Is a length contraction just a visual thing?

absolute-space said:
We have never observed space expanding, Fact
Click to expand...
Look, in an earlier post, somewhat haughtily dissed origin's logic on this point (apologies to him for that, BTW)

Here are some "facts" you may like to consider.

1. When heated, every element emits a characteristic spectrum of EM radiation

2. The "signature" of each element is given not by the absolute value of the frequency of each spectral line, but by their relative values.

3. Thus it is possible to comare what the signature of a mainly iron body, say, "should" be with what it actually is.

4. This procedure tells us (or rather them!) that all stars are moving away from us at a constant acceleration.

5. Since this effect is isotropic (same in all directions), and since we no longer consider Earth to be the centre of the universe, one assumes this finding will be replicated at all points in the universe. (I imagine the Hubble telescope has some data on this, but I am not sure)

6. The only circumstance in which this can possibly be true is if the "stuff" that all heavenly bodies "sit in" is expanding.

One calls this "stuff" space
 
rpenner said:
Without knowing the maths, how do you know the behavior of your animation corresponds to the behavior of the universe?
Click to expand...


The projected movement and corresponding effect is generated for me by the computer 3d cgi program, the program does the maths for me. How do I know the Universe behaves like that? try my train analogy.

''If in imagination we are standing on the train track observing a train travelling away from us , relatively we observe the train's observed rear area, scaling down in size.
This area contraction can be acquainted to the Lorentz formula and length contraction, length contraction being that of perspective parallel nature, where as the perspective linear view relative nature to motion of the object differs in that the whole area of the viewed object contracts to a point of nothingness relative to a linear velocity between two bodies.''
 
absolute-space said:
The projected movement and corresponding effect is generated for me by the computer 3d cgi program, the program does the maths for me. How do I know the Universe behaves like that? try my train analogy.

''If in imagination we are standing on the train track observing a train travelling away from us , relatively we observe the train's observed rear area, scaling down in size.
This area contraction can be acquainted to the Lorentz formula and length contraction, length contraction being that of perspective parallel nature, where as the perspective linear view relative nature to motion of the object differs in that the whole area of the viewed object contracts to a point of nothingness relative to a linear velocity between two bodies.''
Click to expand...
What a load of crap. Learn some physics.
 
absolute-space said:
If you continue posting unrelated garbage I will no longer reply to your posts , do you have a question to ask?
Click to expand...
at this point, this is irrelevant--the new game is now simply to continue to point out your pathetic nonsense--or should i say shenanigans.
 
absolute-space said:
Insert location, insert scaling, insert velocity, all a part of a simple cgi, the program will do the rest.
Click to expand...
ahh so the programs conclusion is simply, only, depicted from the input's values or such that are being inputted--what are the inputs--does that matter??
 
absolute-space said:
Insert location, insert scaling, insert velocity, all a part of a simple cgi, the program will do the rest.
Click to expand...
i simply do not grasp the fact that you have endlessly claimed that you are completely clueless to math, and yet you can sit here and claim that everything is incorrect-- explain this possibility azo.

edit--
you should use your 6 billion light years of distance that equals 1.25 billion light years of travel at half the speed of light scenario, while using those postulates. that was massively comical--comedy gold right there.
 
origin said:
What a load of crap. Learn some physics.
Click to expand...
I agree; absolute-space seems to have an unlimited supply of silliness, crap and ego. It may be possible that the dimishing PERCEPTION of the train end as it travels away he thinks is an example of real length contraction. It is not. Proof: it is independent of the train's speed. I.e. the subtended angle is a linear function of distance (twice as far away will present half the subtended angle, etc.) SR's contraction is a non-linear function of the viewed objects speed, in your frame.
 
Billy T said:
I agree; absolute-space seems to have an unlimited supply of silliness, crap and ego. It may be possible that the dimishing PERCEPTION of the train end as it travels away he thinks is an example of real length contraction. It is not. Proof: it is independent of the train's speed. I.e. the subtended angle is a linear function of distance (twice as far away will present half the subtended angle, etc.) SR's contraction is a non-linear function of the viewed objects speed, in your frame.
Click to expand...
You are quite wrong, I do not think the ''vanishing'' of the train is a vanishing of the train. You are correct though in that length contraction and SR fail to recognise the linear contraction.
 
krash661 said:
i simply do not grasp the fact that you have endlessly claimed that you are completely clueless to math, and yet you can sit here and claim that everything is incorrect-- explain this possibility azo.

edit--
you should use your 6 billion light years of distance that equals 1.25 billion light years of travel at half the speed of light scenario, while using those postulates. that was massively comical--comedy gold right there.
Click to expand...
I have not claimed anything is incorrect, what are you on about?
 
absolute-space said:
The inputs are minowski space-time of course, XYZ and time , have you not used CGI before?
Click to expand...
That is not Minkowski spacetime. One needs a certain metric for that. However, you do not know what a metric is.

Why do you insist on both a) denying the scientific conclusions about physics that have been confirmed for almost 100 years now and b) refusing to learn said physics?
 
PhysBang said:
That is not Minkowski spacetime. One needs a certain metric for that. However, you do not know what a metric is.

Why do you insist on both a) denying the scientific conclusions about physics that have been confirmed for almost 100 years now and b) refusing to learn said physics?
Click to expand...
Your questions are irrelevant and of no value to the thread, CGI uses geometrical positioning, you do not know what you are talking about. Denying what exactly?
 
absolute-space said:
Your questions are irrelevant and of no value to the thread, CGI uses geometrical positioning, you do not know what you are talking about.
Click to expand...
See, there you go again. You know so little about this subject, yet you assume that everyone here, dozens of posters, who try to correct you know less than you.

You don't even know what a metric is, but you are certain that everyone else who writes about relativity theory, even the people on all the web pages that you have been provided links to, is dead wrong.

So I ask again: Why do you insist on both a) denying the scientific conclusions about physics that have been confirmed for almost 100 years now and b) refusing to learn said physics?

This question is the only relevant question, since you came here with your own dogmatic position, believing strongly in a religion of your own making, and you ask fake questions. You aren't interested in answers, you merely want to tell us all about your religion.
 
PhysBang said:
See, there you go again. You know so little about this subject, yet you assume that everyone here, dozens of posters, who try to correct you know less than you.

You don't even know what a metric is, but you are certain that everyone else who writes about relativity theory, even the people on all the web pages that you have been provided links to, is dead wrong.

So I ask again: Why do you insist on both a) denying the scientific conclusions about physics that have been confirmed for almost 100 years now and b) refusing to learn said physics?

This question is the only relevant question, since you came here with your own dogmatic position, believing strongly in a religion of your own making, and you ask fake questions. You aren't interested in answers, you merely want to tell us all about your religion.
Click to expand...
I am going to ignore you , you clearly are trying to flame and have no interest in the actual thread or discussing anything. Assumption and the accusation and distraction, I have not said anything is incorrect you are quite deluded.

I wish you good day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top