0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
In particles accelerators like the LHC, there is proofs that particles are flattened in the velocity direction.
...when considering the intrinsic properties of any object there is a preferred or privileged frame of reference, and that is the inertial frame of its own motion
The trick is to clearly sort out the intrinsic properties of Earth as a solid, massive, nearly spherical planet from the extrinsic effects of the above frame's high velocity relative to Earth as it observes and measures the planet.
imatfaal,Please address this, my summary statement before you close the thread:QuoteThe trick is to clearly sort out the intrinsic properties of Earth as a solid, massive, nearly spherical planet from the extrinsic effects of the above frame's high velocity relative to Earth as it observes and measures the planet.Is there no place anymore in science to question "accepted ideas?"Ps: I intended to move the recent "length contraction" posts from the "Does time exist" thread, but will cancel that given the immanent threat of censorship of free thinking here.
Please drop the accusations of censorship - they really grate. Especially immanent ones - I can assure you I am neither divine nor purely an act of the mind (well to the best of my knowledge) .
The idea of absolutes in time and space, of a universal reference frame, of immutability have been shown to be incorrect.
You have decided - on the basis of zero evidence - that earth has an essential, absolute shape that forms part of a natual universal truth;
the products of special relativity threaten your preconceptions therefore you reject the proven science and embrace your intuitions
.. SR at least provides a way for the contraction to be apparent rather than actual.
To be honest, my intuition tells me that objects deserve an absolute shape, and I find it hard to train my intuition to believe otherwise. Maybe from here arise my difficulty in accepting the relativity of lengths. Why should not some real object have a form of itself? Why an object cannot be something by itself?
This particular thread was so interesting to me, because for such a long time I tried to train my intuition to see the length contraction. And I visited this forum (and some others) specifically because I could find some line of thinking different from text-book, and some freedom of users to express whatever they wanted. Quote from: imatfaal on 07/09/2012 19:30:14You have decided - on the basis of zero evidence - that earth has an essential, absolute shape that forms part of a natual universal truth; To be honest, my intuition tells me that objects deserve an absolute shape, and I find it hard to train my intuition to believe otherwise. Maybe from here arise my difficulty in accepting the relativity of lengths. Why should not some real object have a form of itself? Why an object cannot be something by itself?Quote from: imatfaal on 07/09/2012 19:30:14the products of special relativity threaten your preconceptions therefore you reject the proven science and embrace your intuitionsIt is not that I reject proven science, actually I really want to get there but myself and in my own way.In this process I asked myself many of the questions you have seen in this thread or in other related threads. I hope @imatfaal will not close this topic. Why should be closed? Isn't special relativity an interesting topic?
Quote from: David Cooper on 07/09/2012 20:19:16.. SR at least provides a way for the contraction to be apparent rather than actual.To me looks quite "actual", otherwise how could muon decay so little while passing through atmosphere? The little decay of muon is quite actual and not apparent. Note that In muon frame it has to travel a smaller distance that the observer on Earth measure.
Lightarrow said:Quote Physics concerns measures; if an object's measure changes, then the object changes.(Also):You always have to specify a frame of reference, it *doesn't exist* a "lenght" independent of it.This claims that things have no length (shape, etc.) on their own, intrinsically, independent of measurement.Me:"Does this claim that Earth changes shape as it is measured from different frames of reference?" Lightarrow:QuoteCertainly. In a frame of reference which is still with respect of our planet, the Earth is spherical...; in another, moving, frame, it's not (and of course every human being is flattened too). Where is the problem? The "problem" is that, "in the real world" Earth does not change shape with every different possible measurement of it. It is in fact nearly spherical. As I said: "This, of course, is impossible and has never been empirically observed." (A flattened Earth, for instance.)
Physics concerns measures; if an object's measure changes, then the object changes.(Also):You always have to specify a frame of reference, it *doesn't exist* a "lenght" independent of it.
Certainly. In a frame of reference which is still with respect of our planet, the Earth is spherical...; in another, moving, frame, it's not (and of course every human being is flattened too). Where is the problem?
QuoteYou're wrong for both assertion. Maybe you still haven't totally grasped what "measure of lenght" means, read again my first post. A measure of lenght *is* frame-dependent, and so is, as consequence, an object's shape.I grasped it just fine. You are wrong to assert that an object's shape (like Earth) depends on how it is observed/measured, as if it had no reality, no intrinsic properties of its own.Say 1000 ships pass by Earth going 1000 different (but near 'c') velocities, all going in 1000 different directions. Does Earth change into 1000 different shapes with its diameter contracting variously in all those directions? Of course not!
You're wrong for both assertion. Maybe you still haven't totally grasped what "measure of lenght" means, read again my first post. A measure of lenght *is* frame-dependent, and so is, as consequence, an object's shape.
Wiki on Realism (my bold):QuoteIn philosophy, Realism, or Realist or Realistic, are terms that describe manifestations of philosophical realism, the belief that reality exists independently of observers."Observers" here in the context of this thread includes abstract points of view, all possible "frames of reference... no living "subject" required.You asked me to define "actual." That would be that "reality exists independently of observers."Earth is actually nearly spherical. AC is actually 4.37 light years from Earth. The distance to the Sun is actually about 93 million miles, which would not change if it were measured by a ship flying by very fast. The probe in my example is not actually 10 meters long, as observed from Earth's frame. Proof: It will not fit in the shuttle's 10 meter cargo bay. (Much too long, actually.)
In philosophy, Realism, or Realist or Realistic, are terms that describe manifestations of philosophical realism, the belief that reality exists independently of observers.
Imagine a massive neutron star, which is composed of two concentric parts spinning along a samr axis but in opposite directions, so that the outer bords of these parts are moving at relativistic speeds. 1. Which would be the measured radius of the star? 2. Which would be its "intrinsic" radius?