> http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ball0402/papers/montreal-may04.pdf
> "Let us discuss the difference between Einstein’s and Lorentz’spoints
> of view still further...It is...of great value that Einstein rendered
> the theory independent of any assumptions about the constitution of
> matter. Should one, then,...completely abandon any attempt to explain
> the Lorentz contraction atomistically? We think the answer to this
> question should be No. The contraction of a measuring rod is not an
> elementary but a very complicated process. It would not take place
> except for the covariance with respect to the Lorentz group of the
> basic equations of the electron theory, as well as of those laws, as
> yet unknown to us, which determine the cohesion of the electron
> itself. We can only postulate that this is so, knowing that then the
> theory will be capable of explaining atomistically the behaviour of
> moving rods and clocks." (Pauli, Theory of Relativity, 1921)
>
> Einsteinians love Pauli but are reluctant to explain length
> contraction "atomistically". They used to teach Einstein zombie world
> that the effect is "one of perspective" but now neither teachers nor
> students think the effect is "one of perspective". They don't even ...

> http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ball0402/papers/montreal-may04.pdf
> "Let us discuss the difference between Einstein’s and Lorentz’spoints
> of view still further...It is...of great value that Einstein rendered
> the theory independent of any assumptions about the constitution of
> matter. Should one, then,...completely abandon any attempt to explain
> the Lorentz contraction atomistically? We think the answer to this
> question should be No. The contraction of a measuring rod is not an
> elementary but a very complicated process. It would not take place
> except for the covariance with respect to the Lorentz group of the
> basic equations of the electron theory, as well as of those laws, as
> yet unknown to us, which determine the cohesion of the electron
> itself. We can only postulate that this is so, knowing that then the
> theory will be capable of explaining atomistically the behaviour of
> moving rods and clocks." (Pauli, Theory of Relativity, 1921)
>
> Einsteinians love Pauli but are reluctant to explain length
> contraction "atomistically". They used to teach Einstein zombie world
> that the effect is "one of perspective" but now neither teachers nor
> students think the effect is "one of perspective". They don't even ...

> On Jun 15, 7:48 pm, Pentcho Valev yahoo.com> wrote:
>

>> http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ball0402/papers/montreal-may04.pdf
>> "Let us discuss the difference between Einstein’s and Lorentz’spoints
>> of view still further...It is...of great value that Einstein rendered
>> the theory independent of any assumptions about the constitution of
>> matter. Should one, then,...completely abandon any attempt to explain
>> the Lorentz contraction atomistically? We think the answer to this
>> question should be No. The contraction of a measuring rod is not an
>> elementary but a very complicated process. It would not take place
>> except for the covariance with respect to the Lorentz group of the
>> basic equations of the electron theory, as well as of those laws, as
>> yet unknown to us, which determine the cohesion of the electron
>> itself. We can only postulate that this is so, knowing that then the
>> theory will be capable of explaining atomistically the behaviour of
>> moving rods and clocks." (Pauli, Theory of Relativity, 1921)

>

>> Einsteinians love Pauli but are reluctant to explain length
>> contraction "atomistically". They used to teach Einstein zombie world ...

>On Jun 15, 7:48 pm, Pentcho Valev yahoo.com> wrote:

>> http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ball0402/papers/montreal-may04.pdf
>> "Let us discuss the difference between EinsteinÂ’s and LorentzÂ’spoints
>> of...

> On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 20:53:33 -0700 (PDT),xxeinbellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>

>>On Jun 15, 7:48 pm, Pentcho Valev yahoo.com> wrote:

>>>http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ball0402/papers/montreal-may04.pdf
>>> "Let us discuss the difference between Einstein’s and Lorentz’spoints
>>> of view still further...It is...of great value that Einstein rendered
>>> the theory independent of any assumptions about the constitution of
>>> matter. Should one, then,...completely abandon any attempt to explain
>>> the Lorentz contraction atomistically? We think the answer to this
>>> question should be No. The contraction of a measuring rod is not an
>>> elementary but a very complicated process. It would not take place
>>> except for the covariance with respect to the Lorentz group of the
>>> basic equations of the electron theory, as well as of those laws, as
>>> yet unknown to us, which determine the cohesion of the electron ...

> http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ball0402/papers/montreal-may04.pdf
> "Let us discuss the difference between Einstein’s and Lorentz’spoints
> of view still further...It is...of great value that Einstein rendered
> the theory independent of any assumptions about the constitution of
> matter. Should one, then,...completely abandon any attempt to explain
> the Lorentz contraction atomistically? We think the answer to this
> question should be No. The contraction of a measuring rod is not an
> elementary but a very complicated process. It would not take place
> except for the covariance with respect to the Lorentz group of the
> basic equations of the electron theory, as well as of those laws, as
> yet unknown to us, which determine the cohesion of the electron
> itself. We can only postulate that this is so, knowing that then the
> theory will be capable of explaining atomistically the behaviour of
> moving rods and clocks." (Pauli, Theory of Relativity, 1921)
>
> Einsteinians love Pauli but are reluctant to explain length
> contraction "atomistically". They used to teach Einstein zombie world
> that the effect is "one of perspective" but now neither teachers nor
> students think the effect is "one of perspective". They don't even ...

> What physicist mean by "real" has changed for them numerous times.
>
> In the past (~1900+) "real" had its usual meaning and Einstein's
> length contraction was coined "apparent" (projection, effet de
> perspective, etc).
> Many years later, (these days) physicist changed their meaning of the
> word "real". "Real" now means the value obtained by the measurement,
> which was the "effect de perspective". So now the Lor.Contract is
> called "real".

>> proposition: Instead of using words "real, rigid ..." , just discard
>> them  and call it "measured as...".

>
> measured as would still have 2 meanings..
> measured with a beam of light that can bend and cause a path
> that will not be straight to get physical measurement accuruacy
> of true distance between A and B.
>
> and then you have physical measurement of A to B
> using a stright edge (no curving at all)
> The physical method always wins.
> That is why triangulation is never wrong.
> If the physical method (classical) is proven wrong,
> Triangulation will really be mad at you.
> :)