where length contraction occurs.

About what is “Length contraction” see SS posts in https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_physical_meaning_of_the_relativistic_contraction#view=65623209f3f68c44970b2b12/6/7/6/7/6/8/5/6/8/8/9/9/9/10/9/10/10/10/10/10/11/10/11/10/11/11/11/11/12/11/10/11/12/12/12,

- and what are Lorentz transformations, where the contraction is determined numerously, SS posts in https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_origin_of_Lorentz_transforms/6

- including that length contraction is absolutely real phenomenon. When a body moves in absolute 3DXYZspace of Matter’s utmost universal “kinematical” fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, fundamentally continuous, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, [5]4D spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct), the body’s length absolutely for sure is really contracted comparing with the case when the body is at rest in this absolute space;

- and it is fundamentally necessarily reciprocal and symmetrical phenomenon in physicists’ absolutely necessary at making any experiment sets of scaled rulers and specifically synchronized distant clocks that are called [laboratory] “inertial reference frames”

– since that is necessary for to be in accordance with really extremely mighty Galileo-Poincaré relativity principle.

The last means absolutely nothing for Matter, for Matter it is all the same – what physicists think and make. But at description and analysis really scientifically of what exists and happens in Matter – despite that measured experimental data, including lengths values, in moving in the absolute 3D space humans’ frames are fundamentally unreal, that in everyday physicists practice is quite inessential – again - the relativity principle is extremely mighty principle.

Cheers

Stefano Quattrini

I will not have the time soon to write a detailed essay on the problem evoked in your paper, i.e. deriving length contraction from your thought experiment about the train on its embankment (together with an appropriate mirror arrangement), where I would, first, show how to argue correctly, and, second, demonstrate that your claim of length contraction happening on one side only (the train, not the embankment) is wrong. There are other things, I am preoccupied with, such as showing that your claim is wrong that the Doppler effect formulas we were discussing are only approximate (even though by retreating to that position, you are effectively already admitting that energy conservation does not play a role in the derivation of the approximation, but in the correction towards the exact formula only, which would mean that most of the Doppler effect is not due to energy conservation, and this part hence is not derivable from it).

Anyway, before giving a detailed exposition, let me debunk the falsehood that your argument implies length contraction of the train only. This can be done essentially without calculation.

The setup of your thought experiment states the embankment to be at rest and the train to move. I am fine with this, because the experiment can be made short enough so that the curvature of the earth surface will not be visible in the trajectory of the train nor that of the embankment -- which both will normally move due to the earth's rotation. Then the piece of curved trajectory can be approximated by a straight line and the velocity of both embankment and train is approximately constant, so they may be considered inertial systems. But if they are inertial systems, the relativity principle tells us that we can consider either of them to be at rest (as they do not have absolute velocities). That applies to the embankment, but of course also to the train.

Now I know that you are not precisely a believer of the relativity principle, but you have in fact applied it in setting up your thought experiment to make the embankment the rest system. However, if you accept the relativity principle, then you must also accept the consequences of your thought experiment with interchanged roles of the train and embankment. (We can of course, consider the train at rest and the embankment moving, by the same argument that we may consider the embankment at rest and the train moving. The relativity principle tells us that the two situations are physically the same.) Then the same arguments that give you length contraction of the train in your current derivation (after its flaws have been removed) will give you length contraction of the embankment in a derivation using the same thought experiment with a physically identical situation and only the perspective changed by taking the frame of reference of the train at rest.

O.k., so if you accept the relativity principle, your thought experiment can be used to obtain the standard relativistic result on length contraction, but it does not prove anything about non-reciprocity. On the contrary, reciprocity is a result of the thought experiment. (I will demonstrate that in more detail, once I write the essay. But the argument I give here is already compelling.)

In order to avoid this conclusion, you'd have to deny the relativity principle. But then your whole derivation falls apart, as I will show now. You are aware that the earth is rotating, I guess. At the equator, the rotation velocity of its surface is circumference divided by 24 h, i.e. 40000 km/24h = 1667 km/h; it will be useful to calculate the rotation speeds of the surface at some other latitudes: at 69°, it is approximately 600 km/h, at 83.1° (hence not far from the north pole), it is approximately 200 km/h, and at 86.6°, the rotation velocity from west to east is 100 km/h.

What it means is that there is no way to have your embankment at rest, as long as it is fixed to the earth's surface. While there are two points of the earth surface that are at rest in an earth centered inertial system (ECI) -- these are the poles themselves, any railway track must have a finite length, so it will always contain points that are moving, even if you lay it right through a pole. Hence, you cannot make your argument with an embankment at rest (if you deny the validity of the relativity principle). Let us suppose that the embankment is laid out from east to west, so there will be no movement vertical to it; it is moving parallel to its orientation (still disregarding the curvature of the surface of the earth). In most cases, the train is also moving.

To repeat your argument, you would have to refer to a hypothetical rest frame (being at rest w.r.t. the ECI), and the embankment will be moving at one velocity (ranging from 1667 km/h to 100 km/h, if we don't go straight up north to latitudes above 86.6°). If we let the train run from east to west, say at 200 km/h, then it will be slower by that velocity in the ECI than the embankment. Your argument will then yield two results, one for the length contraction of the embankment and one for that of the train; and as long as the latitude at which the thought experiment takes place is smaller than 83.1°, the embankment will be more strongly length contracted than the train (because it moves faster).

Now something interesting happens at 83.1° latitude. The train going at 200 km/h from east to west will just have the right speed to be at rest in the ECI (the embankment is moving at 200 km/h from west to east). This can be seen from the fact that the sun will stay at the same position above the train -- it will neither move ahead of it in the sky nor stay behind. This effect can actually be observed in airplanes going from Europe to the U.S. at latitudes around 70° and velocities of around 600 km/h. For trains, being slower, you have to go farther up north and there is no land anymore where the rotation speed becomes slower than 200 km/h (there may be ice...).

But if the train can be at rest in the ECI and the embankment cannot, then your thought experiment cannot prove real length contraction of the train (in the absence of the relativity principle), but real length contraction of the embankment at most. This is quite a contradiction to your statement... The point is that in reality, the embankment, being fixed to the earth's surface, can never be at rest, while the train can, in the right arrangement. Once the track is even closer to the pole, the train starts to have negative velocities and at 86.6°, it will go at a real velocity of -100 km/h, whereas the embankment goes at +100 km/h. They will both have the same amount of length contraction according to your argument, so their lengths should be equal. Only even higher north will the train eventually become shorter than the embankment.

But you realize that your whole argument does not yield a unique length contraction factor for either the train or the embankment? As long as you deny the validity of the relativity principle, correct reasoning will lead to the train and the embankment both exhibiting length contraction but to a degree that depends on the latitude where the experiment is done.

Of course, the converse is also true. Your argument works, in principle, if the relativity principle holds and then gives a latitude independent length contraction factor, depending only on the relative velocity of embankment and train. This entails that the train will exhibit the same length contraction factor in the frame of the embankment as the embankment in the frame of the train.

So, if your argument works, it leads to the prediction of reciprocal length contraction. If it does not work, then it does not predict unique length contraction at all.

SS posts in https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_origin_of_Lorentz_transforms/3, pages 3,5, 6,7,8, 19 are relevant to this thread question.

Cheers

K. Kassner ,

I am not at all retreating from that position I am adamant in supporting the DE as derivable in a correct way only with energy and momentum conservation.

Stefano Quattrini "I am not at all retreating from that position I am adamant in supporting the DE as derivable in a correct way only with energy and momentum conservation."

Well, you said there is nothing wrong with my derivation (and you did not point out anything wrong), except that it was only an approximation. That means that an approximation can be derived correctly without energy and momentum conservation. Hence, the latter are responsible at most for the (small) correction between the approximation and the "exact result". (Of course, my derivations of the relativistic formulas are not approximations, they are exact, but that was not my point in the argument.)

"we could in principle imagine to perform it in a planet whose rotation is very very slow like the moon for example 27 days or even much slower."

We could imagine many things, but the question is whether the thought experiment would work in our environment, not someplace else and far away in the universe. Experimental evidence for length contraction has not been obtained on other planets but here.

"since the length contraction must be a real contraction it cannot be reciprocal."

That is something you don't seem to ever understand. Of course, length contraction can be real and reciprocal. That is because lengths of moving objects are defined with respect to the simultaneity notion of the observer. Different observers will measure moving lengths that are side by side differently. The embankment observer finds the train shorter than the embankment, because he measures the end-to-end distance of the train at one given time for the embankment. The train observer agrees that the embankment observer measures the train shorter than the embankment but he does not consider it a correct length measurement, because the ends were measured at different times, the position of the front end was measured before that of the rear end by the embankment observer, in the reckoning of the train observer. On the other hand, the train observer measures the embankment (i.e. the distance of the mirrors on it) shorter than the train, according to his measuring of the end-to-end distance at a single time. The embankment observer agrees that the train observer measures the embankment to be shorter, but he points out that the measurement of the mirror positions was not at equal times. Etc. Use your imagination to understand the effects of the relativity of simultaneity correctly.

"this cannot be, since the train departs from the embankment which is more massive and more stationary with ECIF."

You don't get it, do you? At the equator, the embankment has a velocity of 1666 km/h with respect to the ECIF. (Measurable by the Sagnac effect, by the way.) The train only 1466 km/h, because the 200 km/h of its velocity to the west are subtracted from the velocity of the embankment. At a latitude of 83.1°, either north or south, the velocity of the embankment with respect ot the ECIF is 200 km/h towards the east. The velocity of the train with respect to the ECIF is zero, because it moves at 200 km/h towards the west with respect to the embankment.

The mass has nothing to do with it. We are not dealing with general relativity and gravity here. Inertial frame dragging is almost absent for the mass of the earth. (Gravity probe B had great difficulties even measuring it.)

"if the embankment is in a isotropic frame, the length of the wagon must be shortened of a certain amount gamma-1 , that's all."

Again using a formula without understanding its origin?

Your formulation is somewhat nonsensical, but the point is that in the case of a latitude of 83.1°, it is the train that is at rest in an isotropic frame, so its gamma will be 1, but the embankment is moving at 200 km/h in the isotropic frame, so it will be shortened by gamma-1(200 km/h).

"my arguments give a non-reciprocal and real length contraction which is the only solution to the problem"

No. You cannot escape from this logical trap. Your argument works only, if the embankment is at rest in an inertial frame. But that is never the case on the surface of the earth, unless the relativity principle is true. However, if the relativity principle is true, then the reciprocity of length contraction is a fact.

There seems to be 2 types of real length contraction. One as suggested by Fitzgerald and followed by Lorentz is that particles change length. This is suggested as a mechanism of black hole evaporation and dependent on the aether density. The Michelson-Morley (MMX) and other such experiments may als show this because the aether density (like the ocean tides on Earth) follows the Sun & Moon ( MMX showed such a change nearly perpendicular to the Earth motion).

Cosmology - 1 equation, 1 force

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFcXZlAUlIE

The other type of measured (apparent ) length contraction is caused by the finite speed of measuring phenomena (speed of light). This type can appear to be related to relative velocity of the measuring frame. In this type, the actual length doesn't change but the measurement and the effect in a moving frame changes.

IN special relativity

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7onqILCwOJ0

K. Kassner what will you answer if we build a (hypothetical by now but doable in principle) space)„train“ embankment into a position fully at rest with respect to the ECI and have Stefano Quattrini Stefanos exact same experimental setup leaving a train with a relative velocity of 200km/s such described embankment.

If my internal brain logic engine isn‘t wrong here (and I am in the believe to have a very good one, for that matter) all of your (complex!) arguments against SQ are completely moot as we then run the exact same experiment relativity wise, then none of your „experiment was done on earth and showed so your „counterarguments“ will hold - the contrary - they evaporate in a cloud of brain smoke.

It is often when STR and GR supporters think of „counterexamples„ like above they completely forget - imho intentionally ignore the in turn immediately risible counter examples with respect to theirs (should I guess to protect their little world view of so called „mainstream physics“ not to break everything apart they seemingly have had to learn so far with respect to their „scientific contributions“ of the last 100+ years.

QM will be here to stay one way or another, but in its current form „Relativity“ for sure not.

This is simply due to 100+ years shown full incompatibility of GR and much of SRT with QM. The eperiments accelerator based showing time deletion on prolonged particle in full conformance to SRT is not what I mean here, these are correct as they work in the internal clock of particles like the electron - being a very special case particle anyway not allowing to deduce general massive body length contraction in an unchanged 1:1 analogy from those anyway.

Why am I so sure about, while not even being in any way an expert on relativity, in the sense of you discussing here - and for sure including SQ on eye level for sure (anything else being just a lame unscientific attack style accuse to veritable decision opponents to save one’s own lame arguments - a subtle and sometimes down to outright evil chain of unscientific behavior - and you all know so) - is that it is Relativity which has to give in the end to solve all our issues (like the one debated here in this question of SQ, but it’s only one in a very long chain of other imho much more important ones, e.g. read the recent retranslated paper of @ Lev Verkhovsky from Russian original 20y+ ago to now much more accessible English RG version clearly demonstrating imho beyond any reasonable doubt that a very important factor for the doppler effect of light in the Lorentz transformations has intentionally be set to 1 - effectively eliminating it from the SRT and hence GR with this - leading to he fruitless discussions like this in the first place.

But that is not even my main argument (that was just Levs I fully support, follow and endorse wherever I can) - my argument goes physically much deeper into the domain of iSpace theory - able exactly derive value and integer geometry from constants of nature and 50+ by now, that is in such exact symbolic form perfectly implemented into a truly simple for everyone trivial to follow first order multiplicative Mathematica code library, able to calculate and derive its results from few base quanta only like GoldenRatio Ampere - the quantum of Ampere - and more so recent derivation of 1/6961 iSpaceSecond - the quantum of time (!) - which changes everything quantum physical wise with respect to the already mathematically wrong PDE induced starting base assumptions of Relativity, cosmology and actually worse - most of current physics like „dot“ particles stemming from the use of outright evil concept of zero and consequential error of - physically likewise non existing - infiniti’s of any kind.

I spare myself any further discussion here on this topic (and iSpace theory in general) as this important question of SQ is the wrong place to start with about here.

It was exactly the right place to state what I stated above in the hope to make clear to most of you just how blind-folded narrow-minded your so called „argumentation chain“ looks for somebody like me truly objective looking from the side (and having already 20+ years ago derived the proper tools and solutions around the unavoidably required by constraints of constants of nature) - but a very much informed - instead of century long by now blindfolded - scientific base view.

Sorry for my somewhat more lengthy than initially intended post, but on the positive side for most of you - you’ll only get this one.

Best, kind regards and never forget - we’re not all dummies here on RG just cause we partially or fully object mainstream physics everyone to its own degree - yet very valid individual resoning!

Christian

Christian G. Wolf "If my internal brain logic engine isn‘t wrong here (and I am in the believe to have a very good one, for that matter) all of your (complex!) arguments against SR are completely moot as we then run the exact same experiment relativity wise, but none of your „experiment was done on earth and showed so“ style „counterarguments“ still hold - the contrary they evaporate in a cloud of brain smoke."

Your internal brain logic is apparently wrong here, as I am not arguing against SR but in favor of it.

Otherwise, you obviously have not understood the argument. It does not matter that the experiment can be done SR wise. My point is that if it is done SR wise, the result is as Quattrini says as viewed from the embankment frame (but length contraction would be reciprocal as the same argument can be done from the train frame) and if it is not done SR wise, the result will depend on the precise conditions, i.e. Quattrini's claim is wrong in general (the embankement will also suffer length contraction, not only the train). If your brain logic engine works well enough, you will have no problems to see that I am right in spite of the -- superficial -- complexity. Things are actually very simple.

K. Kassner “Your internal brain logic is apparently wrong here, as I am not arguing against SR but in favor of it.“ I am sorry for my (Siri‘s, actually …) typo in a indeed critical abbreviation place used - i corrected above post of mine with respect to some other similar typos as well, writing on iOS small screen iPhone only) and it should have read not SR but of course SQ for avoiding to type RG buggy Stefano Quattrini adressing feature - again proving to me what I critizised with my post above (how about using conmom sense what I intended to write !?).

You‘re not even recognizing (!?) we are on a social media style medium, where typos have to be overlooked and ignored, but what the peer has to actually say is what really counts - argument wise.

This sentence (esp. so in free space symmetric situation (if a comparative massive and a much lower mass entity) just shows „the embankement will also suffer length contraction, not only the train“ how much bull…. unfortunately mainstream accepted by seemingly intelligent people actually is:

Its all just related to the massively missing doppler effect factor of light from the Lorentz equations intentionally left out or set to 1 (one, making it disappear from SRT physics).

Albert and many others where much better seemingly in marketing their own scientific ideas for some price money than they have been in physics … sad but true to say. And so it’s about time to correct his true blunders and not only those he confessed to with cosmological constant.

K. Kassner ,

Everything should be derived from energy and momentum conservation. Nevertheless, the narrative in acoustics where the moving object meets more waves in unit time, just hides the energy and momentum exchange which is the base of the effect, giving an approximated solution which is the one usually used.

I do not say that a kinematical view is wrong, it is just limited in its prediction capabilities and it does hide the deeper cause of the phenomenon.

The same cannot be valid for a theory which is based on a kinematical view and infringes the conservation laws in the attempt to find a formula..

Preprint CONSERVATION LAWS -LIMITS in the applicability OF THE EQUIVA...