1

# Lorenz Contraction - Illusion?

Fri 31 Oct, 2008 12:01 pm
I was amazed that I have not seen a thread created before regarding this topic. If there is one scientific claim that have eluded the boundaries of my mind it is that of time travel of the physical realm. Teleportation, leviatation and even invisibility can accept some degree of credit.

I have created this thread, not necessarily to air my comments, but in order for others to discuss 'Lorenz Contraction' which is the bases for the apparent possibility of time travel, so that a model can be implemented to furnish prove of possibility or impossibility of time travel.

For the benefit of novices to the topic, like myself, I have included a couple links which illustrates this phenomenon and a brief definition of the term:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/cship/lorentz.html

http://renshaw.teleinc.com/papers/simiee2/simiee2.stm

Length contraction, according to Hendrik Lorentz, is the physical phenomenon of a decrease in length detected by an observer in objects that travel at any non-zero velocity relative to that observer. This contraction (more formally called Lorentz contraction or Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction) is usually only noticeable, however, at a substantial fraction of the speed of light; and the contraction is only in the direction parallel to the direction in which the observed body is travelling.
It is important to note that this effect is negligible at everyday speeds, and can be ignored for all regular purposes. It is only when an object approaches speeds on the order of 30,000,000 m/s, i.e. one-tenth of the speed of light, that it becomes important. As the magnitude of the velocity approaches the speed of light, the effect becomes dominant, as we can see from the formula:
where
L is the proper length (the length of the object in its rest frame), L' is the length observed by an observer in relative motion with respect to the object, is the relative velocity between the observer and the moving object, is the speed of light, and    is the Lorentz factor. Note that in this equation it is assumed that the object is parallel with its line of movement. Also note that for the observer in relative movement, the length of the object is measured by subtracting the simultaneously measured distances of both ends of the object. For more general conversions, see the Lorentz transformations.
An observer at rest viewing an object travelling at the speed of light would observe the length of the object in the direction of motion as zero. Among other reasons, this suggests that objects with mass cannot travel at the speed of light.

To start the discussion rolling, offer an answer to my questions and debate my opions below:

QUESTIONS:
• Is 'Lorenz Contraction' an illusion?
• If it is an illusion, then would the possibility of time travel also be an illusion?
OPIONS:
• Lorenz Contraction is an optical illusion presented to the observer by light being refracted.
• The possibility of time travel is an illussion, and therefore impossiple at the physical realm.
• Topic Stats
• Top Replies
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 3,475 • Replies: 27
No top replies

validity

1
Fri 31 Oct, 2008 02:07 pm
@Sir Neuron,
Length contraction is physically real. The length of an object or the distance between two points is not an absolute.

It is possible to construct means in which macroscopic objects can reverse time travel. However these means are usually ignorant of known physics eg faster than light travel or make heavy use of hypothetical physics eg negative energy.
0 Replies

Sir Neuron

1
Fri 31 Oct, 2008 02:15 pm
@Sir Neuron,
Hi validity,

Thank you for responding to my thread.

Next question:

What is responsible for the effect?
Holiday20310401

1
Fri 31 Oct, 2008 02:31 pm
@Sir Neuron,
How could you prove that it is an optical illusion?
validity

1
Fri 31 Oct, 2008 02:31 pm
@Sir Neuron,
Relative motion, oh and the postulates of special relativity
BaCaRdi

1
Fri 31 Oct, 2008 02:41 pm
@validity,
validity wrote:
Relative motion, oh and the postulates of special relativity

How you would measure "Relative" motion?

Watch out there are those darn traps again!!..lol

Time is an illusion..Simple as that..That being said...So it "Reality"

Darn that security.....
ooops...

-BaC
Holiday20310401 wrote:
How could you prove that it is an optical illusion?
0 Replies

Sir Neuron

1
Fri 31 Oct, 2008 06:36 pm
@Holiday20310401,
Did not mean to interject on this discussion, but had anyone considered the effect that our 'persistence in vision' has on objects travelling close to or at the speed of light?
BaCaRdi

1
Fri 31 Oct, 2008 07:43 pm
@Sir Neuron,
Can you elaborate a bit please?

Cheers,
-BaC
Sir Neuron wrote:
Did not mean to interject on this discussion, but had anyone considered the effect that our 'persistence in vision' has on objects travelling close to or at the speed of light?
Holiday20310401

1
Fri 31 Oct, 2008 08:23 pm
@BaCaRdi,
BaCaRdi wrote:
Can you elaborate a bit please?

Cheers,
-BaC

If I may,

persistence in vision - Google Search

No explaining is needing, one (like me especially) just needs to do a bit a research. And I'm not finding much to envy any sort of "illusion", just a need to rethink my view on the fabric of space time.

However, there is one thing I don't understand. This lorentz stuff gives me the idea that time is in reality a magnitude, there is no scalar quantity. Time is just a relative term with no actuality other than the monistic relation reality seems to thrive off of (being the speed of light, or light itself and it's properties). I mean, as we approach the speed of light, time slows down, but this is only relative to other matter.

Time is only scalar perhaps when the resultant reality is just a proportion to the speed of light. We move through time relative to everything else, and the only actual direction (which doesn't really exist because everything would move in the same direction, so it becomes meaningless) is causality. Motion can have a spatial scalar sense, but that is completely relative only to other forms of matter.

So, time a magnitude of all other magnitudes, whether directly or indirectly. It is like squaring the magnitudes, or rather, why not just square what has the potential for magnitude.

E=mc^2
c^=e/m

energy and mass (bound energy)

So light is the reconciliation between bound and unbound form.
BaCaRdi

1
Fri 31 Oct, 2008 08:27 pm
@Holiday20310401,
Holiday20310401 wrote:
If I may,

persistence in vision - Google Search

No explaining is needing, one (like me especially) just needs to do a bit a research. And I'm not finding much to envy any sort of "illusion", just a need to rethink my view on the fabric of space time.

However, there is one thing I don't understand. This lorentz stuff gives me the idea that time is in reality a magnitude, there is no scalar quantity. Time is just a relative term with no actuality other than the monistic relation reality seems to thrive off of (being the speed of light, or light itself and it's properties). I mean, as we approach the speed of light, time slows down, but this is only relative to other matter.

Time is only scalar perhaps when the resultant reality is just a proportion to the speed of light. We move through time relative to everything else, and the only actual direction (which doesn't really exist because everything would move in the same direction, so it becomes meaningless) is causality. Motion can have a spatial scalar sense, but that is completely relative only to other forms of matter.

So, time a magnitude of all other magnitudes, whether directly or indirectly. It is like squaring the magnitudes, or rather, why not just square what has the potential for magnitude.

E=mc^2
c^=e/m

energy and mass (bound energy)

So light is the reconciliation between bound and unbound form.

I wasn't asking the definition..I was asking what the thoughts where , on the subject at hand..

energy and mass (bound energy)<--yep

So light is the reconciliation between bound and unbound form.<--yep in my "eye"

I don't know let's say.... That fabric is Dark-Matter
Welcome to the "Null-Axiom" "Null-physics". <-- I do this not to one person mind you...my point is to connect the "proverbial" dots..

In the way of "Tron"<--the higher order of magnitude;)
Its with "thought" alone I set my "mind" in "motion"...its by "thought" alone I set my "body" in "motion".

Infinity
^
.
.
.
+5
+4
<---The "Axiom"<--Welcome to your "Bound" "State"
+3
+2
+1
0<---- "Tron" The "Null-Axiom"<--"Boundless" "State"
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
.
.
.

Infinity

-Tron
My friends I welcome you to ____ <---hehe
Sir Neuron

1
Sat 1 Nov, 2008 12:31 pm
@BaCaRdi,
BaCaRdi wrote:
Can you elaborate a bit please?
Cheers,
-BaC

Try this simple experiment, if you have never notice before:
Turn a bicycle over and spin one of its wheels as hard as you can. If you look close enough, you will realize its spokes appears to be spinnig in the opposite direction to your spin. This is due to your 'percistence of vision' (the image remains even though the object does not). It appears as though the wheel travels back in time, but this does not say that the physical matter of the spokes does. It's just an illusion.
BaCaRdi

1
Sat 1 Nov, 2008 12:44 pm
@Sir Neuron,
Sir Neuron wrote:
Try this simple experiment, if you have never notice before:
Turn a bicycle over and spin one of its wheels as hard as you can. If you look close enough, you will realize its spokes appears to be spinnig in the opposite direction to your spin. This is due to your 'percistence of vision' (the image remains even though the object does not). It appears as though the wheel travels back in time, but this does not say that the physical matter of the spokes does. It's just an illusion.

Yes What I am saying as well.....Reality"5 sense" are indeed an illusion...Sorry I wasn't clear...

Well said Sir Neuron;)

Or this one....Have you ever stopped at a light, and "seen" motion that didn't exist? Like what car/train etc, is moving here...wtf...

Or this one...Have you ever stopped at a light an watched those odd spinning things on the rim/wheel go on..and on...what direction are they spinning when the wheel is in "motion"...
Holiday20310401

1
Sat 1 Nov, 2008 12:44 pm
@BaCaRdi,
BaCaRdi wrote:

+4
<---The "Axiom"<--Welcome to your "Bound" "State"
+3
+2
+1

Why between the 3 and the 4? Is it this ' pi ' stuff, as if because pi is to a circle which connotes to "bound"... is that it?

:a-thought:...... In terms of values, it doesn't make much sense to me.
BaCaRdi

1
Sat 1 Nov, 2008 12:50 pm
@Holiday20310401,
Holiday20310401 wrote:
Why between the 3 and the 4? Is it this ' pi ' stuff, as if because pi is to a circle which connotes to "bound"... is that it?

:a-thought:...... In terms of values, it doesn't make much sense to me.

Value..what is a "Value"... 0 is not the end of things.lol as with "electonics",hehe....<--yes Ton's not Tron..oops

Welcome to the world of "null" You'll get it I know you "will"....

-BaC
My mind is my heaven my body is my death...

-Marc Ricciardi
MITech

1
Sat 1 Nov, 2008 12:56 pm
@BaCaRdi,
Bacardi I think you are deluded.
0 Replies

BaCaRdi

1
Sat 1 Nov, 2008 01:26 pm
@Sir Neuron,
hehe Very good ))) MIT hummmm Rings a bell..Hi I am Stevens institute of technologies:)))

How is that campus now a days???
I was saying hi..not saying any one thing is better than any other....

-BaC
0 Replies

Sir Neuron

1
Sat 1 Nov, 2008 11:53 pm
@BaCaRdi,
BaCaRdi wrote:
Yes What I am saying as well.....Reality"5 sense" are indeed an illusion...Sorry I wasn't clear...

Well said Sir Neuron;)

Or this one....Have you ever stopped at a light, and "seen" motion that didn't exist? Like what car/train etc, is moving here...wtf...

Or this one...Have you ever stopped at a light an watched those odd spinning things on the rim/wheel go on..and on...what direction are they spinning when the wheel is in "motion"...

-BaC

Since we are on the same wave length here. Do you also agree that time travel is an illusion?
BaCaRdi

1
Sun 2 Nov, 2008 01:28 am
@Sir Neuron,
Sir Neuron wrote:
Since we are on the same wave length here. Do you also agree that time travel is an illusion?

hehe Indeed my friend...

Lets say I don't know..You wanted to select to what "will" something would have.....A will of fate...instinct....

Lets say we made a test of Wills......

How would you go about doing such....

Let see......

I would give temptations to those to check...and give it "time" to see what path they are really on......

Brilliant Idea IMO

"ATOM" anyone?
-BaC
0 Replies

validity

1
Sun 2 Nov, 2008 02:27 pm
@Sir Neuron,
Sir Neuron wrote:
Did not mean to interject on this discussion, but had anyone considered the effect that our 'persistence in vision' has on objects travelling close to or at the speed of light?

Which is why calibrated scientific equipment is used to make these measurements.
BaCaRdi

1
Sun 2 Nov, 2008 03:23 pm
@validity,
Well sorry to say calibration is not going to help here, to much....

Lets just say..This is an "Observed" type reaction... Not a truth..

-BaC
validity wrote:
Which is why calibrated scientific equipment is used to make these measurements.

Whats this cr@p of "Electonics"...

Neurons

-BaC
Myth Of "Fact"

Lightning anyone??

the Axon

A fun way:) <--with a beat..uhhh ohhh...

Welcome to the "Human" "Star"

Human Star anyone?

-"TRoN" in adenine (A), guanine (G), cytosine (C), and thymine (T).
-In"GoD" we "Trust" "Crown of Thorns"

Welcome to my reality
-GoD
Welcome to the "Axiom"
-Di Vinci

### Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz

1. Forums
2. » Lorenz Contraction - Illusion?