Rest Length, Coordinate Length, and an argument for True Length

[bobc2]

I fully agree with your criticism of "that's just the way nature works".

For me Lorentz contraction and clock retardation explain it all (together with the speed of light as a constant of nature). Those effects can be found as consequences of the conservation laws - but that's another topic.

I rest your case.

[Edit] Meaning you have stated your case well. I think most physicists would agree with you. (I still look for a deeper understanding--to me there is every bit as much mystery in Special Relativity as in the double slit experiment, notwithstanding wave functions).

 

[GrayGhost]

Where in his paper did you think to see a different use of language?

What I said, was that Einstein never said the contractions were "only apparent" in OEMB. I said that Einstein said the moving length "appears shortened". Your response was ... no, Einstein did do such in OEMB. I asked for the reference and you gave me this on, ie the only one that exists ...

We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the "Principle of Relativity'') to the status of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.​

Well here, Einstein is not talking the shorterness of a moving length. It's another subject altogether ... ie wrt the reconcilation of the 2 principles. So you threw a reference my way to support your argument, but the reference had nothing to do with our discussion at hand. Back to our discussion, ie whether a moving length is "only apparently shorter" ... to say "only apparently" is to say "only appears as such". What Einstein does say is "appears shortened", which does not restrict the moving length from being "mathematically shorter" at the present moment.

So you've been arguing ...

appears = apparently = only apparently​

Einstein said this wrt moving lengths ...

appears​

And IMO, what Einstein meant (when he said it) was this ...

appears shortened = is mathematically shorter​

It's not that I disagree with all of what you been saying here, but I disagree as to what you think Einstein meant in his OEMB paper.

GrayGhost

 

[harrylin]

What I said, was that Einstein never said the contractions were "only apparent" in OEMB. I said that Einstein said the moving length "appears shortened". Your response was ... no, Einstein did do such in OEMB. I asked for the reference and you gave me this on, ie the only one that exists ...

Strange misunderstanding here, for I did not say what you think I said (you can check what we did discuss). I said that I fully agree with Einstein's use of "appears". We seem to have a complete language breakdown...

[..]
So you've been arguing ...

appears = apparently = only apparently​

the moving length "appears shortened". [..] GrayGhost

As you can easily verify, I argued that "apparently" = NOT* "only apparently"!
Again:

- Appears = apparently. By definition, appearance may be either deceptive ("distorted") or true.
- Only apparently = not really

I even gave an example of the common use of "only apparently" by Einstein in that same paper, to contrast it with the meaning of "apparently".

Where in his paper did you think to see a different use of language?

Note that this little side-track started with your surprising claim that "Einstein used the words "appears shortened", as opposed to "is apparently shorter" in his 1905 OEMB, at least thru section 3."
Instead, "appears shortened" means the same as "is apparently shorter", and I see no reason to think that Einstein deviated from that.

Regards,
Harald