Gravity is Time

[insane_alien]

i can't veiw the demo as i get a page load error but perhaps eric5 is saying they are the same size when the are traveling at the same velocity or if you measure from 2 different reference frames?

[swansont]

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.

 

 

I took a frikkin' screenshot of the demo that you linked to. How is that misrepresentation? I falsified nothing. It's what the observer in the other frame measures. And that's the whole key: using identical measurement techniques, observers in two frames will disagree on measurements of time, length and simultaneity, and there is no physical test they can do to be sure that they are at rest or moving.

[Eric 5]

I took a frikkin' screenshot of the demo that you linked to. How is that misrepresentation? I falsified nothing. It's what the observer in the other frame measures. And that's the whole key: using identical measurement techniques, observers in two frames will disagree on measurements of time, length and simultaneity, and there is no physical test they can do to be sure that they are at rest or moving.

 

Neither ruler gets smaller, it only appears that way. Nothing gets smaller. Length contraction is not a physical occurrence. You will have to face the facts sooner or later. Just stop avoiding the facts. Anyone who sees the demo will see that you are distorting the facts by stating that the rulers get shorter. You said that the rulers do get smaller. You are wrong.

 

Nothing physically gets shorter, try as you will, you can not wiggle out of the facts. Nothing gets shorter and you know it. The more you try to deny this fact the better my case against your beliefs. You are wrong. Come on, you can do better than this. Show some evidence that refutes the facts. You seem to think that objects actually physically contract. Put your money where your mouth is and give some evidence. You are wrong and the more you deny the facts only reveals your inability to face the facts. This is it, use all that you have to disprove the facts or just accept that you have no way out of this. Your reputation is on the line. You are just digging yourself a bigger hole. Get all of your friends involved in this, the facts are there and you can not accept it. Do something other than distort the facts. GO!

 

Maybe you need some help. Go to youtube, I saw some demos on length contraction that take your side in your belief. Go ahead and look, then maybe you can feel better. Do something!

 

i can't veiw the demo as i get a page load error but perhaps eric5 is saying they are the same size when the are traveling at the same velocity or if you measure from 2 different reference frames?

 

I too can not load the page right now, so go to youtube and type in length contraction, special relativity, general relativity. The original demo is not there, but you can still see some demos.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

What's the difference between them "appearing" to be smaller and "actually" being smaller? How do I tell if a ruler is "actually" smaller?

 

I'm interested in what exactly you believe before I start attacking it.

[Eric 5]

What's the difference between them "appearing" to be smaller and "actually" being smaller? How do I tell if a ruler is "actually" smaller?

 

I'm interested in what exactly you believe before I start attacking it.

 

Use your dictionary and define the terms APPEARING and ACTUALLY. You still want to avoid the issue. You know what you saw in the demo. What you are doing right now is squirming trying to wiggle out of facing the facts. Go ahead and use the whole internet to prove the facts wrong.

 

Here is some help: http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/module4_time_dilation.htm

 

Have fun! Start attacking!

 

TO insane_alien.

 

Here is another web site to go to: http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/module4_time_dilation.htm

 

You can also Google lenght contraction, special relativity, general relativity.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Both agree that the time between the two tags - the time Zoe takes to go past the verandah - is two ticks of Zoe's clock. This is 2T' for Zoe, so the length that Zoe measures is 2vT'. But for Jasper, two ticks of Zoe's clock takes 2T = 2T'γ. The length that Jasper measures for the verandah is 2vT = 2vT'γ. Jasper measures the verandah to be γ times longer than Zoe measures it.

 

Further, the situation is symmetrical: Jasper observes the car to be shrunk with respect to the verandah, while Zoe concludes that the verandah has shrunk with respect to the car. The proper length is always longer than a measure of the length from another frame. But can't one make a paradox from this? See the "pole in the barn" paradox.

 

There you go. That's from your own link.

 

Length contraction means that different observers find lengths to be different. There is no "actual" length because you cannot define which observer is right. If you wish to argue otherwise, I suggest you provide proof. What you are doing right now is worming your way towards being banned.

[Klaynos]

Eric 5 seems to feel that there is an absolute size of things... shame that isn't true.

[swansont]

Your reputation is on the line.

 

I don't think so. I was deemed a physics slut a long time ago.

 

Your basic problem here is that you are firmly ensconced in the notion that there is a preferred reference frame. That if in your frame of reference you measure something to be a meter long, that it must inherently be a meter long. Relativity tells us otherwise. What you measure and what I measure — using identical techniques — will be different if we are in different frames of reference. In your frame you have a meter stick and a clock that ticks once a second, but to me, they are an 80-cm stick and a clock that ticks every 1.25 seconds, and there is nothing we can measure to claim who is really at rest to say who really has the meter stick.

[Phi for All]

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.

Very wise words. I hope you apply them to your own reference frame as well.

[Klaynos]

Very wise words. I hope you apply them to your own reference frame as well.

 

He doesn't need to, he's in the absolute frame

[iNow]

Not that it will help the problem child in this thread, but for others who don't have their craniums fully lodged within their colons, this is a pretty clear and approachable explanation/demo of length contraction:

 

http://faraday.physics.utoronto.ca/PVB/Harrison/SpecRel/Flash/LengthContract.html

 

 

It may be useful, prior to viewing the above, to view the one on time dilation:

 

http://faraday.physics.utoronto.ca/PVB/Harrison/SpecRel/Flash/TimeDilation.html

[Slinkey]

"They said I was mad. I said I was not. Unfortunately I was outnumbered"

 

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/module4_time_dilation.htm#length

 

Every link you post confirms the existence of length contraction.

 

In this one it says we "observe" them to have different lengths. Is that appears or actually?

[Slinkey]

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

 

So, what you're saying is that time dilation is an illusion also?

 

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.

 

Weird. I went to the website you posted and found an animation explaining to me how length contraction works. Maybe you posted the wrong web address?

 

The rulers do not change in length. Look at the math, look at the demo, see that neither ruler changes length.

 

The math tells me that length contraction happens and the demo displayed length contraction happening. Again, perhaps you posted the wrong web site as nothing on the one you posted supports your viewpoint.

 

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.

 

The material's length is changed due to the constant speed of light for all observers. As I have already told you, the laws of mechanics have no choice but to change in a universe where the speed of light is constant for all observers. You are welcome to show us the math that allows for this singular premise without length contraction. The premise being that the speed of light is constant for all observers. I look forward to seeing your math.

 

You seem to want to believe something despite the evidence against your belief.

 

Are you talking to yourself here?

 

“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

 

Nice quote. Completely irrelevant to the thread but a nice quote.

 

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

 

ie. you don't understand the math, nor can you accept the inescapable consequences of light being a constant for all observers.

 

It seems in your world that when I am motionless with respect to a light source that I measure the speed of light as 300.000km/sec. Yet when I move towards it at, for eg., 100,000km/sec, I will now measure the speed of the light coming from the light source as 400,000km/sec.

 

Unfortunately, there is no evidence this is correct. What we actually find is the speed of light is always 300,000km/sec regardless of our motion with respect to the light source. The inescapable consequences of this fact are that time dilation occurs, mass/energy dilation occurs, length dilation occurs.

 

And guess, what? There are reams of evidence tyo support this and nothing to support you.

 

Whom shall I believe, Bertrand? All the evidence, or some frothing poster on SFN?

[Vexer]

iNow... your tone is uncalled-for. IMO.

 

 

I wanted to know more about the relationship between gravity and time. That, is the thing.

 

This is a thread *I* would have started. It didn't go where it should have.

[iNow]

iNow... your tone is uncalled-for. IMO.

 

 

I wanted to know more about the relationship between gravity and time. That, is the thing.

 

This is a thread *I* would have started. It didn't go where it should have.

 

You should note to whom I was responding, and look at his posts across SFN. Once you have, I think you'll quickly find the reason this thread got derailed, and why I took the tone I did.

[Eric 5]

There you go. That's from your own link.

 

Length contraction means that different observers find lengths to be different. There is no "actual" length because you cannot define which observer is right. If you wish to argue otherwise, I suggest you provide proof. What you are doing right now is worming your way towards being banned.

 

 

I am saying that matter does not actually get smaller or contract, it only looks that way in the way the measurements are done.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Okay, so if all of our measuring devices suggest that the matter is getting smaller, how can we say it's not "actually" getting smaller? There's no way to distinguish between matter "actually" getting smaller and us measuring it to be smaller because we don't have a magical meterstick that tells us "actual" length.

 

We are constrained by what we can measure.

[Eric 5]

"They said I was mad. I said I was not. Unfortunately I was outnumbered"

 

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/module4_time_dilation.htm#length

 

Every link you post confirms the existence of length contraction.

 

In this one it says we "observe" them to have different lengths. Is that appears or actually?

 

 

The material objects do not actually contract. Notice that the cars do not actually get smaller. No car is shown to get smaller. You do see that right? It is all based on how the objects are measured and not the measurement of a object that got smaller.

 

Nothing gets smaller as it is moving, look again if you dont believe me.

 

Weird. I went to the website you posted and found an animation explaining to me how length contraction works. Maybe you posted the wrong web address?

 

Right! the animation explains how lenght contraction works. It also shows you that nothing gets smaller as it moves. It was explained simply and you can see nothing gets smaller as it moves.

 

 

 

The math tells me that length contraction happens and the demo displayed length contraction happening. Again, perhaps you posted the wrong web site as nothing on the one you posted supports your viewpoint.

 

What do your eyes tell you? Nothing gets smaller that is my viewpoint. With all the explaination and visuals on the web site that supports my statement and you trying to deny this fact makes me think that either you do not want to accept the facts or you are just trying to be funny and push my buttons.

 

 

 

The material's length is changed due to the constant speed of light for all observers.

 

Right! the ruler does not go from one longer lenght to a smaller length while it is in motion. Matter does not experience a lenght contraction.

 

As I have already told you, the laws of mechanics have no choice but to change in a universe where the speed of light is constant for all observers. You are welcome to show us the math that allows for this singular premise without length contraction. The premise being that the speed of light is constant for all observers. I look forward to seeing your math.

 

Matter will not and has not been shown to get shorter due to the lenght contraction phenomenon. The math for this does not involve any force on the matter in motion. If a material object is made to get shorter there has to be a force applied to that object. This is a physics forum, you should be familar with basic physics. There is no mention or explaination of force being applied to an object to make it contract, and you want me to accept the idea that it just happens. Why are you accepting this as an actual physical contraction of matter when you see no evidence of this occuring?

 

 

ie. you don't understand the math, nor can you accept the inescapable consequences of light being a constant for all observers.

 

It seems in your world that when I am motionless with respect to a light source that I measure the speed of light as 300.000km/sec. Yet when I move towards it at, for eg., 100,000km/sec, I will now measure the speed of the light coming from the light source as 400,000km/sec.

 

 

 

This does not show how matter will physical change shape, force has to be applied to this matter, yet no mathmatical or visual evidence of this. Matter will not physically change shape, you can see this.

 

Unfortunately, there is no evidence this is correct. What we actually find is the speed of light is always 300,000km/sec regardless of our motion with respect to the light source. The inescapable consequences of this fact are that time dilation occurs, mass/energy dilation occurs, length dilation occurs.

 

And guess, what? There are reams of evidence tyo support this and nothing to support you.

 

Whom shall I believe, Bertrand? All the evidence, or some frothing poster on SFN?

 

 

There is no mathmatical, visual,or physical evidence that proves that matter physically changes shape due to lenght dilation.

[swansont]

Matter will not and has not been shown to get shorter due to the lenght contraction phenomenon. The math for this does not involve any force on the matter in motion. If a material object is made to get shorter there has to be a force applied to that object. This is a physics forum, you should be familar with basic physics. There is no mention or explaination of force being applied to an object to make it contract, and you want me to accept the idea that it just happens. Why are you accepting this as an actual physical contraction of matter when you see no evidence of this occuring?

 

 

You're right that there is no force. Nobody has claimed otherwise. But we do see evidence of relativity, though it's through time dilation, which is far easier to measure. You can't make the claim that your meter stick is a meter long, when someone in another frame measures it as being 0.9 meters long. How do you tell who is right?

[Slinkey]

The material objects do not actually contract. Notice that the cars do not actually get smaller. No car is shown to get smaller. You do see that right? It is all based on how the objects are measured and not the measurement of a object that got smaller.

 

Nothing gets smaller as it is moving, look again if you dont believe me.

 

The animation shows the rest frame for each observers point of view. In your own rest frame a meter is a meter is a meter. However, when either person looks at the other person they find that the meter is shorter. ie. length contraction is observable from either rest frame as no one has an absolute definition of length.

 

Right! the animation explains how lenght contraction works. It also shows you that nothing gets smaller as it moves. It was explained simply and you can see nothing gets smaller as it moves.

 

I was being sarcastic actually. I was pointing out that the page you claim supports your POV does nothing of the sort. Unfortunately, and please don't take this as an insult, you simply do not understand what the page is telling you.

 

There is no absolute time.

There is no absolute length.

There is no absolute energy.

All are frame dependent.

 

What do your eyes tell you? Nothing gets smaller that is my viewpoint.

 

And, unfortunately, it is wrong.

 

With all the explaination and visuals on the web site that supports my statement and you trying to deny this fact makes me think that either you do not want to accept the facts or you are just trying to be funny and push my buttons.

 

Actually, I'm beginning to think that you were educated far beyond your intelligence, or you are some kind of elaborate troll.

 

I have read lots of books on relativity and not in any of those books does it ever say that length contraction happens in the math but does not happen in reality. It seems the whole world disagrees with you my friend, and although that is a logical fallacy argument, I believe in this instance it might be worth you pondering for one moment why this is the case.

 

Right! the ruler does not go from one longer lenght to a smaller length while it is in motion. Matter does not experience a lenght contraction.

 

sigh.....

 

Matter will not and has not been shown to get shorter due to the lenght contraction phenomenon. The math for this does not involve any force on the matter in motion. If a material object is made to get shorter there has to be a force applied to that object.

 

Hmm, if I have a rubber ball filled with water and remove heat energy from it it seems to expand once the water turns to ice. No "decompressive" force needed. Just a refridgerator.

 

If I take the ball out of the fridge and leave it in the corner of a warm room (for example room temperature) it will shrink. No compressive force needed. Just had to take it out of the fridge and allow it to gain heat energy from the warm room and turn back into water.

 

So, your "has to be a force applied" is clearly not an absolute.

 

Funnily enough, neither is time, length or energy.

 

This is a physics forum, you should be familar with basic physics.

 

I am, and some of the more advanced stuff too, although I am far from being an expert. However, my betters here are also telling you the same thing, and I don't see any evidence of your credentials within this thread.

 

There is no mention or explaination of force being applied to an object to make it contract, and you want me to accept the idea that it just happens.

 

Personally, I don't care whether you accept it or not. However, whilst you make the claim on here I, and no doubt, others will endeavour to point out your failure to grasp this subject.

 

Why are you accepting this as an actual physical contraction of matter when you see no evidence of this occuring?

 

Because the evidence is overwhelming - muons - Michelson-Morley - Einstein - Feynman - Thorne - any notable scientist. It makes perfect sense. These people weren't saying it just to piss you off.

 

This does not show how matter will physical change shape, force has to be applied to this matter, yet no mathmatical or visual evidence of this. Matter will not physically change shape, you can see this.

 

Relativity shows us how matter changes shape dependent on reference frame.

 

There is no mathmatical, visual,or physical evidence that proves that matter physically changes shape due to lenght dilation.

 

We are debating the mathematical proof of length contraction right here.

 

Maybe you could post up a mathematical proof, or even a thought experiment, that would show us why we observe length contraction but it doesn't really happen?

 

Thus far all I have seen you do is say "isn't".

[swansont]

Hmm, if I have a rubber ball filled with water and remove heat energy from it it seems to expand once the water turns to ice. No "decompressive" force needed. Just a refridgerator.

 

If I take the ball out of the fridge and leave it in the corner of a warm room (for example room temperature) it will shrink. No compressive force needed. Just had to take it out of the fridge and allow it to gain heat energy from the warm room and turn back into water.

 

So, your "has to be a force applied" is clearly not an absolute.

 

These are physical processes, involving atmospheric pressure and intermolecular forces, rather than effects from coordinate transformations.

[Slinkey]

Hi Tom,

 

For sure these are not frame dependent. The point I was trying to get across was that matter doesn't need a force applied to it to "change shape" and thus his claim that it does is actually incorrect.

[swansont]

Hi Tom,

 

For sure these are not frame dependent. The point I was trying to get across was that matter doesn't need a force applied to it to "change shape" and thus his claim that it does is actually incorrect.

 

But there are forces involved in the example you give.

[Slinkey]

Apart from the elastic qualities of the rubber ball (doesn't have to be strong elastic just needs to be strong enough to make a ball shape), air pressure (ignorable for a vacuum scenario) and gravity (ignorable in a flat spacetime) I can't think what force you are pointing at. Even if you're suggesting the phase transition it's not a force being acted on from outside the ball. All we are doing is cooling and heating the ball. By doing so we are not trying to compress or decompress the ball, but it does indeed change size.

 

But I'm sure you're going to make me look stupid now for some glaring oversight so go ahead. I love moments like this because I usually learn something quite important.

[swansont]

Apart from the elastic qualities of the rubber ball (doesn't have to be strong elastic just needs to be strong enough to make a ball shape), air pressure (ignorable for a vacuum scenario) and gravity (ignorable in a flat spacetime) I can't think what force you are pointing at. Even if you're suggesting the phase transition it's not a force being acted on from outside the ball. All we are doing is cooling and heating the ball. By doing so we are not trying to compress or decompress the ball, but it does indeed change size.

 

But I'm sure you're going to make me look stupid now for some glaring oversight so go ahead. I love moments like this because I usually learn something quite important.

 

Nothing wrong with being wrong, though, as long as you learn something.

 

Water turning into ice can do work. There has to be a force, and it's the electrostatic force between the atoms.