The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Evidence for large scale length contraction?  (Read 56682 times)

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Re: Evidence for large scale length contraction?
« Reply #275 on: 14/11/2012 21:30:08 »
Same for the distance to the sun. Never mind that Earth would be incinerated if it were actually a small fraction of the established average of 93 million miles or so from the Sun.

You're displaying your lack of understanding again there: if it's squished, it's because it's moving, and if it's moving, the light and heat will be concentrated forwards in the direction of travel, the result being the approximately same amount of heat and light reaching the Earth at all times (assuming the orbit is approximately circular from the solar system's own frame of reference).

Quote
Same applies to the "altered realities" of what D.C. calls LET. He says that the space between atoms in Earth varies with changes in velocity (of Earth relative to near 'c' travelers), thus giving it a 1000 mile diameter in the extreme case. More total nonsense.

The Michelson Morley experiment disagrees with you. Things are length contracted in their direction of travel. It's important though that you should understand that things are only length contracted where the separation of their components is strongly locked together by forces. If you had two objects a mile apart and accelerated them both to 0.866c with one following behind the other, they would remain a mile apart without the distance between them being length contracted to half a mile. A train a mile long, on the other hand, would be length contracted to half a mile long. The contraction is the direct result of the interaction of forces or communications between the components which are slowed down by the added communication distances. In the first case we have two objects which are not locked together and which therefore maintain their separation at one mile - they are not making any adjustments on the basis of communications with each other. It's this case where there is no length contraction which led to the old assumption that things maintain their length at any speed, but when they are locked together through forces (as is the case with the MM apparatus and with the solar system), they have to contract in their direction of travel.

Edit: Actually, the solar system isn't locked that way, but if it formed while moving at high speed the orbits of the planets would automatically end up being length contracted in the direction of travel because of the way they form out of a dust ring which in the frame of reference of the solar system is circular.

In SR you must have the same situation with length contraction only applying to things that are locked together by forces, so if you imagine a train one lightyear long and stretching from one star to another, if it was suddenly accelerated to 0.866c it would not suddenly become half the length with the front or back end halfway between the two stars or with one end quarter of the way from one star to the other and the other end three quarters of the way. No, what would happen is that the train would break up into pieces spread across the whole distance between the two stars and with gaps here and there, the length of the gaps adding up to half a lightyear.

Quote
Late edit regarding D.C.'s last post: It is trivial and irrelevant whether "LET" is a "camp" within SR.

Hardly: LET = OGVT with added recognition of length contraction. SR is 4D Spacetime.

Quote
Earth's diameter does not actually change as its image is  viewed from various frames of reference.

Correct.

Quote
That is the point which D.C. is trying to obfuscate here with his pet project, promoting "LET."

Cor-wrong. I'm simply waiting with interest to see how long it takes you to realise that OGVT and LET are the same theory, but with the latter recognising the necessity of length contraction while the former ignores the experiment which shows that length contraction actually happens in the real universe.

Quote
Why he doesn't promote it in his own thread, I do not know.

I'm much more interested in studying how people think than in promoting anything.
« Last Edit: 14/11/2012 21:53:14 by David Cooper »
 

lean bean

  • Guest
Re: Evidence for large scale length contraction?
« Reply #276 on: 14/11/2012 22:05:46 »
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/muon.html

quote from above link.
Quote
Muon-Frame Observer
The muon sees distance as  length contracted.

Quote
Note that the muon and ground frames do not agree on the distance and time, but they agree on the final result. One observer sees time dilation, the other sees length contraction, but neither sees both

Old guy quote
Quote
"Time dilation" is a misnomer (time is not an entity) for the observed fact that physical processes (like the ticking of clocks) slow down when they travel at higher velocities.

That’s as seen from or compared to the earth frame. In the muon’s own frame it’s clock is running normal. 

To use the above link's figures… Distance in earth frame for muon to travel is 10 Km.
 If from the earth frame  the muon’s clock is running slow, then earth will reckon the muon will experience only 6.8 microseconds to reach the surface.
 That’s 6.8microseconds multiplied by 0.98c (293706Kms)= 1.997Km (nearly 2Km)

Whereas earth will ‘see’ the muon reach the surface in 34microseconds.
That’s 34microseconds multiplied by 0.98c (293706Kms)= 9.986Km (nearly 10Km)

In other words…the muon 'sees' 2Km where the earth sees the distance is 10 Km.
No force required.
Your constant referring to a force is a reflection of your misunderstanding of time dilation and length contraction.
« Last Edit: 15/11/2012 18:54:17 by lean bean »
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: Evidence for large scale length contraction?
« Reply #277 on: 14/11/2012 23:14:32 »
No force required.
Your constant referring to a force is a reflection of your misunderstanding of time dilation and length contraction.

You can also demonstrate that forces can, in fact, be thought of as reshaping things at high speeds.  The force holding the probe (in the famous probe example) together are electromagnetic and communicated at light speed.  Since electromagnetism travels a the speed of light, and the speed of light is constant as the observer moves, these bonds change length and that changes the length of the probe as it moves.  You can interpret this different ways, but it's pretty obvious that it can certainly be interpreted as the electromagnetic force leading to a reshaping of the probe as you fly by it at high speeds.
 

lean bean

  • Guest
Re: Evidence for large scale length contraction?
« Reply #278 on: 15/11/2012 15:47:20 »
That's interesting JP, I'm letting that one slowly soak in, my head is not a quick figurer.
And  have noted that you obviously still need two frames.
« Last Edit: 15/11/2012 16:31:56 by lean bean »
 

Offline old guy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 165
    • View Profile
Re: Evidence for large scale length contraction?
« Reply #279 on: 15/11/2012 20:12:24 »
No force required.
Your constant referring to a force is a reflection of your misunderstanding of time dilation and length contraction.

You can also demonstrate that forces can, in fact, be thought of as reshaping things at high speeds.  The force holding the probe (in the famous probe example) together are electromagnetic and communicated at light speed.  Since electromagnetism travels a the speed of light, and the speed of light is constant as the observer moves, these bonds change length and that changes the length of the probe as it moves.  You can interpret this different ways, but it's pretty obvious that it can certainly be interpreted as the electromagnetic force leading to a reshaping of the probe as you fly by it at high speeds.
Regarding, "You can also demonstrate that forces can, in fact, be thought of as reshaping things at high speeds"... "can be thought of..." is not the same as forces actually physically contracting the probe's length.

If we had near 'c' travel, then the actual fact would be that seeing the probe from Earth (approaching at .866c) as 10 meters would not physically change it to BE 10 meters long. Once the shuttle pullls alongside the probe to capture it, it is seen as it actually IS, 20 meters long, so it will not fit in the 10 meter shuttle bay. No "smoke and mirrors" about a length contracted probe will make it fit.
Also, if length contraction actually made the probe, seen approaching at .866c, half its length in its own frame, then the same principle must apply to other objects, like my "signature example" of Earth. Flying by Earth at .866c would make its diameter contract to about 4000 miles. Can anyone actually believe that? I have no problem with its diameter *appearing* contracted to 4000 miles, but that would be a distorted image of Earth, not a physical planet with a diameter shrunken by half by the power of observation from the fly-by frame.

Earth "can be thought of" as having a shrunken diameter, but "in the real world" it stays just under 8000 miles, regardless of who is flying by howerver fast in whatever direction observing it.

Please address this directly.
 

Offline old guy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 165
    • View Profile
Re: Evidence for large scale length contraction?
« Reply #280 on: 19/11/2012 18:45:39 »
No force required.
Your constant referring to a force is a reflection of your misunderstanding of time dilation and length contraction.

You can also demonstrate that forces can, in fact, be thought of as reshaping things at high speeds.  The force holding the probe (in the famous probe example) together are electromagnetic and communicated at light speed.  Since electromagnetism travels a the speed of light, and the speed of light is constant as the observer moves, these bonds change length and that changes the length of the probe as it moves.  You can interpret this different ways, but it's pretty obvious that it can certainly be interpreted as the electromagnetic force leading to a reshaping of the probe as you fly by it at high speeds.
I'm still waiting for an answer to my last post. Does the same principle hold for the force holding the probe together and changing the length of the probe as it moves, as you say, and the force holding Earth together and changing the length of its diameter as an observer flys by at high speed?
How about length contraction of the AU as an observer flys by Earth and Sun at near 'c?'
What are the forces holding together in this case, which then shrink  because the observer's clock has slowed way down contracting the distance between Earth and Sun as the reciprocal of "time dilation?"

There is no consistency whatsoever between your explanation of length contraction in the above example and in these two cases.
Ignoring it does nothing to explain it.
 

Offline zordim

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 46
    • View Profile
Re: Evidence for large scale length contraction?
« Reply #281 on: 20/11/2012 11:35:55 »
Dear Old Guy, allow me to draw your attention, as well of the others who follow your thread, to some completely reasonable physics in the thread
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=46034.0
There are the commonsense answers to the questions raised in your thread.
 

Offline old guy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 165
    • View Profile
Re: Evidence for large scale length contraction?
« Reply #282 on: 21/11/2012 19:35:37 »
zordim,
I was hoping for a reply from JP to my last post before getting into what you mean by:
"There are the commonsense answers to the questions raised in your thread."
However, since there is really no answer to how Earth's diameter or the distance between Earth and Sun can "contract" as per "length contraction," he is stonewalling against the challenge.

So in plain English (not a long technical blog) what is your common sense answer to my length contraction challenge?
 

Offline zordim

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 46
    • View Profile
Re: Evidence for large scale length contraction?
« Reply #283 on: 21/11/2012 23:40:56 »
You already know the answer:
The length of an object which moves will shrink: the higher kinetic energy it has, the more it will shrink. The other objects, observed from that moving object will not shrink just because they are observed/measured from that moving object. These other observed objects will only appear to be shorter, to the observer which is on the object which moves.
That is what Einstein himself would tell you. His equations are very good approximation of the physical reality.
On the lowest, elementary level, there are things which have to be taken as axioms, as “that’s the way it is”. „The great desideratum for any science is its reduction to the smallest number of dominating principles.“ 
In my theory, I present such small set of principles, for the complete, unified physics.
Taking into account that it is just one-web-page long, and that it, nevertheless, unifies the physics, in the new, completely non-abstract and purely scientific way, and completely comprehensible way, classifies it as the very short answer to both “why” and “how” questions, ranging from elementary particles and up to accelerated universe expansion. Of course, including the "why the lengths shrink".

I just hope that many people will read it here, and that I will have an opportunity to discuss it.

Regards,
Zordim
 

Offline zordim

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 46
    • View Profile
Re: Evidence for large scale length contraction?
« Reply #284 on: 22/11/2012 09:26:45 »
Very short reasonable explanation for length contraction:
If elementary inertial-mass-particles are the two-photons-whirls (and for that I provide quite reasonable arguments in FEMME and I also derived equations which are in accordance with experiments, and with reality in general), and since the photons must conform to the relation 800fad5d43e9c9b21d5a013e834124de.gif, then the bodies should shrink whenever their energy is higher then their energy at rest.
 

Offline old guy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 165
    • View Profile
Re: Evidence for large scale length contraction?
« Reply #285 on: 22/11/2012 19:09:19 »
zordim:
"The length of an object which moves will shrink: the higher kinetic energy it has, the more it will shrink."

Does this agree with JP's explanation of the mechanism of shrinkage (of "my probe") in post 277?** If so, how does that account for contraction of Earth's diameter to 4000 miles in the direction of travel of an observer flying by at .866c?... or contraction of the distance to the Sun "as observed by" a similar fly-by past the solar system?
** As the probe was approaching Earth at .866c. it was measured to be 10 meters long. How long must the shuttle bay be to capture and retrieve it? If it had actually contracted to 10 meters, the 10 meter bay would suffice. But as the shuttle comes alongside the probe, it is seen as it is, 20 meters long. It had not, after all shrunk to 10 meters, as it appeared from Earth.

How does your, "The length of an object which moves will shrink...*" explain that? You said in your next post: "...then the bodies should shrink whenever their energy is higher then their energy at rest." Same question/challenge.

Another angle: If the probe's velocity relative to Earth had made it shrink, would it then gradually grow longer in the shuttle bay as the shuttle slows down and lands on Earth... like gradually grow back to 20 meters and bust out of the 10 meter bay.
Something is quite wrong with this scenario, don't you think?
Of course, the 10 meter bay would have appeared to shrink to 5 meters as seen from Earth as it came to rest with the probe... so even then it would appear to be half the length of the "apparently contracted" probe. What a bunch of nonsense!
« Last Edit: 22/11/2012 19:39:34 by old guy »
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Re: Evidence for large scale length contraction?
« Reply #286 on: 22/11/2012 21:14:29 »
The probe is shortened to 10m and when the shuttle tries to capture it after accelerating to the same speed, the probe is too big for it as the shuttle bay is now contracted to 5m. If you send a bigger shuttle instead having anticipated that the shuttle will shrink to half its length, you can send one with a 20m bay to collect the probe and that will shrink to the required 10m length when actually collecting it. As it decelerates with the probe inside it, both expand together until they end up at 20m long.

We know that these length contractions happen because of the Michelson Morley experiment.

From the frame of reference of the probe while it is moving at 0.866c, the Earth appears to have been squished to 4000 miles wide. If the Earth is actually moving and the probe is stationary, the Earth really has been squished and the probe is not lengh compressed. The complication only comes into it with SR where all frames of reference are claimed to be equally valid, but switching which frame you analyse things from does not require anyone to think that it physically changes the diameter or length of anything, even if many people in the SR camp think they change - it simply changes the way things appear to be. The non-Euclidian 4D Spacetime stuff is hard to picture, but I've been told by an expert elsewhere that it's Lorentz invarient - I take this to mean that when you accelerate things within it they do not change shape at all and that it is only when we try to convert things from there into the 3D way that we ordinarily see the universe that all these length contractions are introduced. I may be misunderstanding that though.
 

Offline old guy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 165
    • View Profile
Re: Evidence for large scale length contraction?
« Reply #287 on: 22/11/2012 22:41:32 »
Gentlemen,
Everything is moving. I agree with the part of relativity that says velocity has no meaning without specifying "relative to what?"
I also have no doubt that the faster an observer moves relative to an object, the more contracted that object will appear to the observer, and vice-versa (both frames of reference are "observers" in this context.)

 So the probe will appear 10 meters long approaching Earth at .866c if it is actually 20 meters long... and the Earth will appear to have a diameter of 4000 miles from the probe's frame. (Mixing length units for consistency with past arguments here.) The key words are "appear" vs "actually." Earth's diameter does not actually shrink to accomodate how  the probe sees it, nor does the probe's length actually shrink to accomodate how Earth sees it in this .866c relative velocity scenario, which works both ways.

The bay IS 10 meters long. The probe IS 20 meters long. All "appearences" aside, the probe will not fit in the bay, and it will not "actually" change lengths. All "appearences" aside, Earth's diameter IS and stays nearly 8000 miles regardless of how it might "appear" to a fast moving traveler. And the probe IS and stays 20 meters long regardless of how it appears from Earth.
Do both of you (zordim and D.C.) understand this? How about you, JP.
 

Offline zordim

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 46
    • View Profile
Re: Evidence for large scale length contraction?
« Reply #288 on: 23/11/2012 21:33:14 »
I finally see what you mean. From that aspect, you are right. That is, that actually is what the SR kinematics implies, with its reference frames and their mathematical invariance.

But, I have objections concerning "the velocity has no meaning without specifying "relative to what"".
On one side, we should recall the Newton's bucket, that is, the rotation.
On the other side, we have a photon. A photon's energy is both kinetic and intrinsic, at the same time. In other words, the kinetic and intrinsic energy of a photon is one and the same thing. And, the photon's energy is not relative to anything. It is fec5ba0bf5af436050d2818707df8996.gif.
Let us assume we have two photons, which have equal energies, which fly through the 3e5f26bad30f6df4ec55bdbc94a97902.gif-3a84341711ab951b21f1b4e7295baa0e.gif-space, along two very near parallel opposite  directions. Let us assume that, when they get nearest to each other, they form a two-photons-whirl. That whirl would be in an absolute-rest-position. It's velocity will be 0. A real 0. It would have intrinsic energy of f109dae51f02fde5854266bfa02278f8.gif. If it is a stable whirl, then it can be moved, that is, it can gain the kinetic energy.

b283bcebfdd57d900f857aefddaaedc9.gif   aa8622ef3fbd108339624fca7dc04d21.gif ;          2a69b6d0ec1ebf0c30c9bf91573b563f.gif

8ee3e8ff52a60e21929b6498a62c9885.gif   83cef89c6f0255fdb20b37f027756d90.gif  055889aaee38b7c53f994c5e42a40994.gif  cfc8a01ebf176d8e21a49f3bb3fe4c3c.gif  055889aaee38b7c53f994c5e42a40994.gif  aa93ab6b1e8928888ebecfe6b4aa60fb.gif  d1b2196508f5da0f6602bc74b9b263f9.gif  dd0a152ebda34866231434ad4c8ef8de.gif

This simple derivation is physically justified in the most essential way possible, and it is also experimentally confirmed: if positron and electron have higher kinetic energy before their „annihilation“, then the photons which are the result of the positron-electron „annihilation“ have higher energies, too. Hence, an infinitesimal increase of their kinetic energy 455c3ad26cf79eaa9b4ffeb54b9a2d52.gif, manifests itself as  2a69b6d0ec1ebf0c30c9bf91573b563f.gif during "annihilation" - all in accordance with the energy conservation principle.

The velocity of an elementary inertial-mass-particle, that is, of a two-photons-whirl (i.e. electron) which moves through 3e5f26bad30f6df4ec55bdbc94a97902.gif-3a84341711ab951b21f1b4e7295baa0e.gif-spacetime, cannot reach the velocity 4a8a08f09d37b73795649038408b5f33.gif. Because, the 4a8a08f09d37b73795649038408b5f33.gif is the maximal possible velocity which the 3e5f26bad30f6df4ec55bdbc94a97902.gif-3a84341711ab951b21f1b4e7295baa0e.gif-spacetime allows, and, therefore, the intensity of the vector-sum of:
-   the circular velocity of the photon in the photon’s whirl,
-   and the velocity of the whole whirl
can not exceed the velocity 4a8a08f09d37b73795649038408b5f33.gif
In the hypothetical case that the whirl as a whole reaches the velocity 4a8a08f09d37b73795649038408b5f33.gif, then it would turn into two paralelly and linearly moving photons. These photons will have higher energy then the photons which originally formed the two-photons-whirl.

Hence, theoretically, the maximal possible increase of energy (mass) of the inertial-mass-particle is  1d4f9341769f3ae641730ea09e8e3587.gif , that is, about  65%  increase of energy (mass) at rest. (I find it odd, that I could not find nothing newer about this, than "The Kaufmann experiments", from the beginning of the last century. I would expect that each particle-acceleration lab should have these data on their internet site, i.e. as a proof of the quality of their lab. I mean, this is, today, the easiest way to test the SR)

And, if the time slows down in the system which moves linearly, with high velocity, then the equation for that time dilation is to be calculated from the following equation:
70079ce34b030448f0c7e11faf0116f1.gif
At least, that would be the change of the EM-oscillation period of the single photons which formed the whirl. It will be different than it was before they formed the whirl, because of the energy conservation principle.

Their length would have to shrink, too:
963e6d55e3b495da7aa134835d86d70a.gif

So, to clarify my point:
"Everything is moving". Energy and movement are practically the synonyms. Saying that "velocity has no meaning without spefying "relative to what"", means "existence has no meaning without specifying "relative to what". The photons exist. The electrons exist. The atoms, molecules, the universe exist. Relative to both everything and to nothing.
And the two-photons-whirl concept explains why is the statement "everything is moving" true. The lowest, the most essential level/manifestation of existence, is the photon. And the photon moves. "Moving" is its inherent property. That is how it exist. There are no photons which do not move. That is the existence axiom.
« Last Edit: 23/11/2012 21:59:46 by zordim »
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Re: Evidence for large scale length contraction?
« Reply #289 on: 23/11/2012 22:56:20 »
The bay IS 10 meters long. The probe IS 20 meters long. All "appearences" aside, the probe will not fit in the bay, and it will not "actually" change lengths. All "appearences" aside, Earth's diameter IS and stays nearly 8000 miles regardless of how it might "appear" to a fast moving traveler. And the probe IS and stays 20 meters long regardless of how it appears from Earth.
Do both of you (zordim and D.C.) understand this? How about you, JP.

What you're saying can be true with the Spacetime of SR, but if you reject Spacetime you're going to have to have actual, real, genuine, absolute length contraction of moving things. Without it, your theory conflicts with Michelson Morley.
 

Offline old guy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 165
    • View Profile
Re: Evidence for large scale length contraction?
« Reply #290 on: 25/11/2012 19:26:56 »
D.C.:
Quote
What you're saying can be true with the Spacetime of SR, but if you reject Spacetime you're going to have to have actual, real, genuine, absolute length contraction of moving things. Without it, your theory conflicts with Michelson Morley.
... and from 11/14:
Quote
The Michelson Morley experiment disagrees with you. Things are length contracted in their direction of travel.

I think you are still missing my point entirely. Here it is again:
Quote
The key words are "appear" vs "actually." Earth's diameter does not actually shrink to accomodate how  the probe sees it, nor does the probe's length actually shrink to accomodate how Earth sees it in this .866c relative velocity scenario, which works both ways.

If the principle of length contraction were true, the probe would actually shrink to 10 meters when measured from Earth, approaching at .866c. But it only appeared to be 10 meters. The same holds in reverse for Earth as seen from the probe. To be consistent about length contraction, Earth would actually shrink in diameter to 4000 miles. That is blatant nonsense.

The same holds for the MM experiment, which you keep repeating as proof of length contraction. The arm in the direction of travel appears to shrink as distinct from actually shrinks as in the examples above... and in the example of the distance to the Sun, which might appear to shrink as seen from a fast fly-by frame.

You insist on "length contraction of moving things." Do you get that everything is moving, so velocity must specify "relative to what?"
So Earth is moving at .866c relative to the probe as well as vice-versa. Do you or do you not think that its diameter actually contracts to 4000 miles in that case? A direct answer would be refreshing. I can not get one one from JP, and zordim seems to be living in a universe of his own creation.

We have been over this many times. I hope it is "over" unless you answer the above directly as requested.
« Last Edit: 25/11/2012 19:31:35 by old guy »
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Re: Evidence for large scale length contraction?
« Reply #291 on: 25/11/2012 20:27:49 »
The key words are "appear" vs "actually." Earth's diameter does not actually shrink to accomodate how  the probe sees it, nor does the probe's length actually shrink to accomodate how Earth sees it in this .866c relative velocity scenario, which works both ways.

If the principle of length contraction were true, the probe would actually shrink to 10 meters when measured from Earth, approaching at .866c. But it only appeared to be 10 meters. The same holds in reverse for Earth as seen from the probe. To be consistent about length contraction, Earth would actually shrink in diameter to 4000 miles. That is blatant nonsense.

You have to avoid mixing up different theories. In SR you can have a lot of what you're after with all the length contraction being apparent rather than actual. If you're prepared to adopt the Spacetime structure of reality, that's where you belong. If you don't like Spacetime though, you're left with OGVT and LET which are identical apart from the latter having objects length contract in their direction of travel such that the Michelson Morley experiment can be accounted for. In LET there are three possible realities. (1) The probe shrinks to half its length and the planet is not squished because the probe is moving and the planet is not. (2) The probe may be stationary and the planet moving, in which case the planet is squished and the probe is not length contracted. (3) Both the probe and planet are moving and both are affected by length contraction. The third of these possibilities is most likely to be the correct answer. Unlike with SR, in LET it is not the case that all of these possible descriptions are true, but there is no way to tell which of the three is correct from studying any lengths or speeds of things relative to each other.

Quote
The same holds for the MM experiment, which you keep repeating as proof of length contraction. The arm in the direction of travel appears to shrink as distinct from actually shrinks as in the examples above... and in the example of the distance to the Sun, which might appear to shrink as seen from a fast fly-by frame.

You are certainly entitled to make that claim if you place yourself in an SR camp.

Quote
You insist on "length contraction of moving things." Do you get that everything is moving, so velocity must specify "relative to what?"

Again you are entitled to make that claim if you are in an SR camp. It simply doesn't apply to LET, and it isn't clear that it applies to OGVT either because that seems to have a 3D space instead of 4D Spacetime.

Quote
So Earth is moving at .866c relative to the probe as well as vice-versa. Do you or do you not think that its diameter actually contracts to 4000 miles in that case? A direct answer would be refreshing. I can not get one one from JP, and zordim seems to be living in a universe of his own creation.

SR gives the appearance of contraction without requiring there to be any actual contraction. LET does not require the Earth to be contracted unless the Earth is moving through space. Because the Earth goes round the sun and the sun goes round in the galaxy, the Earth must be moving most of the time and will therefore be length contracted a little, but it isn't impossible that the galaxy (and all the others we can see) are moving at 0.866c and so all the stars and planets we can see could actually be squished to half their maximum width in the direction of travel - that would be highly unlikely, but it's impossible to tell that this is not the case. It would be fairly safe, however, to assume that they are not moving at all fast and are therefore not contracted to any great extent and that as a consequence any objects which are moving at very high speeds relative to us are going to be significantly length contracted (e.g. your alien probe), but that cannot be guaranteed to be true.

You want a definitive answer, but none is available: there is always going to be an "if". If Spacetime is the correct model, then length contraction can be apparent and everything is stationary and everything is moving, et cetera. If Spacetime is not correct, then LET (or varients of) would be the only game in town, in which case we absolutely do have actual length contraction but can't tell what is contracted and what isn't because we can't determine whether any specific thing is moving or not.

Quote
We have been over this many times.

Indeed we have, and it was all answered right at the start. The answers haven't changed along the way, and they won't change unless we can get some new knowledge about the nature of reality either through scientific discovery or logical reasoning (though the latter doesn't seem to get a lot of respect from the scientific side who pick and choose bits of reasoning to fit in with what they already believe).
 

Offline old guy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 165
    • View Profile
Re: Evidence for large scale length contraction?
« Reply #292 on: 25/11/2012 22:53:44 »
From my first post:
Quote
SR theorists claim that from a frame of reference flying by Earth at near light speed ('c') Earth's diameter as measured in the direction of the fly-by would be contracted, making Earth a very oblate spheroid rather than the near sphere established by Earth science. Further, they claim that the effect is not just a distortion (appearance only) but that Earth is in fact flattened (like the subatomic particles) "for that frame of reference" and that "there is no preferred frame of reference," so that measurement (flattened shape of earth) is "equally valid."

What say you SR experts here?

imatfaal
Reply #1 on: 31/08/2012 17:09:37

Quote
From the rest frame of the ship it is completely valid.  From the lab on earth we can predict with accuracy what the ship would observe and it matches what the ship's crew do observe.

D.C.,
I am not interested in your take on other theories as I've said several times before. I am challengeing the length contraction part of SR theory, as my OP clearly stated. I am also not interested in using "spacetime" as a way to explain that length contraction is image distortion or explained by difference in appearence, though that is my argument, sans "spacetime."

Imatfaal, a mod representing this forum as an expert on length contraction, answered my challenge... "so that measurement (flattened shape of earth) is "equally valid""... saying, "it is completely valid."
 
You continue to try to hijack this thread to promote your agenda about other competitive theories. Again, not interested.

I continue to be interested in getting an honest reply... from those here who speak for SR's version of length contraction... to the challenge of the length contracted Earth and distance to the sun. My probe & shuttle was a smaller scale example of the same principle they promote regarding those examples.

 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Re: Evidence for large scale length contraction?
« Reply #293 on: 26/11/2012 20:04:03 »
D.C.,
I am not interested in your take on other theories as I've said several times before. I am challengeing the length contraction part of SR theory, as my OP clearly stated. I am also not interested in using "spacetime" as a way to explain that length contraction is image distortion or explained by difference in appearence, though that is my argument, sans "spacetime."

If you reject Spacetime, you clearly must be interested in other theories, but other theories such as OGVT do not offer you any way out of length contraction other than by being incompatible with Michelson Morley.

Quote
Imatfaal, a mod representing this forum as an expert on length contraction, answered my challenge... "so that measurement (flattened shape of earth) is "equally valid""... saying, "it is completely valid."

Like you, I don't think that's the best position to be in - there are other camps within SR which do not suffer from that problem. If you were in such an SR camp, you would have a good position to argue from, but if you reject Spacetime you are rejecting SR and putting yourself into a position that's worse than that of the people you're attacking.
 
Quote
You continue to try to hijack this thread to promote your agenda about other competitive theories. Again, not interested.

It is impossible to give proper answers without covering all bases. If you don't want proper answers, don't ask for them.

Quote
I continue to be interested in getting an honest reply... from those here who speak for SR's version of length contraction... to the challenge of the length contracted Earth and distance to the sun. My probe & shuttle was a smaller scale example of the same principle they promote regarding those examples.

You've already had answers from them - they believe in something which appears to you and to me to be highly suspect. That is what you have discovered by asking your questions. What is the point in continuing to ask them about this when you already know where they stand? Maybe your aim is to convert them, but I don't think they're going to shift, and particularly when they're being told they're wrong by someone whose own model can't handle Michelson Morley, because whatever may be wrong with their model, it certainly can. Also, if they ever do feel the need to shift position on this, they don't need to change their model at all but can simply shift from one philosophical camp within SR into another without it making any difference to the maths.
 

Offline old guy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 165
    • View Profile
Re: Evidence for large scale length contraction?
« Reply #294 on: 27/11/2012 19:24:17 »
D.C.:
"If you reject Spacetime, you clearly must be interested in other theories,..."

Don't tell me what I'm interested in! See bolded "not interested" comments in last post.
I am interested in debunking large scale (not subatomic) length contraction, and the reification of "spacetime" into a supposed entity which is curved by mass. If it were just a coordinate system/model (fine with me) GR theory would not insist that it is *something* which mass curves or that it is *something* which guides masses in their curved paths.

The same argument against an actually contracted Earth diameter and contracted distances between cosmic bodies holds for a contracted arm of a physical structure like the MM experimental apparatus (or a theoretical "alien probe.") Since you think otherwise, show me the difference, i.e., how the arm actually contracts but Earth's diameter (etc.) does not, as they all depend on the same theory and principle, i.e., that physical objects and actual distances change with how they are observed.
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Re: Evidence for large scale length contraction?
« Reply #295 on: 27/11/2012 21:38:54 »
D.C.:
"If you reject Spacetime, you clearly must be interested in other theories,..."

Don't tell me what I'm interested in! See bolded "not interested" comments in last post.

Well, if you aren't actually interested in OGVT, stop telling us it's right.

Quote
I am interested in debunking large scale (not subatomic) length contraction, ...

Which means that Either you want to junk OGVT in favour of something like LET, or you adopt something like SR.

Quote
... and the reification of "spacetime" into a supposed entity which is curved by mass. If it were just a coordinate system/model (fine with me) GR theory would not insist that it is *something* which mass curves or that it is *something* which guides masses in their curved paths.

GR is the best reason for taking SR seriously, so I don't know why you'd want to ditch that.

Quote
The same argument against an actually contracted Earth diameter and contracted distances between cosmic bodies holds for a contracted arm of a physical structure like the MM experimental apparatus (or a theoretical "alien probe.")

And the train thought experiment too. Are you saying now that you are in an SR camp but that you reject GR?

Quote
Since you think otherwise, show me the difference, i.e., how the arm actually contracts but Earth's diameter (etc.) does not, as they all depend on the same theory and principle, i.e., that physical objects and actual distances change with how they are observed.

I assume you want this answered from an SR perspective, in which case I will place myself into a camp there which says that length contraction is apparent and not actual. That is the camp within SR which makes the most sense to me, and it's the one I think you'd be most comfortable in too (as I said long ago). I suppose you don't need to accept GR if you don't want to, so if that's your position then I congratulate you on working out that that is your position. If this is the case, some real progress has been made - next time you start this argument off at a science forum you can do so in more compact style, as follows:-

Quote
Hi,

I'm a believer in SR but not GR. I believe that length contractions are apparent and not actual - they merely show up as length contractions when you convert a 4D object into 3D space. I have a beef to pick with people who believe in SR but who think that objects change their actual shape as you view them from different frames of reference.

O.G.

Then someone can reply thus:-

Quote
Hi O.G.,

Nice to hear your point of view. Food for thought.

End of thread?
 

Offline zordim

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 46
    • View Profile
Re: Evidence for large scale length contraction?
« Reply #296 on: 28/11/2012 12:10:38 »
If people could just realize that 3e5f26bad30f6df4ec55bdbc94a97902.gif and 3a84341711ab951b21f1b4e7295baa0e.gif are the essential properties of the space. Just like the lengths are the properties of the space. That is all. But it turned out to be the hardest thing to realize.

Length, time, 3e5f26bad30f6df4ec55bdbc94a97902.gif and 3a84341711ab951b21f1b4e7295baa0e.gif, is everything we need to start with, concerning space. To accept them as axioms, for which Maxwell already discovered the fundamental relation:
The change of a photon position in time is equal to the reciprocal value of the 896d17ab80633d49c5699649844add6c.gif

3e5f26bad30f6df4ec55bdbc94a97902.gif and 3a84341711ab951b21f1b4e7295baa0e.gif are something that was discovered, measured, long time ago. They are electromagnetic properties. Of the space.
Photon also has electromagnetic properties.
Electromagnetic is that what attaches energy and space, what enables the propagation of a photon, what enables photon's existence in the way it exists - as a linearly propagating EM-energy-oscillation, which has the wavelength (spatial property), and the period of oscillation (time property). The time in which a photon makes one full EM-oscillation is 2b4a0034229d88aa878d24578352d27b.gif.

Any photon will propagate with the velocity 01e88bb71cd966e9af4e655bd8d987fd.gif, regardless of its energy.
A photon's energy is d0ff2ac84ce4759d531c5b16702d395c.gif.

The equation 6e9f3dc333cc693040f10b5dc47289b2.gif is the law that each photon has to obey.

In the above text are given all that is necessary to derive all of the most important equations in physics, using simple infinitesimal calculus, because all of the essential properties of space and of a photon can and do change continually.

A photons mass, non-inertial mass, is f07da0ff68efbbf5e4adb7f72f42db83.gif, that is, it is the measure of coupling, the convolution of photons elementary energy and epsilon-mu-space.

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=46034.0

Best regards,
Zordim
« Last Edit: 28/11/2012 12:13:17 by zordim »
 

Offline old guy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 165
    • View Profile
Re: Evidence for large scale length contraction?
« Reply #297 on: 28/11/2012 21:59:12 »
D.C.:
" Well, if you aren't actually interested in OGVT, stop telling us it's right."

"OGVT" is your acronym. My "search" in this forum failed to find your first reference, spelling it out. Google just gave "OutGoing Verification Trunk." (?)
Me:
" I am interested in debunking large scale (not subatomic) length contraction," ...
You:
"Which means that Either you want to junk OGVT in favour of something like LET, or you adopt something like SR."
Huh? It means that the constant speed of light as per SR, which is well documented, does not automatically require that physical objects actually contract in length.
 As said in my other (locked) length contraction thread, the "warning" on convex mirrors is applicable to the concept of length contraction. "Warning: Objects may appear closer than they are!" The LC version would be: "Warning: Objects approaching at very high velocity may appear shorter than they are!"

(So the "probe retrieval team" would have applied the Lorentz formula to "transform" the 10 meter long "appearance" of the probe... approaching at .866c... to its actual 20 meter length before foolishly sending out a shuttle with a 10 meter bay to retrieve it.)
As I understand your usage of "LET" the Lorentz "camp" says that physical objects do physically contract. I say that would require force to crush the object or compact the distance between the atoms of such objects.

 SR claims that all frames are equally valid and that length is not invariant. Realism, my take, disagrees. Physical objects have inherent, intrinsic properties, including length, which do not change with the various frames from which they are observed. This repeats what I have said many times, because you still show no sign of understanding my argument.
You:
"GR is the best reason for taking SR seriously, so I don't know why you'd want to ditch that."
I accept that the math/model of GR improves upon Newtonian prediction of the effects of gravity. I deny that this requires insistence that "mass curves spacetime" (curves what?) and that the resulting "curved spacetime" guides masses in their curved paths. (Again, repeated many times... all lost on you.)
Me:
"    Since you think otherwise, show me the difference, i.e., how the arm actually contracts but Earth's diameter (etc.) does not, as they all depend on the same theory and principle, i.e., that physical objects and actual distances change with how they are observed."
You:
"I assume you want this answered from an SR perspective, in which case I will place myself into a camp there which says that length contraction is apparent and not actual."
I wanted you to answer directly, truthfully, as you understand the answer.
If length contraction is "apparent and not actual" (as I see it), then the "contracted" arm of the MM apparatus is "apparent, not actual." Yet you constantly cite it as proof of actual length contraction.

Btw and finally, I find your mock post of my position, signed "O.G." very offensive, as follows:
Quote
Hi,

I'm a believer in SR but not GR. I believe that length contractions are apparent and not actual - they merely show up as length contractions when you convert a 4D object into 3D space. I have a beef to pick with people who believe in SR but who think that objects change their actual shape as you view them from different frames of reference.

O.G.
I have explained many times which parts of both SR and GR I reject, and which parts I accept. No such thing as a "4D object." All space and objects in it (not just lines and planes) are 3D (length, width & height) and as 3D objects move through space, "time elapses."
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Re: Evidence for large scale length contraction?
« Reply #298 on: 28/11/2012 23:53:28 »
D.C.:
" Well, if you aren't actually interested in OGVT, stop telling us it's right."

"OGVT" is your acronym. My "search" in this forum failed to find your first reference, spelling it out. Google just gave "OutGoing Verification Trunk." (?)

OGVT = Old Guy's Vacuum Theory. I thought you'd understood that the first time.
Quote
Me:
" I am interested in debunking large scale (not subatomic) length contraction," ...
You:
"Which means that Either you want to junk OGVT in favour of something like LET, or you adopt something like SR."
Huh? It means that the constant speed of light as per SR, which is well documented, does not automatically require that physical objects actually contract in length.

You may be interested in debunking it, but you won't be able to, so your interest should then drive you into taking up a position which actually fits the known facts. The train thought experiment, if you worked your way through it, would show up the necessity of actual length contraction in OGVT/LET type theories with a 3D space and it would force you into a Spacetime model if you want to retain the idea that length contraction is merely apparent (with as a side effect the necessity to do all sorts of strange things to time which I suspect you won't approve of).

Quote
As said in my other (locked) length contraction thread, the "warning" on convex mirrors is applicable to the concept of length contraction. "Warning: Objects may appear closer than they are!" The LC version would be: "Warning: Objects approaching at very high velocity may appear shorter than they are!"

Okay, but so far as I can see that's going to force you into an SR camp.

Quote
As I understand your usage of "LET" the Lorentz "camp" says that physical objects do physically contract. I say that would require force to crush the object or compact the distance between the atoms of such objects.

You've had this explained to you many times - the forces that are already applying between atoms (and other particles) have increased communication distances to cover if the object of which they are a part is moving, and that automatically causes them to settle closer together as the object moves more quickly through space. I've illustrated this in several different ways, but you don't appear to have understood any of them so there isn't a lot more that can be done there.

Quote
SR claims that all frames are equally valid and that length is not invariant. Realism, my take, disagrees. Physical objects have inherent, intrinsic properties, including length, which do not change with the various frames from which they are observed. This repeats what I have said many times, because you still show no sign of understanding my argument.

In SR, lengths of things vary as you switch between 3D frames of reference. They do not change at all, however, within 4D Spacetime. SR is 4D Spacetime and it doesn't matter what people say about how things appear within 3D frames of reference, it's a 4D theory which offers you a lot of what you're after. My own opinion is that the people in the camp within SR who think things are physically changed in shape by observing them from different frames of reference are wrong because they don't actually understand SR.

Quote
You:
"GR is the best reason for taking SR seriously, so I don't know why you'd want to ditch that."
I accept that the math/model of GR improves upon Newtonian prediction of the effects of gravity. I deny that this requires insistence that "mass curves spacetime" (curves what?) and that the resulting "curved spacetime" guides masses in their curved paths. (Again, repeated many times... all lost on you.)

I can assure you that everything that's being lost here is being lost in the other direction, but I can predict with considerable confidence now that you'll never realise that.

Quote
I wanted you to answer directly, truthfully, as you understand the answer.
If length contraction is "apparent and not actual" (as I see it), then the "contracted" arm of the MM apparatus is "apparent, not actual." Yet you constantly cite it as proof of actual length contraction.

Don't get the theories mixed up. MM requires actual length contraction in an OGVT/LET type of theory. The alternative is that it requires you to use a 4D Spacetime model. If you have always accepted 4D Spacetime, then OGVT is the wrong name for what I thought was your theory of realism - I thought at that time that you rejected Spacetime, but now you're maybe happy to have it so long as you deny that it has any fabric to it.


Quote
Btw and finally, I find your mock post of my position, signed "O.G." very offensive, as follows:
Quote
Hi,

I'm a believer in SR but not GR. I believe that length contractions are apparent and not actual - they merely show up as length contractions when you convert a 4D object into 3D space. I have a beef to pick with people who believe in SR but who think that objects change their actual shape as you view them from different frames of reference.

O.G.
I have explained many times which parts of both SR and GR I reject, and which parts I accept. No such thing as a "4D object." All space and objects in it (not just lines and planes) are 3D (length, width & height) and as 3D objects move through space, "time elapses."

My intention was not to mock you in any way - I'm trying to help you state your position clearly so that it's possible for people to work out what you're on about. After 12 pages of this, it's still vague in a number of absolutely critical places. It's really quite simple to state your position, but you are clearly not willing to do so because it will trap you in a position that can be directly shown to be wrong, so you play games instead where you keep it all vague enough that you can slide around whenever you're pressed. It's like trying to pick a really awkward piece of soap out of the bath.
 

Offline old guy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 165
    • View Profile
Re: Evidence for large scale length contraction?
« Reply #299 on: 29/11/2012 04:18:28 »
me:
Quote
    I wanted you to answer directly, truthfully, as you understand the answer.
    If length contraction is "apparent and not actual" (as I see it), then the "contracted" arm of the MM apparatus is "apparent, not actual." Yet you constantly cite it as proof of actual length contraction.
D.C.:
Quote
Don't get the theories mixed up. MM requires actual length contraction in an OGVT/LET type of theory. The alternative is that it requires you to use a 4D Spacetime model. If you have always accepted 4D Spacetime, then OGVT is the wrong name for what I thought was your theory of realism - I thought at that time that you rejected Spacetime, but now you're maybe happy to have it so long as you deny that it has any fabric to it.

I am not the one confusing theories here.
This is impossible mis-communication (or intentional distortion by D.C.)

" MM requires actual length contraction in an OGVT/LET type of theory."

D.C. clarified that he invented "OGVT" as "old guy vacuum theory." That space is empty volume is the "vacuum" part. Stuff exists and moves in space. That takes "time." Time is not a fourth dimension. It just passes... Earth goes around the Sun... cesium atoms have a very precise and regular oscillation in atomic clocks.
 
"... If you have always accepted 4D Spacetime, then OGVT is the wrong name for what I thought was your theory of realism -"

I have never accepted 4D spacetime.  Quite the opposite, as is evident above and in all my posts. How can I communicate with someone who presents my argument as the opposite of what I am saying? (Rhetorical. I can't.)
me:
"Btw and finally, I find your mock post of my position, signed "O.G." very offensive, as follows:"
Quote
   Hi,
 I'm a believer in SR but not GR. I believe that length contractions are apparent and not actual - they merely show up as length contractions when you convert a 4D object into 3D space. I have a beef to pick with people who believe in SR but who think that objects change their actual shape as you view them from different frames of reference.

        O.G.
me:
   " I have explained many times which parts of both SR and GR I reject, and which parts I accept. No such thing as a "4D object." All space and objects in it (not just lines and planes) are 3D (length, width & height) and as 3D objects move through space, "time elapses.""
You:
Quote
My intention was not to mock you in any way - I'm trying to help you state your position clearly so that it's possible for people to work out what you're on about.
How condescending and arrogant! I have stated my position clearly and thoughtfully, expressed as "my position" in my own words.
I am "on about" the difference between apparent and actual contraction of physical objects. Not only do I not need your "help" for that, your "help" is just your own agenda ignoring, getting it wrong, and totally distorting what I am actually saying.
I showed how off your mock quote was, but you didn't even acknowledge how i corrected your misrepresentation of my position.

I can't get any help here for this kind of abuse, so I ask you again personally to quit this barrage of misinformation about my position... and express yourself in your own threads.
« Last Edit: 29/11/2012 04:29:31 by old guy »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Evidence for large scale length contraction?
« Reply #299 on: 29/11/2012 04:18:28 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums