No, you are just taking a ride on SL and Funk. Before repeating 'direct observation' length contraction rhetoric take a challenge with this one : Muons were detected at the top of Mount Washington. 6000 ft above sea level. At sea level muons were detected without any considerable reduction in their numbers. At 0.994c velocity muons were able to travel down 6000 ft to the sea level. It takes more than 6 microsec to cross this distance. Far above their life time. Now, if you agree with time dilation as 'directly observable' reality, you would apply the gamma factor ~9 and get the muon proper time is just 0.67 micro-sec while it is 6 micro sec earth time. But that is not enough time either. At 0.994c muons can cover just 670 ft in their own proper time of 0.67 micro secs. How they could travel 6000 ft ? You have 3 options : 1. 6000 ft are length contracted to less than 670 ft (muon's proper length) as per SR. 2. Muons travelled much faster than c. 3. Take any ether model or speculative theory to explain this feat. If you take 2 or 3 you are just a crank. ready reference : http://landau1.phys.virginia.edu/classes/109/lectures/srelwhat.html
I posted links to the Penrose-Terrel Rotation. According to that analysis length does not contract. i.e. - A sphere moving at relavistic velocities is still a sphere. It would be a bit bogus to claim to have seen something that doesn't exist. Especially when you base that observation on an assumption.
You fucking moron - we all are aware of the muon experiment, perhaps you missed the multitude of threads that covered the issue. It does not observe length contraction. We all agree that length contraction is used to explain the muon experiment per special relativity. And just before you go calling people cranks (whoops too late) - I am not promoting any alternate theory. Though I might suggest you try to disprove the local ether model - I've not seen any evidence against it, but that doesn't mean I advocate it. And for what its worth, the local ether model does explain the muon experiment without length contraction as far as I know.
Er, no. That's quite wrong. Penrose-Terrel rotation is how length contracted objects would look if one were to take a simple photograph (a snapshot, that is) of them. In this, light propagation has to be factored in, and the 'rotation' comes out. The length contraction itself is quite real in Penrose-Terrel rotation, and the basis of the analysis, since it is a standard str result. The Terrel paper, I believe, is even called "Invisibility of the Lorentz Contraction" (IIRC). That's quite another thing to saying it isn't real, which is what you (falsely) claim Penrose-Terrel rotation says. In fact, a few moments thought should convince you that if Lorentz contraction wasn't real, objects moving at relativistic speeds should appear length extruded on photographs. Aren't you supposed to know stuff like this? It's like a battle of wits with an unarmed man, sometimes... Read the paper. You obviously haven't. (Hint: The imaging used in the paper is nothing like a snapshot, so Penrose-Terrel rotation is not a factor.)
And so does retaining the known emperically demonstrated time dilation of a clock in motion. If you don't disregard the fact that the clock is ticking slow you will find that the clock should accumulate less time for the distance of the trip at a given velocity. There is no room in pragmatic physics for length contraction.
You have not provided any theory to state how this works. You've merely made an ad hoc theory from a special relativity prediction - that is kind of stupid.
So what are you saying? You clubbed the unarmed wittier man to death? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! (kidding of course)
So, a very simple experiment would be to observe Penrose-Terrel rotation of a moving object, for instance by observing interference fringes from coherent light sources at different points on the object. Yes? This might be observed at reasonable velocities due to the sensitivity of optical interference (tiny wavelengths compared to changes in observed position of the lasers...).
By what factor do things appear length extruded besides actually being length contracted as special relativity describes? That is, I want to take a photograph of a rod with a proper length of 1m moving at .9c wrt my camera. what length will the rod "appear" in the photograph?
Source: http://atschool.eduweb.co.uk/rmext04/92andwed/pf_genrl.html So at 0.9c gamma = 2.29. So the bar will appear rotated through arccos(1/2.29) = 64.1° So it should appear as the projection: cos(64.1) = L<sub>apparent</sub>/1m L<sub>apparent</sub> = 1m * cos(64.1) = 0.436m which just happens to be the factor 1/γ above!!! Cool!
cos ( arccos ( 1/γ ) ) = 1/γ Math teachers everywhere sigh Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! OK - I am confused, what will the length be on the photograph?
Well I could have gotten that from the lorentz length contraction formula. So there is no apparent extrusion? Sorry, maybe I just don't understand something here.
Well, read the quote in my post and the site I got it from. Seems that's the way it is. Im sure we could derive it...
Extrusion?? All funkstar said was that if Lorentz contraction DIDN'T exist then things would appear extruded. Yes? In response to MacM. Right?
OK - I just visited the site and found: So doesn't this mean that the length on the photograph will be 1m? but this would only apply to a sphere or cube as my rod probably doesn't have the same depth as it does length. You never know though - I may very well order a funky rod. Whoops, I quoted partially what you quoted. My short term memory is going really short term tonight.
Remember, this "rotation" is an illusion due solely to the finite speed of light. Light from the back regions takes longer to get to the film than light from the front parts. That's pretty much it.
