"compiz" wrote in message
...


Tom Roberts wrote:
compiz wrote:
On Feb 2, 2:25 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
When you look at a building from the front, it is very wide. When you
look at it from a corner, it is not nearly as wide. Where is the
"missing width" stored?
The usage of the word "stored" is completely inappropriate here, and
in
your post. Ditto for the word "missing".

looks like totally bogus analogy

But it is a direct and cogent analogy. In SR, motion between frames is
DIRECTLY analogous to the spatial rotation involved in changing one's
viewpoint of a building. That is, the Lorentz transform is a ROTATION in
the x-t plane (for motion along the x axis). Just as my analogy is a
rotation in the x-y plane (with z upward). The x-t rotation is
hyperbolic, not circular, but that's a minor point and does not destroy
the analogy.


Tom Roberts

thanks, but still not convinced

if it is only a vision issue,

Its not just a vision thing

why they say
that the contraction is real

Because reality is what we measure (whether with rulers and clocks or with
our senses)

and in only
one direction?

Because it only moves in onedirection.

people have 2 eyes, and if the building
becomes smaller in one direction it becomes
thicker in the orthogonal direction
this depth deformation easily can be seen with 2 eyes

You are taking the anlaogy too far.

but seeing a relativity length contraction makes
apparently no any sense, namely because the
speed of light limitations

It is the light speed limitation that require length contraction, time
dilation, and relativity of simultaneity. But you need all three for it to
make sense .. just looking at length contraction on its own (say) without
taking the other two effects into account ends up self-contradictory.