### An immortal fumble by Martin Miller (aka Brian D. Jones, Cadwgan Gedrych, Edward Travis, Ron Aikas, Roy Royce, John Reid, Kurt Kingston, ...) (10-Aug-2004)

##### The mathematical proof
 ```> Try to prove what you just said mathematically .... OK, here's the proof: Let the unprimed frame move backward wrt the prime frame. Let c = 1 and let v = 15/17c. Let the unprimed frame's origin clock read zero when event E1 occurs at t = 0.6 and at x = 1. According to the Einsteinian transformation equations, this same event occurred in the primed frame at t' = -0.6 and at x' = 1. As I said, x = x' = 1. Also, since t' = 0 and x' = 0 when t = 0 and x = 0, the two frames' origin clocks were coincident and both were reading zero when E1 occurred. Q.E.D. Of course, no proof is needed for any real relativist because he knows that SR does not have any intrinsic Lorentz contractions. This is why only **you** argued with my original experiment's simple results. Even so, it is easy to prove that SR has no real, physical, or intrinsic contractions. Note that any single rod moving inertially cannot have more than a single physical length, but also note that SR's observers in various frames will find _different_ "lengths" for one and the same passing rod; therefore, SR does not pertain to intrinsic rod length.``` Fumble Index Original post & context: a0ac0bee.0408100918.6c9c0c9e@posting.google.com See also