Hmmm. So we can expect SIDS to become an issue again in the future as ignorance returns?
Runaway Global Warming
- Thread starter Facial
- Start date
Perhaps - if ignorance returns, which is unlikely.
why do you say unlikely?
No, it's quite clear. The evidence for Special and General Relativity is vast. The evidence for multiple universes which not only exist in parallel but that interact with each other is nil, absolutely nil. So someone willing to fabricate evidence for the latter and reject the former does seem to have some sort of mental problem.
Additionally, physics has focused on establishing the way that physical systems work, regardless of what the underlying mechanism is, since Newton. So trying to reject established physical theory on the basis that its mechanism is unknown is folly. It is more fruitful to investigate that mechanism, establish the way that mechanism works and use that evidence to correct the theory the mechanism explains.
So what mechanism do you propose for length contraction? any ? go any ideas?
Unsurprisingly, you seem to miss the point.
What alternative to length contraction do you propose that matches the mountains of measurement data available?
And why do you have to take your lack of physics understanding into a thread on global warming? You are just spreading a conspiracy theory net as wide as possible. This might be short-term satisfying, but I can't help but think that there is a pharmaceutical product out there that would help you manage your life better.
Last edited:
No.. you miss the point... no mechanism and you believe in it... blindly...
Hey I reckon length contracts to zero at 'c'... hows that? No, I don't need to propose a mechanism. Do I need meds or what?
No, not blindly, with lots of evidence for the theory that I, and presumably you once you take your meds, can look over and evaluate.
You are offering conspiracy theories with nothing to support them.
Yes you need meds, because there is nothing that moves at c in special relativity that has a length and in general relativity one has to be careful to distinguish between local velocity and coordinate velocity and length contraction does not simply follow coordinate velocity.
Whilst I wouldn't refer to it as parallel universe it is I admit very similar. As regards to evidence being nil I wouldn't be so sure about that.
Yes (and No, as there is no mechanism to explain what is only due to different observational view points) For example some cosmic particles in a "shower" produced by a primary ray hitting a nucleus say 100,000 feet above Earth's surface very rapidly decay - so rapidly that in their inertial reference frame, which is traveling almost at the speed of light wrt to our earth based reference frame they can only, on average, move from their point of creation (the place where the primary ray hit an atmospheric nucleus) less than 10 meters. Yet in their reference frame that 100,000 thick atmosphere has "contracted" to less than a meter, and few decay while transiting thru the entire atmosphere, which to them (in their inertial reference frame) is so contracted that it is only say 45 cm thick.
SUMMARY the length contraction (and time dilation) predicted by SR is not only true and without any actual "mechanism" required but confirmed millions of times each second by the short half life particles striking the earth. Before you egotistically presume to correct well established physic, like the IR "thermal blanket," green house effect of CO2, with an non-existent "gravitational anomaly" or "gravitational instability" or "Great Attractor" * effect on global warming, perhaps you should learn some physics.
* I'm glad you can learn. Many posting non-sense here can not. Your original postulate that some "gravitational instability" with in the Earth was responsible was dropped idea when I pointed out to you that the seasonal shift in the Earth's COG, snow and ice forming and melting at high latitudes was at least 1000 times larger and faster than any movement your were speaking of as contributing to the USSR's nuclear melt down. - I.e. you did learn.
But unfortunately you replaced that invented non-sense with worse. I.e. you then claimed the Great Attractor was a "gravitational anomaly" but I noted that it was just a larger, but not the largest, known local assembly of masses, much like the approximately 30 galaxy cluster our galaxy is part of, called by astronomers: "The local group."
I even calculated that the tiny (0.144 solar masses) Barnard's star was much greater source of tides on the sun earth system than the Great Attractor was. (It is only the tidal force that change Earth's orbit size and shape.) - That goes as the inverse cube - why less than 6 light years away Barnard's Star overwhelms and quite undetectable effect of the Great Attractor.
Now you seem to have learned this discussion of mine too, but are now shifting to fact the center of mass A, at point I'll call Ma and Center of mass B at Mb, when considered as one collection of mass do have one center of mass, called the barycenter. BC for short. Yes both Ma and Mb do orbit around BC (if no other big masses are near them. By far the dominate case of this for the earth is with A= earth & B = moon and that orbit about BC has a period of abut 28 days.
This has been happening, with lesser periods for many millions of years, so it it were a cause for Global warming or even a minor contributor, it would have been much stronger in the past when earth and moon were much closer. In fact a long time ago when moon was near the Roche limit, there was significant tidal dissipation heating of Earth as the tides were more than 216 feet variations twice each day and the days were much shorter back then (8 or so hours only I seem to remember) That factor of three 24/8,BY ITS SELF, would mean the power level was three times greater, but much more important is that the power in the wind or the waves goes as the cube of the wind speed or the wave amplitude, so those huge waves compared to say typical 6 foot variation now would be a power level increase of (216/ 6)^3 = 36^3 = 46,656 which when multiplied by the smaller factor of three is 139,968.
Now I have just guessed the 216 foot wave amplitude as it is 6^3 to make my calculation easy; but the "tidal heating" of earth by the moon was on the order of 50,000 times greater when the moon was as close to earth as it could be and still not be ripped apart by Earth's tidal force on it.
Thus we can safely conclude that your latest non-sense suggestion, which is that due to the Ma & Mb points not being the BC point but rotating around BC, is also more of your invented non-sense as a source of global warming as your prior claims were. In this case, however, it is true than the moon is heating the earth by an amount that can be quite accurately calculated - I would guess about the rate as leaving a 1000 W toaster one 24/7 would do. Why not search and correct my guess? Would you not like to turn the tables on me - tell my how wrong my guess was?
Last edited by a moderator:
So how does a universe contract to zero along vector only when velocity hits 'c'...? of course you accept it blindly... no more than a religious nutter. You can write as many theories as you like but no mechanism for length contraction is ever proposed...
I learned that using the term "gravitational instability" would be misinterpreted unless I explained in more detail.. that is what I learned..
still reading...
sheesh! Billy, even Physbang understands I am making an oblique reference to :
that a generated time paradox t=0 = t=0' was involved creating circumstance similar to the relativity of simultaneity acting with in an inertial frame. [using your type lingo] thus two COG's may exist simultaneously as an anomaly.
Last edited:
So you failed to actually notice that I denied that there was such a thing as contraction at c. Probably because of the cognitive dissonance that your particular illness is trying to shield your mind from.
Actually, many have been proposed; you are simply grossly ignorant. They have been proposed because it is so certain that length contraction exists.
None. No "mechanism" needed as it is an "observational effect" sort of like the wagon wheels turning backwards in a movie - do you think that needs a "physical mechanism" too? I explained this more fully in post 390. Here is one experimental PROOF that one can see / observe /measure* the magnitude of the contraction, they observe when looking that a length (or time dilated) of some reactions or transit thru say 100,000 feet length which is contracted to only a foot or so.
{part of post 390} Some cosmic particles in a "shower" produced by a primary ray hitting a nucleus say 100,000 feet above Earth's surface very rapidly decay - so rapidly that in their inertial reference frame, which is traveling almost at the speed of light wrt to our earth based reference frame they can only, on average, move from their point of creation (the place where the primary ray hit an atmospheric nucleus) less than 10 meters. Yet in their reference frame that 100,000 thick atmosphere has "contracted" to less than a meter, and few decay while transiting thru the entire atmosphere, which to them (in their inertial reference frame) is so contracted that it is only say 45 cm thick.
SUMMARY the length contraction (and time dilation) predicted by SR is not only true and without any actual "mechanism" required but confirmed millions of times each second by the short half life particles striking the earth...."
* to actually measure the magnitude of the contraction, you need (1) to know the half-life of the particle when basically at rest in your reference frame. Just for illustration assume it is 0.1 micro second, E(-7) sec. I.e. If traveling at 2.99E8 meters /second, (almost speed of light), half will decay in when they have traveled 29.9 meters in their reference frame. (how far you walk etc. is ALWAYS MESURED BY YOU, IN YOUR OWN REFERENCE FRAME)
and
(2) then you need to measure the flux density of these particles in a shower at various altitude separations (at least two)
Say we use ground level and at 10,000 meters. If the flux density at ground level is 50% as great as it is at 10,000 meters, that tells you that half have decayed while traveling 10,000 OF YOUR meters. (OR again 29.9 of THEIR meters)
Thus for these particles your 10,000 meters is contracted to only 29.9 meters in their inertial frame; or contracted by a factor or 10,000/29.9 = 334 times.
That is the nice thing about physics (and SR in this case) We develop theories and test them by measurements. SR's "length contraction" and "time dilation" have been experimentally confirmed in millions of cases, with no exceptions found. (Most confirmation cases were with short half life particles created in accelerators at a known point of collision with a target being able to travel to the distant detectors before the decay, because for them that distance is contracted to a mm or so.) Despite this ignorant people still speculate and invent alternate "explanations" when none is required as the science is well established.
Last edited by a moderator:
Because history has shown that, in general, knowledge gradually replaces ignorance.
There are individual exceptions - I have been working on one.
I believe you are referring to Muons and the dilemma found by finding more than expected theoretically.
am I correct?
I suggest you go outside and survey a few hundred teenagers and ask them if they have ever heard of SIDS... and qualify your opinion with a bit of science..
and makes sure you include the 3rd world in that assessment
like I said blindly accepting the existence of a pseudo phenomena with out any underlying and sound theoretical [ or even hypothetical ] mechanism to support it is no different to the worship of a God in religion.
The relatively stationary observer of the rel. v. observer's universe sees a contraction of length along vector, so that length is reduced yet width is maintained...you are talking about the fanciful and massive physical distortion of an entire universe with no ability to describe the mechanism needed to perform such a miracle.
And you then have the audacity to conclude that your position is well founded, simply because you can not think of any other way to achieve the same result that is founded properly within the scientific process.
Last edited: