Is a length contraction just a visual thing?

[origin]

You clearly do not know how light has to reflect of an object and into your eyes to see that object,

You are so monumentally confused nothing is clear to you. Photons emited from an object must enter our eyes to see the object, that is trivially obvious.

what do you propose of space reflects light to show a red shift ?

I will make a guess at what this is suppose to mean. I think you are asking how does a red shift occur.
There are several ways to make a red shift/blue shift, here is one.
If there is a relative motion between a light source and a reciever then the relative velocity will result in the reciever detecting a different wavelength from the emitted wavelength. If the distance between the reciever and the source is increasing the wavelength will be longer, red shifted. If the reciever and source are moving towards each other the the wavelength will be shorter, blue shifted.
If by chance you disagree with this, you should know that is exactly how radar speed guns work. So if you get a speeding ticket maybe you try convincing the judge that the radar guns don't really work, according to your 'theory'.

 

[origin]

Absolute-space you should realize that the chance of you coming up with anything new or useful in physics has about the same probability of you kicking the winning goal in the World Cup or discovering a pill that cures cancer. You don't enough knowledge of physics to even have a discussion about the basics and here you are trying to make new theories and stating you are going to revolutionize physics. You are living in a fantasy world. But don't let that stop you - carry on....

 

[danshawen]

You clearly do not know how light has to reflect of an object and into your eyes to see that object, what do you propose of space reflects light to show a red shift ?

We are in agreement space is not opaque.

Maybe one of the other members can clear this disagreement of understanding up?

Light travels in what we recognize as something similar to a geometric space by inertial interaction with that quantum field. It also reflects from planar surfaces of metallic solid, liquid, or dielectrics with various reflective, refringent or birefringent materials with a high degree of geometric accuracy in terms of duplicating the angle of incidence with the angle of reflection.

Doppler shifts of energy are akin to (but not identical) to your original query about length contractions. Linear kinetic energy is partly stored in terms of the inertial bound energy, appearing as an apparent increase in inertial mass by means of relativity's gamma factor.

 

[absolute-space]

You are so monumentally confused nothing is clear to you. Photons emited from an object must enter our eyes to see the object, that is trivially obvious.

I will make a guess at what this is suppose to mean. I think you are asking how does a red shift occur.
There are several ways to make a red shift/blue shift, here is one.
If there is a relative motion between a light source and a reciever then the relative velocity will result in the reciever detecting a different wavelength from the emitted wavelength. If the distance between the reciever and the source is increasing the wavelength will be longer, red shifted. If the reciever and source are moving towards each other the the wavelength will be shorter, blue shifted.
If by chance you disagree with this, you should know that is exactly how radar speed guns work. So if you get a speeding ticket maybe you try convincing the judge that the radar guns don't really work, according to your 'theory'.

I know how the doppler effect works. You have claimed that space is expanding, I replied no, the light length between the source and receiver is extending. Blue shift and red shift is not an observation of light moving away from you, both observations are photons entering your eyes moving towards you. I mentioned space does not redshift because space reflects no light, there has to be two source points to observe a redshift.

Like I said, maybe somebody else will clear this up, but it is evidently true by your own contradiciton in your very own explanation.

 

[danshawen]

Absolute-space you should realize that the chance of you coming up with anything new or useful in physics has about the same probability of you kicking the winning goal in the World Cup or discovering a pill that cures cancer. You don't enough knowledge of physics to even have a discussion about the basics and here you are trying to make new theories and stating you are going to revolutionize physics. You are living in a fantasy world. But don't let that stop you - carry on....

Your opinion is duly noted and appreciated, Origin. I hope you were more specific about what part(s) of what I wrote is pseudoscience than paddoboy, brucep, or PhysBang were. If it really pains you to read those, please put me on 'ignore' and the same advice goes to anyone else it may bother. I have no plan to ignore you however. If the moderators agree with you, I have no choice but to accept their judgement, but I'm really not trying to be that irritating. I just hate inconsistency enough to try and resolve it. This is one way, perhaps not the best. But it is mine.

 

[danshawen]

I know how the doppler effect works. You have claimed that space is expanding, I replied no, the light length between the source and receiver is extending. Blue shift and red shift is not an observation of light moving away from you, both observations are photons entering your eyes moving towards you. I mentioned space does not redshift because space refelcts no light, there has to be two source points to observe a redshift.

Like I said, maybe somebody else will clear this up, but it is evidently true by your own contradiciton in your very own explanation.

i don't believe I ever claimed that space (cosmological?) is expanding. However, there IS type 1A supernova (and NOT microwave CMBR) data to support this idea.

Space is light travel time, but it is NOT the origin of time itself, evidently. Recording a Doppler shift in any given direction requires a reference frame in motion and a stationary (relatively speaking) one observing it. For either bound or unbound energy transfer events, the energy observed is always referenced to relative states of motion.

 

[origin]

I know how the doppler effect works. You have claimed that space is expanding, I replied no, the light length between the source and receiver is extending.

If possible could you explain the difference between space expanding and the light length is extending? Do you mean that the distance objects are moving through space away from us?

Blue shift and red shift is not an observation of light moving away from you, both observations are photons entering your eyes moving towards you.

Nobody thinks that red shift and blue shift involves light moving away from you. That is just silly.

I mentioned space does not redshift because space refelcts no light, there has to be two source points to observe a redshift.

The red shift has nothing to do with space reflecting light, where do you come up with this stuff? There does not need to be two sources to observe a red shift, that is nonsense. 1 emiter and 1 receiver is all that is needed

Like I said, maybe somebody else will clear this up, but it is evidently true by your own contradiciton in your very own explanation.

I guess the explanations were not simple enough for you to understand. Tell me where exactly do you see a contradiction and I will try to help you understand the physics involved.

 

[origin]

Your opinion is duly noted and appreciated, Origin. I hope you were more specific abou what part(s) of what I wrote is pseudoscience than paddpboy, brucep, or PhysBang were. If it really pains you to read those, please put me on 'ignore'. I have no plan to ignore you however.

I wasn't talking to you - I was talking to Absolute-space, that is why I started the post with 'Absolute-space'.

 

[absolute-space]

If possible could you explain the difference between space expanding and the light length is extending? Do you mean that the distance objects are moving through space away from us?

Exactly that, distance stars are not flat like pankcakes. Light travels from the blind side of a star away from you.

The red shift has nothing to do with space reflecting light, where do you come up with this stuff?

HUh? obviously, I was pointing out that space does not reflect the light showing you that space itself is not redshifting or expanding.

There does not need to be two sources to observe a red shift, that is nonsense. 1 emiter and 1 receiver is all that is needed

1+1=2 you have just said it.

. Tell me where exactly do you see a contradiction and I will try to help you understand the physics involved.

You don't understand it in the first place so how can you help me?

The contradiction is you said space is expanding, you said the redshift shows space is expanding, then you replied contradictory several times now,'' 1 emiter and 1 receiver is all that is needed'' admiting that ''expansion'' is an extension of light length between two sources and not of space expanding, you do not observe a redshift of the space where there is no reciever.

 

[danshawen]

Exactly that, distance stars are not flat like pankcakes. Light travels from the blind side of a star away from you.




HUh? obviously, I was pointing out that space does not reflect the light showing you that space itself is not redshifting or expanding.



1+1=2 you have just said it.



You don't understand it in the first place so how can you help me?

The contradiction is you said space is expanding, you said the redshift shows space is expanding, then you replied contradictory several times now,'' 1 emiter and 1 receiver is all that is needed'' admiting that ''expansion'' is an extension of light length between two sources and not of space expanding, you do not observe a redshift of the space where there is no reciever.

A perfectly fine and functional explanation. No pseudoscience here.

 

[absolute-space]

A perfectly fine and functional explanation. No pseudoscience here.

Yes indeed, which he claimed Psuedo, which he has reported me for when it is his facts that are off. I think he owes me an apology.

 

[Billy T]

Exactly that, distance stars are not flat like pankcakes. ...

Of course not. In their own inertial frame they are spheres, but in our frame, if we could measure their shape (and the are rapidly receeding from us), then yes they are pancakes.
Your assertion that they are not conflicts with theory that has been well confirmed by many experiments.

 

[absolute-space]

Of course not. In their own inertial frame they are spheres, but in our frame, if we could measure their shape (and the are rapidly receeding from us), then yes they are pancakes.
Your assertion that they are not conflicts with well confirmed by experiment theory.

I understand the conflicts, but all experimental results will work just the same within a bounded space 'naked'' singularity. inside an unbounded universe. The experimental results prove the reciever is moving away from us , not the space.

I may have a different definiton for a ''naked'' singularity, so just take that at face value.

 

[Billy T]

I understand the conflicts, but all experimental results will work just the same within a bounded space 'naked'' singularity. inside an unbounded universe. ...

That is meaningless verbage - you don't know enough physics or math to properly demonstrate in equations anything even vaguely related. I strongly doubt you can even read with understanding a tensor equation, much less construct a proof, of what ever your nonse verbage is stating.

Prove me wrong by stating that verbage in math form.

 

[origin]

If possible could you explain the difference between space expanding and the light length is extending? Do you mean that the distance objects are moving through space away from us?

Your reply:
Exactly that, distance stars are not flat like pankcakes. Light travels from the blind side of a star away from you.
First, how does that address my question? Secondly, what does, 'stars are not flat pancakes' have to do with anything. Thirdly, everyone knows that light that is moving away from you cannot be seen. You seem to be losing it...

The red shift has nothing to do with space reflecting light, where do you come up with this stuff?

Your reply:
HUh? obviously, I was pointing out that space does not reflect the light showing you that space itself is not redshifting or expanding.
Of course space is not red shifting - the light is. How do you think space reflecting light has anything to do with the redshift or expansion of space. I think the issue here is that you have a severe misundestanding of expansion and the redshift so you need to explain your thinking so that we can help you sort this out.

There does not need to be two sources to observe a red shift, that is nonsense. 1 emiter and 1 receiver is all that is needed

Your reply:
1+1=2 you have just said it.
So I guess when you said, "there has to be two source points", you meant a source and a receiver which is correct!

I guess the explanations were not simple enough for you to understand. Tell me where exactly do you see a contradiction and I will try to help you understand the physics involved.

Your reply:
You don't understand it in the first place so how can you help me?
Wrong.

The contradiction is you said space is expanding, you said the redshift shows space is exapnding, then you replied contradictory several times now,'' 1 emiter and 1 receiver is all that is needed'' admiting that ''expansion'' is an extension of light length between two sources and not of space expanding, you do not observe a redshift of the space where there is no reciever.
Your logic is completely flawed here. Let me help you sort it out.
1. You need a reciever and an emitter.
2. The distance between the receiver and the emitter increases due to an expansion of space.
3. No realtive motion through space is required.
4. Due to the expansion of space the light wave is stretched which results in a redshift a seen by the receiver.
5. The farther away a galaxy is the more expanding space the light wave travels through so the larger the red shift.

 

[absolute-space]

That is meaningless verbage - you don't know enough physics or math to properly demonstrate in equations anything even vaguely realted. I strongly doubt you can even read with understanding a tensor equation, much less construct a proof, of what ever your nonse verbage is stating.

Agreed I do not know enough about maths to come up with the maths , however I already have some maths from another forum, I do not claim to understand it but I know what it means. I can certaintly produce a general expression of the concept which I am doing in my new theory in the new theory section.

I can not discuss that maths here in this section or much about my theory. Apologies in mentioning ''naked'' singualrities.

You presume I do not know much about Physics, I know enough to discuss the topics I discuss, I do not discuss things I know nothing about.

Thought comes before the maths , you know that, I am sure I will get some maths help if science spots something in my theory when completed.

Back on subject, yes the stars are not flat extending our universe of what we know?

 

[origin]

Yes indeed, which he claimed Psuedo, which he has reported me for when it is his facts that are off. I think he owes me an apology.

This is the post that was reported.

And the fact is as seen in this thread several times, length contraction and time dilation/time contraction is of light and not of space, we do not observe space reflecting light, there is no red shift of the actual space, that is object related, space has no aether, no physical solidity, that only leaves light to be space-time surely?
Space-time not really being the real space-time that is ''behind'' the space-time?

Not only do you not deserve an appology, you deserve a ban for putting this pseudoscientific junk in the science section.

 

[origin]

A perfectly fine and functional explanation. No pseudoscience here.

So this does not seem like pseudoscience gibberish to you?

HUh? obviously, I was pointing out that space does not reflect the light showing you that space itself is not redshifting or expanding.

That is too bad.

edit to add: Or were you just joking?

 

[origin]

You presume I do not know much about Physics, I know enough to discuss the topics I discuss, I do not discuss things I know nothing about.

Almost everything you have written directly disputes that claim.

Back on subject, yes the stars are not flat extending our universe of what we know?

Well said.

 

[absolute-space]

This is the post that was reported.

Not only do you not deserve an appology, you deserve a ban for putting this pseudoscientific junk in the science section.

You are quite cleary deranged, do you not understand that when something ends with a question mark it is asking a question?

You owe me an apoolgy for your laziness in reading, and it was you that claimed space is expanding and it is a fact.