# SR Problem

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Aer, Aug 6, 2005.

1. ### AerRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
2,250
Correct me if I am wrong, but the object would only "look" it's proper length if the depth is the same as the length. The "rotation" makes visible the side of the object.

3. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
31,257
Aer:

Well, you wrote:

So, I replied, telling you that you can't "always just ignore the rotated region". And therefore, it follows that Terrel rotation is not "basically useless" in "any analysis on special relativity", as you said.

Maybe you meant something different to what you wrote. I was just responding to what you wrote.

5. ### AerRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
2,250
Well, the rotated region will always be there - it wasn't that I meant that it is a negligable factor, but rather that you can separate the rotated region from the front region. Thus "ignore" the rotated region by cutting it out of the picture. I think we just applied the word "ignore" in different contexts. I just explained above what context of ignore I meant.

7. ### everneoRe-searcherRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
2,621
Whom do your refer to "We" that know muon experiment but agree with you that length contraction is just explanation but not scientific proof?

If (1) constancy of c and (2) time dilation at relatvistic velocities have scientific proof, there is only one scientific explanation that is a valid proof for any real scientist :

muon's proper length should be less than that of earth's proper length for the obserer on earth. The only tool he has, to understand this, is LT equations.

You can consider any explanation from from local ether to little invisible green-peas that push muons faster than light. That depends on your knowledge on what constitutes a scientific proof.

Side note for JamesR :

I noticed you have deleted the ad hominems for good. You should have noticed how this _____________ (fill in the blank with un-printable filthiest abuses you can imagine) Aer, started responding with ad hominems even for unprovoking posts when corned with questions.

here for my post on page 13 :

he responded with abuse :

The ignorant __________ does not know what constitutes a scientific proof and what does not. and does not know what is length contraction at all in the first place.

I won't hesitate to call names if this ____ continues with un-scientific filth, it is upto you to prevent that. Thanks.

8. ### AerRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
2,250
What part of "We all agree that length contraction is used to explain the muon experiment per special relativity." do you not understand? Length contraction is a result of special relativity and therefore, when time dilation is explained per SR, length contraction is inherently included in the explaination.

It is amazing what you consider to be scientific proof.

The constancy of c is scientifically proven in the Earth frame, in the vicinity of Earth's gravitational field. This is consistent with the local ether theory which does not include length contraction. Time dilation is also consistent with the local ether theory. Your analysis of the situation does not hold water.

I am not going to respond to the rest of your post which amounts to you whining and attempting to hold hands with James R. If you can't grasp anything that requires actual thinking on your part - that is not my fault and I really don't care what you choose to believe.

9. ### everneoRe-searcherRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
2,621
My question is who are these "We" ? Most of the posters don't agree with you that length contraction is a mere explanation by SR not a scientific proof. Except few who don't believe in anything that is remotely scientific.

Time dilation and constancy of c is not just explanation of SR, they are experimentally backed-up. Length contraction is based on these facts and is a valid scientifc proof by all means. Can't discern what is scientific what is speculation?

duh.

except that no scientifc proof for ether, local or otherwise. discerning what is scientific requires some study indeed.

I know i am wasting my time anyway.

10. ### everneoRe-searcherRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
2,621
I don't require any "We" to appear more authentic. Real science would speak for itself.

11. ### AerRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
2,250
Only YOU argue that the muon experiment is proof of length contraction! How about you try to find out who agrees with you that the muon experiment alone is proof of length contraction. If you need references, you only need to search these forums, I've provided links to other papers that say something to the effect "At the time of writing this paper, there has been no experimental proof of length contraction".

Constancy of c in all directions is experimentally backed-up only in the Earth frame AFAIK.

The local ether theory can be equally backed up by the experimental facts that we have.

I know that there is no scientific proof of a local ether which is why I do not consider the theory any better than special relativity. There is also no proof that a local ether does not exist, which is why I do not consider special relativity any better than the local ether theory.

12. ### AerRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
2,250
Read my reply, I mentioned that other people, who have written papers on physics have made the same claim. I've linked to those papers in this very forum, but I don't have the links on hand.

13. ### everneoRe-searcherRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
2,621
Anyone who agrees with constancy of c and time dilation have no other valid option than length contraction. I would like to hear otherwise from them, if any.

The people referred in your first quote are most probably the same people referred in your second quote who putforth the ether theory. You are pitting crank theory(s) against a theory that has a strong scientific foundation and questioning science with the bias towards speculation. What a pitty?

That proves already that there is no local ether effect even around earth. With ether effect is non-existent here, there is no reason to argue it would be there up, there down, etc. What else could be responsible for a varying c? AFAIK, nothing.

Why don't you just give a small brief & link to these 'experimental facts' instead of telling me to go, search and read rhetoric studded with abuses?

14. ### AerRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
2,250
Ha! BAD ASSUMPTION on your part. There is no mention of length contraction in the "local ether" theory. Not in the abstract, the introduction, results, coclusions, anywhere! (I searched for length and contraction both separately to find any reference, there was none). The claims of no experimental evidence of length contraction comes from other analysis of relativity that has nothing to do with local ethers. You might want to check your facts before you post.

Everything you posted is your opinion and/or ignores points I already brought up. Edit: or proves your ignorance.

Last edited: Aug 16, 2005
15. ### AerRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
2,250
You forgot to mention that the constancy of c was assumed to be in all frames even though it has only been measured in the Earth frame. Local ether theory is consistent with the constancy of c in the Earth frame.

16. ### AerRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
2,250
One need not read anymore than this! Proof enough of your ignorance. Local ether theory predicts the Constancy of c in all directions from the Earth frame.

17. ### everneoRe-searcherRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
2,621
Yeah, replace ether with "intelligent invisible photonoids that would push and pull (give maths too) photons in such a way that photons velocity appear to be c in all direction from earth". You have your own theory against SR. Best of luck, here.

18. ### AerRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
2,250
Ha! It appears you are looking at a so called "ether" that is compatible with SR - i.e. length contraction and all that good stuff not experimentally seen still holds true. Local ethers assume different results from relativity. Therefore experiments can be done to verify one or the other. Whatever crap you just proposed above would be an "ether" indistinguishable from relativity and I agree - that is a load of horseshit!

19. ### everneoRe-searcherRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
2,621
It is more ethereal than SR. Look hard.

Talk is cheap. Give those prized experiments a try here.

20. ### AerRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
2,250
No experiment has been done! That is what I keep telling you. The experiments would provide theoretically different results as the theories are not indistinguishable! But all experiments done to date on special relativity, do give the same results if you consider special relativity or local ether. Experiments that would observe any of the following directly would rule out a local ether: length contraction, relativity of simultaniety, reciprocity.

21. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
Aer, you may choose to continue to argue with everneo but you might find the following information of more interest and useful than trying to offset fiat and rhetoric. Dr Dowdye is a NASA Physicist and has written extensively. The following is a link to some of his work.

He has demonstrated that one can mathematically account for all major relativity tests and observations using classical physics, Galilean Electrodynamics and Euclidean Space - NO RELATIVITY.!

http://www.extinctionshift.com/details.htm

22. ### AerRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
2,250
I do not find his website that credible.

What is his name? I cannot even find that on the website.

Edit: No doppler effect? You surely are kidding...

23. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
I agree his presentation lacks the usual format however:

http://www.extinctionshift.com/BackCover1.htm

Dr. Dowdye, Jr. is a NASA Phd with considerable publications.

************************* Background ***********************
Discourses & Mathematical Illustrations Pertaining to the Extinction Shift Principle under the Electrodynamics of Galilean Transformations
Price: \$23.96
by Dowdye Jr, Edward H.
ISBN: 0-9634471-5-7
Usually ships within 1 business day.

Publisher: EDWARD HENRY DOWDYE JR.
Publication Date: January 1st, 1920