There is a lot of discussion about what Loentz contraction really is, with a significant group claiming that actual contraction of distance takes place (it is a space-like phenonemon) and another significant group stating that what is really happening (and being described) is that time dilation is taking place (it is a time-like phenomenon). Speed = Distance/Time is something everyone agrees on. What is apparently up for grabs is whether it is valid to invert the expression in order to define distance as Distance = Speed x Time or whether this inversion breaks down in a relativistic context where time is dilating. If it really is distance then one would need to account for apparent size. Apparent size is a property of distance: when you get closer to an object that object will appear larger. If Lorentz contraction really shortens distance (that is, it is a space like phenomenon and not a time-like phenomenon) then as Lorentz contraction takes place we would get physically closer to the object. By travelling ever closer to the speed of light we could get arbitrarily close. We should then see the object at the distance dictated by the Lorentz contraction. If Lorentz contraction really equates to shorter distances then theoretically, we could even observe a star as being a mile away or even closer (with all its detail!) that is a billion years distant in the rest frame. I do not accept that this is possible so I do not accept that length contraction equates to physical distance shortening. There are also other properties affected by (true) distance. Radiation intensity and gravitational pull to name two. If we are truly at just 1 mile distance from a star if we accelerate to the appropriate velocity then if we believe the space-like interpretation of Lorentz contraction we will experience the star just as if it were 1 mile away in a non-accelerated situation. We would be both fried and experience an extremely strongly gravitational pull. Note that the apparent size phenomenon is not the same as magnification. A space-like interpretation of the Lorentz contraction postulates that at the right velocity (very close to light) the distance will really be one mile and the observer (in the rocket presumably) will observe exactly the same thing as we would here on Earth if the star were 1 mile away. Magnification presents resolution issues which do not play a role in the apparent size case. If resolution issues are raised to prevent being able to see the star up close then the Lorentz contraction cannot be true distance shortening. In my view, Lorentz contraction is a (highly) useful mathematical method for manipulating time dilation (which is a real physical phenomenon) but the Lorentz contraction does not result in actual shortening of the physical distance. Objects and distances do not physically shrink (in the direction of motion or any other direction), a photon is not "everywhere in the universe" and we cannot define Distance to be Speed x Time in a relativistic context. These paradoxes don't occur because no physical contraction is taking place.

The limits of a sad device as an invariant. But there are app stores. Syntax invariants pre- app store for proper font for spacetime invariant. Limits and resolutions. Biconditional updates. This SRT really reminds he of how String Theory applies to conforming halos until other physics allow explanations for conforming halos. Correlating SRT to String Theory as a bridge, we can plan for SRT obsolescence. In theory. 😷not in funding! 🙂 Polebarn pole ends inside the barn with farmers wife and outside with the farmers daughter. The pole in the polebarn. The Minkowski in the Einstein! 🙂