Poincare's relativity (split from essence of relativity)

[Tim88]

roflmao.gif

 

Hehe yeah. Well, in fact, of course, as discussed all along since post #8, there is (in principle) an empirical difference with the school of teaching according to which the explanation by Poincare that a moving magnetic field causes atoms and molecules to "contract" in that direction is wrong, because, if you had a series of rods with spaces in between, that would not cause the space in between to equally contract.

 

That school of thought* has died out since the publication of Bell's spaceship paradox. As we now have more than sufficiently discussed here, it has become generally accepted that the space between the rockets will indeed not auto-magically equally contract as the rockets contract (in which case the thin string between the rockets could not break). If, as it seems, the originator of that objection to Poincare won't come back to comment on the discussion that it initiated, then I will also abstain from further comments.

 

*Wikipedia sketches that now defunct school of thought as follows: "they are all subject to the same Lorentz contraction, so the entire assembly seems to be equally contracted in the S frame with respect to the length at the start."

Edited June 30, 2017 by Tim88

[VandD]

To be honnest, I completely lost track of what the real issue is. Or worse, I probably never understood what it is all about. That's not the first time when I read Tim posts... Mea culpa.