Existence

No what you said was... You can back peddle all you want and try to tell us you said this or that, all anyone has to do is go back and look for themselves. You originally said no one has ever done a physical experiment at 93,000 mps must less at 186,000 mps. I showed you were wrong, and so you try and tell us you said something else.As Rahvin pointed out to you.. Well what do you have to say? I sure am glad you know so much about particle accelerators... BTW, the SLAC mentioned here is a linear accelerator.

quote:

---

SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory is home to a two-mile linear acceleratorthe longest in the world.

---

---

"I hate to advocate the use of drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they always worked for me." - Hunter S. ThompsonAd astra per asperaNihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.

As fearandloathing pointed out, no that isn't what you said before. You said that nobody had done experiments at 93,000 mps let alone 186,000 mps. That's a facially silly thing to say. Every time we do any experiment with light, at least one thing in the experiment is traveling at over 186,000 miles per second.The above board thing to do when making a misstatement is to restate correctly, possibly even acknowledging having made a mistake. After all people did take the time to respond to your original statement.On the other hand, your original statement was so silly, that I cannot, in good conscience, simply stick you with that position. Let's instead take this last formulation as what you really meant.I have to agree that we've never accelerate a space ship sized object to 0.5c. But what of it? Our response regarding what we expect to happen are based on your hypothetical, and your hypothetical included speeds and acceleration that are not within our ability to attain for large objects. No answer to your question could possibly meet the criteria you are now imposing. While I'm a bit puzzled at what your point is, I do admire the sack displayed in taking that position dozens of messages into examining your question.My point in addressing your hypo was to show that SR could produce a consistent answer even if that answer was non-intuitive to you. The intent was also to show how few postulates were required to derive SR.On the other hand, relativity has been experimentally verified in essentially all of the realms that reflect real world experience. Experiments have verified that heights as low as a few tens of meters are sufficient to produce time dilation as predicted by general relativity. We've observed precession anomalies in binary star systems consistent with GR. Special relativity effects have been measured in jets and satellites traveling at moderated velocities and in particles traveling at high velocities well in access of 0.999c. That means you've already got enough verification of time dilation and length contraction to know that space-time isn't what you propose it to be.

Hi NoNukes, I am traveling in an inertial frame on my cycle until I start my u turn.Which experiment at the speed of .5 c or over 186,000 mps has been preformed in an inertial frame? What makes you think the time dilates just because a clock ticks faster the higher it is in the gravatational potential? The only particles you have traveling at high velocities over 0/999c is in a non-inertial frame.How does that tell you anything about an inertial frame when the same laws do not apply? I do not have verification of time dilation. I do have verification that clocks run faster the higher they are in the gravatational potential.I do not have verification of length contraction as several thought experiments I will present at least one of them, later shows no contraction.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi ICANT, Given that light travels at 186,282 miles per second, just turning on a flashlight is enough to generate speeds exceeding 186,000 miles per second.But less facetiously, we could just identify something off of that list of experiments I gave you last week. You need not pick read the whole thing. I think the link I gave you about moving sources ought to contain something useful.I thought that I might present something a little different here. Here's a paper by P.A. Egelstaff and others dating from 1981. The authors are concerned that most of the experiments verifying special relativity are beyond the resources of undergraduate students and he describes a few simple experiments that undergrads might perform.http://web.mit.edu/...Samplepaper/written-report-example.pdf You mean the effect that is exactly as predicted by general relativity but that isn't general relativity?You are ducking the issue that time dilation is evident even when comparing clocks at the same potential in a gravitational field. You've continually resisted addressing how this might work in your model. Oh the other hand, I've demonstrated exactly how the effect is realized and others have referred you to experimental verification.So what's your explanation for the time dilation effect that is solely due to relative motion between observers? I'm talking about the effect that accounts for about one fifth of the amount of clock rate adjustment in the GPS satellite clocks and that matches the predictions of special relativity. Perhaps you should stop using words that you don't understand. Once the particles leave the acceleration section of the apparatus, the particles are traveling at constant velocity in a straight line until they collide with something.That means that there is an inertial frame in which the particles are at rest. Evidence does not go away just because you don't understand it. The mu-meson experiment alone demonstrates time dilation of an order of magnitude greater than can be explained by gravitation time dilation. Looking forward to your presentation.

Hi NoNukes,I was re-reading your posts and have a question about this post.In the picture by A you have the earth and planet 1 light year apart.In B you have the earth to the right of the earth in A. Could you explain how that can happen if the earth in B is receeding from me at .5 c according to your arrow.Wouldn't the earth in B have to be to the left of the earth in A to be correct?If that is the case then the earth and the planet would be the same distance apart as in A.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi ICANT, The relative positions of A and B in the diagram don't mean anything. What is important is the position of the planets relative to the ship in each picture. Given that the pictures are viewed by two different observers, each using their own coordinate systems, there is no "correct" way to align them. In fact, hubby and wife would not even agree on the time the two pictures were taken. Definitely not. If I had moved the earth to the left as you suggest, I would surely have also moved the ship and the second planet to the left by the same amount. Remember that planet X is also moving left. The idea between aligning the two illustrations was to make the difference in lengths visually apparent.

Hi NoNukes, If I had turned on my flashlight and pointed it at the moon when the astronauts were there could they have seen the light from my flashlight? Why or why not.Now to the experiments.The LHC is a circular accelerator in which the particles are propeled by magnets and have acceleration due to the circular configuration . Which means that the experiment is not preformed in an inertial frame.Definition: An inertial frame is one that does not have external push or pull force exerted upon the frame.You can find the layout of the LHC HereSLAC is a linear accelerator in which the particles ride on a wave and thus are not an inertial frame as they are pushed along the copper tube by the wave.You can find a layout of the SLAC Here.Thus both of these experiments are preformed in a non-inertial frame.Definition: A non-inertial frame is one in which an external push or pull force is applied to the frame.A non-inertial frame is one in which the laws of physics does not match what is required by SR.A large portion of my trip on my cycle would be in a non-inertial frame, as my journey was planed to make a large u turn around the planet with my center point of my journey being half way into that u turn.I also have no way of imagining how my cycle could maintain .5 c speed without propulsion of some kind being exerted. At what point in the LHC does a particle cease to have acceleration?At what point in the SLAC does a particle cease to have a wave to ride on?There is no straight line in the LHC and in the SLAC the particle is pushed along as it rides on a wave. Are you saying that it does not match LET? There are those who disagree with you and I will present them when time permits.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi NoNukes, Then why use the diagram? So why did you choose the position you did? Sure there is. You just chose not to do so. There are a lot of things we would not agree on. But you did move the planet to the left the same amount that you moved the earth to the right.If the planet is moving towards me the earth has to be moving away from me by the same amount. At least that is what your arrows show. Yes but you did not move the earth left instead you had the earth moving toward me at .5 c. So you created an illustration that is not true to make a point.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi Can't The letters A and B were intended to mark two separate diagrams. There was on reasonably way to align the two diagrams to represent a physical relationship because they represented reality as viewed by two different observers. I suppose I could have emphasized that point by showing the coordinate axes for each observer. Your previous questions had indicated that you had no idea of the effect of length contraction. The purpose was to show you what lengths were contracted. The simple, 2-D diagram was sufficient for that purpose. It is not sufficient for every single purpose you might want to make of the diagram. For example, the diagram does not show time relationships at all. The arrows show the velocities, yes.Your present questions indicate that you still don't understand length contraction. You don't seem to have any problem with the ship being contract in the wife's time frame.The relative motion between earth and planet X is not what causes length contraction. In fact, in this hypo, planet X does not move relative to earth. Length contraction is produced because of the relative motion between the ship and the two planets.Imagine that instead of empty space, a long rod extended from earth to planet X. Just as wife measures the ship to be contracted due to the relative motion between wife and the ship, hubby in the ship will see the rod length contracted from his reference frame due to the relative velocity of the rod and the ship. Yet the length of the rod is exactly the same at all times as the distance between the planets.There's nothing wrong with the drawing. You just don't get it.

This is the level of uncomprehension with which you are dealing. Are you sure your efforts wouldn't be better spent in a thread that was actually enhancing your readers' neural connections, rather than one where they are being annihilated? At this stage, trying to argue around ICANT's responses can only introduce more confusion to your readership, not less.

Unlikely. Your flashlight beam would be to diffuse to be visible from the moon. But if you instead used a laser beam and some photo-detection equipment, you could detect a laser beam directed at the moon. In fact, I cited a paper describing laser ranging of the moon to measure the geodetic effect. Laser ranging requires detecting a laser beam after a round trip to the moon and back.What's your point? Not quite. The beams are accelerated and then the accelerating force is removed prior to the actual particle collision. Well, no that's not right. It is a popular misconception, one that I once held, that SR cannot deal with accelerating frames. What is true is that the laws of physics are not invariant in form in a non-inertial frame.http://www.desy.de/...hysics/Relativity/SR/acceleration.html

quote:

---

Accelerating reference frames are a different matter. In GR the physical equations take the same form in any co-ordinate system. In SR they do not but it is still possible to use co-ordinate systems corresponding to accelerating or rotating frames of reference just as it is possible to solve ordinary mechanics problems in curvilinear co-ordinate systems. This is done by introducing a metric tensor. The formalism is very similar to that of many general relativity problems but it is still special relativity so long as the space-time is constrained to be flat and Minkowskian. Note that the speed of light is rarely constant in non-inertial frames and this has been known to cause confusion.

​

An example would be a rotating frame of reference used to deal with a rotating object. The transformation of the metric into the rotating frame would lead to "fictitious" forces such as Coriolis forces and centrifugal forces. It is not very different from ordinary mechanics.

---

An inertial frame is one in which Newtonian mechanics operates. Just as you can play pool on a train moving at a constant velocity without having to know how fast the train is moving, you can do the same thing in your 100' space vehicle or in any inertial frame.A non inertial frame is simply an accelerating frame. Where do you get this stuff?What is the purpose of an accelerator ICANT? Hint: The goal is to investigate particles in high energy collisions, and not simply to generate speedy particles. What happens to the particles after they've been accelerated? If the collisions happened inside the accelerator, then how are the results of the experiment observed? Sigh. What would happen if you turned off your propulsion unit at the half way point of the return leg? No I am not. But you don't seem to like some of the ramifications of LET. If you ever decide to fall back on LET, perhaps this discussion will become more interesting. Instead, your main objection seems to be that special relativity was not taught to you in elementary school. I don't disagree that during the turn, hubby is in a non-inertial frame. But I do disagree that you've consistently indicated that the turn is a "large portion" of the trip. Your own calculations regarding the length and duration of the journey do not include any significant time or distance for the turn.Instead the turn is provided simply for the purpose of getting the space cycle to return to the starting point. You know how to find me.

Which thread is that? ICANT was posting bad science before I joined this thread.

Actually, I've been finding the discussion to be extremely interesting. Partially due to unintentional comedy on the part of ICANT, and more due to NoNukes excellent contributions.The unintentional comedy is pretty great though. Apparently bodies in motion only tend to stay in motion if an accelerating force is continuously applied...when I told ICANT that Newton was wrong, that wasn't quite what I meant

Hi,Lets keep it simple and fix this little problem. Why would it not maintain speed after the initial acceleration? What would slow it down, we are in space. In this thought experiment there are no external forces affecting you such as gravity, solar wind...ect nothing to run into to create any resistance.

quote:

---

Newton's laws of motion are three physical laws that form the basis for classical mechanics. They describe the relationship between the forces acting on a body and its motion due to those forces. They have been expressed in several different ways over nearly three centuries,[2] and can be summarized as follows:

​

First law: Every body remains in a state of constant velocity unless acted upon by an external unbalanced force.[3][4][5] This means that in the absence of a non-zero net force, the center of mass of a body either remains at rest, or moves at a constant velocity.

---

Wiki

---

"I hate to advocate the use of drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they always worked for me." - Hunter S. ThompsonAd astra per asperaNihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.

This is a perfect example of how you stop thinking. You state in one sentence how the particles are given inertia by magnets pushing on the particles, and then after that you immediately state that they have no inertia and are not being pushed. So which is it? Are the particles given inertia by the magnets or not? How else, but by acceleration, do these particles reach these high speeds?I am beginning to agree with cavediver. You refuse to even listen to yourself.