Is a length contraction just a visual thing?

We will shortly (if I get round to it) be using the geometry of the spacetime interval, the result of Einstein noticing that the Universe wasn't just three dimensional (x,y,z) it is (x,y,z,t).
 
Confused2 said:
This where it gets complicated...
The square of the hypoteneuse of a right angled triangle is the sum of the squares on the other two sides.
No, this is geometry. However, if a plane goes x miles North and y miles west we can use this geometry to say (for the present) the distance trevelled is √(x²+y²).
Click to expand...
My apologies I can not understand what the point is you are trying to make when talking about an (A) to (B) length of something physical.
 
absolute-space said:
Where in the thread have I done any preaching? do you define questions as nonsense? do you define asking for evidence nonsense?

I have already stated I will accept it when you provide the evidence which as yet is not provided.
Click to expand...


I define that you have been given many links and reasons why length contraction is just as real as time dilation.
I define that it appears you are simply ignoring that evidence because it is not what you want to hear and does not support whatever agenda you appear to have.
Your rights to any particular beliefs are not being questioned: Your presumptions that they be taken seriously are:
 
To know what is meant by 'length contraction' it is helpful to first understand what we mean by 'length'.
 
paddoboy said:
All frames of references are as valid as each other. That is a prerequisite and a postulate of relativity...already proven many times. Again since you appear rather devoid of knowledge of science and the scientific method, the onus is on you to invalidate the validity of all frames of references.
I won't hold my breath though.
Click to expand...
Again an accusation that I am trying to disprove or prove something, I do not have to prove anything I am the one who asked a question and asked for proof, if science is unable to provide the absolute proof then why not just say so?

You are seemingly being stubborn in providing the evidence other than words.


''All frames are reference are as valid as each other'', have I said they are not?
 
Confused2 said:
Unless y'all just want a pissing contest.
Click to expand...
:)
Funny you raise that point.
In recent times we have had a few attempt by newbies questioning and offering fabricated scenarios as to how either SR or GR or both are wrong, and as each in turn is refuted and rebuffed by professional links and evidence, they disappear for a while but just as suddenly we have another newbie arrive on the scene, again trying and attempting to invalidate Einstein and his work.
All have a few things in common: All ignore reputable links: All ignore validated evidence showing the error of their ways: All in time are seen to have an agenda, mostly religious as has been verified with a couple: All refuse to support their claims by proper scientific method and peer review and basically claim conspiracies within mainstream.

Confused2 said:
To know what is meant by 'length contraction' it is helpful to first understand what we mean by 'length'.
Click to expand...
Length is simply a dimension, as is breadth, height and time.
 
paddoboy said:
I define that you have been given many links and reasons why length contraction is just as real as time dilation.
I define that it appears you are simply ignoring that evidence because it is not what you want to hear and does not support whatever agenda you appear to have.
Your rights to any particular beliefs are not being questioned: Your presumptions that they be taken seriously are:
Click to expand...
I want to hear the answer I asked for, I want to see the evidence I requested in support of your claims. There is no agenda other than getting a straight answer, one which you seem to be distracting from.
 
absolute-space said:
Again an accusation that I am trying to disprove or prove something, I do not have to prove anything I am the one who asked a question and asked for proof, if science is unable to provide the absolute proof then why not just say so?

You are seemingly being stubborn in providing the evidence other than words.


''All frames are reference are as valid as each other'', have I said they are not?
Click to expand...
No just that it appears you do not know how science and theories work.
The onus is on you for evidence, not on me! Can you recognise the difference?
You are the one that "seems" to be, in many different ways, refuting length contraction.
So where is your evidence. I have given evidence. The many links, particle accelerators and muon decay experiment.
Oh, and by the way, science and scientific theories are not really proofs as such.
Nothing is totally proven in science, rather evidence supporting a particular concept. Although some theories such as the BB, Evolution, SR, GR are near certain and do grow in certainty as they further match what we see.
 
Paddoboy said:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Click to expand...
Paddoboy said:
Have you read and understood the above?
Click to expand...
I have read it (many times) without understanding it. There are many paths to enlightenment. If one fails we try another and if that one fails we try yet another. Finding paths is a game in itself.

Edit...

Paddoboy said:
Nothing is totally proven in science, rather evidence supporting a particular concept.
Click to expand...
Yes indeed, it is a concepts we seek to learn and teach.
 
absolute-space said:
I want to hear the answer I asked for, I want to see the evidence I requested in support of your claims. There is no agenda other than getting a straight answer, one which you seem to be distracting from.
Click to expand...
Well then as you appear to have dismissed all here that have supplied evidence, perhaps you should approach the real professional experts at say CalTech, or NASA or MIT: Unlike you and me as amateurs and lay people discussing things on a science forum, these people are professionals and are approachable.
 
paddoboy said:
No just that it appears you do not know how science and theories work.
The onus is on you for evidence, not on me! Can you recognise the difference?
You are the one that "seems" to be, in many different ways, refuting length contraction.
So where is your evidence. I have given evidence. The many links, particle accelerators and muon decay experiment.
Oh, and by the way, science and scientific theories are not really proofs as such.
Nothing is totally proven in science, rather evidence supporting a particular concept. Although some theories such as the BB, Evolution, SR, GR are near certain and do grow in certainty as they further match what we see.
Click to expand...
The burden is on me for what reason? I have not suggested anything other than I require confirmation from you of the actual object contracted in evidence form. I suggested an idea that James requested in the earlier posts, otherwise I would not of thought of the train example and bothered. I think you must be confused with my intention and think I am this person Azo , it feels quite hostile and defensive over a simple question which the evidence should be simple to provide. In reading the rest of your post I think I now understand why you can't provide the evidence I ask for. I thank you for honesty.
 
Confused2 said:
Yes indeed, it is a concepts we seek to learn and teach.
Click to expand...
Yep, and as particular theories continue to match observations and the results of our experiments, they do grow in certainty.
One theory of course that is 100% certain is evolution.
 
paddoboy said:
Well then as you appear to have dismissed all here that have supplied evidence, perhaps you should approach the real professional experts at say CalTech, or NASA or MIT: Unlike you and me as amateurs and lay people discussing things on a science forum, these people are professionals and are approachable.
Click to expand...
An interesting idea but a lot of fuss for a simple question, I found your answers very educated and applaud all your answers , but in all due respect, you know the sort of hard evidence I am asking for such as an experiment of a ''rod''.
 
absolute-space said:
The burden is on me for what reason? I have not suggested anything other than I require confirmation from you of the actual object contracted in evidence form. I suggested an idea that James requested in the earlier posts, otherwise I would not of thought of the train example and bothered. I think you must be confused with my intention and think I am this person Azo , it feels quite hostile and defensive over a simple question which the evidence should be simple to provide. In reading the rest of your post I think I now understand why you can't provide the evidence I ask for. I thank you for honesty.
Click to expand...
Like you, I'm an amateur and a lay person.
Yes, despite your dismissal, you have been given evidence but ignore it for reasons known to yourself.
Length contraction the last time I looked is still a postulate of SR, and is evident as you have been shown and informed.
 
absolute-space said:
An interesting idea but a lot of fuss for a simple question, I found your answers very educated and applaud all your answers , but in all due respect, you know the sort of hard evidence I am asking for such as an experiment of a ''rod''.
Click to expand...
If you are interested enough, the fuss will not be of any great concern.
The ball's in your court.
 
Spare the rod and spoil the child. Give hime the rod. I was half way there in a post when I deleted it somehow. Should I start again?
 
paddoboy said:
Like you, I'm an amateur and a lay person.
Yes, despite your dismissal, you have been given evidence but ignore it for reasons known to yourself.
Length contraction the last time I looked is still a postulate of SR, and is evident as you have been shown and informed.
Click to expand...
I have not ignored your answers and what you have provided, that just helps me have a greater understanding of a visual length contraction which I have observed for myself standing on a train station platform. As for a physical length contraction of the ''rod'', there is still an uncertainty in my mind of the possibility. In a brief analysis of an object, for it's length to contract there has to be at least two points of pressure, an object in motion , the speed of the front and rear of the object would have to be different, (think of a car crashing into a wall and length contracting). So in despite of the evidence you provided, physics 101 explains it can't happen leaving me uncertain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top