swansont

split off from the "defining time" thread ——— The shutter speed/baton example is not a relativistic effect.

There's no such thing as absolutely empty space, so it's a dangerous path to tread. Normal "empty" space is flat, so yes, time should exist, just as the three spatial dimensions should.

Changed is perhaps the wrong word. What is seen/measured is different in different frames. My motion doesn't alter an object, but what I see is different in different frames, and I have no way of saying that one frame is the "right frame" and that's the "real appearance" of the object. So with a meter stick, I can't say that it is "really" one meter long because I can't tell if I'm moving or at rest. It's only a meter long in a particular frame of reference — the length is not an inherent property of the stick. In one frame it's 1.00 meter, in another frame it's 0.99 meters, and in yet another, it's 0.90 meters. Nothing physical has happened to the stick, but I can't say how long the stick is, only how long it is in a particular frame of reference.

Depends on what you mean by observable. Naked eye, or with instrumentation? What kind of augmentation — optical (so it's enhanced naked eye) or other (e.g. electron microscope) The diffraction limit of the eye (Rayleigh criterion) at the near-point of vision is a few tens of microns, but of course that's not easily seen. Smaller than ~100 microns would be tough. If you add in optics, you have the limits of the optics and the wavelength of light, so about a micron would be the limit. Atomic-force microscopes have imaged individual atoms, so that's at the nanometer level. http://www.iap.tuwien.ac.at/www/opt/images/afm_surface.png http://www.science.org.au/sats2004/images/bilek16.jpg

And I point out that you make this claim again without backing it up with any examples. You haven't been following any of the threads in which Eric5 has been posting lately, have you? His positions have been attacked as vigorously as we see in global warming discussions. That's how scientific discussions go — you thoroughly attempt to falsify claims, precisely because nothing can be proven deductively. But in relativity there is much less rhetoric to get in the way and stir up emotion. And that's a big issue in the global warming threads, because rhetoric and other debating tactics get added to the mix. Frustrations grow and tempers flare when a person making a false or tenuous claim is asked to support it and responds with something other than a scientific source (e.g. no response, a fallacy-ridden response, repetition of the claim, or a link to something that isn't a scientific source,). After a few rounds, someone calls the poster an idiot, and then the persecution claims start. It's a pity we don't keep score of the behavior that goads people into infractions (or at least to the same extent). I don't say this to defend flaming — one has to learn not to take the bait — but scientific arguments and political arguments use a different "scoring" system. In a scientific discussion, using a logical fallacy invalidates your argument, while in a political discussion it often scores a point. In science, making an unsubstantiated claim scores no points, but in politics it depends on the quality of the sound bite. In science, a false claim diminishes your credibility, but in politics it often not only has no penalty, it can be seen to score points — creationists do this all the time. (And if you want a quick example of this, McCain's comments about bear DNA demonstrates what I'm talking about — crappy science arguments used to score political points) Take "driving the opposition out of town on a rail" as an example. To me that carries no weight until examples have been given to allow the opportunity to rebut. It sounds good, though, so some might think that there's something to it. The issue here is whether you score these discussions using a scientific scorecard or a political one. Many of us want to have a scientific discussion and not have a political framework forced upon it. Rebutting bad arguments and flawed claims is not an inherently political action, especially if it does not involve policy discussions.

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

In the view from other frames, that "flatness" is the normal state for beings traveling at that speed, just like a longer decay time is normal for radioactive particles that are not at rest.

No, the positron is at the same energy as an electron, and the antiproton is at the same energy as the proton. They are not unstable. The current proton/electron universe shows CP violation, though the observed extent of this is currently not sufficient to explain the prevalence of matter vs antimatter. There is no demonstrated affinity for positive charge to be with higher mass.

That's why I asked you about energy, because it is a similar application of the false dichotomy. It is not a physical thing that you can hold, like a rock, yet is exists independent of our thought, so it is not a consideration. Length is not a physical thing that you can hold in your hand — it is a property of an object, but not the object itself. And yet an object has length whether we think about or not. It is not a consideration.

The zero reference of the earth is artificial — there is no preferred reference frame. And each rocket payload determines their mass to be unchanged, since they are at rest with respect to themselves. That mass — the rest mass — is an invariant in different frames. No, since energy isn't an invariant under the coordinate transformation. It's not a valid way of analyzing the situation.

You aren't allowed to shout in the library, either. Doesn't make it censorship. Nobody is forcing you to visit here. Nobody has encouraged you to leave, either, just insisted that you be polite.

pioneer, I'm not sure I see your point. Energy is not an invariant when you transform between reference frames, even in a Galilean transform.

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

Unless the comparison was to the subject matter and tactics, rather than the person making the argument. Then it's neither; just an observation about subject matter and tactics. Part of the issue of arguments such as these is taking statements personally when they are not meant that way. Umm, what? "Show me data" is a logical fallacy? Huh? Is there really any point in having a discussion if you are going to dismiss scientific findings as opinion and/or political statement? And it's all statistical analysis - showing what drugs work what drugs don't. I don't see how that supports your claim. Anyway, science is all about statistical analysis. (emphasis added) You have yet to demonstrate where that is occurring. I ask for data, and you respond with rhetoric. The whole issue in microcosm. Bad example, actually. The issue with this, if you will recall, is that the "source" you cited actually did make the claims that were being questioned, and rebutted.

Ah, yes, I see that your are correct, but most of the effect is after the flame falters and is extinguished. Certainly it can be a combination of effects. Measure? The hell you say. We want our dogma, and we want it NOW!

He doesn't see himself as flattened, but another observer does. Who is right? The problem is that neither of the two can establish that their view is the correct one.

Greater than 90% certainty that the warming is anthropogenic is not "stopping short." Statistical evidence, along with other investigations, can demonstrate causality. It's done in medical tests all the time. And I wholeheartedly agree with this. But questions about the cause of the warming are ones of science, because if one erroneously concludes that the warming is natural, it is very easy to justify doing nothing. The political response has to be based on valid science. The political process can certainly bring other considerations into the decision, of course, and still decide to do nothing, but what can't be tolerated is the decision to do nothing, and then subsequently present only evidence that supports that decision. And that's a strawman, because science doesn't "prove" anything. It's one of the tactics that the denialists use, because they then equate "don't understand fully" with "don't understand." What science does, however, is to quantify the level of understanding. If a rock is on a ledge one day, and the next there are bits of rock at the bottom of the ravine, that when you piece them together, strongly resemble the rock that used to be on the ledge, you'd probably agree that the rock fell, under the influence of gravity, and broke. But you can't prove it. I can't make the connection between your analogy and "missing" data or analysis. Please, point to some specific examples. What science is missing? Asking for data or other rigorous supporting documentation is not politics, it's science. Objecting to cherry-picked data, or strawman (or other logical fallacy) claims is not politics, it's science.

I don't think that expansion has been sufficiently ruled out. The fact that the liquid isn't forced in until the flame goes out is quite important, and supports the thermal expansion hypothesis. I would suggest trying this with a larger container (like an old milk bottle), so that the flame continues longer. Use a deeper dish (i.e. more fluid) and observe if there is any gas forced out from expansion due to heating. If there is, you should see bubbles. edit: then try it again while holding the bottle above the fluid. As soon as the flame goes out, lower it. If the pressure imbalance is due to a change in the number of moles of gas, this should be thwarted by having the bottle above the fluid. If, however, it is due to P and T changes you should still see fluid forced into the bottle.

For expansion the atoms/molecules themselves don't expand — space does.

Nobody's "allergic" to AWT, or any other concepts. All that is being asked of you is to not hijack threads by posting off-topic/alternative responses. Discuss these in their own threads. That is why this post has been moved. It is not an appropriate response to the topic under discussion.

Do all parameters change at the same rate if you shrink things? Linear effects change with r, surface effects go as the square, while volume effects go as the cube.

But it has everything to do with false dichotomies and why nobody can answer your question. No, you have asked a question and placed a restriction on the answers that makes it impossible to answer. It's a trick question, regardless of whether you acknowledge or realize it. I can discuss how to measure time at length. And I've given the physics definition many times, which you continually ignore or reject. But you seem to want to know what the nature of time is, which is metaphysics. But the question of whether energy is physical or a consideration goes to the obtuseness of the question as applied to time. Energy is certainly real, but is not something you can hold in your hand, so it is not physical. Same thing with time. The answer to "is it a consideration or is it physical?" is "It is neither."

I'm assuming the middle. If you are standing on a sphere of radius R, all of the mass inside the sphere attracts you. (Uniformly distributed mass outside does not; everything cancels)

The shape distorts, depending on your frame of reference. You have a meter stick. An observer who is moving relative to you, measures it as being a "0.9-meter stick." There is no structural change to the stick. It is not an illusion (a trick of the eye), since you can use identical measuring techniques. Neither of you can prove who is right about the length of the stick, since both of your reference frames are equally valid. So, is the stick really a meter long?

Zombie Feynman likes it. The issue I have is when they fail to recreate an effect and declare the myth busted; all they have demonstrated is that the incident didn't happen, not that it couldn't. That's the rigor it lacks.