Thought experiment:
A bus of length L0 = 10 m is parked at a bus stop.
Two cars drive past with speeds v1 = 100000 km/s and v2= 200000 km/s respectively.
The two observers use the Lorentz Factor (γ = 1/(1 - v2/c2)1/2) and calculate the length of the bus to be L1 = 9.43 m and L2 = 7.45 m.
Note: We only have one bus and three lengths!
Question: How long is the bus?
Please consult my article:
Preprint A Logical Critique of Special Relativity: The Question of Un...
Preprint Lorentz transformations- the most illogical concept in Physics
Yes, relativistic length contraction, no problem observed here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction
Jürgen Weippert
1) "Yes, relativistic length contraction, no problem observed here."
I prefer answers directly to my question. The link to Wikipedia does not have an answer to this question.
My thought experiment is simple. Just answer the question!
This was an answer to your question. The change of measured lengths depending on the relative speed is called length contraction, so you haven't found anything new, exciting or disruptive, and your "thought experiment" is a standard undergraduate exercise.
Sorry, but low hanging fruits on this level are long gone in physics.
Jürgen Weippert
2) "This was an answer to your question. The change of measured lengths depending on the relative speed is called length contraction, so you haven't found anything new, exciting or disruptive, and your "thought experiment" is a standard undergraduate exercise.
Sorry, but low hanging fruits on this level are long gone in physics."
I know what length contraction and time dilation are.
But you haven't answered the question!
Well, OK then: the bus has a different length depending on the relative motion of the entities due to length contraction. Happy now?
If you claim to know what length contraction and time dilatation are, you should also know the experiments related to them. In that case, what is the point of posting this question in the first place? Do you think you are up to something revolutionary here? Because you're not.
Jürgen Weippert
3) "Well, OK then: the bus has a different length depending on the relative motion of the entities due to length contraction. Happy now?"
No, I'm not happy. We have one bus and three lengths. Answer the question, please.
4) "If you claim to know what length contraction and time dilatation are, you should also know the experiments related to them. In that case, what is the point of posting this question in the first place? Do you think you are up to something revolutionary here? Because you're not."
Please talk about the topic, not about people.
Three lengths depending on the relative velocites are the physical reality. That may be philosophically hard to wrap your head around, but that's an important point in the basics of relativity: there is no absolute reference inertial system, so there is no absolute length or time.
For that reason, one bus having three lengths depending on relative speeds may be strange for someone new to the topic, but that's the reality we live in, apparently. The answer to the question which one of the lengths is the right one is therefore: all of them, because of length contraction.
This was already implied in my first answer.
Jürgen Weippert
5) "Three lengths depending on the relative velocities are the physical reality."
But we only have ONE REALITY not three.
6) "That may be philosophically hard to wrap your head around, but that's an important point in the basics of relativity"
One shouldn't mix philosophy with physics, mathematics and logic!
7) "For that reason, one bus having three lengths depending on relative speeds may be strange for someone new to the topic, but that's the reality we live in, apparently."
"one bus having three lengths" But we ONLY have ONE BUS!
8) "but that's the reality we live in"
I don't think we live in such a reality.
You run past a bus at a speed of 1 m/s and I run past the same bus at a speed of 2 m/s. We measure the length of the bus and according to STR we get two different lengths. How long is the bus? Answer the question! We only have one bus.
9) "The answer to the question which one of the lengths is the right one is therefore: all of them, because of length contraction."
I didn't ask in my main question what length is right, but HOW LONG IS THE BUS.
Well, one object having different lengths depending on relative velocities can be hard to wrap your head around. Unfortunately for you, we live in a reality in which high velocity phenomena need to be described by relativity in which lengths and times aren't absolute, but relative. You should really check the wikipedia article again for the experimental evidence section.
You demand that philosophy and physics, math and logic should not be mixed, but your objection is not based on physics or logic because these have to follow experimental results and these cannot be explained with an absolute time and length framework. Therefore your objection is purely based on your philosophical desire to have an absolute world view which actual physics can't comfort you with.
Concluding, if someone says that one bus has to have only one length no matter what motion is going on, that is denial of reality against crushing experimental counterevidence.
I'm sure you will repeat your personal dogma that this can't be, but don't hope to be acknowledged as a valid contributor to any modern physics discourse with that, you're >100 years too late for that.
Jürgen Weippert
10) "Well, one object having different lengths depending on relative velocities can be hard to wrap your head around. Unfortunately for you, we live in a reality in which high velocity phenomena need to be described by relativity in which lengths and times aren't absolute, but relative."
"one object having different lengths" --> Yes, 'an object' and 'three lengths', that's what doesn't go together! In fact, NO ONE can explain it.
The object is real, are these three lengths (all three) also real?
11) "You should really check the Wikipedia article again for the experimental evidence section."
I have read (I have studied!) dozens of college textbooks and other literature on STR. It says the same thing everywhere! The approved narrative.
12) "You demand that philosophy and physics, math and logic should not be mixed, but your objection is not based on physics or logic because these have to follow experimental results and these cannot be explained with an absolute time and length framework. Therefore your objection is purely based on your philosophical desire to have an absolute world view which actual physics can't comfort you with."
If a theory is wrong, you can do as many experiments as you want, and still not confirm anything that is wrong. IF an experiment does confirm it after all, it means that the experiment has inherent flaws!
13) "Concluding, if someone says that one bus has to have only one length no matter what motion is going on, that is denial of reality against crushing experimental counter evidence."
See my answer in point 12).
14) "I'm sure you will repeat your personal dogma that this can't be, but don't hope to be acknowledged as a valid contributor to any modern physics discourse with that, you're >100 years too late for that."
I base my arguments, my comments, on my research, on my analysis of the derivation of LT. All derivations of LT that I have analyzed lead to contradiction!
Article Mathematics shows that the Lorentz transformations are not s...
Article Analysis of k-calculus from Introducing Einstein's Relativi...
Book Special Relativity is Nonsense
Please convince yourself and see what I base my comments on. Thank you.
I have just skimmed though the references of your "papers". At no point do you acknowledge relevant experiments like the Hafele-Keating experiment of follow-ups. Physical argumentation gains its validity from the experiment, what you are trying is to declare experiments that don't fit your desired reality invalid. That's physics being done the wrong way around. An object's length isn't an absolute fixed value anymore and neither is the time it takes to do something, it's both relative.
Therefore, you haven't found a flaw, you are not contributing to the physical discourse, all you are doing is wasting your life. [But at least you provide entertainment to people who know how to do physics.]
Jürgen Weippert
15) "I have just skimmed though the references of your "papers". At no point do you acknowledge relevant experiments like the Hafele-Keating experiment of follow-ups."
I do not accept the HK-experiment as evidence of STR.
This experiment does not fit the premises of STR. In this experiment there are no IRF.
16) "Physical argumentation gains its validity from the experiment, what you are trying is to declare experiments that don't fit your desired reality invalid."
A physical theory can be countered with experiments but also theoretically.
17) "Therefore, you haven't found a flaw, you are not contributing to the physical discourse, all you are doing is wasting your life."
I have noticed that 'scientists' who cannot find a physical, mathematical or logical argument start writing about the person they are conversing with. Such an approach is not scientific.
18) "[But at least you provide entertainment to people who know how to do physics.]"
This leans towards a personal attack.
If you do not want to or cannot answer the question, you do not need to continue.
I quote from: Big bang or let there be light?; Maria Gunther Axelsson;
p30-31:
"Therefore, the research is not about defending established theories (which the creationists often claim), but rather testing, questioning and trying to find gaps and inaccuracies in the theories"
I have written an article based on the above question.
Preprint A Logical Critique of Length Contraction in Special Relativity
There is only on length for the bus, STR is just nonsense.
Most relativists consider that the Lorentz Aether Theory (LAT) and the Special Theory of Relativity (STR) are equivalent in terms of agreement with experimental results. They differ in the interpretation of the auxilarly variables invented by Voigt in 1887 (in his paper "On the Doppler Principle"), what are called nowadays Lorentz transformations. In LAT, the length contraction (hypothesis) is due to motion of objects relative to aether, to explain MM experiment: ie there is only one length. Medium drag can also explain the same experiment without length contraction.
STR uses exactly the same equations used by Lorentz but with very weird interpretation: the speed of light is the same for all observers and time and space change for different motion of the observers. You cannot argue with relativists about that: they really believe that this is true and that our "common sense" is wrong. For relativists, humans should bandon logic, common sense etc and follow THEIR ideas. It is OK if these ideas are weird and seems stupids, for them we are wrong by not believeing that they are right. They will always argue that experiments prove it. But these same experiments can be explained with classical wave theory.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/380365311_Mathematical_Logic_and_Physical_Mechanism_Behind_the_Lorentz_Transformation_and_Special_Relativity
My paper seems to have been reviewed by two ignorant and even stupid people.
Dear Dr Yuan,
Your manuscript entitled "Mathematical Logic and Physical Mechanism Behind the Lorentz Transformation and Special Relativity" has now been assessed. If there are any reviewer comments on your manuscript, please find them below.
Handling Editor: Csaba Balazs
Comments
Both referees expressed significant concerns regarding the manuscript’s conceptual foundations, historical accuracy, and overall contribution to the literature. In particular, the reviewers noted that key claims are either not substantiated or are based on misinterpretations of well-established physical theories. Additionally, the manuscript does not offer a clear novel insight or research finding that would warrant publication. Given the extent of the issues identified, we do not believe that the manuscript can be revised to meet the standards of the journal, and therefore must decline the submission.
Thank you for the opportunity to consider your work. I am sorry that we cannot be more positive on this occasion and hope you will not be deterred from submitting future work to Scientific Reports.
Kind regards,
Sanskruti Fadatare
Assistant Editor
Scientific Reports
Reviewer Comments:
Reviewer 1
When looking at a paper a reviewer must answer (among many other) two main questions:
1. Is the paper interesting?
2. Is the paper correct?
In the case of your paper, the answer is negative to both questions. The reason for the negative answer to question 1 is that there is already a lot of literature on the subject. The reason for negative answer to question 2 will be explained in detail below.
Reviewer 2
I cannot find in the conclusion section (or any other section) a claim that could be considered "new". The point of the paper seems to be that observers have different assumptions about what references frames events occur in, whether using the Lorentz method or Special Relativity.
Tony Yuan
"My paper seems to have been reviewed by two ignorant and even stupid people."
1) Why are you posting these posts regarding your article here?
2) It's not just that you're insulting others, it's against RG policy.
Tony Yuan
Once one knows that the theory of relativity is wrong/nonsense—as shown already by many researchers (Heaviside, Tesla, Essen, Mach, Rutherford, Beckmann, Wesley, Enghelhardt etc.)— I think that a good strategy is to advance science by working outside the framework of this theory.
For example, I am specialized in computational electromagnetism, a field where many researchers relied on Lorentz transformations and the Special Theory of Relativity when modeling problems involving motion. Instead of using this nonsense, I apply only Maxwell’s equations, without LT or STR. This approach has enabled us to replicate a wide range of electromagnetic phenomena involving moving bodies. Because few others pursue this direction, our work remains original and encounters little competition. Our work has real practical applications (Doppler radars for vital sign detection, hand gesture control, fall detection, GPS, drone detection etc.). Trying to attack STR in papers will encounter negative reaction of reviewers (although they do not understand what they are talking about) and will not necessary contribute to the advancement of science. You can even try it with a person that has never studied anything at school, if you tell him STR is wrong, he will suddenly feel that he is very smart and tell you that you are stupîd. Actually, I think that enough papers and books have been published against STR. Below is a list of recent publications that reflect the results of our methodology:
Analysis of Doppler Radars With a Numerical Method, M. Marvasti, H. Boutayeb, IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques, 2025
Using Classical Electromagnetism for Replicating Some Quantum Phenomena, M. Marvasti, H. Boutayeb, IEEE APS, 2025
FDTD Computational Analysis of Heaviside Faster-than-Light Problem, M. Marvasti, H. Boutayeb, IEEE APS, 2025
Response of a Moving Metal Interface for Different Electric Field Boundary Conditions, IEEE APS, 2025
Numerical Study of a Moving Dielectric Slab Illuminated by a Plane Wave with the Inclusion of Fresnel Drag, M. Marvasti, H. Boutayeb, IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, 2024
Electromagnetic Response of a Uniformly Moving Resistive Sheet, M. Marvasti, H. Boutayeb, Microwave and Optical Technology Letters, 66(11), e70021, 2024
Analogy Between a Moving Line Source Illuminating a Metallic Wire and the Compton Scattering Experiment, M. Marvasti, H. Boutayeb, Microwave and Optical Technology Letters, 66(1), e33999, 2024
Numerical Study of Electromagnetic Waves With Sources, Observer, and Scattering Objects in Motion, M. Marvasti, H. Boutayeb, IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques, 2024
Analysis of Electromagnetic Problems in the Presence of Non-Uniform Movements, M. Marvasti, H. Boutayeb, Journal of Microwaves, Optoelectronics and Electromagnetic Applications, 2024
Moving Structures in a 3D FDTD Code, M. Marvasti, H. Boutayeb, 2024 International Microwave and Antenna Symposium (IMAS), 1–2, 2024
Stellar Aberration and Fizeau’s Experiment with Moving Water Using the FDTD Method, M. Marvasti, H. Boutayeb, 2024 IMAS, 1–2, 2024
Electromagnetic Analysis of Moving Structures in a Moving Reference Frame, M. Marvasti, H. Boutayeb, The Journal of Engineering, 2023(11), e12302, 2023
FDTD Analysis of the Sagnac Effect Employed in the Global Positioning System, M. Marvasti, H. Boutayeb, IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, 2023
Electromagnetic Analysis of Moving Ideal or Matched Plane Wave Source with the FDTD Method, M. Marvasti, H. Boutayeb, 2023 IEEE International Symposium on Antennas and Propagation and USNC-URSI
Analysis of Moving Metallic or Dielectric Scattering Cylinders with the FDTD Method, M. Marvasti, H. Boutayeb, 2023 IEEE International Symposium on Antennas and Propagation and USNC-URSI
Non-Relativistic Finite Difference Time Domain Method for Electromagnetic Problems with Moving Bodies, M. Marvasti, H. Boutayeb, 2023 IEEE MTT-S International Conference on Numerical Electromagnetics
Moving Metallic Slab Illuminated by a Plane Wave: Theory and Numerical Analysis Using the Finite Difference Time Domain Method, M. Marvasti, H. Boutayeb, Progress in Electromagnetics Research M, 118, 2023
Analysis of Moving Bodies with the FDTD Method, M. Marvasti, H. Boutayeb, 2023 17th European Conference on Antennas and Propagation (EuCAP), 1–5
Analysis of Moving Dielectric Half-Space with Oblique Plane Wave Incidence Using the Finite Difference Time Domain Method, M. Marvasti, H. Boutayeb, Progress in Electromagnetics Research M, 115, 119–128, 2023
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physical Sciences
- Waves