Is a length contraction just a visual thing?

absolute-space said:
Does the train tunnel magically grow in height to allow the train through?
Click to expand...
Length contraction is only ever evident in the direction of travel at relativistic speeds.
It has been evidenced and verified many many times, and along with time dilation are two postulates of SR.
And as origin has stipulated, it also depends on one's frame of reference.
Absolute space and absolute time are an archaic concept that we once presumed as common sense but which no longer holds, as effects are only seen/felt at relativistic speeds.
 
Last edited:
Russ_Watters said:
Length contraction can be viewed as a kind of perspective illusion, as long as you recognize that illusions are still showing you something real (just unexpected).
Click to expand...
Post four from James-''I think most physicists would be inclined to say that the length contraction of the object is a real effect'' implying the object does contract

In post five I say
''I do not mention the length contraction as being an illusion, I asked whether or not it was a visual thing or a thing subject to the actual object decreasing in length''

In post eight , origin replies this ''Don't forget their rulers have shrunk too!'' implying the object does contract

Then you post - ''Length contraction can be viewed as a kind of perspective illusion, as long as you recognize that illusions are still showing you something real (just unexpected).''implying the object doesn't contract

This is a bit confusing and contradictory , who's answer shall I take to be correct?
 
Why don't you start by learning the relevant physics? There are many books available.

I ask this because you come in here with a user name that indicates that you have already decided this matter. You are asking pointed questions that dodge around this issue in certain ways. This all indicates that you are disingenuous about really learning about this subject.
 
absolute-space said:
This is a bit confusing and contradictory , who's answer shall I take to be correct?
Click to expand...
All frames of references are as valid as each other.
If I on a platform, measure the train at L-x length I am absolutely correct.
If you on the train measure it to be L, you are also absolutely correct.

You may like to absorb what PhysBang has said just above. I believe he has hit the nail on the head.
 
absolute-space said:
This is a bit confusing and contradictory , who's answer shall I take to be correct?
Click to expand...
This is exactly the reason I proposed that you learn about Special Relativity, then you can make your own conclusion. Good luck on your studies.
 
origin said:
This is exactly the reason I proposed that you learn about Special Relativity, then you can make your own conclusion. Good luck on your studies.
Click to expand...
if this is azo, then R.O.S. and some flawed geometric postulates(from azo's mind) will appear in the conversation.
be advised--
 
absolute-space said:
This is a bit confusing and contradictory , who's answer shall I take to be correct?
Click to expand...
All of them. I know all of the other posters' positions from their previous posts to know we are all talking about minor variations in colloquial interpretations of the same thing. But we all agree on the math and what observers would see/measure: Given some observations and problems to solve, we'd all come up with the same answers.
 
PhysBang said:
I ask this because you come in here with a user name that indicates that you have already decided this matter. You are asking pointed questions that dodge around this issue in certain ways. This all indicates that you are disingenuous about really learning about this subject.
Click to expand...
Right. When unscientific (colloquial interpretation) questions are asked by someone who's username indicates a decidedly anti-science pre-existing position on the issue they first came here to discuss, it certainly sets off the warning bells!
 
Russ_Watters said:
Right. When unscientific (colloquial interpretation) questions are asked by someone who's username indicates a decidedly anti-science pre-existing position on the issue they first came here to discuss, it certainly sets off the warning bells!
Click to expand...
And being a newbie, and in line with recent similar experiences, the alarm bells are really clanging!
 
paddoboy said:


The above should explain your apparent misunderstandings about SR.
Glad to be of assistance
Click to expand...
Thank you for your video link which the narrator explains time dilation, but explains very little on length contraction. I have noticed some rather strange posts from members, which I will choose to ignore as they are seemingly being aimed personally towards myself and have no relevance to the question I have asked.
I have not stated that I am any sort of expert, I have neither asked to learn, I have my own education preference of the original author.

http://www.bartleby.com/173/
 
absolute said:
I have my own education preference of the original author.
Click to expand...
Hard to tell what that means, exactly - is English your first language? But if it means you like your theory as explained by the original theorist, this quote from your link is directly relevant:
Einstein said:
- Can we conceive of a relation between place and time of the individual events relative to both reference-bodies, such that every ray of light possesses the velocity of transmission c relative to the embankment and relative to the train? This question leads to a quite definite positive answer, and to a perfectly definite transformation law for the space-time magnitudes of an event when changing over from one body of reference to another.
Click to expand...
Notice: he is talking about the space-time magnitudes themselves undergoing transformation. Not just a "visual thing", in other words.
 
absolute-space said:
I have neither asked to learn,
Click to expand...
Interesting.....In conjunction with your name, it appears you are approaching this on a science forum, with some preconceived agenda.......
Let me assure you that SR and GR are overwhelmingly evidenced and supported.

The mathematical evidence in the video I supplied, validates length contraction. It is also validated within particle accelerators.
SR stands on both postulates and both postulates of length contraction and time dilation align with the final results of SR.

I would also add that the observationally verified concept of time dilation, also implies length contraction.
 
Last edited:
absolute-space said:
Thank you for your video link which the narrator explains time dilation, but explains very little on length contraction. I have noticed some rather strange posts from members, which I will choose to ignore as they are seemingly being aimed personally towards myself and have no relevance to the question I have asked.
I have not stated that I am any sort of expert, I have neither asked to learn, I have my own education preference of the original author.

http://www.bartleby.com/173/
Click to expand...
i have not read a "no i am not azo."
 
Russ_Watters said:
In that case, why did you ask the question if you aren't interested in learning the answer? Troll bait?
Click to expand...
I will answer this as it ask's a direct question rather than making a presumption, thank for you asking, I am interested in discussing the question, is there anything wrong in that on a discussion forum?
 
paddoboy said:
Interesting.....In conjunction with your name, it appears you are approaching this on a science forum, with some preconceived agenda.......
Let me assure you that SR and GR are overwhelmingly evidenced and supported.

The mathematical evidence in the video I supplied, validates length contraction. It is also validated within particle accelerators.
SR stands on both postulates and both postulates of length contraction and time dilation align with the final results of SR.

I would also add that the observationally verified concept of time dilation, also implies length contraction.
Click to expand...
There was no agenda in my user name, it was the first name I thought of, it means nothing.

''The mathematical evidence in the video I supplied, validates length contraction. It is also validated within particle accelerators.
SR stands on both postulates and both postulates of length contraction and time dilation align with the final results of SR.''

There was not really a need to explain that, have I said it did not?
 
absolute-space said:
I have neither asked to learn,
Click to expand...
Perhaps due to the possibility of English being your second language, you may have not meant what you convey above: So I'll continue on that assumption.
In general the observed muon observation is seen to validate time dilation from our perspective. But what about from the perspective of the muon?
Here's a nice little explanatory video that shows mathematically in the muon's frame of reference, that length contraction does take place.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top