Groups > sci.physics > #577709 > unrolled thread

Does anyone really know the physical cause for time dilation and length contraction?

Started by	xxein1@att.net
First post	2016-05-13 12:17 -0700
Last post	2016-05-16 13:20 +0200
Articles	20 on this page of 278 — 21 participants

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Page 7 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 14 Next page →

#578083

From	Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com>
Date	2016-05-15 07:41 -0500
Message-ID	<teidnWG1AqIO86XKnZ2dnUU7-b-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to	#578029

On 5/14/16 9:06 PM, xxein1@att.net wrote:
> On Saturday, May 14, 2016 at 2:48:03 PM UTC-4, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> On 5/14/16 1:21 PM, jay moseley wrote:
>>> If you want opinions as to what gravity is, then I think double A has
>>> the right idea with electromagnetism, without the weed.
>>
>>
>>    No --
>>
>>
>>    Ref: Hartle, "Gravity: An Introduction to Einstein's General
>>    Relativity", Addison Wesley (2003)
>>
>>    "A few properties of the gravitational interaction that help explain
>>    when gravity is important can already be seen from the gravitational
>>    force law
>>
>>       F_grav = G m_1 m_2 / r_12^2
>>
>>    o Gravity is a universal interaction in Newtonian theory between all
>>    mass, and, since E = mc^2, in relativistic gravity between all forms
>>    of energy.
>>
>>    o Gravity is unscreened. There are no negative gravitational charges
>>    to cancel positive ones, and therefore it is not possible to shield
>>    (screen) the gravitational interaction. Gravity is always
>>    attractive.
>>
>>    o Gravity is a long-range interaction. The Newtonian force law is a
>>    1/r^2 interaction. There is no length scale that sets a range for
>>    gravitational interactions as there is for the strong and weak
>>    interactions.
>>
>>    o Gravity is the weakest of the four fundamental interactions acting
>>    between individual elementary particles at accessible energy scales.
>>    The ratio of the gravitational attraction to the electromagnetic
>>    repulsion between two protons separated by a distance r is
>>
>>
>>       F_grav       G m_p^2 / r^2         G m_p^2
>>     -------- = -------------------- = ------------- ~ 10^-36
>>       F_elec     e^2 / (4π e_0 r^2)     (e^2/4π e_0)
>>
>>    where m_p is the mass of the proton and e is its charge.
>>
>>    These four facts explain a great deal about the role gravity plays in
>>    physical phenomena. They explain, for example, why, although it is
>>    the weakest force, gravity governs the organization of the universe
>>    on the largest distance scales of astrophysics and cosmology. These
>>    distance scales are far beyond the subatomic ranges of the strong and
>>    the weak interactions. Electromagnetic interactions COULD be long
>>    range were there any large-scale objects with net electric charge.
>>    But the universe is electrically neutral, and electromagnetic forces
>>    are so much stronger than gravitational forces that any large-scale
>>    net charge is quickly neutralized. Gravity is left to govern the
>>    structure of the universe on the largest scales.
>>

>
> xxein:  Yes they explain "a great deal" that THIS is what you will measure - what causes those measurements is a guess.  Some guesses are better than others.  I am glad you are satisfied with a best guess.
>

   Physics is based on the hard data of observation and experiment. The
   measurement process began thousands of years ago and has come a long
   way in the last century. Where have you been?

   Scientists have learned during the last 100 years that gravitation and
   electromagnetism are two independent forces in nature. Where have you
   been?


-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#578114

From	xxein1@att.net
Date	2016-05-15 08:24 -0700
Message-ID	<9afbdbe9-c8c9-4e36-95de-2ee5b1668af7@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#578083

On Sunday, May 15, 2016 at 8:41:58 AM UTC-4, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 5/14/16 9:06 PM, xxein1@att.net wrote:
> > On Saturday, May 14, 2016 at 2:48:03 PM UTC-4, Sam Wormley wrote:
> >> On 5/14/16 1:21 PM, jay moseley wrote:
> >>> If you want opinions as to what gravity is, then I think double A has
> >>> the right idea with electromagnetism, without the weed.
> >>
> >>
> >>    No --
> >>
> >>
> >>    Ref: Hartle, "Gravity: An Introduction to Einstein's General
> >>    Relativity", Addison Wesley (2003)
> >>
> >>    "A few properties of the gravitational interaction that help explain
> >>    when gravity is important can already be seen from the gravitational
> >>    force law
> >>
> >>       F_grav = G m_1 m_2 / r_12^2
> >>
> >>    o Gravity is a universal interaction in Newtonian theory between all
> >>    mass, and, since E = mc^2, in relativistic gravity between all forms
> >>    of energy.
> >>
> >>    o Gravity is unscreened. There are no negative gravitational charges
> >>    to cancel positive ones, and therefore it is not possible to shield
> >>    (screen) the gravitational interaction. Gravity is always
> >>    attractive.
> >>
> >>    o Gravity is a long-range interaction. The Newtonian force law is a
> >>    1/r^2 interaction. There is no length scale that sets a range for
> >>    gravitational interactions as there is for the strong and weak
> >>    interactions.
> >>
> >>    o Gravity is the weakest of the four fundamental interactions acting
> >>    between individual elementary particles at accessible energy scales.
> >>    The ratio of the gravitational attraction to the electromagnetic
> >>    repulsion between two protons separated by a distance r is
> >>
> >>
> >>       F_grav       G m_p^2 / r^2         G m_p^2
> >>     -------- = -------------------- = ------------- ~ 10^-36
> >>       F_elec     e^2 / (4π e_0 r^2)     (e^2/4π e_0)
> >>
> >>    where m_p is the mass of the proton and e is its charge.
> >>
> >>    These four facts explain a great deal about the role gravity plays in
> >>    physical phenomena. They explain, for example, why, although it is
> >>    the weakest force, gravity governs the organization of the universe
> >>    on the largest distance scales of astrophysics and cosmology. These
> >>    distance scales are far beyond the subatomic ranges of the strong and
> >>    the weak interactions. Electromagnetic interactions COULD be long
> >>    range were there any large-scale objects with net electric charge.
> >>    But the universe is electrically neutral, and electromagnetic forces
> >>    are so much stronger than gravitational forces that any large-scale
> >>    net charge is quickly neutralized. Gravity is left to govern the
> >>    structure of the universe on the largest scales.
> >>
> 
> >
> > xxein:  Yes they explain "a great deal" that THIS is what you will measure - what causes those measurements is a guess.  Some guesses are better than others.  I am glad you are satisfied with a best guess.
> >
> 
>    Physics is based on the hard data of observation and experiment. The
>    measurement process began thousands of years ago and has come a long
>    way in the last century. Where have you been?
> 
>    Scientists have learned during the last 100 years that gravitation and
>    electromagnetism are two independent forces in nature. Where have you
>    been?
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
> to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
> community, and physics-related social issues.

xxein:  I've been studying physics - not pontificating about it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#578145

From	Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com>
Date	2016-05-15 13:16 -0500
Message-ID	<teidnZ-0AqJoIaXKnZ2dnUU7-b-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to	#578114

On 5/15/16 10:24 AM, xxein1@att.net wrote:
> xxein:  I've been studying physics - not pontificating about it.


   Keep at it, as you've got a ways to go.


-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#578229

From	"Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com>
Date	2016-05-15 21:21 -0700
Message-ID	<d0d95eee-15a7-4008-be75-8be6347cce0f@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#578083

On Sunday, May 15, 2016 at 3:41:58 PM UTC+3, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 5/14/16 9:06 PM, xxein1@att.net wrote:
> > On Saturday, May 14, 2016 at 2:48:03 PM UTC-4, Sam Wormley wrote:
> >> On 5/14/16 1:21 PM, jay moseley wrote:
> >>> If you want opinions as to what gravity is, then I think double A has
> >>> the right idea with electromagnetism, without the weed.
> >>
> >>
> >>    No --
> >>
> >>
> >>    Ref: Hartle, "Gravity: An Introduction to Einstein's General
> >>    Relativity", Addison Wesley (2003)
> >>
> >>    "A few properties of the gravitational interaction that help explain
> >>    when gravity is important can already be seen from the gravitational
> >>    force law
> >>
> >>       F_grav = G m_1 m_2 / r_12^2
> >>
> >>    o Gravity is a universal interaction in Newtonian theory between all
> >>    mass, and, since E = mc^2, in relativistic gravity between all forms
> >>    of energy.
> >>
> >>    o Gravity is unscreened. There are no negative gravitational charges
> >>    to cancel positive ones, and therefore it is not possible to shield
> >>    (screen) the gravitational interaction. Gravity is always
> >>    attractive.
> >>
> >>    o Gravity is a long-range interaction. The Newtonian force law is a
> >>    1/r^2 interaction. There is no length scale that sets a range for
> >>    gravitational interactions as there is for the strong and weak
> >>    interactions.
> >>
> >>    o Gravity is the weakest of the four fundamental interactions acting
> >>    between individual elementary particles at accessible energy scales.
> >>    The ratio of the gravitational attraction to the electromagnetic
> >>    repulsion between two protons separated by a distance r is
> >>
> >>
> >>       F_grav       G m_p^2 / r^2         G m_p^2
> >>     -------- = -------------------- = ------------- ~ 10^-36
> >>       F_elec     e^2 / (4π e_0 r^2)     (e^2/4π e_0)
> >>
> >>    where m_p is the mass of the proton and e is its charge.
> >>
> >>    These four facts explain a great deal about the role gravity plays in
> >>    physical phenomena. They explain, for example, why, although it is
> >>    the weakest force, gravity governs the organization of the universe
> >>    on the largest distance scales of astrophysics and cosmology. These
> >>    distance scales are far beyond the subatomic ranges of the strong and
> >>    the weak interactions. Electromagnetic interactions COULD be long
> >>    range were there any large-scale objects with net electric charge.
> >>    But the universe is electrically neutral, and electromagnetic forces
> >>    are so much stronger than gravitational forces that any large-scale
> >>    net charge is quickly neutralized. Gravity is left to govern the
> >>    structure of the universe on the largest scales.
> >>
> 
> >
> > xxein:  Yes they explain "a great deal" that THIS is what you will measure - what causes those measurements is a guess.  Some guesses are better than others.  I am glad you are satisfied with a best guess.
> >
> 
>    Physics is based on the hard data of observation and experiment. The
>    measurement process began thousands of years ago and has come a long
>    way in the last century. Where have you been?
> 
>    Scientists have learned during the last 100 years that gravitation and
>    electromagnetism are two independent forces in nature. Where have you
>    been?
>  -- 
=================================
imbecile parrot !
observations might have different interpretations AGAIN
***DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS !!**

for you 
the sun is still orbiting our earth !!!  
=================================
Y.Porat
=====================================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#578653

From	jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com>
Date	2016-05-17 11:18 -0700
Message-ID	<10b8be8d-9f33-444d-98a8-e542fe1afd1c@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#577935

Gravity is unscreened. But so is energy above gamma.

Thus an electromagnetic explanation for gravity cannot
be ruled out. Gravity weak and strong forces are also different
faces of the same electromagnetic effect.
In the same way that  a magnet has a repulsive and attractive
effect. Do we call them two seperate forces?
As a concept it  certainly beats having to come up with
new particles every so often to account for the fact that
the Standard model predictions consistently fail to materialize.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#578655

From	Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Date	2016-05-17 13:29 -0500
Message-ID	<nhfnv2$scj$2@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#578653

On 5/17/2016 1:18 PM, jay moseley wrote:
> Gravity is unscreened. But so is energy above gamma.

What is this "energy above gamma" of which you speak?
There IS NO emr above gamma energies.

Idiot.
Repetitive, comically inept idiot.

>
> Thus an electromagnetic explanation for gravity cannot
> be ruled out. Gravity weak and strong forces are also different
> faces of the same electromagnetic effect.
> In the same way that  a magnet has a repulsive and attractive
> effect. Do we call them two seperate forces?
> As a concept it  certainly beats having to come up with
> new particles every so often to account for the fact that
> the Standard model predictions consistently fail to materialize.
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#578683

From	Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com>
Date	2016-05-17 15:14 -0500
Message-ID	<yuSdnU-h6ZgP5qbKnZ2dnUU7-RmdnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to	#578653

On 5/17/16 1:18 PM, jay moseley wrote:
> Gravity is unscreened. But so is energy above gamma.


   Yes gravitation is unscreened, whereas all electromagnetic radiation
   can be absorbed by charge particles.

   From the quantum mechanical perspective:

     1. photons are emitted (by charged particles)
     2. photons propagate at c
     3. photons are absorbed (by charged particles)

   Photon Momentum
     p = hν/c = h/λ

   Photon Energy
     E = hν = hc/λ

   Conservation laws apply
   The speed of light is constant.


-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#578810

From	"reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com>
Date	2016-05-18 11:00 -0700
Message-ID	<0b1d5c5a-e802-4802-8cbb-1d5c57d26705@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#578683

On Tuesday, May 17, 2016 at 1:14:13 PM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 5/17/16 1:18 PM, jay moseley wrote:
> > Gravity is unscreened. But so is energy above gamma.
> 
> 
>    Yes gravitation is unscreened, whereas all electromagnetic radiation
>    can be absorbed by charge particles.
> 
>    From the quantum mechanical perspective:
> 
>      1. photons are emitted (by charged particles)
>      2. photons propagate at c
>      3. photons are absorbed (by charged particles)
> 
>    Photon Momentum
>      p = hν/c = h/λ
> 
>    Photon Energy
>      E = hν = hc/λ
> 
>    Conservation laws apply
>    The speed of light is constant.
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
> to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
> community, and physics-related social issues.

Gravity is a particle force.These particles can not be blocked.Gravity can only get stronger and stronger. TreBert

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#578867

From	jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com>
Date	2016-05-18 17:08 -0700
Message-ID	<ca3abfd4-77a2-478a-b5c7-363cb7245948@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#578683

Sam wrote
>> Gravity is unscreened. But so is energy above gamma.

>Yes gravitation is unscreened, whereas all electromagnetic radiation can be absorbed by charge particles.

All electromagnetic radiation?
Not what I have read. Anything proposed above 100tev has yet
to be detected. In other words it cant be screened.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#578882

From	Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com>
Date	2016-05-18 21:04 -0500
Message-ID	<s_udnWdurpHVgqDKnZ2dnUU7-c2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to	#578867

On 5/18/16 7:08 PM, jay moseley wrote:
> Sam wrote
>>
>> Yes gravitation is unscreened, whereas all electromagnetic radiation can be absorbed by charge particles.
>
> All electromagnetic radiation?
> Not what I have read. Anything proposed above 100tev has yet
> to be detected. In other words it cant be screened.
>

   All electromagnetic radiation can be absorbed by charge particles.
   I will concede that wavelengths could eventually get too long in
   an expanding universe where absorption is impossible.

-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#578937

From	Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Date	2016-05-19 07:37 -0500
Message-ID	<nhkc2h$1cvq$7@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#578867

On 5/18/2016 7:08 PM, jay moseley wrote:
> Sam wrote
>>> Gravity is unscreened. But so is energy above gamma.
>
>> Yes gravitation is unscreened, whereas all electromagnetic radiation can be absorbed by charge particles.
>
> All electromagnetic radiation?
> Not what I have read. Anything proposed above 100tev has yet
> to be detected. In other words it cant be screened.
>

This sure is a funny way of thinking.
It's basically saying "OK, so everything that's been measured up to this 
point says that electromagnetism can be screened. And in fact, the 
exceptionally well validated theory of electromagnetism explains WHY 
that screening occurs. But since there is a range of energy of 
electromagnetic radiation that hasn't been measured, one can say with 
confidence that in that unobserved range, electromagnetism is different 
and can't be screened."

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#578945

From	moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
Date	2016-05-19 13:29 +0000
Message-ID	<nhkf4e$qa8$1@pcls7.std.com>
In reply to	#578867

On 5/18/2016 7:08 PM, jay moseley wrote:
> Sam wrote
>>> Gravity is unscreened. But so is energy above gamma.
>
>> Yes gravitation is unscreened, whereas all electromagnetic radiation 
>> can be absorbed by charge particles.
>
> All electromagnetic radiation?
> Not what I have read. Anything proposed above 100tev has yet
> to be detected. In other words it cant be screened.

I see the opposite.  Maybe 100 TeV photons are so effectively screened
by even the "vacuum" of space that they are immediately absorbed so we'll
never get to see them.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#578019

From	xxein1@att.net
Date	2016-05-14 18:44 -0700
Message-ID	<cb3cec22-cd04-4835-8018-f78d29975dc9@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#577923

On Saturday, May 14, 2016 at 2:21:58 PM UTC-4, jay moseley wrote:
> If you want opinions as to what gravity is, then I think double A has
> the right idea with electromagnetism, without the weed.
> But as far as TD and LC are  concerned: they dont exist. "Time dilation"
> is really just varying resonant frequencies of atomic clocks responding 
> to different external directional forces. (Like for instance gravity or 
> acelleration.) Time isnt moving at different speeds. The 'timekeeper' 
> has a variable rate depending on what external directional forces are 
> acting on it. This effect has been observable in classical resonating 
> systems for longer than relativity has been around.
> 
> Length contraction is a purely fictional effect. It has not been
> measured. What has been measured is different speeds for light in
> the same reference frames ( ie; Fizeau) Then,  a mathematical
> transformation has been applied to the data to make the different
> speeds appear the same and thus erroneously insinuate that a
> relativistic length contraction has occured.
> 
> Take this example. I see two cars moving towards me. One at 20kmh
> and the other at 40 kmh. I then multiply the 20 kmh speed by 2 and
> the 40 kmh speed by 1 and call it a Duckentziain transformation
> caused by donald duck being the king of Iraq. Seeing as the two cars
> now appear to be, counter intuitively, travelling at the same speed.
> I can now say that this proves thst donald duck IS the king of Iraq.

xxein:  Duly noted and recorded.  I have no further questions for this witness, Your Honor.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#578069

From	"nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com>
Date	2016-05-15 01:12 -0700
Message-ID	<daf355fb-5ba9-44a0-9c64-a34489ede338@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#577709

On Friday, May 13, 2016 at 12:17:39 PM UTC-7, xxe...@att.net wrote:
> Can we have a discussion about the root physical cause of TD and LC?

  One would think not from the other replies, but I'll give it a shot.

>  We all know the math, so skip that.

  When we humans talk about such things we have two options; one, to make guesses and take observations, then use math to seek correlations between the guesses and the observations (yeah, the scientific method), and two, to talk in metaphors generalized from human-scale experiential reality (in other words, philosophize), kinda the reverse of the scientific method.

  You're not satisfied with the math-based way, fine, but understand that all that's left is philosophy-based handwaving. I got two hands and I'm not afraid to wave them, as long as it's well understood that that's ALL I'm doing.

  Let me know when the breeze gets too strong for you.

>  What is it about velocity that becomes a cause? What about gravity as a
> cause?  How are they a cause?  Stick to principles of cause and effect or
> start your own thread for all else.
> 
>  Btw.  Just because 'we measure' doesn't answer the question of how it
> affects.

  Philosophy is about belief systems and their broadness of applicability. I've noticed an unfortunate tendency in philosophy though- the more beliefs one has, the LESS generally applicable their belief system is...

  I have a very minimal belief system- I take as givens that don't need explaining ONLY cause-and-effect and the cosmological principle (which I take to mean that C&E apply everywhere and everywhen).

  You asked about velocity and gravity. We're going to have a real hard time philosophizing about them because nobody, including me, has personally traveled anywhere near the speed of light or stood around in gravity fields much, much stronger than Earth-surface-normal to see with our naked eyes what happens differently from Earthbound "normal".

  That means we have no common experiential database to draw from when trying to make metaphors about extremes of velocity and gravity. But this is a physics group, and we can take the confirmed, rigorously repeated observational laboratory experiences of others on the same faith we place in our own- without necessarily validating the interpretations others have made of those experiences.

  For instance we know that matter has wave characteristics because buckyballs are seen to diffract through gratings just like light and electrons do. Forget about "waves in what?", just concentrate on the fact that it happens. We also know that the wavelength of objects like C60 molecules is inversely proportional to their momentum, and therefore to their velocity. It seems reasonable to me that since we've seen the same effects in electrons and C60 molecules, it likely can be extrapolated to human-scale and larger objects.

  Yes, I'm suggesting that LC is directly connected to matter-wavelength change with velocity. Yes, I know, the wavelength of a physical object's matter wave is very very small, much smaller than its physical dimensions at any velocity above zero. Handwaving here, remember?

  As for time dilation... well, two objects not at rest with each other get out of phase or something. I mean, an object at rest WRT you has an infinite (okay, very large) wavelength which overlaps with yours, keeping you in phase, and the greater the difference in speed the less the overlap. Not very satisfying, I know, but there it is, the best handwaving I can manage.

  If you want to go any deeper than that we'll have to start talking about the "spacetime medium" and what generates the limitations on the oscillations it can support, but my hands are really tired right now.

  Mark L. Fergerson

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#578085

From	HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com>
Date	2016-05-15 05:47 -0700
Message-ID	<9fa4f389-b4f4-4715-bf8c-7ed93b3a4095@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#578069

Mark Ferguson said
If you want to go any deeper than that we'll have to start talking about the "spacetime medium" 
--------------

Pretty much what I told him. But without knowing what his science/physics knowledge is, a long winded explanation may be futile. Besides, I'd rather just yell at people

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#578111

From	xxein1@att.net
Date	2016-05-15 08:15 -0700
Message-ID	<f0326d8f-041d-425e-8ae1-973fbfb22eab@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#578069

On Sunday, May 15, 2016 at 4:12:36 AM UTC-4, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> On Friday, May 13, 2016 at 12:17:39 PM UTC-7, xxe...@att.net wrote:
> > Can we have a discussion about the root physical cause of TD and LC?
> 
>   One would think not from the other replies, but I'll give it a shot.
> 
> >  We all know the math, so skip that.
> 
>   When we humans talk about such things we have two options; one, to make guesses and take observations, then use math to seek correlations between the guesses and the observations (yeah, the scientific method), and two, to talk in metaphors generalized from human-scale experiential reality (in other words, philosophize), kinda the reverse of the scientific method.
> 
>   You're not satisfied with the math-based way, fine, but understand that all that's left is philosophy-based handwaving. I got two hands and I'm not afraid to wave them, as long as it's well understood that that's ALL I'm doing.
> 
>   Let me know when the breeze gets too strong for you.
> 
> >  What is it about velocity that becomes a cause? What about gravity as a
> > cause?  How are they a cause?  Stick to principles of cause and effect or
> > start your own thread for all else.
> > 
> >  Btw.  Just because 'we measure' doesn't answer the question of how it
> > affects.
> 
>   Philosophy is about belief systems and their broadness of applicability. I've noticed an unfortunate tendency in philosophy though- the more beliefs one has, the LESS generally applicable their belief system is...
> 
>   I have a very minimal belief system- I take as givens that don't need explaining ONLY cause-and-effect and the cosmological principle (which I take to mean that C&E apply everywhere and everywhen).
> 
>   You asked about velocity and gravity. We're going to have a real hard time philosophizing about them because nobody, including me, has personally traveled anywhere near the speed of light or stood around in gravity fields much, much stronger than Earth-surface-normal to see with our naked eyes what happens differently from Earthbound "normal".
> 
>   That means we have no common experiential database to draw from when trying to make metaphors about extremes of velocity and gravity. But this is a physics group, and we can take the confirmed, rigorously repeated observational laboratory experiences of others on the same faith we place in our own- without necessarily validating the interpretations others have made of those experiences.
> 
>   For instance we know that matter has wave characteristics because buckyballs are seen to diffract through gratings just like light and electrons do. Forget about "waves in what?", just concentrate on the fact that it happens. We also know that the wavelength of objects like C60 molecules is inversely proportional to their momentum, and therefore to their velocity. It seems reasonable to me that since we've seen the same effects in electrons and C60 molecules, it likely can be extrapolated to human-scale and larger objects.
> 
>   Yes, I'm suggesting that LC is directly connected to matter-wavelength change with velocity. Yes, I know, the wavelength of a physical object's matter wave is very very small, much smaller than its physical dimensions at any velocity above zero. Handwaving here, remember?
> 
>   As for time dilation... well, two objects not at rest with each other get out of phase or something. I mean, an object at rest WRT you has an infinite (okay, very large) wavelength which overlaps with yours, keeping you in phase, and the greater the difference in speed the less the overlap. Not very satisfying, I know, but there it is, the best handwaving I can manage.
> 
>   If you want to go any deeper than that we'll have to start talking about the "spacetime medium" and what generates the limitations on the oscillations it can support, but my hands are really tired right now.
> 
> 
>   Mark L. Fergerson

xxein:  Yeah.  Go rest your hands.  Another time perhaps...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#578263

From	"nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com>
Date	2016-05-15 23:24 -0700
Message-ID	<94323002-b67a-48b9-93e0-dd8abc679524@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#578111

On Sunday, May 15, 2016 at 8:15:05 AM UTC-7, xxe...@att.net wrote:
> On Sunday, May 15, 2016 at 4:12:36 AM UTC-4, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> > On Friday, May 13, 2016 at 12:17:39 PM UTC-7, xxe...@att.net wrote:
> > > Can we have a discussion about the root physical cause of TD and LC?
> > 
> >   One would think not from the other replies, but I'll give it a shot.

(snip)

> xxein:  Yeah.  Go rest your hands.  Another time perhaps...

  Sp, you don't really want to have a discussion?


  Mark L. Fergerson

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#578266

From	benj <nobodyxx@gmail>
Date	2016-05-16 03:15 -0400
Message-ID	<57397397$0$62664$c3e8da3$dbd57e7@news.astraweb.com>
In reply to	#578069

On 05/15/2016 04:12 AM, nuny@bid.nes wrote:
> On Friday, May 13, 2016 at 12:17:39 PM UTC-7, xxe...@att.net wrote:
>> Can we have a discussion about the root physical cause of TD and
>> LC?
>
> One would think not from the other replies, but I'll give it a shot.
>
>> We all know the math, so skip that.
>
> When we humans talk about such things we have two options; one, to
> make guesses and take observations, then use math to seek
> correlations between the guesses and the observations (yeah, the
> scientific method), and two, to talk in metaphors generalized from
> human-scale experiential reality (in other words, philosophize),
> kinda the reverse of the scientific method.
>
> You're not satisfied with the math-based way, fine, but understand
> that all that's left is philosophy-based handwaving. I got two hands
> and I'm not afraid to wave them, as long as it's well understood that
> that's ALL I'm doing.
>
> Let me know when the breeze gets too strong for you.
>
>> What is it about velocity that becomes a cause? What about gravity
>> as a cause?  How are they a cause?  Stick to principles of cause
>> and effect or start your own thread for all else.
>>
>> Btw.  Just because 'we measure' doesn't answer the question of how
>> it affects.
>
> Philosophy is about belief systems and their broadness of
> applicability. I've noticed an unfortunate tendency in philosophy
> though- the more beliefs one has, the LESS generally applicable their
> belief system is...
>
> I have a very minimal belief system- I take as givens that don't need
> explaining ONLY cause-and-effect and the cosmological principle
> (which I take to mean that C&E apply everywhere and everywhen).
>
> You asked about velocity and gravity. We're going to have a real hard
> time philosophizing about them because nobody, including me, has
> personally traveled anywhere near the speed of light or stood around
> in gravity fields much, much stronger than Earth-surface-normal to
> see with our naked eyes what happens differently from Earthbound
> "normal".
>
> That means we have no common experiential database to draw from when
> trying to make metaphors about extremes of velocity and gravity. But
> this is a physics group, and we can take the confirmed, rigorously
> repeated observational laboratory experiences of others on the same
> faith we place in our own- without necessarily validating the
> interpretations others have made of those experiences.
>
> For instance we know that matter has wave characteristics because
> buckyballs are seen to diffract through gratings just like light and
> electrons do. Forget about "waves in what?", just concentrate on the
> fact that it happens. We also know that the wavelength of objects
> like C60 molecules is inversely proportional to their momentum, and
> therefore to their velocity. It seems reasonable to me that since
> we've seen the same effects in electrons and C60 molecules, it likely
> can be extrapolated to human-scale and larger objects.
>
> Yes, I'm suggesting that LC is directly connected to
> matter-wavelength change with velocity. Yes, I know, the wavelength
> of a physical object's matter wave is very very small, much smaller
> than its physical dimensions at any velocity above zero. Handwaving
> here, remember?
>
> As for time dilation... well, two objects not at rest with each other
> get out of phase or something. I mean, an object at rest WRT you has
> an infinite (okay, very large) wavelength which overlaps with yours,
> keeping you in phase, and the greater the difference in speed the
> less the overlap. Not very satisfying, I know, but there it is, the
> best handwaving I can manage.
>
> If you want to go any deeper than that we'll have to start talking
> about the "spacetime medium" and what generates the limitations on
> the oscillations it can support, but my hands are really tired right
> now.

I'll have to violate my own rule of not discussing relativity and 
jumping in the "I'm smarter than Einstein" contest here, but in spite of 
the fact that your hypothesis of LC is reasonable and logical, if you 
say that things actually change size when they move that would be wrong. 
This can be shown by looking at the SR motion transforms and comparing 
to moving line charges. (It's a long story)

Well if things don't change length (as so many assume) what is 
happening? Well what happens is they DO appear to change length.
Take the Heaviside calculations for the fields of a moving point charge. 
[point charges are of course pure fantasy, but serve to illustrate the 
point] As it travels past you at relativistic velocities Heaviside was 
the first to calculate that the fields appear to the side observer to 
bunch into the vertical and compress in the direction of travel. This 
has been known for a long time.

Well, matter consists of a bunch of charged particles especially the 
electrons about the nucleus which produce fields covering most of the 
space there. Thus, it is obvious that matter consisting of these charges 
moving past an observer will have fields compressed in the Heaviside 
manner to an observer in another frame. Therefore the length of the 
passing matter (rod etc) will APPEAR to shorten as predicted. However, 
one should note that the rod only appears to shorten. To an observer 
traveling with the rod the rod is still it's natural length.

It should be clear that the length of the rod cannot be both longer and 
shorter at the same time (unless you are Odd Boinker and change the 
meaning of words). But it should be equally obvious that it is not any 
illogic to say the APPEARANCE of the rod can be longer to one observer 
and shorter to another.

My hands are tired now so I'll have to quit.

I'll turn this explanation over to HVAC who will continue it so you 
won't have to worry about any crackpot theories.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#578269

From	HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com>
Date	2016-05-16 03:52 -0700
Message-ID	<89d88091-c76a-4831-a625-aab2102c87f2@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#578266

PLEASE DISREGARD THE FOLLOWING:


BJ quacked
I'll have to violate my own rule of not discussing relativity and 
jumping in the "I'm smarter than Einstein" contest here, but in spite of 
the fact that your hypothesis of LC is reasonable and logical, if you 
say that things actually change size when they move that would be wrong. 
This can be shown by looking at the SR motion transforms and comparing 
to moving line charges. (It's a long story) 

Well if things don't change length (as so many assume) what is 
happening? Well what happens is they DO appear to change length. 
Take the Heaviside calculations for the fields of a moving point charge. 
[point charges are of course pure fantasy, but serve to illustrate the 
point] As it travels past you at relativistic velocities Heaviside was 
the first to calculate that the fields appear to the side observer to 
bunch into the vertical and compress in the direction of travel. This 
has been known for a long time. 

Well, matter consists of a bunch of charged particles especially the 
electrons about the nucleus which produce fields covering most of the 
space there. Thus, it is obvious that matter consisting of these charges 
moving past an observer will have fields compressed in the Heaviside 
manner to an observer in another frame. Therefore the length of the 
passing matter (rod etc) will APPEAR to shorten as predicted. However, 
one should note that the rod only appears to shorten. To an observer 
traveling with the rod the rod is still it's natural length. 

It should be clear that the length of the rod cannot be both longer and 
shorter at the same time (unless you are Odd Boinker and change the 
meaning of words). But it should be equally obvious that it is not any 
illogic to say the APPEARANCE of the rod can be longer to one observer 
and shorter to another. 

My hands are tired now so I'll have to quit. 

I'll turn this explanation over to HVAC who will continue it so you 
won't have to worry about any crackpot theories.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#578087

From	Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
Date	2016-05-15 23:05 +1000
Message-ID	<dpragdFlktpU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#577709

On 14/05/2016 5:17 AM, xxein1@att.net wrote:
> Can we have a discussion about the root physical cause of TD and LC?
> We all know the math, so skip that.  What is it about velocity that
> becomes a cause?  What about gravity as a cause?  How are they a
> cause?  Stick to principles of cause and effect or start your own
> thread for all else.
>
> Btw.  Just because 'we measure' doesn't answer the question of how it
> affects.
>

It's a mistake to think of this as cause and effect. Velocity does not 
cause time dilation and length contraction. They are simply 
manifestations of how different observers see the universe.

When I move along (even slowly), I observe the world moving the other 
way. Yet it is not sensible to suggest that my motion has had some 
strange effect on the world. I just observe the world from a different 
perspective.

Similar thoughts apply to gravity.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 7 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 14 Next page →

csiph-web

Does anyone really know the physical cause for time dilation and length contraction?

Contents

#578083

#578114

#578145

#578229

#578653

#578655

#578683

#578810

#578867

#578882

#578937

#578945

#578019

#578069

#578085

#578111

#578263

#578266

#578269

#578087