We don't prove real contraction with equations or experiments
 Adapted for the Internet from:Why God Doesn't Exist
 Fig. 1   Objective length contraction: Real versus ApparentorThe Way of Physics
 Two comets are about to collide at a point calculated in advance. The larger comet is traveling at  near-c; therefore, relativity predicts that it will contractin the direction of travel. Here I illustrate two scenarios merely to underscore the meaning of the word 'real' for the purposes of the instant explanation.Left: If length contraction is merely an optical illusion andcosmetic, the large comet does NOT contract in actuality andthe little comet crashes into it, squashing the naïve relativist.(Sorry! I just couldn't resist pulverizing him!)Right: If the larger comet contracts in actuality as predicted byrelativity, the collision never happens.
 Apparent contraction
 Real contraction

I only pray that relativists will have no qualms about regarding the ‘1 inch’ or the ‘physical contact’ as close enough frames
of reference to be ‘common’ to both comets. I can’t get two objects any closer than ‘collision’ to satisfy their ever-flanking
criteria for frames of reference. Likewise, I should hope that ‘collision’ is close enough time-wise for their taste to qualify as
simultaneous. If my baseball bat leaves a one-inch lump on a relativist’s head, most people tend to conclude that the two
wooden objects made interface at the same time. The morons of relativity come up with so many idiotic objections to save
their theory at all costs that they force you to cover every base.

Therefore, we will not measure the final size of the comet the subjective, relativistic way, with yardsticks, numbers, and
malleable definitions. We will also not attempt to predict what will happen with a mathematical formula. We are not
interested in making predictions. In Science, we don't do predictions. That's the stuff of astrologers, palm readers, and
relativists. In Science, we explain what happened. We will measure the size of the comets objectively: with a collision.
We will certify what actually occurred after the fact (i.e., after the physical event takes place). If the comets miss each
other, it is only because their respective lengths suffered real contraction and this confirms relativity. Otherwise, speed
had no effect on their respective lengths and they crash into each other, in which case relativity is absolute bunk!

I argue next that whatever explanation Special Relativity proposes for real length contraction violates both QM and logic.
We have no need to run an experiment or perform any kind of calculation.

 (e.g.,100 meters 'measured' as 30 meters)
 (e.g., 100 meters 'actually compressed' to 30 meters)

1.0   Is length contraction real or cosmetic?

Einstein never intended for his length contraction theory to be taken literally. This becomes clear in his original paper where
he introduces a rigid rod as the subject of his gedanken experiment:

“ Let there be given a stationary rigid rod; and let its length be l as measured by a
measuring-rod which is also stationary.” [1]

In this context, the word rigid means that the rod cannot contract. The rod is assumed to be made of a single piece. This
means that any contraction we detect will necessarily be the result of an optical illusion.

Einstein also makes it absolutely clear that length contraction is a cosmetic issue of measurement and perceptions. He tells
us that different observers will simply arrive at different results:

“ rAB denotes the length of the moving rod – measured in the stationary system…
two events which, viewed from a system of co-ordinates, are simultaneous, can
no longer be looked upon as simultaneous events when envisaged from a system
which is in motion relatively to that system.” [2]

Taken together, these statements render Einstein’s claims worthless. If his perfectly ‘rigid’ rod just looks or is measured to
be smaller, this concerns mathematicians, fashion designers, and perhaps psychiatrists. It doesn’t concern Physics.

There is at least one Special Relativity sect, however, which claims that a boy actually contracts when he travels at near the
speed of light and becomes so flattened-out that he practically disappears. Indeed, this should follow from Einstein’s belief
that no object can travel at exactly the speed of light due to the fact that its structure would vanish. When Pastor Al states
this, he is no longer referring to a trivial measurement made by an observer. Einstein is saying that the boy who travels at
exactly c will physically vanish! Therefore, Einstein cannot have it both ways. He is in effect proposing or at least implying
that there is a physical effect, a loss of substance during near-c speeds. This being the case, then yes, Physics is interested
in verifying this supernatural claim.

2.0   How will we verify length contraction?

The problem with real length contraction is that there is no objective way to verify this allegation with a direct measurement.
Einstein claims that if the boy-astronaut turns the corner, slows down, and catches up with us, the boy returns to his natural
size and we will not notice any change. What a convenient theory!

But maybe I can offer a couple of suggestions to eliminate subjectivity from the discussion. Objectivity demands that we
remove the observer. Consistency demands that we define our terms unambiguously, specifically the word real. By removing
the observer, I hope to deprive relativists of testimony (i.e., measurement), an ingredient they unnecessarily introduce into
qualitative situations. By defining my terms rigorously, I hope to avoid circular discussion. The reader should keep in mind
that the establishment will object to these seemingly inoffensive suggestions because they threaten the very foundations
painstakingly laid down since the days of the Greeks. Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and String Theory thrive on testimony
and semantic circularity. Without these loopholes, these religions have no chance.

In order to determine what is wrong with 'real' length contraction, I will begin by defining the term real as ‘independent of
observers’. I propose the following standard with the aim of preventing relativists from copping-out through loopholes
(mathematics, simultaneity, frames of reference, etc.). Let’s assume that there are two comets, A and B, traveling at near-c
on a perpendicular collision course. Comet A is X meters or miles long (i.e., it is big). (I hope that this description is
mathematically specific enough.) If the diameter of A remains unaltered (meaning that length contraction is just cosmetic),
the comets collide  (Fig. 1, scenario depicted on the left). If A’s diameter shrinks by about two-thirds (i.e., suffers a real,
physical ‘length contraction’), B misses A by a tad (Fig. 1, scenario depicted on the right). It’s just that simple! We need no
ulers, rods, equations, or numbers to solve this matter. Either the comets collide or they miss each other. This is strictly a
conceptual issue and not one involving an experiment or an observation. The purpose of this thought experiment is not to
prove or to predict. It is to understand the word real before we carry out an experiment. This is what I mean by real! No math,
no observers, no testimony, no bull!
 Gimme back my pants, you stupid woman! Don't you know anything about relativity? The pants are going to contract if you wash them that fast!

b.   Contraction from the observer's perspective:

c.   Real contraction:

This page:  We don't prove real contraction with equations or experiments

________________________________________________________________________________________