How to test length contraction by experiment?

The one that has correctly picked you as the former Farsight!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ralph;

Farsight is from England and published a paper ‘Relativity+’.
Ralf is from Canada, and hasn’t pubished anything yet.
Hope you don't mind if I don't submit your name for 'personality of the year' award.

Here's an example where you erroneously mix terms.

t' = x'/v = (x/g)/v = x/(gv)

Gamma (g) is correctly associated with x.
You associate it with v, and invent a 'dilated v'.
There is no such thing, and there is nothing new.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

At least you answered this time. Usually you just wander off. There is no such thing as erroneously mixing terms in math if the result of mixing terms does not produce contradictory results. Mixing terms produces the same equations in different form. Yv=x/t'. t'=t/Y which when plugged into Yv=x/t' yields v=x/t. I can stick Y with whatever term I want.
This same erroneous reasoning on your part has led you to reject my form c^2=v^2 + vt^2 (where c is comprised of two velocity components: v, the velocity through space and vt, the velocity through time or rate of time) of the equation (ct')^2 = (ct)^2 - x^2 . You just can't understand how they are equivalent because you only know how to parrot equations in the one form you copy them. A-l-g-e-b-r-a, you should look into it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ralf;

Here is the light clock.
Notice after dividing the three components by t,

c^2 = v^2 + u^2

The light signal has two components v and u.
The signal is moving in 2 dimensions, not through ‘time’.
ut = t’ for the moving frame.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Like I said use numbers, your Md's are foreign to me. I don't know how to write equations on this forum with subscripts and superscipts for the variables. v subscript t is your variable u. u=c/Y as you approximately said . So for v=.6c, the velocity through space , means u = .8c, the velocity through time or the rate time slows when viewed from the stationary perspective. What 2 dimensions are you referring to? x and y or x and z or how about x and ct? Everything moves at c and inside our own frame we move through time at the rate of c. That is what we see as the normal time rate. Other frames moving through space relative to us must have their rate through time slow in order that all frames move at c =sqrt(v^2 - u^2). So what are you saying?

 

Are you trying to say dividing (ct')^2 = (ct)^2 - x^2 by t^2 you get c^2 = v^2 + u^2 where u = c/Y. Yes you almost had it right so I will give you points for trying. Yes c, like any other velocity, has components through space and time which are dimensions. But before you try to understand that, did you understand this:

There is no such thing as erroneously mixing terms in math if the result of mixing terms does not produce contradictory results. Mixing terms produces the same equations in different form. Yv=x/t'. t'=t/Y which when plugged into Yv=x/t' yields v=x/t. I can stick Y with whatever term I want. And don't wander off like you tend to do when proven wrong. I hope this won't dissuade you from voting me personality of the year as the competition is pretty fierce here.

 

If A passes B at speed v, shouldn't B pass A at v in the opposite direction?
In the drawing, p is any direction perpendicular to x.

 

Velocity, mass, momentum and energy of an accelerated object in relativity

Analytical derivation of relativistic velocity, mass, momentum and kinetic energy of an accelerated object. For Special relativity the momentum of an object of rest mass m0 and velocity u is expressed by equation (1) which is infinite when u equals c. Is it physically meaningful that the momentum of an object becomes infinite while its velocity stays finite? On the other hand, the principle of mass–energy equivalence proposed by Albert Einstein in his article "Does the Inertia of an object Depend Upon Its Energy Content?" has not been rigorously demonstrated, hence it is called a principle not a law. In the contrary, in the theory of Time relativity which is been developed here, momentum and kinetic energy are derived by direct integration and stays limited when u=c.…
…

The expression of velocity (equation (13)) is directly integrated and thus is mathematically exact. In the contrary, the velocity-addition formula in Special relativity cannot be analytically integrated and one had to make an approximation to compute the velocity of an object which is thus not exact (see section 5.3 of « Introduction to Special Relativity » by James H. Smith).

In Special relativity the expression of relativistic mass is derived with the help of a shock between 2 objects (see section 9.4 of « Introduction to Special Relativity » by James H. Smith). For Time relativity relativistic mass is the derivative of momentum with respect to velocity, which is exactly the definition of mass.

In Special relativity the expression of momentum was derived with the help of a shock between 2 objects (see section 9 of « Introduction to Special Relativity » by James H. Smith) and is infinite when the velocity equals c (see equation (1)). For Time relativity momentum is the integral of infinitesimal change of momentum (see equation (25)). When the velocity of the object equals c its momentum equals the constant π/2 m_0 c, which gives a negative answer to the question of the beginning: “Is it physically meaningful that the momentum of an object becomes infinite while its velocity stays finite? ”

For Time relativity the total kinetic energy of an object is the integral of the work done on it and thus, its expression is mathematically exact. Moreover, when the velocity of the object equals c, its expression equals m0c2 (see equation (45)), which is a proof for the the principle of mass–energy equivalence, while in Special relativity mass–energy equivalence does not has mathematical proof.

At the end, we have derived the momentum-kinetic energy relation for Time relativity, which reduces to the expression of kinetic energy for classical mechanics for small velocity, while the momentum- energy relation in Special relativity does not. In the contrary, this relation is infinite when the velocity equals c.

Read the article below.
https://www.academia.edu/42616126/V...energy_of_an_accelerated_object_in_relativity
https://pengkuanonphysics.blogspot.com/2020/04/velocity-mass-momentum-and-energy-of.html

 

This is from an extensive thread my other forum:

"This may be news to some but relativity never made the claim that plugging c into the velocity combo equation results in the conclusion that adding any velocity to c results in c. In fact plugging u=c into w=(v+u)/(1+vu/c2) results in v+c = v+c or plugging in w=c results in c=c, never v+c=c.

However I have managed to derive an equation that explains what's happening with (v+u) as u-> c :

Yu/Yw=DSRv

There's no room for infinities in physics and I've found coupling Y with DSR cancels out pesky infinities into finite limits. So as u-> c, Yu/Yw approaches the finite value of DSRv. Try some real world numbers like u= 40/41 c (Yu= 41/9), v=3/5 c (DSRv=1/2), w= 323/325 (Yw= 325/36) So Yu/Yw = 164/325 =.466 and DSRv = .5. The larger you choose u, the closer the ratio gets to .5 even though both Yu and Yw approach infinity. I can show the derivation for my equation."

For those reading my other thread u is not the velocity through time here, it is just another velocity through space added to v. Y always appears with another term and if you do your math right, its tendency towards infinity always approaches a finite value in conjunction with the other term. There are no infinities in physics.

 

If A and B are in proximity, or if they're inertial, then yes. However, if A or B are separated and at least one is accelerating, the current speed of B (event Eb) relative to A at a certain event Ea may not be the same as the current speed of A relative to B at event Eb.

 

Yikes, that's quite a glaring insane mistake. I was working on understanding how equations often had the term (v+c) in them which should always equal c according to the relativistic velocity combo law and then went completely off the rails and ignored the most basic math. I'll figure out what was I thinking?

 

Farsight never did any mathematics at all, as far as I can recall. He just made bold claims, undauntedly claiming that his own ideas about the theory of relativity were true, seemingly without having gained any real insight into the subject in the first place.

In contrast, ralfcis seems to be much more concerned with his own mathematical ideas. Whether or not he has, or will gain, any real insight into the theory of relativity, remains to be seen. At least he is willing to use mathematics, and he (at least sometimes) seems to be willing to admit when he makes mistakes. That is good, but he is also quick to put people who might be able to help him on ignore, which is not so good. Time will tell.

 

Hello PengKuan,

Sorry for the delayed reply, somehow I missed your post.

It is true that the distance between the bunches would not change appreciably. Please see this diagram, which I had posted earlier in this thread:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please notice that there are still four balls (or bunches), evenly spaced around the perimeter of the circle with a fixed circumference. When the bunches are moving faster, the distance between them is not changed significantly, and in fact it is actually a little larger when they are moving, compared to when they are stationary. That is simply because the bunches themselves are length contracted. I hope this helps you somehow.

 

Hello Neddy Bate,

Sorry too for delayed answer.
Thank you for your explanation. I'm sorry not to agree. If a bunch is contracted, then if there is only one bunch in the tube, and the electrons are evenly spaced all over the tube. What will be the distance between the electrons?

This example is meant to show that length contraction is inconsistent. I have developed my Time relativity that can explain relativistic phenomenon without length contraction. For example the speed boost of Oumuamua and its resistance to slowdown. Do you know about these phenomena?

 

‘Oumuamua, Pioneer anomaly and solar mass with Time Relativity

The theory of Time relativity explains well the weird behavior of the interstellar object ‘Oumuamua. I find that the real solar mass is slightly higher than today’s value, which caused the mysterious Speed Boost of which the value should be 0.217 mm/s above the prediction at perihelion. Time relativity confirms that ‘Oumuamua should slow down less than prediction, in proportion of which the difference is 4.28 ×10-8 near the Sun. For Pioneer anomaly I have computed the gap between real and predicted acceleration and found the value 8.70 ×10-10 which is very close to the observation (8.74±1.33)×10−10 m/s2.

The mass of the Sun is not measured by weighting, but derived from the parameters of Earth’s orbit which is nearly circular. Let rM be the radius of the Earth’s orbit and uE its orbital velocity. By equating the orbital acceleration of the Earth (see equation (36)) with its Newtonian gravitational acceleration (see equation (34)), we obtain equation (48) which gives the today’s used value of the mass of the Sun, M0, in equation (49).


Read the article below.

https://www.academia.edu/42871661/Oumuamua_Pioneer_anomaly_and_solar_mass_with_Time_Relativity

https://pengkuanonphysics.blogspot.com/2020/04/oumuamua-pioneer-anomaly-and-solar-mass.html