Evidence for large scale length contraction?

  • 302 Replies

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1505
    • View Profile
Re: Evidence for large scale length contraction?
« Reply #300 on: 29/11/2012 21:53:52 »
I am not the one confusing theories here.

Actually, you are. You keep attacking things I've said about one theory as if I'm talking about a different one. You don't seem to be able to compartmentalise them properly, and that's why your confusion never ends.

This is impossible mis-communication (or intentional distortion by D.C.)

I haven't distorted a thing - you imagine distortions wherever your ability to understand things hits a rock.

" 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.

Indeed I did, and that's exactly what I though your theory was at the time, but then you keep wobbling into SR territory without seeming to be aware of what you're doing, so all I've been trying to do is pin you down as to what your position actually is. You now appear to be accepting that OGVT is indeed your position, in which case your claims of realism don't fit it because it conflicts with MM.
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.)

If you don't do 4D Spacetime, then that pulls out a few rugs from under your feet - you have to have actual length contraction to account for MM.

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

So you said in your previous post, and as I said in my previous post it was in no way intended to mock anyone. I'm simply trying to get you to pin your position down properly. Recently you've been talking as if you've adoped 4D Spacetime into your model - you made it clear that you have no interest in any theories other than SR, so that automatically excludes what I correctly understood to be OGVT. It sounded as if you'd shifted ground and didn't want to say so. Now you've made it clear that this is not the case, so your position puts you in a place where you cannot account for MM.

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.

You may think that, but you have the advantage of knowing what you think. What I see is someone squirming around and avoiding to answer questions which will expose his position as wrong, such as the crucial ones relating to the train thought experiment.

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.

You don't have apparent contraction in your model unless it has Spacetime in it, which you've now stated categorically that it still doesn't. That being the case, I can now state categorically that your model conflicts with MM because it fails to allow for actual length contraction. The train thought experiment would show you that if you bothered to work your way through it.

I showed how off your mock quote was, but you didn't even acknowledge how i corrected your misrepresentation of my position.

You're misrepresenting it as being mocking when it was nothing of the kind. That's very off indeed.

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.

I'm not giving you any abuse - I'm just asking you questions to try to pin down what it is you believe in so that I can show you exactly where you're wrong. Your problem is that you don't like being backed into a corner, and that's exactly where you now find yourself. Your theory is indeed OGVT, and that's just the old "realism" with a mistake in it which held sway until MM shattered it.


Offline bizerl

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 279
    • View Profile
Re: Evidence for large scale length contraction?
« Reply #301 on: 29/11/2012 23:08:57 »
I continue to find this thread very amusing. Mostly because it is still going.

DC, I too am having difficulty figuring out exactly how OG thinks the world works. It seems to me (and OG, this is purely my opinion based on what you have posted in my thread, I make no attempt to put words into your mouth or read your mind. This is just clarifying the impression I have on exactly what your views are), that OG is happy with the basic idea of relativity, apart from the existence of spacetime and length contraction. I thought these were integral parts of relativity.

It also seems to me (and DC, same disclaimer as above for you) that DC has been trying to find a way to fit OG's opinions on realism into an existing mainstream and thoroughly tested theory. If OG is rejecting these attempts, he really needs to come up with a new theory which (and I may be mistaken) I cannot really find in his posts.

There is a Simpsons quote that comes to mind when reading this thread...

Agnes: And you, start over. I want everything in one bag.
Pimple Faced Kid: Yes, ma'am!
Agnes: But I don't want the bag to be heavy.
Pimple Faced Kid: I don't think that's possible!
Agnes: What are you, the possible police? Just do it!


lean bean

  • Guest
Re: Evidence for large scale length contraction?
« Reply #302 on: 01/12/2012 13:57:30 »
"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. Muons enter Earth's atmosphere at very high speed, so thier rate of decay is slowed down accordingly. Therefore they "live longer" and travel further than would be expected at a slower (edit: higher) rate of decay.

Just checking old guy, with all this talk of putting you in a camp ( Hi-de-Hi), I was wondering why you talk of time dilation,above quote,do you 'agree' with SR on that point(time dilation) but  not on length contraction?

Late add-on.
In order for you to show that there's no length contraction, can you give us a thought experiment where two frames are interacting Whilst one is moving at a relativistic speed to the other?
Your shuttle and probe idea has both shuttle/probe stationary in the same frame and not interacting whilst one is moving at a relativistic speed.
With all your 'research' I thought you would have notice this point by now.

« Last Edit: 03/12/2012 18:52:40 by lean bean »