Law Of Time

Ummm... Once again, I do not deny all relativity. GR, for instance has an excellent track record for predicting how objects move in relation to each other. I do see "spacetime" as just an abstract coordinate system for the math/physics, not an "entity" in the "real world" which curves and somehow guides objects in their curved paths.

As for SR, I have said that the study of light in general can be a "very tricky business." Synthsin disagreed, as if it is all very straight forward. I gave examples of how "tricky" light is to measure. they were dismissed as a tangent.
Bottom line, earth does not change shape to accommodate different measurements of it from relativistic (very fast moving) frames of reference. I gave several other examples... no thinner atmosphere "for muons" or shorter distance to the sun "for a high speed fly-by" frame, etc.

Roll your eyes if it makes you feel superior... or engage in discussion of the above points... not likely.

Oh, you're suffering alright...from substituting your intuitive incredulity for "respectful discussion of scientific issues". You only feel that you are being unduly berated because you don't understand the answers you have been given. And feeling berated, you act so petulant that people are no longer willing to humor you.

The only thing that does any "mandating" in science is evidence.

Now perhaps you should take a break and try again when you don't feel quite so sore. Perhaps then you'll be able to digest what you're told.

I say I am not suffering. Yo say I am.... that I should come back when I don't feel so sore. How considerate of my feelings!, as you are now also an expert on them.

Of course I am incredulous of SR's assertion that either earth changes shape or that we can not know its true shape.
And yet you will not answer the direct question, "Does earth change shape, or?... etc.
Total avoidance.

"The only thing that does any "mandating" in science is evidence. "

Show me the evidence for a flattened earth. What... there is none?, and yet you insist...

" Perhaps then you'll be able to digest what you're told."

How utterly superior and condescending of you.
Btw, what is your IQ, if you are not ashamed of a comparison, being so superior and all? Such statements as above 'make me' bring it up again... I just couldn't help it!

That's one heaping helping of typical troll baiting, and most here can tell you, I don't raise to the bait unless I so choose.

I've already answered your question, and will not reiterate it to someone acting such a troll. It's telling that the one recent answer you've gotten to that question you completely ignored, while only responding to that person's criticism. I don't have to know anything about your emotional state to notice when you ignore answers that could quell your ire.

And why don't you just come right out with your IQ, if you are so confident as to challenge people on their own? Of course IQ and education are very different things when it comes to specific subjects, such as physics. IQ cannot compensate for a lack of education/study.

"It's telling that the one recent answer you've gotten to that question you completely ignored, while only responding to that person's criticism. I don't have to know anything about your emotional state to notice when you ignore answers that could quell your ire."

You clearly have no interest in communication to clarify anything. You prefer remaining cryptic and evasive. You could specify to what "recent answer" you are referring, but you don't, and I have no idea which answer you are talking about.

I did already. You don't have much of a memory.

Here it is again, from 3/25:
(First me quoting you)
""No one can just hand you conceptual understanding, if you refuse to study the subject for yourself. "
Me:

You replied, same day:

You can't seem to imagine anyone disagreeing with length contraction without automatically being wrong... SR being your version of absolute truth.

Really? So you want to berate my memory while you don't recall a post much less time ago? Suffice it to say, I've hardly taken your posts seriously since you've started whinging so.

@synthsin75 and or others who believe in length contraction:
If you were to pass the Earth doing 0.9 speed of light what would you see?

A circular Earth or an ellipse?
Would it look shorter in the direction of travel?

If it is elliptical:
Even if it looks this odd shape is this a reality? Or even thought it looks elliptical when it is measured it is "still circular" as the "ruler" is shortened only in the direction of motion.

The theory of Relativity, The Special and The General, is a cohesive entity. It is mathematically interwoven. You can't pick and choose what predictions you like and which you don't like. You can't say, "I'll accept that part of the theory because I can understand it, but that part over there offends my "common sense", so I'll discard that".

What about my question? Can you answer me Alex please? Or other person who know what SR or GR would predict?

This post has been edited by Robittybob1 on Apr 5 2012, 12:35 AM

What you see and what you measure are two different things. What you see is explained by Terrell rotation, and what you measure by length contraction.

Measurements are the reality, as they have a physical effect.

This post has been edited by synthsin75 on Apr 5 2012, 12:36 AM

Which post, and which question was that? I recall the essential points of all recent posts. I simply don't know to which post/question you are referring. And you still didn't specify.

I did not "berate" your memory as a personal attack (which is your M.O.)
I stated the fact that "You don't have much of a memory," as shown by the *evidence* that you forgot what you knew about my IQ on 3/25.

Btw, I have not been "whinging." I've been trying to bring the conversation here to a level beyond personal insults. That intent appears to be in vain, and I will not be here long if name calling continues to be the primary form of "scientific argument."

Are you sure about that? for isn't your eyes and brain just another measuring device (the eyeometer is rough and ready).

What do you see? what do you measure? (rough guess only). So if it is as you say "different" that would cause confusion. You see something and you measure it and it's different, does that worry you? I'd be all f'ed up.
Wasn't it stated that physics in all frames would be the same. But if what you see and measure is different, now that is a contradiction.

This post has been edited by Robittybob1 on Apr 5 2012, 12:48 AM

Huh, the one you've been trolling me about, numbnuts. You do remember that much, right?

Your eyes suffer from the signal delay of the finite speed of light.

It is the consistent physics which predicts both what you see and what you measure.

If the traveller started with 2 rulers and attained 0.99c and he/she held up the rulers one pointing in the direction of travel and one at right angles to the first. Would the length contraction, that we know happens, be noticeable to the person or would the fact that even the observers body, brain and hence perception have gone through the same length contraction that absolutely no change is perceivable.

For if the ruler is used to measure length in any direction, both the ruler and the distance has contracted by the same proportional amount, so all readings are as they were at the commencement of the journey irrespective of the velocity.