No no no. You miss my point. I am exploring (and with your helpful responses) trying to determine the limits of the domain of SR apllicability per se given the lone planet "space" scenario I described. The question arises CAN such a perspective as SR BE applied (or even arise in the first place) if all we have is "space" around a lone planet? Tach 'explained' that SR frames exist as 'geometric constructs', but I still need clarification how such abstract 'geometric constructs' have anything to say about the lone planet's initial motion/static state at all before anything else comes onto the scene to give 'relative' reference from planet to the surrounding "space". That's all, mate. NO argument that IF there ARE more than one planets there would be some 'relativity' for an SR 'construct' to get its teeth into, but until that happens in an otherwise empty universal "space" containing only one planet, I need clarification as to how SR can be got AS a construct given there is only 'space' around the lone planet (unless Tach is claiming that the surrounding "space" is some sort of reference base for his geometric construct of 'relativities' between the planet and his 'construct' based on 'space' only which is all that exists except for the lone planet? I don't think he is claiming that, hence my need for clarification as to where the 'relatvities' come from to create an SR perspective/explanation about the planet's initial motion/static state or not). Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please recall that I only requested further clarification of YOUR stock SR 'explanations' to OnlyMe. I pointed out the context I wanted that clarification put into so that I could tease out the essentials when according to SR there is both "no absolute rest" and "no absolute motion". Since OnlyMe introduced the concept of a 'stationary' moving planet for the purposes of his experiment/treatment, and you 'explained' that no pre-existing motion/or stationary state is relevant to the rocket's flight/speed profile and its related time tick rate effects due to relative speed only, I merely asked you to consider my stripped down version of lone planet in empty "space universe, and asked for clarification as to where SR came into it and whether SR could say anything at all about the planet's initial state or not. That's all, mate. Clarification request. Any questions in your referenced post must wait until that clarification comes across and we can all settle what SR can or cannot say about that lone planet's initial motion/static state. I'm easy either way. I just wait for clarification and its implications before involving myself further. Thanks, mate! .
Your scenario has nothing to do with any "limits of applicability of SR". SR applies just the same if you have zero, one or an infinity of "planets". The frames of reference exist totally independent of your beloved planet.
There's a ton of physics, including Newton's gravitation, which would not have been developed in such a universe. Just not enough observational opportunity. Are you equally incredulous of that? What a big long-winded dodge. You seem to demand answers but hypocritically won't answer any yourself. I'm done humoring your intellectual dishonesty.
Why the sophistry? There is either direct evincing for 'distance contraction' or there is not on an equal footing with that which have directly evinced for time dilation and doppler effects. All else is your beating around that bush. I can't help you beat that poor bush, mate, it would be futile. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I don't 'demand' answers. I asked for clarification of what you posted to OnlyMe using SR as the 'explanation'. That's it. If you don't WANT to clarify in the context provided, that's entirely up to you. I didn't use the SR explanation when arguing against OnlyMe's scenario, you did. Any further questions or requests from me for clarification will come if and when you do or don't supply the clarification already asked for. Only then can I properly enter the REST of the discussion, based on any agreed perspectives from any clarification got from you on what I already asked about. No more, mate, I beg you! It's not so complicated and convoluted as you want to make out. Either clarify or not. Up to you. I have no further questions or answers unless and until calrification about SR applicability is obtained in context I provided you. No more, no less.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Good night.
You aren't doing so badly on that front yourself, mate. Have you admitted (to yourself at least) yet that time dilation and doppler effects are NOT "one and the same effects"? And you have yet to address the points made in context. So any opinion from someone who can't tell the difference between time dilation and doppler effects which may be used to demonstrate time dilation is not worth must to anyone. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Cheers and g'night. .
You still have trouble understanding that ? No wonder you can't grasp the concept of frames of reference being independent of any material objects. You sure don't want to read the introductory book I recommended for Emil? Might clear some of your (many) misconceptions.
I have also something to recommend to you. Is worth reading and understood. http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm
What sophistry? There's nothing especially subtle nor dishonest about any of the above quote of mine. This appears to be very clumsy baiting, nothing more. "indirect evidence" : evidence that establishes immediately collateral facts from which the main fact may be inferred : circumstantial evidence " -merriam-webster "Indirect Proof Indirect proof is a type of proof in which a statement to be proved is assumed false and if the assumption leads to an impossibility, then the statement assumed false has been proved to be true." -http://www.icoachmath.com/math_dictionary/Indirect_Proof.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_contradiction We've known that atoms exist only by indirect evidence and predictive power for over 200 years. Everything we know about things we cannot physically reach, i.e. the entire cosmos, is through indirect evidence. Contrast: In this example, it is well known that eye witnesses can be faulty and that forensic evidence, even though indirect, can be more reliable. The difference is the amount of corroborating evidence. In the case of SR and length contraction, there is a ton of corroborating evidence, as I already supplied you with reference to. "Equal footing" with direct evidence is not a scientific distinction. And I've already clarified everything I've said. Denial of that is either just an admission of your lacking comprehension (incredulity) or a dodge of having to commit to some answers yourself. And we all know what kind of tactics those are. Here I've provided you will a thorough refute of your dismissal of indirect evidence, and I have previously challenged you to provide ANY alternative that is even partially corroborated. If you can't provide your own answers or offer a feasible, workable alternative then you have demonstrated that you have nothing to offer to the topic.
You left out a definition of scientific proof, or scientifically proven. As far as proof of atoms, though the term and idea of a smallest part has been around for far longer than 200 years, it was not until Einstein's 1905 paper on Brownian motion that it became a generally accepted concept. Proof followed but his paper in itself was not that proof. It just supplied suficient credibility that serious scientists could run with the concept and begin a serious search for evidence. Einstein’s invention of Brownian motion, sorry in know I have the original paper somewhere, but I just woke up and this was the first thing I found.
There's quite a few misconceptions there. First, there is no such thing as "scientific proof" per se. There is only scientific evidence and whether it corroborates any one particular theory over any alternatives. http://digipac.ca/chemical/proof/index.htm The closest to your "scientific proof" you can get is scientific evidence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence Second, so you cannot speak of "proof" of atoms, but rather "evidence". The evidence has been known for over 200 years. And the empirical nature of the evidence was born out. When the evidence was generally accepted tell us nothing of its truth value, as it must have been true all along to have become scientifically accepted. P.S. And none of that refutes, in the least, the validity and parity of indirect evidence in science.
Your argument is one of semantics. I used the word proof because your post and references used the word proof. In all cases that proof is actually just evidence. I was not challenging any form of evidence, direct, indirect, objective or subjective. Initially I just found it a bit humorus that you included circumstantial evidence, but that was really a matter of personal free association..., and its association with law, where logic and evidence are often distorted beyond reason.
The only semantics are yours, as the links I provided clearly make the distinction that "proof" is a concept of logic, mathematics being a system of logic. Well-corroborated evidence is empirical fact. You seem to have entirely missed where that post was a refute of RealityCheck's assertion that indirect evidence wasn't on par with direct evidence as far as scientific fact was concerned. Try to keep up.
In neither of my previous posts was I commenting on the intent or validity of anything you posted. Did you not note the bold protion of my second post where I said that a personal free association with the terminology of "circumstantilal evidence" and its association with law, was the point of humor, "I found". I was making no comment about the validity of your position in the earlier post one way or another. I just have a very low opinion of "the legal sytem and law" personally. The semantics issue was only involved to the extent that I was not talking about a difference between proof and evidence..., I was mentioning what to me at the time amounted to a humorous free association...
When I read Moller, "The Theory of Relativity", pp 224, I see that the distance you are using is that of the periphery of a rotating disk, as measured in the rotating frame. With a periphery greater than \(2 \pi r\) where \(r\) is the radius of the disk, there must be non-Euclidean geometry on such a disk, as Moller says on the previous page. If clock B uses that distance in calculating the speed of the "road" underneath him, he can easily find the road to be moving faster than \(c\), but I don't think that is the correct way to calculate the speed of the road. Not blindly. The way I see it, there are measuring rods at rest along the circular road, and their total length is \(2 \pi r\) according to the road frame. But clock B finds each of those measuring rods to be contracted to shorter lengths than his own measuring rod. Thus, the length of road he determines to travel underneath him after traveling the circle once is: \(D'=D\sqrt{1-(v/c)^2}\) where\(D=2 \pi r\) I am not saying speed is frame-invariant. These are the speeds I am claiming: According to Clock A: \(v\)=Speed of clock B \(0\)=Speed of "road" According to Clock B: \(0\)=Speed of clock B \(v'\)=Speed of "road" Clearly the speeds are frame-dependent, even for the special case where \(v'=v\) as in this case.
Syne, this is a little bit rediculaus. The semantics issue was directed not at anything in your initial post, only at you taking exception to my use of the word proof in my initial post. In the contex of that post is was a matter of semantics. And the bold protion was intended to demonstrate the intended focus.... As is said I made and have made no comment one way or the other about the intent of your original post....
