Length contraction

[Pierceonline]

CANGAS -- Boy did I do bad or what? I meant no harm nor disrespect. We had a good dialog going and I do not want to lose it. Please forgive me, and believe me when I say that I will stay on topic in the future and make no future references to other sites.

[CANGAS]

Yes, you did bad.

I had already had my fill of trying to deal with cincirob. And CCC has at often times seemed to be a clone.

I am an old man. I have a very high IQ. I have been manipulated too many times to count. And far too many times to enjoy when looking back. So, when it looks like some new joker is trying to manipulate me [i]again, /i] I have a short fuse that stops the action. With a high IQ, you get about two seconds into manipulating me when I say F Y Jack.

We can talk about your chosen subject here in the safe environment. As long as it suits me. We don't beam over to somewhere else where The King Of The Forum gets to screw with every sentence I write, and the sock puppet Monitor gets to screw with me any which way he, she, or, it, (I haven't exactly figured it out) chooses at any arbitrary time.

We can pick it up again if you understand and agree. I am an old man who realizes that I am running out of time and i don't intend to just screw off any important minute arguing with a moron (I don't mean you) who has too much idle time and just gets online because he likes to argue.

[CANGAS]

CANGAS wrote:

Keep in mind that Special Relativity claims that a moving body has length contraction. Not length growth.

RICH wrote:

Yes, thank you. I took the question to my astronmy professor this morning... got more-or-less the same answer - length contraction, inertia, gravity, etc.

Pierceonline response:

I have a few years on me and in the late 1960's I remember text books stating that if an object was to fall into a blackhole, the object would elongate in the "X" direction of travel. The argument went something like this: If the unit of time "dX" (the second) increases towards infinity as an object's velocity approaches "C" and remembering that velocity is algebraically defined as (V = dX/dt), then at the speed of light "dX = Cdt". Recognizing "C" is constant in all cases, then length "dX" must increase to infinity as "dt" increases to infinity.

What happened? Just when did modern physicists decide "dX" should contract as velocity "V" approaches "C"? ---- (By the way, did I ever let it be known that I hate Relativity?)

My take on falling into a black hole: a distant "stationary" observer would see the faller suffer tidal forces which would stretch out the object. Closer and closer to the hole, the gravity strength at the object's "lower" or "front" end (closest to the hole) would become inconveniently stronger than gravity at its "higher" end (away from the hole). The differential of gravity strength would be fighting against the intermolecular forces trying to hold the faller together. Sooner or later, the gravity differential would be too great and overwhelm the molecular electric field forces and destructively stretch out the object.

At the same time, the distant observer would see time go slower as a function of the increased gravity. Close to the hole, the front end of the faller would be having much slower time going by than its faster time at its rear end. It is a vast oversimplification, but you can kind of consider time to be gravity in General Relativity.

Here is a strange quirk: the distant observer would see the velocity slow down as the faller got significantly close to the hole. Near the event horizon the falling velocity would slow to a creep. At the event horizon, the falling object would actually be observed to stop moving and simply hover at a frozen location in space. The distant observer never gets to see anything actually fall into the black hole. Every falling object comes to a permanent stop exactly at the event horizon.

I am very doubtful about the correctness of General relativity.