Comments of the Week #152: from NASA's future to testing your scientific theories

By esiegel on March 12, 2017.

“When you are joyous, look deep into your heart and you shall find it is only that which has given you sorrow that is giving you joy. When you are sorrowful look again in your heart, and you shall see that in truth you are weeping for that which has been your delight.” -Khalil Gibran

Another incredible week has gone by here at Starts With A Bang! If you didn't get a chance to catch me in Jacksonville, don't fear; I'll be at MidSouthCon in Memphis, Tennessee in just a little over a week. Catch me there! Our Patreon campaign is really taking off, and with the new rewards commitments I have, there's never been a better time to join. (And if we can hit the next rewards tier, I'll be able to buy better equipment to help me produce them, which would be a tremendous help!) There has been a lot of fighting in the comment sections on a variety of posts, so I thought I'd remind everyone of a reason we all have to delight in this world: Maru. Who is still at it after all these years, this time with a hamster ball.

As always, we've had some incredible articles, including a great contribution from a returning writer: Paul Halpern. If you’ve missed anything, check the articles all out below, including:

What surprises might NASA's future space telescopes discover? (for Ask Ethan),
The first woman in space turns 80, and you've probably never heard of her (for Mostly Mute Monday),
How Richard Feynman convinced the naysayers 60 years ago that gravitational waves are real (by Paul Halpern),
The science has spoken: Pluto will never be a planet again,
Proxima b and the worlds around TRAPPIST-1 might be habitable after all, and
A 200 year old lesson: scientific predictions are worthless unless tested.

You've had your Maru fix, but now it's time to chew on some of the meatiest morsels you've doled out on this edition of our comments of the week!

Image credit: Universe Review.

From Michael Mooney on traveling close to the speed of light: "Does special relativity actually claim that distance, between stars for instance, depends on the speed of a traveler between them… not just “apparent” distance, but actual astronomical distance?"

It depends on the distance and to whom. If you're in the spacecraft and moving towards a star 4 light years away, but you're doing it at 88% the speed of light, then yes: the star will be only 2 light years from you, and you will reach it in a little over two and a quarter years. That contraction is "real". Now your spaceship, to an outside observer, will also appear contracted, as the ball in the above image appears. Is that contraction physically real? We don't think so. Relativity is still challenging to wrap your head around, even more than 100 years after we've first discovered it.

A planetary nebula represents a phase of stellar evolution that the Sun should experience several billion years from now. When a star like the Sun uses up all of the hydrogen in its core, it expands into a red giant, with a radius that increases by tens to hundreds of times. In this phase, a star sheds most of its outer layers, eventually leaving behind a hot core that will soon contract to form a dense white dwarf star. A fast wind emanating from the hot core rams into the ejected atmosphere, pushes it outward, and creates the graceful, shell-like filamentary structures seen with optical telescopes. It also looks like an exploding brain. Image credit: NASA / CXC.

From Wow on comment moderation: "Ethan are you going to do anything about that..."

No. He has not violated my comment policy in any way. He has not threatened anyone; he has not link-spammed anyone; he has not promoted his own personal pet theory ad nauseum. He is also not the person you accuse him of being, which I strongly against anyone doing. You are allowed to comment anonymously/pseudonymously here, and he is, too. His actual name is John, but he is not the John you accuse him of being. Nor should you be accusing anyone of being someone in particular, as you would not like me to say whether someone was right or not if they guessed at who you are. And if you think that one or ten or a thousand extra clicks on this site makes a lick of difference in what I get paid, you are sorely mistaken as to how my contract works.

So no, I am not going to do anything about the comments of a commenter who's abiding by all the rules here, who you (or I, or anyone) simply disagrees with.

The contributors to global warming, from the 2013 IPCC report.

From Denier on global warming: "There are kernels of truth in most of it. I’m swapping right side #3 with #4 just because I think it lines up with the left counters better."

First off, kudos to you on reading the undark piece I linked to. I didn't even think to line up the two narratives side-by-side in a point-counterpoint fashion, and it may be more interesting to do so, as you did. It's interesting to me that you find public opinion and actions designed to sway public opinion just as valid -- or perhaps even more valid -- than what the actual science says. You claim quite frequently that "the models have failed to make accurate predictions" so I went and looked up the first predictions I could find.

The most seminal paper in climate change history? Perhaps!

Turns out there's a paper going all the way back to 1967 that asked this question: Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Given Distribution of Relative Humidity, by Syukuro Manabe and Richard T. Wetherald. It's now 50 years old. And as professor Steve Sherwood says,

Its results are still valid today. Often when I’ve think I’ve done a new bit of work, I found that it had already been included in this paper.

One of the largest uncertainties around -- climate sensitivity and water vapor feedback -- was first quantified and addressed in this paper. There isn't a definitive solution, but many plausible ones that all fall within a particular range. By averaging that range, we can arrive at a "best guess" prediction. That's how the modern IPCC arrives at their results, and it's incredibly robust.

Of course, the big sticking point is "what do we do about it," and the status quo answer seems to be, "burn all the fuel and let the climate change, unfettered by environmental conservation efforts." But I can't help myself in being dissatisfied with the status quo in this regard. I love the natural world too much. Perhaps your retort will be that you love economic success and (what you define as) freedom too much, and that's our fundamental impasse here?

A sample of telescopes (operating as of February 2013) operating at wavelengths across the electromagnetic spectrum. Observatories are placed above or below the portion of the EM spectrum that their primary instrument(s) observe. Image credit: Observatory images from NASA, ESA (Herschel and Planck), Lavochkin Association (Specktr-R), HESS Collaboration (HESS), Salt Foundation (SALT), Rick Peterson/WMKO (Keck), Germini Observatory/AURA (Gemini), CARMA team (CARMA), and NRAO/AUI (Greenbank and VLA); background image from NASA).

From John on the future discoveries from NASA's new observatories: "With science extending and enhancing human senses, humanity’s perception of itself and its relationship to the natural world can, and with luck will improve."

To me, the best part of this is that given our understanding of light, gravity, nature and the electromagnetic spectrum, we can make our own luck. We can extend and enhance and go well beyond our senses and our perceptions. Our minds, rooted in the full suite of scientific knowledge and with the full suite of scientific data, can help us understand the natural world in a superior fashion to any humans that have ever come before. Thousands and thousands of living scientists understand gravitation and quantum theory better than Einstein or Feynman ever did in their lifetimes, and we continue to do better with each new discovery.

To look inward, however, and perceive ourselves and our relationship to the natural world, is a journey that it's up to each of us to take as individuals. Science will only take you so far in that one.

Valentina Tereshkova, just prior to her launch aboard Vostok 6 in 1963. Image credit: Science Source/Photo Researchers, Inc.

From dean on Valentina Tereshkova: "I remember learning about her in a high school world history course, but I had forgotten that she made 48 orbits.
I suspect the Soviet Union was ahead of the United States in allowing women into their space program not because they were more knowledgeable about the ability of women in general, but because they had a history of women demonstrating their strength from the roles women played in their military during WWII."

The 48 orbits thing is actually the easiest thing to explain. In low-Earth orbit, you need to continuously move at the right velocity to maintain your orbit, or you'll either crash into the planet, fly off into deep space, or require a tremendous (i.e., unrealistic) amount of fuel in order to consistently stay in orbit. The equilibrium speed you need to reach, dependent on your altitude, means you make a complete orbit every 90 to 100 minutes, depending on your orbital parameters, which translates to 15-to-18 orbits per day. The earliest cosmonauts and astronauts orbited at the same speeds and rates that the ISS does today. For 3 days in space, 48 orbits was really the only realistic number for Tereshkova.

But the women-in-space issue? That's a stickier situation. Why women? Why then? It was the brainchild of chief Soviet rocket engineer Sergey Korolyov, who -- after Yuri Gagarin's flight -- decided to form the female cosmonaut corps and solicit applications. Over 400 women, all under 30, all parachutists, applied, and five were selected. Only Tereshkova ever flew, which she only did once, and the female cosmonaut group was dissolved in 1969. The next female cosmonaut wouldn't come until the 1980s, shortly before Sally Ride's pioneering american flight.

Why did it turn out this way? The best I can tell you is that Korolyov (sometimes Korolev, according to Wikipedia) was both incredibly competent and had incredible vision for a space program. If he hadn't unexpectedly died in 1966, there are many who speculate that the Soviets would have won the ultimate prize of the space race -- humans on the Moon -- instead of the Americans. Alas, we will never know.

Richard Feynman, at approximately the age he was during the 1957 conference. Image credit: Caltech.

From Anonymous coward on Feynman and gravitational waves: "The article doesn’t seem to mention the curious detail that Feynman had, to express his disdain for the state of gravitational physics, insisted on registering under a pseudonym (”Mr. Smith”) when he attended that conference."

I didn't know that detail either, and perhaps it may even be novel to Paul as well. Having heard many, many stories about people who knew Feynman personally, the only thing that surprises me about that story is the pseudonymous method employed about expressing his disdain. Feynman was both one to feel disdain frequently at a great number of targets, and to rarely censor himself from expressing such disdain. He had a touch of the egomania, but he never had the insecurity that plagued his contemporaries like Gell-Mann, whom I met once and was still, decades and a Nobel Prize of his own later, still bathing in it.

TRAPPIST-1 system compared to the solar system; all seven planets of TRAPPIST-1 could fit inside the orbit of Mercury. Note that at least the inner six worlds of TRAPPIST-1 are all locked to the star. Image credit: NASA / JPL-Caltech.

From Wow on planethood and definitions: "The clincher really is the quote you started with there. The problem for the geophysical definition was it was OK as long as you could look close enough to determine the composition roughly and determine the size in enough detail to SEE it is round."

The geophysical definition doesn't require a teleporter/transporter either, no more than the IAU one does. Because we understand gravitation so well, simply measuring a planet's mass is a good enough proxy for knowing whether it's in hydrostatic equilibrium. Hit about 10^21 kg, more or less, and you'll be in hydrostatic equilibrium. Vesta, under most arguments, falls just short; Makemake, similarly, makes it in.

The geophysical definition is a purely intrinsic definition, however, and that's what I don't like about it. You can learn a lot about a world by standing above it and looking down: at the atmosphere, surface and interior. I'd argue that you can know almost half the things there are to know about it that way. The rest? Its temperature, its orbital properties, its proximity to other objects, etc., are all extrinsic. And to me -- like most astronomers -- that's what's required to define its planethood. Otherwise, there's nothing special about being a planet in the way that Earth is a planet, and that's scientifically less useful to me.

Of course, that's scientifically more useful to planetary scientists, and that's where the current argument comes from.

This artist’s impression shows the view just above the surface of one of the planets in the TRAPPIST-1 system, which may contain liquid water on the surface if the atmospheric conditions are right. Image credit: ESO/M. Kornmesser/spaceengine.org.

From Dunc on how to solve the dilemma: "Here’s a radical suggestion: we should abandon the entire concept of “planets”. There are lots of different types of objects orbiting around out there, and you can categorise them into different groupings depending on which characteristics you’re particularly interested in, but trying to reify this distinction between “planets” and “non-planets” looks increasingly arbitrary and meaningless. Does the Earth really have more in common with Jupiter than it does with Pluto, or even it’s own Moon? Well, in some ways it does, and in other ways it doesn’t…"

This is probably fair. My proposal is that we allow everyone to call objects what they will. Dwarf planets, ice planets, minor planets, rogue planets, orphan planets, ejected planets, former planets, etc. It's all fine. But give the 8 in our Solar System -- and the ones meeting the needed criteria in other Solar Systems -- a name denoting how they are special. Major planets, classical planets, astronomical planets, or you can go with my (tongue-in-cheek) suggestion: actual planets.

Pluto's atmosphere, as imaged by New Horizons when it flew into the distant world's eclipse shadow. Image credit: NASA / JHUAPL / New Horizons / LORRI.

From Melvin Whartnaby on a different opinion: "Sorry, I just don’t buy it! Not just me, but all of my friends and family know that Pluto is a planet. Our teachers told us. We say it in books."

All of these things are true, but none of those things count as "meaningful evidence." In science, we require a much sterner standard. You will learn there's an "appeal to authority" argument out there that's a classic logical fallacy. What it really means is that it is a fallacy to appeal to a false authority. If you want a real authority to appeal to, try Alan Stern, the Planetary Society or any number of planetary scientists. (Some even work for NASA.) You'll still be wrong, because you'll still want to group Pluto in with the other 8 planets of the solar system, but at least you'll be wrong for a less obviously bad reason.

Image credit: NOAA PMEL Vents Program.

From PJ on Earth-life life on the TRAPPIST-1 worlds: "You cannot say “not a chance”. If there are life forms existing around earths fumaroles, the probability is high for that existence around vents on another planet."

This is exactly right, and is exactly the point that Adrian Lenardic (and many other scientists) make. You don't know what conditions are present on these other worlds. Sure, the star they orbit might make for "too much radiation" if all the other conditions were like the ones we have on Earth, but who knows how shielding is different, how the atmosphere is different, how a magnetic dynamo is different, etc. All of these differences could lead to surface conditions that are very much Earth-like, despite any one of the remarkable and clear differences present.

That I can design conditions that would lead to very similar surfaces on these worlds doesn't make them likely, but it means there's a chance. And given that there are likely hundreds of billions of such chances in our galaxy alone -- of Earth-sized planets around red dwarf stars -- I would definitely not want to bet on "not a chance" with the current information we have.

Image credit: screenshot from the internet classic, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ll-lia-FEIY.

From eric on navigating the comment jungle out there: "When I was a teen, I learned to choose my novels by author. When I graduated HS, I learned to choose my classes by professor. Now, I choose posts by handle. ? And always remember, when browsing, the scroll wheel is your friend."

This is the internet in its natural state: with comments turned on, moderated only lightly for spam and a very particular kind of trolling. To run a "comments of the week" requires curation and thoughtfulness. I am sure many, if not all, will disagree with my choices. Hopefully at least articles like this continue to be interesting. And if not, go watch that cat video again.

Image credit: Astrophysics Pro, via http://astrophysics.pro/experiments/photoelectric-effect/.

From Anonymous Coward on the wave nature of light: "And then just a little shy of a hundred years later, Albert Einstein comes along and shows how light actually does have particle-like properties too!"

Quantum mechanics gets weirder and weirder the more we learn about it. The fault is not with nature, but rather with our intuitions, and the unfamiliarity we have with the quantum rules that govern actual reality at a more fundamental, small-scale.

A theoretical prediction of what the wave-like pattern of light would look like around a spherical, opaque object. The bright spot in the middle was the absurdity that led many to discount the wave theory. Image credit: Robert Vanderbei.

And finally, from Michael Hutson on the Spot of Arago: "Re. the Arago Spot: this is why a simple occultation disc cannot be used for imaging exoplanets. Rather, a disk is used that has a special scalloped edge calculated to counteract the diffraction"

There are two ways to measure exoplanets accurately. You are correct: a simple disk would block out a large fraction of the light, but would create optical diffraction/interference patterns that would make direct planet imaging... difficult, if not impossible. You can, at best, get down to a contrast of 10^6-to-1, where you can image planets a million times fainter than the star they orbit. A better-designed coronagraph can get that down to about 10^8-to-1, where the scalloped edges help much more. But the best design of all is a free-flying starshade.

Image credit: Amy S. Lo et al. (2010), from the Starshade Technology Development Astro2010 Technology Development White Paper.

This gets a 10^10-to-1 ratio, allowing direct exoplanet imaging to a far better accuracy and resolution and sensitivity compared to any other means/method so far. The only problems are cost and navigation; the starshade would have to be physically moved many tens of thousands of kilometers from the telescope to get the appropriate alignment. Optics, even 330 years after Newton, is still a challenging pursuit.

Thanks for joining us this week, and looking forward to a fabulous week to come!

More like this

LOL! Pure cat!

Regarding the claim that Feynman registered under a pseudonym for Chapel Hill, I had never heard that from sources familiar with the conference. I checked with the historian who edited the conference proceedings and he confirmed that wasn't true; Feynman registered as himself for Chapel Hill. It was another conference 6 years later on The Nature of Time where Feynman used a pseudonym.
-Paul Halpern

"He has not threatened anyone; he has not link-spammed anyone; he has not promoted his own personal pet theory ad nauseum"

He has spammed the same exact claim again and again, though, so your claim there is bullshit, Ethan.

You know, where he claims your words talk about god when they don't and insist that you're saying science can't prove the existence of god when you don't.

And 2400 posts later, he's still crapping over the site and making it pointless.

Most likely because you're making an ad impression from it. Fuck learning or teaching. Money.

"The geophysical definition doesn’t require a teleporter/transporter either, no more than the IAU one does"

And I never said it wanted a teleporter. Care you read what I wrote after you quote it?

"as long as you could look close enough to determine the composition roughly and determine the size in enough detail to SEE it is round.”

You know, like through a telescope. Through which you can look closely at astronomical objects.

But why am I surprised you aren't reading, eh?

The geophysical definition requires that you be able to see it is round and heavy. That's a whole fucking heap harder than seeing it exists and has no apparent companion body.

Ethan,

Thank you. It’s encouraging to see that you read the comments.

John

Ethan,
In regards to anthropogenic global warming, No, the science really isn't actually settled at all (except in the minds of certain people).

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alar…

For one thing, many educated people who should know better confuse the predictions of computer MODELS with measurable reality. When you hear about how horrible things are with climate change, you have yet to hear an actual measureable amount humans contribute to the actual warming (or cooling) of the world, and by measureable amount, I don't mean a superlative or colorful adjective. If you look at records of actual climatic events like hurricanes, the number has actually decreased statistically in the last fifty years, as any insurance actuarial can tell you, and Al Gore is still holding on to his very expensive beach front property (in my very own home town), despite the rising oceans he likes to pontificate about.

http://www.sgvtribune.com/opinion/20130822/if-oceans-rising-why-is-al-g…

Words like 'catastrophic' are thrown around...with nothing really observed to demonstrate this. We know for a fact that in the past the ppm of CO2 were much much higher...and yet the climate did not suffer a 'run away' greenhouse effect that is so direly warned about, so I don't think using a theory that predicts something that could happen is likely when it would have already have happened on our own planet if it had been possible, and would have left attendant evidence of it having happened. You are welcome to show your charts about radiative forcing...and I can show a chart about how more than just a few computer models based on such modeled radiative gas 'forcings' hold up against actual measurement.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/still-epic-fail-73-climate-models-v…

It would also be wise to check up on the propagation error bars on such predictive models (a la Hansen), you might be surprised if you are actually interested in GCMs.

https://youtu.be/THg6vGGRpvA

The major computer models suck at climatic prediction, even when hand tuned. If you know of one particular computer model that you think is actually predictive, please post it so that I can research it for myself, just be sure your chosen model isn't already one of those compared against balloon and satellite measurements in Dr. Spencer's link.

Nah, it's ridiculous. After all you've misrepresented him and he's stayed silent, clearly he likes the traffic, and screw the content.

And it was only after you reposted the same shit time and time again without any care that it hadn't worked and tried some other argument that I told Ethan to kick your pathetic ass out, because the problem isn't I disagree with you, but that you're spamming the same debunked bullshit and lies and ensuring that actual valid visitors get right royally honked off unless you're allowed to "win" by default.

So rather than get upset I've decided not to give a shit about the content either, and denier can go and likewise misrepresent what ethan says and I'll just quietly disagree with the idiot, 'cos why the fuck should I care, hmm?

I have not misrepresented what Ethan posted. I have used what He posted to corroborate my claim.

Thank you Ethan for the clarification about your comment on "apparent" length contraction. " Is that contraction physically real? We don't think so." Please inform the SR theory community. Thanks.

Inform them of what, mooney? In the reference frame of the object itself, it's not moving, and SR says it's round (if it is a sphere), but in a reference frame of something moving faster, the case you came here complaining about, it's not the reference frame of the object and it is shortened.

"I have not misrepresented what Ethan posted."

Yes you have, teabaggie. and you did it again right there. "He posted to corroborate my claim." is not what he said.

But you're a fucking moron and habitual liar, teabaggie.

"... . “He posted to corroborate my claim.” is not what he said."

Nor did I say that he said anything to corroborate my claim. I have quoted what Ethan posted to corroborate my claim.

The Wikipedia article on the sticky bead argument says so, and some link tracing on the sources in that article leads to this paper:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1610.08803

which says on page 20-21:

Even more influential was the conference in 1957 at Chapel Hill, North Carolina, organized by
Cecile DeWitt-Morette and Bryce DeWitt [68]. Later, several participants stated that their most vivid recollection was of Herman Bondi, actively illustrating how his changing quadrupole moment would generate gravitational waves when he exercised waving his two dumbbells. Another notable highlight was the so-called “sticky bead argument”. Apparently it was independently due to Bondi
and Richard Feynman (who registered under the pseudonym “Mr. Smith”, and had arrived a
day late, missing Bondi’s presentation)…

"Nor did I say that he said anything to corroborate my claim"

Ah, teabaggie, lying your ass off again. Got any actual non-lies, then you might be believed, jkeyes1000.

"... jkeyes1000"

"... He is also not the person you accuse him of being, which I strongly against anyone doing. You are allowed to comment anonymously/pseudonymously here, and he is, too. His actual name is John, but he is not the John you accuse him of being. Nor should you be accusing anyone of being someone in particular, as you would not like me to say whether someone was right or not if they guessed at who you are ..."

Ah, teabaggie, still lying your ass off, eh?

Given your atrocious record with quoting others, you're going to have to do more than just proclaim a thing for it to be believed.

You're a fucking creationist moron called john keyes 1000 and the fact you are PROUD that you've never made any claims about yourself (or, as eric found out, about your own thoughts or arguments, always relying on others) merely shows that no information ethan has can say who you are, because your email address doesn't have to be "jkeyes1000".

So, no, ethan can make the claim that your email is not "jkeyes1000", but that doesn't mean you're not jkeyes1000, the assclown who got their anus ripped anew by Brian Dalton when you tried the same apologist bullshit with him.

It's sure as shit my email address isn't my real name. There's no mandatory "RealID" scheme.

And you are PROUD never to have released any actual claims, so all information has to be supported by evidence.

Your actions prove you're jkeyes100. Your email doesn't prove you are not.

Not that ethan has shown much capability of reading what's written, mind. A bit like denier in that regard.

"... You’re a fucking creationist moron called john keyes 1000"

“… He is also not the person you accuse him of being, which I strongly against anyone doing. You are allowed to comment anonymously/pseudonymously here, and he is, too. His actual name is John, but he is not the John you accuse him of being. Nor should you be accusing anyone of being someone in particular, as you would not like me to say whether someone was right or not if they guessed at who you are …”

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/12/comments-of-the-week…

And you're a fucking lying asshole, teabaggie.

Ethan doesn't know who you are, only your email address. And that's not your name. A creotard like you lies like fishes swim, and for the same reason: without lying you don't exist, you lose your identity.

So fake email address.

How do I know this? EVIDENCE, FUCKER!

What ethan says is worthless because he doesn't know.

“… What ethan says is worthless because he doesn’t know.”

I also disagree with you about that.

And another slice of evidence.

"...if they guessed at who you are …”

indicating I guessed right. Otherwise why say "if they guessed who you are"? If I'd guessed wrong, he would have said "If they claimed you were someone else".

"“… What ethan says is worthless because he doesn’t know.”

I also disagree with you about that."

But since you're a lying assclown, teabaggie, and your ego wants to hide your idiocy behind a fake new personae, you WANT everyone to believe ethan is saying you're not jkeyes1000.

But you ask like that creotard apologist, use the same "argument", and ethan even indicates that I am right without actually being able to say so. But at the very least he has no avenue to know your actual identity, and you have been 100% unable to show that he does.

Indeed you have avoided even trying to say he has!

So, teabaggie, you were massive about evidence. I have it, and I've shown it. You have none.

I guess you're saying "with or without evidence, you're right", eh?

"... he has no avenue to know your actual identity ..."

You are also mistaken about that.

http://balticon.org/wp50/whos-coming/index/

"... I guess you’re saying “with or without evidence, you’re right”, eh?"

No. I am not stupid enough to say anything so foolish.

"“… he has no avenue to know your actual identity …”

You are also mistaken about that."

But you're a habitual liar, teabaggie, and your link does not support your assertion. He could contract a detective to track you down and find out your real identity, but that in no practical sense means he has evidence of who you are.

Only that you claim to be John from Baltimore (which you previously claimed never to have given any personal information, either a lie (again), or an admission that you're not a John from Baltimore), and jkeyes1000 is John in Baltimore, your arguments are jkeyes1000's arguments and you're a christian apologist trying to insist that god can't be investigated by science like jkeyes1000.

So, there's a shitload of evidence you're jkeyes1000 and no evidence other than your lying mouth that you're not.

"I am not stupid enough to say anything so foolish."

Clearly you were, teabaggie. And its not the dumbest thing you've said, either.

Remember, teabaggie, science can't be used to prove you're not jkeyes1000 because as you keep bleating on about, it's incomplete and its basis is limited.

"“… I guess you’re saying “with or without evidence, you’re right”, eh?”

No. I am not stupid enough to say anything so foolish."

So you have no evidence for your claims, then, teabaggie.

Something you were dead set on being something faithiest and wrong.

ROFL!

We know for a fact that in the past the ppm of CO2 were much much higher…and yet the climate did not suffer a ‘run away’ greenhouse effect that is so direly warned about

What? It did runaway, just not to the point of extinguishing life on Earth. During the late cretaceous, there were no ice caps or ice anywhere on Earth except for the highest mountains. Sea levels were around 200m higher. The polar region land masses were covered in glossopteris ferns, which in fact remained the case up until about 35 million years ago (so well after the dinosaur extinction event). That seems to me a pretty massive change from today's climate.

Sure, life on Earth will almost certainly not have a problem continuing. We probably aren't headed towards becoming Venus. OTOH, the climate we might get from even a little 'runaway' won't be the sort of climate that humans and the sort of animals and plants we enjoy and rely upon are very well adapted to living in. Those glossopteris ferns? They're now extinct. They were eliminated by life forms more suitably adapted to the relatively 'minor' climate changes that occurred between the late cretaceous and today. It doesn't take 10s or 100s of degrees of average temperature change to cause extinction events; a few degrees will do.

We know for a fact that in the past the ppm of CO2 were much much higher…and yet the climate did not suffer a ‘run away’ greenhouse effect…

Yeah. But in the distant past life was very different, and well adapted to 30°C+ temperatures from the equator to the poles. Many of the species extant in the Cretaceous and Eocene are extinct today, supplanted by other life forms better adapted to the cooler temperatures that characterise the late Holocene. There is one species in particular that didn’t exist in those earlier epochs of geological history that exists today, known by the binomial name Homo sapiens. While a return to the climactic conditions of the Eocene probably won’t be enough to cause that particular species to go extinct completely, it will likely cause a massive population die off as plenty of the species it depends on for survival will not easily survive such conditions. Agriculture as we do it today will probably not be possible under that kind of climate.

Ethan, regarding your reply to my length contraction challenge above... So the distance between stars depends on the speed of the traveler (no objective cosmos independent of frame of reference), but spherical bodies in space don’t flatten out (contract in diameter) depending on speed of the observing point of view. (“We don’t think so” anyway.) So what is the difference here? Please explain. Also explain how stars become nearer to each other the faster the observer moves. That would be a neat trick for massive stars with no force applied to them in the “real cosmos.” Ps: I have moved this comment from the old thread on that argument (off stated post subject) to here.

"Yeah. But in the distant past life was very different, "

Not to mention a few percent cooler.

A doubling of CO2 is a few watts per square meter in forcings, even with all the feedbacks. One percent of the Sun's output is bigger than that.

"but spherical bodies in space don’t flatten out "

Because that spherical body is not the one moving very fast toward itself.

About eight posts with the usual mix of good-bad-indifferent.

There was a time, BW, when there would have been four or five times as many comments on this interesting range of topics.

Oh, for the good old days.

Anonymous Coward,
The clear point was, if there wasn't a run away process of greenhouse warming in the past (with much higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere), why would there be a run away process in the atmosphere NOW, with much lower concentrations of CO2? The record is also pretty clear that CO2 is never leading historical temperature change, it follows it... often by hundreds of years. If you watch the link provided about climate computer modeling you can also see how a particular model failure can be statistically discerned from random data error, and how propagation error bars quickly overtake the CO2 'forcing' signal being looked for.
.
As to your statements about agriculture....You must not know very much about how plants grow. CO2 is literally plant food.
.
http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm
.
Farmers would appear to know more about the effects of carbon dioxide than many so called climate scientists.
Increasing CO2 increases plant growth, so much in fact that many man made green houses actually artificially increase CO2 to speed plant growth in well over 1000ppm. The added CO2 has actually been beneficial to crop yields, not detrimental. If the CO2 ppm goes below 150 ppm, plants actually begin to starve.
.
A colder climate also means a narrower latitude of land that can sustain agriculture, which cuts into crop yields in yet another direction as well. Historically, humans have flourished in warmer climate periods which allowed longer growing seasons, not colder ones.

“…and your link does not support your assertion …”

If I am from Baltimore MD, then the link I provided shows that Ethan was, in fact, able to know my actual identity, which shows that you are mistaken.

If I am not from Baltimore, MD then I have not provided any personal information (if that is what you consider personal information, rather than age, sex, email address, home address, etc.) which shows that you are mistaken.

You are the one who has asserted that I am someone else. The burden of proof lies on you, not me. You have failed to provide evidence that the two people are the same.

Ethan knows what he is talking about. You do not.

You have failed again

“So you have no evidence for your claims …”

You are the one who has asserted that I am someone else. The burden of proof lies on you, not me.

You have not yet provided evidence to support your claims.

Merely more coarse language.

“… science can’t be used to prove you’re not jkeyes1000 …”

You are the one who has asserted that I am someone else. The burden of proof lies on you, not me.

You have not provided evidence to support your claims.

Again.

“… you’re a christian apologist trying to insist that god can’t be investigated by science …”

You have no evidence to support your claim that I am a Christian, or a member of any religion.

As you have no evidence that I am a Christian, you also have no evidence that I am a Christian Apologist.

I have not claimed that god can’t be investigated by science. What I have pointed out is that Science is unable to prove that God exists. Even you should be able to distinguish between the different positions.

You are mistaken on all three points.

“…no evidence other than your lying mouth that you’re not …”

You remain mistaken.

“…His actual name is John, but he is not the John you accuse him of being. Nor should you be accusing anyone of being someone in particular, as you would not like me to say whether someone was right or not if they guessed at who you are …”
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/12/comments-of-the-week…

Not, of course, that mere facts will get you to change your opinion.

"with much lower concentrations of CO2?"

Ah, so you are a retard that thinks that CO2 cannot go up when we burn hydrocarbon fossilised deposit.

"The record is also pretty clear that CO2 is never leading historical temperature change, it follows it"

Yes, but non morons know that is not the case. PETM. And we also know WHY that trend is seen some of the time. And those reasons do not insist that it must happen every time.

Kiffed, do you see any 800-year-old temperature spike of about 6C globally to explain the hike in today's CO2 if temperatures only rose BEFORE CO2 rose?

"“So you have no evidence for your claims …”

You are the one who has asserted that I am someone else. "

So you do not assert you are not, then, teabaggie. And since ethan has shown no evidence either, he either is also claiming without evidence and you should be telling him off, or he's not making any assertion either.

So I am right. And nobody disagrees.

"“…no evidence other than your lying mouth that you’re not …”

You remain mistaken."

Nope,y you remain wrong and moronic, teabaggie. There is no evidence there for the claim you are not jkeyes1000, and there is plenty of evidence that you are.

And you#re not even making any assertion here, so your whinge is, as always, empty and void of intelligence.

So you are jkeyes1000. All the evidence points to it, no evidence against it, and nobody asserting anything different.

"You must not know very much about how plants grow. CO2 is literally plant food."

And you are clueless about what plant food is, kiffed. Just because some denier blog-roll arsehole claimed to you that CO2 is a plant food does not mean you know about agriculture, dumbass.

CO2 is literally NOT plant food.

Just like O2 is not human food.

You dumb shit.

"You are the one who has asserted that I am someone else. ”

No, I;m asserting you are jkeyes1000, the christian retard from the same place with the same name and the same argument and the same failure.

YOU are the one asserting you are not.

For which you have no evidence and even bask in that you have given none.

And I have supplied the evidence.

You fail again, teabaggie.

"And I have supplied the evidence."

... chuckling ... You have provided nothing except empty claims and unsupported assertions. You do have a rich fantasy life, but no evidence.

"... I;m asserting you are jkeyes1000 ..."

... smiling ... Yes, you have made that assertion, and without any evidence to support it. You are the one who has asserted that I am this someone else. The burden of proof lies on you, not me.

You have not provided evidence to support your claims.

Again.

Ah yes, along with your institution giggling, you have your insanity grin.

And it, too, is no evidence you are right or I am wrong.

I have evidence, and it exists, and I have given it, but you're the lying asshole jkeyes1000 and nobody is making any claims otherwise.

You have again provided no evidence of your claim, and they are refuted by evidence supplied, teabaggie.

"... you’re the lying asshole jkeyes1000 "

Not, of course, that mere facts will get you to change your opinion.

"I have evidence, and it exists, and I have given it ..."

Additional truth claims evidence.

"Not, of course, that mere facts"

Where are the facts, teabaggie? There are no facts there. Just claims made without evidence.

Sorry, teabaggie, you're fucked.

Again.

"Additional truth claims evidence."

Yes, they do. Where's your evidence, teabaggie? Or are you making false claims?

"Yes, they do"

Do what? Serve as your alternative to evidence?

"Do what?"

Yes.

... chuckling again ... Been reduced to nonsense postings, eh?

No news there.

Yeah, I did notice you're back to nonsense, teabaggie. Bad form. And when it's not nonsense, it's nonsensical. I see you keep up the facade in public like a trooper.

Makes you easier to deal with, though, when you're nonsensical.

… enjoying the entertainment … Still nothing to support your claim that I'm someone else.

Not that you were ever serious about that claim. It was merely a tool to attack.

No news there.

"… enjoying the entertainment … "

Oh, really? Is there jelly and ice cream too at some invalid's birthday for you. It's nice that they treat the clinically insane so nicely.

Good for them!

"No news there."

Yeah, everyone knows you don't see evidence when it's against you. It's a pitiful double standard you have there, teabaggie, but we're working out how to deal with your inabilities here.

Poor old teabaggie aka jkeyes1000. Still trying to hide behind claims I'm wrong with "I've made no assertion!!!!" and then trying to pretend that evidence was never supplied in #31.

But, hey, at least the inmates get entertainment at your assylum!

"Yeah, everyone knows you don’t see evidence ..."

Present some and we'll take a look.

As if THAT will ever happen.

"Present some and we’ll take a look."

Yup, you did. Then you went batshit crazy and started giggling insanely again.

Same ol' teabaggie, sorry to say.

And still nothing in evidence that you're someone else from you, teabaggie.

So sad.

“… I;m asserting you are jkeyes1000 …”

… smiling … Yes, you have made that assertion, and without any evidence to support it. You are the one who has asserted that I am this someone else. The burden of proof lies on you, not me.

You have not provided evidence to support your claims.

Again.

"… smiling … "

Yes, like I said, insane grinning when you lose is your metier, tebaggie.

"Yes, you have made that assertion"

Indeed I have. And you have not made any assertion you are not, tebaggie.

You are the one who has asserted that I am someone else. The burden of proof lies on you, not me.

You have not provided evidence to support your claims.

Again.

"You are the one who has asserted that I am this someone else"

Once again you are mistaken, teabaggie. I've not said you are "this other person". I've said you are jkeyes1000, the christian retard who gets his ass handed to him every time he tries to be "smart". Or as Homer puts it smrt.

“… I’ve said you are jkeyes1000 ”

Not, of course, that mere facts will get you to change your opinion.

"You are the one who has asserted that I am someone else"

No I haven't, retard! And you have admitted you have never made a claim otherwise!

@ #65 “… I’ve said you are jkeyes1000 ”

@ #67 "No I haven’t .."

Not, of course, that mere facts will get you to change your opinion.

“… I’ve said you are jkeyes1000 ”

Yup, because you are and have never denied it, teabaggie.

"Not, of course, that mere facts "

Hey, if you go and provide some facts, I'll look at it and if they are convincing evidence you are not jkeyes1000, I will change it.

But so far all you've done is provide no evidence and no actual claim to the contrary to my position. Just evidence and claim-free complaints.

So sad, teabaggie.

Must be horrible when you can't manage to parade under a different pseudonym and hide your past failures like a cat hides its doings under litter...

"... have never denied it ..."

You are the one who has asserted that I am someone else. The burden of proof lies on you, not me.

You have not provided evidence to support your claims.

Still.

"@ #65 “… I’ve said you are jkeyes1000 ”

@ #67 “No I haven’t ..”"

Yes, your problem is what here, teabag?

You can't handle two different claims from you being answered in different posts?

Must be why you get your arse handed to you so easily everywhere you go and try to be smart.

Poor teabaggie.

So clueless, so incapable of stopping digging that deep, derp hole...

... chuckling ... and the one fact you can't change

Not, of course, that mere facts will get you to change your opinion.

"“… have never denied it …”

You are the one ....[ followed by a continued non denial of the outing of your name as jkeyes]"

You certainly take a long time to agree that you have never denied it, teabaggie. All apparently so as yo make it my fault you haven't managed to avoid the truth of it.

So sad. I hope someone left you ice cream before they bring you your medicine.

"… chuckling … and the one fact you can’t change"

Well, there's many facts I can't change. One seems to be to get you to actually post a fact contrary to my evidence.

Sad.

You are the one who has asserted that I am someone else. The burden of proof lies on you, not me.

You have not provided evidence to support your claims.

You've failed again.

"You are the one who has asserted that I am someone else."

Well, you're not me. So you are someone else. Are you demanding evidence we are two different people now?!?!?!?

Ask the nurse for your medication, teabaggie. Your insanity is escalating!

"Well, there’s many facts I can’t change ..."

And this is another, “…His actual name is John, but he is not the John you accuse him of being. Nor should you be accusing anyone of being someone in particular, as you would not like me to say whether someone was right or not if they guessed at who you are …”
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/12/comments-of-the-week…

Not, of course, that mere facts will get you to change your opinion.

"And this is another,..."

Sorry, teabaggie, that is not a fact. It's a quote from someone else.

Please try to find something, and it should CERTAINLY be your own identity that you don't have to go to someone else and ask them what the answer is.

Even if your medication for your mental issues scrambles your mind so badly, if you still have to ask someone else who you are, the medication is either not working or making it worse.

Oh dear, me, though, teabaggie finds, as long as it is in his favour, hearsay is fact.

At least they don't let mental patients on jury duty....

" It’s a quote from someone else"

You even got the quote wrong. You're wrong again.

Not, of course, that mere facts will get you to change your opinion.

"” It’s a quote from someone else”

You even got the quote wrong."

Yet again, you are wrong, teabaggie.

So sad, all this flailing around because you've been outed and can't bring yourself to lie about this, so you rely on hearsay instead of evidence, because it comes from someone else, not you, therefore you feel "absolved" from the sin of lying.

Just let ethan go to hell!

You christian fundies are worse than isis!

” It’s a quote from someone else”

You even got the quote wrong. You’re wrong again.

"Just let ethan go to hell!"

A poor choice of words.

"A poor choice of words."

Better than you wanting him in hell. Doubly so since, unlike you, I don't think hell even exists, and lying won't get you in one if it existed.

But retards like you believe that sort of shit so badly you will do ANYTHING other than lie. But someone else, even ethan...? Well, he's just not a believer like you, so what's the loss, eh?

The self-justification you religious nutjobs have is how some go behead someone on video and others shoot dead doctors saving lives.

"” It’s a quote from someone else”

You even got the quote wrong"

Bad stutter you have there, teabaggie.

Follow-up on my comment #30 on length contraction between stars: Ethan, you said, " If you're in the spacecraft and moving towards a star 4 light years away, but you're doing it at 88% the speed of light, then yes: the star will be only 2 light years from you, and you will reach it in a little over two and a quarter years."
First, you haven't answered how length contracted body diameters...flat stars and planets... are not physically real (just apparent) but the distances between stars does actually contract **for** a high speed traveler and is also physically "real."

In the "real world" Alpha Centauri is 4.4 light years away. This obviously means that it takes light 4.4 years to travel the distance to Earth. We all know that nothing can travel faster than light, so it is false (and absurd) to claim that a traveler going 88% of light speed can go the 4.4 light years of distance in two plus years, twice as fast as light!!
This falsehood can not be explained away by the slow-ticking clock on the traveler's ship. This is the most blatantly absurd falsehood propagated by SR theory... that and flat stars and planets. It would be worth your time I think for you to clear that up for everyone interested in SR. Thanks.

"First, you haven’t answered how length contracted body diameters"

First, "diameter" is only valid for spheres, and if it's not a sphere, there's not one diameter.

"This obviously means that it takes light 4.4 years to travel the distance to Earth. "

Secondly, no. It takes 4.4 years for light to travel for an observer at rest wrt the two bodies (or close enough for the accuracy you want in the time taken). But to the light itself, no time passes in that 4.4 light year trip.

"In the “real world”"

Third, please define "real world".

Wow,
You are doing a fine job of poisoning the well. Notice how you are utterly dominating all discussion? Have you noticed the more you post the fewer and fewer posts other people make? People don't really like being overwhelmed by a foul mouthed braggart. As for your statement about CO2, did you even check out the link, or do you just like listening to yourself insult people? Higher levels of CO2 do stimulate plant growth considerably, enough so that it is commercially viable to pump more CO2 into greenhouses to increase crop yields and reduce growing time.

"Notice how you are utterly dominating all discussion?"

Ah, I see, kiffed, you hate anyone but you dominating all discussion.

Not my problem.

Hell, it's not even first world problems.

And a VERY strange definition of "poisoning the well" by the way. I take it you heard a smarter person use the phrase and you thought you'd use it as soon as you could fire up your browser.

Ask that smarter person (or whatever animal it was, there's probably a fair few molluscs smarter than you) to explain what the phrase means.

" As for your statement about CO2,"

What about it, kiffed? It's still not plant food, only retards who parrot what they hear on denier blogrolls still claim it.

"Better than you wanting him in hell. ..."

The only post associating Ethan with hell was @ #81 "Just let ethan go to hell!"
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/12/comments-of-the-week…

CFT,

"You are doing a fine job of poisoning the well.."
As he has nothing valuable to contribute, he attacks other people.

" As for your statement about CO2, did you even check out the link, or do you just like listening to yourself insult people? ."
To judge from his posts, he prefers to insult people.

The good news is that he's nothing but background noise.

"Bad stutter you have there ..."

You still got the quote wrong.

Not that you will permit mere facts will influence your behavior.

@ Michael Mooney

The example Ethan gave and that you are having trouble with is same one as with muons. It takes 4 years HERE ON EARTH for the light to reach Alpha Centauri, or 4 years pass on earth while light travels to alpha centauri, if that formulation works better. But like Wow said.. for light no time passes.. or 2 years pass for someone moving at 88% speed of light. And likewise he will measure that he traveled less than what it looked from earth. That's the whole point of SR!

"This falsehood can not be explained away by the slow-ticking clock on the traveler’s ship. This is the most blatantly absurd falsehood propagated by SR theory…"

no.. not falsehood, just that you don't seem willing to accept it even after 30+ years of studying it.

In the “real world” Alpha Centauri is 4.4 light years away. This obviously means that it takes light 4.4 years to travel the distance to Earth. We all know that nothing can travel faster than light, so it is false (and absurd) to claim that a traveler going 88% of light speed can go the 4.4 light years of distance in two plus years, twice as fast as light!!
This falsehood can not be explained away by the slow-ticking clock on the traveler’s ship. This is the most blatantly absurd falsehood propagated by SR theory

Tell us again how you've studied relativity for years.

"“Better than you wanting him in hell. …”

The only post associating Ethan with hell was @ #81 “

Where I pointed out you wanted him to go to hell.

Oh dear, teabaggie? Common English is beyond you, isn't it.

"“Bad stutter you have there …”

You still got the quote wrong."

Your stutter is getting worse, tebaggie. Nervous tic?

"As he has nothing valuable to contribute,"

Says the retard trying to hide their empty nonsense and inability to know who they are without asking someone else....

And having contributed nothing except a thousand plus posts of bollocks..!

Sinisa, before my reply is lost in the comment domination of personal bickering, as above: A scientist must decide whether, as Einstein said, there is no objective world independent of observation and measurement... all relative to frame of reference... or whether there is an "real" objective cosmos with intrinsic existence prior to and independent of all observation (theoretical or otherwise.) I am a lifelong student of this issue, and "real physics" is a huge body of empirical knowledge (study epistemology for background) which confirms the fact that gravity forms stars and planets into near spheres (mostly slightly oblate spheroids.) None of that real world physics depends on how fast a theoretical frame of reference is approaching or from what direction. I'm out of time for now. I hope you will respond seriously as a scientist without reference to personal insults. No one here knows me.

" for background) which confirms the fact that gravity forms stars and planets into near spheres "

WRONG. Even you know that:

"(mostly slightly oblate spheroids.) "

And again, it's only spherical in its own frame of reference, where its velocity is zero.

You really don't know a thing, do you, mooney. But you know you hate the science.

"None of that real world physics "

Define real world physics. You still haven't, have you.

"Where I pointed out you wanted him to go to hell."

That is a false statement you knew was false when you posted it.

"Your stutter is getting worse,..."

You still got the quote wrong.

"“Where I pointed out you wanted him to go to hell.”

That is a false statement "

What is?

You need to fill in words to make meaning. Try it one day.

"You still got the quote wrong."

Now THAT is a false statement!

"... You still haven’t, have you."

Rather like someone who never provides evidence to support the “… I’ve said you are jkeyes1000 ” accusation.

“Better than you wanting him in hell. …”

The only post associating Ethan with going to hell was @ #81 “Just let ethan go to hell!”

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/12/comments-of-the-week…

"Rather like someone who never provides evidence to support the “… I’ve said you are jkeyes1000 ” accusation."

Whoah, who is that guy, teabaggie. Certainly ain't me.

"“Better than you wanting him in hell. …”

The only post associating "

Your stutter is back again. That's a REALLY bad nervous tic you have there, teabaggie.

Your medication interfering with that too?

"Your stutter is back again. ..."

The only post associating Ethan with going to hell was @ #81 “Just let ethan go to hell!”

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/12/comments-of-the-week…

"“Your stutter is back again. …”

The only post associating "

Your stutter again, teabaggie.

“Your stutter again. …”

The only post associating Ethan with going to hell was @ #81 “Just let ethan go to hell!”

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/12/comments-of-the-week…

"“Your stutter again. …”

The only post associating"

Stutter again, teabaggie. Your nerves must be shattered.

“Stutter again …”

The post associating Ethan with going to hell was @ #81 “Just let ethan go to hell!”

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/12/comments-of-the-week…

"The post associating Ethan with going to hell was "

Yours, teabaggie.

“Yours …”

The post associating Ethan with going to hell was @ #81 “Just let ethan go to hell!”

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/12/comments-of-the-week…

"The post associating Ethan with going to hell was"

yours, still, teabaggie.

“yours, stil…”

The post associating Ethan with going to hell was @ #81 “Just let ethan go to hell!”

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/12/comments-of-the-week…

"The post associating "

Was yours, teabaggie.

“Was yours l…”

The post associating Ethan with going to hell was @ #81 “Just let ethan go to hell!”

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/12/comments-of-the-week…

"The post associating Ethan"

Was yours, teabag.

“Was yours…”

The post associating Ethan with going to hell was @ #81 “Just let ethan go to hell!”
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/12/comments-of-the-week…

"The post associating "

Yup, still yours, teabaggie.

“Yup, still…”

The post associating Ethan with going to hell was @ #81 “Just let ethan go to hell!”
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/12/comments-of-the-week…

"Ethan with going to hell"

Was still you, tebaggie.

“Was still…”

The post associating Ethan with going to hell was @ #81 “Just let ethan go to hell!”
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/12/comments-of-the-week…

"The post associating"

Was still you, teabaggie.

“Was still…”
The post associating Ethan with going to hell was @ #81 “Just let ethan go to hell!”
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/12/comments-of-the-week…

"“Was still…”
The post associating Ethan"

Still yours, teabaggie.

“Still yours…”

The post associating Ethan with going to hell was @ #81 “Just let ethan go to hell!”
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/12/comments-of-the-week…

"The post associating Ethan with going to hell "

Still yours, teabaggie.

“... Still yours,…”
The post associating Ethan with going to hell was @ #81 “Just let ethan go to hell!”
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/12/comments-of-the-week…

" March 14, 2017

“… Still yours,…”
The post associating"

Still yours, teabaggie.

The post associating Ethan with going to hell was @ #81 “Just let ethan go to hell!”
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/12/comments-of-the-week…

"The post associating Ethan with going to hell "

Was yours, still, tebaggie.

"was yours ..."

The post associating Ethan with going to hell was @ #81 “Just let ethan go to hell!”
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/12/comments-of-the-week…

"“was yours …”

The post associating Ethan with going to hell was"

Still you, teabaggie.

“Still you, ...”
The post associating Ethan with going to hell was @ #81 “Just let ethan go to hell!”
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/12/comments-of-the-week…

"“Still you, …”
The post associating Ethan with going to hell was"

Still yours, teabaggie.

“... yours…”
The post associating Ethan with going to hell was @ #81 “Just let ethan go to hell!”
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/12/comments-of-the-week…

"“… yours…”
The post associating Ethan with going to hell was"

Yours, teabaggie.

“Yours …”
The post associating Ethan with going to hell was @ #81 “Just let ethan go to hell!”
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/12/comments-of-the-week…

"“Yours …”
The post associating Ethan with going to hell was "

Yup, yours, teabaggie.

“Yup …”

The post associating Ethan with going to hell was @ #81 “Just let ethan go to hell!”
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/12/comments-of-the-week…

"“Yup …”

The post associating Ethan with going to hell was"

Yours, teabaggie.

#81 The post associating Ethan with going to hell was @ #81 “Just let ethan go to hell!”

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/12/comments-of-the-week…

" The post associating Ethan with going to hell was"

Yours, teabaggie.

"Yours..."

#81, The post associating Ethan with going to hell was @ #81 “Just let ethan go to hell!”

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/12/comments-of-the-week…

"The post associating Ethan with going to hell was"

Still yours, teabaggie.

#81 is the post associating Ethan with going to hell “Just let ethan go to hell!”

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/12/comments-of-the-week…

"the post associating Ethan with going to hell"

Was yours, teabaggie.

"Was yours ..."

#81 is the post associating Ethan with going to hell “Just let ethan go to hell!”

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/12/comments-of-the-week…

"“Was yours …”
the post associating Ethan with going to hell "

Was yours, teabaggie.

“Was yours …” #81 is the post associating Ethan with going to hell “Just let ethan go to hell!”

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/12/comments-of-the-week…

Yours, teabaggie " is the post associating Ethan with going to hell “Just let ethan go to hell!”

“... the post associating Ethan with going to hell …” #81 is the post associating Ethan with going to hell “Just let ethan go to hell!”

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/12/comments-of-the-week…

“… the post associating Ethan with going to hell …”

is yours, teabaggie.

“… is yours …”

#81 is the post associating Ethan with going to hell “Just let ethan go to hell!”

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/12/comments-of-the-week…

"the post associating Ethan with going to hell "

is yours, teabaggie.

“… tis yours…”

#81 is the post associating Ethan with going to hell “Just let ethan go to hell!”
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/12/comments-of-the-week…

"associating Ethan with going to hell"

Is you, teabaggie.

“… Is you,…”

#81 is the post associating Ethan with going to hell “Just let ethan go to hell!”
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/12/comments-of-the-week…

" post associating Ethan with going to hell"

Was from you, teabaggie.

“Was from you …” #81 is the post associating Ethan with going to hell “Just let ethan go to hell!”

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/12/comments-of-the-week…

"associating Ethan with going to hell "

Is you, teabaggie.

“… Is you…” #81 is the post associating Ethan with going to hell “Just let ethan go to hell!”

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/12/comments-of-the-week…

"associating Ethan with going to hell "

Was you, teabaggie.

“… Was you…” #81 is the post associating Ethan with going to hell “Just let ethan go to hell!”
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/12/comments-of-the-week…

"“… Was you…” "

Yes, it was you, teabaggie.

“… Yes…” #81 is the post associating Ethan with going to hell “Just let ethan go to hell!”
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/12/comments-of-the-week…

"associating Ethan with going to hell"

You, teabaggie.

“… You…” #81 is the post associating Ethan with going to hell “Just let ethan go to hell!”
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/12/comments-of-the-week…

@ Michael M

Let me first address your last point, about responding seriously as a scientist without reference to personal insults. IMO I was/am doing that all along. If you feel there is a personal insult to you in any of my comments, please quote which part, since I have maid no attempt to insult you and being accused of it is frankly disturbing.

Now let's go back to SR.

"or whether there is an “real” objective cosmos with intrinsic existence prior to and independent of all observation (theoretical or otherwise.)"

- this IMO has NOTHING to do with SR. This has to do with QM, it has to do philosophy of science and other things. It is a scientific subject and a valid topic of debate. But how you choose to explain to yourself different aspects of being has NOTHING to do with SR. In fact the math (as you know) of SR is so simple (unlike GR) that's it thought in high school. And all experiments confirm it. So let's stick to that and leave the debate of "real" objective cosmos for some other time. Because in order to have that one, you first have to put forth a definition of what real objective cosmos is. I don;t know what that is, or what you mean by it.

"gravity forms stars and planets into near spheres (mostly slightly oblate spheroids.) None of that real world physics depends on how fast a theoretical frame of reference is approaching or from what direction."

- there are two thing to address here. First part about gravity and planet/star formation. Yes.. all correct because matter that ends up making starts and planets is moving at non- relativistic speeds (much much lower than c) in reference to one another and thus none of the SR corrections come into play. This whole example of star formation has no relevance for SR corrections, and I don't understand why you are bringing it up. It's like comparing apples and pears. If you want us to discuss SR corrections, then we have to discuss a scenario where it's present and discuss systems that have components which move at relativistic speeds. Planet formation is not such a system. At least not when it comes to gravity, because if matter was moving at relativistic speeds in reference to one another, it wouldn't make stars of planets in the first place.

The second part of your statement is incorrect IMO.. "none of it depends on how fast that matter is moving or from what direction". It ALL DEPENDS on exactly that. It depends on other factors as well.. temperature, mass etc.. but it most definitely depends on speed and trajectory. But speed is well below c, so no need for SR

"No one here knows me."
Never said I do.

So to sum up. Objective/subjective/real/imagined/parallel universes are not part of SR topic. SR predicts very specific results at very specific conditions, which have all been done and re-done and verified. Is there an objective world independent of observer etc... is a subject of QM, or philosophy of science...and even there a subject of pure philosophy, not a subject of math and experimental results. But it doesn't have anything to do with SR.

Ethan,
I'd like to request you put the kibosh on repeat posts. I don't mind Wow and John having a rude, pointless conversation, but they're now posting duplicate messages. That's spamming. Or maybe they've been doing it for a while and I just now noticed when trying to find SL's post - but regardless, it's spam.

"“… You…” .. is the post[er] associating Ethan with going to hell "

FTFY teabaggie.

" but they’re now posting duplicate messages. That’s spamming"

Not according to ethan, eric.

Sorry, you're going to have to wade through shit because teabaggie can't do any better than ask other people who they are.

Michael @30:

So the distance between stars depends on the speed of the traveler (no objective cosmos independent of frame of reference), but spherical bodies in space don’t flatten out (contract in diameter) depending on speed of the observing point of view. (“We don’t think so” anyway.) So what is the difference here? Please explain

I think that's a good question to pose to Ethan, and I hope he answers it. I think we agree, Michael, that they go together. We disagree in that you think both are tricks of perspective and that our perspective is the 'real' one, while I think both are equally 'real.' But I join you in asking Ethan how he thinks one SR effect is real in a way the other isn't.

@86:

In the “real world” Alpha Centauri is 4.4 light years away.

Well, you're obviously taking our current frame of reference as the 'real world'. The points many people have been trying to make over many messages is (1) the human frame of references has no cosmological or physical priority, but that (2) which frame of reference - if any - is 'more real' than the others might be a question for philosophers, but it's not a question physics really cares much about. Scientists just care that relativistic physics works, regardless of what people think about it.

The 4.4 measurement is very convenient, in part because it's our perspective and also in part because Alpha Centauri isn't moving much relative to Sol, so a hypothetical observer in the AC system would agree with that measurement.

This obviously means that it takes light 4.4 years to travel the distance to Earth. We all know that nothing can travel faster than light, so it is false (and absurd) to claim that a traveler going 88% of light speed can go the 4.4 light years of distance in two plus years, twice as fast as light!!

From our perspective, the starship's sudden change in speed compared to us has caused several changes to happen to it: the speed increase has dilated its time, increased its mass, and foreshortened the ship. These effects have real, observable, physics consequences for how it interacts with the world. For example, the traveler to Alpha Centauri is calculated to age ~2.2 years while we age ~4.4 years. Do you agree?

But that same scenario can be described from the starship's perspective too: from the starship's perspective, the Earth's sudden change in speed compared to it has caused several changes to the Earth; it's changed the flow of time, changed its mass, and foreshortened it. You can't have the first story without the second story also being true; they go together, different ways of describing the same phenomena.

And the important thing to remember here is that our planet, our solar system, is one such starship. We move in relation to other objects in the universe. So from our perspective, all the fast-moving stuff around us is experiencing relativistic effects, just like the guy on the starship thinks all the stuff around him is experiencing relativistic effects. But from the perspective of some person in another solar system or on another planet moving quickly compared to the Sol system, he is experiencing normal time and physics while we have our mass, time, and distance affected by relativity. And it has to be that way, if the physics between our two systems is going to work out correctly. He can't see Earth as a sphere at relative speeds where we don't see his planet as a sphere.

"But I join you in asking Ethan how he thinks one SR effect is real in a way the other isn’t. "

I would say that it's a real squash for the frame that is moving, but the description of the object as a sphere is with respect to the object itself, which is always and definitionally at rest.

The shape change isn't real to the object itself.

Think of it the same way as "invariant mass" is defined as that mass which exists in the comoving frames of reference.

It's also no longer 4.4 light years away, since it's moving, so when you find out that it is 4.4 light years, it's no longer 4.4 light years away.

For things even further away, a galaxy 10 billion light years away is a LOT further away than 10 billion light years away now, because the space is expanding all that time.

Sinisa (#173): You said, "... you first have to put forth a definition of what real objective cosmos is. I don;t know what that is, or what you mean by it."
I already said what I mean (many times), most recently that "...gravity forms stars and planets into near spheres (mostly slightly oblate spheroids.) None of that real world physics depends on how fast a theoretical frame of reference is approaching or from what direction.” SR says that is all that matters, ... that there is no objective "real world." Repeating Einstein's philosophy (upon which SR is based) does not make it so.
Objective realism says that there is in fact a "real objective world *independent of observation*," however defined, from whatever frame of reference. In "the real world" there are no flat stars or planets. The Lorentz formula simply translates relativistic theoretically contracted length distortions back to **proper lengths**, i.e., physical shapes as formed by the laws of gravity (independent of high speed observations) and distances between stars as naturally, physically distributed in space,... ** regardless of the ticking rates of clocks** (or the rates of human aging) at relativistic speeds.

Ps: My reference to insults was in the context of the trash talk (they know who they are) which tends to dominate comments on this site, not that you have been very insulting other than the usual condescension which most true believers in SR indulge when lecturing its critics.

Eric (#177), Yes, we agree that if planets are not "really" flat (regardless of observational frame), as Ethan has said ("We don't think so.")... then the distance between stars doesn't vary either, regardless of frame.

"Well, you’re obviously taking our current frame of reference as the ‘real world’.

I'm saying (as a spokesman for objective realism) that the world/cosmos exists in and of itself, with intrinsic properties independent of observational differences. The shapes and lengths of things are "properly" known as "proper length" (or distance), and measurements taken from at rest with the object of observation is its true physical measurement. All other measurements, from frames moving relative to the objects, must be "corrected" via the Lorentz transformation formula. I know that all convinced SR theorists like you follow the dictum taught in SR theory that "there are no preferred frames of reference"... and that "length is not invariant." Repeating the dictum doesn't make it so. Earth remains nearly spherical, not taking different physical shapes with all possible different observers. "For observer A it's pancaked" vs "For observer B it's a near sphere"... is the constant claim of SR... Yet Earth does not in fact go flat, even "for observer A."
I too hope that Ethan will address this issue.

mm, you keep saying that you have studied relativity for years yet, for no real reason (other than you don't like what it says about the basic structure of space) you claim there is a problem with it.

That is in spite of the fact that many of the predictions it makes have been tested and found to be correct.

Here are my questions:
Why do you believe that your view of how things work is the correct one, when there is a huge body of work against your position?

Many people reject the theory of evolution out of hand, despite the massive support for it and lack of evidence for their position. The same is true about vaccination - there are many people who believe there is a link between vaccines and autism and other problems, despite the lack of evidence for and massive evidence against that idea. The same is true for people who deny the work of climate science (as one repeat poster does on Ethan's blog).
You, and they, refuse to be swayed by evidence, and dismiss the explanations of experts simply because you don't like those explanations.
So -- what are your positions on climate change, evolution, vaccine safety: do you believe the evidence from the scientists in those disciplines, or do you do the same thing you do for relativity? Why?

" with intrinsic properties independent of observational differences."

But there is no planet, then.

Just a set of quantum fields in space.

"I know that all convinced SR theorists"

Ah, so when moonbeam here says he "studied for years", he means he's been arguing about it being correct for years, not that he's studied it for years.

"Earth remains nearly spherical,"

Because we're sitting on it, relatively stationary. When you start traveling at 85% light speed, let us know what you see them,.

"not that you have been very insulting other than the usual condescension which most true believers in SR indulge when lecturing its critics."

Aaaawwww. Moonbeam here WAS upset that they weren't getting to insult everyone and be prima dona here! But you still managed to slip in insults anyway. Precious!

“… FTFY …” #81 is the post associating Ethan with going to hell “Just let ethan go to hell!”
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/12/comments-of-the-week…

"associating Ethan with going to hell "

Was you, teabaggie. Still.

“… Was you, …” #81 is the post associating Ethan with going to hell “Just let ethan go to hell!”

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/12/comments-of-the-week…

@ Michael M

Like I wrote in the previous comment, I personally am not the one with whom to argue philosophical ideas about the nature of reality. Is Universe platonic or not.. do numbers exist without us.. etc.. etc.. And like I also wrote, frankly nothing about SR cares or relates to that philosophical debate when it comes to actual measurements (like i.e. clocks.. they are not theoretical, they are real clocks made here on earth :) ). Regardless of you accepting them, the results are real.

The last part that I will note, and won't post about this again.. is that you deliberately chose to ignore the remark that planetary formation just like objective realism has nothing to do with SR because in first case it's not a relativistic system for later it's philosophy and not physics.

Lastly, my only question to you is this: In the case of Ethan's answer to you. Do you claim that the person in a ship traveling from earth to alpha centauri @88% of c will in fact travel for 4 years as measured by ships calendar? Because no.. it won't. Assuming he keeps on moving at that speed., when he gets to year 4 in his ship calendar he will be long gone from alpha centauri and our neighbourhood. And if that's the pin on which objective reality hangs, then objective reality requires speed of light to NOT BE SAME in all reference frames, and that's not what experiments (which ARE reality) show.

"the post associating Ethan with going to hell"

Was yours, teabaggie. Still.

“… Was yours, …” #81 is the post associating Ethan with going to hell “Just let ethan go to hell!”

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/12/comments-of-the-week…

"the post associating Ethan with going to hell “"
Was still you, teabaggie.

“…Was still you, , …” #81 is the post associating Ethan with going to hell “Just let ethan go to hell!”

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/12/comments-of-the-week…

"is the post associating Ethan with going to hell "

Was yours, teabaggie.

”
Was yours, …” #81 is the post associating Ethan with going to hell “Just let ethan go to hell!”

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/12/comments-of-the-week…

" March 15, 2017

”
Was yours, …” "

Was ragbag media's.

"... Was ragbag media’s.

You are mistaken.

#81 is the post associating Ethan with going to hell “Just let ethan go to hell!”

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/12/comments-of-the-week…

" the post associating Ethan with going to hell"

Was yours, teabaggie, again.

“… ragbag media’s.

You are mistaken.

#81 is the post associating Ethan with going to hell “Just let ethan go to hell!”

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/12/comments-of-the-week…

"“… ragbag media’s.

You are mistaken."

Your stutter from nerves is happening again, teabaggie.

PS Still you, teabaggie.

“… media’s.

You are mistaken.

#81 is the post associating Ethan with going to hell “Just let ethan go to hell!”

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/12/comments-of-the-week…

"
“… media’s.

You are mistaken."

Your nerves again, teabaggie.

PS still you, teabaggie.

“… You are mistaken.”

Your ..."

You are mistaken.

#81 is the post associating Ethan with going to hell “Just let ethan go to hell!”

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/12/comments-of-the-week…

"Your …”

You are mistaken."

Still wrong, tebaggie. Still you.

“… Still wrong …”

You are mistaken.

#81 is the post associating Ethan with going to hell “Just let ethan go to hell!”

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/12/comments-of-the-week…

"he post associating Ethan with going to hell "

Was you, teabaggie.

“… Was you …”

You are mistaken.

#81 is the post associating Ethan with going to hell “Just let ethan go to hell!”

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/12/comments-of-the-week…

"“… Was you …”

You are mistaken."

You're wrong. It's you, teabaggie.

“… You’re wrong. …”

You are mistaken.

#81 is the post associating Ethan with going to hell “Just let ethan go to hell!”

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/12/comments-of-the-week…

"post associating Ethan with going to hell"

Yours, teabaggie.

“… Yours. …”

You are mistaken.

#81 is the post associating Ethan with going to hell “Just let ethan go to hell!”

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/12/comments-of-the-week…

"s the post associating Ethan with going to hell"

Was yours, teabaggie.

@ M M

maybe this will help visualize the issue. Your view is classical view of spacetime, and like I said, would require for speed of light to vary in reference to some static frame (your reality universe independent of everything). This is not the case.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2VMO7pcWhg

“… Was yours. …”

You are mistaken.

#81 is the post associating Ethan with going to hell “Just let ethan go to hell!”

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/12/comments-of-the-week…

"“… Was yours. …”

You are mistaken."

Nope. You're lying.

"is the post associating Ethan with"

Was yours, teabggie.

“… Was . …”
You are mistaken.

#81 is the post associating Ethan with going to hell “Just let ethan go to hell!”

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/12/comments-of-the-week…

"the post associating "

Was yours, teabaggie. Not changing, either.

“… Not changing, either”

You are mistaken.

#81 is the post associating Ethan with going to hell “Just let ethan go to hell!”

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/12/comments-of-the-week…“… Was . …”
You are mistaken.

#81 is the post associating Ethan with going to hell “Just let ethan go to hell!”

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/12/comments-of-the-week…

“… Not changing, either”

You are mistaken.

#81 is the post associating Ethan with going to hell “Just let ethan go to hell!”

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/12/comments-of-the-week…

"“… Not changing, either”

You are mistaken."
You're hallucinating, teabaggie.

"the post associating Ethan with going to hell "

Was you, teabaggie.

You are mistaken.

#81 is the post associating Ethan with going to hell “Just let ethan go to hell!”

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/12/comments-of-the-week…

"You are mistaken."

Nope, I'm not, teabaggie. It's still you.

You made another mistake.

#81 is the post associating Ethan with going to hell “Just let ethan go to hell!”

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/12/comments-of-the-week…

"You made another mistake."

Nope. Still you. teabaggie.

You've made another mistake.

#81 is the post associating Ethan with going to hell “Just let ethan go to hell!”

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/12/comments-of-the-week…

"You’ve made another mistake."

You made another lie, teabaggie.

"the post associating Ethan with going to hell "

Was you, teabaggie.

You made yet another mistake.

#81 is the post associating Ethan with going to hell “Just let ethan go to hell!”

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/12/comments-of-the-week…

"You made yet another mistake."

Not made one yet, teabaggie.

It's still you talking about Ethan going to hell, too.

That is yet another mistake.

#81 is the post associating Ethan with going to hell “Just let ethan go to hell!”

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/12/comments-of-the-week…

"the post associating Ethan with going to hell"

Was you, teabaggie.

That is a mistake.

#81 is the post associating Ethan with going to hell “Just let ethan go to hell!”

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/12/comments-of-the-week…

"he post associating Ethan with going to hell "

Is your mistake, teabaggie, because it's still you.

That is a mistake.

You posted #81.

It is the post associating Ethan with going to hell “Just let ethan go to hell!”

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/12/comments-of-the-week…

"You posted #81."

I did indeed, Your mistake is that I've said anything about it.

"the post associating Ethan with going to hell"

Was you, teabaggie.

You posted #81.

It is the post associating Ethan with going to hell “Just let ethan go to hell!”

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/12/comments-of-the-week…

"the post associating Ethan with going to hell "

Was you, teabaggie.

"You posted #81"

And you posted #235, teabaggie.

You associated Ethan with going to hell.

You posted #81.

That is the post associating Ethan with going to hell “Just let ethan go to hell!”

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/12/comments-of-the-week…

"the post associating Ethan with going to hell "

Was you, teabaggie.

"You posted #81."

And you posted 237.

You posted #81, which is the post associating Ethan with going to hell “Just let ethan go to hell!”

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/12/comments-of-the-week…

"the post associating Ethan with going to hell ""

Was you, teabaggie.

"You posted #81"

And you posted 239.

You you are the author of #81, which is the post associating Ethan with going to hell “Just let ethan go to hell!”

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/12/comments-of-the-week…

"You you are the author of #81"

And you are the author of 241, teabaggie.

"the post associating Ethan with going to hell "

Was you, teabaggie.

#81 was posted by you, which is the post associating Ethan with going to hell “Just let ethan go to hell!”

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/12/comments-of-the-week…

"#81 was posted by you,"

And you posted 243, teabaggie.

"the post associating Ethan with going to hell "

Was you, teabaggie.

#81, which is the post associating Ethan with going to hell “Just let ethan go to hell!” was posted by you

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/12/comments-of-the-week…

"the post associating Ethan with going to hell "

Was yours, teabaggie.

The post associating Ethan with going to hell, #81, “Just let ethan go to hell!” was posted by you

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/12/comments-of-the-week…

"The post associating Ethan with going to hell"

Is yours, teabaggie.

You = post #81 = “Just let ethan go to hell!”
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/12/comments-of-the-week…

"You = post #81"

You=post 249

“The post associating Ethan with going to hell” = You, teabaggie.

“Just let ethan go to hell!” = You = post #81
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/12/comments-of-the-week…

The post associating Ethan with going to hell = You, teabaggie.

post #81 = “Just let ethan go to hell!” = You
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/12/comments-of-the-week…

Post 81 was not that, teabaggie.

The post associating Ethan with going to hell = You, teabaggie.

You posted #81.

It is the post associating Ethan with going to hell “Just let ethan go to hell!”

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/12/comments-of-the-week…

Just follow the link

"You posted #81."

And you posted #255.

"the post associating Ethan with going to hell "

Is yours, teabaggie.

You posted #81.

That is the post associating Ethan with going to hell “Just let ethan go to hell!”

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/12/comments-of-the-week…

Just follow the link.

"You posted #81."

And you posted 257.

"the post associating Ethan with going to hell"

Is you, teabaggie.

You posted #81, which is the post associating Ethan with going to hell “Just let ethan go to hell!”

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/12/comments-of-the-week…

Just follow the link.

"You posted #81"

And you posted 259, teabaggie.

"the post associating Ethan with going to hell "

Is you, teabaggie.

You you are the author of #81, which is the post associating Ethan with going to hell “Just let ethan go to hell!”
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/12/comments-of-the-week…

Just follow the link

"You you are the author of #81,"

And you of 261.

"the post associating Ethan with going to hell"

Is you, teabaggie.

#81 was posted by you, which is the post associating Ethan with going to hell “Just let ethan go to hell!”
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/12/comments-of-the-week…

Just follow the link

"#81 was posted by you"

And 263 by you, teabaggie.

"the post associating Ethan with going to hell "

Was you, teabaggie.

#81, which is the post associating Ethan with going to hell “Just let ethan go to hell!” was posted by you
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/12/comments-of-the-week…

Just follow the link

"the post associating Ethan with going to hell "

Comes from you, teabaggie.

You appear to not understand language. Still.

The post associating Ethan with going to hell, #81, “Just let ethan go to hell!” was posted by you
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/12/comments-of-the-week…

Just follow the link

This "thread" is now (almost) totally filled with hateful spam. I'll unsubscribe soon if Ethan doesn't deal with it. Seriously.

"The post associating Ethan with going to hell"Was you, teabaggie.

You = post #81 = “Just let ethan go to hell!”
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/12/comments-of-the-week…

Just follow the link

MM:

The shapes and lengths of things are “properly” known as “proper length” (or distance), and measurements taken from at rest with the object of observation is its true physical measurement

So, to sort-of repeat Sinisa's question: the dude on the starship traveling to Alpha Centauri ages 2.2 years. The starship ages 2.2 years too. That's the time that passes as measure "at rest with the object of observation" (i.e., the starship), so that is it's true physical measurement. Is that correct?

Or is the "proper time" that passes as it traverses from Earth to AC 4.4 years, which is what both we would measure on Earth and someone on AC would measure?

And if you acknowledge that relativistic travel has a real effect on time, why do you think mass or space is any different?

***

As an aside, does anyone know if there is a way you can not-see posts from specific posters? I think that can be done on some boards, just not sure whether it can be done here or how.

It would appear that Ethan, as the administrator, is the only one to tackle that sort of situation, Eric. I see the scroll wheel is not working so well.
:)

"As an aside, does anyone know..."

maybe there's an option as a registered user on scienceblogs, but doubt it. But overall, this has turned into a complete BS for last two weeks.

"You = post #81 "

you= post 270.

“the post associating Ethan with going to hell " = Was you, teabaggie.

eric, there used to be some filters for web browsers so that client side you could cut out posters comments. Can't remember the name though and the software may not work any more.

post #81 = “Just let ethan go to hell!” = You
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/12/comments-of-the-week…

Just follow the link

the post associating Ethan with going to hell Was you, teabaggie.

You posted #81.

It is the post associating Ethan with going to hell “Just let ethan go to hell!”

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/12/comments-of-the-week…

Just follow the link

It is there for everyone to read.

"You posted #81."

You posted 278.

"The post associating Ethan with going to hell" is you, tebaggie.

You posted #81.

That is the post associating Ethan with going to hell “Just let ethan go to hell!”

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/12/comments-of-the-week…

Just follow the link

It is there for everyone to read.

“You posted #81.”

You posted 280, teabaggie.

“The post associating Ethan with going to hell” is you, tebaggie.

I see the scroll wheel is not working so well.

I stand by my solution! But I admit it is not optimal when the page space ratio of chaff:wheat reaches about 10:1.

MM,

I think one problem you have is that you are asserting that distances are invariant, but you give no method for determining distances. Without such a method, how can you make that assertion. It turns out that measuring distances is not such a straightforward proposition as you might think.

One way to do so is to measure the time it takes for an object or wave moving at known velocity to transverse that distance. Here is where your view of things runs into trouble, though. The observer on earth, wishing to measure the distance to Alpha Centuri, can (theoretically) shine a beam of light toward AC and measure that it takes 8.2 years for the beam of light to get there and return to him. He concludes that AC is 8.2 light years distant from the earth.

Another observer decides "forget light beams"; I'm going to go there myself and determine directly the distance. He has an accurate speedometer on his ship and sets his velocity relative to AC at 0.88c. He measures that it takes him just over 2 years to get there. He reasons that he's travelling at 0.88c, so light travelling at c would take about 1.8 years to make the trip and gives the distance as 1.8 light years.

Two observers; two answers. Who's right? We are very tempted to conclude that the observer who stayed on earth is right and the one on the ship is wrong. How and why do you come to that conclusion, though? Think of it a bit differently; suppose that there's another planet inhabited by intelligent life and an observer on that planet is making the measurement of the distance from earth to AC. This planet, though is moving relative to earth at a speed of 0.88c toward AC. He would get the same 1.8 or so light years for his measurement that the spaceship traveler would. What is your basis for saying that his planet is moving toward AC and earth is stationary with respect to AC, rather than that the earth is moving away from AC at 0.88c and this other planet is stationary with respect to AC?

Physically, velocities are relative; this is a pre-relativity result. We have no basis to say that ANY object has an absolute, invariant velocity. We cannot say that the observer on the other planet is moving and we are stationary with respect to AC.

Part of the confusion is that we don't normally have macroscopic objects like planets and spaceships moving at relativistic speeds. It is true that to ALL potential macroscopic observers, the shape of the earth is spherical. The energy involved with moving at relativistic speed is enormous for macroscopic bodies. We CAN, in relativity make special distance (and time) measurements called proper distances (and times). A proper distance is one in which the observer measuring the distance is in a commoving reference frame with respect to the distance being measured. We observe the earth to be nearly spherical. Technically, this means we measure the distance between the center of the earth and its surface in all different directions and find that the distance is independent of direction. We are measuring proper distances in this case since we are at rest with respect to the center of the earth and its surface (technically we aren't at rest WRT the center. However we are moving tangentially, which is by elementary geometry perpendicular to the radial distance we are measuring so our component of velocity in the radial direction is zero). Another observer moving toward the earth would measure different distances depending on direction. The result is that the earth really would be pancake shaped in that frame of reference. This is NOT a deformation of the earth's material composition, which is probably what Ethan meant when he said is isn't "real". It is real, though, in the sense that we cannot just say we are right and that other observer is wrong; both are equally valid measurements.

Like others have said, it's really a matter of experiment. If SR is wrong, then the speed of light must be different for different observers. This is not a far-fetched proposition. In fact, it was once believed to be true. That was the whole point of the aether. Michaelson and Morley's famous experiment was NOT designed as a way to overturn classical physics and support relativity. It was designed to actually measure the velocity of the earth through the aether. Experimentally, though, it was found that the speed of light does NOT depend on the speed of the emitting source or the detector. It is experimentally the same regardless of how fast either the source or detector are moving. Accept that fact, which you have no choice but to do, and SR follows as a mathematical consequence.

I intend this to be my last post unless/ until Ethan clarifies the difference, if any, between *apparent* length contraction in massive bodies in space (planets and stars)...(He uses the word "apparent")... and *real* contraction of distances between stars. (He uses the word "real.") I hope he can find my posts on this issue amid the great volume of hateful spam which has taken over here.
Maybe it will help if I cite my summary statements on the issue.
To Sinisa in my comment #180:
Objective realism says that there is in fact a “real objective world *independent of observation*,” however defined, from whatever frame of reference. In “the real world” there are no flat stars or planets. The Lorentz formula simply translates relativistic theoretically contracted length distortions back to **proper lengths**, i.e., physical shapes as formed by the laws of gravity (independent of high speed observations) and distances between stars as naturally, physically distributed in space,… ** regardless of the ticking rates of clocks** (or the rates of human aging) at relativistic speeds.

To Eric, my comment #181:
Yes, we agree that if planets are not “really” flat (regardless of observational frame), as Ethan has said (“We don’t think so.”)… then the distance between stars doesn’t vary either, regardless of frame. ...

I’m saying (as a spokesman for objective realism) that the world/cosmos exists in and of itself, with intrinsic properties independent of observational differences. (End of repeated texts.)

Finally, I am well aware of the standard SR arguments posted here in reply to me, and that Einstein's philosophy, upon which SR is based, insists that high speed observations/ measurements are equally valid... that it all depends on frames of reference, and that there is no "real objective cosmos" independent of such diverse observational points of view, velocities, etc.

Ps: Yes, it is proven that clocks tick more slowly the more they are *accelerated* to higher speeds (note application of force.) It is only an artifact of math which insists that this (erroneously named) "time dilation" is the reciprocal of "length contraction. The distance between stars does not depend on all possible varieties of traveling frames of reference between them. Nor does the constant speed of light make actual physical bodies shrink in length/ diameter, as is *apparent.*
Enough already! Ethan... Help!

"Objective realism says that there is in fact a “real objective world *independent of observation*"

Well, then Objective Realism, as you propose it is just plain wrong.

I’m saying (as a spokesman for objective realism) that the world/cosmos exists in and of itself, with intrinsic properties independent of observational differences.

I'm not sure why you keep focusing on observation and keep implying we don't think there is a real physical universe. Nobody here is claiming that the direction human eyeballs face or where we slap a ruler down to do a measurement changes fundamental physics. You are absolutely right (IMO) that there is a physical universe that exists 'in and of itself', independent of whether we measure or observe it. However, that universe obeys relativistic physics as best we can tell, even when two parts of it interacting don't happen to have any humans around to look at them. Muons traversing the Earth's atmosphere last much longer than their half-lives would statistically predict, because they are traveling relativistically. Orbiting black holes millions of light years away obey relativistic rules, even though our measurements could not possibly affect what happened to them millions of years ago. These sorts of SR and GR effects went on long before humans evolved, and will continue to occur long after we're gone. Our human observations have nothing to with SR effects; they occur anywhere two objects are moving quickly in relation to each other.

Yes, it is proven that clocks tick more slowly the more they are *accelerated* to higher speeds (note application of force.) It is only an artifact of math which insists that this (erroneously named) “time dilation” is the reciprocal of “length contraction.

If every particle in the universe acts consistently with that 'mere artifact of math,' then for all intents and purposes, it's real. If you want to show us that Einstein is wrong and real distance never changes no matter what the frame of reference, then explain to us how a ship (or particle) traverses your measured 4.4 ly in their 2.2 years without violating the speed of light c.

" Nor does the constant speed of light make actual physical bodies shrink in length/ diameter, as is *apparent*"

That's wrong too.

"Solid matter" is mostly empty space, especially between the electron and the internal nucleus.

They're kept apart by, for example, electronic forces, procured by photons at the speed of light. And when the speed of the object is high compared to that speed of light, then the forces do not any more keep things at the same distance with the same "force".

But only in the direction of velocity, since there is no transverse effect changing the perpendicular axis' dimensionality.

It's not the effect of "a human observer", but "interaction", ANY interaction. The role of the photon being absorbed is just as much "observation" as if someone used their eyes or some machine to make a measurement. The interaction between two different atoms in a molecule that is just one in the material body of, say, a planet or star, is just as much an "observer" as any human observation.

And if the size of the star's dimensions are made by the interaction of two atoms in that star, and the frame of reference you used to observe, as a human or not, the size of that star was at high velocity compared to the center of mass of the star, will be different along the vector of that velocity than perpendicular to it.

If the star were whooshing toward YOU at 0.85c, it would be half as much along the axis of its motion toward you as its dimension along an axis perpendicular to it.

All because the forces being exerted are propagated at the speed of light, which is a constant for any observer in their frame of reference. Which means that along its axis of motion, the forces are not capable of producing a spherical shape in equilibrium.

Sean:

Part of the confusion is that we don’t normally have macroscopic objects like planets and spaceships moving at relativistic speeds. It is true that to ALL potential macroscopic observers, the shape of the earth is spherical.

Well...depending on how accurate your measure. :) The Andromeda galaxy is moving toward us at a paltry 110 km/sec, but we can still calculate SR effects. They occur in about the 8th decimal place. So for instance, there will be a ~300 year difference experienced over the 4.5 billion years it takes it to collide with the Milky Way, and any relativistic "pancaking" an Andromedan would see to the shape of the Earth would be (if I calculate correctly) about 9mm in the 12,750 km diameter. So they'd need one heck of a telescope, but in principle, if they were punctilious about doing the observations and the math, then no, they would not agree that our planet is a sphere. :) They would agree (and this is where Michael's opinion seems to go off the rails, at least to me) that there is a real world, governed by physics, and that in this real world in the Earth's frame of reference, we humans would measure it's shape as a sphere. Relativity doesn't prevent that sort of understanding at all.

Also, in terms of large objects moving relativistically compared to each other, the CMB acts somewhat like friction because it interacts with everything moving through it, slowing things down in relation to it. And since it's everywhere, yeah that means we would expect that stars, planets, or whole systems moving relativistically in comparison to Earth would be very rare.

You posted #81, which is the post associating Ethan with going to hell “Just let ethan go to hell!”

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/12/comments-of-the-week…

Just follow the link

It is there for everyone to read.

“You posted #81.”

You posted 290, teabaggie.

“The post associating Ethan with going to hell” is you, tebaggie.

You you are the author of #81, which is the post associating Ethan with going to hell “Just let ethan go to hell!”
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/12/comments-of-the-week…

Just follow the link

It is there for everyone to read.

“You are the author of #81.”

You posted 292, teabaggie.

“The post associating Ethan with going to hell” is you, tebaggie.

#81 was posted by you, which is the post associating Ethan with going to hell “Just let ethan go to hell!”
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/12/comments-of-the-week…

Just follow the link

It is there for everyone to read.

"#81 was posted by you"

And 294 was posted by you, teabaggie.

“The post associating Ethan with going to hell” is you, tebaggie.

#81, which is the post associating Ethan with going to hell “Just let ethan go to hell!” was posted by you

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/12/comments-of-the-week…

Just follow the link

It is there for everyone to read.

"the post associating Ethan with going to hel"

Is you,teabaggie.

The post associating Ethan with going to hell, #81, “Just let ethan go to hell!” was posted by you
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/12/comments-of-the-week…

Just follow the link

It is there for everyone to read.

You = post #81 = “Just let ethan go to hell!”
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/12/comments-of-the-week…

Just follow the link

It is there for everyone to read.

@ M M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xrqj88zQZJg

eric,

You are correct, but I was simplifying things to explain why it is that relativity seems so weird to the lay person. We simply don't have any actual real life experience where relativity plays a noticeable role. It's all, as you point out, in the 8th decimal place where we can easily miss it and get along perfectly well without it in our everyday lives. We did not evolve with the ability to intuitively grasp relativity because such an intuitive grasp of relativity was completely unnecessary for survival.

We did not evolve with the ability to intuitively grasp relativity because such an intuitive grasp of relativity was completely unnecessary for survival.

Oh I agree. And that's one of the reasons why I think its reasonable to respond to MM. His intuition is telling him it ain't right. Which I understand, and which I expect is true for lot of people. So the point we make to him may hopefully help others too: because the math works, because the relativistic description of reality is observationally accurate, intuitional and even philosophical arguments opposing it aren't sufficient. When your preconceptions run smack dab into observation and one of them has to give, best to give up your preconceptions. SR is just the beginning of non-intuitive physics theories - there are more. :)

Eric, I've decided to change my mind about waiting for Ethan and answer your reasonable question: " If you want to show us that Einstein is wrong and real distance never changes no matter what the frame of reference, then explain to us how a ship (or particle) traverses your measured 4.4 ly in their 2.2 years without violating the speed of light c."

All internal processes on the ship slow down as it accelerates to whatever fraction light speed. But Earth will orbit the Sun 4.4 times as light travels to AC, and more times as any object with mass makes that journey, in proportion of course to the fraction on light speed they achieve. The many varieties of rates of "timekeeping" among high speed traveling clocks does not alter the physical proximity of stars, ... the actual distance between them in the physical world. My last post disappeared so I'll post this now before it too goes away.

"All internal processes on the ship slow down as it accelerates"

How do you know that?

You do not. You merely assert it. You insist that YOUR frame of reference, here on earth at non-relativistic speeds, is the "one true reference point".

Prove it.

And "non-relativistic" is still a non sequitur, since

a) you're not at zero speed. And there's some negligible, not NON ZERO SR change in your frame of reference
b) you're in a gravitational field, so there's a GR change, you are CONSTANTLY accelerating at 1g.

If that spaceship were accelerating at 1g, they would experience NO DIFFERENCE to your scenario, and, if less than 1g, LESS of a difference than you. And once they stopped, no GR change. Yet you would not thereby insist that that no longer accelerating ship were the real time chronograph or standard of length.

Indeed if you were "correct", you would be able to tell who had been accelerating because the one who had would see you with a longer 1m stick than they do. EXCEPT THEY DO NOT. They see YOU having the smaller length stick, being the contracted length party. THEY would be telling YOU that you are the one to whom "all internal processes slow down as it accelerates to whatever fraction light speed".

YOUR situation would have an asymmetry in space experiment.

No such asymmetry is EVER found.

By experiment, even ones done by GPS measure, you are incorrect.

Eric, I’ve decided to change my mind about waiting for Ethan and answer your reasonable question

He sort of answered it in Comments of the Week #153, but his answer doesn't seem to agree with Sinisa's video. So I'll be curious if either Sinsia or Ethan want to comment on that.

All internal processes on the ship slow down as it accelerates to whatever fraction light speed.

I think you are confusing SR for GR. GR concerns acceleration, and it's true that an acceleration will cause relativistic effects. But relativistic effects will also occur between objects moving at a fast velocity in relation to each other, even if they are 'coasting' (i.e. relative acceleration = 0). That is what SR calculates. You have sort of implied that if a starship accelerates to some large fraction of c (as observed from the Earth), then turns off it's engine, the time dilation will stop once the engine is turned off. I don't know if you meant to imply that or not, but if you did, this is no so. The people on a coasting starship will still age some fraction of the amount you age, that fraction dependent on SR, even if the ship is not accelerating or decelerating.

But Earth will orbit the Sun 4.4 times as light travels to AC,

Right, because you're now in the Earth's frame of reference, which you continue to claim is the one true 'real' world.

Look, you accept that relativistic changes to time and mass inccrease happens, right? Even if you don't accept foreshortening as real. Okay...you realize that the Earth is moving in space relative to other objects, right? So if you accept that relativistic effects are being felt by that starship, why don't you accept that relativistic effects are being felt by the Earth (and us on it)? They may be very slight - practically unnoticeable - but they're still there. Every time you get up and walk to your couch, your time dilates a teensy bit and your mass increases a teensy bit. Driving in a car - the effect is even bigger (and yes, it occurs at constant velocity i.e. zero acceleration). Orbiting the planet - why, now we're getting into measurable amounts. Which is why GPS satellites include timing corrections for both SR (their movement) and GR (being higher in orbit). There is on singular real world perspective in which relativistic effects are not felt. They are always felt, by all interacting objects. In your 'real' Earth perspective, you'll have to identify a one real continent. Then a one real area. Perhaps a one real person. Maybe even a one real atom. Because in relation, everything moving in comparison to it will be experiencing relativistic effects, however slight.

The many varieties of rates of “timekeeping” among high speed traveling clocks does not alter the physical proximity of stars, … the actual distance between them in the physical world.

See my comment above about the Earth moving. What is so special about the Earth's frame of reference? It's not like we are unmoving while everything else moves around us. We are just one moving object among many, and our perspective is not any more special to the universe than any other. It's especially useful to us, because we live here. But the fact that Mars or Alpha Centauri moves in relation to us and thus experience relativistic effects from our perspective does not mean that Earh's perspective is the singular 'real' one while Mars and Alpha Centauri are less real ones.

"What is so special about the Earth’s frame of reference? "

He lives in it.

That, really, is the whole and entirety of it. No reason, no following what the consequences of it is, no science. Just "BECAUSE I IS SPECIAL".

@ eric
"but his answer doesn’t seem to agree with Sinisa’s video."

how so? it agrees entirely. All reference frames must agree on WHAT happens, they don't agree on WHEN it happens. You can't fit a 200ft train in a 100ft tunnel. Because while from tunnels perspective the train might now be 100ft long, from train's perspective, the tunnel is only 50ft long.. so no cake there.

how so? it agrees entirely. All reference frames must agree on WHAT happens, they don’t agree on WHEN it happens. You can’t fit a 200ft train in a 100ft tunnel

Right, but any attempt to 'measure' whether the train fits on the Ethan's shorter track will be like a measurement via closing the doors on the tunnel; they will agree that it does because of the difference in timing.

So for instance, imagine instead of a tunnel you have Ethan's 'shorter' section of track (surrounded by other track, but maybe painted blue to distinguish it). Sarah and Adam decide they're going to answer the "is the train shorter" question by both snapping pictures of the back of the train as the front of the train comes even with the leading edge of Ethan's blue track section. Do the pictures agree on the back end of the train being on the blue track? They must. But the pictures will not have been taken simultaneously, because there is no absolute simultaneity.

Thus it's not just the timing of doors opening and closing on a tunnel that is affected, it's every measurement of train length you could take. Whatever experiment Sarah decides to use to show the back end of the train is on the blue section at the "same time" as the front end from her perspective, Adam can repeat. He will not necessarily agree on when that experiment takes place, but he will agree that at the time of the experiment, the back end of the train was indeed on the blue section of the track.

eric, there is simultaneity in SR. But they are simultaneous in spacetime: events.

The EVENT is "When the first bit of the train meets the first bit of the blue track". Another is "When the last bit of the train meets the first bit of the blue track". But INTERVALS aren't equivalent. The interval between those two events are not the same event from both reference frames. But they both agree on the same events occurring at simultaneous "times". Indeed this is why such length and time contractions are said to REALLY take place.

But, unless you're talking about a point, not an extended object, you get different scenarios on the interval depending on observer inertial standing.

THE END RESULT OF WHICH is that both agree on the same scenario, but not of the same duration between the first and last event of that scenario.

It's a lot more precise in mathematics, but I hope that's close enough to an English language description to be useful.

Take a median inertial frame, half way between the two observers. What does that median inertial frame claim to see? And is the scenario for EITHER observer from this median frame observer exactly the same?

If yes, then there's no preferred frame of reference.

If no, then there's going to be a way to tell an absolute frame of reference.

We know that the second isn't right.

So how must reality bend by observer to make the first correct? And it really does have to be both space and time morph. Mathematically, this isn't the case, since you could formulate a transform to make one axis only transform under the reference shift. But from a physical reality perspective, and the source of the idea of spacetime being more real than separate space and time, they both morph.

A mild wondering if that adding in the transverse shift negates the ability of a single axis being transformed being a mathematical solution, I never bothered with that idea at the time I fiddled about in this stuff. But it could be that either space and time both change together, and therefore only one axis of space (the direction of travel) and time (the direction, again, of travel: positive time) needs change, the parsimonious solution, or if you had to transform all three space axies to keep time unchanged.

First of all, let me put a disclaimer, that I'm not entirely clear about the new mental image about shorter track sections. But under the assumption that the track is at rest with earth and that lengths are same.. i.e. 100meter rail section painted in blue and 200meter train traveling at some high fraction of c. And Sarah who is at rest with rail wants to take a picture where a 200m train actually fits exactly on 100m blue mark front to end (due to length contraction of train that she observes)... that's fine. She will have that photo.. altough probably not a sharp image you expect.. but in any case... Here is where we disagree.. (maybe).. I say.. Adam can't take a picture like that if he's on a train simply because from his p.o.v. front of train being on blue and back of train being on blue NEVER happen simultaneously in his reference. Indeed, in his reference frame blue part is only couple of meters long. This is because there are no interactions between track and train (in this thought experiment).. so nothing to alter his motion or direction or make him slow down for any reason. Unlike the door scenario, which requires the train to slow down if we ponder the case where the front door is closed.

Actually, SL, she never will.

She will be atomised by the train travelling at her at 0.85c.

If, instead, she is standing BESIDE the track, she STILL won't see that EVER happen. Because as the train passes by, its velocity wrt her POV is zero toward her, and there is no contraction along the length of the train, since that is parallel at that point to her and not moving toward her.

The function of train length contraction would be something like an exponential limit curve, going from 0.5 if it were infinitely long at -infinity away on the track, to 1.0 right beside her, to 0.5 again if it were at +infinity, having once again to be infinitely long to occupy that entire range at one point in time. If the train was of limited length, the length of the train would vary as it traversed that track, being only approximately single valued for the length of the train for its path at some distance from the track.

That picture of the Enterprise is partly causing the confusion, though. That view is one that would not be possible to have in real life, it could only be "seen" by inference (again, back to my advice to mooney: how would you determine the radial distance from one side of the earth to the other along your line of travel right toward it at 0.85c? Your observation of the far side is blocked by the entire mass of the earth, whereas the distance to the edges are not blocked by a solid surface) or by some pan dimensional being who probably has no mechanism to determine that the "correct" reference to place the situation under shows the same interval along all three space axises. Without that constraint, there's no reason to have it squashed to half its length.

@ Wow

I am aware mentally that what she would see (or take snapshot off) will never be a static sharp image of the train in relation to rail and her, because light from front of train and light from rear of the train have different lengths to travel to the camera/eye etc.. in effect, should we see a motion blur in any case.. but not due to specs of lens shutter, but because of c being the ultimate f/stop.. so even a perfect snapshot will still see a blur or as you say exponential limit curve (ah that math :) )

If the spaceship were NOT contracted, it would be possible to determine absolute velocity, since you would then be able to determine a difference between zero absolute velocity and any other velocity by both parties observing how many spaceship lengths fit in a light year. They would disagree and the amount of disagreement would indicate how far from absolutely zero velocity they are. A third observer would be necessary to determine which direction and how far absolute zero velocity is from the two previous observers if one did not happen to be AT zero absolute velocity.

And again back to mooney, we're moving toward Leo at about 371kps. Does that mean our processes are slowed down, or is it the rest of the universe that is "wrong"?

No, SL, you misundertand. It's not about sharpness (and colour shift would not, at least noticeably) change the sharpness any more than just speed blur by a finite shutter speed being too long.

She does NOT see the train go at 0.85c when it passes her, since the instantaneous velocity for SR is zero at that point.

The velocity of the train near that tangent is less than 0.85c, tending to zero.

REMEMBER: VELOCITY *NOT* SPEED. Speed is a scalar, velocity is a vector, and SR only cares about velocity toward or away from an observer.

So right beside her, the train is not contracted.

50m in one direction, the train arrives at some smaller velocity and is less contracted. 50m the other, the train leaves at some smaller velocity and is less contracted.

And at 0m/s, the train is 200m long. Too big to fit in 100m. To Sara, standing by the track, the train is less than 200m long. But not less than 100m. Because right beside her, it has to take 200m for it to pass.

For sarah to ever see the train occupy less than the track would require her to see simultaneously every point along the track.

Which would require FTL information transfer.

If you EVER want to solve this without using the full monty mathematics, you have to stop imagining and start designing, even if it's in your imagination, how you determine when the train is arriving or leaving a point.

And no design will be able to show the train sitting entirely within that section of track at the same time. It will ALWAYS signal the train having left the marked track BEFORE the last bit of it enters.

To that extent, the contraction isn't "real" for any extended object. And for non-extended objects contraction is moot.

Note: "How does it take 200m to pass?". You know it's going at a speed of 0.85c (250000kps). You know how long it takes to pass (0.8 us) therefore it was 200m long.

You would have to do that for each point along the track to determine how the train length changes at each point along that track.

This is why, despite what teabaggie insists, you need a theory before you start designing an experiment. The claim has to come first, otherwise you won't do science, you'll be doing engineering.

Here is where we disagree.. (maybe).. I say.. Adam can’t take a picture like that if he’s on a train simply because from his p.o.v. front of train being on blue and back of train being on blue NEVER happen simultaneously in his reference.

Hmmm that would seem to create a paradox. Imagine Sara has a good camera with a nice wide angle lens. At the moment the middle of the train is in the center of the blue track, she snaps a shot. That shot would show both ends of the train on the blue track, yes?

Now imagine Adam has bought the same model camera, and he's extended it on a long selfie stick from the middle of the train. He snaps a train selfie when the middle of the train is at the center of the blue track. You're saying that shot would not show the train fitting on the blue part of the track? That's a paradox; Sara and Adam are now disagreeing on what happened, not just when it happened. And that paradox cannot be reconciled as simply occurring at two different times t, as Sara can never get a shot like Adam's and Adam can never get a shot like Sara's. How to reconcile?

My guess is you're correct about the answer having to do with the photons traveling from the train to the camera's CCD. They essentially act like the doors on the tunnel. So both Adam and Sara would both get some weird image that would have to be heavily processed using relativistic math for any visual image to come out. That processing would be dependent on frame of reference (so they wouldn't be doing exactly the same math). However the result of each person's image processing would be an image they both agree on. I'm just not sure what it would show...

"At the moment the middle of the train is in the center of the blue track, she snaps a shot. That shot would show both ends of the train on the blue track, yes?"

No.

" I’m just not sure what it would show…"

If you weren't a closed minded idiot and bigot, you'd know. Because I just told you.

Your loss. Remain ignorant.

One way it may "look" different is if the train were fast enough or close enough to the size of the marked track so that it could, at one point, "appear" to all be inside to a standee by the track.

But any part of the train is slightly away from the viewer standing by the track, and the further away from the closest point they are on that track, the older the information is that is received at the same instant of time by that observer. So you can't show that one snapshot and claim the train was inside "at the same time", since that image isn't showing the train at the same time.

It's patently obvious that, if the train were to pass through that marked section at all in its entirety, there would be a time for each and every part of the train where it is inside that section. But this is hardly going to be news. "Train is at some point in time going past me".

Based on the laws of physics and the logical argument that led to SR, I do not think that the train would EVER appear to be entirely within that track.

However, to know for sure, I'd have to do either the full SR event treatment or integrate the lorentz elements of the train length at the event where the train front is just leaving and working back to see how far the total integrated length is accounting for that SR effect and check whether it is less than the 100m length it is to fit in.

But you could do it too. Depends on how much you care about the answer. And if you don't care enough to do it, then why keep asking or discussing? You're deliberately avoiding finding the answer because you're too lazy to try.

I could just tell you "No, it won't be less than 100m, but it would tend to 100m at the limit of c for someone precisely at the edge of the track", but you would not believe it unless you just wanted to. I could even be honest and say that I think it is but haven't checked. But either that would merely confirm your desire not to accept the answer before that admission or not change it. And the only way for you to avoid having to take someone's word for it is what you don't want to undertake: the calculation of the answer yourself.

I suppose it would also be more correct to say "at some point in the past, the front of the train left, and at some point in the future, the end of the train entered" to get the timelines of events correct in their direction

Eric (post #306),
Me: " All internal processes on the ship slow down as it accelerates to whatever fraction of light speed."
You:
"I think you are confusing SR for GR. GR concerns acceleration, and it’s true that an acceleration will cause relativistic effects. But relativistic effects will also occur between objects moving at a fast velocity in relation to each other, even if they are ‘coasting’ (i.e. relative acceleration = 0). That is what SR calculates." (End quote)

The fact that clocks keep time (tick) at different rates at different speeds is (erroneously) called "time dilation." Time is not an entity that clocks "measure" (like thermometers measure temperature.) SR fails to account for the different forces applied to clocks to accelerate them to different speeds. That slows down their rates of ticking. Then they stay slow after the acceleration is over. Again, "relativistic effects" mean "for observer A" in relation to "for observer B", not objective realism independent of observers.

Me: " But Earth will orbit the Sun 4.4 times as light travels to AC,"
You:
"Right, because you’re now in the Earth’s frame of reference, which you continue to claim is the one true ‘real’ world."

No. I just used Earth's orbit as the "year clock" for Earthlings traveling to AC. Yes, a slow clock on a fast ship will show less time passing... but, as I said, " The many varieties of rates of “timekeeping” among high speed traveling clocks does not alter the physical proximity of stars, … the actual distance between them in the physical world."

Each planet has its own signature "year" as it orbits, and its own day if it revolves. A planet in the AC star system will have its own "year clock" which can count those units as its theoretical astronauts travel to Earth. Their ship's clock will also slow down and show "less time passing" than their planetary orbit demonstrates for the journey. The distance between stars does not change in either case.

You:" In your ‘real’ Earth perspective, you’ll have to identify a one real continent. Then a one real area. Perhaps a one real person. Maybe even a one real atom. Because in relation, everything moving in comparison to it will be experiencing relativistic effects, however slight."

No. Clocks show different times, as above. Yet Earth does one revolution every "24 hours" and orbits every "year." An atomic clock on the equator at sea level could standardize both to great precision. Then all traveling clocks, at whatever altitude and speed could be calibrated to that "standard time."
I best post this before I lose it, as something "times out" here lately.

"Time is not an entity that clocks “measure” "

Yes it is.

The only separation between two events that are not coincident in time at the same location is time. Measure the interval between two events and you have measured the passage of time.

"Yet Earth does one revolution every “24 hours” and orbits every “year.” "

Yet that is both wrong and irrelevant. It's not 24 hours. Ask an astronomer. It's not even the same period in time. Ask a metrologist. And the year is not the same. Read up on leap seconds.

So it is wrong to make that claim.

It is also irrelevant. The labelling of an interval is still a measure of time, even if it is inaccurate for use at any other time interval.

"An atomic clock on the equator at sea level could standardize both to great precision. "

Unless it moves. And even then it would still fluctuate "randomly" due to the unpredicted changes in local gravity from, for example, the sun and moon and all the planets, the passing of delivery trucks, and any change in the local temperature that adds or subtracts energy from the system used to measure a time interval.

And this would not measure your time. Away from the equator. Nor would it measure the time of someone on the equator but mining a mile beneath the surface. Nor a geostationary satellite above it.

So whose time is real, and why?

Here is another problem with your claim.

You assert that objects are spherical because the forces that make them form are spherically symmetrical, therefore the star or planet IS a sphere. Water, liquid water, is likewise a sphere when placed in the same zero gravity environment with no atmosphere or disturbing "winds". It's "real shape" is a sphere.

Yet the same sphere of water, when taken to earth, becomes a flat wet puddle.

So which is the right place to measure the "real shape" of water? Does not appear to be at the equator of earth.

(PS that clock on the equator would vary year by year too from SR changes. Slower when earth is in the half of the orbit that goes toward Leo, and faster when earth is in the half of the orbit that goes away from Leo. Can't be much of a "real time" if it varies....)

@ Michael M

your scenario seems to introduce much more problems then it does solutions. The proposal to sync all clocks to one earth clock is just unpractical. For same reasons not all clocks on earth show same time. But this is even worse. Imagine what it would look like on that ship going to AC. It's clock is synced to earth's clock.. and let's say it's moving at some speed where for it time slows to a second for every couple of earth hours. Ships clock would then show i.e. 14:35pm then in a next second it will show 17:11pm then in next second 20:19pm then the next second 23:33 and so on... What would be the point of that? Humans can't function like that.

@ eric

I don't think there's a paradox, because like you pointed in the end... 1. they will both get different images 2. let's say they are smart and realize that in order to correct for spatial distortion that both perceive, both will have to post-process in order to agree 3. both will process differently but using same laws of physics 4. both will arrive at same post-processed image which will show that the train is actually 200m, the blue track is 100m, and the train can't fit the track end to end.

SL:

both will arrive at same post-processed image which will show that the train is actually 200m, the blue track is 100m, and the train can’t fit the track end to end.

Sounds reasonable.

MM@324:

SR fails to account for the different forces applied to clocks to accelerate them to different speeds. That slows down their rates of ticking.

No, this is not how it works. For example, muons in the upper atmosphere are produced, via particle collision, with an initial velocity. They are never 'accelerated' up to that velocity by anything, they are just born with it (as it were). Yet they experience time dilation, and we can measure it because they last statistically longer than their half-lives would predict.

I also wonder how, under your hypothesis, all particles in the universe keep track of their past accelerations and decelerations. Where is this information stored? But maybe that's an aside we should leave alone.

An atomic clock on the equator at sea level could standardize both to great precision. Then all traveling clocks, at whatever altitude and speed could be calibrated to that “standard time.”

Time dilation is not an issue of mere calibration; it's an actual change in the pace at which fundamental physical interactions occur, something which (as far as I can tell) is completely inexplicable under your concept of their being a single, nonrelativistic 'real' world.

So for example, yes the (multiple) atomic clocks on each GPS satellite can be calibrated to sea level clocks per Sinisia's suggestion (t+1,2,3 at ground becomes t+3,6,9 in orbit, or whatever). But this calibration does not answer the question of why the electrons in the atoms on the satellites are transitioning between energy levels with higher* frequencies than the ones at sea level. This is not explicable except by relativity's acceptance that time on the satellite is actually passing differently in relation to us at ground level.

And again, I would point out that there is no real way to link this to some historical acceleration of the satellite, since we could stick a collider on a satellite and produce such atoms de novo, and they would never have undergone a past acceleration...yet they would show the same frequency behavior.

*SR correction for satellite of 7 microseconds slower/day, but GR correction of 45 microseconds faster/day = satellite atomic clock runs faster by about 38 microseconds/day.

Eric, this will be brief, as there is somehow a time limit on composing replies here... or it's my server??.

"...because they last statistically longer than their half-lives would predict."

This is the' time honored' "muon argument" for the one and only supposed case of empirical evidence in the macro-world for length contraction. Let SR theorists ask, "Does Earth's atmosphere actually, physically contract in "depth/ height" around each and every muon which enters the atmosphere?"

How was their half life predicted in the first place? In labs like CERN? The do live longer than that as they enter Earth's atmosphere, but they were probably going faster than that as propelled by their cosmic source. The muon argument is clearly based on inaccurate experimental design and false projections about the life of muons... cosmic vs lab observations. Before I am shut down again...

"the one and only supposed case of empirical evidence in the macro-world for length contraction"

Even if that were the case, it's one more than you have.

Eric, this will be brief, as there is somehow a time limit on composing replies here… or it’s my server??.

It's your server.

How was their half life predicted in the first place?

It's not predicted, it's measured. Via many many particle accelerator experiments. And with a half-life of microseconds, there is practically no chance we have it wrong. That is quite long in modern physics experiment terms, relatively easy to detect and measure.

The do live longer than that as they enter Earth’s atmosphere, but they were probably going faster than that as propelled by their cosmic source.

Once again, they are not propelled by anything; they are produced when a cosmic ray proton hits an oxygen, nitrogen, or other atom in the atmosphere. Cosmic rays move at incredibly high speeds, so when they react with an atmospheric atom to produce subatomic particles like muons, conservation laws require that these product particles are created with a high momentum. There is not any time when the muon is accelerated.

The muon argument is clearly based on inaccurate experimental design and false projections about the life of muons… cosmic vs lab observations.

Michael, I think you should take a few hours to read up on the subject. And It's kind of hand to believe that after 50 years of studying SR, you are unaware of the solidity and depth of understanding we have about muons.

Initially it appeared that you accepted the results of mainstream physics and really just had a beef about how these agreed-upon results should be philosophically interpreted. But now you're claiming that hundreds if not thousands of different, independent laboratory experiments must be wrong, because their results support the theory of special relativity and disagree with your conception of how physics ought to work. Is this really the direction you want to go?

Eric, My comment about "cosmic sources" propelling muons was a brain fart of aging and forgetting after reading material on relativity for 50 years. Thanks for the reminder. I brushed up with this article:
http://alternativephysics.org/book/MuonRelativity.htm
Here is a sample quote:
"But by using the relativistic energy equation you get different results for v. And you guarantee vc, especially for high-energy situations. But this possibility is immediately rejected because everyone “knows” it’s not possible. In fact, it is usually not even considered.
So the experiments for muon decay unknowingly end up with the sqrt(1-v2/c2) function built into the outcome. And thus, no surprise, “confirms” the function to be true!"

But I am not a mathematician. You didn't address my primary criticism at all, as follows:
"Let SR theorists ask, “Does Earth’s atmosphere actually, physically contract in “depth/ height” around each and every muon ...?
Also my arguments against length contraction between stars are being ignored. Ethan goes on to new subjects without addressing the cogent arguments against length contraction of physical objects (including Earth's atmosphere) and distances between stars.

“Does Earth’s atmosphere actually, physically contract in “depth/ height” around each and every muon …?
Also my arguments against length contraction between stars are being ignored.

They are not being ignored, we have answered them several times now. You just don't seem to accept the answer. So here it is again, in parts:

1. From the muon's frame of reference, yes.
2. From your frame of reference, no.
3. Both frames of reference are equally valid descriptions of the world.
4. Both frames of reference, using SR, arrive the exact same prediction of whether muons will (statistically) 'live' long enough to hit the Earth. They also, using SR, arrive at the exact same predictions for any other observation you care to make.
5. These SR-based predictions, when compared to empirical observation, are accurate. OTOH if one took SR out of physics (or significantly modified it), the predictions you would get would be wrong; they would not be consistent with observation.
6. This accuracy is generally taken by scientists to mean SR is a correct description (or at least approximation) of reality, despite the fact that it may not agree with our intuitions and it may leave us incredulity. Because scientists recognize that personal incredulity is not a valid argument against a finding or a theory. "I don't understand how it could be so" is not a valid argument against "we looked, and this appears to be so."

@ Micheal M

well, after some 500+ posts we finally arrive at the root cause of your problems. And that's "learning" crack-pot alter-science from likes of Bernard Burchell and rest.

While it's not too late, and it never is, head over to wikipedia and start learning real science, and stay far far away from alernative physics. And you don't need 50 years. After couple of months I'm sure you're gonna realize just how much bb has no clue about what he's talking about. And you being a proxy of what you read there makes it no better or more true.

"http://alternativephysics.org/book/MuonRelativity dot htm"

There's your problem. You're reading the physics version of the anti-vaccine crackpot/purely dishonest sites (such as natural news), you aren't looking at real science after all.

So it's back to personal insults as SR theorists insist that "the world" depends on how you look at it. What has "objective science" come to since Einstein's philosophy took over physics? (No doubt he got the formula for the atomic bomb right.) "For observer A Earth is flat." ( He is approaching really fast!) "For observer B Earth is spherical, almost." (He is orbiting Earth.)" No one can say for sure" (SR) which is the objective description, because Einstein said that all frames of reference are equally valid. Also that "length is invariant." ("because the speed of light is constant.") If you accept all that as "proven" you are "believer," not an objective scientist.
I'd better post before I lose it again... or get into deeper "trouble" with true SR believers.

Michael, you are sounding no different than the people who continue to say that, regardless of tens of thousands of studies to the contrary, it's obvious that vaccinations are dangerous. You just happen to pick on relativity.

Are you really saying that the thousands of papers and hundreds of experiments that have been done and shown, time after time, that the predictions made by relativity are correct, are in fact all wrong? Just because you, without any data, don't like the results?

So it’s back to personal insults

Huh? Nobody insulted you.

as SR theorists insist that “the world” depends on how you look at it.

I think one of the problems here is that you don't understand or accept what it means for time and space to be connected. It means that something you experience as timelike, someone else may experience as spacelike. And vice versa. Imagine the two of you are observing some third object on a trajectory through timespace. It's like you see the same trajectory, but the axes you use are different.

What has “objective science” come to since Einstein’s philosophy took over physics?

Well we still take measurements. We still use empirical evidence to test, refine, and reject our theories. So I have to say "it's going strong, thank you."

So it’s back to personal insults

Huh? Nobody insulted you.

as SR theorists insist that “the world” depends on how you look at it.

Let me try a different approach. Perhaps one of the problems here is that you don't understand or accept what it means for time and space to be different aspects of the same whole 'thing.' It means that some event you experience as timelike, someone else may experience as spacelike - and vice versa. Just as on our planet, your up is going to be someone else's down. Imagine you and some second person at a different acceleration or velocity are observing some third object on a trajectory through timespace. It's like you see the same trajectory, but the axes you use are different.

What has “objective science” come to since Einstein’s philosophy took over physics?

Well we still take measurements. We still use empirical evidence to test, refine, and reject our theories. So I have to say "it's going strong, thank you."

Based on your recent comments rejecting all muon half-life detecting experiments (!!!) because they don't fit your preconcieved idea that all dilation is caused by acceleration, I'd say that it's your objectivity that seems to be failing.

Sorry for the double post. For some reason, the site posted both an earlier and a later version of my comment. Oh well, they both say basically the same thing.

Michael,

Another issue you seem to be having is conflating the statement that "length measurements are relative and are dependent on the state of motion of the observer" with "there is no objective reality in the universe." These two statements are by no means equivalent. They merely point to the fact that the observable quantities that we heretofore (prior to SR) considered invariant are not in fact invariant. SR points out that there are other invariant quantities that constitute the objective universe. Measurements of length and time just are not those invariants like we believed.

The REAL invariant in SR is the spacetime interval. This may seem a bit counterintuitive and esoteric, but it is really the only way to make sense of the universe, at least once one accepts the postulates underlying SR. These are:

1. There are no preferred reference frames. The same laws of physics apply to all observers.

2. No instantaneous physical interactions are possible. All interactions occurring over a physical distance require time to occur. Equivalently, no object in the universe can be causally affected by another object within a given time frame unless the spatial distance between the two objects is less than ct.

Both of these postulates make sense. It hardly seems conceivable that there should be multiple laws of physics. The laws of physics do not change when you go on an airplane, or into a fast moving spaceship. Measurements may change, but the laws relating those measurements do not. The other postulate is equally sensible and is more intuitive than the opposite. Is it really more intuitive to believe that the earth can have an instantaneous gravitational effect on a star a million light years away, or is it more intuitive that an interaction over such a vast distance requires time? The latter seems more sensible. In any case, there is certainly experimental evidence for both.

Now given those two postulates, the whole of SR follows mathematically. These postulates lead directly to the result that two observers will not agree on the spatial separation of two events, nor will they agree on the duration of time that passes between the events. What they will agree on is the spacetime interval separating the events.

IOW, lengths no longer are absolute. Neither are times. Only a combination of space and time taken together is absolute. This is the true invariant of SR, and is the true objective makeup of the universe.

Another invariant that can be derived from this is one that I find helps me understand the time dilation and length contraction of SR. The velocity of any body in the four dimensional spacetime is constant and equal to the speed of light. We are all moving four-dimensionally at light speed. If we are stationary spatially, then we are in this sense moving at light speed in the time dimension. If we are not spatially stationary, then we no longer are moving quite as fast in the time dimension; i.e. time is passing more slowly, hence time dilation. If we try to measure the distance between two points when we are moving WRT to those points, we must observe the time it takes a light beam to pass between them (speed of light is constant in all frames). Since our time passes more slowly, we measure a shorter time, and therefore we conclude that the distance between the points is smaller, hence length contraction.

It makes no sense on an intuitive level. However, if you don't believe SR, you have to reject one of its postulates. Which one are you going to reject? We have ample experimental evidence for both.

First I must correct a statement in my last post. I meant (and SR claims)that "length is *not* invariant," i.e., it varies. The point is that measurements do (theoretically) vary with relativistic frames of reference, yet things like the diameters of stars and planets remain unaffected by measurements. ...(Train lengths too!) As Sean quoted the SR dictum above, "The same laws of physics apply to all observers." Measurements "for observer A " differ from measurements "for observer B." Objective realism has no problem with that. But it says that the laws of physics are the same for all physical objects. Gravity, for instance makes stars and planets nearly spherical, regardless of how fast "observer A" is traveling when he measures their diameters... and observes them to be "pancaked." Same for distances between stars. Their distribution in space occurs by the laws of physics, independent of how slow clocks might be running on board astronauts' ships. Please reply, Dean.

Sorry... no edit function... Sean T. Ps: in is not just "intuition" that objects and distances do not change lengths as a result of observation/ measurements. There is no physics to support physically shrinking objects or distances in the actual physical cosmos... the realm of objective realism.

But it says that the laws of physics are the same for all physical objects. Gravity, for instance makes stars and planets nearly spherical, regardless of how fast “observer A” is traveling when he measures their diameters… and observes them to be “pancaked.”

Sigh. It seems you just won't get it. Gravity makes stars, planets etc. spheres in their own rest frames. It does not make them spheres in other frames of reference. If you're moving toward a star and another observer is stationary with respect to that star, you will not agree on the distance between the 'front' and 'back' of the star or other measurements. But you will agree on the spacetime representation of that star.

Take a Cartesian plot with a straight line vector going from (1,1) to (2,4) where you are saying x = time (seconds) and y = distance (meters). How much time does that trajectory represent? One second. How much distance does it represent? Three meters. Now rotate the Cartesian axes by 45 degrees counterclockwise. Has the line changed at all? No. But how much time does that trajectory represent? 1.4 seconds. How much distance does it represent? 2.8 meters. The trajectory itself is not subjective. It hasn't changed. Different observers will see the same trajectory. But how it is measured in terms of time vs. space will change depending on your frame of reference. (Note this is a toy example. It is wrong in many respects. It is only intended to show how time and space can be 'no longer absolute' while timespace itself is invariant.)

This is ignoring what Sean pointed out about spacetime intervals, and what I said about spacelike vs. timelike event. What physics dictates is the spacetime representation of a star. But if it happens to be truncated along one spatial dimension because

Ah ignore my last paragraph; it's a cut and paste error.

"Sigh. It seems you just won’t get it."

should be... seems you don't want to get it. Because it's been exactly that. He's not here to learn, he's here to promote how "SR theorists" are colluding here against his holy realism or whatever. Big difference between someone not know, and someone being a zealot for a personal cause without any care or merit to science.

Note how he's constantly deflecting/ignoring every single question or argument pointed at his view. All he's posting is same 3-4 paraphrased sentences over and over like a broken record, because honestly, I think that's actually all he has. He hasn't answered or explained a single objection to his arguments, or tried.. cause he doesn't know, doesn't even have a clue. He KNOWS that SR is wrong, cause that's what he read on one site... where the example offered is BS. Then when he's called on it, he can't give more, cause there isn't more. He's almost like someone who's seen one Discovery 45min segment on space and now he understands what's wrong with dark energy issue. The fact he claimed expertise instead of coming with clean slate is what I don't like... and then going with.. oh I'm an old man.. forgive my .... then in next sentence he's tossing bs again. That's just slimy. No thank you from me.. I did make an honest attempt.

There is no physics to support physically shrinking objects or distances in the actual physical cosmos… the realm of objective realism.

The physics that supports it is relativity, which is emprirically confirmed to such a great extent that even cranks rarely object to statements like 'time dilates at high speed.'

What physics does not support is there being some single physical-law-preferred frame of reference.

should be… seems you don’t want to get it. Because it’s been exactly that. He’s not here to learn, he’s here to promote how “SR theorists” are colluding here against his holy realism or whatever

Can I say "Told you so!"?

40 posts earlier.

The depressing thing is that thinking the worst of new posters' intent is so frequently correct.

The fact he claimed expertise instead of coming with clean slate is what I don’t like

And the fact that you had to put up with it with little support or agreement on this being bad play is what I don't like. This is supposed to be a community, but there's a lot of freeloading going on. If you want to see an extreme example go to the Deltoid section of scienceblogs and see how Jeff is dogpiled and gish galloped over.

Eric (#348), I said, "
"There is no physics to support ** physically shrinking** objects or distances in the actual physical cosmos." Ethan agreed regarding physical objects but not for distances, yet will not address the difference.

Relativity supports **observational differences** from high speed frames of reference. There is no physics to explain an actual physical flattening of Earth or shortening of a train or the distances between stars.

We empirically observe clocks slowing down, not "time dilating."

And we don't empircally observe birds flying, they just don't fall down to the ground.

"There is no physics to explain an actual physical flattening"

There are two atoms in one silicate molecule in the crust of the earth, spherical as you call it. These two are pointing in the direction the earth is moving. Some dastardly alien to clear up for an interspace bypass shoots earth out of orbit at massive accelration until we're going at 0.85c compared to our sun, around which we were orbiting, at zero relative average velocity.

So these two atoms, A and B, are pointing aligned in exactly that direction. Some atoms must be. They are held apart by electrostatic forces, traversing at the speed of light.

So A is behind B. As A moves forward, since it is part of the moving earth, it can only keep B at the old range it had when "stationary" that resulted in a spherical earth, by photons producing a repulsive force to B, moving it away from A.

But by the time that photon has arrived at B, A is already most of the distance (about 85%) of the way closer, and that photon was only enough to get B to move a little further away, sufficient to keep it the old distance. This force is not sufficient to cause B to move away with alacrity. Therefore B is only 15% as far away.

Now, when A fires off the next repulsive force photon at B, it's sufficient to move it much harder, comensurate with having been pushed that much closer and resisting that compression. So it moves away harder, so B moves a bit faster. But in that time, A is still yet closer before B can react.

So though the separation is now higher than the first iteration, it's still much closer than it was before when it hadn't been going at 0.85c.

And, being closer than they were before, their forces no longer make a sphere. It's now compressed in the direction of travel.

Transverse there is no (or only a little) change in separation since A and C are moving in parallel, not toward each other.

From your "objectivist" perspective, why is this incorrect? Because this definitely gives a physical explanation for a REAL compression when moving at appreciable speeds compared to the speed of light.

There is no physics to explain an actual physical flattening of Earth or shortening of a train or the distances between stars.

Yes, there is, that physics is relativity. Wow has given an explanation. I would just add tat we can confirm this contraction is itself real and not some mere trick of perspective by looking at heavy ion collisions. When we accelerate an ion to an appreciable fraction of c, then slam it into other things and measure the products, the 'smash' pattern and products are consistent with a projectile atom having been in a relativistically "pancaked" shape. It pattern and products are not consistent with the projectile "really" being a sphere and the flattening only being some trick of perspective. See, for example, the physics of RHIC. If you were right, these results would not occur. If you were right, the projectile should be a sphere and the subatomic particles produced should be released as if it were a sphere (in the lab's rest frame). But this is not the case. Your idea is observationally, experimentally, wrong.

We empirically observe clocks slowing down, not “time dilating.”

We empirically observe all basic physics interactions slowing down. This includes things like how long it takes an excited atom to de-excite, which is how atomic clocks keep time. And as I mentioned before, we observe atomic decay slowing down.

How do you explain this? What is your non-relativity explanation for why electron de-excitation takes longer in a moving atom?

The example I gave also indicated why time dilation, in reality, is a requirement, since without it, with only monotonic invariant time allowed, A and B get far more squashed than they do under SR. The only way around it is to make time ACTUALLY run slower. My example was more taking the "objectivist" POV as true, for the sake of illustration of the problem of the simplistic view.

Actual SR has both time and space change, but as both of us have informed mooney, it's the interval that is invariant, not space and not time.

Failing to have both morph in tandem requires that the speed of one frame of reference must affect what we see when that frame of reference is being observed by another moving at a different speed.

Let me practice my psychic powers please..

"From your “objectivist” perspective, why is this incorrect?"

the answer will be:
a) not addressing it 'cause I don't fully understand it but seems to dispute what I'm saying
b) offering an answer that states the obvious, how gravity forms spherical stars and planets in our universe
c) tantrum throwing how sr theorists are bad and insulting everything real

Eric, you said, 'We empirically observe all basic physics interactions slowing down. This includes things like how long it takes an excited atom to de-excite, which is how atomic clocks keep time. And as I mentioned before, we observe atomic decay slowing down."

"How do you explain this? What is your non-relativity explanation for why electron de-excitation takes longer in a moving atom?"

Good question (sincerely.) Nobody knows for sure why "internal physical systems" slow down as they are exposed the the force of acceleration. SR ignores that history of each clock and simply affirms that their "timekeeping" function slows down in proportion the speed they achieve after acceleration. I hope that is a specific enough answer.

Nobody knows for sure why “internal physical systems” slow down as they are exposed the the force of acceleration.

You have no explanation for it, but relativity does. Thus, your hypothesis is not as useful, or predictive. It is an inferior hypothesis. Moreover, "I don't accept the science" (which is what is actually happening here) is a far cry from an actual "nobody knows" (which is what you'd like to be true).

You also continue to be obstinately wrong about SR effects being a product of acceleration rather than relative velocity. Muions created from atmospheric reactions never undergo acceleration; they are 'born' moving at a velocity and never increase it unless acted on by an outside force. Likewise with subatomic particles that are the products of atom-smashing experiments; they will be 'born' with a certain momentum, due to conservation laws. When you smash one atom into another, the products do not appear stationary and then suddenly accelerate that would violate conservation of momentum, twice over. They are born moving and never accelerate until some outside force acts on them.

Do you have any counter-veiling evidence to this? do you have any theory that explains how or why atom-smashing experiments should violate conservation laws?

hehehe.... so I guess it was a) not addressing it ’cause I don’t fully understand it but seems to dispute what I’m saying

Maybe it's again time for Ethan to post his little video snippet with one light beam traveling straight up/down and another traveling up/down at a 45 degree angle. Then lots of people will be reminded that we know why physical interactions slow down at velocity.

something like this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-0taHjbs_Y

I've been waiting to see any of those complainers show their complaints at disruption and bad behaviour show up here and tell Mooney that he's been answered and if he doesn't like them, he'll not get any better so just lump it.

But their concern over the site and posting does not extend to anything else but me. Their concern fake.

To borrow from Ian Dury: Reasons to ignore them, part three.

If anyone will give a reasonable answer to my three comments on #350, I will appreciate it very much. If Ethan will explain why **he agreed that macro-world physical objects don't contract** ("We don't think so") but distances between stars do (that is "real"), I will appreciate it very much. Sweeping it under the rug is not science.

Finally, regarding Eric's comment on #353:
" When we accelerate an ion to an appreciable fraction of c, then slam it into other things and measure the products, the ‘smash’ pattern and products are consistent with a projectile atom having been in a relativistically “pancaked” shape."...
The biggest missing link in physics is between the micro-world of quantum physics (and all subatomic particles) and the macro-world of trains, planets and stars. Subjecting subatomic particles to extreme acceleration and then smashing them together as an example of length contraction does not carry over to theoretical relativistic travelers "observing" planets, stars or trains as flattened or contracted in length and claiming that it is actual physical contraction.

"If anyone will give a reasonable answer to my three comments on #350"

You will ignore it or claim it is wrong.

And then ask again if anyone will give a "reasonable" (as in you will agree with it) answer.

Come on, complainers, where are you, hmmm?

Comments of the Week #152: from NASA's future to testing your scientific theories

More like this

The Last Goodbye

Ask Ethan: Why Did Light Arrive 1.7 Seconds After Gravitational Waves In The Neutron Star Merger?

Five Discoveries In Fundamental Physics That Came As Total Surprises

Even while the world suffers, investing in science is non-negotiable

Merging Neutron Stars Deliver Deathblow To Dark Matter And Dark Energy Alternatives

Messier Monday: The Ring Nebula, M57

What Scientific Arrogance Really Looks Like (Synopsis)

Get Your Galaxy in Gear!