The discussion centers on the misconception that traveling at near-light speed can transform a star into a black hole due to length contraction. Participants clarify that while length contraction occurs, it does not imply that a star will collapse into a black hole when observed from a high-speed spacecraft. The Lorentz transformations, which govern length contraction and time dilation, are affirmed as accurate, and the idea that a fast-moving star could become a black hole is dismissed as a misunderstanding of relativity. Key points include the importance of the observer's frame of reference and the role of radiation pressure in preventing stellar collapse.
PREREQUISITESPhysicists, students of relativity, and anyone interested in the fundamental principles of astrophysics and the nature of black holes.
And the myriad of following theories that build upon it that would be fundamentally misguided if it was not correct to high accuracy. In the case of SR, such theories include — among others — quantum electrodynamics which is one of the most (if not the most) numerically accurate theory to date. Arguing that relativity is fundamentally misguided is similar to arguing you can’t build a house with wood and stone.Ibix said:We just look at whether it makes accurate predictions.
Dale said:As a professional scientist, I can tell you that this is wrong. I do get some of my information from Wikipedia. I also write information on Wikipedia for others to use. I also quote Wikipedia to people on the internet as an easily accessible resource for them to use, regardless of where I originally got the information.
You are misinformed on multiple points in this thread including the value of Wikipedia, the experimental confirmation of the Lorentz transforms, and the predictions of relativity.
See here for a list of experiments confirming the Lorentz transforms: http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
Matt Fenwick said:No, you are wrong
Indeed. And this claim is incompatible with length contraction not existing - glad to see you starting to come round.Matt Fenwick said:No one light clock should be any more or less valid than another.
S.R. is fundamentally misguided. And you are the first person I have ever heard say quantum theory is based on S.R. Seems you are fundamentally misguided. Einstein did not get the Nobel prize for S.R. Matter of fact many physicists rejected it.Orodruin said:And the myriad of following theories that build upon it that would be fundamentally misguided if it was not correct to high accuracy. In the case of SR, such theories include — among others — quantum electrodynamics which is one of the most (if not the most) numerically accurate theory to date. Arguing that relativity is fundamentally misguided is similar to arguing you can’t build a house with wood and stone.
He said quantum electrodynamics, not quantum theory. Early quantum theory was non-relativistic, but quantum field theories (including quantum electrodynamics) are entirely based on a relativistic worldview.Matt Fenwick said:And you are the first person I have ever heard say quantum theory is based on S.R.