Speed of Light vs Length Contraction

>>7710970
length is actually changing

>>7710974
but how does that work? Whats the logic behind it?

>>7710975
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity

>>7710979
nigger I'm studying this right now, but I'm doing these transformations and its annoying because it makes no sense

>>7710970
Why does this guy look so familiar? This is gonna drive me crazy

>>7710987
>it makes no sense
Welcome to QM. Length is changing

File: K02_Kinematik_html_m4f3c9b1c.gif (4KB, 348x247px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 348x247px

This and c is constant, now work it out for yourself.

>>7710987
I think you are confusing your intuitive, naive beliefs about physics with "making sense". Special relativity makes perfect sense and is simply the way the universe works. The logic of objects at rest does not apply to objects in motion. If you want some kind of interpretation of this, then perhaps you will be satisfied with the idea that space and time are linked in a conservative manner. All objects satisfy this conservation, whether they are objects at rest or photons moving at the speed of light. This conservation results in a trade-off of sorts between speed and the metric of spacetime, so that the faster you go, contraction is required to compensate. But this is very handwavey and probably won't help you. The better option is to just accept that the universe is weird, and that making sense of it may require you to let go of certain preconceptions and your satisfaction in them.

Maybe it's something to do with, say, the time taken for a beam of light to traverse a ruler and c being constant?

>>7710970
It doesn't, its all a myth and Einstein was a fraud.

Anything the defies common sense at first glance must be false.

>>7710993
>Welcome to QM. Length is changing
this is wrong

>Why does length contract as you approach the speed of light?

The apparent path of that light travels differs in different reference frames.

Since the speed of light is the same in all reference frames, either time or distance has to change for the speed of the light to remain the same in all frames. Where you're probably getting stuck is that each reference frame does not see this effect relative to themselves. So it would seem that nothing is happening at all, but this is not the case.

Gravity's a form of suctional energy causing the bending of spacetime. The speed of gravity is equivalent to the speed of light, but mass isn't involved because it's a force;

Gravity's bends spacetime, operates at the speed of c, p=mv, alright? E^2 = (pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2. If gravity's bending spacetime without any p, well, we're assuming that it does, anyway, it's going to bend the fuck out of spacetime as v in p approaches c. An object moving forward, pulling spacetime towards it moving at the rate of c is causing spacetime to contract.

You're moving at the same rate at which gravity's being emitted by and Id really k how that works.

>>7711016
On my phone, wasn't aware of the top section before posting, sorry.

Gravity*

>>7711016
Inverse law I think has much to do with it. Like moving forward at the same rate which you're pulling it in?

>>7711016
how does gravity bend something with no mass?

>>7711027
I guess causes spacetime to come towards you.

>>7711028
My bad. I guess gravity's an inherent property of mass. I was thinking of it more as'n incopreal force.

>>7711036
Incoporeal* can't really blame my cellphone for ignorance.

>>7711028
Define mass.

Gravity bends light.

>>7711039
Incorporeal D:

>>7711040
mass is the defined as a resistance to change of inertia in a system

light has mass

>>7711060
By that definition, it seems impossible to me to ascertain whether or not space itself has mass.

>>7711150
Are you asking for an explanation for why light can be treated as a particle and a wave?

File: 1449707486679.gif (2MB, 236x224px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 236x224px

>>7710993
he's this guy

>>7711153
No.

>>7711028 asked how gravity can bend something with no mass (i.e. how gravity can bend space), then some guy who can't spell and also probably lacks reading comprehension
or for some other unrelated reason didn't comprehend the question appeared.

That being said, I don't think there's a better answer to the original question than "that's just the way it works", though I'm by no means an expert on this.

>>7711195
To clarify, the definition of mass in >>7711060 means that you could argue that space (itself) has mass. You could also argue that space (itself) doesn't have mass. Either way, I don't see how you could empirically test either hypothesis.

Because it's real for the observer, and there is no objective reference frame.

Length really changes because there is no "just time", it's spacetime.

>>7710970
>So why then is length contraction not essentially considered an illusion as a result of time dilation?

Because if you actually do the math, time dilation doesn't actually account for the effects. An observer going 0.5 c relative to our rest frame is not slowed down 2x, which means something else must be going on to explain why they see a light beam going c relative to them while we see it going 0.5 c relative to them.