An Elucidation of the Symmetry of Length Contraction Predicted by the Special Theory of Relativity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, consider a rod A (inertial frame A) and rod B (inertial frame B) moving at constant velocity relative to each other. Assume that the lengths of two rods are equal when they are stationary. According to the STR, when length in the direction of motion of rod B, moving at constant velocity, is measured from inertial frame A, the rod contracts in the direction of motion. Also, the time which elapses on clock in inertial frame B is delayed compared to the time which elapses on clock in inertial frame A. If, conversely, inertial frame A is measured from inertial frame B, rod A contracts in the direction of motion, and the time which elapses on clock is delayed. However, according to classical common sense, if rod B contracts when measured from inertial frame A, then rod A measured from rod B must be longer than rod B. Thus, this paper discusses the symmetry of rod contraction, and elucidates this problem. It is found, based on the discussion in this paper, that the contraction of a rod includes true physical contraction, and relativistic contraction obtained due to measurement using the method indicated by Einstein. However, in the STR, any two inertial frames are equivalent, and therefore is not possible to accept points such as the fact that reasons for contraction are different. This paper concludes that STR is not a theory which describes the objective state of reality.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".