0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Imagine two large masses a distance S apart. Now remove those two objects. What is the value of S? Has it changed since the masses were removed? Does it even have the same meaning with no masses to reference?
Alan -'' This was answered way back on 29 January, Reply #1.''In which you said there was no contraction of space distance or length.
If you define b as being a fixed distance from a, then obviously [distance is invariant]. If you define b as being the other end of a stick, relativistic contraction will apply if the stick moves relative to an observer.
Quote from: Thebox on 07/02/2016 09:44:20Alan -'' This was answered way back on 29 January, Reply #1.''In which you said there was no contraction of space distance or length.
Quote from: Thebox on 07/02/2016 09:44:20Alan -'' This was answered way back on 29 January, Reply #1.''In which you said there was no contraction of space distance or length. No, I saidQuoteIf you define b as being a fixed distance from a, then obviously [distance is invariant]. If you define b as being the other end of a stick, relativistic contraction will apply if the stick moves relative to an observer. If you don't read the bloody answer, what's the point of asking the bloody question?
So by length contraction you actually mean length compression of a moving body?
And in saying that a moving body must also have a height expansion/decompression?
So in vacuum a spring travels at the near speed of light, what force makes the spring compress? acceleration? can't be speed
As Colin says, contraction, as observed by a second party moving relative to the stick, not compression, which would be observed by a traveller on the stick. You can avoid a lot of confusion by using the same words as everyone else.
So let me get this right, space-time you really mean light?
length contraction you are on about the angles of an object relative to light? You mean light contracts relative to the observer?
Quote from: Thebox on 07/02/2016 11:59:33So let me get this right, space-time you really mean light?No, we said spacetime we meant spacetime, not lightQuote from: Thebox on 07/02/2016 11:59:33length contraction you are on about the angles of an object relative to light? You mean light contracts relative to the observer?No, light remains the same speed for all observers when we consider movement in special relativity.We are not talking about the angles of light relative to an object, but sometimes that can be used as an analogy.Reread what I wrote first about the stretching of spacetime.
There is no proven ether, there is no solidity, the values are zero, so how can zero change?
space is not made of anything ....... the values are zero, so how can zero change?
Explain why it can't be speed
Quote from: Thebox on 07/02/2016 11:59:33So let me get this right, space-time you really mean light?No. If I had meant light, I would have written light. And I haven't mentioned space-time at all. Just read the words on the bloody card!
No, I saidQuoteIf you define b as being a fixed distance from a, then obviously [distance is invariant]. If you define b as being the other end of a stick, relativistic contraction will apply if the stick moves relative to an observer. If you don't read the bloody answer, what's the point of asking the bloody question?
Quote from: alancalverd on 07/02/2016 10:05:20No, I saidQuoteIf you define b as being a fixed distance from a, then obviously [distance is invariant]. If you define b as being the other end of a stick, relativistic contraction will apply if the stick moves relative to an observer. If you don't read the bloody answer, what's the point of asking the bloody question?Thebox please read Alan's answer above through as many times as necessary. It tells you ALL you need to know. You can even come back and ask questions if it is not exactly clear. There is a subtle distinction in what Alan has said that you might miss.
Quote from: timey on 03/02/2016 21:21:23Yes Space Flow, (chuckle) I truly know the feeling! Have you read 'The Trouble with Physics' Lee Smolin?No I have not read his book and to tell you the truth I have no intention to.I 110% agree with his views and basically have learned to avoid the subjects of "String theory", "M theory", "God", Multiverse, or any other religion you want to name.There is a definition of what can be classed as a theory within the confines of the scientific method and none of those qualify.Therefore I have no interest in reading or hearing any more about them.If your idea can not make a testable prediction, it is not a "scientific" theory.At best it is a hypothesis.
Yes Space Flow, (chuckle) I truly know the feeling! Have you read 'The Trouble with Physics' Lee Smolin?
Quote from: timey on 06/02/2016 22:09:20 Can you tell me who these others are please? It's just that I'm now making an assessment of your intelligence, and I'm quite sure I'll find that your own assessment of a persons intelligence will help me... I'll let you make up your own mind on that one my friend. Here is a key that will help you make the informed decision: Read through their posts, when you find contradictions and errors, their intelligence becomes quite evident.And as far as your assessment of my intelligence, if I may be so blunt; The honest search for reality is more important than intelligence. One can be quite intelligent, but if they are dishonest enough to dismiss evidence offhand just to preserve their own vision of reality, they will never achieve any thing of significance. It takes both timey, intelligence and an honest assessment of experimental observation, whether those observations fit in neatly with ones biased predisposed positions or not.
Can you tell me who these others are please? It's just that I'm now making an assessment of your intelligence, and I'm quite sure I'll find that your own assessment of a persons intelligence will help me...
Quote from: timey on 07/02/2016 04:35:41BTW, Alan, it hasn't surprised me in the slightest that nobody has asked if I think I'm more intelligent than you or Jeff. We were taking that as an axiom []
BTW, Alan, it hasn't surprised me in the slightest that nobody has asked if I think I'm more intelligent than you or Jeff.