Contradictory Premises at High Speeds

Le 16/08/12 23:42, Giovi a écrit :
but there are no extraordinary proofs, for for instance,
black holes, length contraction, time dilation and so on

After being presented with a list of 50+ experiments proving each aspect
of relativity: see the list upthread:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...periments.html

you still say (as if nothing was ever presented, no proofs whatsoever)

"there are no extraordinary proofs"

What do you want?

Experiments, measurements are part of physics. If you do not like them
please do something else, partisan politics, for instance, where truth
is simply ignored.

Giovi from
posted Thu, 16 Aug 2012 14:42:16 -0700 (PDT)



the point is, i understand, that relativity exhibits
extraordinary claims that requires extraordinary proofs

but there are no extraordinary proofs, for for instance,
black holes, length contraction, time dilation and so on

No physical theory can bring any proof,
but verification that events, that it predicts,
and values, that it calculates,
are observed and measured.

And this was done many times, with accuracy
that very few theories from the whole physics can compete.




--
Poutnik

On Aug 16, 11:53 pm, jacob navia wrote:
Le 16/08/12 23:42, Giovi a crit :

but there are no extraordinary proofs, for for instance,
black holes, length contraction, time dilation and so on

After being presented with a list of 50+ experiments proving each aspect
of relativity: see the list upthread:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...periments.html

you still say (as if nothing was ever presented, no proofs whatsoever)

"there are no extraordinary proofs"

What do you want?

Experiments, measurements are part of physics. If you do not like them
please do something else, partisan politics, for instance, where truth
is simply ignored.

with all do respect, so far as i know, there
are no extraordinary proofs for black holes
and length contraction, only indications and
predictions

you cant take a prediction as extraordinary
proof, that is, sorry

regards

On Aug 16, 11:55 pm, Poutnik wrote:
Giovi from
posted Thu, 16 Aug 2012 14:42:16 -0700 (PDT)



the point is, i understand, that relativity exhibits
extraordinary claims that requires extraordinary proofs

but there are no extraordinary proofs, for for instance,
black holes, length contraction, time dilation and so on

No physical theory can bring any proof,
but verification that events, that it predicts,
and values, that it calculates,
are observed and measured.

And this was done many times, with accuracy
that very few theories from the whole physics can compete.

--
Poutnik

well, to say that space/length contracts, makes it an
extraordinary claim, dont you think?

On Aug 15, 1:53*am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Aug 14, 8:50 am, Tom Roberts wrote:

On 8/13/12 8/13/12 - 1:58 PM, Pete Weber wrote:

Simply, there is no accurate empirical measurement data to support
relativity,

This is simply not true. Your ignorance is showing. See
* *http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...periments.html

Pete Weber is actually very correct. *These so-called experimental
verifications you have tossed around to justify your belief in your
very foul religion actually also validate the hypothesis that the
Aether must exist. *See Lorentz’s work on these infinite numbers of
transforms that satisfy the null results of the MMX and Tom Roberts’
compilation of experimental results. *shrug

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...ransformations

the constancy of speed of light is questionable,

Not so. See references above.

Tom, for the n’th time, you have been told that these experimental
results don’t mean anything since they also validate the arch-thesis
of Special Relativity. *Any sane scientists would look for more
professionally executed experiments that justify for the principle of
relativity. *shrug

It is utterly silly to declare one hypothesis valid through these
experimental results that also validate its antitheses. *shrug

Also, the constancy in the speed of light has led to acceptance of a
blatant paradox as a real-life event. *The self-styled physicists have
dug themselves in an ever deeper hole. *The truth will eventually come
out. *It is rather stupid to hang on to myths just because you were
spoon-fed with these silly myths. *shrug

no data for length contraction

This happens to be true, if one only accepts direct measurements. But there are
several indirect indications that "length contraction" must occur. See
references above.

Length contraction is a dynamic effect while time dilation is an
accumulative effect. *Time must be absolute while space must be
relative. *Any hypotheses stupid enough to challenge what is stated in
the first and the second sentences of this paragraph belong in the
occult world. *shrug

and very little if any for time dilation

Again your ignorance is showing. There is LOTS of experimental evidence for
"time dilation". See references above.

All these infinite transformations that satisfy the null results of
the MMX and your compilation of experimental results also exhibit time
dilation. *So, discovery of time dilation certainly does not validate
Special Relativity. *shrug

Paradoxes - a lot of them,

Yes, in the sense of "seemingly contradictory statements that upon analysis are
found to be true". These are TEACHING EXAMPLES, not inconsistencies in the theory.

Acceptance of paradoxes as reality is not a representative of teaching
examples but reflections in the ignorance among the shamans who have
infiltrated the academics in the past 100 years. *Stop making up
excuses for your ignorance. *shrug

I would mention Black Holes, never observed.

First, black holes are not part of SR (which is the subject here). Second, there
are LOTS of observations and measurements of black hole candidates in the
astronomy literature, and nobody has presented a convincing argument that they
are anything else. Black holes, by their very nature, cannot be directly
observed, but the indirect observations are legion, and convincing to
essentially all astronomers and physicists.

Once again, Tom is jumping into conclusions. *All these extreme
observations around the hypothetical black holes can very well agree
with models that exhibit an exponential function in the gravitational
potential, e^(-U), instead of 1/(1-2 U), Schwarzschild solution.
Among these infinite solutions to the field equations, it should not
be too difficult to find one that is exponential in the metric element
associated with time. *shrug

You need to improve your knowledge of the subject, and that can only be done by
STUDY.

So, when does Tom start to study instead of chanting the occults? *The
following sums up what Tom is leading to. *shrug

** * * * * *FAITH IS LOGIC
** * * * * *LYING IS TEACHING
** * * * * DECEIT IS VALIDATION
** * * * * NITWIT IS GENIUS
** * * * * OCCULT IS SCIENCE
** * * * *FICTION IS THEORY
** * * * *FUDGING IS DERIVATION
** * * * *PARADOX IS KOSHER
** * * * *WORSHIP IS STUDY
** * * * BULL**** IS TRUTH
** * * *ARROGANCE IS SAGE
** * * *BELIEVING IS LEARNING
** * * *IGNORANCE IS KNOWLEDGE
** * * *MYSTICISM IS WISDOM
** * * *SCRIPTURE IS AXIOM
** * * CONJECTURE IS REALITY
** * * HANDWAVING IS REASONING
** * * PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY
** * * PRIESTHOOD IS TENURE
** * *FRAUDULENCE IS FACT
** * *MATHEMAGICS IS MATHEMATICS
** *INCONSISTENCY IS CONSISTENCY
** INTERPRETATION IS VERIFICATION

shrug

Koobee Wublee wrote: Length contraction is a dynamic effect while
time dilation is an
accumulative effect.

Gogo says: Do you think time dilation is a static effect?

Giovi from
posted Thu, 16 Aug 2012 15:28:36 -0700 (PDT)




with all do respect, so far as i know, there
are no extraordinary proofs for black holes
and length contraction, only indications and
predictions

you cant take a prediction as extraordinary
proof, that is, sorry

Putting aside GR,
what extraordinary proof of SR LC do you want ?

The values, that are measureable, i,e, for small objects
and near to c speed, it was measured.

For objects of common sizes and speeds
you cannot object it was not measured
as it is not measurable.

For train 30 m/s ( 0.0000001 c )
the L/L0 = 0.999999999999995
the contraction of 100m is comparable to atom kernel size.

there are others phenomena measureable easier.
Insisting on to measure what is not measurable
is like wanting you to walk on Venus surface
until I believe you are able to walk.

BTW, if you study Feynman lectures of physics,
volume II, chapter 13-6 about magnetostatics,
you will see how length contraction allows
to hold laws of electromagnetism and observed phenomena
for various reference frames.

E.g. in reference frame of wire in the rest,
free electron moving along wire under DC current
is attracted to a wire.

But in reference frame of the electron in rest,
by standard EM laws the electron would be attracted.
But it is is.


--
Poutnik

GogoJF from
posted Thu, 16 Aug 2012 16:00:25 -0700 (PDT)



Koobee Wublee wrote: Length contraction is a dynamic effect while
time dilation is an
accumulative effect.

Gogo says: Do you think time dilation is a static effect?

Not to confuse time dilation and time offset.

Time dilation is dynamic as well as length contraction.
It is time offset what is cumulative.

--
Poutnik

Giovi from
posted Thu, 16 Aug 2012 15:47:00 -0700 (PDT)



On Aug 16, 11:55 pm, Poutnik wrote:
Giovi from
posted Thu, 16 Aug 2012 14:42:16 -0700 (PDT)



the point is, i understand, that relativity exhibits
extraordinary claims that requires extraordinary proofs

but there are no extraordinary proofs, for for instance,
black holes, length contraction, time dilation and so on

No physical theory can bring any proof,
but verification that events, that it predicts,
and values, that it calculates,
are observed and measured.

And this was done many times, with accuracy
that very few theories from the whole physics can compete.

--
Poutnik

well, to say that space/length contracts, makes it an
extraordinary claim, dont you think?

As such a claim can be in these days considered
also any claim of SR invalidity.

--
Poutnik

Poutnik from lid
posted Fri, 17 Aug 2012 01:24:16 +0200


well, to say that space/length contracts, makes it an
extraordinary claim, dont you think?

As such a claim can be in these days considered
also any claim of SR invalidity.

You demand probably some supernatural God revelation,
saying "Yes, SR is correct, trust me."


--
Poutnik

Giovi from
posted Thu, 16 Aug 2012 15:47:00 -0700 (PDT)



On Aug 16, 11:55 pm, Poutnik wrote:
Giovi from
posted Thu, 16 Aug 2012 14:42:16 -0700 (PDT)



the point is, i understand, that relativity exhibits
extraordinary claims that requires extraordinary proofs

but there are no extraordinary proofs, for for instance,
black holes, length contraction, time dilation and so on

No physical theory can bring any proof,
but verification that events, that it predicts,
and values, that it calculates,
are observed and measured.

And this was done many times, with accuracy
that very few theories from the whole physics can compete.

--
Poutnik

well, to say that space/length contracts, makes it an
extraordinary claim, dont you think?

Similar extraordinary claim says
we can extrapolate common sense
into the realm of speed near c,
to say, what happens, can or cannot happen.

BTW, extraordinary claims
make extraordinary predictions,
that are very easily verified.

Prediction that a rod length get shrunk by one iron atom kernel
is no extraordinary prediction, as any measurement error
is much bigger than that.

There is plenty much more extraordinary predictions of SR and GR.


Poutnik