Is a length contraction just a visual thing?

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by absolute-space, Feb 22, 2016.

  1. QuarkHead Remedial Math Student Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,740
    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
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. absolute-space Registered Member

    Messages:
    280

    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.''
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    Apology accepted. You did have a point.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    What a load of crap. Learn some physics.
     
  8. krash661 [MK6] transitioning scifi to reality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,973
    odd--a program that does not need inputs?
     
  9. absolute-space Registered Member

    Messages:
    280
    If you continue posting unrelated garbage I will no longer reply to your posts , do you have a question to ask?
     
  10. absolute-space Registered Member

    Messages:
    280
    Insert location, insert scaling, insert velocity, all a part of a simple cgi, the program will do the rest.
     
  11. krash661 [MK6] transitioning scifi to reality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,973
    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.
     
    paddoboy likes this.
  12. krash661 [MK6] transitioning scifi to reality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,973
    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??
     
  13. krash661 [MK6] transitioning scifi to reality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,973
    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.
     
  14. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    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.
     
  15. absolute-space Registered Member

    Messages:
    280
    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.
     
  16. absolute-space Registered Member

    Messages:
    280
    The inputs are minowski space-time of course, XYZ and time , have you not used CGI before?
     
  17. absolute-space Registered Member

    Messages:
    280
    I have not claimed anything is incorrect, what are you on about?
     
  18. absolute-space Registered Member

    Messages:
    280
    Not true, the only possible explanation is not the only possible explanation.
     
  19. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    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?
     
  20. absolute-space Registered Member

    Messages:
    280
    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?
     
  21. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    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.
     
  22. QuarkHead Remedial Math Student Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,740
    I love this! May I use it as a signature for my screen name?
     
  23. absolute-space Registered Member

    Messages:
    280
    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.
     

Share This Page