Single-Particle Electrodynamics - Assassination Science

than considering the rest frame of the object being measured of fundamental
importance. Of course, the difference is that the rest frame of a moving
particle is “tilted” in spacetime relative to the frame in which it is seen to
move with velocity v; the “contraction” notion obfuscates the presence of
this “tilt”. (Indeed, if the “ends” of the body are measured at constant
proper time for the body, their three-separation is actually lengthened, not
contracted, as the Lorentz transformation shows; it is the presence of the
corresponding difference in time between the two “ends” of the body that
ensures that its invariant length is a constant.)
Of course, the concept of the “FitzGerald–Lorentz contraction” played an
important rôle in the development of the relativistic theory, and is given due
historical respect by the author; but nevertheless one should begin weeding
it out of one’s fundamental conceptual framework, since it is, in itself, not a
fully-ripened concept, and can lead one on quite erroneous paths of logic if
applied recklessly.
3.2.2 Einsteinian rigidity
We now turn to Einstein’s concept of rigidity, as illustrated by the quote at
the head of this chapter: namely, that the body is always of some predetermined
three-geometrical shape in its instantaneous rest-frame. The author
cannot improve on Pearle’s concise and accurate review [168] of this topic,
one of the many instructive sections in his 1982 review of classical electron
models, and so will reproduce it here verbatim (for logistical simplicity, citation
references to the author’s Bibliography are added in square brackets):
Fermi (1922) [83, 84, 85], Wilson (1936) [242], Kwal (1949) [128],
and Rohrlich (1960) [178] found another way to construct a relativistically
invariant theory that is more in keeping with Abraham’s
[1, 2] original economical notion of avoiding discussion of
mechanical forces. The electron is to move in such a way that a
102