You have no clue what length contraction is, do you?
For a MASS traveling at relativistic speeds there certainly is. Light traveling through water or air has noting to due with length contraction.
Special Relativity Is Refuted
- Thread starter chinglu
- Start date
You have no clue what length contraction is, do you?
For a MASS traveling at relativistic speeds there certainly is. Light traveling through water or air has noting to due with length contraction.
If you are talking about relativistic length contraction, I will tell a bit of an embarrassing tale on myself.
A while back when the final GP-B report was issued, while I was reviewing the report (and without thinking it through) it struck me that length contraction could be involved in a portion of their data. As I said, without thinking it through, I shot off an e-mail to the author, asking if they had accounted for potential length contraction... To my surprise I received a reply within a couple of hours, and it was thanksgiving day. The answer pointed out that even at the distance involved (far greater than those we are here talking about and would. not affect distances) for the relative differences in velocity between the speed of light and the spacecraft (in our case here the airplane and the sea floor) length contraction would be such an exponentially small fraction of the involved distances/lengths involved that it would be far outside of our ability to detect and too small to affect the data at hand.
For our purposes, length contraction can only be applied to moving objects, not light itself or distances. And then only when the velocities are relativistic. In the case we were discussing neither the plane, the bathometer, the water's surface nor the sea floor were moving relative to one another with anything near relativistic velocities.
The whole length contraction issue does at times get confussing as we have both a perceived length contraction involving frames of reference in motion relative to one another and an assumed real length contraction of an object moving at relativistic velocities.
Last edited:
So for the photon travels at different speeds no different length contraction?
If you can explain in more detail what you mean?
First: The example was not realLy a clear representation of the e-mail exchange. As I said without thinking it through... I had associated the distances involved as perhaps adding some length contraction to the data they were using. That was just flat out a brain fart!
Where length contraction is concerned there are two ways that it comes up in special relativity. The first has to do with the whole foundation of the concept of Realativity itself and involves how observers in two separate inertial frames of refrence that are moving relative to one another see each other. Each sees the other as moving and teirself as at rest. If the difference in their velocities is a significant fraction of the speed of light they also appear to one another as shorter than they actually are. Working out the difference and reconciling the way each sees things, involves mathematics originally proposed by Lorentz and Fitgerald, to resolve an unrelated problem. Einstein, incorporated the work repurposed into special relativity in 1905 and called the equations the Loentz Transformations. This application of the equations is applied to convert what one observer sees into an understanding of what it would look like from another frame of reference.
The second situation involves an object, a physical object in motion and more closely resembles the original intent of Lorentz and FitzGerald, which by the way Einstein at leastbinitial thought was ridiculous (my words). In this case an object's velocity affects it's length in the direction it is moving by shortening it. The object becomes length contracted in line with the direction itbis moving. The effect is not measurable until the objects velocity approaches the speed of light. Like half, tree quarters, etc.
The first is an example of a perceived length contraction, though depending upon one's perspective even that is often debated.
The second is an example of a real length contraction, of a moving object. Though it has never been confirmed apart from mathematical models and interpreted results of a few different experiments in particle physics.
Neither can be applied to the situation we were discussing with the range finders.
And yes, this may ignite a whole new discussion as I am sure that there are aspects of my explanation that can or could be questioned.
Right now I am out of time as I have company, just arrived and must attend to guests.
What is your opinion about:
Theory of relativity,Scope
Einstein was in that context referring to Newtin's field equation for gravity, which is consitent locally with observation. Locally in this context includes the orbits of the known (at that time) planets and the moon, with the exception of the perihelion advancement of Mercury.
Einstein's own field equations reduce to agreement with Newtin's in that local frame of reference.
As mentioned, Newton's equations do not explain the perihelion advancement of Mercury's orbit or gravitational lensing. Still, they are used even by NASA today. Well maybe not NASA since it is pretty much out of business for a while... (that was an intentional exaggeration)
I believe, but it has been a while, that Newton was aware of the perihelion advancement issue. Not sure if that was with respect to Mercury's orbit.
As far as how they each understood space and time there is significant difference and disagreement.
Which post?
The laser range finder, as in bathometer you referred to earlier works from outside the water, from a plane flying over. It would tell you the object was 5m from the surface of the water, if that is where it was. The bathometer would not function under water. In that case sonar would be better and it would tell you the object was 5m away.
Ah, you were referring to the Captain's link.
As for the link The Captain provided... It is a good lay explanation of the absorption/re-emission model for light moving through a transparent medium.
I still have questions about that model that have yet been explained. Still it is probably the best recognized explanation for what happens.
Last edited:
That is correct whether a photon is traveling through vacuum, air, water or glass it has nothing to do with lenght contraction.
That is really pretty humorus; you are convinced that scientist are wrong and length contraction does not exist, even though you don't even know what lenght contraction is.
How can you know something about something that does not exist?That is correct whether a photon is traveling through vacuum, air, water or glass it has nothing to do with lenght contraction.
That is really pretty humorus; you are convinced that scientist are wrong and length contraction does not exist, even though you don't even know what lenght contraction is.
You have just demonstrated that you haven't the slightest idea what length contraction is, so your learned reply is "it does not exist"? Yikes! You don't even know what it is.
Your ideas seem to have originated from an individual whos typical attire may include very large shoes, bright baggy clothes and a large, red, round nose.
Emil,
Two things. First without getting to involved are you asking serious questions? From your perspective.
Second, we do know photons, light exists. Without it or them we would not need eyes. The wave/particle character of light is amlittle more difficult, but still even then measureable on both accounts. One involve ing how experiments with light affect what we see and the other how the particle or photon affects the atoms in some materials in the photo electric effect.
I am willing to discuss these things with you, in a civil and respectful manner, if what you are looking for is some real understanding of what "we" have come to understand about light and photons. If on the other hand you are so attached to some metaphysical perspective or some other fixed point of view, there would really be no purpose discussion.
Emil is, I believe, insisting, contrary to empirical evidence gathered (in increasing volumes and increasingly important to ordinary technology) since 1859, that there is no length contraction, even though special relativity explains why gold is not silver-colored.
It's this attitude problem he has with reality, shared with chinglu and Motor Daddy, which has consigned this thread to the Pseudoscience sub-forum. They don't have an alternative model to compete against physics -- they reject the very facts physics seeks to model. They have failed to advance any communicable, precise and useful description of reality because they would rather abuse facts, logic and math than make use of them. The very existence of this thread traces to the bizarre and hypocritical authority-based claim "the article used calculus" from post #8.
When presented with more and better multivariable calculus, geometry and physics (like the common experience both light and inertially moving objects travel in straight lines), the first reaction is denial and ridicule of our comprehension of subjects they have not mastered. Posts #56 and #58. Chinglu ignores the content of the rebuttals, quotes them verbatim, and repeats the original (now debunked) argument which he never understood.
As I wrote in May 2010 to at least some of these same posters:
It's this attitude problem he has with reality, shared with chinglu and Motor Daddy, which has consigned this thread to the Pseudoscience sub-forum. They don't have an alternative model to compete against physics -- they reject the very facts physics seeks to model. They have failed to advance any communicable, precise and useful description of reality because they would rather abuse facts, logic and math than make use of them. The very existence of this thread traces to the bizarre and hypocritical authority-based claim "the article used calculus" from post #8.
When presented with more and better multivariable calculus, geometry and physics (like the common experience both light and inertially moving objects travel in straight lines), the first reaction is denial and ridicule of our comprehension of subjects they have not mastered. Posts #56 and #58. Chinglu ignores the content of the rebuttals, quotes them verbatim, and repeats the original (now debunked) argument which he never understood.
As I wrote in May 2010 to at least some of these same posters:
http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2540723#post2540723
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2545726&postcount=160
I showed that there is no length contraction.
What is your contra argument? "You do not know length contraction."-hilarious.
Absolutely correct. That was my goal.
Regardless of the speed of the particle, there's no length contraction.
The same for muons.
No, what you showed is that you don't understand what length contraction is, and what you are discussing and think you have refuted is not relativistic length contraction.
This contradicts observation and experimentation. You are simply wrong.
rpenner is one who demonstrates on mathematical way (more complicated the better) that he is right.
The most efficient explanation was made by James R in this thread.
The calculations are correct! The premises are false.
I showed the speed of light relative to a moving object depends on the speed of the object, in this thread.
I believe that the technology used for rangfinder is already enough to prove the speed of light relative to an object depends on the speed of the object, which will be the end of the SR.
The most efficient explanation was made by James R in this thread.
The calculations are correct! The premises are false.
I showed the speed of light relative to a moving object depends on the speed of the object, in this thread.
I believe that the technology used for rangfinder is already enough to prove the speed of light relative to an object depends on the speed of the object, which will be the end of the SR.
Again: This contradicts observation and experimentation. You are simply wrong.
It is of course, one of the defining hallmarks of the crackpot, they ignore reality and continue to insist they are right. All you have done is demonstrate that you don't know what you're talking about in any sense.