Recent content by gamb

I'm still not convinced of the superiority of the contraction over the expansion. Maybe a derivation of some consequences of the expansion helps. If I simply assume the expansion then the Lorentz transformation looks like this: x' = x-vt and y' = y/gamma. I don't know what is now the time...

BTW. Sorry, but I can't omit the very nice fallacy in education practice. Nobel for... Nobel. :)

I simply asked for the reason of the contraction... its very special role, preference (postulate?) in the relativity. I see a rational reason of this.. assumption(?) doesn't exist at all, in the strong mathematical sense at least, therefore I get what I want. Thanks.

That paradox doesn't exist in the expanding scenario, so the expansion is even better than the contraction in that case. That is just observed in the army: a very fast projectile, something over 1200m/s, I think, when misses a target, but moves near off only, still destroys it successfully!

I can to say the same: if I see you contracted then you must be shorter than me when we collide. If you see me shortened then I must be shorter than you when we collide. We can't both be right, and there are direct physical consequences to the question. Additionaly: Imagine shooting at a paper...

Expansion can be a symmetric too: if I see you expanded, then you see me expanded. And under a collision the both are the same - what's a problem? After all the contraction can't be observed directy, what Penrose showed already... I have in the mind the experimental discoveries: Michelson...

I have a very hard question: why in the Relativity theory the contraction is present always - along the x-axis or a speed v, instead of an expansion along the other dimensions, transversal to the v? Is there any mathematical proof, the contraction is the one correct, and any other possibility...