That is not correct. The SR explanation of the Michelson Morley experiment is simply that the speed of light is frame invariant, that it doesn't depend on motion with respect to an ether.
I don't present myself as an authority on reality. I just consider myself to be somebody who understands Special Relativity. The Earth is spherical, a little flattened at the poles, but it exhibits a symmetry, and it rotates. The frame of reference where the Earth looks like a frisbee does not allow for this, and has no objective reality. It is not a real thing. It is your, in simple terms, your viewpoint. You must allow for your viewpoint before inferring objective reality from your observations, even though those observations form the basis of your reality. In normal life we know this: when we are separated by distance we do not claim that "you are small", because we understand perspective. This is a similar situation. Special Relativity does not "say" that the Earth is a flattened frisbee in that frame of reference, it says that's how we will observe it from that frame of reference. The difference is moot. It can be examined by considering relativistic twins, asking if the symmetrical length contractions are objective reality or subjective reality, then considering contradictions. Please check up on this, and don't be tempted to claim that "what we observe is real" because it's too simplistic - we see colour but we know that colour is a quale, and frequency is what's real.
Hi Farsight, I see you have ignored the main substance of my post. Since your post is simply repeating what you said earlier, I have nothing more to add, except that your assessment of your understanding of SR might be off the mark.
CANGAS: I don't think I have either posted any substantive comment on the issue in this thread, or made any jokes. I remind you once again not to insult other members of sciforums, or you may be banned. Now, to answer your question: It's a real thing.
Pete: I didn't intend to ignore your post. I just didn't think it was necessary to respond point by point. But to show willing, I will: Fair enough. Wrong. Motion is relative. There is no difference between the above and the short barn passing over the long rod at high speed. Then the short barn is even shorter, and you've got yourself a contradiction. Yes it does. But this is the length I figure. It's the length I observe. You can make the same measurements of me. I say I'm six feet long and you're one feet long. You say you're six feet long and I'm one feet long. We contradict each other. This is why I said the measurements are subjective not objective. I treat my subjective measurement as objective, and you do the same. But when we confer and exchange notes, we realise there's more to it, and we cannot trust our observations to yield objective reality. I think I've answered this but I will reiterate: reference frames are not real objects that real objects are "in". Reference frames are our observational standpoints. We do not say "the earth is a frisbee here and a pancake there". We understand the perspective effect and learn why our observations are unreliable, and then we work out that the earth is round. No, observed length and shape are frame dependent. Your position is always (0,0,0) in "your" reference frame. You don't move in your reference frame. That's how it works. And that means that "in" your reference frame, the sun goes round the earth. It simply doesn't.
No, it is you who is wrong. Yes, in the rod's frame the barn is shorter than the rod, but the opening and closing of the doors that was simultaneous in the barn's frame, are no longer simultaneous in the rod's frame. There is no contradiction. This is a standard, basic exercise in sophomore physics. You really should try to work through it before pontificating on it.
I am correct. The doors have nothing to do with it. There is no difference between the "length-contracted" long rod fitting within the short barn and the "length-contracted" short barn passing over the rod like a doughnut on a stick. Because motion is relative. Your use of the terms "in the rod's frame" and "in the barn's frame" merely back up my explanation regarding subjective versus objective measures and perspective.
Well of course! -Why didn't you put it like before! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You are wrong. The non-simultaneity of the opening and closing of the doors in the rod's frame has everything to do with it. Work it out from the Lorentz transformations yourself to see why. As I said, this is sophomore physics. Go learn it.
