The Red Shift without Expansion

OK. The point (or one of them) is that if you took a yardstick from B (18 inches) and put it on A, then you would measure a football field to be 200 yards.

Right?

layman wrote:

OK. The point (or one of them) is that if you took a yardstick from B (18 inches) and put it on A, then you would measure a football field to be 200 yards.
Right?

But we've just established that we know that length contraction is a thing and we would adjust for that. So, no.

No, what I am saying is that there is a bunch of math involved and to do the calculation you are looking for requires that the math gets done and done correctly. That's why they have formulas that take length contraction and time dilation into account.

Math, this is why it exists.

This is one of those times where you explain what your point is instead of continually asking leading questions.

No, what I am saying is that there is a bunch of math involved and to do the calculation you are looking for requires that the math gets done and done correctly. That's why they have formulas that take length contraction and time dilation into account.

Math, this is why it exists.

This is one of those times where you explain what your point is instead of continually asking leading questions.

Here was one of the questions I first posed in the illustration. We use one 18" stick. If we "call" it a yard, then we will measue 200 yards, BUT

We would just then say it wasn't "really" a yard. The 200 yards measurement was a mis-measurement caused by a distorted yardstick. We wouldn't say it was "really" 200 yards just because we had a yardstick that told us it was.

That's what you're saying too, isn't it?

Imagine that you are in space on a space station and the USS Enterprise is drifting away from the space station at .25c and the chief engineer tells you that they want to use a tractor beam to catch it but they need to know the distance away that it is. They give you a 1 meter stick and place you at an air lock...

How are you going to determine the distance away the Enterprise is?

My question is your question phrased as an actual question. Answer it and you answer your own question at the same time.

McGentrix wrote:

My question is your question phrased as an actual question. Answer it and you answer your own question at the same time.

No, there's no possible way that me answering your question would even begin to answer mine. I can see that you're not following me at all.

The speed of light is often stated in terms of meters per second. You know what a meter is? It's approximately one yard. You know what 1,000 meters is? It's the equivalent of 1,000 meter sticks laid end to end. The units of measurement are not important here.

The question of just exactly HOW you would determine that something was moving away from you at approx. 260 million meters per second is also completely irrelevant to the question.

We're talking theory here, not lab experimentation. Theory, not practice. Or at least that's what I'm talking about.

Can you answer the question?

You can try to do it by answering your own question, if you think that's a relevant answer, but I don't see how it could be.

If you are talking about the length of the ship decreasing, its only a visual from any reference point NOT on the ship.

Quote:

If you are talking about the length of the ship decreasing, its only a visual from any reference point NOT on the ship.

What do you mean by "only a visual?" Are you saying that the LT formula doesn't tell us anything? That it's just irrelevant math that doesn't tell us anything except what an eye would see, or what?

Edit: Oops. I though that was Gent I was responding to, at first. I see you're back, Krumps. I asked you a question too. Did you see it?

Quickly restate the question for me so I'm clear which one.

The question pertains to objective reality, and was posted shortly after your last post prior to today

If you were to measure the ship's length from a reference point that is not the ship you would measure it shorter than its stationary length. However inside the ship everything would have its normal length.

OK, I agree with this, insofar as SR goes, anyway

This is another aspect where two reference points give two different data results but both are correct from their respective reference points.

That's an assumption, but not a necessary one. But, either way, the qualifying phrase "from their respective reference points" does not even pretend to address the question of which frame, if either, IS correct with respect to objective reality (and not just claims about subjective perspective). You may better understand what I'm getting at once you answer the question I already asked, and related posts made after that.

The reason the ship shrinks as it nears C is due to time not allowing two points of space to overlap. This also causes its mass (the ship) to increase.

I really don't know what you're getting at here, but "the reason" why it shrinks is an entirely different issue than I'm raising, anyway.