Is a length contraction just a visual thing?

absolute-space said:
If you believe the speed of light was a way to synchronise clocks, i.e the caesium atom, and these clocks showed a discrepancy in the speed of light frequency of the atom, this would show the speed of light is not constant a variant and time is not affected in any way.
Click to expand...
Yet it is. Relativity is why. Time dilation (the rate at which time proceeds) is different everywhere bound or unbound energy propagates. For unbound energy (light), this is easy for us to verify. But from a photon's 'point of view' (which doesn't even exist because time stops and observations are not possible), it can literally cross the known universe in an instant (not an interval) of time. For bound energy, propagation in every direction simultaneously in a single instant (not an interval) of time is likewise possible.

The difference between the two respective modes of propagation is the foundation of both time itself, and the speed of light as the universal upper limit for the propagation of bound or unbound energy RELATIVE TO "at rest", defined by ±c, rotating or linear, in any FoR.
 
Last edited:
absolute-space said:
Yes I thought it was, thanks , the confusion comes when people claim other facts which is not facts .
Click to expand...
I changed the working of my post and forgot to remmove the word "not" but it is removed now. Unforuntly you quoted me be for that got done. Just to be clear, any one riding on the train will measure it as always 100m long. He can do this with meter stick or by carefully timing the delay of a light flashed at the end of the train and then reflected by a mirror at the front of the train.
 
absolute-space said:
And you measure of the atom?
Click to expand...
Look, I get that you don't know how an atomic clock works. If this is the case, why did you bring them up? Is it because you got a half-assed idea that maybe it supported your point? danshawmen is the king of this sort of behavior: he really understands about half of what he is talking about and merely assumes the other half, even though he is usually grossly mistaken. If you want to get a reputation of having a bad understanding of science, there is little better that you could do than to imitate danshawen.
 
particles are physical energy + particles contract at high rates of speed = physical contraction
consist of physical energy particles + particles contract at high rates of speed + objects being physical themselves = evidence
 
PhysBang said:
Look, I get that you don't know how an atomic clock works. If this is the case, why did you bring them up? Is it because you got a half-assed idea that maybe it supported your point? danshawmen is the king of this sort of behavior: he really understands about half of what he is talking about and merely assumes the other half, even though he is usually grossly mistaken. If you want to get a reputation of having a bad understanding of science, there is little better that you could do than to imitate danshawen.
Click to expand...
You clearly do not understand what a frequency is and how a contracting frequency does not affect space time.
 
absolute-space said:
You clearly do not understand what a frequency is and how a contracting frequency does not affect space time.
Click to expand...
So you say. Yet you are the one who seemed to think that atomic clocks use their atoms in synchronizing. As this is clearly false, your attack here seems pretty weak and desperate. So far, you have ignored the various attempts I have made to help you. You can either demonstrate to others that you would rather attack someone trying to help you or you could try to understand the help.

As it stands right now, you are providing evidence to everyone that you are merely another deluded crank with an agenda.
 
PhysBang said:
As it stands right now, you are providing evidence to everyone that you are merely another deluded crank with an agenda.
Click to expand...

And yet they are continually allowed to post their nonsense as legit science within the science threads.
Can James please explain?
 
krash661 said:
particles are physical energy + particles contract at high rates of speed = physical contraction
consist of physical energy particles + particles contract at high rates of speed + objects being physical themselves = evidence
Click to expand...
PhysBang said:
So you say. Yet you are the one who seemed to think that atomic clocks use their atoms in synchronizing. As this is clearly false, your attack here seems pretty weak and desperate. So far, you have ignored the various attempts I have made to help you. You can either demonstrate to others that you would rather attack someone trying to help you or you could try to understand the help.

As it stands right now, you are providing evidence to everyone that you are merely another deluded crank with an agenda.
Click to expand...
Those are your words , not mine, where do I mention atomic clocks use their atoms in synchronising?
 
absolute-space said:
Those are your words , not mine, where do I mention atomic clocks use their atoms in synchronising?
Click to expand...
I wrote: 'If you believe that the speed of light is a way to synchronize clocks, then you have to believe that an object is shorter relative to any possible ruler moving relative to that object. This is not merely a visual effect, this "rotation" happens for any possible physical interaction, since we can consider any possible interaction to be a form of measurement of the size of the object, i.e., where we will find the object to be.'

You wrote in reply: 'If you believe the speed of light was a way to synchronise clocks, i.e the caesium atom, and these clocks showed a discrepancy in the speed of light frequency of the atom, this would show the speed of light is not constant a variant and time is not affected in any way'

By writing specifically, "the speed of light was a way to synchronise clocks, i.e the caesium atom," you are saying that "the caesium atom" is a means of synchronizing clocks. So, yeah, you wrote it.

It was a fairly pathetic attempt to avoid the real issue, i.e., the use of light to synchronize clocks and all that it entails.
 
PhysBang said:
I wrote: 'If you believe that the speed of light is a way to synchronize clocks, then you have to believe that an object is shorter relative to any possible ruler moving relative to that object. This is not merely a visual effect, this "rotation" happens for any possible physical interaction, since we can consider any possible interaction to be a form of measurement of the size of the object, i.e., where we will find the object to be.'

You wrote in reply: 'If you believe the speed of light was a way to synchronise clocks, i.e the caesium atom, and these clocks showed a discrepancy in the speed of light frequency of the atom, this would show the speed of light is not constant a variant and time is not affected in any way'

By writing specifically, "the speed of light was a way to synchronise clocks, i.e the caesium atom," you are saying that "the caesium atom" is a means of synchronizing clocks. So, yeah, you wrote it.

It was a fairly pathetic attempt to avoid the real issue, i.e., the use of light to synchronize clocks and all that it entails.
Click to expand...
Being selective in the sentence edit to cover your mistake is dishonest of you, it says ''If you believe the speed of light was a way to synchronise clocks,''

since when does if you , mean me exactly?
 
absolute-space said:
Being selective in the sentence edit to cover your mistake is dishonest of you, it says ''If you believe the speed of light was a way to synchronise clocks,''

since when does if you , mean me exactly?
Click to expand...
You really are a buffoon. You accuse me of being "selective in the sentence edit" while you selectively quote the part of my post that is not about your own post.

That is either some grade A stupidity or some grade A dishonesty. Either way, you need to go.
 
PhysBang said:
You really are a buffoon. You accuse me of being "selective in the sentence edit" while you selectively quote the part of my post that is not about your own post.

That is either some grade A stupidity or some grade A dishonesty. Either way, you need to go.
Click to expand...
I have been here 2 days, this forum is seemingly very hostile to outsiders who do not comply with their narcissistic posts as if trying to control a person.

Moderators , can I ask why you put up with this off these individuals?
 
absolute-space said:
I have been here 2 days, this forum is seemingly very hostile to outsiders who do not comply with their narcissistic posts as if trying to control a person.

Moderators , can I ask why you put up with this off these individuals?
Click to expand...
Go back and read the "selective in the sentence edit" post again and see what you missed. We'll see if you apologize for your behavior.
 
PhysBang said:
Go back and read the "selective in the sentence edit" post again and see what you missed. We'll see if you apologize for your behavior.
Click to expand...
What ? why are you trying to derail this thread with worthless banter and argument?

I wrote 'If you believe the speed of light was a way to synchronise clocks, i.e the caesium atom, and these clocks showed a discrepancy in the speed of light frequency of the atom, this would show the speed of light is not constant a variant and time is not affected in any way'

you wrote -'' By writing specifically, "the speed of light was a way to synchronise clocks, i.e the caesium atom," you are saying that "the caesium atom" is a means of synchronizing clocks. So, yeah, you wrote it.''

Clearly missing the if you off, I suggest you go back and learn to read English .

Please stop your childish games.
 
absolute-space said:
What ? why are you trying to derail this thread with worthless banter and argument?

I wrote 'If you believe the speed of light was a way to synchronise clocks, i.e the caesium atom, and these clocks showed a discrepancy in the speed of light frequency of the atom, this would show the speed of light is not constant a variant and time is not affected in any way'

you wrote -'' By writing specifically, "the speed of light was a way to synchronise clocks, i.e the caesium atom," you are saying that "the caesium atom" is a means of synchronizing clocks. So, yeah, you wrote it.''

Clearly missing the if you off, I suggest you go back and learn to read English .

Please stop your childish games.
Click to expand...
Do you know what "i.e." means?
 
Length contraction is only ever evident in the direction of travel at relativistic speeds.
It has been evidenced and verified many many times, and along with time dilation are two postulates of SR.
And as origin has stipulated, it also depends on one's frame of reference.
Absolute space and absolute time are an archaic concept that we once presumed as common sense but which no longer holds, as effects are only seen/felt at relativistic speeds. Due to the very minimalistic effects of time dilation and length contraction at sub relativistic speeds, its obvious why such facts were not observed or evident until the 20th century.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top