# Thread: Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity

1. So... after all this math and postulating... A simple yes or no answer should suffice.

If you rode a photon wave... would your trip be instantaneous or would you experience time?

I still think it would be like walking through a magical door. (meaning.. instantaneous)

2. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Nov 2002
Posts
6,208
Originally Posted by EvilEye
So... after all this math and postulating... A simple yes or no answer should suffice.
Not quite.

Originally Posted by EvilEye
If you rode a photon wave... would your trip be instantaneous or would you experience time?
Using SR it is neither. As Grey pointed out, SR does not allow a reference frame from the photon's point of view. If your velocity is c, you end up with a zero in the denominator. As a result, the equation is not defined. Now, if you want to extrapolate the change in the Lorentz factor, you would end up with the trip being instantaneous. But as Grey and I have pointed out, it really isn't valid, but it does get the point across.

Originally Posted by EvilEye
I still think it would be like walking through a magical door. (meaning.. instantaneous)
Yep, pretty much.

3. I do understand that the photon is "from MY perspective" as old as the time it took to get to me from whence it left.

But isn't zero zero?

If I left on a ship and achieved the speed of light, Although I didn't notice it inside the ship, time would pass for me instantly. I would be the same age as I was when I left.

OR... are you saying that the twins, where one left at the speed of light and came back are the same age exactly, but the one that stayed only looks older?

4. ## Does a photon experience time?

"I am driving my car at the speed of light and I turn on my headlights. What do I see?

Sadly this question and all others about experiences at the speed of light do not have a definitive answer. You cannot go at the speed of light so the question is hypothetical. Hypothetical questions do not have definitive answers. Only massless particles such as photons can go at the speed of light. As a massive object approaches the speed of light the amount of energy needed to accelerate it further increases so that an infinite amount would be needed to reach the speed of light.

Sometimes people persist: What would the world look like in the reference frame of a photon? What does a photon experience? Does space contract to two dimensions at the speed of light? Does time stop for a photon?. . . It is really not possible to make sense of such questions and any attempt to do so is bound to lead to paradoxes. There are no inertial reference frames in which the photon is at rest so it is hopeless to try to imagine what it would be like in one. Photons do not have experiences. There is no sense in saying that time stops when you go at the speed of light. This is not a failing of the theory of relativity. There are no inconsistencies revealed by these questions. They just don't make sense.

Despite these empty answers, nobody should feel too put down for asking such questions. They are exactly the kind of question that Einstein often asked himself from the age of 16 until he discovered special relativity ten years later. Einstein reported that in 1896 he thought:

'"If I pursue a beam of light with the velocity c (velocity of light in a vacuum), I should observe such a beam of light as a spatially oscillatory electromagnetic field at rest. However, there seems to be no such thing, whether on the basis of experience or according to Maxwell's equations. From the very beginning it appeared to me intuitively clear that, judged from the standpoint of such an observer, everything would have to happen according to the same laws as for an observer who, relative to the earth, was at rest. For how, otherwise, should the first observer know, i.e., be able to determine, that he is in a state of fast uniform motion? One sees that in this paradox the germ of the special relativity theory is already contained. Today everyone knows, of course, that all attempts to clarify this paradox satisfactorily were condemned to failure as long as the axiom of the absolute character of time, viz., of a simultaneous, unrecognizedly was anchored in the unconscious. Clearly to recognize this axiom and its arbitrary character really implies already the solution to the problem.'"

In 1905 he realised how it could be that light always goes at the same speed no matter how fast you go. Events that are simultaneous in one reference frame will happen at different times in another that has a velocity relative to the first. Space and time cannot be taken as absolute. On this basis Einstein constructed the theory of special relativity, which has since been well confirmed by experiment.

Questions of relative velocity in relativity can be answered using the velocity subtraction formula v = (w - u)/(1 - wu/c2). If you are driving at a speed u relative to me and you measure the speed of light in the same direction (w = c in my frame), the formula gives v the speed of light in your reference frame as, v = (c-u)/(1 - u/c). For any speed u less than c this gives v = c so the speed of light is the same for you. But if u = c the formula degenerates to zero divided by zero; a meaningless answer.

If you want to know what happens when you are driving at very nearly the speed of light, an answer can be given. Within your car you observe no unusual effects. You can look at yourself in your mirror which is moving with the car and you will look the same as usual. Looking out of the window is a different matter. The light from your headlights will always go at the speed of light in your reference frame. It will strike any object in its path and be reflected back. Everything else will be coming towards you at nearly the speed of light, so the light reflected from it will be Doppler shifted to very high frequencies--towards the ultraviolet or beyond. If you have a suitable camera you could take a snapshot. The objects passing are contracted in length but because of the different times of passage for the light and effects of aberration, the snapshot will show the objects you pass as rotated."

© 1992--2006 by Scott Chase, Michael Weiss, Philip Gibbs, Chris Hillman, and Nathan Urban.
Last edited by Steve Limpus; 2007-Sep-03 at 10:31 AM.

5. ## Atom bombs; and what would it be like to ride a beam of light?

Ya gotta like this passage!

http://www.btinternet.com/~j.doyle/SR/Sr6/sr6.htm

"In 1905 Albert Einstein was working as a patent clerk in Switzerland. He always claimed he new nothing of the Micheson and Morely experiments and this is quite possibly true. Einstein's physics were usually carried out without reference to experimental results. Instead he relied on his own intuition. His isolation from the physics community was probably a bonus in that he was allowed to think freely without being swayed by contemporary ideas or doctrine.

Einstein started by asking the almost child-like question "what would it be like to ride on a light beam?". The answer to this simple question eventually led him to deduce his theory of relativity. In order for his ideas and equations to make any sense he had to do something no one had dared to do before; he had to accept the constancy of the speed of light at face value. Once this is done the constancy of the speed of light is one of only two postulates needed for the whole of special relativity:

Postulate 1: The principle of relativity.
The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames.

Postulate 2: The principle of the constancy of the speed of light.
The speed of light (in a vacuum) has the same constant value 'c' in all inertial frames.

The whole of special relativity; time dilation, the twin paradox, moving clocks running slowly, space-time and everything else all stem from just these two postulates. Once the speed of light is accepted as a constant, as it had already been seen to be both in theory and experiment, everything slots into place. That the speed of light is constant has been checked over and over again using ever more sophisticated equipment.

Probably the most startling demonstration of the second postulate being correct is the detonation of an atomic bomb. Whatever one thinks of the merits of such devices it is undeniable that they work. The basic principle behind an atomic bomb is that matter is converted into energy via the famous equation E = mc2. This equation is derived directly from the second postulate. There are few more convincing ways in which a "theory" can be demonstrated to be correct."

J.K. Doyle

Einstein was The Man!
Last edited by Steve Limpus; 2007-Sep-03 at 09:43 AM.

6. ## To Infinity... and Beyond!

So, what if it were possible to build a rocket which could accelerate constantly at 1g?

Doesn't sound like TOO big an ask.

How long would it take to get around?

Rocket years: 2.34 Earth Years: 5.127 --Proxima Cen (nearest star)
Rocket years: 10.9 Earth Years: 2.7x104 --Centre of Milky Way
Rocket years: 15.4 Earth Years: 2.4x106 --Andromeda (nearest galaxy)
Rocket years: 25.3 Earth Years: 5.0x1010 --Edge of Observable Universe

What a trip THAT would be! Here's the thing:

"Firstly, it would take a huge amount of energy to keep you accelerating at g. Secondly, by the time you got back, not only would all your friends and family be dead, but the Earth would probably be gone, swallowed by the Sun in its red giant phase, the Sun would have exhausted its fuel and shrivelled into a cold white dwarf star, and the Solar System, having orbited the Galaxy a thousand times, would be lost somewhere in its milky ways."

So the mileage is lousy and the return trip a real downer.

Would you go faster than light?

"No. From the point of view of a person at rest on Earth, you never go faster than the speed of light. From your own point of view, distances along your direction of motion are Lorentz-contracted, so distances that are vast from Earth's point of view appear much shorter to you. Fast as the Universe rushes by, it never goes faster than the speed of light."

Are we there yet?

"The Universe is expanding, so the distance to the edge of the currently observable Universe is increasing; it would actually take longer to reach the edge of the currently observable Universe. And if the Universe is accelerating, then you will never be able to reach the edge of the currently observable Universe, however fast you go."

Last edited by Steve Limpus; 2007-Sep-03 at 10:32 AM.

7. Banned
Join Date
Sep 2005
Posts
3,066
Tensor, you keep taking just the quotes you want to use, out of context of how I was showing different correlations.

These are my posts
http://www.bautforum.com/1062719-post3.html

http://www.bautforum.com/1062876-post14.html

This is yours
http://www.bautforum.com/1062963-post18.html

Originally Posted by Tensor
Let''s look at the equations:

g = 1/sqrt(1- v^2/c^2), where g is the gamma factor, v is the velocity in question and c is, of course the speed of light. If you put the speed a photon is moving into v you end up in the denominator, under the square root with this: 1-c^2/C^2, which reduces to 1-1. This leaves you with a zero in the denominator and division by zero is undefined.
YOU seem to think that this Math IS the theory and 'proves' something.

YOU, keep accusing me of NOT understanding the theory, and that any explanation MUST be lacking if I say the theory is wrong, because you automatically think the Maths must be right...That's NOT it!!!

IT is that the Maths are NOT being applied correctly to lights own frame...light along its own path.

When you get to the 'division by 0'...Infinity, that's when you know that something MUST be different to correctly correlate 'what is happening there', Just like at r=0 in Black Holes.

Originally Posted by Tensor
Which does not mean light travels instaneously or takes no time.
Really?

Originally Posted by Tensor
It means the equations are undefined.
Again, Really?

THEN, why does the definition of...'light is simultaneous at all points along its Path to Infinity, or source to sink' appear in the definition of light in its own frame?

AND, why is Time frozen at the event horizons of Black Holes, so that from our frame of reference, it appears that they can never even form?

Those are both rhetorical questions, because the answer is that they are both....Impossible.

Originally Posted by Tensor
Well since the equations at c are undefined, there's no way to define it as a frame of reference.
Sure there is. It just hasn't been done yet because everyone/mainstream has been SOOOOO convinced that time dilation and Lorentz Contraction MUST be true.

You just have to set the 'wave' part at 0 velocity and the 'particle' part at "c" in a dimensionless background space.

But, the simple fact is, that when Lorentz and Einstein put in the variables of time dilation and Lorentz contraction, and THEN got to your above Maths, where they had to define light in its own frame as...simultaneous at all points along its own path to Infinity, to make the variables work, with the result that Mr Spaceman could then travel to the end of the universe "Instantly", OR that light in its own frame could do the same, EVERYONE should have known that it had to be WRONG.

Which means that the .99/.8/.6 dilation/contractions are also WRONG

8. Too bad with all these great ideas, that Hawkings won't come here and tell us what's what.

But then.. would it mean he was right either?

9. Originally Posted by EvilEye
Too bad with all these great ideas, that Hawkings won't come here and tell us what's what.
I once tried to read a A Brief History of Time--my head has hurt ever since...

... so I'm not sure Hawking could help!

Did like this though:

"... if we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God."
S.W. Hawking

Appeals to my sense of the awesome.

10. "Einstein once asked the question: '"How much choice did God have in constructing the universe?'" Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?... Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Is the unified theory so compelling that it brings about its own existence? Or does it need a creator, and, if so, does he have any other effect on the universe? And who created him?"
S.W. Hawking

"Whoa..."
Neo

11. "We are a way for the universe to know itself."

-Carl Sagan "Cosmos"

12. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Nov 2002
Posts
6,208
Originally Posted by RussT
Tensor, you keep taking just the quotes you want to use, out of context of how I was showing different correlations.

Originally Posted by RussT
From that quote:
And, I am saying that Einsteins defining of light as simultaneous at all points along its path to infinity, and photons experiencing NO TIME in its own frame, and THEN determining that light in its own frame is NOT a valid inertial frame, is the mathematical culprit of all of this...
No where does Einstein say (and that goes for me also) that light is simultaneous at all points. As you have constantly been told, The no time in lights own frame is nothing more than a simplified explanation.

This whole post is nothing more and an excellent example of the way you try to do physics by quotes, and not the math.

Originally Posted by RussT
Yep, where I specifically say that it is nothing more than a simplified explanation and can't be used to show a inconsistency in relativity. If you want to do that, you will have to show where it's inconsistent, IN THE MATH. Something you have yet to do.

Originally Posted by RussT
YOU seem to think that this Math IS the theory and 'proves' something.

YOU, keep accusing me of NOT understanding the theory, and that any explanation MUST be lacking if I say the theory is wrong, because you automatically think the Maths must be right...That's NOT it!!!
Yes it is, I'm not the only one, get over it. Until you can show me something wrong with the math.

Originally Posted by RussT
IT is that the Maths are NOT being applied correctly to lights own frame...light along its own path.

When you get to the 'division by 0'...Infinity, that's when you know that something MUST be different to correctly correlate 'what is happening there', Just like at r=0 in Black Holes.
Why? Why can't it just be the division between timelike and spacelike paths? Which would mean is neither spacelike or timelike. It's even simpler in the four-vector formalization of SR in Minkowski space. The lightpath is known as a null vector. This is because the four-vector for light is a zero length vector.

Originally Posted by RussT
Really?
Yes really.

Originally Posted by RussT
Again, Really?
Again, Yes really.

Originally Posted by RussT
THEN, why does the definition of...'light is simultaneous at all points along its Path to Infinity, or source to sink' appear in the definition of light in its own frame?
You keep saying this, where is that definition exactly? If it's not in Einstein's paper or in Minkowski's four-vectors, then it's nothing more than you taking a simplified explanation (that doesn't actually agree with the theory) and trying to use it. It's basically you doing your "physics by quote" again.

Originally Posted by RussT
AND, why is Time frozen at the event horizons of Black Holes, so that from our frame of reference, it appears that they can never even form?
You obviously still haven't found the answer, even after I gave you a hint.

Originally Posted by RussT
Those are both rhetorical questions, because the answer is that they are both....Impossible.
Well, since you obviously haven't found and don't know about the second and no one has claimed the first (except for your attributing it to the mainstream, even though the mainstream doesn't claim that) you obviously don't understand even SR, your claims of understanding not withstanding.

Originally Posted by RussT
Sure there is. It just hasn't been done yet because everyone/mainstream has been SOOOOO convinced that time dilation and Lorentz Contraction MUST be true.
Well, with these tests showing how much experimental evidence supports both time dilation and Lorentz contraction (I really don't like the contraction name as for a real three dimensional object it is a rotation rather than a contraction) you obviously haven't done much researched as to exactly why SR is so accepted.

Originally Posted by RussT
You just have to set the 'wave' part at 0 velocity and the 'particle' part at "c" in a dimensionless background space.
LOL, wave part, particle part? You obviously don't even have a full grip on wave particle duality. This statement doesn't even make sense, from a QED and SR perspective. What exactly do you consider a dimensionless backround space?

Originally Posted by RussT
But, the simple fact is, that when Lorentz and Einstein put in the variables of time dilation and Lorentz contraction,
More math misunderstanding. Einstein did not put them in, they were derived using the rules of math. That's what made Einstein's SR better than Lorentz's.

Originally Posted by RussT
and THEN got to your above Maths, where they had to define light in its own frame as...simultaneous at all points along its own path to Infinity, to make the variables work,
Buzz, wrong, thank you for playing. Show me one place in Einstein's paper where it defines light as simultaneous in it's own path.

Originally Posted by RussT
Which means that the .99/.8/.6 dilation/contractions are also WRONG
Instead of ranting about what you think is wrong, how about showing some of the math that is wrong. I gave you a large example of the tests that SR has been put through. Feel free to show where those tests and the math are wrong. I would point out two places where SR is working every day. One, in all the particle accelerators and two, anytime someone uses a GPS. If the math was so wrong, neither or those (or any of the other tests,) would work. What you are doing is nothing more than I could do by claiming a pink fairy's wand is respnsible for all the dilation and rotation in SR.

13. Banned
Join Date
Sep 2005
Posts
3,066
I have thought long and hard on how to respond to this.

With all due respect, and much appreciation, for all the time you and Grey have spent with me over the last 2 years, trying to show how 'false negatives' wrong is NOT an easy task.

Your entire post is aimed at one thing...discrediting, dismissing, trivialization, and theory protecting.

I have already stipulated that the Maths are 'to crap your pants for' purr-fect.

AAAAAAND, you just keep ignoring all the posts and quotes where I have shown that light in its own frame is 'inertial'...by definition!

AND, we know that light travels at 186,000 mpsecond, SO there is absolutely no reason to assign it a 0 speed/constant velocity, even in its own frame...accept of course to make time dilation and Lorentz contraction/rotation "FIT"!

I have also shown that seeing 'reality' from a 'stationary'/'rest frame' is NOT "REALITY"...to see 'what is really happening there', you have to go to the other frame, and figure out what is really happening 'there'!!!

SO, somehow, Einstein, with excellent Maths and logic, was able to convince mainstream, that seeing 'reality' from a 'rest frame' was acceptable...and since ALL the Maths work SO perfectly, it has been accepted for over 100 years. Which unfortunately means that ALL the 'tests' that show SR works in the 'stationary frame'/rest frame, are NOT seeing reality...so, just like I explained for the Rebka/Pound experiment...it is the earths rotation that causes the stretching of the gamma rays, NOT gravity.

SO, basically, a whole cosmology has been developed based on what little green aliens would 'supposedly see' were they able to flit around the universe in their spaceships at relavistic velocities.

Yes, light is constant at 186,000 mps in Vacua, from ALL reference frames, BUT the consequence of light being constant at "c" is NOT time dilation or Lorentz contraction.

Originally Posted by RussT
SO, when the end result of assigning simultaneity to all photons in their light path, in lights reference frame, and 0 time that a photon experiences, in its own frame, results in photons/light being able to travel to infinity, instantly, in its own frame, YA gotta know that that is Impossible.
Originally Posted by Grey
For special relativity, there is no reference frame in which light can travel an infinite distance instantly. That's true whether we're using "classical" special relativity and treating light as a wave, or quantum electrodynamics (which incorporates special relativity), in which light can be considered to be composed of photons. If you want to create your own theory, where it is possible to have the rest frame of a photon, that might be a problem for your theory, but that doesn't make it so for relativity.
And back on page 3, Grey responded to my above post with this.

AND, this is my main point...to define light, in its own frame as having 0 velocity and experiencing no time, which in effect, says that light, in its own reference frame can go from source to sink "Instantly", AND THEN, just saying that light in its own frame is NOT a VALID reference frame is...Not Even Wrong.

WE KNOW that it travels at 186,000mps. They/You cannot just set light and time to 0, and then thrown in variables to 'fIT' what they are trying to do mathematically.

Originally Posted by RussT
and THEN got to your above Maths, where they had to define light in its own frame as...simultaneous at all points along its own path to Infinity, to make the variables work,
Originally Posted by Tensor
Buzz, wrong, thank you for playing. Show me one place in Einstein's paper where it defines light as simultaneous in it's own path.
See, this is what I am talking about...whether Einstein put this specifically in his papers or not, you and I both know that assigning 0 velocity to light in its own reference frame, has the exact effect of making it go from source to sink OR INFINITY
instantly!

Originally Posted by Tensor
Feel free to show where those tests and the math are wrong.
As I have stated numerous times now, the MAth isn't wrong......it perfectly valid...the interpretation that you are seeing 'reality' from the 'rest frame' is WRONG.

This whole thing is about trying to prove a 'false negative' wrong.

Maybe this from post #59 is the answer to what is wrong...

“Natural” coincidence is otherwise known as a spacetime point. Einstein has already spent twenty-odd pages of this very brief book laying out the assumptions which underlie the train experiment. He is very careful about being consistent with them, and he is a devoted and very strict Euclidean. But Einstein was not, it appears, quite careful enough. We know that he is assuming, along with Euclid, that the definition of the coincidence of two points is a point. However, we have never gotten (and never get, in any of Einstein’s writings) a definition of a “natural” coincidence of two points. This alone prevents us from going on and this argument, which defined the twentieth century, abruptly ends. We also have a problem if we try to resolve the issue ourselves. If we simply drop the term “naturally” we run into a situation in which Einstein has told us to assume two Cartesian coordinate systems, but now leaves us with one, since, following from the definition of the coincidence of two points, if two parallel coordinate systems coincide at one point, they coincide at all points and are one coordinate system, not two. We have been led to a contradiction.
My Bold/Red

The seeing reality from the 'rest frame' is the problem interpretation wise, so the bold is possibly the answer math wise, which I started thinking along the lines of when following the 1=2 threads.

Plus, "possibly" what two ships would see, would be to be able to verify what the 'other frame' is actually seeing, VS trying to 'convert it' to our rest frame to 'see' and not agree with the 'other ship', if that even makes sense (and If that is NOT pure SCI-FI and absolutely unrealistic in ways we don't even know!!!).

I don't even know if using ships at relavistic velocities is something that makes any sense what-so-ever, and like CM said....his Angels are not going to be making their test flights anytime soon

BUT, think about this...setting light and time to 0, and THEN not wanting to count that as a valid reference frame, is basically the same thing that is done with the naked singularity in the Big Bang....it took me a years and 1/2 to get you to even agree that the naked singularity was even considered part of the Big Bang theory.

SO, you/they define the universe as starting from a 'Point'/naked singularity, everywhere the center of a finite but unbounded universe, basically setting everything to 0..a point that they can only get to within T=10^43 of, BUT think they need to get to T=0, and THEN say, oh that is not even part of the theory...it doesn't count, just like the defined 0 velocity/time for light in its own frame doesn't count either.

This, whether you want to believe it or not, is a very definitive, critically derived, self consistent and Coherent statement...

Originally Posted by RussT
Besides, as I have shown, nothing can 'come through' a "POINT", which is what the current 'naked singularity' is...just a Point at T=10^-43. AND IF the the E-R Bridge is correct, THEN there is no need to get from T=10^-43 down to T=0, and r=0 just becomes the center of the "Point Particle". If you understand what this is really showing.
I keep thinking that if I show something definitive "Enough" that someone will say....you know, he just might be on to something here, we should investigate this thoroughly!!!

BUT, that is NOT going to happen, as far as I can see, because the more I have determined, the more wrong things I have found in the current paradigm. which is devastating for science because they have defined/made Laws for everything in a 'closed system'!

I have now determined two more substancial correlations, one about Galctic Bulges/Xrays/SMBH's across the universe and the other about...
Quote:
But trying to pin down the nature of dark energy has proven extremely difficult. Theories of particle physics suggest that space does have an inherent energy, but this energy is about 10^120 times greater than what is actually observed.

This second correlation will be pretty hard to just wave off and sweep under the table, BUT, I suspect that it will be done anyway

I will show those tomorrow in another thread where a conversation had taken place that would fit that.
Last edited by RussT; 2007-Sep-09 at 11:14 AM.

14. Newbie
Join Date
Aug 2007
Posts
5
The flaw--from Wikipedia

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Natural mathematics, Einstein's "practical geometry" and the Ryskamp objection of "natural" coincidence

Note that the metrical interpretation of the 1905 paper disguises, but does not avoid, the "natural" coincidence of points M' and M ("fallt zwar...zusammen") which Einstein, following the program of natural mathematics which he had adopted from Poincare's SCIENCE AND HYPOTHESIS (1902), put in the train experiment in his book RELATIVITY (1916). This work receives little attention from scholars because it is regarded as a popularization. However, Einstein valued it highly and recently it has been claimed as the clearest exposition of the relativity of simultaneity--of "practical geometry," which was Einstein's term for natural mathematics.

(remaining quoted material deleted by Moderator for possible copyright infringment)

15. Originally Posted by EvilEye
So... after all this math and postulating... A simple yes or no answer should suffice.

If you rode a photon wave... would your trip be instantaneous or would you experience time?

I still think it would be like walking through a magical door. (meaning.. instantaneous)
Yes and No.

Let say your trip was one light year it would take one year for the light to go from point a to point B, but it would feel instantaneous to you.

Wikipedia explains his pretty well http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

16. Banned
Join Date
Oct 2007
Posts
5,398
Originally Posted by Tensor
The appearance of a contraction is a artifact of the simplifying done to explain it. Most of the time, the explanation is only presented in one dimension. One dimensionally, the object would appear, to an observer, to contract. Realistically, if you were able to view an actual three demensional object traveling relativistically, it would appear to be rotated, not contracted. This is due to the combination of the speed and the different light paths from the front and rear of the object to the observer. "Spacetime Physics" by Wheeler and Taylor, has an excellent explanation of the effect.

Yes, it is called Penrose-Terrell effect, I think wiki has a pretty good page on it as well.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•