Strange

It isn't. If that is what you think then you don't even understand the simplest mathematics. That is a sad confession. Velocity is a vector. Therefore it has a sign. The sign indicates the direction. Velocity with a negative sign is in the opposite direction to velocity with a positive sign. If you don't even understand basic concepts like this, it is not surprising you are so confused. Exactly. The Lorentz factor is scalar (not a vector). It is not dependent on the direction of the velocity. Therefore the Lorentz factor (and therefore the time dilation and length contraction) is identical for something moving towards or away from you.

Now do the same for the velocity in the other direction: β = v/c = -0.8 the Lorentz factor: α = √(1-β²) = 0.6 (the same value) So the effect on length contraction and time dilation is identical.

You can keep saying that but it is very obviously not what the math says. Put +0.8c and -0.8c in the equations and tell us what the result is. If you are just going to keep repeating blatantly false (and provably false) statements like this, then I don't think there is much point this thread staying open.

Your recollection may be very clear but it may not be accurate. Memories are very, very plastic. Each time you recall the event you change slightly what you remember. Especially in the case of traumatic events (having nightmares after seeing a horror film, for example.) What you now remember will have been influenced by the fact that you decided (at some time) that the injuries may have been caused by your dream. With no objective evidence available as to the nature or seriousness of the wounds it is not possible for anyone to explain what happened. Also, scars are permanent. They do not disappear after a few years.

It very obviously isn't. Just look at the equations for length contraction and time dilation: they are independent of the sign of the velocity. Note that changing the sign of the velocity does not change either the length contraction or the time dilation. So you have shown that your claim is wrong.

You can't separate time dilation and length contraction. They both always occur together and bth contribute to any solution. Because you are wrong / don't understand relativity. Trying to think of a polite way to answer this. How about: you are wrong. There is absolutely no reason to think this is the case. It is contradicted by SR and SR is (a) derived mathematically from existing theory and (b) confirmed by all experiments. Your mistaken belief is not supported by the mathematics of SR and is contradicted by all experiments.

I think that you have misinterpreted the (somewhat ambiguous) wording. I read 1 to mean that the change would have no effect on the planets, not that the photons would have no effect. My understanding is that the earliest state we can describe with current physics consisted of a quark-gluon plasma. Quarks are fermions and so would generally be considered matter. But the distinction seems rather arbitrary at that point. I'm not sure there is a definition of matter that really applies in all circumstances. And there is certainly not a direct one-to-one correspondence between mass and matter. Nearly all of the mass of matter does not come from the mass of the particles that make it up, but from the energy binding them together. At some point (I'm not sure when) fundamental particles would have had zero mass because the symmetry breaking that led to the Higgs field had not happened. But there would still have been energy, and this would have contributed mass to systems of particles. Also maybe worth noting that mass does not appear at all in the equations of general relativity, only energy.

I can't see anything wrong with the quoted comments. ! Moderator Note As the only purpose of the thread seems to be to ridicule a member of another forum, the thread is closed. If you want to start a thread to discuss the relationship of mass and energy, then feel free to do so. But don't use it as an excuse to insult members of this or any other forum.

! Moderator Note You should ask whoever supplied/prescribed the treatment. Or check the instructions for the device. This is too close to the rule about asking for medical advice, in my view. (If you want a second opinion, report this post).

One can have control of something but still be right or wrong. I see no direct connection between the concepts of "control", "guess", "model", "right" or "wrong". You just seem to b throwing random sentences around. All I can deduce from what you say is that you are suggesting that if one were able to control the weather, then forecasts would always be right?

What does being right or wrong have to do with it?

It's not a guess. You will be joining mistermack in denying climate change next, I suppose. (Although modelling that is much simpler than weather forecasting!)

But that is a purely subjective judgment. Whether such subjective opinions should influence funding decisions, research directions, etc is not something I have any opinion about (or knowledge of). Although it seems very foolish (to put it mildly) to limit research to things that match "common sense".

! Moderator Note The OP hasn’t been back for 6 years. As the original post was nonsensical, I see no point this staying open.

Nce. (Source: https://xkcd.com/1225/) Randall also did this: "[After setting your car on fire] Listen, your car's temperature has changed before."

Then you should refresh your memory to clear up your misunderstandings. I hope that means you realise that what I said was correct.

For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Simple_inference_of_velocity_time_dilation and: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction#Derivation As you can't remember the quotation or the source, I think it is more likely you have misremembered it than that the mathematics of SR is wrong.

You just have to look at the derivation. That is not what you said originally. But that has nothing to do with the object moving towards or away from the observer. It happens in the direction the object is moving, which could be towards/away from (both are equivalent) the observer. Or any other arbitrary direction. Let's say the +ve Z axis is away from the observer and the -ve Z axis is towards the observer. The +X axis is to the right, -X to the left. +Y is up, -Y is down. If the object is moving in either the +Z or -Z direction at 86% c, then it will be half the length in the Z axis. If the object is moving in either the +X or -X direction at 86% c, then it will be half the length in the X axis. If the object is moving in either the +Y or -Y direction at 86% c, then it will be half the length in the Y axis. If it is moving in some other direction, then you just need to decompose it into the velocity vectors in each axis.

They posted spam links another, now hidden, post.

You are wrong. Time dilation is independent of direction. Length contraction happens in the direction of movement. That is defined by the mathematics of SR.

This: "time dilates only in a moving frame that is moving away from us and that length only contracts in the sense of a frame that is moving towards us" is inconsistent with SR. It is not a matter of "understanding". It is not what the equations of SR say, and it is not what experiments show. Therefore, you are saying that SR is wrong in its predictions. And what you say is not consistent with experiment. As you are unable to support your claims, I will request this thread is closed.

Well, you could show how your model is derived from first principles, as SR is. And there is a mountain of data that confirms SR. You could try and explain why this does not falsify your idea. Basically, we have a theory that has been well tested for more than a century. But you are now saying it is wrong, for no reason at all and with zero justification.

Then you need to show how this new theory can be derived from first principles and how it is supported by evidence. My reasoning is not circular. It is simply a statement of fact. ! Moderator Note As you are proposing a replacement to Special Relativity I have moved this to Speculations. Please provide the required evidence to support your theory.

No, that is not what the theory says (and not what is shown by experiment). Time is dilated whatever the relative direction; in other words it is only related to speed, not direction. Length contraction occurs in the direction of motion (also unrelated to the direction relative to the observer).

They are only "part of science" in the sense that libraries and lecture theatres are. They are not part of scientific theory. If you want to argue that a particular interpretation is right or wrong, then you need to show that it predicts different results that can be distinguished experimentally. But if that were possible, they would not be interpretations, they would be new theories. One can't rule out a line of investigation because you don't like it.