From: titang78@gmail.com   
      
   Le mercredi 26 juin 2019 22:29:30 UTC+2, Tom Roberts a écrit :   
   >   
   > 	Note that "paradox" does not mean "contradiction". Here it   
   > 	means "a seemingly absurd or self-contradictory statement or   
   > 	proposition that when investigated or explained proves to be   
   > 	well founded or true".   
   >   
   > > Ideal direct experimental proof should contain the following steps:   
   > > 1.	Measure the tested object's length at rest, the value l0.   
   > > 2.	Put this object in motion.   
   > > 3.	Measure the object's speed, the value v.   
   > > 4.	Measure the object's length in motion, the value l.   
   > > 5.	Check if these 3 values verify length contraction law.   
   >   
   > OK. Unfortunately, there is no hope of doing this with sufficient   
   > measurement resolution to distinguish between a) no contraction, and b)   
   > the contraction predicted by SR.   
   >   
   >   
   > Tom Roberts   
      
   Thank you for having so carefully read my paper and written the long   
   comment.   
      
   What is sure in my paper is that no direct measurement of length   
   contraction has been done. This is what I'm trying to propose. Of cause   
   most people think like you and believe that Special Relativity is   
   flawless, because it has passed all tests it faced to until now.   
   However, science needs direct proof.   
      
   I will give more elements later.   
      
   PK   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)