Is a length contraction just a visual thing?

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

  1. absolute-space Registered Member

    Messages:
    280
    That does not look like any sort of experiment to me.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    280
    No, the experiment on about page 3 and page 5.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    11,693
    Particle accelerators are not for experimentation? Do you think that the LHC was built for something other than running experiments?
     
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2016
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
    And you have been shown to be totally wrong, but refuse to accept those answers, which get's back then to what I said earlier re approaching this with an already established agenda.

    Of course if you still insist you have anything of substance, then write up a paper for peer review, because arguing against all the advice you have been given on any isolated science forum such as this, is getting you know where.
     
  8. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
    Bingo!
    We need a change in rules where an excellent post as the above can be given a "golden like"

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534

    What I find interesting is the scenario of late of newbies starting out on this forum, all solely with the intent of trying to discredit Einstein and SR/GR, and as each is refuted and invalidated they "disappear" for a while, with another newbie suddenly making an appearance with some other fabricated aspect of trying to invalidate SR/GR...All obviously start out asking seemingly innocent questions to fill a void in their knowledge of relativity.....all quickly reveal that they are not interested in any answers and that they have a present agenda.
    It seems to be that they are trying desperately to reflect a general scenario of disquiet and a lack of confidence in SR/GR and portray it to being a troubled, incomplete, problematic, theory/s, with anomalies galore. They claim that GP-B was a put up job....that the Eddington experiment was flawed....that recent gravitational wave discoveries is a conspiracy

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    and expect people to accept that view.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    All in time are shown to have an agenda, probably religious as cosmology continues to push back any need for any deity and that eats at their craw. And just as obvious is the fact that they seem to believe that their mission in trying to discredit SR/GR and standard cosmology in general, is confined to slivers of cyber space such as this forum and makes no difference to accepted mainstream and the general view of the big wide wonderful world of real science we have out there who are oblivious to their nonsensical claims.

    There interest in furthering science is non existent: The interest in absorbing scientific knowledge is non existent: What is existent is a fanatically biased agenda to discredit cosmology and turn a deaf ear and a blind eye to all observational evidence, and reputable articles that show they are totally wrong and askew in their forlorn efforts.
     
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2016
  10. absolute-space Registered Member

    Messages:
    280
    Do you think accelerated particles are anything like a rod?
     
  11. absolute-space Registered Member

    Messages:
    280
    At which point in the thread have you convinced me otherwise? Your say so, does not make it so I am afraid, I asked for the providence of evidence and I have received nothing in the form of hard evidence. Likewise myself saying I do not think the actual object physical contracts, is just my say so and opinion, unless there is hard evidence , neither of us are correct.
     
  12. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,693
    No, do you?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
    Convincing you is the least of my worries. And what you believe and say is not in question: What is in question is your belief that anyone is taking you seriously.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    SR/GR have stood and continually passed all tests [including length contraction] thrown at it. It is not going to be invalidated or derailed by any amateurish attempts on a science forum.

    Time dilation and length contraction can be said to be somewhat interchangeable:
    It can be said that they are two ways to describe the same effect. The Lorentz transformations are the reason of both effects.
    You have had that already pointed out with the Muon experiment and observations.
    You have the scenario of the muon's clock running more slowly than a muon's clock on earth at rest, due to its high near "c" speed. But likewise you can also view in the muon's FoR, that the earth's atmosphere is length-contracted.

    The choice is your's......I prefer science, the scientific method and peer review to unsupported pseudoscientific nonsense.
     
  14. absolute-space Registered Member

    Messages:
    280
    How do you conclude that? I didn't
     
  15. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,950
    Do blue/red Doppler shifts of wavelengths/frequencies occur "just from a visual perspective", or does it have real physical meaning?
     
  16. absolute-space Registered Member

    Messages:
    280
    Your presumption's are astounding, where in this thread does it mention that I am here to derail anything? I have questions and people gave answers, I asked for hard evidence and got replied to with more word salad. You are claiming the object itself contracts, I asked for the evidence, is that to hard to understand for you?

    For James -

    Analogy - Imagine observer (A) is standing on a train station platform, either side of the platform is a train, train (B) on the left track and train (C) on the right track, each train consists of five, fifty feet carriages.
    Observer (A) measures both (B) and (C) to measure each train is 250ft in length while at relative rest length, relative to the stationary inertial reference frame of the observers.
    Both trains start to accelerate at the same time at the same rate, both moving in the same direction away from (A) who remains relatively ''stationary'' to the reference frame of the platform. Observer (A) experiences the visual length contraction of both trains, each carriage decreasing greater in length the greater the acceleration.
    However, observer D and observer E are on each train, they both are sitting in seat X, which is exactly the half way point of the initial measured rest length. Both observers D and E observe 125ft either side at rest length, in parallel motion both D and E still measure 125ft either side , relative to each other.

    james replied - ''I guess the point to make here is that there is no preferred reference frame in relativity.

    The trains in your example are both stationary relative to observers D and E, so those observers see (measure) the rest lengths of the trains.''

    I agree totally

    My second scenario -

    ''It took me a few hours of thought to give you an answer you asked for. You asked for a test to distinguish between a real contraction and an illusionary contraction . Now I have had a think , it seems quite simple really .
    An observer stands in the center of a circle. Around the circle is a circular train track, on the track is a train that's length of carriages and engine is equal to the circumference of the circle, the train starts to accelerate around the track , relative to the observer , the circle is constant

    Even simpler, a train is stationary a mile up the track, down the track, an equal length train is about to come speeding past, when the front of the speeding train is level with the front of the stationary train, the rears should align .''


    I can only conceive from this that at an exact moment, both trains will align and relative to each other , measure the length of each other as if at rest length and being the same and equal length.
     
  17. absolute-space Registered Member

    Messages:
    280
    My apologies Dan , the question you ask would be a different topic than the one we are discussing. I do not want to make assumptions.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  18. Confused2 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    609
    Therein lies the rub.
     
  19. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
    Where have I said you are here to derail anything?
    But of course if the cap fits...........and all that.
    Mine was a statement in general.
    Again, what you believe and say is not in question: What is in question is your belief that anyone is taking you seriously.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    SR/GR have stood and continually passed all tests [including length contraction] thrown at it. It is not going to be invalidated or derailed by any amateurish attempts on a science forum.
    That is a fact.
     
  20. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
    And observers in either train will both measure the length of the other train to be shorter......a real and genuine effect, tested and passed for over a 100 years by professional experts.
     
  21. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,693
    I was just trying to fathom why you asked this goofy question.
    Do you think accelerated particles are anything like a rod?
     
  22. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,950
    We measure lengths in terms of wavelengths. Do you need a reference?
     
  23. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
    The rub lies with the fact that SR/GR stands as totally validated and has for a 100 years, and will not be invalidated by amateurs on a science forum.
    Of course if anyone has anything of substance that calls SR/GR into question, then they need to write up an appropriate scientific paper for appropriate peer review.
    Otherwise they are pissing into the wind.
     

Share This Page