On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 09:16:42 -0400, Floyd Baker wrote:


Hi... I tried once before with some limited success but was overcome
by things over my head. Not necessarily unable to visualize, but I do
not know the language you guys speak.

So can I ask a few simple yes or no questions and work my way into
this? I'll get a little more defined once I know if my original
concepts are fairly straight. No qualifications now... g I know
that will be hard but my questions are simple. I just want to know
when I hit a no.. Thanks.


When an object increases in speed, during acceleration, does the
object 'shrink' in size, relative to a motionless observer.

The answer to this specific question is yes, at an increasing rate.
It would not be measuable until or unless the speed of the object
approaches the speed of light.

Once the object arrives at the intended velocity, and stops
accelerating, does its size stop reducing relative to the observer?

Again, yes, relative to your specified 'motionless observer' above.

Does an object shrinking occur in all directions, as opposed to only
the direction of travel?

Only in the direction of travel. If it were a perfect sphere it would
become a flattened oblate spheroid, like an M&M plain

If not, I would like to know why.

If yes, is the shrinking the result of the object's atoms all
shrinking?

Now, this one is debatable and is theory dependent. In the modern
interpretation of SR the atoms do not shrink. It is a matter of
measurements taken by observation & calculation. In another version
(Lorentz's) the atomic fields are physically distorted by the motion
and thus squashed along the axis of motion. It is a result of a
strain induced by said motion. Take you pick, observationally
they are equivalent.

Do they shrink because the electrons find a longer path, a spiral path
instead of a circle, that is brought about by the acceleration or
deceleration?

When under acceleration you're talking a non-inertial frame and that
is complicated. It can be simplified by a differentiation process
and looking at the problem as a series of instantaneous co-moving
reference frames [ICRF]. But either way you do look at it the
shrinkage increases with speed.

That is; during acceleration, don't the electrons still have to
complete the full diameter of the orbit to keep the atom's properties?
That is; (long sentence coming up) if an electron's path is longer
because of the spiral, brought on by its effort to keep up with an
accelerating and escaping nucleus, and it would therefore not be able
to complete a full single orbit in the allotted time, because it could
NOT go faster, it would in effect be too slow to maintain it's
distance from the nucleus, so the electron would start to decay
towards that center. It would thus shrink until reaching equilibrium
again.

It is more quantum mechanical in nature rather than classical.

Is this what causes the shrinkage in size of objects?

The 'cause' is left undefined by modern theory. In Lorentz's the
cause is defined.

On slow down, does the same thing happen in reverse?

Yes...

That is; as the nucleus slows down, the electrons tend to spiral ahead
of it in the direction of travel, thus having to deal with a longer
path again... But this longer path is what is needed to maintain
equilibrium at the slower velocity which uses a larger orbit. So the
distance of that path is 'corrected' from the spiral, back to the
larger orbit that stays with the nucleus.

On the acceleration and deceleration size changes, is there some
correction time factor? A time that it takes for these changing
forces to come back into alignment... What occurs or is brought
about by this factor?

Acceleration alters time for those undergoing the acceleration. Thus
for the stationary observer, the time for the accelerating/decellerating
object is objectively altered.

My end vision here is that there is this spaceship traveling across
the galaxy and they think they're moving at near the speed of light.
However earth viewers see the truth. They see a very much smaller
spaceship that has created for themselves a galaxy that is now 100
times larger. Earth sees the space ship traveling very *slowly*
across their field of vision because this is what is right for them.
The space travelers are trying to ignore the fact that the photons
from their headlights *are* traveling away from the ship at the speed
of light, where they logically should pile up in front of them. So
*they* can't be traveling that fast. Their instruments just *measure*
it that way.

This paragraph is unclear. But, because lengths ARE contracted for the
rapidly moving spacecraft it does indeed have a distorted view of things.
However, if it is just coasting, that view is measurably symmetrical
with all others.

In my mind right now, the faster you go, the further you have to go.
You may become so fast, that you will become so small, that the
distances will become so large, that you will never get there.

It really IS a matter of interpretation. You could say that or, just
as validily say, the faster you go, the slower time progresses.

Other than worm holes, warps, or whatever, am I in the ballpark?

Generally. Experts would argue with you on details

Paul Stowe

"Paul Stowe" wrote in message
...
| On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 09:16:42 -0400, Floyd Baker wrote:
|
|
| Hi... I tried once before with some limited success but was overcome
| by things over my head. Not necessarily unable to visualize, but I do
| not know the language you guys speak.
|
| So can I ask a few simple yes or no questions and work my way into
| this? I'll get a little more defined once I know if my original
| concepts are fairly straight. No qualifications now... g I know
| that will be hard but my questions are simple. I just want to know
| when I hit a no.. Thanks.
|
|
| When an object increases in speed, during acceleration, does the
| object 'shrink' in size, relative to a motionless observer.
|
| The answer to this specific question is yes, at an increasing rate.
[snip remaining crap]
| Paul Stowe

Prove it. You cannot, and here is why you cannot.

The Seven Deadly Sins of Special Relativity.

For quotations following, reference:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
("On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" by Albert Einstein)

1) "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c
which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body",
a totally unproven assumption without any evidence to support it.

2) "In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity
2AB/(t'A-tA) = c to be a universal constant- the velocity of light in empty
space.",
an admitted assumption that is quite worthless when there is any
relative motion between A and B, yet essential to the derivation of the
remainder of Einstein's nonsense.

3) The equation
½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v)) ,
the ½ of which is derived from 2) above and is tantamount to saying
(1/3 + 2/3)/2 = 1/3.

4) The missing 0' from that equation, since x' = x-vt, hence 0' = 0-vt,
and the equation should be
½[tau(-vt,0,0,t)+tau(-vt,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
at the very least.

5) The further assumption "IF we place x' = x-vt ... " without considering
IF we place x' = x+vt, from which we derive (using Einstein's method)
tau = (t+xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
xi = (x + vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)" -Paul B. Andersen

6) The statements
"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k,
when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v..."
and
"It follows, further, that the velocity of light c cannot be altered by
composition with a velocity less than that of light. For this case we obtain
V = (c+w)/(1+w/c) = c."
which are contradictory, the first being Galilean, the second being
contrary to the vector addition of velocities, an axiom of a vector space.

7) The lack of a check to verify the theory is self-consistent by feeding
the new PoR given in 6) into the equation given in 3) and finding a total
failure.
Check:
(t1-t)/(t2-t)*[tau(-vt,0,0,t)+tau(-vt,0,0,t+x'/V+x'/V)] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/V)

Androcles.

On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 17:43:53 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote:

[Snip...]

| When an object increases in speed, during acceleration, does the
| object 'shrink' in size, relative to a motionless observer.
|
| The answer to this specific question is yes, at an increasing rate.

[snip remaining crap]

Prove it. You cannot, and here is why you cannot.

First, the MMX class of experiments 'prove it'. Nuff said...

Second, the gentleman that asked this question is NOT interested in
endless arguments by headstrong crackpots that cannot do basic math.
Seriously, learn some basic algerbra then we can maybe talk in a
thread that involves the topic.

Paul Stowe

"Paul Stowe" wrote in message
...
| On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 17:43:53 GMT, "Androcles"

| wrote:
|
| [Snip...]
|
| | When an object increases in speed, during acceleration, does the
| | object 'shrink' in size, relative to a motionless observer.
| |
| | The answer to this specific question is yes, at an increasing rate.
|
| [snip remaining crap]
|
| Prove it. You cannot, and here is why you cannot.
|
| First, the MMX class of experiments 'prove it'. Nuff said...
|
| Second, the gentleman that asked this question is NOT interested in
| endless arguments by headstrong crackpots that cannot do basic math.
| Seriously, learn some basic algerbra then we can maybe talk in a
| thread that involves the topic.
|
| Paul Stowe

That is what I asked you to do, but you snip what you have no answer for.
Seriously, learn some basic algebra and some basics physics before you make
ridiculous claims for MMX, an experiment you do not understand, you
headstrong crackpot snipper. Oh, and it was you that snipped the contents of
the thread, the topic of which was given in the title.
Having snipped the material you say you wish to discuss, you have very poor
logic in suggesting "maybe talk in a thread that involves the topic."
Androcles.

"Paul Stowe" wrote in message ...
On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 09:16:42 -0400, Floyd Baker wrote:



If yes, is the shrinking the result of the object's atoms all
shrinking?

Now, this one is debatable and is theory dependent. In the modern
interpretation of SR the atoms do not shrink. It is a matter of
measurements taken by observation & calculation. In another version
(Lorentz's) the atomic fields are physically distorted by the motion
and thus squashed along the axis of motion. It is a result of a
strain induced by said motion. Take you pick, observationally
they are equivalent.

Although this last statement is correct, Lorentz's theory
(or interpretation, if you prefer) has not been used
seriously by anyone for nearly a century.

Martin Hogbin

"Androcles" wrote in message ...

"Paul Stowe" wrote in message
...
| On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 17:43:53 GMT, "Androcles"

| wrote:
|
| [Snip...]
|
| | When an object increases in speed, during acceleration, does the
| | object 'shrink' in size, relative to a motionless observer.
| |
| | The answer to this specific question is yes, at an increasing rate.
|
| [snip remaining crap]
|
| Prove it. You cannot, and here is why you cannot.
|
| First, the MMX class of experiments 'prove it'. Nuff said...
|
| Second, the gentleman that asked this question is NOT interested in
| endless arguments by headstrong crackpots that cannot do basic math.
| Seriously, learn some basic algerbra then we can maybe talk in a
| thread that involves the topic.
|
| Paul Stowe

That is what I asked you to do, but you snip what you have no answer for.
Seriously, learn some basic algebra and some basics physics before you make
ridiculous claims for MMX, an experiment you do not understand,

Good thing that we have a ****head like you to understand it :-)
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di.../AndroMMX.html

Dirk Vdm