[GoC (OP)]

If the sleepers bend forwards (which I think they do), they will be straight in the distance, but curved as they go underneath you because you're looking down from a height. You'll only get a sharp angle if you go down to the same altitude, though if you do that you won't see the shape they form as you'll be viewing from the same plane.

Light goes out as a sphere where all angles are able to be viewed. How can you as a reasonable scientist claim to see 30 degrees off of a 90 degree physical position be viewed as perpendicular? Two trains parallel as they increase speed are in competition with light. The light image past the train is moving in between the two physical positions of the trains for the perpendicular view (simultaneity of relativity). The two trains are physically perpendicular but visually behind each other in view. If you are suggesting two different perpendicular views that is extremely unlikely. The angle of view is the contracted view. There are two issues the contracted view by the 30 degree off angle and the inverse square of the increased distance.
While clocks oriented in any direction under half the speed of light coincide with the Lorentz contraction for the angle of view using plain geometry above that speed can not be tested with a clock. Math can go where reality cannot so we cannot depend on math to prove a point above our ability to test a theory. The angle of view fits the Lorentz contraction without physical contraction in SR. 30 degrees off of 90 is not a perpendicular view. The perpendicular view is the forward image that reaches your 90 degree position with vector velocity.

How would you convince the pope there is no God or in your case no physical contraction?

120 degrees is not 90 degrees.

[guest39538]

If the sleepers bend forwards (which I think they do), they will be straight in the distance, but curved as they go underneath you because you're looking down from a height. You'll only get a sharp angle if you go down to the same altitude, though if you do that you won't see the shape they form as you'll be viewing from the same plane.

Light goes out as a sphere where all angles are able to be viewed.

Light permeates isotropic in a linearity, there are no angles of light, the ''angles'' are subjective interpretation of geometrical position relative to light source. 

[GoC (OP)]

Or angle from the image of an object. My point was a 120 degree angle will not be a 90 degree angle of view. If that is what's necessary for a theory of physical contraction vs. the same contraction by proper angle of view I am going with the angle of view causing the contraction.

There is no proof for physical contraction even with Muons. That is a reaction rate issue for the energy being slow to react. ~ 2% available energy to react vs. 98% used for velocity.

[David Cooper]

If the sleepers bend forwards (which I think they do), they will be straight in the distance, but curved as they go underneath you because you're looking down from a height. You'll only get a sharp angle if you go down to the same altitude, though if you do that you won't see the shape they form as you'll be viewing from the same plane.

Light goes out as a sphere where all angles are able to be viewed. How can you as a reasonable scientist claim to see 30 degrees off of a 90 degree physical position be viewed as perpendicular?

Why quote the bit you have and then talk about something different? If we're actually looking at the bit in the quote, light does indeed go out as a sphere from every point being viewed, and the part you see at any point in time depends on where your eye is within that sphere. The direction in which you see the part of an object from which a particular photon hits your retina depends on where on the retina it lands. Light coming to you on a path perpendicular to the track will enter through the iris, the eye will move, and then it will hit the retina further back, leading you to see that light as if it came from some angle ahead rather then the perpendicular path it actually came along. If you're looking at the train running parallel to you, any light that follows a perpendicular path between the trains (meaning genuinely perpendicular, following the lines of the sleepers), will have to come from further ahead. That light set out when the train you're looking at was further back with the part you're looking at directly to the side of where you are now, but the part you're looking at is by this time some way ahead, and you will see it as being some way ahead too, just as if you're looking straight at it on an angled path. But while you're seeing it where it actually is, you're seeing it as it was when it was further back but in the position where it now is.

Importantly though, when I was dealing with lasers, there is no sphere of light - there is only a narrow beam which doesn't widen over distance. My diagram showed you exactly how it works.

Two trains parallel as they increase speed are in competition with light. The light image past the train is moving in between the two physical positions of the trains for the perpendicular view (simultaneity of relativity). The two trains are physically perpendicular but visually behind each other in view. If you are suggesting two different perpendicular views that is extremely unlikely. The angle of view is the contracted view. There are two issues the contracted view by the 30 degree off angle and the inverse square of the increased distance.

You are just repeating nonsense - where did you learn it? It's codswallop! The view of the other train from each train is completely undistorted at all speeds. It's only the view of things that aren't co-moving with you that look distorted to you, and my diagram shows you exactly why that is. If the light enters your iris and hits the middle of your retina, you will see that light as coming from the direction your eye is pointing in and not whatever direction it might actually have came from. The light leaves the laser at an angle that is different from the direction the laser is pointing in, and it enters the eye at a different angle from the angle the eye perceives it as having come from (for exactly the same reason as it doesn't follow the alignment of the laser).

While clocks oriented in any direction under half the speed of light coincide with the Lorentz contraction for the angle of view using plain geometry above that speed can not be tested with a clock. Math can go where reality cannot so we cannot depend on math to prove a point above our ability to test a theory. The angle of view fits the Lorentz contraction without physical contraction in SR. 30 degrees off of 90 is not a perpendicular view. The perpendicular view is the forward image that reaches your 90 degree position with vector velocity.

The MMX moves sufficiently fast through space for a lack of contraction to produce a result other than the null result, so reality has tested this already and shown that there is real contraction. It is not visual contraction, and your beliefs about how things appear are wildly wrong. I don't know where you picked up your knowledge, but if you didn't misunderstand what you read there, it must be one hell of a woeful site.

How would you convince the pope there is no God or in your case no physical contraction?

You can't convince religious people of anything - they just stick to their position no matter how irrational it is. I've shown you that without actual length-contraction you either have an MMX that doesn't produce the null result that it always comes up with, or you have light moving faster than the speed of light and should be able to use that to demonstrate superluminal communication. I have led the horse to water and it is not my responsibility if it dies of thirst.

[GoC (OP)]

Why quote the bit you have and then talk about something different? If we're actually looking at the bit in the quote, light does indeed go out as a sphere from every point being viewed, and the part you see at any point in time depends on where your eye is within that sphere. The direction in which you see the part of an object from which a particular photon hits your retina depends on where on the retina it lands. Light coming to you on a path perpendicular to the track will enter through the iris, the eye will move, and then it will hit the retina further back, leading you to see that light as if it came from some angle ahead rather then the perpendicular path it actually came along. If you're looking at the train running parallel to you, any light that follows a perpendicular path between the trains (meaning genuinely perpendicular, following the lines of the sleepers), will have to come from further ahead. That light set out when the train you're looking at was further back with the part you're looking at directly to the side of where you are now, but the part you're looking at is by this time some way ahead, and you will see it as being some way ahead too, just as if you're looking straight at it on an angled path. But while you're seeing it where it actually is, you're seeing it as it was when it was further back but in the position where it now is.

Then the angle of view gives you the contracted view and you can never see it where it exists physically. Rather than an observer lets consider a nano second shutter exposure or less. There will be no retina issues to confuse physical vs. visual contraction by the angle of view. If your view is the front of the other train at relative rest there is no further forward position as you increase speed only simultaneity of relativity which puts the view of the train in back of your position.

Importantly though, when I was dealing with lasers, there is no sphere of light - there is only a narrow beam which doesn't widen over distance. My diagram showed you exactly how it works.

It does widen with distance say to the moon
GOC

Two trains parallel as they increase speed are in competition with light. The light image past the train is moving in between the two physical positions of the trains for the perpendicular view (simultaneity of relativity). The two trains are physically perpendicular but visually behind each other in view. If you are suggesting two different perpendicular views that is extremely unlikely. The angle of view is the contracted view. There are two issues the contracted view by the 30 degree off angle and the inverse square of the increased distance.

David

You are just repeating nonsense - where did you learn it? It's codswallop! The view of the other train from each train is completely undistorted at all speeds. It's only the view of things that aren't co-moving with you that look distorted to you, and my diagram shows you exactly why that is. If the light enters your iris and hits the middle of your retina, you will see that light as coming from the direction your eye is pointing in and not whatever direction it might actually have came from. The light leaves the laser at an angle that is different from the direction the laser is pointing in, and it enters the eye at a different angle from the angle the eye perceives it as having come from (for exactly the same reason as it doesn't follow the alignment of the laser).

The laser can not go perpendicular at relativistic speeds because light does not have momentum. Light is independent of the source. The train being the source and the position in space event being independent of the train. That codswallop is the postulate of Relativity.

The MMX moves sufficiently fast through space for a lack of contraction to produce a result other than the null result, so reality has tested this already and shown that there is real contraction. It is not visual contraction, and your beliefs about how things appear are wildly wrong. I don't know where you picked up your knowledge, but if you didn't misunderstand what you read there, it must be one hell of a woeful site.

I do not need a site for an explanation. It just logic of the postulates with an understanding the relativity math is correct while the reasons you are applying to the equations are incorrect. There is no momentum in light.

How would you convince the pope there is no God or in your case no physical contraction?

You can't convince religious people of anything - they just stick to their position no matter how irrational it is. I've shown you that without actual length-contraction you either have an MMX that doesn't produce the null result that it always comes up with, or you have light moving faster than the speed of light and should be able to use that to demonstrate superluminal communication. I have led the horse to water and it is not my responsibility if it dies of thirst.

Your explanation for a null result is not the only explanation. Light does not contract and motion compensates its distance in every direction. That is why a clock in any orientation ticks at the same rate. Are you thirsty yet?

[David Cooper]

You've been given plenty to work with and I'm not going to add to it. What is already here will remain here and it says it all.

[GoC (OP)]

Oh, I am familiar with what you believe. To me it has no logic. What is compressing the mass? There is nothing in space according to main stream. Your explanations are not able to view from the future if trains are side by side physically.

[guest39538]

Oh, I am familiar with what you believe. To me it has no logic. What is compressing the mass? There is nothing in space according to main stream. Your explanations are not able to view from the future if trains are side by side physically.

I am fully with you on this one GoC, I and you relatively agree that objects do not physically length contract, so unless somebody else steps in David's ''corner'', our agreement alone over rules his solo belief.

P.s @David:Now if you want to discuss a volume contraction of an object in motion, I can happily do that one.

+ve=-E = <4/3πr³

I added diagram, of course you do not know this or understand this yet.

Because did you know that when a body is in motion travelling away from an inertia reference frame , the object loses E entropy that was  gained from the inertia body?

Of course you didn't because you think it is a time dilation!  The object gain of  energy  expands molecules, a reduction in E entropy gain causes the object to contract isotropic , not just the length.

P.s that is what you call real science....

Would you like to test this notion? it is a quite easy test


I predict if you was to ''warm'' up a Caesium atom, the output would increase in frequency.

[David Cooper]

Oh, I am familiar with what you believe. To me it has no logic. What is compressing the mass? There is nothing in space according to main stream. Your explanations are not able to view from the future if trains are side by side physically.

I am fully with you on this one GoC, I and you relatively agree that objects do not physically length contract, so unless somebody else steps in David's ''corner'', our agreement alone over rules his solo belief.

It doesn't work that way - I showed that you either need to have actual length-contraction or you have to allow light to go faster than c. Two people incapable of taking that on board when a third person shows them how it works does not make the two right - it is not a democratic system, but one of reason, and reason is something the two can't handle. Neither of you are able to explain how you keep two light clocks in a train ticking at the same rate when one is aligned with the direction of travel of the train and the other is aligned perpendicular to it. You both maintain your state of ignorance by steadfastly refusing to explore that and by ignoring the numbers that I've given you to show that you're wrong. How long does it take for the light to get from the back of the 10cm-long carriage to the front if you don't length-contract the carriage? How long does it take to get back? What's the total time? If the perpendicular light clock is also 10cm long (it would stick out the side of the carriage, but that's okay), how long does light take to do a round trip on that? Pick a speed and crunch the numbers. Until you do that, you have no credibility whatsoever. Do you understand how ridiculous the pair of you look when you refuse to check even the most basic aspects of relativity?

Now if you want to discuss a volume contraction of an object in motion, I can happily do that one.

+ve=-E = <4/3πr³

I added diagram, of course you do not know this or understand this yet.

Because did you know that when a body is in motion travelling away from an inertia reference frame , the object loses E entropy that was  gained from the inertia body?

Of course you didn't because you think it is a time dilation!  The object gain of  energy  expands molecules, a reduction in E entropy gain causes the object to contract isotropic , not just the length.

P.s that is what you call real science....

Would you like to test this notion? it is a quite easy test


I predict if you was to ''warm'' up a Caesium atom, the output would increase in frequency.

I'll be happy to explore that in detail AFTER you give me numbers to show that length-contraction isn't needed for the light clock in the carriage (the one that sends light from the back end of the carriage to the front end and back again). Prove to me that you're capable of doing real science.

[guest39538]

Oh, I am familiar with what you believe. To me it has no logic. What is compressing the mass? There is nothing in space according to main stream. Your explanations are not able to view from the future if trains are side by side physically.

I am fully with you on this one GoC, I and you relatively agree that objects do not physically length contract, so unless somebody else steps in David's ''corner'', our agreement alone over rules his solo belief.

It doesn't work that way - I showed that you either need to have actual length-contraction or you have to allow light to go faster than c. Two people incapable of taking that on board when a third person shows them how it works does not make the two right - it is not a democratic system, but one of reason, and reason is something the two can't handle. Neither of you are able to explain how you keep two light clocks in a train ticking at the same rate when one is aligned with the direction of travel of the train and the other is aligned perpendicular to it. You both maintain your state of ignorance by steadfastly refusing to explore that and by ignoring the numbers that I've given you to show that you're wrong. How long does it take for the light to get from the back of the 10cm-long carriage to the front if you don't length-contract the carriage? How long does it take to get back? What's the total time? If the perpendicular light clock is also 10cm long (it would stick out the side of the carriage, but that's okay), how long does light take to do a round trip on that? Pick a speed and crunch the numbers. Until you do that, you have no credibility whatsoever. Do you understand how ridiculous the pair of you look when you refuse to check even the most basic aspects of relativity?

Now if you want to discuss a volume contraction of an object in motion, I can happily do that one.

+ve=-E = <4/3πr³

I added diagram, of course you do not know this or understand this yet.

Because did you know that when a body is in motion travelling away from an inertia reference frame , the object loses E entropy that was  gained from the inertia body?

Of course you didn't because you think it is a time dilation!  The object gain of  energy  expands molecules, a reduction in E entropy gain causes the object to contract isotropic , not just the length.

P.s that is what you call real science....

Would you like to test this notion? it is a quite easy test


I predict if you was to ''warm'' up a Caesium atom, the output would increase in frequency.

I'll be happy to explore that in detail AFTER you give me numbers to show that length-contraction isn't needed for the light clock in the carriage (the one that sends light from the back end of the carriage to the front end and back again). Prove to me that you're capable of doing real science.

Ok, that ''knocked'' me back a bit. Can you please find me a video on youtube that shows the example of light you are on about?

Then I will answer the ''problem'' and become a ''masterclass'' in science just for you

added - ok I have drawn you , your explanation, The two lines represent the length of the train carriage, between the lines light is permeating isotropic as you can see.

What would you like to  know?

Or what are you saying happens?
ctrain.jpg (9.71 kB . 1003x505 - viewed 4494 times)

[GoC (OP)]

David,

   The technology is not available to accelerate mass at relativistic speeds (except for a few atoms so the relativistic speeds are not verified in the range you are discussing. But for half the speed of light at a 30 degree angle the view is contracted by 0.866025 in plain geometry. Your idea about the lens in your eye reproducing the perpendicular view is very unlikely. So we have a visual length contraction by the angle of view exactly the same as what you suggest is the physical length contraction. We already have the visual contraction so we also have a physical contraction? Above half the speed of light clock direction could be important for tick rate. But physical contraction is extremely unlikely since up to half the speed of light is a visual contraction by the postulates of relativity using plain geometry of light being independent of the source.

You were not clear on that point. Do you disagree that a angle of view different from perpendicular is visually shorter?
Avoidance of that question suggests you are not willing to go down the logic route in favor of your beliefs.

If up to half the speed of light is visual there is no logic to the other half being physical. Relativity has a linearity issue with direction of mass to light above half the speed of light.

the box

Physics does not care if we have an accurate understanding or not. A vote will not change physics only the minds of the followers of their view. The BB had a vote of 12 to one in favor of the BB theory. BH's prove the existence of the universe much older than 13.6 billion years.

[guest39538]

David,

   The technology is not available to accelerate mass at relativistic speeds (except for a few atoms so the relativistic speeds are not verified in the range you are discussing. But for half the speed of light at a 30 degree angle the view is contracted by 0.866025 in plain geometry. Your idea about the lens in your eye reproducing the perpendicular view is very unlikely. So we have a visual length contraction by the angle of view exactly the same as what you suggest is the physical length contraction. We already have the visual contraction so we also have a physical contraction? Above half the speed of light clock direction could be important for tick rate. But physical contraction is extremely unlikely since up to half the speed of light is a visual contraction by the postulates of relativity using plain geometry of light being independent of the source.

You were not clear on that point. Do you disagree that a angle of view different from perpendicular is visually shorter?
Avoidance of that question suggests you are not willing to go down the logic route in favor of your beliefs.

If up to half the speed of light is visual there is no logic to the other half being physical. Relativity has a linearity issue with direction of mass to light above half the speed of light.

the box

Physics does not care if we have an accurate understanding or not. A vote will not change physics only the minds of the followers of their view. The BB had a vote of 12 to one in favor of the BB theory. BH's prove the existence of the universe much older than 13.6 billion years.

Would 13.6 billion years be based on our calendar?   If so problem because that would equal earths orbit of the Sun time.


P.s Obviously they didn't have a random ''jury'' when voting on the BB. A scientific ''jury'' may be biased.

[guest39538]

I wonder if ''they'' are going to be smart enough to realise that I am using the very pixels of your screen you are viewing naked Science on, to accurately show the nature of light and to try to get ''them'' to realise the errors in ''their'' wisdom and thoughts!


I predict David is going to suggest an imaginary light beam or ''photon'' travelling left to right and vice versus, however then we need to add a medium that can reflect the light so we can actually observe the beam/''photon'' travelling left to right and vice versus.
However David will not account that the 2d interpretation of the thought , the light from the screen and laser or beam or photon is travelling also directly at your eyes.

ctrain1.jpg (60.28 kB . 1003x505 - viewed 4494 times)

David does not ''see'' this until now!

So David anything to  add?  because we all know light travelling vector x is equal to light travelling vector y when c is constant.

dc.jpg (33.8 kB . 1003x505 - viewed 4489 times)

[David Cooper]

GoC and Box

You both need to crunch the numbers properly. The speeds of travel I've used for examples are deliberately huge in order to make diagrams show angle differences that at slower speeds wouldn't show up unless you were to make the diagrams as big as a planet. But the numbers can also be crunched for lower speeds, such as the speed the speed of a lab sitting on a rotating Earth as it orbits the sun - that is what the MMX used and it had to change it's physical length in order to produce the null result. If you want to work with appropriate numbers for that, feel free to do so. Light cannot make the round trip on an uncontracted light clock aligned with its direction of travel as quickly as on a light clock perpendicular to it, and so long as you remain in denial on that point, you are just going to go on blocking your own progress so that you can dig in and go on spouting nonsense. It is not my job to sort out your problems though - I have more important priorities.

[David Cooper]

30 km/s (or 67,000 mph) is the speed you want to work with. Move the train at that speed and work out how long light will take to make a round trip in a 10cm light clock in the train aligned in the direction of travel and how long light will take to do the same thing on an identical light clock aligned perpendicular to the train. You should already realise though that if length-contraction is necessary at 0.867c, 0.5c, 0.1c, etc. it will still be necessary at 0.0001c.

[guest39538]

30 km/s (or 67,000 mph) is the speed you want to work with. Move the train at that speed and work out how long light will take to make a round trip in a 10cm light clock in the train aligned in the direction of travel and how long light will take to do the same thing on an identical light clock aligned perpendicular to the train. You should already realise though that if length-contraction is necessary at 0.867c, 0.5c, 0.1c, etc. it will still be necessary at 0.0001c.

Why do you think length contraction is necessary ?  I actually think the ''parlour'' trick means nothing.  You are trying to get myself and Goc to accept force belief by including parlour tricks.  You are being subjective by your education and forced educational belief.
What you need to understand is that what works in science is not necessarily interpreted correctly. The maths always work because the maths was made to fit the process, the process comes first.

You quite clearly are not thinking about anything I have just put, you have not even explained to  me your ''question'', I am second guessing you at the moment.
I can tell you now that all ''your'' thought experiments involving light are incorrect.

Please tell me why we should believe your subjective interpretation when our objective interpretations say you are incorrect?

Now maybe if you discussed what we are saying instead of thinking that what you think is right, then maybe yourself will see why it is incorrect.

To think up anything it is always easier to work with the smallest measurement, so I will discuss your train in simple form.

The train carriage L=299 792 458m

0m____________________________299 792 458 m

Light takes 1 second to travel left to right and 1 second to travel right to left at a constant of 299 792 458 m / s

Do you disagree with any of that?

The rest length of the carriage is 299 792 458 m

The length of the carriage in motion is 299 792 458 m

Do you disagree with any of that?

c2.jpg (23.32 kB . 1003x505 - viewed 4424 times)


Then If you look at the previous diagram of the distance contraction, this is what your interpretation mistake is.  The trains rear moves ''forward'' , the light takes less time to get there than previous train rear position.

Relative correctness

c3.jpg (30.4 kB . 1003x505 - viewed 4429 times)

radio.jpg (31.79 kB . 1003x505 - viewed 4420 times)


p.s So David if you want to lock horns in battle with me, you need a lot more than subjective interpretation that fails on every level.

[GoC (OP)]

David

the box understands the concept of visual contraction vs. physical contraction. Your point about the math is not at issue. I agree with the Lorentz contraction along with the physical consequences for view and change in clock tick rate. Up to half the speed of light any orientation of the mirrors in the light clock allow the same tick rate. Scientists like yourself are confusing contraction of view as the reason for a slower tick rate by physically contracting the clock. There is no mechanism to physically contract the clock. Only math that follows observations. Math is never the cause of physics but that is what you are claiming by physical object contraction.

I know you have the intelligence to understand plain geometry but you have a block that will not let you confirm the math of light being finite and independent of the source. You e en made up something about the iris in the eyes so you could remain faithful to what you were incorrectly taught. I was taught the same thing but rather than a follower I have to work out these issues for myself. When I did following the relativity postulates showed a visual contraction rather than a physical contraction. You need to think for yourself rather than let others think for you. Most scientists just go with their programing. Half the speed of light should be the easiest to understand for most scientists. The box showed you the diagram of event position in space relative to an objects velocity at 180 degrees. You are just going to confuse yourself using laser light so we are using normal imaging where you can view an image in all  positions and the image light goes in all angles. For instance a bulb lights up a room and you can view the light from any angle in that room.

Ok lets try to follow plain geometry 7th grade stuff. Try to follow it without any preconceived notions you have about physical contraction or you will fail 7th grade geometry. We have two mirrors oriented perpendicular to the direction of travel at half the speed of light. The event of light from one mirror in space travels to the other. Now if we follow relativity correctly the event in space is independent of the mirrors. So light has to move forward to reach the other mirror (light goes in all angles remember). This particular speed causes an angle to create a 30,60,90 triangle. If we are going to follow relativity postulates the light has to move between mirrors through the hypotenuse (if light is independent of the source). If you aren't going to follow relativity postulates we can stop here. Are you still following relativity postulates?

Cos 30 = 0.866025 now how does that relate to the clocks tick rate and view? Well relatively the view from behind your current position at that 30 degree angle is only 86.6025% of a perpendicular view of an object. So here we have the contracted view which is not a physical change in the objects length. Simple plain geometry. We have a length increase in the travel distance for light of 13.3075% vs. the length at relative rest. The clock would take longer to tick with the clock only having 86.6025% of a click compared to relative rest.

Now lets look at the light moving between the mirrors in the direction of the objects vector velocity. We start with the light event in the back to the direction of travel. After the light event leaves both the rear mirror and light are traveling towards the front mirror. The back mirror moves through space one length between the mirrors relative when the light reaches the front mirror. The light has traveled two lengths relative. A very similar thing is happening to the length of travel for the path the light is taking when we add the two way measurement of light. The back mirror travels 1/3rd the distance forward and the front mirror travels 1/3rd the distance forward without the light. The light travels backwards from the direction of travel by 2/3rds. Light traveled 2 2/3rds length vs. relative at rest of 2. But wait the travel distance was 2/3rds when you add the front and back without the light. divide that by two and you get 1/3rd. When you subtract 1/3rd from the two way speed of light of 2 2/3rds you get 2 1/3rd. Divide the 2 1/3 by the two way distance for light and you get 1 1/6. We cannot test relativity anywhere near these speeds to prove or disprove the Lorentz mathematics holds for these relative speeds but once again we have a contracted view because light cannot completely illuminate an object at relativistic speeds and the clock tick rate is regulated by the distance traveled through space in a light clock per tick.

You cannot follow plain geometry's contracted view and also claim there is an equal physical contraction of the object!!!!

Unless of course you are not following relativity's postulates.

[guest39538]

David

the box understands the concept of visual contraction vs. physical contraction. Your point about the math is not at issue. I agree with the Lorentz contraction along with the physical consequences for view and change in clock tick rate. Up to half the speed of light any orientation of the mirrors in the light clock allow the same tick rate. Scientists like yourself are confusing contraction of view as the reason for a slower tick rate by physically contracting the clock. There is no mechanism to physically contract the clock. Only math that follows observations. Math is never the cause of physics but that is what you are claiming by physical object contraction.

I know you have the intelligence to understand plain geometry but you have a block that will not let you confirm the math of light being finite and independent of the source. You e en made up something about the iris in the eyes so you could remain faithful to what you were incorrectly taught. I was taught the same thing but rather than a follower I have to work out these issues for myself. When I did following the relativity postulates showed a visual contraction rather than a physical contraction. You need to think for yourself rather than let others think for you. Most scientists just go with their programing. Half the speed of light should be the easiest to understand for most scientists. The box showed you the diagram of event position in space relative to an objects velocity at 180 degrees. You are just going to confuse yourself using laser light so we are using normal imaging where you can view an image in all  positions and the image light goes in all angles. For instance a bulb lights up a room and you can view the light from any angle in that room.

Ok lets try to follow plain geometry 7th grade stuff. Try to follow it without any preconceived notions you have about physical contraction or you will fail 7th grade geometry. We have two mirrors oriented perpendicular to the direction of travel at half the speed of light. The event of light from one mirror in space travels to the other. Now if we follow relativity correctly the event in space is independent of the mirrors. So light has to move forward to reach the other mirror (light goes in all angles remember). This particular speed causes an angle to create a 30,60,90 triangle. If we are going to follow relativity postulates the light has to move between mirrors through the hypotenuse (if light is independent of the source). If you aren't going to follow relativity postulates we can stop here. Are you still following relativity postulates?

Cos 30 = 0.866025 now how does that relate to the clocks tick rate and view? Well relatively the view from behind your current position at that 30 degree angle is only 86.6025% of a perpendicular view of an object. So here we have the contracted view which is not a physical change in the objects length. Simple plain geometry. We have a length increase in the travel distance for light of 13.3075% vs. the length at relative rest. The clock would take longer to tick with the clock only having 86.6025% of a click compared to relative rest.

Now lets look at the light moving between the mirrors in the direction of the objects vector velocity. We start with the light event in the back to the direction of travel. After the light event leaves both the rear mirror and light are traveling towards the front mirror. The back mirror moves through space one length between the mirrors relative when the light reaches the front mirror. The light has traveled two lengths relative. A very similar thing is happening to the length of travel for the path the light is taking when we add the two way measurement of light. The back mirror travels 1/3rd the distance forward and the front mirror travels 1/3rd the distance forward without the light. The light travels backwards from the direction of travel by 2/3rds. Light traveled 2 2/3rds length vs. relative at rest of 2. But wait the travel distance was 2/3rds when you add the front and back without the light. divide that by two and you get 1/3rd. When you subtract 1/3rd from the two way speed of light of 2 2/3rds you get 2 1/3rd. Divide the 2 1/3 by the two way distance for light and you get 1 1/6. We cannot test relativity anywhere near these speeds to prove or disprove the Lorentz mathematics holds for these relative speeds but once again we have a contracted view because light cannot completely illuminate an object at relativistic speeds and the clock tick rate is regulated by the distance traveled through space in a light clock per tick.

You cannot follow plain geometry's contracted view and also claim there is an equal physical contraction of the object!!!!

Unless of course you are not following relativity's postulates.

Thank you Goc, your understanding is also very good. 

However you must try to see past what an angle actual is .  An angle is not actually an angle , it is always a linearity and either 0 degrees or 360 degrees relative to observer and observed. Space has no direction , angles are always a linearity but angled relative to something else.

I will show you this in very simple form .

angle1.jpg (39.08 kB . 1003x505 - viewed 4395 times)

[GoC (OP)]

Light always travels linear but an object's view is always relative to the angle of view. To understand take a coin and rotate the angle for visual length. That is all I am talking about as an images visual length.

[guest39538]

Light always travels linear but an object's view is always relative to the angle of view. To understand take a coin and rotate the angle for visual length. That is all I am talking about as an images visual length.

  Yes I understand what you are talking about, let me add your coin view as a good example.

bw.jpg (32.22 kB . 1003x505 - viewed 4370 times)

I am now trying to help you extend on your thoughts, look at my side by side previous diagrams, focus diagram 1 as a whole observing relative angle .

Observe diagram 2 by only looking at one of the points a,b.c, or d, notice there is no angle if you observe each point individually.

(The background is never angled relative to anything.Things are only angled relative to each other and the reference frame background being your constant frame).

p.s the observer is always at the center of determining angles relative to themselves and other bodies (0)



0.jpg (32.98 kB . 1003x505 - viewed 4395 times)

added note- spheres do not  visually contract when rotating, they retain their diameter! However their circumference visually contracts as they recede from an observer.