0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
If we all agree that the laws of physics (gravity here) form planets as near spherical, by what stretch of imagination is that not reality?
Quote from: old guy on 01/10/2012 23:51:30If we all agree that the laws of physics (gravity here) form planets as near spherical, by what stretch of imagination is that not reality?1. Laws of physics say that a planet forms as spherical in their proper frame.2. Laws of physics say that a planet forms as a deformed sphere in a moving frame.Did you get it now?
Quote from: lightarrow on 02/10/2012 18:17:10Quote from: old guy on 01/10/2012 23:51:30If we all agree that the laws of physics (gravity here) form planets as near spherical, by what stretch of imagination is that not reality?1. Laws of physics say that a planet forms as spherical in their proper frame.2. Laws of physics say that a planet forms as a deformed sphere in a moving frame.Did you get it now?Do you understand that the phrases "in their proper frame" and "in a moving frame" define the shapes of planets by how they are observed,
Science knows Earth's shape.
You insist on using the term "observed" but it's incorrect.The right term is "measured".At high speeds what you would "observe" is different from what you would measure.
Indeed: science *knows* that Earth's shape is not spherical in a moving frame.Science doesn't work according to what *you think*, but according to what *everyone measures*.
There is one frame from what you say is (approximately) true OG. The local one where you are 'at rest' with what you measure. But then it becomes a philosophical question which frame is 'more true' than another, if you want a indivisible universe? Because then all frames of reference must be as 'true', as they all need to be in-cooperated in this universe.
Because you still have this universe consisting of 'observers', although you now made each one a 'creator' of their own unique universe, as all observations still must differ if compared, if you see my drift there?
It's not hard to communicate OG. It's just that you have to refute relativity, both versions I presented, to make that statement true. And if you can't do that then is will be a dreamers position, what should have been, but what isn't.
SR theory made each "observer" a "creator" of each frame-specific version of each resulting, as measured, unique universe.My argument is exactly the opposite.... that the universe and all its objects are "as they were formed by the laws of physics," totally independent of differences in observation.
The universe is filled with bodies which were formed by various laws. Gravity is the one which makes stars and planets form as nearly spherical. There is no philosophy involved in that. It is the physics of how cosmic dust and debris (ed: and gasses) (are) formed into planets and stars.Enter length contraction theory: "For a frame of reference" flying by at near 'c', such objects may appear very oblate, nothing close to spherical.That does not change the law of physics (gravity) that made them spherical in the first place.
Earth is a "real" solid physical planet. It doesn't change shape to accommodate all possible differences in how it might be observed/measured. So observing/measuring it "in a moving frame" does not make it flatten out into a very oblate spheroid, even though it my appear so distorted from a high speed frame. That is the source of your continuing confusion, and that of all SR theorists in this forum who agree with you. You fail to distinguish appearance (the image of the object) from the object itself. The elephant is not, in fact, shaped like a rope.
Yes, you can start a new thread.If you use it to evangelize (push the same arguments you've been making and are making in this post that the earth must "really" be invariant), then given the number of warnings you've gotten, you may face a temporary or permanent ban.
So are we then left with an impossible choice: To redefine 'c' as a variable or to redefine Earth's diameter as a variable?How could the latter vary, given that Earth is in fact a solid, immutable (but for trivially) object?
If you could suggest a experiment in where it could be proved that a length contraction doesn't exist, as defined relative some other frame of reference, then is would close in on science though.Can you do that?
There is no way a 20 meter probe will fit in a 10 meter bay. What more proof could you ask for?
Quote from: old guy on 05/10/2012 18:36:11There is no way a 20 meter probe will fit in a 10 meter bay. What more proof could you ask for?Yes it will... and no it won't!(Surprisingly, both are true!):http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladder_paradox
If the probe fits in the bay when they are both at relative rest, the probe will always fit in the bay.
The reason is that there better not be a relativistic difference in velocity – which would cause appreciable length contraction - as the probe enters the bay.
So with the relative velocities of the bay and probe near zero, there is no length contraction to consider.
So are we then left with an impossible choice: To redefine 'c' as a variable or to redefine Earth's diameter as a variable? How could the latter vary, given that Earth is in fact a solid, immutable (but for trivially) object?This challenge has consistently been ignored. "For this frame" vs "for that frame" does not answer it. It only addresses how it might me observed and measured variously... which is not the question.Science must not cop out and claim that what we know about Earth (its precise shape) varies with how we look at it. Physics tells us that a change in shape would require application of force, and length contraction theory does not claim to apply any forces.Also:If you insist that it would BE contracted if measured from a very high speed frame, how can physics account for such a shrinkage in a solid, rigid planet? This remains a very sincere and reasonable question requiring an explanation from physics besides “It would appear flattened from the extreme frame.” (No doubt it would.)
QuoteSo with the relative velocities of the bay and probe near zero, there is no length contraction to consider.Right, but the question was, will it fit in our 10 meter bay? We better know the answer before we send out our shuttle to capture it. (No.)
QuoteQuoteSo with the relative velocities of the bay and probe near zero, there is no length contraction to consider.Right, but the question was, will it fit in our 10 meter bay? We better know the answer before we send out our shuttle to capture it. (No.)Absolutely!Exercise due diligence. You know its relative velocity. You know its measurements judged from your frame. Crunch the numbers. You will know if it will fit or not. NO PROBLEM.
Does invariant 'c' require a variable Earth diameter?(Edit: The claim is that " because 'c' is invariant, length is not invariant.")If so, (ed: if Earth's diameter changes) how does physics explain the latter... or would it simply appear to vary from an extreme frame?