sci.physics.relativity

On Sep 13, 4:38 am, harry < ...@ > wrote:
> On Sep 12, 7:05 am, Alen wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 12, 2:49 am, stevendaryl3...@ (Daryl McCullough)
> > wrote:
>
> > > Alen says...
>
> > > >My argument is more rigorous than the spacetime
> > > >diagram interpretation of the SR mathematics.
>
> > [...]
>
> > > Daryl McCullough
> > > Ithaca, NY
>
> > Well, if you have sufficient interest to ask, I shall once again
> > post the link to my web page containing this argument.
>
> >http://home. /~alen1/Physics/
>
> > It is, of course, entirely up to you as to whether or not you
> > want to take the trouble to look at it.
>
> > Alen
>
> You there show that it's bad idea to state (as some do) that "space
> contracts". Indeed, when objects speed up, how could space contract?.
> You reinvented an argument that is commonly known as "Bell's spaceship
> paradox" - not bad! :-)
>
> http://home. /~alen1/Physics/
>
> Of course, such illustrations don't in any way disprove Lorentz
> contraction (that is, an apparent contraction of *physical objects*
> such as rulers and rockets).
>
> Cheers,
> Harald

No, indeed it doesn't disprove Lorentz contraction.
It disproves only what I call 'spacelike' length
contraction. Where photons are involved, length
contraction does appear, and therefore I say that
it is caused by light, and not by spacetime.

Alen