My ruler can contract,
but not its length!

    1.0   We don't need Math to solve this one

    The first thing you should come to grips with is that we don't need variables or equations to analyze
    and resolve relativity's ridiculous claim that length contracts. The conclusion that the mathematicians
    are offering are of a qualitative nature. They are saying that, because a muon travels 'fast', length and
    distance contract. Why would we need to invoke meters and seconds to explain such a qualitative
    phenomenon of nature? If I tell you that when I throw the ball at you, the distance between you and
    the ball is going to shrink, would you ask me to get a calculator to prove it to you? Do you think that
    your doubts about my claim would vanish after running an experiment? This is entirely a conceptual
    issue. Unless the relativists can show a reason why I need a calculator or a slide ruler, I will resolve it
    with logic.

    Like Einstein, I will resolve it with a thought experiment. Why should he be allowed to use a thought
    experiment and not you?  If the thought experiment shows that the idea is patently absurd, we have
    no alternative but to scrap it. Why would anyone require you to learn Math to solve this one? In fact,
    before a mathematician can design, let alone run an experiment, he must verify whether it violates
    logic. He would be unable to run the experiment in the lab if he cannot even conceive of it in his brain.
    Logic always precedes Math, DOE, and experimentation. The mathematician can prove anything with
    numbers. The question is whether we can run his proposal in the lab. And before we can run it in the
    lab we need to conceptualize and visualize the proposal. So let's check the logic of what the
    mathematicians are proposing to make sure that they crossed all the t's and dotted all the i's.


    2.0   Relativists should make it a goal to take English 101 sometime in their careers

    A boy measures five feet. We refer to this parameter as his length or height. We determined this
    because we took a measurement of the boy and not because we took a measurement of his length!
    The mathematicians may argue that my pants have a certain length and that if I put my pants in hot
    water they can shrink. The mathematicians may not argue that the length of my pants contracted.

    Relativists will scoff that this is a trivial semantic objection. Yes, many writers abuse the language and
    perhaps overindulge in metaphor and analogy, but this doesn’t invalidate Einstein’s mathematically
    exact conclusions. Surely, we can read between the lines and get through the poetry to understand
    what the writer is really saying.

    Actually, there is more to the term ‘length contraction’ than meets the eye and than relativists realize
    or wish to acknowledge. More than a semantic this is an epistemological issue. Relativists have vital
    reasons for using the word length and not the word object. Mathematical length is a quantitative,
    subjective parameter. The physical shrinking of my pants is a qualitative, objective matter. We do not
    need an observer to testify that a pair of pants contracted. The pants shrunk or not irrespective of our
    state of knowledge. Relativists purport to derive qualitative inferences from quantitative foundations.
    The quantitative ones require mathematical symbols. The qualitative ones only require English,
    unambiguous definitions, and usage consistency. By invoking the word length, the mathematicians
    stealthily and without justification redirect the discussion towards magnitudes, variables, and
    equations when the instant issue is entirely conceptual. Neither measurement nor calculations will
    resolve the length contraction paradox. Relativists are in effect answering a yes or no question with a
    ‘how much’ reply, thus implying indirectly – rather than stating explicitly – that the object contracted.
    This explains why so many Physics forums still debate whether length contraction is 'real' or a matter
    of perceptions and appearance.

    Take for instance the situation where your cap falls in the lake. You grab a long tree branch you find
    on the ground to retrieve it from the waters. You did not need a calculator or to learn calculus to
    determine how long the branch should be. You established this intuitively. Of course, your intuition
    may fail, in which case you don't recover your cap. But this is not the point. The point is that if you
    manage to retrieve your cap it is because of qualitative as opposed to quantitative length. You don't
    need to know how many feet or meters the branch measured to explain to me how you recovered
    your cap. You either did or didn't. The branch was either sufficiently long or it wasn't. This is
    qualitative length. This is the sense of the word length in Physics.    

    So, does the Lorentz equation say that a ruler contracts (independent of observers) or does it say that
    its length as measured by an observer changed? One is objective. The other is subjective. Which is it
    going to be?

    The reason relativists often disagree amongst themselves as to whether ‘length’ contraction is real or
    apparent is that they rely on subjective observers for all of their physical interpretations. They cannot
    tell you whether the object at the other side of the Universe shrunk. They can only tell you what an
    observer measured or should have measured. As in all charismatic religions, without testimonials,
    relativity is dead! The fact that every relativist uses the same metaphors, analogies, and words to
    explain SR theory makes their invocation of the word length even more suspicious. Jargon is a
    symptom that cult members take concepts for granted.
Adapted for the Internet from:

Why God Doesn't Exist

    ________________________________________________________________________________________


     Home                    Book WGDE                    Glossary                    Extinction   

    Last modified 01/01/08


        Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008
I thought you said
that the length of
the ruler contracted!

    3.0   Thank God for flexible definitions!

    The epistemological shortcomings of relativity become even more pronounced from the inconsistent
    use of the word length. A wooden board is made of small particles called atoms, and the mathematical
    establishment holds that atoms are made of smaller particles yet.

    “ it is now known that the atom can be broken down into a number of smaller
       components.” [1]

    The mainstream hypothesizes that atoms are mostly empty space:

    “ Rutherford’s backscattering experiment] demonstrated that atoms consisted
       of mostly empty space”[2]

    If we add that between atoms there is yet more space, consensus is that a board is mostly empty
    space.

    “ Ordinary matter, or the stuff we and everything around us is made of, consists
       largely of empty space. Even a rock is mostly empty space.”[3]

    However, when mathematicians measure and report the results of the length of a board, they do not
    subtract the empty space from the balance (Fig. 1). They include the entire magnitude as if the object
    had no ‘space bubbles’. In the context of the word length, a board is made of a single piece. From a
    conceptual point of view, mathematical length is continuous. On the other hand, distance is the
    amount of space between two surfaces. Distance refers to the emptiness that separates two particles
    or objects. Distance is qualitatively different from length because it includes only the ‘space bubbles’
    and none of the matter! If matter refers to what is, distance alludes to what isn't. Whereas length is
    conceptually continuous, distance is conceptually discontinuous. Length is all matter and no space;
    distance is all space and no matter. And whereas length between the ends of a conceptually
    continuous object cannot shrink, the measured distance (i.e., distance traveled) between two distinct
    objects can hardly ever be constant.

    The qualitative difference between length and distance now sets the stage to understand what the
    mathematicians are doing with their length contraction theory. Relativists are not talking about length
    contraction, but about decrease in distance between particles comprising an object. Relativists are not
    talking about matter. They are talking about the space separating the surfaces of two or more objects.
    This is a little more than just a semantic objection. Length cannot contract because it is conceptually
    made of a single piece. The word length implies that the object is perfectly rigid and has no space
    bubbles. If at all, it is distance which can vary. If relativists have for 100 years used length instead of
    distance to explain this aspect of their theory it is because they forcefully attempt to apply their stupid
    equation not to motion or to location (distance traveled, separation) as they should, but to
    architecture. They are using a displacement equation (dynamic) in the context of a static scenario: the
    length of an object.

    The reason our bright mathematicians have failed to identify this drawback to their theory is again
    language. The mathematicians define their key words loosely and then amend them retroactively in
    the middle of the dissertation. In high level Mathematics, length is a synonym of distance:

    “ In the physical sciences and engineering, the word ‘length’ is typically used    
       synonymously with ‘distance’, with symbol l or L.”[4]

    Mathematicians define length as the ‘distance’ between two points and distance, as the ‘length’
    between two points. As far as the mathematicians are concerned, they have to unroll the measuring
    tape whether they measure length or distance, so what the hell is the difference? To them, both length
    and distance are dynamic. Therefore, relativists have never found a need to develop physical
    definitions of these terms or to emphasize their qualitative differences. The mathematicians have
    developed only subjective, artificial, and measurement-related definitions of length and distance. This
    is the root of Special Relativity’s supernatural length contraction conclusions. The other half of the
    problem has to do with the eternal bad habit the mathematicians have of relying on circular
    definitions. In Mathematics, a length is a distance and a distance is really a displacement.
Ooooh! Now
that's scary!
the day length contracted