Phenomena with all math and no explanation

>>7724144
this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_force

>>7724144
The formula was derived empirically. The equations explain what was being observed, but there was no theory for what was happening.

Special Relativity explains why objects are warped in spacetime at relativistic speeds.

>>7724144
>no explanation for what causes the distortion

Movement through the aether

>Surprising as this hypothesis may appear at first sight, yet we shall have to admit that it is by no means far-fetched, as soon as we assume that molecular forces are also transmitted through the ether, like the electric and magnetic forces of which we are able at the present time to make this assertion definitely. If they are so transmitted, the translation will very probably affect the action between two molecules or atoms in a manner resembling the attraction or repulsion between charged particles. Now, since the form and dimensions of a solid body are ultimately conditioned by the intensity of molecular actions, there cannot fail to be a charge of dimensions as well.

http://www.lawebdefisica.com/arts/lorentz/

>>7724144
You assume the speed of light is constant, you do some maths based on that assumption, and then you go "woah, well there's some fucked up shit".

There's your explanation.

>>7724144
>Phenomena with all math and no explanation
>Why is this allowed to happen?

On a fundamental level? Because mathematical discourse is descriptive of a certain type of ontology. That type of ontology being relational properties. You can have a mathematical description of a specific function of a substance but not of the substance itself.

This man has a wealth of helpful information about aether theories on his highly reputable site for you to peruse at your leisure:
http://debunkingrelativity.com

I can't give you a mathematical explanation but I can give you an intuitive one. As you approach the speed of light, your time is moving slower compared to another persons time who's in a frame of reference at rest. Now, let's say you're traveling at .95c, which is 2.85 * 10^8m/s. Since your second is "longer", the person at rest sees you moving slower than you actually are. So essentially, lim as x-->speed of light, time begins to slow down in your frame of reference and you appear to move slower to the person at rest. Or, the faster you move, the more you “slow down”. That’s an odd statement isn’t it? Lorentz contraction proposes a counter statement. If you’re in a ship traveling at .95c, and you travel for 5 seconds, you will actually have traveled a lot further in the resting frame of reference. This is because length in the resting frame of reference contracts while if you’re in a ship traveling at .95c. For example, an electron traveling at 1cm/s less than the speed of light travels 3km to a frame of reference at rest, but has only traveled 15cm from the frame of reference of the electron. If we apply the same logic to you looking at a space-ship moving at .95c the spaceship will look contracted, because all inertial frames are equivalent.

>>7724187
>that URL
>/arts/
>implying science is plebeian art

>>7724326
Obviously my explanation wasn't very intuitive. I'm pretty shitty at explaining, but what I'm saying is a space-ship traveling at .95c is going to appear to be traveling at .95c in all frames of reference, but distance traveled is relativistic. From a frame of reference at rest, and hence no time-dilation, you will travel .95(3.8 * 10^8)(10)m in 10 seconds. Since time dilates for a space-ship traveling at .95c, the 10 seconds of traveling in the frame at rest is only 3.12 seconds of traveling in the frame moving at .95c. Well, if the ship and the person at rest both view the ship traveling at .95c, and the ship travels in both frames of reference, what's the explanation? .95c(3.21) does not equal .95c(10). This is where length contraction comes in. The ship, only traveling for 3.21 seconds at .95c, travels .95c(10)m because space contracts at relativistic speeds. 1 meter in a frame at rest is equal to .321 meters in a frame moving at .95c. And I'll use the example I used earlier: an electron traveling at 1cm/s less than the speed of light travels 3km to a frame of reference at rest, but has only traveled 15cm from the frame of reference of the electron.

File: 1450267609601.png (431KB, 753x1000px) Image search: [Google]

431KB, 753x1000px

>>7724144
I could not help but notice your png was not optimized anon.
I have optimized your png.
Your png is now optimized.

>>7724685
is optimization a meme outside of /sci/? i really like when this gets really out of hand.

>>7724988
This is my first or second time on /sci/ and I've never seen optimization before

>>7724376
What isn't intuitive is what you mean by "frame of reference", and that you're using weird units like 1cm/s rather than fractions of lightspeed.

OP here, what I'm really confused about is the optical effects of Lorentz Contraction, specifically why they occur.
Raytracing in thought experiments are telling me that an observer moving at the speed of light would see everything shifted into 180 degrees in front, but I'm pretty sure that's not right.

>>7724988
It's not even a meme.

He's legitimately optimizing images and further developing his image-optimizer with time.

>>7724144
>anime

Die. FUCKING DIE. YOU are the people bringing down the average intelligence of this board.

File: Erased.png (388KB, 853x480px) Image search: [Google]

388KB, 853x480px

>>7725340

Two simple things
1) Light speed is the same to every observer
2) Laws of physics are the same to every observer

Now to these hold, we need to have it that we measure fast travelling object to have smaller lenght than if would have in rest. And its not "looks" but they truly are shorter.

File: 1445674168249.jpg (3MB, 2560x2880px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2560x2880px

>>7725340
wew

Dark length.

>>7725458
I know that we "need to have it" like that, but that doesn't explain why we have it.
It's kind of like saying a perpetual motion device doesn't work with the reasoning "this won't work because it's a perpetual motion device", and not explaining the physics behind why it doesn't work.

>>7726142

It doesn't work because of dark reasons.

>>7726142
physics of the universe don't work because we modeled them in a certain way. they just are.

we don't "need" to have it like anything, that's just how we observe it.

The physics behind why it works has been explained very completely already. see >>7725458

If you want to know why the laws of physics are the way they are, then get a P.H.D work on strung theory and bullshit your own reason until it becomes a faggot popsci meme to be spouted as misconceptions here on /sci

File: 1447268012065.png (2MB, 1073x1500px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1073x1500px

>>7725340
You seem to be quite butthurt. Don't you know the anime that the pic related is from features TOE and discussions on whether or not physics has come to an end due to experiments becoming too costly to perform.

>>7726191
>I make reply to post
>get redirected to same post in a reply
Also, you're treating Lorentz Contraction as if it's an absolutely fundamental law of physics. Like Hawking Radiation, it's just something that so happens to happen, and so I'm curious why it happens (Lortentz Contraction that is, Hawking Radiation is properly explained at least)

File: 1428433578817.png (70KB, 1938x434px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 1938x434px

>>7724144
science is about taking abstractions seriously in a having faith that your speculations will turn out to be useful [= people will act according to them]

not a single scientist can tell you what to explain means, what a cause, what why means, what how means. but the scientists having never reflected on what they do, like feynman, they dare to use words that they do not understands.

>>7724988
Its not a meme
Hes been running his image optimizer bot for years on both sci and g

File: 1450331875142.png (2MB, 1073x1500px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1073x1500px

>>7726215
I could not help but notice your png was not optimized anon.
I have optimized your png.
Your png is now optimized.

>>7726142
That the speed of light must be constant in all inertial frames of reference leads to a certain physical symmetry of the system (the universe is Lorentz invariant). A consequence of this physical symmetry is Lorentz contraction in order to not break the physical symmetry and preserve conservation of center of mass.

>>7726903
Holy fuck, I get that it is required for symmetry, I said that in the post you replied to.
What I don't get is exactly what process goes on behind it.
These responses are so blatantly going against the very posts they reply to that I'd swear they were trolling if I didn't know that only /sci/ is capable of this type of idiocy.

Test

>>7727972
Gratz, ur not banned \owo/

>>7724144
I hate this shit too. can anyone give an intuitive explanation as to why a converging nozzle can't accelerate a fluid past the speed of sound?

>>7727979
Yay...