Gravity is Time

[Slinkey]

If there was no change in the length of the object then the time dilation equation is not satisfied is what the animation tells you. ie. the length contraction is as real as the time dilation and the mass increase. I'm pretty sure someone would've noticed by now if this was not the case.

 

Please explain Michelson-Morley in light of your claim that there is no length contraction.

 

Google Michelson-Morley Experiment

[swansont]

Swansont! Lay it all on the the line. Do you see one ruler actually getting smaller in the demonstration? Yes. No.

 

Yes, I'd say the two rulers here have different lengths.

[Sayonara]

Is it getting smaller, or just further away?

/fuel

[Slinkey]

Is it getting smaller, or just further away?

/fuel

 

Seeing as the rules are the same height I would say the top rule is shorther in length. If it were just farther away it would be shorter in height too, not just shorter in length.

[Klaynos]

From memory it will look slanted... You can work through the maths....

[Sayonara]

Seeing as the rules are the same height I would say the top rule is shorther in length. If it were just farther away it would be shorter in height too, not just shorter in length.

Not a Father Ted fan then.

[Slinkey]

Not a Father Ted fan then.

 

Feck no!

[Vexer]

Good thoughts in your OP, ‘Slinkey’, and succinctly put. I’ve had similar.

 

 

Gravity ‘slows’ time. That experimentally ‘proven’ fact alone is thought-provoking in the extreme.

 

Consider ‘Black Holes’ – Singular Gravity, zero time. I’m prepared to think about that relationship.

 

 

If this had been discussed on these boards, I’d like to know where.

[Slinkey]

Good thoughts in your OP, ‘Slinkey’, and succinctly put. I’ve had similar.

 

Thanks. Nice to know I'm not the only loony here.

 

Gravity ‘slows’ time. That experimentally ‘proven’ fact alone is thought-provoking in the extreme.

 

Indeed, and a stroke of genius on Einstein's part to realise it. A triumph for theoretical physics.

 

Consider ‘Black Holes’ – Singular Gravity, zero time. I’m prepared to think about that relationship.If this had been discussed on these boards, I’d like to know where.

 

The implication of GR is that it would seem that there is no passage of time at the singularity. However, as GR is an incomplete description of a black hole I think that GR could actually be misleading us at the singularity.

 

My speculations about black holes are detailed in another thread on this forum - The Paradoxical Nature of Black Holes.

[Eric 5]

Hmm... mathematically tested theory of relativity vs. cheap Flash animation. Which is best?

 

The rulers do visually change length, and if you were to measure one using the other they'd be of different lengths. According to each ruler's reference frame, it is the correct one, but neither is "more" right than the other.

 

 

Neither ruler becomes smaller. There is no change in length. Mathematically tested is not reality tested.

 

Anyone that goes to the web site can see that neither ruler changes length. Cap’n Refsmmat is wrong. Go look and see what the truth is. The animation is a simple, understandable demo of length contraction based on the math. Cap’n Refsmmat is wrong.

 

If there was no change in the length of the object then the time dilation equation is not satisfied is what the animation tells you. ie. the length contraction is as real as the time dilation and the mass increase. I'm pretty sure someone would've noticed by now if this was not the case.

 

Please explain Michelson-Morley in light of your claim that there is no length contraction.

 

Google Michelson-Morley Experiment

 

 

 

The rulers do not change in length. Look at the math, look at the demo, see that neither ruler changes length. When you say that length contraction is real you would have to explain how these materials “pop” back to their original shape when they slow down. GO LOOK at post # 14 on this thread and ask yourself those questions. You seem to want to believe something despite the evidence against your belief.

 

 

“What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way.”

Bertrand Russell

 

 

You can see that the rulers do not change length, so you will have to dispute the math and not me.

[iNow]

\You can see that the rulers do not change length, so you will have to dispute the math and not me.

 

Having read several of your posts, I get the very real sense that you would not be able to even if you tried.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=399213&postcount=27

 

Go ahead. Tell me those aren't different lengths. I think that'd be funny.

[Eric 5]

SWANSONT HAS MISREPRESENTED THE DEMO FROM THE WEB SITE!

 

What Swansont posted in #27 of this thread is misleading and false. Why do you suppose this person would distort the facts? What is this person trying to hide? Swansont saw the demo and it went against his beliefs, the facts do not back up what he wants to believe. If you go to this web site :

 

http://www.cs.sbcc.cc.ca.us/~physics/flash/relativity/LengthContraction.html

 

You will see for yourself that Swansont is wrong and distorted the facts to mislead you.

 

When all else fails the last thing someone can do to “prove” their point is to falsify data.

 

Swansont, the fact that you did this just strengthens my argument and discredits what you have to say about this topic.

 

So Swansont, this is how you conduct yourself and research. You can know a person by their actions.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Err, huh? Where exactly does the demo prove swansont wrong?

[Eric 5]

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=399213&postcount=27

 

Go ahead. Tell me those aren't different lengths. I think that'd be funny.

 

That is a misrepresentation, anyone can see that.

 

 

You saw the animation. You know that neither ruler gets shorter.

 

 

If you honestly see the rulers changing lenght than you are not seeing what is being shown, but seeing what you want to see.

[iNow]

Lol.

 

Don't feed the trolls.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

That is a misrepresentation, anyone can see that.

 

 

You saw the animation. You know that neither ruler gets shorter.

 

 

If you honestly see the rulers changing lenght than you are not seeing what is being shown, but seeing what you want to see.

 

So then what is the picture in swansont's post that I linked to? An illusion?

[Eric 5]

Err, huh? Where exactly does the demo prove swansont wrong?

 

 

Watch the demonstrations. Anyone who sees the demonstrations can see that neither ruler gets smaller, you know that neither ruler is shown to get smaller, yet you are going to argue the point. I have shown you a visual demonstration showing that length does not get smaller and still you do not accept it. You have made up your mind on how you will think about this topic and are not going to look at anything that contradicts your idea of length contraction. Very unscientific.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

So then what is the picture in swansont's post that I linked to? An illusion?

[Slinkey]

http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node136.html

[Eric 5]

So then what is the picture in swansont's post that I linked to? An illusion?

 

 

You are avoiding the obvious facts and trying to change the subject. You saw the demo and are having a hard time accepting what you saw. The rulers do not get smaller. No matter how much you protest, the facts will remain the same.

[Slinkey]

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/muon.html#c3

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Eric 5: So you are saying that a picture of the demo in question showing the rulers being different lengths is not an "obvious fact"? One ruler is clearly shown to be smaller than the other. Are you in dispute with that?

 

Unless you have a weird vision problem in which you cannot judge lateral distances, you are the one ignoring the evidence.

[Eric 5]

Eric 5: So you are saying that a picture of the demo in question showing the rulers being different lengths is not an "obvious fact"? One ruler is clearly shown to be smaller than the other. Are you in dispute with that?

 

Unless you have a weird vision problem in which you cannot judge lateral distances, you are the one ignoring the evidence.

 

 

 

Thank You for continuing to avoid the fact that the demo clearly shows that the rulers do not change length. This only tells me that you are not able to confront the facts. You are now trying to turn this discussion toward what swansont posted, not what the demo clearly shows. I have stated that swansont misrepresented the demo. The picture of the demo is not the whole demo. Stick to the demo.

 

You are the one who is ignoring the evidence, anyone who views the demo can see that.

 

I have proven my point beyond a reasonable doubt. All you can now do is concern yourself with how to twist the facts. There is no wiggle room on this, stop squirming and face the facts.

 

You have not brought to bear any reasonable evidence that counters the facts in the demo.

 

It looks to me that you and those who agree with you have three choices regarding the current situation.

 

You can continue to deny the facts. You can accept the facts. You can hope that this thread gets closed so you can avoid this predicament that you are in.

[Sayonara]

Eric, please calm down and avoid making personal attacks.