If one of the dimensions of our solar system contracted ....

[student34]

... by a factor of 10, then would it operate exactly the same way as if it did not contract?

I ask this because there could be an observer at a sufficient speed for which our solar system contracts by a factor of 10. Wouldn't our solar system and its contents have to behave differently for the observer moving at a high speed?

How can my issue be solved?

 

[PeroK]

... by a factor of 10, then would it operate exactly the same way as if it did not contract?

I ask this because there could be an observer at a sufficient speed for which our solar system contracts by a factor of 10. Wouldn't our solar system and its contents have to behave differently for the observer moving at a high speed?

How can my issue be solved?

The behaviour of the Solar System in its rest frame is unaffected by external observers, whatever their state of motion.

It would certainly look difference to an observer moving at relatively high speed.

 

[student34]

The behaviour of the Solar System in its rest frame is unaffected by external observers, whatever their state of motion.

It would certainly look difference to an observer moving at relatively high speed.

Then is length contraction only an illusion to an observer at very high speeds?

 

[Dale]

would it operate exactly the same way as if it did not contract?

Yes. That is guaranteed by the general principle of relativity.

Then is length contraction only an illusion to an observer at very high speeds?

"Illusion" is not a scientific term. Length contraction is a measurable effect which is frame variant. You can call it "illusion" because it is frame variant, or you can call it "real" because it is measurable. The choice of description has no bearing on the physics.

 

[PeroK]

Then is length contraction only an illusion to an observer at very high speeds?

No. It represents his/her well-defined measurement of lengths. This is one reason that Newtonian gravity needed to be replaced and wasn't compatible with SR. The eternal observer cannot use $1/r^2$, with $r$ as measured by him/her.

 

[Nugatory]

Then is length contraction only an illusion to an observer at very high speeds?

We covered this with you at some length just a month ago: https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...z-transformation-an-illusion-or-real.1008034/

Nothing has changed since then.

 

[student34]

Yes. That is guaranteed by the general principle of relativity.

"Illusion" is not a scientific term. Length contraction is a measurable effect which is frame variant. You can call it "illusion" because it is frame variant, or you can call it "real" because it is measurable. The choice of description has no bearing on the physics.

So this seems to mean that someone can squish my head until it resembles the shape of a pancake, and everything will function the same.

How can this be?

 

[Nugatory]

So this seems to mean that someone can squish my head until it resembles a pancake, and everything will function the same.

No, it does not mean anything of the sort. Squishing your head requires applying compressive forces to reduce its size, and of course these forces will have noticeable (and unpleasant) effects. None of this has much to do with the fact that the size of your head, like all sizes, is frame-dependent whether we are applying compressive forces to it or not.

There is no reason to post the same question every month in hopes that the answer will change - it won't.

This thread is closed.

 

[PAllen]

This is getting silly. Let's take trivial examples of frame variance from before relativity. These are no different than the few more cases relativity adds:

1) A light bulb may be emitting white light, blue light, or red light per different observers. Which is the 'true' color, and "how can a light way be squeezed by factor of 10 in one frame and still be unchanged in another frame?" (You can substitute sound waves if you think SR is necessary for Doppler; it actually isn't - it just changes the exact formula compared to what was expected before).

2) How can a canon ball have no kinetic energy for one observer and a lot for the other. How can it not be able to destroy a plane comoving with the canon ball?