[timey]

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...

Well yes, normally when there is a piece of maths it suppose to represent something physically observed. I observe no contraction personally so it is a bit fairy tale like.

This being, box, because space time within our macro environment is only distorted to a very, very small fraction, of a fraction, of a second.

I think, after much reflection, that the answer to your question under the remit of established physics is:

"Is distance an invariant?"

 ... yes, and, no!

[timey]

If anyone needs a definitive answer to a scientific question then Alan, Evan_au, ChiralSPO, Colin2B and others I may have forgotten will provide it. They are all prepared to stand corrected by others when they are shown to be wrong in their understanding. To effectively challenge mainstream ideas requires an understanding that you can't get from pop science books. Also adopting a user name based on a pet theory should sound alarm bells.

An understanding of the universe cannot be attained by a school education either, no matter how much your parents paid, and paid for or not, a school education is no guarantee of a persons personal intellect.

A full understanding of the universe is yet to exist.

P.S.  I hadn't realised Thebox... had a theory called Thebox...  I'll have to do a search, aye

[guest39538]

If anyone needs a definitive answer to a scientific question then Alan, Evan_au, ChiralSPO, Colin2B and others I may have forgotten will provide it. They are all prepared to stand corrected by others when they are shown to be wrong in their understanding. To effectively challenge mainstream ideas requires an understanding that you can't get from pop science books. Also adopting a user name based on a pet theory should sound alarm bells.

An understanding of the universe cannot be attained by a school education either, no matter how much your parents paid, and paid for or not, a school education is no guarantee of a persons personal intellect.

A full understanding of the universe is yet to exist.

P.S.  I hadn't realised Thebox... had a theory called Thebox...  I'll have to do a search, aye

I have not got a theory called the box.

[guest39538]

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...

Well yes, normally when there is a piece of maths it suppose to represent something physically observed. I observe no contraction personally so it is a bit fairy tale like.

This being, box, because space time within our macro environment is only distorted to a very, very small fraction, of a fraction, of a second.

I think, after much reflection, that the answer to your question under the remit of established physics is:

"Is distance an invariant?"

 ... yes, and, no!

You should realise now you please need to explain why no?

[Ethos_]

Ah... Hmmmm, OK, Lol,  I can see that I might have to start reading your posts...

(Don't mind me too much, just having myself a mild troll)

Be my guest timey, I'm sure you'll find a few contradictions and errors along the way. Like many people searching for the truth, I've had to change my mind several times when confronted with evidence. It's called "growth", something a few of us have resisted since their initial membership began.

[timey]

If anyone needs a definitive answer to a scientific question then Alan, Evan_au, ChiralSPO, Colin2B and others I may have forgotten will provide it. They are all prepared to stand corrected by others when they are shown to be wrong in their understanding. To effectively challenge mainstream ideas requires an understanding that you can't get from pop science books. Also adopting a user name based on a pet theory should sound alarm bells.

An understanding of the universe cannot be attained by a school education either, no matter how much your parents paid, and paid for or not, a school education is no guarantee of a persons personal intellect.

A full understanding of the universe is yet to exist.

P.S.  I hadn't realised Thebox... had a theory called Thebox...  I'll have to do a search, aye

I have not got a theory called the box.

Aww, how cute is that?

Tbh, box, I did in fact already know this.  Try thinking it through a little bit further...

[timey]

Ah... Hmmmm, OK, Lol,  I can see that I might have to start reading your posts...

(Don't mind me too much, just having myself a mild troll)

Be my guest timey, I'm sure you'll find a few contradictions and errors along the way. Like many people searching for the truth, I've had to change my mind several times when confronted with evidence. It's called "growth", something a few of us have resisted since their initial membership began.

Thanks, I will.  And speaking for myself, I'm all up for growth, progression, and a good measure of humour wherever possible.

[timey]

You should realise now you please need to explain why no?

Really, do I have to?  Cos' from what I've seen everyone has had a go at explaining that a length contracts for an observer, that a distance contracts for a traveller, and that space time stretches distance.

Can't I explain why distance is an invariant instead?  It's the only angle that hadn't been so thoroughly covered!

[Colin2B]

Can't I explain why distance is an invariant instead? 

No, because the question is "is distance an absolute invariant"

The floor is your's.

[timey]

Can't I explain why distance is an invariant instead? 

No, because the question is "is distance an absolute invariant"

The floor is your's.

Check out the brain on Colin here, lol, lol, lol!!!

Now then box, the answer to your question:

Is distance an 'absolute' invariant?


Is: As set out by established physics.  No!

If you ask me 'why' now, I'm going to scream!!!

[Ethos_]

Now then box, the answer to your question:

Is distance an 'absolute' invariant?


Is: As set out by established physics.  No!

If you ask me 'why' now, I'm going to scream!!!

Simple and concise answer my man, Mr. Box should appreciate that a great deal even though this has been the umpteenth time that question has been answered.

If Mr. Box wants an answer to why we know this, let it suffice to say: "Because that result is what relativistic math and experiment reveal."

Now as to the singular question "why"; Maybe a similar answer as to; "why does a dog circle itself twice before setting down?"

Only the dog knows for sure!

[guest39538]

Now then box, the answer to your question:

Is distance an 'absolute' invariant?


Is: As set out by established physics.  No!

If you ask me 'why' now, I'm going to scream!!!

Simple and concise answer my man, Mr. Box should appreciate that a great deal even though this has been the umpteenth time that question has been answered.

If Mr. Box wants an answer to why we know this, let it suffice to say: "Because that result is what relativistic math and experiment reveal."

Now as to the singular question "why"; Maybe a similar answer as to; "why does a dog circle itself twice before setting down?"

Only the dog knows for sure!

What experiment shows a length contraction, I do not believe this experiment exists?

[guest39538]

If anyone needs a definitive answer to a scientific question then Alan, Evan_au, ChiralSPO, Colin2B and others I may have forgotten will provide it. They are all prepared to stand corrected by others when they are shown to be wrong in their understanding. To effectively challenge mainstream ideas requires an understanding that you can't get from pop science books. Also adopting a user name based on a pet theory should sound alarm bells.

An understanding of the universe cannot be attained by a school education either, no matter how much your parents paid, and paid for or not, a school education is no guarantee of a persons personal intellect.

A full understanding of the universe is yet to exist.

P.S.  I hadn't realised Thebox... had a theory called Thebox...  I'll have to do a search, aye

I have not got a theory called the box.

Aww, how cute is that?

Tbh, box, I did in fact already know this.  Try thinking it through a little bit further...

Well I did think further and google the box theory to find a facebook page, green box, red box, yellow box, nothing I have not said in the past in a different way.

[timey]

If anyone needs a definitive answer to a scientific question then Alan, Evan_au, ChiralSPO, Colin2B and others I may have forgotten will provide it. They are all prepared to stand corrected by others when they are shown to be wrong in their understanding. To effectively challenge mainstream ideas requires an understanding that you can't get from pop science books. Also adopting a user name based on a pet theory should sound alarm bells.

An understanding of the universe cannot be attained by a school education either, no matter how much your parents paid, and paid for or not, a school education is no guarantee of a persons personal intellect.

A full understanding of the universe is yet to exist.

P.S.  I hadn't realised Thebox... had a theory called Thebox...  I'll have to do a search, aye

I have not got a theory called the box.

Aww, how cute is that?

Tbh, box, I did in fact already know this.  Try thinking it through a little bit further...

Well I did think further and google the box theory to find a facebook page, green box, red box, yellow box, nothing I have not said in the past in a different way.

Box, . I am the one with the time theory and the user name timey, OK?

[timey]

Meanwhile...  in a much long forgotten relics room, at an as yet to be disclosed museum somewhere... geologists have been called in to conduct carbon dating of the stratum of dust layers obscuring the contours of an artefact that scientists, and historians alike, are now convinced might just be Occam's Razor...

[Ethos_]

What experiment shows a length contraction, I do not believe this experiment exists?

There have been several experiments that suggest verification for length contraction at near light speed. One such experiment using heavy ions has shown that the increase in nucleon density do to length contraction is the most logical conclusion. Heavy ions are spherical at rest but assume a flattened or pancake like shape at near light speeds. This experiment has been observed and verified at cyclotrons, commonly referred to as atom smashers.

Maybe you should start looking up the material for yourself, the web or a good physics weekly would be a good start.

[guest39538]

Box, . I am the one with the time theory and the user name timey, OK?

Sorry you lost me, what time theory?

are you the time cube guy?

[guest39538]

What experiment shows a length contraction, I do not believe this experiment exists?

There have been several experiments that suggest verification for length contraction at near light speed. One such experiment using heavy ions has shown that the increase in nucleon density do to length contraction is the most logical conclusion. Heavy ions are spherical at rest but assume a flattened or pancake like shape at near light speeds. This experiment has been observed and verified at cyclotrons, commonly referred to as atom smashers.

Maybe you should start looking up the material for yourself, the web or a good physics weekly would be a good start.

huh?  I have no idea what you just said, what on Earth is an heavy ion suppose to be? 

I looked it up, how does charged particles grouping while travelling through  collider prove contraction of a stick?

[Ethos_]

huh?  I have no idea what you just said, what on Earth is an heavy ion suppose to be?

Look it up, you have shown no interest in what any of us have offered you freely to date. Unless you're willing to learn from reputable sources like most of the members here at TNS frequent, how can you honestly expect to learn or form accurate views about current scientific information?

How are you ever going to learn anything Mr. Box if you won't trust the professionals that have the equipment and knowledge to preform these experiments? I'm sure you don't have a cyclotron at your residence and neither do any of us. We get our information from the facilities that do.

[guest39538]

huh?  I have no idea what you just said, what on Earth is an heavy ion suppose to be?

Look it up, you have shown no interest in what any of us have offered you freely to date. Unless you're willing to learn from reputable sources like most of the members here at TNS frequent, how can you honestly expect to learn or form accurate views about current scientific information?

How are you ever going to learn anything Mr. Box if you won't trust the professionals that have the equipment and knowledge to preform these experiments? I'm sure you don't have a cyclotron at your residence and neither do any of us. We get our information from the facilities that do.

I do not know the exact details of the experiment, therefore I hold judgement, I have not observed the experimental procedure and method to discourse and look for human error or observer effect.

It is not that I don't ''trust'', I do not take things at face value.   The title of a book tells what the story is about, only if you read the full book doe's one know the full story.

In my question I do not ask about any of your book, I ask about something that I observe. I observe space itself without radiation or mass is an empty void, I observe there is no concrete existence such as an ether, I observe that for something to stretch, bend, contract, expand, it has to me made of something and have elastic or flexible properties. I do not observe objects of solidity in motion contracting in length. I do observe objects in rotation contacting in height and expanding in length.

The Earth and empty space of  a vacuum testament to the statement above's truthfulness.

How could the Earth's circumference at the equator ever contract when the expansion is caused by rotation velocity?


If the rotation slowed down there would be a diameter length contraction or circumference contraction if you like, but how can relative velocity of orbit contract a length?


How can the nothing of space contract ?