Sprague defined Contradiction of the Lorentz Contraction.

Don E. Sprague


Copyright 08 August, 2010, updated 13 Jan 2011


A ladder that is too long to fit into a garage will supposedly fit when it is moving because it’s motion supposedly
causes it to shrink.  

This is purely a thought experiment. It is obviously impossible to actually conduct the imaginary experiment.  To have
the ladder or garage move as required is an issue with actually conducting the experiment. The movement of the
doors to close and open at the exact times is another issue. The speed of cameras to record the events is another
issue.  

The experiment is always just as viewed from the garage.  Suppose we consider the ladder as an equally valid frame
for observation.  Using Einstein’s process, the ladder is stationary with the garage moving.  Thus, the garage shrinks
instead of the ladder shrinking.  In this case, the ladder is even longer than the garage so the ladder doesn't fit into
the garage.  

Now simultaneously conduct both the shrinking ladder and shrinking garage experiments with observers in both
frames at the same time.

When considering both the ladder and the garage as equally valid frames of reference, the shrinkage magically
simultaneously occurs to both things.  Since both equally mathematically shrink, then the shrinkage is neutralized.  
Thus, there isn’t any real shrinkage. When just considering the observer in the garage with just the shrinking ladder,
people can be fooled to accept the variable space time math error as justification for accepting Einstein’s relativity.
The dual simultaneous shrinkage of both the ladder and the garage is simply an example of Einstein’s fundamental
flaw that leads to time stopping or ending. It still all goes back to section 9 of his paper where he says a person on
the train isn’t at the mid point between the lights so he doesn’t see simultaneous arrival of the lights. Then he
concludes that the mistaken conclusion becomes fact instead of illusion of an uninformed person.  Thus, the magic
shrinking ladder and garage is a superficial imaginary experiment that actually gives further proof that Einstein’s
relativity is wrong.



The Sprague defined Contradiction of Lorentz contraction has 2 parts
- Simultaneous shrinkage of the ladder and the garage
- The morph shape of the object based on one observer circling the object and the morph shape described by
various observers from different positions or angles going different directions.  


The Simultaneous Shrinkage Contradiction

Lorentz Contraction says the ladder shrinks in the direction of travel as viewed by a stationary observer in the
garage.  

Since frames are equally valid, then an observer on a stationary ladder sees the garage shrink an equal and
opposite amount as the ladder supposedly shrinks. This, according to Lorentz and Einstein relativity,
CALCULATIONS causes the garage to mathematically shrink making the garage even smaller for the already too big
ladder.  Thus, there is mutual and exclusive shrinkage that cancels the other out.  

The reality is that there isn’t shrinkage.  There is simply mathematical shrinkage based on light being constant with
time and space being variable.  A variable times a variable equals a variable.  


Morph shape of Lorentz shrinking objects.  

Lorentz and Einstein say the ladder and garage do actually do shrink but only in the direction of travel as compared
to different observers and compared to which of the objects is thought of moving as moving.  

Consider an observer traveling around an object.  The observed object would supposedly morph in shape as the
observer changes direction of travel around the observed object.  Consider the supposed stress on the earth if it
were to actually morph as a weather satellite travels around taking pictures.  The earth morph stress is
mathematically compounded by the fact that there are many satellites going around the earth.

Using Lorentz and Einstein morph shape of earth, the land and ocean shape is different to each observer.  Weather
observations would have rain and storms in different places based on each land or satellite observer.

The Sprague defined contradiction of Lorentz refutes Lorentz. The ladder and garage aren’t measured to be shorter.
They are calculated to get shorter. There isn’t any measurement of them being shorter. The supposed mathematical
shrinkage is just for the difference in velocity in the direction of travel. Thus, objects have an infinite mathematical
morph shape based on velocity differences by an infinite number of observers going different velocities at different
angles observing the same object.

The reality is that there isn’t real shrinkage.  There is simply mathematical shrinkage bases on Lorentz interpretation
that light is constant instead of relatively constant. Then Einstein build on Lorentz giving us a theory that is known to
have a mathematical flaw that leads to a singularity with time ending.  The flaw has it’s beginning with Lorentz and is
compounded with Einstein Section 9 of his paper where the train observer doesn’t know he is on a moving train so he
naturally moved from the midpoint of the light events.


Sprague demonstration of Galilean transformation vs Lorentz Transformation.  

16, Dec,2010, updated 15, Jan 2011

Copyright Don Edward Sprague


I show two primary variations of the demonstration.  In version one we use a ruler, paper and a marker. In version 2
we use 2 markers and paper.  


Version 1, paper ruler and marker


1 - Attach markers on a rules:
- Attach one marker at the 1 inch mark on the ruler,
- Attach one marker at the 2 inch mark on the ruler,
- Attach one marker at the 3 inch mark on the ruler,

2 - Place the ruler on the top left part of the paper so the markers make marks on the paper.

3 - Move the ruler with the markers diagonally down and along the paper so there are 3 diagonal marks on the paper
from the left top to the middle bottom.  

4 - Hold the ruler while moving the paper to form 3 diagonal lines from the middle bottom of the paper to the top right
of the paper.  

5 - You have three V shape marks on the paper.  
- The left side of the V shape is with the moving ruler frame,
- The right side of the V shape is the moving paper frame.  

6 - Measure the distance between the marks to find the Lorentz Contraction.  

You can’t find any contraction with either frame moving.

In the first case, you have the RULER move.  In the second case, you have the PAPER move.  In both cases, there
was a frame that was considered to be stationary and a frame that was considered to be moving.  You can’t find the
Lorentz contraction in either results.  You do find Classical Mechanics and the Galilean transformation are accurate
in both results.



Version 2, paper and markers.


1 - Place the paper on a flat surface.
2 - Align both markers to be as though they are one marker with two points to mark on the paper.  
If you hold the markers in one hand and move them sideways, you will have two parallel lines

______________________________
______________________________

3 - Hold both makers and move the MARKERS to form a large double V on the paper.  

4 - Turn the paper over.  

5 - Hold both makers and move the PAPER to form a large double V on the paper.  

In the first case, you have the MARKERS move.  In the second case, you have the PAPER move.  In both cases,
there was a frame that was considered to be stationary and a frame that was considered to be moving.  You can’t
find the Lorentz contraction in either results.  You do find Classical Mechanics and the Galilean transformation are
accurate in both results.  

You can’t find a Lorentz Contraction in either demonstration.


Wiki Paradox vs Sprague defined Contradiction of Lorentz contraction.

Update 13 Jan 2011

Discussion of the Sprague defined contradiction of the Lorentz contraction has begun.  It is called a paradox by some
people.  Calling it a paradox without referring to my origination of the argument isn’t valid.  

contraction = shrink.
contradiction = a statement or group of words associating incompatible objects or ideas.

Obviously the Lorentz Contraction came lone before me.

The Sprague defined contradiction of the Lorentz Contraction came from me.  

Wiki Ladder Paradox vs Sprague defined Lorentz contraction contradiction.

The wiki page calls it a paradox instead of the contradiction of Lorentz.  They don’t credit me with pointing out the
contradiction of Lorentz with the simultaneous shrinkage of the ladder and the garage. Perhaps the people who
made the wiki page heard of the Sprague contradiction of Lorentz contraction from others who read my work but didn’
t give credit to my work. In any case, when people use my work, they should refer to my work.  

You can find the Wiki commentary of the Sprague defined Lorentz contraction contradiction at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladder_paradox

Key contradiction of the wiki commentary follow:
[quote=wikilink]
This apparent paradox results from the assumption of absolute simultaneity. In relativity, simultaneity is relative to
each observer and thus the ladder can fit into the garage in both instances.
[/quote]


Thus, the claim is made that Einstein eliminates the problem with the Lorentz contraction.  However; Einstein uses
and builds on Lorentz as a basis and confirmation of his theory that is conditional on simultaneous not being
simultaneous.  The wiki writer requires the ladder to move when it is stationary.

So, Lorentz is the basis and proof of Einstein that validates Lorentz that validates Einstein and the ladder moves
while it is stationary.  

Or, if Lorentz is wrong, then Einstein is wrong.  Then Einstein can’t build on and use Lorentz as validation of this
theory that is used to validate Lorentz’s validation of Einstein.


[quote=wikilink]
Conversely, through symmetry, from the reference frame of the ladder it is the garage that is moving with a relative
velocity and so it is the garage that undergoes a length contraction. From this perspective, the garage is made even
smaller and it is impossible to fit the ladder into the garage
[/quote]

Here the wiki writer properly uses the ladder as stationary with the garage moving.  

[quote=wikilink]
The solution to the apparent paradox lies in the fact that what one observer (e.g. the garage) considers as
simultaneous does not correspond to what the other observer (e.g. the ladder) considers as simultaneous (relative
simultaneity).
[/quote]

The wiki writer goes back to Einstein eliminates the problem with the Lorentz contraction even though Einstein uses
and builds on Lorentz as a basis and confirmation of his theory that is conditional on simultaneous not being
simultaneous.  The wiki writer says the ladder must move when it is stationary.

[quote=wikilink]
The garage is a small one, G=10 feet long, while in the ladder frame, the ladder is L=12 feet long. In the garage
frame, the front of the ladder will hit the back of the garage at time (if tD = tO = 0 is chosen as the reference point).
[/quote]

Here the wiki writer uses 2 feet difference in length.  My spread sheet won’t calculate the Lorentz contraction with the
ladder 10 feet long.  It will allow me to calculate the ladder or garage speed if one of them is a mile long.  

Using Lorentz contraction, to have mile long ladder shrink 2 feet, there has to be a difference of about 18,500,000
mph between the garage and ladder.   

[quote=wikilink]
This is shown as event A on the diagram. All lines parallel to the garage x axis will be simultaneous according to the
garage observer, so the dark blue line AB will be what the garage observer sees as the ladder at the time of event A.
The ladder is contained inside the garage. However, from the point of view of the observer on the ladder, the dark
red line AC is what the ladder observer sees as the ladder. The back of the ladder is outside the garage.
[/quote]

Here the wiki writer says the: [b] garage as stationary[/b]
- To the garage observer, the ladder fits,
- To the ladder observer, the ladder doesn’t fit.  

[quote=wikilink]
From the reference frame of the ladder, it is
the garage that is moving, and so in order to be stopped with respect
to the garage,
the ladder must accelerate into the reference frame of the garage. All parts of the ladder cannot
accelerate simultaneously because of relative simultaneity. What happens is that each part of the ladder accelerates
sequentially, front to back, until finally the back end of the ladder accelerates when it is within the garage, the result
of which is that, from the reference frame of the ladder, the front parts undergo length contraction sequentially until
the entire ladder fits into the garage
[/quote]

Here the wiki writer says:  from the ladder frame giving us a
stationary ladder
- The ladder must accelerate so it fits.  That is, the stationary ladder must move so it can shrink.

The ladder isn't moving so it doesn't accelerate. There isn't any simultaneous issue about the front or back of the
stationary ladder accelerating at different times.


[quote=wikilink]
In this case, by the time the front of the ladder collides with the back door, the back of the ladder does not know it
yet, so it keeps moving forwards (and the ladder kind of "compresses"). In both the frame of the garage and the
inertial frame of the ladder, the back end keeps moving at the time of the collision, until at least the point where the
back of the ladder comes into the light cone of the collision (i.e. a point where force moving backwards at the speed
of light from the point of the collision will reach it). At this point the ladder is actually shorter than the original
contracted length, so the back end is well inside the garage. Calculations in both frames of reference will show this to
be the case.
[/quote]

Here the wiki writer again says
the ladder is the moving frame regardless of which is stationary so the ladder
shrinks in both cases.

That is;
- With the stationary garage, the ladder moves and shrinks.  
- With the
stationary ladder, the garage and LADDER moves so the ladder shrinks,.  

With a stationary ladder, it doesn’t move.  

Thus,  the contraction is simply mathematical but doesn’t really happen. That is because, with Lorentz constant light,
his math applies to both the ladder and the garage.  Thus, the simultaneous shrinkage with the equal shrinkage of
the opposite observed frames canceling the other.


With relative light, the math has light in each frame accurately measure the distances as fixed. There isn’t a
contradiction with relative light.  Both the garage and the ladder retain their length regardless of the motion of any
observer frame.  



Copyright Don E Sprague   
The Sprague defined Contradiction



Since frames are equal,  then the garage shrinks to the
ladder observer while the ladder shrinks to the garage
observer.