[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 130 KB, 683x1024, 1327560035_1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9745829 No.9745829 [Reply] [Original]

Brian Cox once stated that because of relativistic effects the LHC reduces its circumference from 27 km to something more like a few centimetres. What does this do to the Earth from the perspective of the particles in the collider? Is it like a balloon with an elastic band wrapped around it? Doesn't the situation become more complex when we factor in that there are also other particles in the cycltron? Help, my brain is full of fuck!!!

https://www.quora.com/Why-doesnt-the-circumference-of-the-Hadron-Collider-shrink

>> No.9745862

Bumpo

>> No.9745914

Bump 2
No-one? Is relativity a dead horse at this point?

>> No.9745988

>>9745829
Bump 3
There's two threads up about the science of poop and poo-flinging and they both have a high number of replies compared to this thread. What gives?

>> No.9746005

>>9745829
Go learn physics and calculate yourself what the particles 'see' when accelerated to close to c, it's not trivial.

>> No.9746016

>>9746005
Circumference of the accelerator shrinks to a tiny fraction of the size. In order for the radius to stay the same it would need to lift the surrounding Earth high into the sky (from the perspective of the particles) the energy required to do this would be immense, much more than the minute energy in the beam itself. Care to explain?

>> No.9746026
File: 108 KB, 500x405, its-speed-force-i-aint-gotta-explain-shit-the-flash-10109316.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9746026

>>9746016
>it would need to lift the surrounding Earth high into the sky (from the perspective of the particles) the energy required to do this would be immense
>from the perspective of the particles

Maybe the particles are just too stupid to realize that the earth doesn't actually have to and the LHC doesn't levitate in mid air and physically shrink in size.

>> No.9746027

>>9746016
>In order for the radius to stay the same it would need to lift the surrounding Earth high into the sky
what? why?
the particles are rotating around in the ring, what they see outside the ring isn't so clear cut

>> No.9746036

>>9746026
>doesn't... physically shrink in size.
Never heard of length contraction? It is a physical property. In order for lengths to contract the circumference must also contract and this must have an effect on the surrounding structures in some way due to the fact that the LHC is embedded in the ground.

>> No.9746040

>>9746027
What they """see""" is not so important. What matters is what can be said to logically follow from a 27 kilometre ring embedded under the ground contracting to the size of a hola-hoop.

>> No.9746054

>>9746040
>what can be said to logically follow
what do you mean? you need to use math here, not just simple logic

>> No.9746076

>>9746054
Math is logical, is it not? In any case what I mean is if the path of the particles contracts the particle accelerator must contract also, otherwise the particles would go off course and drill into the wall. (Cox confirms this anyway, so it is a mute point). If the accelerator ring contracts the surrounding earth around it must contract also, because the ring is 100 metres underground. A rigid rotating disk undergoes a Lorentz Transform by curling up at the edges;
{\frac {F}{S}}={\frac {mv^{2}}{rS}}<{\frac {mc_{s}^{2}}{rS}}\approx {\frac {mG}{rS\rho }}\approx G
If this were to happen at the Cern site, the entire ring and the surrounding ground would lift up into the air like a giant rippling wave. Where is the energy coming from to achieve this miraculous feat?

>> No.9746113

>>9746076
>the entire ring and the surrounding ground would lift up into the air like a giant rippling wave
wtf? are you on drugs?
Lorentz Transformations are something you do to change from one frame of reference to another, but they don't actually change anything, things are invariant under LT

>> No.9746158

>>9746113
> but they don't actually change anything
The pivotal discovery of Einstein was that when an object travels at or near the speed of light lengths will contract and time dilate. This is not an apparent contraction and dilation, it is a real contraction and dilation. So for example if you were to somehow travel in a spacecraft approaching the speed of light, I would see your ship contracting from my perspective on Earth. Likewise you would see the Earth contracting. With regards to the LHC, we don't see it contracting into an invert wave of Earth a hundred feet high. It would be crazy to expect it to do this, but according to what Cox is saying it must.

>> No.9746168

>>9746158
The ring is not rotating, the particles inside it are

>> No.9746177

>>9746168
Correct. But don't forget this
>the path of the particles contracts the particle accelerator must contract also, otherwise the particles would go off course and drill into the wall. (Cox confirms this anyway, so it is a mute point)
Are you actually reading what I'm writing?

>> No.9746199

>>9746177
>otherwise the particles would go off course and drill into the wall
no, that's what all the superconducting magnets are for, to keep the particles inside the ring

>> No.9746211

>>9746199
Ahhh, you must be trolling. If the circumference of the beam contracts, the ring must contract to continue to house the beam.

>> No.9746231

>>9746199
What is so difficult to understand about this?>>9746211

>> No.9746246 [DELETED] 

I found the answer to OP's question
https://www.quora.com/Why-doesnt-the-circumference-of-the-Hadron-Collider-shrink

>same link in Opening Post
I can't tell if this is some sort of test to see if peope'd read the quora link, if nobody bothered reading the link, or if OP is just trolling everyone.

>> No.9746251
File: 86 KB, 1440x1088, 1453830484152.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9746251

>>9745829
>27 km to something more like a few centimetres
SLIPSPACE IS FUCKING REAL

>> No.9746252

I found the answer to OP's question
https://www.quora.com/Why-doesnt-the-circumference-of-the-Hadron-Collider-shrink

>same link in Opening Post
I can't tell if this is some sort of test to see if people would read the quora link, if OP didn't bothered reading their own link, or if OP is just trolling everyone.

>> No.9746256

>>9746246
Nice troll work. Slow clap... Honestly. I posted the link. It doesn't explain the question I asked, because if you had bothered to look; it is a different question.
quora question;
>Why-doesnt-the-circumference-of-the-Hadron-Collider-shrink
My question;
>>9745829

>> No.9746262
File: 46 KB, 259x195, untitled.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9746262

>>9746211
Contraction is ONLY in the direction of motion.
Distances are unchanged at right angles.
You're trying to apply Euclidian geometry to a hyperbolic space.

You must have seen embedding diagrams for a black hole.
Physicists always tell you the size of the event horizon by listing the circumference. That remains unchanged. But the radius, as measured by the number of grid-lines an object falls past on its way to the singularity, is much more than circumference over two pi. It may be infinite.

>> No.9746267

>>9746252
See >>9746256
The answer given in the quora question is the Ehrenfest paradox, which deals with rigid bodies. It doesn't deal with discrete particle beams.

>> No.9746275

>>9746262
If the contraction happens in the direction of motion than the circumference of the particle beam must contract. If the particle beam contracts then the circumference of the collider must contract. If the circumference of the collider contracts then the ground in which the collider is buried must contract.
Read the fucking thread!!!

>> No.9746285

>>9746262
>Physicists always tell you the size of the event horizon by listing the circumference. That remains unchanged. But the radius, as measured by the number of grid-lines an object falls past on its way to the singularity, is much more than circumference over two pi. It may be infinite
In regard to the Ehrenfest paradox, the radius will stay the same, but the circumference length will contract, because of exactly what you said
>Distances are unchanged at right angles.

>> No.9746379

>>9746251
No that's the point it can't be. Wake up.

>> No.9746385
File: 947 KB, 1024x3325, cern_contraction.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9746385

Pic related is the deformation that takes place in the landscape everytime Cern is switched on. It is not exactly to scale, because otherwise you wouldn't be able to see it on this crappy low res image. How does the collider have the energy capacity to collapse matter to this degree? When we think of space and time it is easy, but thousands of square kilometres of dirt and stone is a different story entirely.

>> No.9746390

Op cites some knowledge of GR but apparently has never encountered reference frames, this thread is bait.

>> No.9746404

>>9746390
>Op cites some knowledge of GR but apparently has never encountered reference frames, this thread is bait.
Reference frames can't apply here since the collider ring is generating the force to propel the particles around the ring in the first place. The path of the accelerated particles is contracted because of their speed. If their reference frame was different from that of the collider it would mean that their deformation would be outside of the collider ring and out of synch with the cause and effect of our reality. See the second image in this picture >>9746385 the red line shows the path of the particles after deformation. It is miles away from where the collider sits in our reference frame. In order for the two to synch back up and reinstate cause and effect you need to contract the space around it leading to image three above.
Anyway Brian Cox disagrees with you. If you know more than him then maybe you should get a job at Cern and not waster your obviously immeasurable talents on Chinese pencil pairing forums.

>> No.9746432

>>9746390
I didn't even cite GR, I only made ref to SR.

>> No.9746450

>>9746404
you're very confused about relativity, you should ask Cox about it and post results

>> No.9746479

>>9746450
Who isn't? If you aren't then you should be able to tell me where I'm going wrong. As far as I can tell Cox agrees with me on a length contraction of the collider itself. This has some implications for the principle of conservation of energy because it means that a sizeable portion of the Earth must be contracted in that ref frame also.

>> No.9746485

It's doesn't do anything to the earth, it's a few centimetres long from the point of view of the proton. The proton also sees the whole earth get smaller. In our reference frame? Everything is exactly the same. Who's right? Both since you can't compare distances (or time) in different reference frames, that's why simultaneity is not possible in SR or GR

>> No.9746495

>>9746485
How can the whole Earth shrink if the radius of the collider has to stay the same size? As >>9746262 points out;
>Contraction is ONLY in the direction of motion.
>Distances are unchanged at right angles.

>> No.9746510

>>9746495
the radius doesn't stay the same size in the proton's reference frame. It stays the same size in the earth's reference frame

>> No.9746514

>>9746485
If the Earth shrinks from the point of view of the collider then the particle beam should shrink noticably from our point of view. If that happens then the collider has to shrink and then the whole thing becomes a paradox.

>> No.9746518

>>9746510
This appears to disprove your point that
>you can't compare distances (or time) in different reference frames
you just compared the length of the radius in one ref frame to another. Anyway if you look at the Ehrenfest paradox you will see that you are wrong. The radius stays the same in all reference frames.

>> No.9746519

>>9746495
you forget that inside the collider the direction of motion for the particles is constantly changing to keep them inside the ring, using very strong superconducting magnets

>> No.9746525

>>9746514
there's no absolute notion of length in relativity. The proton and the observer on the earth or the collider or whatever will disagree in the length of the collider. It's just how it is, it's like the twin paradox for lengths, but it's not really a paradox. You pick a reference frame to measure things and what you measure between two events can be translated to the frame you choose without inconsistencies

>> No.9746528

>>9746519
Right but that constant change of motion is always at right angles to the radius. This is pretty much the mathematical definition of a circle. General Relativity already deals with reference frames that are changing direction (or accelerating). It simply means that whatever relativistic change that is happening is no longer relativistic at that point. The collider is contracting in its reference frame according to GR and no other reference frame, not the Earth's not ours; none of them. The problem here is pointed out here >>9746514 If the particle beam's ref frame is contracting then the colliders must also be, which means that our ref frame must be involved at that point.

>> No.9746531

>>9746518
I didn't say that. You can compare them like this: choose a still reference frame and define the meter, say. Let the proton carry the ruler around the circumference and measure what he goes through. His distance will be different a few centimeters despite being 27 km on the earth

>> No.9746544

>>9746525
See>>9746528
It's a paradox. Nothing you said there made any sense.

>>9746531
Wow. You really don't know what you are talking about. The collider doesn't contract by a few centimetres, it contracts to a tiny fraction of its size. I can't recall the exact numbers but the end result is something on the order of feet or centimetres. Also you don't understand Special Relativity. A quote from the quora article;
"The fact that the LHC shrinks directly in front of the proton, while its radius remains constant, was a significant open question in relativity called the Ehrenfest paradox"
https://www.quora.com/Why-doesnt-the-circumference-of-the-Hadron-Collider-shrink

>> No.9746556

>>9746544
I forgot a comma, it's a few centimeters. You may have a point, you were saying radius but I was thinking about the circumference. The radius stays the same.

What changes is that Euclidean geometry doesn't apply, circumference/diameter is not pi anymore

>> No.9746559

>>9746556
in the proton reference frame of course

>> No.9746593

>>9746556
Ah ok, I was wondering. It seems then that we are back to the fact that in the colliders ref frame there is a severe contraction taking place in the surrounding area. See pic related >>9746385 Surely such a physical contraction would require immense amounts of energy. According to the law of conservation of energy it must be coming from somewhere. It can't be coming from the collider itself.

>> No.9746604

>>9746593
nothing is really contracted or changes because a proton is moving fast. It's just what they measure, it's a matter of perspective

>> No.9746625

>>9746556
>What changes is that Euclidean geometry doesn't apply, circumference/diameter is not pi anymore
The trouble here is that since the particle beam is dependant on the collider to be propelled, but -- as we know -- the collider itself is not moving, ergo; it is not in the beam's reference frame. Since the beam contracts and we admit that the collider must also contract to conserve cause and effect, then the fourth wall barrier is breached between the two reference frames. The collider must be in both reference frames at once or in neither and as such we should see the contraction.

>>9746604
Wrong. Length contraction is a physical property according to SR. See; >>9746158

>> No.9746650

>>9746625
the idea in relativity is that rf doesn't matter. Of course the proton will measure it's path and the collider and everything around it contracted in the direction of motion in order for everything to be compatible with how it sees things. Ditto for the people outside, everything is still and fine.

If the proton says everything measures a few centimeters and I say on the earth it measures 27 km they're both right statements. It's not a logical contradiction according to relativity since they're not in the same frame

>> No.9746654

>>9746650
if you're looking for the energy needed to create this contraction, it's the energy to necessary to accelerate the proton because that's what cause the movement but that's a triviality

>> No.9746657

>>9746604
What you have to remember is that Relativity Theory was invented to explain why light moves at a constant rate in all reference frames. In the Mitchelson Morley experiment Einstein concluded that one arm of the inferometre was undergoing a length contraction. Poincare and Lorentz both theorised about this before Einstein, but in their case they proposed that the contraction wasn't real but apparent. Einstein's breakthrough was to say that the contraction was real. If we are going to say that it is apparent, then we have to award the discovery of Relativity to Poincare and even then we are back to the point that all of Einstein's subsequent work is based on a false assumption and must be thrown out.

>> No.9746698

>>9746657
it's just a matter of semantics. The real vs apparent is related to the ether vs no ether debate. Before Einstein, there was movement through the ether, basically a universal reference frame could be defined where distances and times are absolute and deviations happen because of relative movement (imagine ether was a river moving only on one direction, that would mess things up for light, what the MM experiment was trying to show). That would mean contractions were apparent and the previous laws of physics were only true in the ether, i.e. contractions or dilations don't exist in the ether reference frame but exist in the earth reference frame.

Einstein showed there was no such a thing and therefore they're real in the sense that they're and not a secondary effect.

There's no mechanism as far as I know of responsible for this in classical relativity, maybe in fundamental theories of gravity. It's just spacetime geometry, it just allows all world lines to just exist and particles just follow one of them, there's no mechanism behind it as there's no mechanism giving vectors length in 3d space, it's just the formulation

>> No.9746709

>>9746040
WE are not moving along with the particles -- nothing shrinks from our point of view. The tunnel of the LHC is not moving along with the particles. So, guess what?

>> No.9746710

>>9746650
>It's not a logical contradiction according to relativity since they're not in the same frame
The particles are going around in a circle they are changing direction and as such they are undergoing an acceleration. According to General Relativity, the reference frame undergoing acceleration is the reference frame that experiences the time dilation and length contraction for real. For the particle beam it sees the tunnel contract, but all lengths appear to stay the same for it (a seeming contradiction). For ourselves, we know that the length contraction of the particle beam is real, according to GR, but since the collider is contracting and the collider sits in our reference frame, then so too is time dilating around the warp field of collider. Therefore anyone standing outside the warp field of the collider should see the effects of switching on the collider, on the immediate vicinity. But we obviously don't see that. The relativity is broken in the GR model, but you are suggesting it remains preserved here. That is not the makings of a consistent theory, in my view. We should see the beam contracting (or something at least) and if we see that we should see the collider contracting. Again a paradox.

>> No.9746724

>>9746262
>You're trying to apply Euclidian geometry to a hyperbolic space.


But.... but... muh uninformed common sense sez...

>> No.9746732

>>9746698
If you read Principia Mathematica you will see that way back then Newton was discussing relative motion with respect to the Earth moving relative to the stars or it being stationary. The same argument can be applied to the MM experiment. Either the Earth is moving relative to light (the ether) or it is stationary. Newton was a very clever person, but he didn't have all of the information about the solar system to make an informed call on whether or not the Earth was moving. The MM experiment seems to suggest it isn't. It seems more likely to me that the Earth is stationary than playing semantics with concrete physical properties which are contracting and aren't at the same time.

>> No.9746736

>>9746485
>Who's right? Both since you can't compare distances (or time) in different reference frames, that's why simultaneity is not possible in SR or GR

>you can't compare distances (or time) in different reference frames

>you can't compare distances (or time) in different reference frames

>you can't compare distances (or time) in different reference frames

>you can't compare distances (or time) in different reference frames

NB4 the next "Look, I'm comparing distances in different reference frames. some more"

>> No.9746738

>>9746724
See; >>9746710 GR states that only one reference frame experiences the length contraction for real and that should be the particle beams. And yet, we don't see the contraction. Its a contradiction.

>> No.9746740

>>9746736
Then it is unprovable and unscientific.

>> No.9746752

>>9746736
technically I'm comparing I know, what I'm saying is that saying I define a meter in an arbitrary rf (say earth, still), I can't really expect it to be the same if I'm a moving particle even though I can carry the stick with me and expect the distances I measure are the same the people in the earth frame measure

>> No.9746773

>>9746752
You missed my pont, probably my fault.

I was stressing through repitition a key point that you made, then predicting with an NB4 that trolls would ignore that point and continue to say "if it is only centimeters to the particle, it has to shrink in our frame of reference."

>> No.9746776

>>9746752
>I can't really expect it to be the same if I'm a moving particle even though I can carry the stick with me and expect the distances I measure are the same the people in the earth frame measure
Actually that is exactly what you would expect. Such a claim is extraordinary and as they say it should require some evidence to prove it. But you fully admit that it is impossible to compare the lengths, therefore it is unprovable and unfalsifiable. I've put it to you that as per the "logical" frame work of GR itself, the collider should provide that proof that we need and since it doesn't Relativity Theory is untenable.

>> No.9747627

>>9745829
>The solution rests on the fact that the proton is constantly accelerating, so the basic principles of special relativity don't apply (or at least, need to be applied very carefully).

Isn't this your answer? the other particles in the cyclotron should be protons as well shouldn't they?

>> No.9747653
File: 68 KB, 850x400, quote-the-majority-of-the-stupid-is-invincible-and-guaranteed-for-all-time-the-terror-of-their-albert-einstein-129-30-04.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9747653

>brainlets cant understand space-time dilation intuitively and reject it because anything they dont understand cant be real

from the (hypothetical) perspective of a photon traveling at the speed of light starting a journey from one side of the universe to the other, the diameter of the universe along its path is reduced to zero, all of space and time is compressed to a singularity at the speed of light.

if you got on a spaceship and started out on a journey to a star system 100 light years away, and your spaceship could go at 99.9999% the speed of light, then to you the distance between you and the star system would shrink to nearly zero, and the time to get there would be merely seconds. Simultaneously an earth based observatory tracking your journey would record the trip took almost 100 years. To you on the spaceship, if you could look back at earth during your trip, would see what appears to be time slipping rapidly into the future.

>> No.9747658

>>9746776
>Relativity Theory is untenable
almost exactly 100 years ago it was proved
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse_of_May_29,_1919

>> No.9747675

>>9747653
This.
It's also why in the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment the photons always "know" if you will erase or keep the data.

>> No.9747702

>>9747627
>so the basic principles of special relativity don't apply
Yes the principles of General Relativity apply instead. See >>9746710

>> No.9747708

>>9747658
The conditions under which this experiment were carried out were laughably bad and would never be accepted by today's standards. Furthermore, the conclusions drawn can be explained by other means, such as diffraction. The conclusions drawn instead rest upon earlier assumptions all of which can also be explained by other means. Relativity is a shell game and a house of cards built on and between faulty assumptions and poor scientific data.

>> No.9747714

>>9747653
The point is because the particles in the collider are under constant acceleration the principles of special relativity don't apply. Instead the principles of General Relativity do. This means that relativity is broken and the contraction effects only happen to the particles in their reference frame and not the collider or anything outside of it. But since the collider is the source of the energy supplied to the particle beam, all contraction/dilation must also apply to it, as it is like a ruler or measuring device. Since we don't see any contraction, either in the particle beam or the collider, we could assume that the two effects cancel each other out. But it is odd that they should cancel out into our reference frame. This suggests that our reference frame is the preferred reference frame.

>Simultaneously an earth based observatory tracking your journey would record the trip took almost 100 years.
But we would still see the effects of length contraction on the ship, which means that we should see it in the particle beam also.

>> No.9747721

>>9747675
Proofs?

>> No.9747759

>>9747708
other more rigorous experiments have proved it over and over again.
>>9747714
you dont see the path of the particle stream contract because you are not moving at relativistic velocities.

>> No.9747764

>>9747759
>you dont see the path of the particle stream contract because you are not moving at relativistic velocities.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the prinicples of relativity. Please read up before commenting.

>>9747759
They have proved refraction of light, nothing more.

>> No.9747770

>>9747764
you're retarded and trying to make people stupider with your jibberish. I dont know what your end game is but I hope people know you're a moron.

>> No.9747776

>>9747770
Ad hominem. The purpose of science is to try and disprove your own hypothesis. This is how science moves forward. If someone presents a reason why a particular theory is faulty based upon its own logic. It is up to your as a proponent of said theory to either back up your claims or admit that your theory is incorrect. Spouting ad hominem is not going to make people take you seriously, reframing your argument to address the problems in your theory is a much better approach.

>> No.9747781

>>9747776
what you're doing is ignoring the facts such that your own conspiracy about flat earth or whatever bullshit seems less retarded. Your pseudo-intellectual bull-shit is obvious to me but idiots might be fooled.

>> No.9747787

>>9747781
I'm not ignoring the facts. You are. I'm addressing the very prevalent facts of GR in relation to the the LHC. It is up to you as a proponent of the theory to address these facts. Waffling on about eclipses is about as relevant to this discussion as talking about proper dietary measures for your dog.

>> No.9747801

>>9747787
the facts? the facts are GR is tested and proven. your failure to understand the tests, and the implications just makes you an idiot. Also no one gives a shit about convincing you of anything. Willfully ignorant brainlets deserve to remain stupid.

>> No.9747808

>>9747801
It doesn't matter if GR has been "tested" in any number of abstract ways, if the results of the theory do not turn up where they are supposed to. It is up to you to explain these obvious discrepancies in the theory. If you are unable to you should say so and wait until someone better versed in the matter does it for you. Since no one is willing or able to do that, at present, it would be reasonable to conclude that the foundational assumptions of RT are and have always been incorrect. That is the simple matter of the fact, from a scientific perspective. If you aren't comfortable with that then you are on the wrong board.

>> No.9747812

>>9747808
>the results of the theory do not turn up where they are supposed to
says the retarded brainlet who doesnt understand shit. the mistake here is you thinking that you should see something.

>> No.9747817

>>9747812
You don't understand General Relativity.

>> No.9747818

>>9747714
>This means that relativity is broken
Stop trying to make it sound like you know what you're talking about, it's obvious you have no clue. Nothing in General relativity breaks special relativity.

>But we would still see the effects of length contraction on the ship, which means that we should see it in the particle beam also.
No. The particle beam is undergoing constant acceleration to keep it inside the ring, that is a vastly different situation to a ship with constant motion, not acceleration.
Analyzing the particles reference frame, which is constantly changing, is extremely complicated. When Cox said what he said he simplified the problem by ignoring all outside forces and taking the particle beam as going in a straight line, then returning to it's starting point after 27km.

>> No.9747819

>>9747817
>why doesnt the world shrink when a proton goes fast

no brainlet, you're the retard here.

>> No.9747828

>>9747818
>Nothing in General relativity breaks special relativity.
Twin Paradox. The act of acceleration resolves the paradox of which subject undergoes the special relativistic effects i.e. the passenger on the spacecraft or the observer. This is the "break" in relativity I['m referring to.

>The particle beam is undergoing constant acceleration to keep it inside the ring, that is a vastly different situation to a ship with constant motion, not acceleration.
No.
>Analyzing the particles reference frame, which is constantly changing, is extremely complicated.
Analysing the flow of water is also complicated. That doesn't prevent us from seeing water flowing when we turn on the tap. Same goes for the LHC.
>When Cox said what he said he simplified the problem by ignoring all outside forces and taking the particle beam as going in a straight line, then returning to it's starting point after 27km.
Source?

>> No.9747831

>>9747828
>Twin Paradox. The act of acceleration resolves the paradox
Fucking WRONG, you popsci piece of shit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgvajuvSpF4

>> No.9747860

>>9747831
Lol! You are knocking down straw men here. All this "proves" is that the Twin Paradox is not a paradox, which is the same thing I said. It doesn't matter how you go about proving it at the end of the day, as the method of proving it doesn't adjust the conclusions that we expect to see from the experiment conducted at Cern.

>> No.9747863

>>9747860
>the conclusions that we expect to see
And what exactly is that?

>> No.9747865

>>9747818
>When Cox said what he said he simplified the problem by ignoring all outside forces and taking the particle beam as going in a straight line, then returning to it's starting point after 27km.
No source. I call bullshit.

>> No.9747871

>>9747860
>the conclusions that we expect to see from the experiment conducted at Cern

no
what YOU expected to see wasnt correct. what was actually seen is what was expected, and is perfectly consistent with general relativity, which is perfectly consistent with special relativity.

>> No.9747876

>>9747860
If an observer on Earth witnesses someone accelerating to 0.9999% the speed of light we would expect to see some alterations in their length and in the duration of time experienced aboard the ship. Similarly if we look at the LHC which is travelling at 0.999999...% the speed of light we should see the effects of length contraction. But we don't see it, even though Cox says it does happen. If relativity says we should observe lorentz contractions under one set of conditions with regard to space travel then we should also see it in a comparable set of conditions here on Earth. The lack of these observed conditions need to be accounted for.

>> No.9747879

>>9747871
>t. Quantum brainlet

>> No.9747888

>>9747876
>we should see the effects of length contraction
the LHC ring isnt moving you brainlet mongoloid, so obviously you arent going to see it dilating in space.

>> No.9747896

>>9747888
But the particle beam is. So if the beam contracts then the ring must also contract, because the ring is driving the particles. Cox states that the LHC gets significantly smaller (down to a few feet or centimetres) so the collider is effected according to him. Since, as you rightly point out, the collider sits in our reference frame and not that of the moving protons in the particle beam, then any contraction effects imparted onto the collider by the particle beam, should be equally visible in our reference frame. Should it not?

>> No.9747900

>>9747896
No, that's not how reference frames work.
Also stop being so hung up on Cox's every word, or go ask him about your confusions.

>> No.9747902

>>9747896
the "beam" is a stream of discrete "particles" not a continuous ring.

>> No.9747910

>>9747900
It is when dealing with rotating bodies here on Earth and with General Relativity. When you factor in what is known about these two fields, we should expect to see something here on Earth. They fact that we don't means that something is wrong with the ascertains of both these theories and RT needs to be done over.

>> No.9747913

>>9747910
No.

>> No.9747917

>>9747910
you're treating the stream of particles like a solid ring. thats where your fuck up happened.

>> No.9747920

>>9747902
Yeah, I've briefly touched on this subject earlier.
The particle beams are densely packed and are moving around the ring extremely fast; in the region of 40 million times per second. The collider is also full of particles all the way along. All of this means that the particles might as well act as one and Cox confirms this anyway.

>> No.9747923

>>9747913
Yes, my friend. >>9747876 >>9747896

>> No.9747929

>>9747923
>Yes, my friend
Yes, yes, just like that twin paradox you kept parroting then when proved wrong "i was saying that all along :^) "

>> No.9747931
File: 79 KB, 1280x720, Rush-Limbaugh-copy-1280x720.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9747931

>>9747920
>the particles might as well act as one
they dont, and treating them like they do is creating the paradox
cox is a hack who should fuck off for confusing brainlets like you. he is smart enough to know how full of shit he is, but he makes good money telling idiots what they want to hear.

not unlike pic related.

>> No.9747937

>>9747931
So now you are saying the ring doesn't contract? Where is your proof?

>> No.9747943

>>9747937
In fact it must contract, because the path of a particle travelling at light speed contracts. See >>9747653 When you add together all of the particles in the ring all moving around from different points you wind up with a cohesive contraction.

>> No.9747946 [DELETED] 

>>9747931
>he makes good money telling idiots what they want to hear.
You obviously don't know who Brian Cox is.

>> No.9747948

>>9747943
You are wrong, I'll fucking say it again, the particles inside the ring are undergoing constant acceleration to keep them inside the ring, the length contraction you keep quoting is for a ship with constant velocity, NOT THE SAME THING.

>> No.9747950

>>9747948
So you're saying that relativistic effects don't appear under constant acceleration? Show proof of this.

>> No.9747953

>>9747950
I'm saying that the particles are spinning around in the ring, so the length contraction keeps changing as they spin.

>> No.9747954

>>9747950
>why isnt the spacial dilation observed by the near light speed object also observed from every other reference frame?

because thats not how it works brianlet

>> No.9747955

>>9747953
Meaning what? That it cancels out the overall length contraction of the ring? How does that work?

>> No.9747957

>>9747954
>spacial dilation

>> No.9747960

>>9747953
It really doesn't see >>9746262
>Contraction is ONLY in the direction of motion.
>Distances are unchanged at right angles.

>> No.9747962

>>9745829
The theory of special relativity is completely wrong.

>> No.9747966

>>9747955
>length contraction of the ring
The fuck?
You're very fucking confused about reference frames and how they transform from one to another.
I'll stop replying now since this seems pointless.

>> No.9747969

>>9747966
Read the thread next time faggot.

>> No.9747970

>>9747969
Go to school moron.

>> No.9747979

>>9747962
It seems that way. I've been going around in circles with these idiots and they still haven't come up with an adequate solution to this problem. Relativity is a dead duck.

>> No.9747985

>>9747966
A giant machine capable of effecting the motion of particles up to near-luminal speeds and with no observable relativistic effects on said particles. Sure.

>> No.9747986
File: 18 KB, 757x455, physics.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9747986

>>9747962
>>9747979

>> No.9747987

>>9747985
>relativistic effects on said particles
i think if you could look at the length of the protons zipping around the ring they would seem shorter than normal.

>> No.9747989

>>9747986
SR and QM should overlap a little.

>> No.9748007

>>9746404
>Reference frames can't apply here because
stopped reading here

you're retarded

>> No.9748218

>>9747831
See >>9746485
>you can't compare distances (or time) in different reference frames, that's why simultaneity is not possible in SR or GR
But somehow you can transmit the time it took for two crafts to pass each other in space... The argument is flawed.

>> No.9748225

>>9746005
All of physics is trivial.

>> No.9748226

>>9747987
>>9747966
See link;
https://www.quora.com/Why-doesnt-the-circumference-of-the-Hadron-Collider-shrink
>Why doesn't the circumference of the Hadron Collider shrink?
>Actually, it does, from the point of view of the protons. As far as they're concerned, they travel considerably less than 27 km
Arguing that the length of the collider doesn't shrink is arguing against one of the basic tenants of relativity theory.
Also see >>9747653
>our spaceship could go at 99.9999% the speed of light, then to you the distance between you and the star system would shrink to nearly zero
What works for a star ship works equally well for a proton.

>> No.9748229

>>9747986
This should be addressed to >>9747675

>>9747989
They are looking for a unification between Relativity and Quantum mechanics. String theory is supposed to provide that, but it is about as provable as relativity anyway, so...

>> No.9748233

>>9748007
I phrased that wrong, but if you kept reading I clarified later on what I meant. It is basically the same point that I've been saying over and over again in this thread. So if you've been following the thread, you read it numerous times. If you fail to come up with a solution to the problem the LHC poses, you must accept that ToR is flawed.

>> No.9748234

>>9748226
What he says
>from the point of view of the protons
What you say
>hurr why don't we see the ring shrinking and earth exploding

>> No.9748249

>>9748229
Relativity is proven, and used in all calculations at LHC.
Relativity is perfectly integrated into QFT.

>> No.9748257

>>9748234
Yes, I've made it clear that I fundamentally disagree with that portion of the argument. See; >>9746710 >>9747876 So you can't use that argument to prove your point, since it is the one that I am contesting. You lot however are arguing against his entire point and the point of relativity itself. You've been so backed into a corner that you've had to deny that the collider ring is shrinking; see,>>9747966 >>9747931 >>9747987
All these posters are arguing against the contraction of the ring and even the particle beam now.

>> No.9748263

>>9748249
>used in all calculations at LHC.
>all
Guess how I know you are lying?
>Relativity is perfectly integrated into QFT.
QFT is garbage.
>muh infinities
>muh renormalisation
utter garbage

>> No.9748265

>>9748257
>I disagree
wow, okay then

>> No.9748273

>>9748263
>QFT is garbage.
>I don't understand it so it's garbage
It's the best theory about nature we have when it comes to actual correct and tested predictions.
You're a fucking moron.

>> No.9748279

>>9748265
I've given the reasons why I disagree. It is called a rebuttal. Any challenges of a scientific theory need to be addressed sufficiently by a proponent of that theory, otherwise it is open to be reviewed or scrapped. You have failed to defend your position sufficiently in the face of my objection. The theory fails to make adequate predictions of reality, based on its own internal logic, therefore it must be consigned to the dustbin where it belongs until a better theory comes along.

>> No.9748283

>>9748263
Mathematicians have made all that stuff rigorous. Physicists just don't bother to learn it in a rigorous way.

>> No.9748287

>>9748279
>some bullshit
Yeah, whatever, retard.

>> No.9748300

>>9748273
Now, it's garbage. I watched Feynman explain it in a lecture once and I was really impressed how he covered all of the information and then he got to the "renormalisation" part and all of the normies in the class were just like; "Is this nigger serious?"
Even Feynman says that the renormalisation element is a fudge and one of his greatest embarassments.
>It's the best theory about nature we have
Grandiose claim. Nothing scientific about it your opinion here. Also you could say the same and possibly much more accurately about any number of other theories like Newton's Laws or Quantum Physics. It is a matter of opinion.
>it comes to actual correct and tested predictions.
No doubt, despite it being an incomplete theory. But I have yet to see how relativity effects the veracity of these predictions.

>> No.9748304

>>9748287
If it bullshit then it should be easy to rebut. And yet there hasn't even been a legitmate attempt made in over fifty posts. I call bullshit on you and your failed theory.

>> No.9748307

>>9748304
learn some actual physics instead of popsci bullshit, there's nothing contradictory in relativity if you stop misrepresenting it

>> No.9748315

>>9748283
>Mathematicians have made all that stuff rigorous.
Not even close. Mathematicians deal with abstract concepts in terms of infinities, whereas physicists use real world elements that have weight and energy. Infinities in this instance do matter as if the energy level reaches infinity it will be noticed both inside a theoretical construct and outside in the real world.

>> No.9748318

>>9748307
Appeal to authority fallacy. I have dismantled all of your points repeatedly.
>If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.
― Albert Einstein

>> No.9748319

>>9748315
Then why is it so accurate in making predictions?

>> No.9748323

>>9748319
I don't know. How does it being accurate at making predictions have anything to do with relativity theory?

>> No.9748329

>>9748318
you didn't dismantle anything, you're just a bumbling idiot that can't understand shit

>> No.9748349

>>9748226
>What works for a star ship works equally well for a proton.
yeah but only the people on the spaceship report observing the distance shrink. other observational frames stationary relative to the first observe no spatial contractions. Same with the neutrons in the LHC, from the neutrons point of view there may be changes, but from a non inertial frame it looks like nothing, exactly as expected from General Relativity.

>> No.9748351

>>9748329
More ad hominen. I could say the exact same thing about you. Would you accept it as a line of argument? No you wouldn't and neither will I. Since there haven't been any serious lines of defence on this issue in some time, I consider it case closed; for now at least.

>> No.9748355

>>9748349
>exactly as expected from General Relativity.
No.

>> No.9748388

>>9748355
>let me just pretend I know what I'm talking about
>even though I never studied GR or anything resembling it

>> No.9748578

>>9748315
Renormalization groups have some serious theory behind them, the math involved is just far beyond your average physicist.

>> No.9748859
File: 321 KB, 650x406, 2017-10-28.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9748859

these announcers are awful

ps my crush :)

>> No.9748862

>>9748859
wow lmao totally wrong thread

>> No.9750481

OK. So, I thought about this still further and I came up with the following thought experiment;

Imagine you have a circular track with a train which is the same length as the track. Imagine that the train can go 0.999999..% the speed of light. As the train accelerates it contracts and derails. This is the original idea I had with the particle beam. But if as this poster >>9747910 pointed out and the particles are to be considered as discrete particles, the we can uncouple the carraiges and run the experiment again. According to this logic, each of the carriages will contract and the spaces between the carraiges will remain. So we have our contraction, but the train doesn't derail. Seems logical enough. We can't think of all the carraiges being in the same reference frame, because as this poster >>9746519 pointed out the direction of the train carriages (particles) is always changing as they go around the ring. But here is the kicker. If the traincarriages are contracting, the space that the carriages contains is also collapsing and therefore the ring of train carriages contracts without leaving any gaps.

If gaps were left in the collider, this would be detectable in some way, either as a subtle flickering or as a not so subtle gaps.

Ultimately we should expect to see relativistic effects in the rotating particles since they are moving close to the speed of light. As the quora answer points out, the particles will see the ring contracting, therefore according to SR we should see the particle beam contracting. If the particle beam contracts, it "derails". In order for the derailing not to occur, the ring also needs to contract. And since the ring is in our reference frame, this would be incredibly obvious to anyone looking at it.

>> No.9750489

>>9750481
The only "get out clause" I can imagine is if we suppose that the density of the stream of particles is too low to allow for such a noticeable contraction. But I don't think this is a very good argument, because as we know, every physical object is made of atoms, which are mostly empty space themselves. If only the matter contracted and not the space, the appearance of any object travelling at or near the speed of light would remain more-or-less unchanged.

>> No.9750904

>>9750481
>the space between the carriages contracts
still making the same mistake
failed assumption leads to failed conclusion

>> No.9751073

>>9750481
Wrong!
Space "contracts" too. That's a loose way of describing rotation in Minkowski space.
Rule-of-thumb. If you can think of ANY phenomena which would allow you to conclude you were moving -- without opening the curtains and looking at exterior objects -- you've made a mistake somewhere.

Suppose you're going to Alpha Centauri, 4.3 lightyears away.
You quickly accelerate to 97.26 percent of cee (Relativity does not limit acceleration, so you can do this before you've even passed the orbit of the Moon) and notice that Alpha Centauri is now only 1 lightyear away! Space has "shrunk"! You arrive at Centauri only a little more than a year after leaving Earth, despite traveling slower-than-light the entire trip.
Looking back, you can see that Sol is only 1 lightyear away. However, during the few minutes it takes you to decelerate, the Sun rushes away until it's 4.3 lightyears distant again.

Every one centimeter piece of the CERN ring can be approximated by a straight segment. If they all shrink, then the circumference has decreased.
The radius of the ring, however, hasn't changed a bit. The notion that circumference is 2 pi times the radius is true ONLY in "flat" space, Euclidian geometry. Relativity requires using hyperbolic geometry.

The curvature of the ring, and the fact that we have to use magnets to keep the particles within it, is irrelevant.
Straighten out CERN and extend it a distance equal to how far the protons go in a few hundred thousand loops. Bending magnets not needed now. As the protons come up to speed, they'll measure the track-length becoming shorter, just like the distance to Centauri shrank.

>> No.9751123
File: 549 KB, 2868x1353, Screen Shot 2018-05-19 at 01.20.40.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9751123

>>9750904
Wow, you're so dishonest. Look how dishonest you are. Pic related. Nowhere in my post, which you pretended to quote from does it say
>the space between the carriages contracts
The phrase only appears in your post and nowhere else in the entire thread. 1 of 1 match. I said this;
>According to this logic, each of the carriages will contract and the spaces between the carraiges will remain.
Was that what you referring to? Or how about this;
>the space that the carriages contains is also collapsing and therefore the ring of train carriages contracts without leaving any gaps.
As you can see I'm talking about the space that the particles/carriages occupying contracting. Go strawman somewhere else, or come back when you have an actual argument, retard.

>> No.9751136

>>9751073
>Space "contracts" too.
It does tho.
>That's a loose way of describing rotation in Minkowski space.
So what?
>Rule-of-thumb. If you can think of ANY phenomena which would allow you to conclude you were moving -- without opening the curtains and looking at exterior objects -- you've made a mistake somewhere.
How does this apply to what I wrote? Where do I state that this would occur? Please quote from my post.
>
Every one centimeter piece of the CERN ring can be approximated by a straight segment. If they all shrink, then the circumference has decreased.
The radius of the ring, however, hasn't changed a bit. The notion that circumference is 2 pi times the radius is true ONLY in "flat" space, Euclidian geometry. Relativity requires using hyperbolic geometry.
Never disputed this. In fact I have been saying the same thing over and over again to the people in this thread and they have been disagreeing with me, trying to defend their theory. I'm OP btw.
>The curvature of the ring, and the fact that we have to use magnets to keep the particles within it, is irrelevant.
It is relevant, because rings are curved and we are talking about the LHC which is a ring and not a linear collider. I understand your point (not that it has anything to do with relativity theory), but to say that discussing the shape of the collider, when talking about the collider is irrelevant is just nonsensical. Sorry.
Is this the best you relativists have? The day of the rope can't come soon enough.

>> No.9751666

>>9751136
>It is relevant, because rings are curved and we are talking about the LHC which is a ring and not a linear collider. I understand your point (not that it has anything to do with relativity theory), but to say that discussing the shape of the collider, when talking about the collider is irrelevant is just nonsensical.
There is your fuck up, as previous posters have said contraction is only in the direction of travel with no change to right angles. Knowing this it makes the entire question of reconciling the radius of the ring under contraction moot.

>> No.9752280

>>9751666
Ah I see your misunderstanding. If the circumference contracts, as it must, and the radius remains the same then the collider ring will distort i.e. curl upwards like a wave. See pic related; >>9746385 This is the point I have been making all along.

>> No.9752646

>>9752280
>I see your misunderstanding
>links to a bait image
you're trolling right?

>> No.9753252

>>9751123
>arguing that the perspective of one observer (the proton) must be universally agreed upon by all observers

sorry man but its called "relativity" because the space-time distortions are not absolute for all observers.

>> No.9753268
File: 32 KB, 800x315, lmao.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9753268

>>9752646
Is this better?
"A gyroscope's spin vector (arrow) points at right angles to the plane of its motion, and its direction remains constant as the gyroscope completes a circular orbit. If, however, we fold space into a cone to simulate the effect of the presence of the massive earth (right), then we must remove part of the area of the circle (shaded) and the gyroscope's spin vector no longer lines up with itself after making a complete circuit (green and red arrows). The difference between these two directions (per orbit) makes up the other two thirds of the geodetic effect. In the case of Gravity Probe B this is sometimes referred to as the "missing inch" argument because space curvature shortens the circumference of the spacecraft's orbital path around the earth by 1.1 inches."
https://einstein.stanford.edu/SPACETIME/spacetime4.html

>> No.9753306
File: 41 KB, 478x484, gravity-of-a-spinning-material-disc-and-of-a-huge-mass-m-a3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9753306

>>9753252
Or this?
https://fisicafacil.wordpress.com/2009/04/10/gravity-timeexpansion-spacecontraction/

>> No.9753335
File: 47 KB, 636x729, 398ea1d09936e82926d685c75a7e6744--faster-than-light-physics.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9753335

>>9753252
How about this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehrenfest_paradox

>> No.9753343

>>9753252
Sorry my man, I did not see your post. i thought you were >>9752646
You are dishonest also, as I never said that. What you pointed out is a basic part of relativity. We are going beyond basics here. If you would like to quote directly where it is you think I said that I would appreciate it. You misquoting my posts is not a very honest way to conduct a discussion. I am not here to school you on the basics of relativity, please stick to the conversation at hand.

>> No.9753399

At this point, the responses here are so repetitive and innane that I will give ppl the benefit of the doubt and assume that most of you in here are bots.

To assess whether or not this is the case, I am throwing up an IP logger.
https://grabify.link/KOLEHM
Do not click on this link if you don't want you IP address logged.

>> No.9753683

>If we accelerate a rod rigidly in the longitudinal direction, then the rod suffers the usual Lorentz contraction (in the original rest frame).
>In a two-page note in 1909, Paul Ehrenfest noted that ... in the original rest frame, they (particles of a rotating disk) suffer Lorentz contraction in the transverse direction but none in the radial direction. The circumference contracts but the radius doesn't. But in the original rest frame, the circumference is a circle, sitting in a spatial slice (t = constant) of ordinary flat Minkowski spacetime. In other words, we would have a "non-euclidean circle" sitting in ordinary euclidean space. This is a contradiction.
>I emphasize that Ehrenfest's argument is a proof by contradiction... We conclude that we have a non-euclidean circle sitting in ordinary euclidean space. Contradiction, QED! The argument does not say that a spinning disk actually has a circumference less than 2πr.
> First, Einstein asserts that the circumference of the rotating disk will be greater than 2πr. Second, the non-euclidean geometry does not faze him; instead, he invokes the Equivalence Principle to conclude that the geometry of a gravitational field will also be non-euclidean.
>It's worth mentioning two things right off the bat. First, in the original rest frame, the geometry of the disk remains euclidean. According to rest frame observers, the spinning disk occupies a perfectly normal cylindrical volume. If you like, picture the disk as enclosed in a snug-fitting, motionless, but infinitely slippery case (zero friction). The geometry of the case is, of course, euclidean.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/rigid_disk.html#star

Apply what is written here to the rest of the statements in this thread and ask yourself, seriously, if the theory of relativity is not a joke.
>Infinitelt slippery case
Indeed

>> No.9753705
File: 234 KB, 1440x1557, Brainlet_Wojack_with_Helperchopters_on_transparent_background_colorized.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9753705

>>9745829
>Brian Cox

>> No.9753820

>>9753705
>Lel. My best argument is a meme.
Don't get me wrong I find Brian Cox insufferable, however he is promoting the Theory of Relativity publicly and has worked at Cern, as a scientist. If he were to say anything that is incorrect or falsifiable, I'm sure his peers would take the chance to correct him. Since they haven't it is clear that they agree with his position, so by attacking him as a brainlet you are inadvertantly attacking the entire scientific community that comes out in support of ToR. A sensational own goal of sorts.

Also that file name.

>> No.9754246
File: 38 KB, 645x729, 1518570513747.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9754246

>>9753683
>I don't understand it
>it must be wrong
>the fact it's experimentally proven doesn't matter

>> No.9754451

>>9752280
I suspect you are applying too much intuition to this and not enough math, what is your expected result? The ring deforming into a top? Clearly impossible as it would take additional matter, the curvature of spacetime more fundamental than that. Normally you would have a point because intuition doesnt match the observed result but there are 120397102173018 other experiments supporting what seems incorrect. You are also continually hung up on the fact its shaped as a ring despite it having afaik no bearing on the particles reference frame.

>> No.9754454

>>9745829
After skimming this thread and seeing your responses my conclusion is that you are either trolling or retarded because you could simply tweet this question at brian cox and he would give you an answer.

>> No.9754483

>>9748225
I will punch you in the fucking throat

>> No.9754938

>>9753705
>>9754246
I find answers like this particularly worthless. It lacks a substantive argument and just sets up the idea that only those who are 'smart enough' can understand what is going on. You might as well just elect yourselves as an all-knowing priest class who do not need to be held accountable and provide any proof for the claims that you make or uphold. This is not a scientific approach.

>>9754454
Brian Cox is just one man who is representing the orthodoxy of Relativity Theory. If we are to believe that ToR is a consistent approach to understanding the universe (as it purports itself to be) then it seems obvious that anyone with a knowledge of the subject is equally capable of dealing with a basic question such as this, without going to the "source".

>> No.9754946
File: 2.93 MB, 426x240, 1526535684857.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9754946

>I find answers like this particularly worthless. It lacks a substantive argument and just sets up the idea that only those who are 'smart enough' can understand what is going on. You might as well just elect yourselves as an all-knowing priest class who do not need to be held accountable and provide any proof for the claims that you make or uphold. This is not a scientific approach.

>> No.9754949

>>9754451
I guess my point is a proof (disproof) by way of contradiction. I am trying to apply the principles of relativity as they are generally stated by the experts and applying them to the rather unusual situation present in the collider. Once we do this we see that the results are not what we expect them to be, as presented in the ToR. I follow the logic of Relativity and I arrive at the conclusion much as you stated here;
> The ring deforming into a top? Clearly impossible as it would take additional matter
The impossibility of the proposal is my point. It is a disproof by contradiction, a perfectly valid mathematical concept.
>120397102173018
Is this an accurate number? jk
The point is that it seems likely that the basic assumptions of relativity have either been misapplied or misinterpreted based on upon the lack of any expected spacetime distortion in the collider. The collider is our most important/costly experiment where quantum mechanics is concerned and it would appear to uphold the principles of QM. Therefore, it should also uphold the principles of Relativity since it is a real world working example of relativistic speeds within our reference frame.

>> No.9754966

>You are also continually hung up on the fact its shaped as a ring despite it having afaik no bearing on the particles reference frame.
This is incorrect. The shape of the ring does have a bearing on the reference frames (plural) within the collider and a very interesting one at that. Consider "the missing inch", which is the label put on the contraction which explains the geodetic effect seen in satellite orbits and the orbit of Mercury as predicted by relativity theory. See: >>9753268
If the geodetic effect is apparent to us in the orbit of Mercury, which is occurring at speeds which are comparatively low compared to the LHC, then how much more so should it be present in the collider? The answer given here,>>9753683
> First, in the original rest frame, the geometry of the disk remains euclidean. According to rest frame observers, the spinning disk occupies a perfectly normal cylindrical volume. If you like, picture the disk as enclosed in a snug-fitting, motionless, but infinitely slippery case (zero friction). The geometry of the case is, of course, euclidean.
suggest that we will not witness the geodetic effect in this instance because to do so would be ludicrous. This is not a good enough answer. If your theory predicts an effect, and the results in all cases lead to some results being impossible or ridiculous, then you theory is wrong. Otherwise you are saying that we exist in a preferred reference frame of some sort, as pointed out here; >9747714 a conclusion which also falsifies the theory.

>> No.9755707

>>9747808
Nice flat earth argument

>> No.9755770

>>9755707
Not even close.

Check this out.
>>9754966
>In a two-page note in 1909, (((Paul Ehrenfest))) noted that ... in the original rest frame, they (particles of a rotating disk) suffer Lorentz contraction in the transverse direction but none in the radial direction. The circumference contracts but the radius doesn't. But in the original rest frame, the circumference is a circle, sitting in a spatial slice (t = constant) of ordinary flat Minkowski spacetime. In other words, we would have a "non-euclidean circle" sitting in ordinary euclidean space. This is a contradiction.
>>I emphasize that Ehrenfest's argument is a proof by contradiction... We conclude that we have a non-euclidean circle sitting in ordinary euclidean space. Contradiction, QED! The argument does not say that a spinning disk actually has a circumference less than 2πr.
Proof by contradiction.
>> First, Einstein asserts that the circumference of the rotating disk will be greater than 2πr. Second, the non-euclidean geometry does not faze him; instead, he invokes the Equivalence Principle to conclude that the geometry of a gravitational field will also be non-euclidean.
Oh look a contradiction of another kind. Was Einstein a brainlet or just slippery?
>>It's worth mentioning two things right off the bat. First, in the original rest frame, the geometry of the disk remains euclidean. According to rest frame observers, the spinning disk occupies a perfectly normal cylindrical volume. If you like, picture the disk as enclosed in a snug-fitting, motionless, but infinitely slippery case (zero friction). The geometry of the case is, of course, euclidean.

Basically the point that is coming through here is that the particle beam should contract from our point of view, but because such a contraction would be physically impossible the contraction doens't occur. Ergo the theory of relativity when applied to the situation of the collider is a physical impossibility.

>> No.9755780

>>9755707
Let me break that down for you a bit.

Imagine if you believed that the reason why a steel oceanliner floats is because the steel was less dense than water. To disprove this someone throws a block of steel into a tank of water. It sinks therefore disproving your theory. Now imagine if you didn't accept this as proof of your incorrect theory and instead suggest that what it proves is that it is impossible for a steel block to float on water. In a sense you are correct, but you assertion does not address why the oceanliner floats or why your original theory is faulty. It simply glosses over it with handwaving non-sense. This is what relativist appear to be doing in this instance. They predict that the ring will contract and when it doesn't they simply state that it would be "impossible" for that to occur. I agree, but now they have to come up with a good reason for why it is impossible and why their theory erroneously predicts contraction and by what mechanism contraction happens in one instance and not in another or face abject and sustained ridicule from anyone awake to their bullshit.

>> No.9755810

>>9755770
>>9755780
>if the earth is curved why don't I see a curve?? Contradiction! It just means the globe model is wrong and we need to throw away the globe model and use a new one that is better

You sound like a flat earther. Start linking some peer reviewed and validated studies and experiments that contest the peer reviewed studies and experiments we have validating the theory or else you are no better than the troll flat earth threads. Why should anyone here think you know the first thing about what you are talking about?

>> No.9755837

>>9755810
>if the earth is curved why don't I see a curve?? Contradiction! It just means the globe model is wrong and we need to throw away the globe model and use a new one that is better
Strawman
>Start linking some peer reviewed and validated studies and experiments that contest the peer reviewed studies and experiments
That's not how proof by contradiction works. Instead you link to studies that prove the the argument you are trying to counter, as I have done >>9753268 >>9753306 >>9753335 >>9753683 and then show why it is illogical based upon its own merits. As I have done.
>Why should anyone here think you know the first thing about what you are talking about?
If you don't know whether or not my arguments are valid, then why should anyone think that you know what you are talking about?

>> No.9755861

>>9755810
>You sound like a flat earther.
That's not an insult.

>> No.9755867

wtf is this thread? to figure out what the entire universe is made up of you need to build a LHC the DIAMETER of the milky way

>> No.9755873

>>9745829
>go to ring during test
>look for ring contracting into small ring
>it doesn't
You are wrong and dumb just get over it.

>> No.9755876

>>9755867
>>9755873
You have to be over 18 to post ob this board. Underage b&

>> No.9756052

>>9755873
>go to ring during test
>look for ring contracting into small ring
>it doesn't
Special Relativity disproven.

>> No.9756061

>>9756052
>protons going in a circle are a solid object like a ring around the entire circumference

failed assumption
failed conclusion

>> No.9756132

>>9756061
From the point of view of the protons the tunnel contracts to a smaller size.
https://www.quora.com/Why-doesnt-the-circumference-of-the-Hadron-Collider-shrink
As per the theory of relativity the particle beam should contract for us, by the same degree.

>> No.9756137

>>9756132
>From the point of view of the protons the tunnel contracts to a smaller size.
there is a reason its called "relativity". you might want to explore why.

>> No.9756143

>>9756137
And from our point of view the protons contract. That's why it is called relativity.