0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Edit: Obviously one may describe the length of a distance as being such and such, not so much the distance of a length though, just don't sound right
Quote from: Thebox on 31/01/2016 20:16:16You want me to accept something that I either do not understand or something that goes against normal logic and observation. The key here is that you evidently don't "understand". And BTW, relativity is and was never "normal logic", it took Einstein thinking well out of "the proverbial box", to coin a term we are all well aware of by now. Relativity is not a logical conclusion our minds find acceptable or easily understood. It has taken many experiments and defined observations for science to have defined reality in terms of this theory. If you truly want to learn and understand relativity, you'll need to accept what these experiments have taught us. If you're not willing to accept these findings, you'll never understand relativity. Something tells me you really don't want to understand, you would really prefer that we simply accept your position. Please explain to me why in the world we would ever do that when we have the evidence given to us from great men of science telling us otherwise?Unless you're willing to forget your logical assumptions for a while and listen to these great men of science, and begin learning what their experiments have shown us, I'll be unwilling to discuss this topic with you any further.So,.................what will it be Mr. Box?
You want me to accept something that I either do not understand or something that goes against normal logic and observation.
Ok, back to definitions I see...(chuckle)So... we describe the length of something as a measurement. The defining word here being 'something'. A length is the description of a measurement of something...We describe the distance between 2 somethings as a measurement. The defining word here being 'between'. A distance is the description of a measurement of space between 2 somethings.We can say that the length of the train takes up a distance in space. The length being defined by the matter of the train, and the distance being defined by the space that this length occupies.The length of the train can also be defined by the distance it occupies, but the distance that the train occupies cannot be defined by the length of the train. The distance that the train occupies can only be defined by the 'space' on either side of the train that the train is not occupying.Clearly there 'is' a difference between a length and a distance.Edit: Obviously one may describe the length of a distance as being such and such, not so much the distance of a length though, just don't sound right
It is a weird one box, relativity explains length contraction mathematically, but offers no reasonable explanation as to the causation of this phenomenon.Therefore, actually, the way is clear for a speculation... I personally speculate that because the rate of time for the contracted length is slowed via its velocity, an observer is viewing the length moving in a slower rate of time relative to their own. An observer viewing an event from their faster rate of time, will not have 'the time' in which to view the entirety of the length as it moves within it's slower rate of time, causing the length to appear contracted to the observer.However, a length and a distance are 2 different things. A length is a measurement of matter, and a distance is a measurement of space. The stretching of the fabric of outer space also affects distances according to GR.It is true that science has had the benefit of many great minds, but on the other hand, logically speaking, it is in fact an act of sheer stupidity to consider our knowledge of the universe as wise... Our 2 best working theories cannot be fully united. If they could, discussions such as this would be redundant...
It is a weird one box, relativity explains length contraction mathematically, but offers no reasonable explanation as to the causation of this phenomenon.Therefore, actually, the way is clear for a speculation... I personally speculate that because the rate of time for the contracted length is slowed via its velocity, an observer is viewing the length moving in a slower rate of time relative to their own. An observer viewing an event from their faster rate of time, will not have 'the time' in which to view the entirety of the length as it moves within it's slower rate of time, causing the length to appear contracted to the observer.
I have the answers to everything, it all starts with negative is attractive to negative, please go over to the new theories thread, light is anti-matter.
Anti-matter is evil, dark is the good, the battle of good and evil.
If only you could see my hand actions and expressions with my hands when I am explaining.
As we move around the building, the dimensions of the building's length and width are distorted... But...we are quite clear that the building itself is not distorted and that it is the circumstances of our viewpoint that are distorting the view.
Quote from: Thebox on 01/02/2016 06:06:24I have the answers to everything, it all starts with negative is attractive to negative, please go over to the new theories thread, light is anti-matter. Nope.............negative attracts positive.
Please do not misunderstand me and think that I cannot perceive or visualise what General Relativity is describing. Or that I have not understood how General Relativity fits to experiment and observation.
Quote from: timey on 01/02/2016 16:20:05Please do not misunderstand me and think that I cannot perceive or visualise what General Relativity is describing. Or that I have not understood how General Relativity fits to experiment and observation.that was not my intention.I was confining my comments to SR because I was looking for a way to explain length contraction to The Box. He is obviously struggling with the link given to him hence the title he gave to this topic.
and the answer is simple, I will leave you all to ponder over this one, I gave you the key to decoding the maths, what is the above saying?
Quote from: Ethos_ on 31/01/2016 19:50:44Quote from: Thebox on 31/01/2016 16:59:00I have still not had a direct answer to my question, is distance an invariant?Try this link: www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contractionI have already had that link provided and obviously I must not understand it because to me it is saying when an object moves it shrinks in length, so obviously I must be reading this link wrongly that would be so preposterous.
Quote from: Thebox on 31/01/2016 16:59:00I have still not had a direct answer to my question, is distance an invariant?Try this link: www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction
I have still not had a direct answer to my question, is distance an invariant?
Quote from: Thebox on 31/01/2016 19:58:12Quote from: Ethos_ on 31/01/2016 19:50:44Quote from: Thebox on 31/01/2016 16:59:00I have still not had a direct answer to my question, is distance an invariant?Try this link: www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contractionI have already had that link provided and obviously I must not understand it because to me it is saying when an object moves it shrinks in length, so obviously I must be reading this link wrongly that would be so preposterous.There are two things going on. We have the object and we have the light that reflects off the object. Our tools measure the energy that comes off the object. We don't measure the actual physical object. An analogy is we can take a picture of a lion. This picture is a representation of the lion and may look exactly like it. But the picture is limited to only the energy that is reflected off the lion. It does not contain all possible physical properties such as his smell. With the picture we can do motion blur, but the lion does not do have the ability to blur himself. The motion blur is an artifact of the picture and not the matter of the lion.If we see an object distance contracted, this is the happening to light; in the picture. Common sense says, if the actual object was physically contracted, like in the picture, its density would need to increase. Higher density will require a phase change in the matter of the object. A phase change will then mean one should see others things, beyond the red or blue shift. One should see a totally new spectrum of emissions to reflect the denser phase. If you don't see that, There is only something happening in the photo. There is a special affect. Here is an interesting related observation, in the twin paradox, the twin in motion returns to earth younger than his stationary brother. However, I have never heard anyone say that their twin in motion also returns shorter and thinner. If space-time works as team, shouldn't time dilation and distance contraction both occur? How is it possible for only age to permanently change, in we assume space-time is integrated? The actual object does not do the same thing as the picture; distances.
Space Flow: I notice that you have a notion that these distortions 'may' be a factor of our viewpoint. I agree! If you think about rates of time that are occurring faster, or slower, relative to our own, it could be that we quite simply are observing a lesser percentage of the light from the local of that reference frame as a result.
At the same time I fully acknowledge that time dilation has been locally fully proven to exist and behaves as the mathematics predicts.Given all that, I have to conclude that the problem is in fact in my head and probably not real.I would just like to either see or be shown where my thinking is being derailed.I hate these doubts.
That is because timing is not time. There is a timing dilation which behaves as predicted, but not a time dilation.