Near Speed of Light Contraction Effect

It's in the direction of motion.

You seem to be merging your frames of reference...The object in motion does not change, just from the observers point of view, it does...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction

That would make sense and avoid contradictions. I have seen all descriptions that show length contraction and that may be a simplification that is wrong. Woody

This sounds philosophical,... but making an observation, one may create whats called ’Observer Effect’ that may alter the state of what they measure in some manner.

How's your cat?

Which one? He has three, Is, Isn't and Maybe.

There are three effects between two frames of reference that are in relative motion. Length is foreshortened in the other frame, Time is slower in the other frame, and mass is increased in the other frame. For example, muons created in the upper atmosphere by cosmic rays reach the ground even though their average lifetime of a muon at rest is only 2.2 microseconds.

These muons are traveling close to the speed of light from our perspective. The earth is traveling close to the speed of light from the muon's perspective.

From our perspective, the Muon's "clock" is slowed down so that it lives much longer than a muon at rest. From the muon's perspective, the atmosphere is foreshortened so that it reaches the ground.

In another example, particle accelerators accelerate subatomic particles to speeds close to light speed. It is well known that these particles increase in mass as they approach light speed. This mass becomes infinite at light speed. Force = mass x acceleration. This is the practical reason that nothing with any mass can be accelerated to light speed.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/tdil.html

Solar Eagle is correct about the contraction.

Atoms may not actually have electrons in orbit. I suggest you pose this question on the Physics Forums to get more educated answers.

If I remember correctly, the GPS system has to be corrected for relativity effects resulting from the speed of the satellites orbiting the earth, otherwise the gps coordinates delivered by the system would have a measurable error.

I therefore conclude that the relative speed is just that relative speed, direction does not matter.

A number of relativistic effects affect GPS, but length contraction isn't one of them. Length contraction is an effect due to Special Relativity, Einstein's first relativity theory which dealt with inertial reference frames, i.e., moving with respect to each other at a constant velocity and not in a gravitational field.

Einsteins General Relativity, which was developed later, deals with reference frames that are accelerating or are in a gravitational field.

The relativity factors which affect GPS are (1) moving clocks slowing down (special relativity), clocks run slower in a gravity field (general relativity), and the Sagnac effect (due to rotating reference frame).

"A number of sources of error exist due to relativistic effects^[15] that would render the system useless if uncorrected. Three relativistic effects are the time dilation, gravitational frequency shift, and eccentricity effects. Examples include the relativistic time slowing due to the speed of the satellite of about 1 part in 10¹⁰, the gravitational time dilation that makes a satellite run about 5 parts in 10¹⁰ faster than an Earth-based clock, and the Sagnac effect due to rotation relative to receivers on Earth."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_analysis_for_the_Global_Positioning_System

"... Length contraction is an effect due to Special Relativity, Einstein's first relativity theory ..."

.

So before 1905 there was no length contraction? ...or does retrocausality exist outsite the realm of quantum mechanics?

Thank you

Recommended reading:

_{Available at any number of booksellers.}

So here is a nifty thought. A black hole isn't actually there, it is the general location of where something exceeded the speed of light leaving behind a hole in space cause by infinite gravity created by the infinite mass at the moment it went poof. Would that mean a black hole is two dimensional in our relativistic universe or multi dimensional?

Now, everyone have fun shooting holes in that statement!

I think the dissent would have to start with frame of reference. For an object to attain enough mass to form a black hole, it would need to show relative motion near the speed of light relative to the observer. In that case, black holes couldn't have a relative fixed location or it would be fixed relative to the observer. Black holes would appear to whizz around at nearly the speed of light relative to the observer or they would, if fixed, revert to their original mass. If you did see effects indicating a black hole with incredibly high velocity, then you could assume it was a relatively small object with a relatiely high velocity.

Doesn't rule out the possibility of an object travelling at relatively high velocity in the A axis, which would be perpendicular to X, Y and Z. However, as the object got further away in the A axis, the black hole would fade out as the object got farther away in A according to the rate in the law of gravity.

It is a bit of a chilling thought that an electron travelling at relativistic speed could whizz through the neighborhood and turn us all into chutney, except that it wouldn't.

This sums up about what we know about black holes...

https://www.science.org.au/curious/space-time/black-holes

Black holes are the boogeymen of the universe...

B-holes.