Is a length contraction just a visual thing?

[rpenner]

It looks complex, not because I do not have the ability to learn it , because I have no idea what it means or for what purpose it used, could you please explain the purpose of it?

Science is about learning by guessing and testing those guesses. Some guesses will turn out to be very wrong. Some guesses will turn out to be slightly wrong. Some guesses will turn out to resist all current efforts to see if they are wrong but may still be shown to be wrong in the future.

Newton was mostly right when it came to describing the behavior of things unless those things were very small, very fast or in strong gravity. But mostly right is partly wrong.
The test theory with K shows all of Newton's formulas when K = 0 and all of Special Relativity's formulas when K = 1/c². So it is merely a question of designing an experiment with enough precision to see which value of K the universe supports.

I like formulas and standard maths such has F=ma , simple and of true value.

That formula comes from Newtonian physics and so it doesn't work to design particle accelerators. That's because the universe gives use plenty of evidence that the assumption that K=0 is wrong.

My own sort of maths starts here d=4/3 pi N³ a n-dimensional universe. Light radius and visual universe I do L=4/3 pi r(c)³ where c represents light.

Neither is not the correct formula for the volume of a sphere. Presumably, you mean $$V = \frac{4 \pi}{3} \left( ct \right)^3$$ where t is the age of the visible universe. That assumption assumes that the expansion of the visible universe is negligible over the time-of-flight of the light and that space is nearly flat. Astrophysical observation has shown the former assumption to be wrong, so the formula is wrong.

Both formulas being an invariant to begin with.

Obstinate nonsense is still nonsense. Your obsession with formulas and assigning mystical meanings to there terms is not connected to the practice of science.

The 1st formula an empty volume no matter what its volume amount is.

The second formula becoming a variate relative to a bodies motion.

Another forum did some maths which I can't post here, that shows the distance it would take for the sun to travel away from the earth before it '' vanished''beyond contraction point and light diminish.

Relative to either observer, it is them that is moving, relative to either observer, the other observer is contracting.

This portion of your post demonstrates your fetishization of formulas has become an impediment to your learning math and physics.

YouTube animation

Observe the relativistic affect of the contraction and red shift of light, observe the stationary reference frame of the ''background'' does not contract. The object relatively moving away , is stretching the light by linear distance or angle of the incident ray, causing the light to narrow to single x axis so narrow, we can't observe the object any more.

That video did not demonstrate any features of special or general relativity.

I know GR and SR and Lorentz, I just don't know your maths to it.

If you don't know my math, then you don't know GR, SR and Lorentz. You only know of GR, SR and Lorentz. If you knew these topics you could make them work for you. Instead you tell untruths about them and the state of your knowledge.

The very same reason space is not opaque, the bandwidth of electromagnetic radiation propagating through space is simply to narrow to see. e.g 0

Obviously a wrong statement. If you couldn't see EM radiation propagating through space, then space is opaque, which is it not.

 

[PhysBang]

Where do you presume I am ignorant?

I do not have to presume, I merely need to read your own posts. You are dogmatically sticking to this idea that space cannot expand on the basis of claims that are simply not true and that have been rejected on the basis of freely available and widely discussed theory and evidence.

don't believe in God for the fact I have never observed a God, therefore factually a God does not exist, likewise I do not believe space is expanding, why do you think that is?

We have never observed space expanding, Fact

So stop continuing in your lies saying it is fact that space is expanding, we do not preach in science.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#CC

 

[absolute-space]

Science is about learning by guessing and testing those guesses. Some guesses will turn out to be very wrong. Some guesses will turn out to be slightly wrong. Some guesses will turn out to resist all current efforts to see if they are wrong but may still be shown to be wrong in the future.

Newton was mostly right when it came to describing the behavior of things unless those things were very small, very fast or in strong gravity. But mostly right is partly wrong.
The test theory with K shows all of Newton's formulas when K = 0 and all of Special Relativity's formulas when K = 1/c². So it is merely a question of designing an experiment with enough precision to see which value of K the universe supports.

That formula comes from Newtonian physics and so it doesn't work to design particle accelerators. That's because the universe gives use plenty of evidence that the assumption that K=0 is wrong.

Actually no, the Universe demonstrates that both theories are correct. Relative to sight k=0 is correct, relative to experiment and observe effect, k=1 is correct.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrödinger's_cat

Neither is not the correct formula for the volume of a sphere. Presumably, you mean $$V = \frac{4 \pi}{3} \left( ct \right)^3$$ where t is the age of the visible universe. That assumption assumes that the expansion of the visible universe is negligible over the time-of-flight of the light and that space is nearly flat. Astrophysical observation has shown the former assumption to be wrong, so the formula is wrong.

You are correct from a K=1 perspective, from a K=0 perspective there is no time or speed of light.

Obstinate nonsense is still nonsense. Your obsession with formulas and assigning mystical meanings to there terms is not connected to the practice of science.

You are misunderstanding the point of a discussion and misinterpreting alternative view points, is not the endeavour in a discussion we aim for?

That video did not demonstrate any features of special or general relativity.

Completely wrong, the human eye can not observe the light red shifting, the object contracts relative to motion, the video shows quite clearly length and volume contraction, you clearly do not have the ability to put science information into visual format.

If you don't know my math, then you don't know GR, SR and Lorentz. You only know of GR, SR and Lorentz. If you knew these topics you could make them work for you. Instead you tell untruths about them and the state of your knowledge.

Nobody needs maths to know that an object falls to the ground, nobody needs maths to observe any effect, the maths explains what we observe, stop being pretentious in your maths.

 

[absolute-space]

I do not have to presume, I merely need to read your own posts. You are dogmatically sticking to this idea that space cannot expand on the basis of claims that are simply not true and that have been rejected on the basis of freely available and widely discussed theory and evidence.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#CC

That is a complete lie, I have corrected you in the FACT that we do not observe space expanding we observe a length of light expanding between two point sources. So STOP lying and quoting something is fact when it is not.

 

[Kristoffer]

So STOP lying and quoting something is fact when it is not.

Here, have a free mirror.

 

[origin]

That is a complete lie, I have corrected you in the FACT that we do not observe space expanding we observe a length of light expanding between two point sources. So STOP lying and quoting something is fact when it is not.

Please stop posting pseudoscience in the science section and attacking others for discussing actual science.

 

[absolute-space]

Here, have a free mirror.

Clearly another person who reads the present information and has no idea of what it means.

 

[Kristoffer]

Please stop posting pseudoscience in the science section and attacking others for discussing actual science.

I wish krash is right about the poster being azo. That way we might be spared maybe a month worth of worthless posts before the inevitable ban.

 

[rpenner]

Actually no, the Universe demonstrates that both theories are correct. Relative to sight k=0 is correct, relative to experiment and observe effect, k=1 is correct.

You are correct from a K=1 perspective, from a K=0 perspective there is no time or speed of light.

You are misunderstanding the point of a discussion and misinterpreting alternative view points, is not the endeavour in a discussion we aim for?

Not in a physics discussion. In Physics, the behavior of the universe is always the arbiter of correctness.

Also, your attempt to say both Newton and Special Relativity are correct is wrong. Experiments are consistent with only one value of K=1/c². That's a very small quantity in human-sized units, but it is not zero.

Completely wrong, the human eye can not observe the light red shifting, the object contracts relative to motion, the video shows quite clearly length and volume contraction, you clearly do not have the ability to put science information into visual format.

I see a low quality animation without discussion of the principles used to animate it. So this creative work is a fiction without foundation. It doesn't compete with the behavior of the universe as the arbiter of correctness.

Nobody needs maths to know that an object falls to the ground, nobody needs maths to observe any effect, the maths explains what we observe, stop being pretentious in your maths.

Math is required to describe the behavior of the universe. Math describes falls under uniform acceleration: $$d = \frac{1}{2} a (t - t_0)^2$$
Without math, one can't describe the effect to know if it is a one-time special event or part of a larger consistent pattern of events.
Stop being an impediment to learning the utility of math and physics.

 

[absolute-space]

Please stop posting pseudoscience in the science section and attacking others for discussing actual science.

You are quite deluded and obviously have no idea about the subject you are talking about, clearly a crackpot.

 

[Kristoffer]

Clearly another person who reads the present information and has no idea of what it means.

Have another mirror.

 

[Kristoffer]

You are quite deluded and obviously have no idea about the subject you are talking about, clearly a crackpot.

Here, have a third, greedy bastard

 

[absolute-space]

Not in a physics discussion. In Physics, the behavior of the universe is always the arbiter of correctness.

I see a low quality animation without discussion of the principles used to animate it. So this creative work is a fiction without foundation. It doesn't compete with the behavior of the universe as the arbiter of correctness.


Math is required to describe the behavior of the universe. Math describes falls under uniform acceleration: $$d = \frac{1}{2} a (t - t_0)^2$$
Without math, one can't describe the effect to know if it is a one-time special event or part of a larger consistent pattern of events.
Stop being an impediment to learning the utility of math and physics.

I see you are one of these that has to recall pop science, I suggest you find some reputable source of information. The video is self explanatory, a 6 year old would understand it.

 

[Kristoffer]

I see you are one of these that has to recall pop science, I suggest you find some reputable source of information. The video is self explanatory, a 6 year old would understand it.

rpenner's an actual scientist, now go away, you've got enough mirrors to stay happy.

 

[PhysBang]

That is a complete lie, I have corrected you in the FACT that we do not observe space expanding we observe a length of light expanding between two point sources. So STOP lying and quoting something is fact when it is not.

Unfortunately, I am going to have to reject your dogmatism, bold face and capital type, and lack of mathematical ability in favor of well established science that can show agreement with observations to a great deal of precision.

Seriously, though, http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm is a good place to start.

However, you are betraying the type of person that you are. You like to present the facade of being open minded and knowledgeable about science, yet you clearly have a set of very specific and non-scientific ideas that you want to present and you have no interest in learning anything new about science and certainly not any of the mathematics that forms the basis for all contemporary science (for the last 200 years, if not longer).

I tried to defend you, as best I could, but your actions and your character indicate that I should no longer do so.

 

[rpenner]

Nobody needs maths to know that an object falls to the ground, nobody needs maths to observe any effect, the maths explains what we observe, stop being pretentious in your maths.

I see you are one of these that has to recall pop science, I suggest you find some reputable source of information. The video is self explanatory, a 6 year old would understand it.

I assumed that your complete ignorance of how to use the Lorentz transformation or how to write the formula for the volume of a sphere meant you wanted to be spoon fed pop science for that sense of false accomplishment.
That being said, you have not identified anything disreputable about it.
The video you supplied is not educational material. It's just a boring, low-frame rate perspective animation of parallelepipeds without context or identified physical content like what velocity or scale is meant to be depicted. Thus it's not a scientific illustration of any principle.

 

[absolute-space]

Not in a physics discussion. In Physics, the behavior of the universe is always the arbiter of correctness.
.

Interesting video,thanks.

''The dimmest magnitude you can see with the naked eye is 3 to 6. The Sun’s is about -27. Magnitude is −2.5log10(B)" role="presentation" style="display: inline; line-height: normal; font-size: 14px; word-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; border: 0px; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; color: rgb(40, 40, 40); font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; position: relative; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">−2.5log10(B)−2.5log10(B), so the Sun becomes invisible for n≥9>332.5log10(215)+3" role="presentation" style="display: inline; line-height: normal; font-size: 14px; word-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; border: 0px; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; color: rgb(40, 40, 40); font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; position: relative; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">n≥9>332.5log10(215)+3n≥9>332.5log10(215)+3.''

''In even 4 D space, stars in their present positions, size, and surface brightness wouldn’t be visible. The largest stars have radii less than r0=" role="presentation" style="display: inline; line-height: normal; font-size: 14px; word-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; border: 0px; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; color: rgb(40, 40, 40); font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; position: relative; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">r0=r0=2000 time the Sun’s, while the closest stars are over r1=" role="presentation" style="display: inline; line-height: normal; font-size: 14px; word-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; border: 0px; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; color: rgb(40, 40, 40); font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; position: relative; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">r1=r1=250000 times the Earth’s distance from the Sun, which adds more than 60 to their magnitudes. The most sensitive telescopes built or likely to be built by a civilization of our technological level can detect stars can detect perhaps magnitude 40 (the Hubble can detect up to about 31.5)''


Consider the above , I did not want to start mentioning quantum whole and quantum singularities , that is for my theory which I am keeping under ''wraps''.

 

[absolute-space]

I assumed that your complete ignorance of how to use the Lorentz transformation or how to write the formula for the volume of a sphere meant you wanted to be spoon fed pop science for that sense of false accomplishment.
That being said, you have not identified anything disreputable about it.
The video you supplied is not educational material. It's just a boring, low-frame rate perspective animation of parallelepipeds without context or identified physical content like what velocity or scale is meant to be depicted. Thus it's not a scientific illustration of any principle.

It took me about 30 seconds to make that video, it was just an example in basic form, there is no need to add any special lighting etc, it shows the effect. I do not know the maths agreed, I am still learning the maths.

 

[Kristoffer]

I do not know the maths agreed, I am still learning the maths.

And yet you go on and on about other people not being qualified?

Go away, learn some actual science, then return.

 

[rpenner]

Interesting video,thanks.

The dimmest magnitude you can see with the naked eye is 3 to 6. The Sun’s is about -27. Magnitude is $$-2.5 \, \log_{10} (B)$$, so the Sun becomes invisible for $$n \geq 9 \gt \frac{33}{2.5 \, \log_{10} (215)} + 3$$.

In even 4 D space, stars in their present positions, size, and surface brightness wouldn’t be visible. The largest stars have radii less than $$r_0 = 2000$$ time[‍s‍] the Sun’s, while the closest stars are over $$r_1=250000$$ times the Earth’s distance from the Sun, which adds more than 60 to their magnitudes. The most sensitive telescopes built or likely to be built by a civilization of our technological level can detect stars can detect perhaps magnitude 40 (the Hubble can detect up to about 31.5)

Consider the above , I did not want to start mentioning quantum whole and quantum singularities , that is for my theory which I am keeping under ''wraps''.

I located the source of your quote here.
http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/28844-physics-of-n-dimensions/?p=339052

1) Discussion of the brightness of the stars in 4D space has no bearing on the physics of our universe and the Lorentz tranformation which applies to 3+1 dimensions of space-time.
2) Talking about a theory you are developing in private demonstrates your position as a physics outsider. First you learn math, then you learn physics, then you find the edge of current physics knowledge. Only then are you qualified to contribute to human knowledge.

It took me about 30 seconds to make that video, it was just an example in basic form, there is no need to add any special lighting etc, it shows the effect. I do not know the maths agreed, I am still learning the maths.

Without knowing the maths, how do you know the behavior of your animation corresponds to the behavior of the universe?