Again an accusation that I am trying to disprove or prove something, I do not have to prove anything I am the one who asked a question and asked for proof, if science is unable to provide the absolute proof then why not just say so?
You are seemingly being stubborn in providing the evidence other than words.
''All frames are reference are as valid as each other'', have I said they are not?
I like your attitude, absolute_space. Two reference frames are invariant: one (at rest, <c) for bound energy or matter, and one (=c) for unbound energy.
I have told you that Lorentz contracted lengths are equivalent to Doppler shifts, and as usual, everyone simply ignores this:
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/meter.html
"The 1889 definition of the meter, based upon the artifact international prototype of platinum-iridium, was replaced by the CGPM in 1960 using a definition based upon a wavelength of krypton-86 radiation. This definition was adopted in order to reduce the uncertainty with which the meter may be realized. In turn, to further reduce the uncertainty, in 1983 the CGPM replaced this latter definition by the following definition:
The meter is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second."
But there is nothing magical about the selection of a krypton-86 atom for our standard meter length other than convenience. We could replace the standard with a number of wavelengths of a
LASER CAVITY.
Assume a
ONE meter length laser cavity that is in a frame moving
ENDWISE at relativistic speed with respect to a frame at rest. Both ends of the cavity are half-silvered, so that laser light can escape either end. As the cavity approaches, the wavelength of the laser cavity is
BLUE SHIFTED. When the laser cavity passes the point at which the observer at rest is standing, it will appear
RED SHIFTED. To determine how long the laser cavity was,
YOU SIMPLY AVERAGE the
BLUE,
RED shifted frequencies to find their frequency in the
REST FRAME.
You have also clocked the speed of the moving laser cavity as it passed your position (<c) with a chirped laser speed gun.
TO FIND WHETHER OR NOT THE LORENTZ CONTRACTION VIEWED IS "REAL" OR NOT, YOU SIMPLY APPLY THE LORENTZ TRANSFORMATIONS OF LENGTH AND TIME FOR THE VELOCITY MEASURED WITH THE SPEED GUN AND ASSUME THE SPEED OF LIGHT WILL BE INVARIANT (MEASURE THE SAME) IN THE MOVING FRAME AS IT DOES IN THE REST FRAME. No preferred FoRs here.
Is length contraction "real?".
YES. Is time dilation "real?".
YES. Is there a "preferred" reference frame? Actually there are TWO INVARIANT reference frames here: "AT REST" for bound energy (matter), and "MOVING AT C" for unbound energy, such as photons. Both of these frames must be defined and exist in order for the speed of light to be invariant at all, because if something moves (even a photon), it must move RELATIVE to something else. However there is no preferred frames in terms of the moving, at rest laser cavity. If the rest frame had a stationary laser cavity of the same design, the same calculations of length contraction and time dilation, as well as respective Doppler shifts would apply to measurements made from the moving frame. The situations are symmetrical with respect to each other, as you might expect.
But there is no equivalent of an absolute position for the laser cavity that both observers can simultaneously agree on, nor an absolute instant that is an origin for temporal coordinates. That being the case, the whole idea of an INTERVAL based on vector additions of absolute positions in higher order Euclidean spaces as something invariant is ludicrous.
Be that as it may, there is no such thing as an absolute position or an absolute origin of an absolute position, other than the geometric centers of bound particles of energy that is matter, and none of those absolute positions are really absolute in terms of anything other than the positions of other such particles that are in the same rest frame, which is almost never the case.
A fixed origin attached to inertialess empty space is simply a deranged mathematical fantasy, and it doesn't matter who does it or for what reason. Whenever a mathematician is asked to specify from which end (or from the center) a Lorentz contracted length a meter stick or our laser cavity contracts, they invariably toss out a mathematical convention that has no justification or basis in mathematics, physics, or anything else. If there is not a convention for this, how can there possibly be a convention relating to whether a selected origin of a coordinate system in space is "off" by ± an arbitrary contracted length l? There isn't. There can't be.
So if you were confused at the beginning of this thread, now you really should be scratching your head and saying something like "what the?". This much is a normal reaction.
Enjoy and embrace the confusion. It's actually much better than the alternative.
Since relativistic effects are really only evident at relativistic speeds, I doubt that you have actually measured any length contraction.
