# Is a length contraction just a visual thing?

Do you think accelerated particles are anything like a rod?
Length contraction is also evident in particle accelerators.

I was just trying to fathom why you asked this goofy question.
Do you think accelerated particles are anything like a rod?
There is nothing goofy about it, you mentioned the particle accelerator as being evidence.

Starting from zero (coordinates and principles)...
Can we agree that, knowing x and y we can say that the distance between (0,0) and (x,y) is given by r²=x²+y²
Any dissenters?

Length contraction is also evident in particle accelerators.
They fire ''rods'' through the particle accelerator?

May I suggest you learn to read and stop making accusation that are not even there to begin with. What exactly do you think I am incorrect about? I have not inferred anything is incorrect. As for evidence, you have provided no physical evidence but only words which mean very little in respect of physical evidence.
This whole discussion is about predictions of relativistic physics. Length contraction, radial stretching, tick rate are calculated predictions for experimental measurements in the local proper frame. For this example it's the Laboratory local proper frame. Can proper measurements be compared between different local proper frames to determine if there's a delta. Yes. Can physicists model experiments to confirm these theoretical predictions. Yes. You said no dude. You poo pooed it. So you disrespected the science. FYI The thing you couldn't recognize as an experiment is a pretty good one.

Last edited:
Starting from zero (coordinates and principles)...
Can we agree that, knowing x and y we can say that the distance between (0,0) and (x,y) is given by r²=x²+y²
Any dissenters?
Are you describing a plane?

They fire ''rods'' through the particle accelerator?
No, they fire particles through particle accelerators, and length contraction is evident just as it is in the muon experiment from the muon's FoR which you seem to have missed, along with most of the other evidence that aligns with SR.

You're acting the fool dude. This whole discussion is about predictions of relativistic physics. Length contraction, radial stretching, tick rate are calculated predictions for experimental measurements in the local proper frame. For this example it's the Laboratory local proper frame. Can proper measurements be compared between different local proper frames to determine if there's a delta. Yes. Can physicists model experiments to confirm these theoretical predictions. Yes. You said no dude. You poo pooed it. So you disrespect science.
I do not even understand what you just said, I have not mentioned anything you just said, all's I have really asked is if the ''train'' itself will physically contract. The words people keep providing are not evidence that the train will contract in physical length.

No, they fire particles through particle accelerators, and length contraction is evident just as it is in the muon experiment from the muon's FoR which you seem to have missed, along with most of the other evidence that aligns with SR.
Then how is that even relevant to the question I asked? individuals particles are not a ''rod''.

If a ''rod'' could travel at the speed of light and the ''rod'' was 10 cm long at rest length, the leader of the object is travelling at c. what speed would you presume the tail of the object ,would have to be travelling to be able to contract the 10 cm length?

I do not even understand what you just said, I have not mentioned anything you just said, all's I have really asked is if the ''train'' itself will physically contract. The words people keep providing are not evidence that the train will contract in physical length.
Yes, the train will physically contract in the view of the person taking the measurement. Just as time will dilate according to the measurer.
Both are real genuine effects, and both depend on the frames of reference from where the measuring is being done.
That's SR my friend, and that has been totally validated over a 100 years by real scientists at the coal face, and not decided by a bunch of amateurish comments confined to a science forum.

Then how is that even relevant to the question I asked? individuals particles are not a ''rod''.

If a ''rod'' could travel at the speed of light and the ''rod'' was 10 cm long at rest length, the leader of the object is travelling at c. what speed would you presume the tail of the object ,would have to be travelling to be able to contract the 10 cm length?
Your question no matter how many different ways you chose to put it, has been answered many times.

https://www.boundless.com/physics/t...l-relativity-179/length-contraction-657-6319/

The effect of length contraction is negligible at everyday speeds and can be ignored for all regular purposes. Length contraction becomes noticeable at a substantial fraction of the speed of light (as illustrated in ) with the contraction only in the direction parallel to the direction in which the observed body is travelling.

Observed Length of an Object

Source: Boundless. “Length Contraction.” Boundless Physics. Boundless, 21 Jul. 2015. Retrieved 23 Feb. 2016 from https://www.boundless.com/physics/t...l-relativity-179/length-contraction-657-6319/

Yes, the train will physically contract in the view of the person taking the measurement. Just as time will dilate according to the measurer.
Both are real genuine effects, and both depend on the frames of reference from where the measuring is being done.
That's SR my friend, and that has been totally validated over a 100 years by real scientists at the coal face, and not decided by a bunch of amateurish comments confined to a science forum.
People keep saying it has been validated, it has been proved, but alls I hear is words, words are meaningless without experiment as somebody mentioned before.

Then how is that even relevant to the question I asked? individuals particles are not a ''rod''.
A rod and individual particles are all matter, that undergo length contraction when moving at speed, with relation to an external observer.
That's SR my friend, and that has been confirmed many times just as time dilation has, over more than a 100 years.

People keep saying it has been validated, it has been proved, but alls I hear is words, words are meaningless without experiment as somebody mentioned before.

Sorry ol matey, it is you presumably preaching nonsense and trying to promote some aspect of invalidation of SR...the onus is on you to supply the evidence.
That's science my friend, that's how it operates.
And of course I need to do nothing....All what I 'm saying and most others, is accepted mainstream physics and has been invalidated many times:
It is you who seems to refuse to accept it.

Your question no matter how many different ways you chose to put it, has been answered many times.

https://www.boundless.com/physics/t...l-relativity-179/length-contraction-657-6319/

The effect of length contraction is negligible at everyday speeds and can be ignored for all regular purposes. Length contraction becomes noticeable at a substantial fraction of the speed of light (as illustrated in ) with the contraction only in the direction parallel to the direction in which the observed body is travelling.

Observed Length of an Object

Source: Boundless. “Length Contraction.” Boundless Physics. Boundless, 21 Jul. 2015. Retrieved 23 Feb. 2016 from https://www.boundless.com/physics/t...l-relativity-179/length-contraction-657-6319/

The diagram above shows an object moving faster than the observer creating a visual length contraction, something I have already agreed with on the very first page. , now can you provide me with proof of the object contraction?

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.
absolute-space said:
Are you describing a plane?
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).

Sorry ol matey, it is you presumably preaching nonsense and trying to promote some aspect of invalidation of SR...the onus is on you to supply the evidence.
That's science my friend, that's how it operates.
And of course I need to do nothing....All what I 'm saying and most others, is accepted mainstream physics and has been invalidated many times:
It is you who seems to refuse to accept it.
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.

The diagram above shows an object moving faster than the observer creating a visual length contraction, something I have already agreed with on the very first page. , now can you provide me with proof of the object contraction?
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.