The Nature of Physical Reality - Analyzing the Properties of Space-time
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Strich.9 - 31 Oct 2008 14:44 GMT I will resume discussions in Special Relativity from where I left off. Here we analyze the properties of space-time as proposed by Einstein. I start of with a definition of terminologies. This will assure unambiguity in discussing the fundamental basis of reality according to physics, which is measurement.
[While SR involves analyses of two arbitrary world points by two arbitrary observers, one observer is usually taken to the experimenter, and the other observer is usually taken to be at rest with respect to the ‘motion’ defined by the two world points. Thus while a pair of world points defining an invariant space-time interval does not belong to any specific frame, it is simpler to place it in a frame where it is at rest. In this regard, the following can be defined. This is cross-posted to multiple groups, as this may have important implications in mathematics, philosophy, logic, religion, as well as physics.]
I. DEFINITIONS:
Co-inertial measurement refers to a measurement made within the same reference frame*. Trans-inertial measurement refers to a measurement made in one reference frame regarding a quantity in another frame*. The terminologies refer to where a quantity being measured is, in relation to where the observer is.
Native measurement refers to a measurement made by an observer in an arbitrarily pre-selected reference frame. The frame is referred to as the native frame, and the observer as the native observer. Foreign measurement refers to a measurement made by an observer in any non- selected reference frame.
Dirk Van de moortel - 31 Oct 2008 14:50 GMT Strich.9 <strich.9992@gmail.com> wrote in message 6df6ca54-20de-4586-ab69-97aae0bc9342@w39g2000prb.googlegroups.com
> I will resume discussions in Special Relativity from where I left > off. Here we analyze the properties of space-time as proposed by > Einstein. I start of with a definition of terminologies. This will > assure unambiguity in discussing the fundamental basis of reality > according to physics, which is measurement. Troll alert: http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/YourWaterloo.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/DisprovenForGood.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ImpossibleTask.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/DictionaryPhysics.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/TerminologyPanic.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SimplyAdmit.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Misquote.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/CrapReconstruction.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NotDeparting.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/StupidPremises.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ImbecileScience.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/MoreBananas.html
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel - 31 Oct 2008 14:50 GMT Strich.9 <strich.9992@gmail.com> wrote in message 6df6ca54-20de-4586-ab69-97aae0bc9342@w39g2000prb.googlegroups.com
> I will resume discussions in Special Relativity from where I left > off. Troll alert: http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/YourWaterloo.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/DisprovenForGood.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ImpossibleTask.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/DictionaryPhysics.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/TerminologyPanic.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SimplyAdmit.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Misquote.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/CrapReconstruction.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NotDeparting.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/StupidPremises.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ImbecileScience.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/MoreBananas.html
Dirk Vdm
Strich.9 - 01 Nov 2008 15:51 GMT [As usual, we get the usual ad hominems from the 'mainstream'. Dirk floods the medium with his misquotes, and then posts a second reply as his first reply mirrors back to alt.morons or alt.creeps for any potential responders. He does not want to show his creepiness yet to the other groups. Al posts his usual 'security blanket' reply, without bothering to think through the process, a sign of the conservatism of old age. PD does a line by line reply on the fly without perusing the whole post. On the subject matter, two world points defines a motion for the simple fact that to 'traverse' the space-time interval between them requires a movement from one world point to another. This should be obvious to any physicist who lives and breathes relativity. All in all, aside from the petty bickering, there is no major intellectual disagreement so far. All these cross postings are justified. The alt.atheism may not seem at first glance, but there are two reasons for that. First of all, there is a tendency for intellectuals to linger in the atheistic domain. Second of all, the characteristic of modern relativity physics to deny and suppress criticism and dissent is tantamount to another a discipline based on faith than reason. Now with an example.]
II. ILLUSTRATION
An observer O is on the ground and an observer M is on the train. When the two observers are at rest with respect to each other, the meter markings DO measured by O on the ground is equal to the meter markings DM measured by M on the platform. When the train is moving at constant velocity V, O notes that the markings on the platform DM' are shorter compared to those on the ground DO, while M notes that the markings on the ground DO' are shorter compared to those on the platform DM.
Letting O be the native observer and M the foreign observer:
DO is a native co-inertial measurement DM is a foreign co-inertial measurement DM' is a native trans-inertial measurement DO' is a foreign tran-inertial measurement
PD - 01 Nov 2008 17:24 GMT > [As usual, we get the usual ad hominems from the 'mainstream'. Dirk > floods the medium with his misquotes, and then posts a second reply as [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > conservatism of old age. PD does a line by line reply on the fly > without perusing the whole post. On the contrary, I did what I always do. I read your whole post and then replied by insertion where the reply was most appropriate. I don't care whether you don't operate that way.
> On the subject matter, two world > points defines a motion for the simple fact that to 'traverse' the > space-time interval between them requires a movement from one world > point to another. Is that right? Let's take two events (world-points): A cuckoo emerges from a clock at 2pm. A cuckoo emerges from the same clock at 3pm. Where is the motion between those two world points?
> This should be obvious to any physicist who lives > and breathes relativity. All in all, aside from the petty bickering, [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > DM' is a native trans-inertial measurement > DO' is a foreign tran-inertial measurement Strich.9 - 03 Nov 2008 14:44 GMT [In the general case, two different world points are not necessarily related. However, since they occupy different time and space coordinates, then they define a space-time interval, and the translation from one world point to the other can be defined as a motion through time and space. A cuckoo clock is not the best example of a world point. Strictly speaking, from the time the cuckoo clock emerges to the time it retracts consist of a series of world points. Now a regular clock hitting 2:00 and then hitting 3:00 defines a motion in space time. Assuming it is sitting on the equator, then it has moved eastward by about 1000 miles and it has moved around the sun by about 70000 miles and it has also moved forward in time by about 1 hour. As for misquotes, any quote when taken out of its original context, is a misquote. Now back to the thread...]
II.B. EXERCISES
Exercise 1:
Dirk and Doug are at rest with one another. Each measure their right forefinger at 10cm. They also measure each other’s average neural transit time as 10Lm. (A lightmeter is defined as the time it takes light to travel one meter, or 1/c seconds, or 3.3 x 10^-9 seconds.) Now Dirk and Doug bid each other farewell and travel at relative velocity of 0.995c. Gamma computes at 10. Dirk is designated as the native observer and Doug as the foreign observer. Dirk measures his appendage at 10cm and his neural transit time as 10Lm. Dirk also observes the moving Doug and measures Doug’s appendage as 1cm and his neural transit time as 100Lm. Dirk is obviously using his own meterstick and lightclock to make these measurements.
Questions:
1. When Dirk measures his appendage at 10cm, this is a: a) native co-inertial measurement b) native trans-inertial measurement c) foreign co-inertial measurement d) foreign trans-inertial measurement
2. When Dirk measures Doug’s neural transit time as 100Lm, this is a: a) native co-inertial measurement b) native trans-inertial measurement c) foreign co-inertial measurement d) foreign trans-inertial measurement
PD - 03 Nov 2008 14:53 GMT > [In the general case, two different world points are not necessarily > related. However, since they occupy different time and space > coordinates, then they define a space-time interval, and the > translation from one world point to the other can be defined as a > motion through time and space. Maybe you'd better define motion. If a person hiccups twice in a row while sitting in a chair, those two events are different world points and there is a spacetime interval between them. Please describe the *motion* that occurs between those two points. What is motion to you?
> A cuckoo clock is not the best example > of a world point. Strictly speaking, from the time the cuckoo clock [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > c) foreign co-inertial measurement > d) foreign trans-inertial measurement strich.9991@gmail.com - 03 Nov 2008 15:41 GMT [In the general case, motion is simply a translation through space- time. In physics, a specific problem often reduces to the special case where an object is at world point A (coordinates x0,y0,z0,t0) and then at world point B (coordinates x1,y1,z1,t1), and the object is considered to have ‘moved’ from A to B. If the generalized meaning of motion confuses you, then I’ll use the word ‘translation’ for this, and reserve the word ‘motion’ for the classical case of an actual movement through space. Also, try not to get mired in the non- essential details. I noticed you did not do the exercises. Please do them so I know we have a mutual understanding of the meaning of the terms native and foreign, and co-inertial and trans-inertial as defined in this thread. Now back to the thread…]
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANSWERS
In question 1, the answer is (a) native co-inertial measurement. In question 2, the answer is (b) native trans-inertial measurement.
Any measurement that the native observer Dirk makes is a native measurement. If performed on objects that are at rest in his inertial frame, then it is a co-inertial measurement, and if performed on objects that are at rest to a different inertial frame other than his (and hence moving with respect to his frame), then it is a trans- inertial measurement.
----------------------------------------------------------------
II.B EXERCISES (Continued)
In the same set-up above in II.B, Doug measures his appendage at 10cm and his neural transit time as 10Lm. Doug also observes the moving Dirk (v=0.995c) and measures Dirk’s appendage as 1cm and Dirk='s neural transit time as 100Lm. Doug is obviously using his own meterstick and lightclock.
3. When Doug measures his own appendage at 10cm, this is a: a) native co-inertial measurement b) native trans-inertial measurement c) foreign co-inertial measurement d) foreign trans-inertial measurement
4. When Doug measures Dirk’s neural transit time as 100Lm, this is a: a) native co-inertial measurement b) native trans-inertial measurement c) foreign co-inertial measurement d) foreign trans-inertial measurement
PD - 03 Nov 2008 17:51 GMT On Nov 3, 9:41 am, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
> [In the general case, motion is simply a translation through space- > time. In physics, a specific problem often reduces to the special [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > and reserve the word ‘motion’ for the classical case of an actual > movement through space. Well, "translation" is usually understood by physicists to be relocation in space. Translation invariance is a key symmetry of many physical laws, for example, and leads to momentum conservation via Noether's theorem.
Motion is usually similarly defined as a change in spatial coordinate as a function of time (although the latter may be reclarified to mean proper time).
There is also the case where two world points occur at the same time in a particular reference frame; for example, you sneezing over there and me snapping my fingers over here. There is an invariant interval between those two world points, but I'm a little hard-pressed to see any "motion" between those two events, since they both happen at the same time in my reference frame.
Perhaps you may want to invent a new term, like "pernification", which you are free to define as some sort of relationship between two world- points, a relationship you'd have to exposit, of course.
> Also, try not to get mired in the non- > essential details. I noticed you did not do the exercises. As you may have surmised, there is no point in working exercises if we don't have basic terminology agreed upon. And as you can see, there are a number of questions about your basic terms, as you seem to be using terms that are commonly used in physics, but taking them to mean something completely different than what scientists normally understand them to mean.
> Please do > them so I know we have a mutual understanding of the meaning of the > terms native and foreign, and co-inertial and trans-inertial as > defined in this thread. Now back to the thread…] Strich.9 - 03 Nov 2008 18:08 GMT [In reply to PD's confusion: You seem to be jumping back and forth between a 3D space + 1D time and a 4D space-time. That has always been the problem with relativity. It tries to define a space-time continuum and equate time as another dimension, but the discussion always reduces to the classical mind set of separate space and time dimensions. As I said earlier, two world points simply define a space- time interval, and we can leave it at that. We can use your classical definitions of the old terms without undue duress on the definitions of my new terms. Now that we have that clear, you seem unable to grasp the new terms I am proposing. If these are confusing to you, let me know in what way, so I can explain them to your heart's content. Now if you simply object to the introduction of new terms for fear that the fallacy of relativity will be exposed, then simply say so and I will spare you the heartache.]
Dirk Van de moortel - 01 Nov 2008 17:55 GMT Strich.9 <strich.9992@gmail.com> wrote in message 50e809bc-ba97-4fb1-b0ad-b07f67b0fc4d@r37g2000prr.googlegroups.com
> [As usual, we get the usual ad hominems from the 'mainstream'. Dirk > floods the medium with his misquotes, Show me in what way these are misquotes: http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/YourWaterloo.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/DisprovenForGood.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ImpossibleTask.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/DictionaryPhysics.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/TerminologyPanic.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SimplyAdmit.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Misquote.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/CrapReconstruction.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NotDeparting.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/StupidPremises.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ImbecileScience.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/MoreBananas.html
Dirk Vdm
Uncle Al - 31 Oct 2008 17:53 GMT > I will resume discussions in Special Relativity from where I left > off. [snip crap]
http://cc3d.free.fr/Relativity/Relat1.html Special Relativity for yard apes
<http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html> Experimental constraints on Special Relativity
idiot
 Signature Uncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Mark K. Bilbo - 01 Nov 2008 04:11 GMT On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 06:44:50 -0700 in 6df6ca54-20de-4586-ab69-97aae0bc9342@w39g2000prb.googlegroups.com,
> I will resume discussions in Special Relativity from where I left off. It's not nice to threaten people.
 Signature Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423 EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion ------------------------------------------------------------ "Communism, like any other revealed religion, is largely made up of prophecies."
- H. L. Mencken
John Jones - 08 Nov 2008 15:41 GMT > I will resume discussions in Special Relativity from where I left > off. Here we analyze the properties of space-time as proposed by > Eins Your post annoyed me. You presented no ideas. You were just aggrandizing old facts and definitions, like a government official. You crossposted this sterile material to sites whose only connection was made in your imagination. What a dull, tired effort. Bore.
PD - 08 Nov 2008 15:46 GMT > > I will resume discussions in Special Relativity from where I left > > off. Here we analyze the properties of space-time as proposed by [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > this sterile material to sites whose only connection was made in your > imagination. What a dull, tired effort. Bore. Strich9 thought he had something interesting to say, discovered through responses that it wasn't all that interesting, decided not to answer questions about it, and now is just talking to hear himself talk. Compare personality profiles with NoEinstein, Spaceman, and "Henri Wilson".
Strich.9 - 15 Nov 2008 01:45 GMT This thread will resume in a few days. The topic will be the muon experiment. We will complete the analysis.
MalKantent - 15 Nov 2008 01:49 GMT >This thread will resume in a few days. The topic will be the muon >experiment. We will complete the analysis. "We" as in you and your other personalities? --
" If I had remembered that the name 'Galt' appears in one of her books, I would have chosen a different name for my character."
Stephen R. Donaldson, "Gradual Interview"
Strich.9 - 15 Nov 2008 02:49 GMT > On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 17:45:52 -0800 (PST), "Strich.9" > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > "We" as in you and your other personalities? We, as in, me and the other intellects in this group. Obviously, you are not included.
John J - 15 Nov 2008 03:04 GMT >> On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 17:45:52 -0800 (PST), "Strich.9" >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > We, as in, me and the other intellects in this group. Obviously, you > are not included. There ya are, folks! A person with an IQ of 200 is still subject to being a bleeding fool.
Do me a favor, Strich: do not include me in your definition of intellects.
Strich.9 - 15 Nov 2008 03:13 GMT > >> On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 17:45:52 -0800 (PST), "Strich.9" > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Do me a favor, Strich: do not include me in your definition of intellects. Not a favor. A fact.
John J - 15 Nov 2008 03:21 GMT >>>>> This thread will resume in a few days. The topic will be the muon >>>>> experiment. We will complete the analysis. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Not a favor. A fact. Oh ya big poseur. It's so easy on usenet, but we know better.
Do you know that at a certain point in IQ metrics, a higher score means nothing to reasoning ability? After about 120 the talents associated are entirely trivial, specialized, impotent in reasoning ability.
You are smart. You should know that. Unless, of course, you are over the edge and cannot - blindsided by your own false confidence.
I'd take you on any day. And I have an IQ of, say, 50!
Heh.
Must suck to be a braggart.
Strich.9 - 15 Nov 2008 03:25 GMT > >>>>> This thread will resume in a few days. The topic will be the muon > >>>>> experiment. We will complete the analysis. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Must suck to be a braggart. Pissed? Too bad.
John J - 15 Nov 2008 03:28 GMT > Pissed? Too bad. Go to bed, Strich, then wake up to a life.
Enough.
Strich.9 - 15 Nov 2008 03:38 GMT > > Pissed? Too bad. > > Go to bed, Strich, then wake up to a life. > > Enough. Gave up already? Weakling...
doug - 15 Nov 2008 03:34 GMT >>>>>>>This thread will resume in a few days. The topic will be the muon >>>>>>>experiment. We will complete the analysis. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Pissed? Too bad. We notice that you are postponing admitting that you have no answer to the muon experiment. Enjoy your weekend trying to come up with something that does not look stupid.
Strich.9 - 15 Nov 2008 03:39 GMT > >>>>>>>This thread will resume in a few days. The topic will be the muon > >>>>>>>experiment. We will complete the analysis. [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > to the muon experiment. Enjoy your weekend trying to come up with > something that does not look stupid. No degree, no girlfriend, no wife...
doug - 15 Nov 2008 04:08 GMT >>>>>>>>>This thread will resume in a few days. The topic will be the muon >>>>>>>>>experiment. We will complete the analysis. [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > No degree, no girlfriend, no wife... Still no proof of anything whether it is physics or degrees or paying me what you owe me.
Strich.9 - 15 Nov 2008 04:22 GMT > >>We notice that you are postponing admitting that you have no answer > >>to the muon experiment. Enjoy your weekend trying to come up with [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Still no proof of anything whether it is physics or degrees or > paying me what you owe me. Am I keeping you awake? Too bad.
Strich.9 - 17 Nov 2008 20:43 GMT The MUON Experiment.
[The standard interpretation of the muon experiment is as follows. Muons are formed in the upper atmosphere. They move with a velocity close to light at v=0.995c. The muon has a supposed resting half-life of about Th ~ 2μs measured by ʽstoppingʼ a speeding muon. But the muon somehow reaches the earth, travelling up to D=6000m. With this distance and speed, the muon is computed to have a half-life of:
Thʼ = D / v = 6000m / 0.995c = 20μs
The apparent conclusion is that the muon has been time dilated and therefore lived 10 times longer.]
Let us analyze this in better detail. First let us pick a spot on the earth E, at the north pole, and let us pick a spot F that is at a distance D=6000m above the north pole. A muon will form anytime at F heading towards the north pole. This muon will travel at around v=0.995c and reach the north pole.
Before we make any computations, let us define the four times we are going to measure:
Te = native co-inertial measurement Teʼ = native trans-inertial measurement Tm = foreign co-inertial measurement Tmʼ = foreign trans-inertial measurement
We define the earth observer as the native observer and the muon observer as the foreign observer. Obviously the co-inertial measurements are those measured within the rest frame and the trans- inertial measurements are those measured in a different frame to the rest frame.
Now a muon forms at F and the earth observer starts his stopwatch. The muon streams down towards the north pole at 0.995c. It decays just as it reaches the north pole. At the time of impact the earth stopwatch registers:
Te = D / v = 6000m / 0.995c = 20us.
The earth observer also observes the muon stopwatch start at the beginning of the journey. Upon impact, the muon stopwatch would register a slower time of:
Teʼ = 2us.
Note that this kind of direct trans-inertial observation of another clock has never been performed and is based on a theoretic application of the Lorentz transformation equation (LTE) relating Te' and Te as follows: Te' = Te / gamma. This is not quite correct as the standard LTE should relate the clock in the muon as measured by the muon observer (foreign co-inertial) to the clock in the muon as measured by the earth observer (native trans-inertial). However, due to some similarity in measurements this erroneous use of the LTE seem to yield the correct numbers.
This is the standard analyses of the Muon experiment. Note that experiments have measured a stopped muon and noted a half life of ~2us. Note also that a stopped muon is one that decays within the detector so it is usually a less energetic muon. But we are not here to dispute experimental methodology and interpretation so we will simply leave that as it is.
Note that we have both Te and Teʼ but not Tm and Tmʼ. So we continue with our analysis.
We have the same spot F and the north pole. We use the same muon but from a different perspective. Our same muon is born at F and starts his stopwatch right away, finding the earth streaming towards it at 0.995c. The earth just impacts the muon at the same time that the muon decays, travelling a distance of D=6000m with a velocity of 0.995c. Just as the muon and its observer passes away, he notes that his stopwatch registered:
Tm = D / v = 6000m / 0.995c = 20us.
Now the muon based observer also observes the earth stopwatch start at the beginning of the earthʼs journey, and just as the muon passes away notes the earth stopwatch registered:
Tmʼ = 2us.
Note that this kind of direct trans-inertial observation of the earth clock from a subatomic particle cannot be performed. However it is computed from the standard LTE relating the earth clock as measured by the earth observer Te (native co-inertial measurement) to the earth clock as measured by the muon observer Tm' (foreign trans-inertial measurement):
Tm' = Te / gamma
In this regard, the time on the muon clock as measured by the earth observer Te' (native trans-inertial measurement) is also related to the time on the muon clock as measured by the muon observer Tm (foreign co-inertial measurement) by the standard LTE;
Te' = Tm / gamma
Note that both the earth clock measures Te=20us prior to the decay of the muon and that the muon clock measure Tm=20us prior its decay.
Now the relativist argument is that there is time dilation since the earth observer observed the muon clock trans-inertially and measured it to tick only Teʼ=2us. However, the same clock was observed co- inertially by the muon and he saw it tick the full Tm=20us.
Likewise, the muon observer will argue that the earth clock was slow ticking Tmʼ=2us while the earth observer will argue that the earth stopwatch registered Te=20us.
According to relativity, at the time of impact we have two clocks, the earth and the muon clock, each with two different non-reconcilable readings: Te=20us and Tm'=2us for the earth clock and Tm=20us and Te'=2us for the muon clock.
To argue a time dilation in the muon clock would be equivalent to arguing a time dilation in the earth clock. Now each second millions of muons are streaming towards the earth at 0.995c. Does anybody observe their clock time dilated? Of course not. Time dilation cannot be observed in the co-inertial clock. This is the fallacy of the Hafele-Keating experiment. The atomic clocks will never measure a slowing of clock rate in its own frame, so when it is finally brought back it will still have the same time as the co-inertial time of the stay at home atomic clock.
Time dilation is a trans-inertial artifact, which the co-inertial clock will never register.
To answer the original and final question, what is the resting half life of the muon? The answer is that it was measured by the muon clock co-inertially Tm=20us.
The earth observer can also easily compute the actual foreign co- inertial time in the muon by the LTE:
Te' = Tm / gamma
By solving for Tm we get the inverse LTE:
Tm = Te' * gamma
Thus
Tm = Te' * gamma = 2us x 10 = 20us.
Giving the actual half-life of the atmospheric muon. And what about the 2us measured for 'at rest' muons? Sampling error. Specifically, the detector only caught the lower energy muons. [It is like a cat concluding that all mice are white, simply because she only caught the white mice she saw and never even noticed the dark mice go by.]
Strich Using the Power of IQ
Strich.9 - 17 Nov 2008 20:50 GMT The MUON Experiment.
[The standard interpretation of the muon experiment is as follows. Muons are formed in the upper atmosphere. They move with a velocity close to light at v=0.995c. The muon has a supposed resting half-life of about Th ~ 2us measured by 'stopping' a speeding muon. But the muon somehow reaches the earth, travelling up to D=6000m. With this distance and speed, the muon is computed to have a half-life of:
Th' = D / v = 6000m / 0.995c = 20us
The apparent conclusion is that the muon has been time dilated and therefore lived 10 times longer.]
Let us analyze this in better detail. First let us pick a spot on the earth E, at the north pole, and let us pick a spot F that is at a distance D=6000m above the north pole. A muon will form anytime at F heading towards the north pole. This muon will travel at around v=0.995c and reach the north pole.
Before we make any computations, let us define the four times we are going to measure:
Te = native co-inertial measurement Te' = native trans-inertial measurement Tm = foreign co-inertial measurement Tm' = foreign trans-inertial measurement
We define the earth observer as the native observer and the muon observer as the foreign observer. Obviously the co-inertial measurements are those measured within the rest frame and the trans- inertial measurements are those measured in a different frame to the rest frame.
Now a muon forms at F and the earth observer starts his stopwatch. The muon streams down towards the north pole at 0.995c. It decays just as it reaches the north pole. At the time of impact the earth stopwatch registers:
Te = D / v = 6000m / 0.995c = 20us.
The earth observer also observes the muon stopwatch start at the beginning of the journey. Upon impact, the muon stopwatch would register a slower time of:
Te' = 2us.
Note that this kind of direct trans-inertial observation of another clock has never been performed and is based on a theoretic application of the Lorentz transformation equation (LTE) relating Te' and Te as follows: Te' = Te / gamma. This is not quite correct as the standard LTE should relate the clock in the muon as measured by the muon observer (foreign co-inertial) to the clock in the muon as measured by the earth observer (native trans-inertial). However, due to some similarity in measurements this erroneous use of the LTE seem to yield the correct numbers.
This is the standard analyses of the Muon experiment. Note that experiments have measured a stopped muon and noted a half life of ~2us. Note also that a stopped muon is one that decays within the detector so it is usually a less energetic muon. But we are not here to dispute experimental methodology and interpretation so we will simply leave that as it is.
Note that we have both Te and Te' but not Tm and Tm'. So we continue with our analysis.
We have the same spot F and the north pole. We use the same muon but from a different perspective. Our same muon is born at F and starts his stopwatch right away, finding the earth streaming towards it at 0.995c. The earth just impacts the muon at the same time that the muon decays, travelling a distance of D=6000m with a velocity of 0.995c. Just as the muon and its observer passes away, he notes that his stopwatch registered:
Tm = D / v = 6000m / 0.995c = 20us.
Now the muon based observer also observes the earth stopwatch start at the beginning of the earth's journey, and just as the muon passes away notes the earth stopwatch registered:
Tm' = 2us.
Note that this kind of direct trans-inertial observation of the earth clock from a subatomic particle cannot be performed. However it is computed from the standard LTE relating the earth clock as measured by the earth observer Te (native co-inertial measurement) to the earth clock as measured by the muon observer Tm' (foreign trans-inertial measurement):
Tm' = Te / gamma
In this regard, the time on the muon clock as measured by the earth observer Te' (native trans-inertial measurement) is also related to the time on the muon clock as measured by the muon observer Tm (foreign co-inertial measurement) by the standard LTE;
Te' = Tm / gamma
Note that both the earth clock measures Te=20us prior to the decay of the muon and that the muon clock measure Tm=20us prior its decay.
Now the relativist argument is that there is time dilation since the earth observer observed the muon clock trans-inertially and measured it to tick only Te'=2us. However, the same clock was observed co- inertially by the muon and he saw it tick the full Tm=20us.
Likewise, the muon observer will argue that the earth clock was slow ticking Tm'=2us while the earth observer will argue that the earth stopwatch registered Te=20us.
According to relativity, at the time of impact we have two clocks, the earth and the muon clock, each with two different non-reconcilable readings: Te=20us and Tm'=2us for the earth clock and Tm=20us and Te'=2us for the muon clock.
To argue a time dilation in the muon clock would be equivalent to arguing a time dilation in the earth clock. Now each second millions of muons are streaming towards the earth at 0.995c. Does anybody observe their clock time dilated? Of course not. Time dilation cannot be observed in the co-inertial clock. This is the fallacy of the Hafele-Keating experiment. The atomic clocks will never measure a slowing of clock rate in its own frame, so when it is finally brought back it will still have the same time as the co-inertial time of the stay at home atomic clock.
Time dilation is a trans-inertial artifact, which the co-inertial clock will never register.
To answer the original and final question, what is the resting half life of the muon? The answer is that it was measured by the muon clock co-inertially Tm=20us.
The earth observer can also easily compute the actual foreign co- inertial time in the muon by the LTE:
Te' = Tm / gamma
By solving for Tm we get the inverse LTE:
Tm = Te' * gamma
Thus
Tm = Te' * gamma = 2us x 10 = 20us.
Giving the actual half-life of the atmospheric muon. And what about the 2us measured for 'at rest' muons? Sampling error. Specifically, the detector only caught the lower energy muons. [It is like a cat concluding that all mice are white, simply because she only caught the white mice she saw and never even noticed the dark mice go by.]
Michael Moroney - 17 Nov 2008 21:34 GMT > The MUON Experiment. [snip wrong crap]
Of course you got it wrong. The earth observer would observe that 20uS elapsed since the muon's creation and its decay/impact with Earth, and travelled 6000m in that time. The earth observer would also observe that a hypothetical clock travelling along with the muon would measure the time as 2uS.
An observer travelling along with the muon would also measure 2uS, but would also observe the Earth approaching at 0.995c - and length contracted. The observer would measure the distance from muon creation to the surface as only 600m. (They'd also measure Mt. Everest as being 885 meters or 2,903' high, if coming straight down at it) The muon travels that 600m in 2uS, at 0.995c. Or, if you wish, the length contracted earth travels that 600m in 2uS, as far as the muon observer is concerned. Incoming pancake alert!!
Jeff▲Relf - 17 Nov 2008 22:18 GMT Dogs will never speak English and few Americans will ever speak Chinese; likewise, many will never understand Special or General Relativity, no matter how much you try to explain it to them.
However, if Mr. Strich could learn it, here's how I'd explain it .. Suppose: 1. A bulb flashes. 2. Another bulb, one meter away, flashes one second later. 3. You're moving flash-to-flash at one meter per second, a foot above the flashing bulbs.
As far as you're concerned, both flashes happend at the “ same place ”: one foot below you. That's “ Galilean Relativity ” ― but it's just 3-D.
Now suppose: 1. A bulb flashes. 2. Another bulb, one lightYear away, flashes one year later. 3. You're moving flash-to-flash at the speed of light, a foot above the flashing bulbs.
As far as you're concerned, both flashes happend not only at the same place ( one foot below you ), but also the same time ! no delay ! That's “ Einsteinian Relativity ” ― and it's 4-D.
So, as I've said before, time and space are relative, notional, and it varies with speed ― more obviously at speeds approaching c. No one's “ reality ” is any more “ real ” than someone else's.
As far as photons are concerned, they always travel Zero feet in Zero seconds along a “ null geodesic ” ( through warped spacetime ) ― enjoying a zero meter^3 volume, and a zero second lifespan.
And this is true no matter which two frames of reference you might choose ― in other words, it's “ invariant ”.
Perhaps momentum, in the form of vibrations, increases with decent into a gravity well ― warping spacetime. Given enough data on this, it could become part of the Standard Model.
PD - 17 Nov 2008 22:25 GMT > Dogs will never speak English and few Americans will ever speak Chinese; > likewise, many will never understand Special or General Relativity, [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > increases with decent into a gravity well -- warping spacetime. > Given enough data on this, it could become part of the Standard Model. I don't believe you helped, Jeff.
Jeff▲Relf - 17 Nov 2008 23:12 GMT Please stop quoting page-after-page just to tack on a short line at the end ― a good rule** is: “ Original content should exceed quoted material. ”. ( ** RFC-1855, “ Netiquette Guidelines ”, 1995: Tools.ietf.ORG/html/rfc1855 )
Likely, Michael Moroney will read what you quoted and respond to it, and then I'll have no way to reply to him, because he's plonked me. I plan on making fun of him, while he's not watching me.
You use Google Groups, so I'm quite sure you'll Never invest the money and time it takes to have a decent experience on Usenet.
For example: Why doesn't Google Groups expose a link to the “ parent ” post ? The Message-ID of the parent is listed in each and every header.
hanson - 17 Nov 2008 22:24 GMT "Strich.9" <strich.9992@gmail.com> wrote
>> The MUON Experiment. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/f08eed44d57c11f3 http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/6dc5ea38420c1906 http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/cee4a55361db6fe5
> [snip wrong crap] > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > ... would measure > ... the muon observer is concerned. hanson wrote: ... ahahaha... Moroneye, you just presented the essence of relativity... wherein there is always that condition of "would"... and so making everything only relatively real, but never "really" real... ahaha.. ... ---- No wonder the observer is "concerned" ---- -------------------------------------- strich 1 : Moroneye 0 -------------------------------------- But thanks for the laughs, ahahahahanson
PD - 17 Nov 2008 23:00 GMT > "Strich.9" <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote>> The MUON Experiment. > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > condition of "would"... and so making everything > only relatively real, but never "really" real... ahaha.. ... Well, that's not quite right.
We can be pretty sure that if we threw you off the roof, you *would* fall to the street, and we don't have to actually do it to be pretty darned sure. We get that way from having done a number of experiments in similar circumstances where we thought that if we tossed a penny off the roof, or a melon off the roof, or a water balloon off the roof, or a toaster off the roof, or a sack full of cockroaches off the roof, that they *would* fall to the street, and in fact they did. The application of the experiment in those related cases gives us confidence about the outcomes of this hypothetical case.
Likewise, there have been a number of cases where we thought that if an experiment was set up to test this or that with relativity, then this is what we *would* see, and in fact when those experiments were done, that is in fact what we *did* see. This gives us some measure of confidence in telling you what *would* happen in the present hypothetical case.
If you think that every hypothetical case needs to be tested in order to be reasonably sure about a theory, then I'm sure we could arrange to throw you off a roof to see if you fall to the street. This may even convince you.
But thanks for the laughs....
PD
> ---- No wonder the observer is "concerned" ---- > -------------------------------------- > strich 1 : Moroneye 0 > -------------------------------------- > But thanks for the laughs, ahahahahanson hanson - 18 Nov 2008 20:00 GMT >>>> "Strich.9" <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote>> The MUON Experiment.
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/f08eed44d57c11f3 : > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/6dc5ea38420c1906 : http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/cee4a55361db6fe5 :
> [snip wrong crap] "Michael Moroney" wrote:
>> > Of course you got it wrong.... ... would observe >> > ... would also observe... ... would measure >> > ... would also measure.... ... would also observe >> > ... would measure >> > ... the muon observer is concerned. hanson wrote:
>> ... ahahaha... Moroneye, you just presented the >> essence of relativity... wherein there is always that >> condition of "would"... and so making everything >> only relatively real, but never "really" real... >> -- No wonder the observer is "concerned" ---- === ahaha.... and not to be outdone by Moroneye ...
... Papa Draper wrote:
> Well, that's not quite right. > "Like wise"..."we thought that if"... "we test this or that" ... > we *would* see...we *did* see.. .what *would* happen > in the present hypothetical case. hanson wrote: ... ahahaha... of course it's not quite right... Yours and Moroneye's tripe, hypothetical and otherwise, is based on Gedanken-experiments = Day dreaming = Mental masturbations of yours while you guys are dangling as Einstein's Dingleberries from Albert's sphincter & worship there in the breeze of his relativity farts.... hahahahaha... and defend your odious beliefs like Jewish, Xian & Islamist extremists do praise, defend & make halleluiah for theirs...
Papa Draper wrote:
> We can be pretty sure that if we threw you off the roof, you > *would* fall to the street, and we don't have to actually do [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > the street. This may even convince you. > But thanks for the laughs.... PD hanson wrote: I have see'em come & I have seen'em go....but you take the cake, Draper... ahahaha... AHAHAHAHA.. You are laughing at your own sh.t... ahahahaha... Maybe there is hope for you, besides your subliminal undercurrent of hate to throw me off the roof... ahahahaha... Listen, Draper, you old and senile fart: Do you realize how feeble the foundations of your REL-religion are?.. === You just sought **refuge with Newton**.... ahahaha... who says that the fall is caused by a gravitational force... ... which you Einstein Dingleberries deny to exist..
So do explain to me how I do bend space & time when you push me off the roof ... or explain to me how the space and time is bent just beyond the ledge off the roof... and don't call on Newton again to get you out off deep sh.t... ahahahaha... but you may ask for help either from your younger or older twin or you may use your rubber ruler... or use your 80 ft stick that fits into the 40 ft barn...
Draper you old fool, thanks for the laughs, ahahahahanson
hanson wrote:
>> -------------------------------------- >> strich 1 : Moroneye 0 >> -------------------------------------- >> But thanks for the laughs, ahahahahanson PD - 18 Nov 2008 20:15 GMT > >>>> "Strich.9" <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote>> > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > Moroneye's tripe, hypothetical and otherwise, is based > on Gedanken-experiments Well, I think that's precisely the error I was trying to correct. The validity of relativity is not at all based on gedanken experiments. The validity of relativity is based on agreement with *real* experiments that are all thoroughly documented. Now, in *explaining* relativity, it is often useful to make use of hypothetical situations -- often called "gedanken experiments". But the reliability of the conclusions drawn in those hypothetical situations is entirely based on the reliability of real experiments.
Naturally, you shouldn't be convinced purely by these hypothetical arguments. You also need to look at the experimental results, which kind of clinch the deal.
> = Day dreaming = Mental > masturbations of yours while you guys are dangling as [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > besides your subliminal undercurrent of hate to throw me off > the roof... ahahahaha... Oh, heaven forbid! I would NEVER threaten to throw you off the roof, even if it was necessary to convince you that you would indeed fall to the street.
> Listen, Draper, you old and senile fart: Gee, how old do you think I am?
> Do you realize how > feeble the foundations of your REL-religion are?.. It doesn't matter how feeble they are. If those feeble foundations produce quantitative predictions that match experimental data, then those foundations are taken to be provisionally correct (until something with more experimental predictive power comes along), whether you continue to think of them as feeble or not.
> === You just sought **refuge with Newton**.... ahahaha... > who says that the fall is caused by a gravitational force... > ... which you Einstein Dingleberries deny to exist.. > > So do explain to me how I do bend space & time when you > push me off the roof Oh, OK, so now you're asking for someone to explain to you something you don't understand. This is an interesting strategy of yours -- assume something is wrong until you are made to understand it. Tell me -- do you think that brain surgery is wrong? Do you think that superconductivity is wrong? Do you think that organic chemistry is wrong? Do you think that ultrasonography is wrong?
> ... or explain to me how the space and > time is bent just beyond the ledge off the roof... and don't call [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >> -------------------------------------- > >> But thanks for the laughs, ahahahahanson hanson - 18 Nov 2008 22:17 GMT -------- AHAHAHAHahahaHAHAHAHA -------
Senile and geriatric Relativity fanatic Papa Draper "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> got caught with his pants down at his ankles.. when he wrote
hanson wrote: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/48cde89d92d84b75 wherein Draper made an a.s out of himself the 1st time:
> Draper, you just sought **refuge with Newton**... ahaha... > Newton, who says that the fall is caused by a gravitational > force... ... which you Einstein Dingleberries deny to exist.. > So, Draper, do explain to me how I do bend space & > time when you push me off the roof... Papa Draper wrote: Oh, OK, so now you're asking for someone to explain to you something you don't understand. This is an interesting strategy of yours -- assume something is wrong until you are made to understand it. Tell me -- do you think that brain surgery is wrong? Do you think that superconductivity is wrong? Do you think that organic chemistry is wrong? Do you think that ultrasonography is wrong? [snip the rest of Drapers diversion attempts]
hanson wrote: ----- ahahahaha.... Draper weasels... relativistically! Draper, the short sense of your long story is simple: == Draper, YOU do NOT know & much less are == == you capable to explain the basis of your own == == physico-religious relativity-bible beliefs &.... ==
Draper, you are a very bad and ineffective teacher. YOU are just a parrot proselytizing Einstein crap by repeating, unquestioned & mindlessly, what all other Einstein Dingleberries do. I can understand now why Androcles has such a hard-on for you... ahahaha... But to me you are funny.. always good for a chuckle, when you run after me... Thanks for the honors!... ahahaha... AHAHAHAHA...Don't let me cramp your style, Draper. Carry on!... ahahahahaha...
hanson wrote:
> ... or Draper explain to me how the space and time > is bent just beyond the ledge off the roof... and don't call [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > stick that fits into the 40 ft barn... > Draper you old fool, thanks for the laughs, ahahahahanson PD - 19 Nov 2008 01:17 GMT > -------- AHAHAHAHahahaHAHAHAHA ------- > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > chemistry is wrong? Do you think that ultrasonography is wrong? > [snip the rest of Drapers diversion attempts] No diversion involved. They are straight to the point. Perhaps you missed the point.
> hanson wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Draper, you are a very bad and ineffective teacher. As evidenced by this newsgroup? I'm not teaching on this newsgroup. I'm not paid to teach in this newsgroup. When I teach, I'm paid for it and I do it in a different venue. Why you do you think you can expect to be taught on a newsgroup?
I just got through writing a post about what is called in teaching circles the "arrogant failure". You might want to look that up, as it is relevant to your post.
> YOU are just a parrot proselytizing Einstein crap by > repeating, unquestioned & mindlessly, what all other > Einstein Dingleberries do. I can understand now why > Androcles has such a hard-on for you... ahahaha... > But to me you are funny.. always good for a chuckle, > when you run after me. Oh, I never run after you. You're not worth running after. Every now and again, I'll linger and walk a slow circle around you as you blather and foam, but please don't consider it attention. That's not the intent at all.
But please. Fall all over yourself at the slightest response. Paroxysms, bring 'em on!
>.. Thanks for the honors!... > ahahaha... AHAHAHAHA...Don't let me cramp your [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > stick that fits into the 40 ft barn... > > Draper you old fool, thanks for the laughs, ahahahahanson Strich.9 - 19 Nov 2008 01:27 GMT > As evidenced by this newsgroup? I'm not teaching on this newsgroup. > I'm not paid to teach in this newsgroup. When I teach, I'm paid for it > and I do it in a different venue. Why you do you think you can expect > to be taught on a newsgroup? You misunderstand. I am teaching you what is wrong with relativity, and you are not capable of learning: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/10f826d7b6da4014
You gave up and called your teacher names, just because your low IQ brain could not keep up with the high IQ teacher brain. Patience grasshopper, patience... do not block the flow of information to your brain by clinging to faith and dogma.
Regards.
PD - 19 Nov 2008 01:40 GMT > > As evidenced by this newsgroup? I'm not teaching on this newsgroup. > > I'm not paid to teach in this newsgroup. When I teach, I'm paid for it > > and I do it in a different venue. Why you do you think you can expect > > to be taught on a newsgroup? > > You misunderstand. I am teaching you what is wrong with relativity, Well, so far all you've exhibited is some uncertainty about what relativity says, exactly.
> and you are not capable of learning:http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/10f826d7b6da4014 > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Regards. John J - 19 Nov 2008 02:11 GMT > You gave up and called your teacher names, just because your low IQ > brain could not keep up with the high IQ teacher brain. A high IQ (which you have not yet evinced) does not mean you don't have a psychotic hole in your brain so that you cannot fathom relatively objective views. Your difficulty with language points to schizophrenia. I suggest you accept it and stop stressing yourself. IOW, focus upon what makes you happy in your delusion rather than taking on the impossible which is far, far beyond your comprehension.
Oh, and get a job.
Strich.9 - 19 Nov 2008 03:28 GMT > snip Another troll with an imaginary degree from Oxford
hanson - 19 Nov 2008 15:18 GMT "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote: -------- AHAHAHAHahahaHAHAHAHA ------- Senile and geriatric Relativity fanatic Papa Draper "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> got caught with his pants down at his ankles.. when he wrote that he is an Einstein Dingleberry who sought refuge with Newton since...
hanson wrote: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/48cde89d92d84b75 .... wherein Draper made an a.s out of himself the 1st time: and now he dug his hole even deeper... ahahaha... after hanson wrote: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/ad3ea70f19bb3ae6 .... Draper, you are a very bad and ineffective teacher.
Paul Draper, listen:... Read that last line above and live with it. --- Don't insist that you are better with a shovel digging an ever deeper hole for yourself. It shows, Paul. You don't need to work at it so hard.
Paul, I still say (again) and mean it: ... to me, you are funny.. always good for a chuckle, ahahaha... AHAHAHAHA...Don't let me cramp your style, Draper. ... ... Carry on!... ahahahahahanson
Michael Moroney - 17 Nov 2008 23:01 GMT >> Of course you got it wrong. >>... would observe [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >condition of "would"... and so making everything >only relatively real, but never "really" real... ahaha.. ... OK. I was wrong to use the word "would" each time. Replace each instance of "would" with "will" and my post is better than ever. Not that it will help you understand, it appears that you have the same anti-relativity insanity that Strich-burying-his-head-in-the-sand has.
hanson - 18 Nov 2008 20:00 GMT >>>> "Strich.9" <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote>> The MUON Experiment.
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/f08eed44d57c11f3 : > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/6dc5ea38420c1906 : http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/cee4a55361db6fe5 :
> [snip wrong crap] >>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >>condition of "would"... and so making everything >>only relatively real, but never "really" real... ahaha.. ... Moroneye wrote:
> OK. I was wrong to use the word "would" each time. > Replace each instance of "would" with "will" and my > post is better than ever. Not that it will help you > understand, it appears that you have the same anti-relativity > insanity that Strich-burying-his-head-in-the-sand has. hanson wrote: No, Mororneye, you are not even wrong. You just made your condition worse. You cranked yourself which you should not, if you were to look at the issue with straight instead of moroneyes... But as of now that is not the case. You defend your REL-igious belief as if it can't be wrong. Jewish, Xian and Islamist extremists do the very same. You are damaged goods, Moroneye. Are you too far beyond the pale and gone around the bend (of your space-time... ahahaha).. to see that?
Here, let me throw some bones for your healing and for you to wonder whether they need relativity, like (1) The origin of the gravitational constant, (2) the GEM, the gravitational/electromagnetic equality, and (3) the universal scale operator of emergence...
... or, Moroneye, do you prefer to remain mentally and intellectually enfeebled and be condemned to parrot 100 years old sh.t that is only good for arguing for argument's sake. ... It's called Einstein Relativity.... ahahahaha... ahahaha... Thanks for the laughs, sucker... ahahaha.. ahahanson
Strich.9 - 17 Nov 2008 23:17 GMT http://groups.google.com/group/sci.logic/msg/0119fbec72ad22f1
> ... ahahaha... Moroneye, you just presented the > essence of relativity... wherein there is always that [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > -------------------------------------- > But thanks for the laughs, ahahahahanson You're welcome. Thanks for judging and keeping score.
Strich.9 - 19 Nov 2008 04:06 GMT Due to the attraction this thread generates among trolls, it is continued in sci.physics.research under the title: What is the Muon Half-Life?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/browse_frm/thread/64cf507a36 de67c8?scoring=d&
Thank you.
John J - 19 Nov 2008 15:07 GMT > Due to the attraction this thread generates among trolls, it is > continued in sci.physics.research under the title: What is the Muon > Half-Life? > > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/browse_frm/thread/64cf507a36 de67c8?scoring=d& And there you will be pointed to your faulty hypothesis; Your complete misunderstanding of the terms of the experiement.
strich.9991@gmail.com - 19 Nov 2008 15:15 GMT > > Due to the attraction this thread generates among trolls, it is > > continued in sci.physics.research under the title: What is the Muon [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > And there you will be pointed to your faulty hypothesis; Your complete > misunderstanding of the terms of the experiement. And what are the terms of that experiment? If only that imaginary Oxford degree will help you now...
Your subnormal intellect can only bring you to the gates of reason so you could peer in and be mystified. It will never allow you to really participate. Sucks doesn't it. You will forever be a troll, whether you like it or not. Blame your dumb parents.
doug - 19 Nov 2008 18:16 GMT > Due to the attraction this thread generates among trolls, it is > continued in sci.physics.research under the title: What is the Muon [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Thank you. Translation: Strich lost badly again so he runs of to another group and starts a new thread which he thinks will somehow cover his failure here. Strich does not realize that running away does not improve his arguments.
Strich defines a troll as someone who points out his mistakes and makes him feel bad. However, he will find intelligent people in the research group as well and they will point out the same mistakes that we have been pointing out.
Strich.9 - 19 Nov 2008 18:26 GMT > two MAD postings My, my, my... This troll has gone bonkers. I bet he was so mad he punched his blow-up doll senseless...
doug - 20 Nov 2008 04:01 GMT >>two MAD postings > > My, my, my... This troll has gone bonkers. I bet he was so mad he > punched his blow-up doll senseless... Strich goes into psychotic episodes when his mistakes are pointed out to him. I post the physics demonstrating that he is wrong and he has no answer. So, like the bully he wants to be, he can only respond with insults. This is an admission on his part that he has failed to make his case in any way.
Strich has also still failed totally to refute any experiments. His ego overreached what his mind could deliver.
Strich.9 - 17 Nov 2008 22:56 GMT Strich wrote: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.logic/msg/6dc5ea38420c1906
Moroney wrote: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.logic/msg/68d474c6a36d56a7
> An observer travelling along with the muon would also measure 2uS... BZZZZZT. IDIOT, the local time cannot be time dilated*.
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation ("Locally (i.e., from the perspective of any observer within the same frame of reference, without reference to another frame of reference), time always passes at the same rate.")
Michael Moroney - 17 Nov 2008 23:21 GMT >Strich wrote: >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.logic/msg/6dc5ea38420c1906
>Moroney wrote: >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.logic/msg/68d474c6a36d56a7 >> An observer travelling along with the muon would also measure 2uS...
>BZZZZZT. IDIOT, the local time cannot be time dilated*. And it's not. I wrote that the observer travelling along with the muon measures 2uS, which is the undilated local time. The observer on Earth sees the dilated time of 20uS. Perhaps your confusion is from not knowing which time is dilated and which isn't, and when you mix them up wrong it doesn't make sense.
Strich.9 - 17 Nov 2008 23:38 GMT On Nov 17, 6:21 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote:
> >Strich wrote: > >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.logic/msg/6dc5ea38420c1906 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > which time is dilated and which isn't, and when you mix them up wrong it > doesn't make sense. First of all, the time Te=20us measured co-inertially on earth is NOT time dilated. The earth observer trans-inertially measures Te'=2us on the dilated muon clock. The muon clock as observed trans-inertially is slow, so each tick corresponds to 10 ticks on that is time dilated.
But the muon clock as measured co-inertially is NOT slow, so why would it equal 20us on the earth clock?
Second of all, if the muon observer did see 2us CO-INERTIALLY in the muon clock, then when it observes from its frame that the earth is moving at 0.995c, then it must see that the earth clock is slow, and ticks only 0.2us prior to impact.
You see, the two frames are symmetrical from a relativity standpoint. So if you argue that the muon clock ticks 10% of what the earth clock ticked, the next argument states the earth clock ticks 10% what the muon clock ticked, and so on. I can see this is where your low IQ takes a step back and leave it to a high IQ brain to complete the analysis.
PD - 17 Nov 2008 23:47 GMT > On Nov 17, 6:21 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > But the muon clock as measured co-inertially is NOT slow, so why would > it equal 20us on the earth clock? Because it does. Because, as you note, that's what experiment *measures* on the earth-bound clock for the time of flight of the moving muon. It's hard to dispute the fact that that's what the clock in fact reads.
Now you may be wondering instead, "But WHY would it read 20us and not 2us?". And for that, you need a theory that can tell you that in fact that's what you *should* read, and that should be reassuring because it is surely what you *do* read. In actual experiment. Fortunately, we have such a theory.
> Second of all, if the muon observer did see 2us CO-INERTIALLY in the > muon clock, then when it observes from its frame that the earth is [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > ticked, the next argument states the earth clock ticks 10% what the > muon clock ticked, and so on. Ah, quite so, and here is where you may have to elevate yourself above your comic-book understanding, because you can rest assured that special relativity doesn't conclude that, from the fact that the muon clock reads 2us when the earth clock reads 20us, then the earth clock reads 0.2us when the muon clock reads 2us, and that furthermore the muon clock reads 0.02us when the earth clock reads 0.2us -- and so on and so on.
So perhaps what you're really looking for is a better explanation of what special relativity actually says, rather than what your comic books have been telling you. Would you like a reading reference that is more appropriate to your IQ?
> I can see this is where your low IQ > takes a step back and leave it to a high IQ brain to complete the > analysis. PD - 18 Nov 2008 14:28 GMT > Ah, quite so, and here is where you may have to elevate yourself above > your comic-book understanding, because you can rest assured that [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > books have been telling you. Would you like a reading reference that > is more appropriate to your IQ? Are you interested in reading something a bit above comic book level about relativity?
> > I can see this is where your low IQ > > takes a step back and leave it to a high IQ brain to complete the > > analysis. Michael Moroney - 18 Nov 2008 00:41 GMT >On Nov 17, 6:21 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> which time is dilated and which isn't, and when you mix them up wrong it >> doesn't make sense.
>First of all, the time Te=20us measured co-inertially on earth is NOT >time dilated. The earth observer trans-inertially measures Te'=2us on >the dilated muon clock. The muon clock as observed trans-inertially >is slow, so each tick corresponds to 10 ticks on that is time dilated. Your second and third sentence contradict your first sentence. As your second sentence states, the earth observer sees the muon's clock going from 0 to 2uS, but it takes 20uS to do so. Your third sentence even states the time is dilated, 10 times slower, contradicting your first sentence.
Remember, as you correctly point out, time dilation is always someone in one frame observing a clock in another (moving) frame. So the earth observer will see the muon's 2uS clock dilated to 20uS. That's what time dilation is; the observer in one frame sees time in another frame pass much slower. It is the muon's 2uS clock which is dilated to 20uS, not the earth observer's measurement of 20uS passing.
>But the muon clock as measured co-inertially is NOT slow, so why would >it equal 20us on the earth clock? That's how time dialation works when a clock in one frame is observed from another frame.
>Second of all, if the muon observer did see 2us CO-INERTIALLY in the >muon clock, then when it observes from its frame that the earth is >moving at 0.995c, then it must see that the earth clock is slow, and >ticks only 0.2us prior to impact. And it does. Remember to compensate for the length contractions and so forth when seeing what the overall outcome is.
To simplify the overall effect:
The earth observer will see the muon travelling at (nearly) c, taking 20uS to move 6000m, but sees the muon's clock measure 2uS for the trip.
The muon observer will see the muon take 2uS for 600m of compressed earth atmosphere rush by at nearly c. It sees the earth as compressed 10 times, not its own time dilated 10 times.
>I can see this is where your low IQ >takes a step back and leave it to a high IQ brain to complete the >analysis. So if your low IQ cannot handle this problem, perhaps you should simply give up trying to understand it, and leave it to someone who does, rather than misunderstanding it and claiming it is wrong.
Strich.9 - 18 Nov 2008 00:55 GMT On Nov 17, 7:41 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/0fe347a1b88f7cae
You seem to misunderstand the basics. If a clock E ticks 20 seconds and a clock M ticks 2 seconds in the "same" period, which is the time dilated clock?
The answer should be M, not E.
Note that for every slow tick of M, there are 10 ticks of E. Until your IQ can process this fact, there is not point continuing.
Let me be more graphic:
M (dilated clock): tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiick toooooooo... E (normal clock): ticktockticktockticktockticktockticktock ...
As for the distance, PD and I are covering that...
Michael Moroney - 18 Nov 2008 01:08 GMT >On Nov 17, 7:41 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >wrote: >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/0fe347a1b88f7cae
>You seem to misunderstand the basics. If a clock E ticks 20 seconds >and a clock M ticks 2 seconds in the "same" period, which is the time >dilated clock?
>The answer should be M, not E.
>Note that for every slow tick of M, there are 10 ticks of E. Until >your IQ can process this fact, there is not point continuing. Very good. So why did you write:
>> >BZZZZZT. IDIOT, the local time cannot be time dilated*. in response to:
>> >> An observer travelling along with the muon would also measure 2uS... ?
Strich.9 - 18 Nov 2008 01:35 GMT On Nov 17, 8:08 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote:
> >On Nov 17, 7:41 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > ? You are slow. When you say the observer in the muon measured 2us to the earth observer's 20us, then the muon observed co-inertially or locally that it's clock is slow, tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiick tooooooock, which is not allowed (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation).
Boy, what is it you really do?
Michael Moroney - 18 Nov 2008 01:47 GMT >On Nov 17, 8:08 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >wrote:
>> Very good. So why did you write: >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> >> ?
>You are slow. >When you say the observer in the muon measured 2us to the earth >observer's 20us, then the muon observed co-inertially or locally that >it's clock is slow, tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiick tooooooock, which is not >allowed (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation). And it doesn't happen. The muon observer would observe 2uS pass at the normal rate, not "slow". Time *always* passes at the normal rate locally.
>Boy, what is it you really do? I am not your boy.
Strich.9 - 18 Nov 2008 02:02 GMT On Nov 17, 8:47 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote:
> >On Nov 17, 8:08 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > And it doesn't happen. The muon observer would observe 2uS pass at the > normal rate, not "slow". Time *always* passes at the normal rate locally. Following your logic the muon clock registers locally Tm=[2us] - brackets to signify your answer. Also the earth clock registers locally Te=20us for the same period. Now the muon observer, at rest in its own frame, observes the earth moving at 0.995c. The muon sees the speeding earth clock with Te=20us as slow. So each tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiick tooooooock of Te corresponds to 10 tick tocks of Tm. By your reasoning, Tm now registers 200us. We started with Tm= [2us] and now we are led to Tm=[[200us]].
You are puzzled now. Do you want me to disentangle this for you?
Michael Moroney - 18 Nov 2008 15:43 GMT >> >When you say the observer in the muon measured 2us to the earth >> >observer's 20us, then the muon observed co-inertially or locally that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> And it doesn't happen. The muon observer would observe 2uS pass at the >> normal rate, not "slow". Time *always* passes at the normal rate locally.
>Following your logic the muon clock registers locally Tm=[2us] - >brackets to signify your answer. Also the earth clock registers >locally Te=20us for the same period. Now the muon observer, at rest >in its own frame, observes the earth moving at 0.995c. The muon sees >the speeding earth clock with Te=20us as slow. No. The muon observer will observe a point on the earth crossing a point 600m in front of the muon (in the muon's frame), starting a clock. When the muon reaches the point, the clock reads 2uS. Now, on Earth, the mark in front of the speeding muon will be moving right along with it at 0.995c, and will have that length contracted to only 60m, so the earth clock will measure the elapsed time as only 0.2 uS. Back to the muon's frame. The muon will see the earth clock read only 0.2uS but measured the time in its own frame as 2uS. It sees the earth time dilated from 0.2uS to 2uS. So from the muon's frame, what I wrote before still holds true but reversed: The muon sees the Earth move 600m, but with its time dilated from 0.2uS to 2uS. The earth sees itself move 60m in 0.2uS, because of the length contraction of the "sphere" of points the muon considers to be 600m from itself is flattened into a pancake 60m thick.
> So each >tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiick tooooooock of Te corresponds to 10 tick tocks of >Tm. By your reasoning, Tm now registers 200us. We started with Tm= >[2us] and now we are led to Tm=[[200us]]. Because of your false assumptions, this does not follow.
strich.9991@gmail.com - 18 Nov 2008 16:06 GMT On Nov 18, 10:43 am, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/6121516acd90636f
Obviously you are not a physicist...
I don't think you can sell your interpretation of the muon experiment to the orthododxy. You cannot sell it to me either.
Just follow my discussion with PD.
Michael Moroney - 18 Nov 2008 17:05 GMT >I don't think you can sell your interpretation of the muon experiment >to the orthododxy. The "orthodoxy" (scientists worldwide) uses exactly this all the time, because it works. No need for me to "sell" anything.
> You cannot sell it to me either. It doesn't matter. You're just some nobody ranting away about something you just don't understand.
strich.9991@gmail.com - 18 Nov 2008 17:46 GMT On Nov 18, 12:05 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote:
> strich.9...@gmail.com writes: > >I don't think you can sell your interpretation of the muon experiment > >to the orthododxy. > > The "orthodoxy" (scientists worldwide) uses exactly this all the time, > because it works. BZZZZZT.
Sorry. You are not a physicist and you have misunderstood the orthodoxy. Better luck with your next set of pretenses.
Michael Moroney - 18 Nov 2008 18:16 GMT >On Nov 18, 12:05=A0pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> The "orthodoxy" (scientists worldwide) uses exactly this all the time, >> because it works.
>BZZZZZT.
>Sorry. You are not a physicist and you have misunderstood the >orthodoxy. Why do you claim this? Who do you consider the "orthodoxy"? Your fellow patients at the asylum or something?
Physicists and engineers use SR and GR all the time for one simple reason - they WORK. Your ranting and raving doesn't change that.
strich.9991@gmail.com - 18 Nov 2008 18:27 GMT On Nov 18, 12:56 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 18, 8:44 am, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > car's highway (the mile markers, the stripes on the road) are all > moving. As I said, we are in the frame of the MUON. Here the muon observer is at rest, the muon 'highway' is at rest, and the earth 'car' is speeding down the 'highway'.
[Think of it this way. You are the muon observer, you are standing on the desert with the muon highway in front of you, both you and the highway are at rest, and the earth car is speeding towards you at 0.995c. You see the earth car contracted, but the highway should not be. Is that hard to imagine?
Let me help you out. What makes it hard for you I think is that the earth car is so large that its bumpers are already touching you. But we have designated a point within the car to be the point of measurement. So while the driver is 6000m away, the bumber has already touched you. But when it's speed becomes 0.995c, the bumper contracts back closer to the driver, though the highway remains 6000m long.
Just remember, it is the earth that is moving, not the muon, nor the distances that the muon measures. Try to think like a high IQ individual.]
PD - 18 Nov 2008 18:47 GMT On Nov 18, 12:27 pm, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Nov 18, 12:56 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > 0.995c. You see the earth car contracted, but the highway should not > be. Is that hard to imagine? I'm sorry, I don't see an "Earth car". I see two milestones. The top of the atmosphere. The bottom of the atmosphere. Those milestones are just like markers on the highway. And just like the markers on the highway are moving in the reference frame in which the car is at rest, then the markers at the top and bottom of the atmosphere are moving in the reference frame in which the muon is at rest. The path the car takes from one marker to the next is along the highway, and the highway is also moving in the frame in which the car is at rest. Likewise, the path the muon takes from one marker to the next is through the atmosphere, and the atmosphere is also moving in the frame in which the muon is at rest. Is the distance between the markers on the highway moving relative to the car? Is the distance between the markers on the atmosphere moving relative to the muon?
Surely you see this. Even a third grader would see this, let alone someone with an IQ of 200. The difference may be that most third graders are not pathologically self-rationalizing. But I wonder how it is that you can rationalize what you're saying when everyone from third-graders on up to physicists would say to you, "Don't be an idiot."
> Let me help you out. What makes it hard for you I think is that the > earth car is so large that its bumpers are already touching you. But [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > distances that the muon measures. Try to think like a high IQ > individual.] strich.9991@gmail.com - 18 Nov 2008 19:08 GMT http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/0cc430d0a0be9970
> > [Think of it this way. You are the muon observer, you are standing on > > the desert with the muon highway in front of you, both you and the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I'm sorry, I don't see an "Earth car". I see two milestones. The top > of the atmosphere... Which is the 'earth car bumper'
> The bottom of the atmosphere... Which is the 'earth car dashboard'
> Those milestones are just like markers on the highway... Markers in the 'earth car'
> And just like the markers on the highway are moving in the reference frame > in which the car is at rest, As I said, the 'earth car' is moving. The muon observer and the highway are not.
> then the markers at the top and bottom of the atmosphere Which are markers in the 'earth car' (bumper and dashboard respectively)
> are moving in the reference frame in which the muon is at rest The 'earth car' is moving
> The path the car takes from one marker to the next is along the highway, > and the highway is also moving in the frame in which the car is at rest. Do not jump frames. We are only on the muon frame in this part of the analysis. The 'earth car' is not at rest when the muon is at rest.
> Likewise, the path the muon takes from one marker to the next Do not jump frames. We are only on the muon frame. The muon is not moving.
> is through the atmosphere, and the atmosphere is also moving in the frame > in which the muon is at rest. That's good. You have the muon finally at rest. The atmosphere we have illustrated as the space between the bumper and the dash, and is in the moving earth car, and is contracted.
> Is the distance between the markers on the highway moving relative to the car? Stick with the muon frame. The highway is not moving. The highway markers are not contracted. The car is moving...
> Is the distance between the markers on the atmosphere moving relative to the muon? ... and the markers on the car are contracted. Since they are on the car, they are moving relative to the muon. That is why it is contracted.
[I hope that is simple enough to understand.]
PD - 18 Nov 2008 19:50 GMT On Nov 18, 1:08 pm, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Nov 18, 1:47 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/0cc430d0a0be9970 > [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > > [I hope that is simple enough to understand.] Well, it is plain that what I've described with a car on the highway is beyond your understanding, even though anyone from a third-grader on up to a physicist would have no difficulty with it.
But just as happened last week, you've painted yourself into a small corner and are emotionally committed to your mistake, and so you begin to babble with increasing incoherence. It was about at the same point last week that I suggested that you swallow the pill the nurse gives you this time. It may be time for the mellaril again.
PD
strich.9991@gmail.com - 18 Nov 2008 20:06 GMT http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/096acf36c2402ab2
It is obvious you do not want to understand. Perhaps you are close and you resist, sticking to your faith, or perhaps you were never close and you have reached the end of the line for your intellectual capacity.
However, when you decide to try to use that fat inside your head you call the brain again, just recall that your error assumed that the distance between the muon and the earth moved with the earth. (In Einstein's original train gedanken, the tracks do not move nor shorten from the standpoint of the track observer, and the platform marks do not move nor shorten from the standpoint of the train observer.)
PD - 18 Nov 2008 20:21 GMT On Nov 18, 2:06 pm, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Nov 18, 2:50 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/096acf36c2402ab2 > > It is obvious you do not want to understand. I believe I just made that statement about your inability to understand the very simple car and road marker analogy.
That's fine. If you don't want to understand relativity, certainly no one is going to try to force it down your throat. Normally, when people make time on a forum devoted to a particular topic, it's with the intent to learn something about that topic, rather than to NOT learn something about that topic. But then again, you are special in so many ways.
> Perhaps you are close > and you resist, sticking to your faith, or perhaps you were never [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Einstein's original train gedanken, the tracks do not move nor shorten > from the standpoint of the track observer, I agree with this last statement above.
> and the platform marks do > not move nor shorten from the standpoint of the train observer.) Oh, but that's entirely wrong. The platform marks DO move from the standpoint of the train observer, and they DO shorten from the same standpoint.
I see there's still a lot about relativity that you just don't understand.
So what's your objective here? To learn something about relativity that you don't presently understand?
PD
strich.9991@gmail.com - 18 Nov 2008 20:57 GMT > That's fine. If you don't want to understand relativity, certainly no > one is going to try to force it down your throat. Normally, when > people make time on a forum devoted to a particular topic, it's with > the intent to learn something about that topic And what did you learn today from our discussion? You continue to insist the highway shortens "from the point of view of the earth" when the discussion was about the "point of view of the muon".
> Oh, but that's entirely wrong. The platform marks DO move from the > standpoint of the train observer, and they DO shorten from the same > standpoint. There you go with your MASSIVE stupidity. The platform and its marks are CO-INERTIAL to the train observer. They DO NOT shorten LOCALLY (or CO-INERTIALLY). Only the land-based track and its marks shorten TRANS-INERTIALLY to the train observer.
No wonder you cannot understand the muon experiment. You do not even understand the basic train setup. As I said, this is the part where IQ takes a role.
papa_rios@hotmail.com - 18 Nov 2008 21:30 GMT On 18 nov, 17:57, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
> > That's fine. If you don't want to understand relativity, certainly no > > one is going to try to force it down your throat. Normally, when [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > understand the basic train setup. As I said, this is the part where > IQ takes a role. Wow...! so you have never ever been at a train platform? Well it figures, after all the nonsense you sput here and everywhere.
Stop the presses...Strich has discovered that the platform, where the railway station usually is located, moves along with the train observer....nice.
Somebody please change the wiki that says otherwise "A railway platform is a section of pathway, alongside rail tracks at a train station, metro station or tram stop, at which passengers may board or alight from trains or trams. Almost all stations for rail transport have some form of platforms, with larger stations having multiple platforms. "
Moron^200
Miguel Rios
Strich.9 - 18 Nov 2008 21:50 GMT On Nov 18, 4:30 pm, papa_r...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On 18 nov, 17:57, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > Miguel Rios- The British concept is not always the universal concept. I use the railway "track" to signify the one on the ground. I use "platform" to signify the ground on the train, especially when the train is an open "flat-bed" type rather than the usual carriage type of train.
In any case, the CO-INERTIAL distances do not contract. In the train "bed", in the land "track", or in the muon "highway".
But thanks for the trans-atlantic clarification. I hope it would not detract from a better understanding of our discussion of the Muon experiment.
PD - 19 Nov 2008 01:21 GMT On Nov 18, 2:57 pm, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
> > That's fine. If you don't want to understand relativity, certainly no > > one is going to try to force it down your throat. Normally, when [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > And what did you learn today from our discussion? You continue to > insist the highway shortens "from the point of view of the earth" Why, no, I said no such thing. I said that from the point of view of the muon, the distance traveled is 600 m. You can look up what I said. It seems you cannot remember from one hour to the next what is said. This must make it difficult for someone with an IQ of 200 to maintain a chain of thought longer than a few minutes.
> when > the discussion was about the "point of view of the muon". [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > There you go with your MASSIVE stupidity. The platform and its marks > are CO-INERTIAL to the train observer. Oh dear, it appears you aren't familiar with Einstein's example at all. In his example that is often discussed here, the platform is fixed the ground, not the train. It might help if you did a little reading first before attempting a comment about the reading material. Do you need a reference to a basic book on relativity?
> They DO NOT shorten LOCALLY > (or CO-INERTIALLY). Only the land-based track and its marks shorten > TRANS-INERTIALLY to the train observer. > > No wonder you cannot understand the muon experiment. You do not even > understand the basic train setup. The irony meter just threw its needle through the casing.
> As I said, this is the part where > IQ takes a role. Or actually reading. Your choice.
PD
Strich.9 - 19 Nov 2008 01:40 GMT > Oh dear, it appears you aren't familiar with Einstein's example at > all. In his example that is often discussed here, the platform is > fixed the ground, not the train. It might help if you did a little > reading first before attempting a comment about the reading material. > > Or actually reading. Your choice. Reading is what you did not do. Einstein NEVER mentioned 'platform' in his gedanken. He used embankment and carriage. I use a long moving flatbed or platform to illustrate a "moving track" in comparison to the train track that is tacked on the ground. But if a semantic technicality is all you have to claim victory, then by all means declare it.
Strich.9 - 19 Nov 2008 01:42 GMT > Why, no, I said no such thing. I said that from the point of view of > the muon, the distance traveled is 600 m. Bzzzzt. The muon is NOT moving (from its point of view) so why would the CO-INERTIAL distance measured by the muon CONTRACT??? It still measures 6000m. Only the earth contracts. That is the CRUX of the relativist IQ bottleneck. They cannot get past the concept that the muon has its own 'normal' reference frame.
Keep thinking. When you see the light, you will say, 'why did I not think of that before?'
doug - 19 Nov 2008 02:30 GMT >>Why, no, I said no such thing. I said that from the point of view of >>the muon, the distance traveled is 600 m. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > relativist IQ bottleneck. They cannot get past the concept that the > muon has its own 'normal' reference frame. Since you seem to not be aware of experimental facts as well as relativity, maybe we should make it simpler for you. The muon lifetime is 2usec. The muon starts a clock when it is created. It makes it to the earth and measures its velocity to be nearly c. It then calculates the distance traveled. 2usec x c = 600 meters. Now even for your poor intelligence that should not be so hard to understand. On earth, we know the muon was created at 6000m and travels about c so we calculate the time to be 6000/c which is 20usec. Is this going to quickly for you to keep up with?
> Keep thinking. When you see the light, you will say, 'why did I not > think of that before?' So now do you wonder why you never saw that before?
Strich.9 - 19 Nov 2008 03:23 GMT > woof woof woof Still imagining you have a wife?
doug - 19 Nov 2008 17:44 GMT >>woof woof woof Strich snips the part that shows his mistakes because he thinks that will make them go away. He does not want anyone to post any physics.
Here is the part strich did not like: Since you seem to not be aware of experimental facts as well as relativity, maybe we should make it simpler for you. The muon lifetime is 2usec. The muon starts a clock when it is created. It makes it to the earth and measures its velocity to be nearly c. It then calculates the distance traveled. 2usec x c = 600 meters. Now even for your poor intelligence that should not be so hard to understand. On earth, we know the muon was created at 6000m and travels about c so we calculate the time to be 6000/c which is 20usec. Is this going to quickly for you to keep up with?
> Still imagining you have a wife? Strich snips the proof of his ignorance hoping no one will notice.
Interesting. This is an admission on your part that you are wrong. I post the physics showing you do not underestand and you respond with an insult because you are embarassed to be so wrong.
How is the refuting of the experiments coming? Still the massive failure?
strich.9991@gmail.com - 19 Nov 2008 18:05 GMT > wooooooof woooooooof wooooooooof Still with that blow-up doll you call your wife?
Why not buy another one so you can pretend to be a player...
doug - 19 Nov 2008 18:16 GMT >>wooooooof woooooooof wooooooooof > > Still with that blow-up doll you call your wife? > > Why not buy another one so you can pretend to be a player... Strich has no physics answers so all he can do is insult.
He has no answer for: Strich snips the part that shows his mistakes because he thinks that will make them go away. He does not want anyone to post any physics.
Here is the part strich did not like: Since you seem to not be aware of experimental facts as well as relativity, maybe we should make it simpler for you. The muon lifetime is 2usec. The muon starts a clock when it is created. It makes it to the earth and measures its velocity to be nearly c. It then calculates the distance traveled. 2usec x c = 600 meters. Now even for your poor intelligence that should not be so hard to understand. On earth, we know the muon was created at 6000m and travels about c so we calculate the time to be 6000/c which is 20usec. Is this going to quickly for you to keep up with?
How is the refuting of the experiments coming? You are used to complete failure by now.
PD - 19 Nov 2008 14:14 GMT > > Why, no, I said no such thing. I said that from the point of view of > > the muon, the distance traveled is 600 m. > > Bzzzzt. The muon is NOT moving (from its point of view) so why would > the CO-INERTIAL distance measured by the muon CONTRACT??? You appear to be under the misapprehension that contraction is tied to motion and that if the muon is not moving in its own frame, then nothing the muon measures can be contracted. This no doubt stems from a comic-book exposure to relativity.
> It still > measures 6000m. Only the earth contracts. Here, I'll try to make it plainer for you about what relativity says. I'm not going to give you the most accurate rendition, but I'll march you toward it with something a step above your comic-book exposure. If you have two landmarks A and B, and those landmarks are not moving in a particular frame, then you will measure a certain distance d1 between those two landmarks. If you have the same two landmarks A and B, and those landmarks are both moving in a different frame, then you will measure a different distance d2 between those two landmarks. The landmarks in this case are the top of the atmosphere and the bottom of the atmosphere. In the frame in which the earth is at rest and the muon is moving, those two landmarks are at rest. The distance between them as measured in this frame is d1. In the frame in which the muon is at rest and the earth is moving, those two landmarks are moving. The distance between them as measured in this frame is d2, where d2 is different than d1.
This is what relativity says. Perhaps you did not understand that this is what relativity says.
Whether you *believe* what relativity says is a wholly different matter. For that, we will have to consult experimental results.
> That is the CRUX of the > relativist IQ bottleneck. They cannot get past the concept that the > muon has its own 'normal' reference frame. > > Keep thinking. When you see the light, you will say, 'why did I not > think of that before?' strich.9991@gmail.com - 19 Nov 2008 14:43 GMT > You appear to be under the misapprehension that contraction is tied to > motion and that if the muon is not moving in its own frame, then > nothing the muon measures can be contracted. This no doubt stems from > a comic-book exposure to relativity. Contraction IS tied to motion. It's in the LORENTZ transformation equations.
X' = (X-VT) / (1-V^2/C^2)^(1/2)
When there is no motion, V=0 and X'=X (note: NO CONTRACTION).
Now the earth IS moving, so it IS contracted from the muon perspective. But the distance IS NOT moving. So the distance IS NOT contracted.
Now, SHOW ME the equation that gives you a length contraction WITHOUT motion. I'll give you time to skim your comic books.
PD - 19 Nov 2008 14:57 GMT On Nov 19, 8:43 am, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
> > You appear to be under the misapprehension that contraction is tied to > > motion and that if the muon is not moving in its own frame, then [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > When there is no motion, V=0 and X'=X (note: NO CONTRACTION). Relative motion between *frames*, yes. That's what the Lorentz transformation is, a transformation of event coordinates from one frame to another frame, where the relative velocity between the frames is v.
It does NOT refer to motion of *objects* in either frame.
As I said, it does help to have *some* idea of what relativity actually says.
> Now the earth IS moving, so it IS contracted from the muon > perspective. But the distance IS NOT moving. So the distance IS NOT > contracted. > > Now, SHOW ME the equation that gives you a length contraction WITHOUT > motion. I'll give you time to skim your comic books. strich.9991@gmail.com - 19 Nov 2008 15:05 GMT > On Nov 19, 8:43 am, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > It does NOT refer to motion of *objects* in either frame. Look who is confused with relativity. Any object can be in any frame. If an object B is moving in a frame A with velocity Vb, then the object B is also said to be in frame B moving with velocity Vb relative to frame A. Then the LTE applies again.
I'm surprised your comic book did not have that. You need to buy more comics.
PD - 19 Nov 2008 15:36 GMT On Nov 19, 9:05 am, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Nov 19, 8:43 am, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > the object B is also said to be in frame B moving with velocity Vb > relative to frame A. Then the LTE applies again. Oh dear. This is so sad.
> I'm surprised your comic book did not have that. You need to buy more > comics. strich.9991@gmail.com - 19 Nov 2008 15:55 GMT > On Nov 19, 9:05 am, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Oh dear. This is so sad. Very sad indeed when a self-professed physicist has forgotten (or never learned) the basics.
And then he misapplies the little he remembers to invoke a length contraction in a non-moving frame, contradicting the very principle of relativity.
Maybe he was meant not to be a physicist and he just forced himself on it.
PD - 19 Nov 2008 16:10 GMT On Nov 19, 9:55 am, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Nov 19, 9:05 am, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > contraction in a non-moving frame, contradicting the very principle of > relativity. Oh ho! More amusement! And what do you think the principle of relativity says? And what do you think a non-moving frame is? (Definition and example.) And why do you think length contraction in *any* frame contradicts "the very principle of relativity"?
> Maybe he was meant not to be a physicist and he just forced himself on > it. strich.9991@gmail.com - 19 Nov 2008 16:28 GMT > And what do you think a non-moving frame is? (Definition and example.) > And why do you think length contraction in *any* frame contradicts > "the very principle of relativity"? Any reference frame is always at rest (NON-MOVING) with respect to itself. Any object at rest in such frame will NOT be length contracted.
How simple should I make it out for you?
PD - 19 Nov 2008 18:10 GMT On Nov 19, 10:28 am, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
> > And what do you think a non-moving frame is? (Definition and example.) > > And why do you think length contraction in *any* frame contradicts [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > How simple should I make it out for you? What do you think the principle of relativity says, Strich9? I'm in the mood for some amusement.
PD - 19 Nov 2008 18:16 GMT On Nov 19, 10:28 am, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
> > And what do you think a non-moving frame is? (Definition and example.) > > And why do you think length contraction in *any* frame contradicts [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > itself. Any object at rest in such frame will NOT be length > contracted. That is certainly true. In a frame in which the muon is at rest, the atmosphere is an object that is moving. The atmosphere, a moving object in this reference frame, will be length contracted. The length of the atmosphere, measured in a reference frame in which the atmosphere is at rest, is 6000 m. The length of the atmosphere, measured in a reference frame in which the atmosphere is moving, will be something smaller than 6000 m. I don't see why you have such a hard time with this. It seems reeeeeeeaaallly simple.
> How simple should I make it out for you? Strich.9 - 19 Nov 2008 18:32 GMT > On Nov 19, 10:28 am, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I don't see why you have such a hard time with this. > It seems reeeeeeeaaallly simple. [Speaking from the muon frame...]
PD, you are allowed to CONTRACT the EARTH atmosphere, which may extend an arbitrary distance depending on how you define it. BUT, you are not allowed to contract the the distances the MUON measures from itself.
PD, you are confusing the EARTH atmosphere with the MUON distances. If you disregard the earth atmosphere for a second, and consider only the DISTANCE the muon measures from the muon to the earth, you will realize that this distance is not subject to length contraction.
PD - 19 Nov 2008 19:28 GMT > > On Nov 19, 10:28 am, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > not allowed to contract the the distances the MUON measures from > itself. Dear, dear, dear, you just don't get it. In the frame you are considering, the Earth is moving (along with its atmosphere) and the muon is stationary. When the cosmic ray and the top of the atmosphere collide, the muon is created. During the muon's average lifetime of 2.2 us, the atmosphere is rushing by at 0.995c. If you do the math, you find out that the atmosphere has moved 600 m past the muon in that time. But stunningly, the muon finds itself at the bottom of the atmosphere, having arrived at the surface of the earth. This is experimental fact. This is of course expected from special relativity, because the moving object in this frame -- the atmosphere -- is length contracted to 600 m, so it is no surprise at all that the muon survives all the way to the end of the atmosphere.
It is important to note that if the atmosphere was 6000 m thick and moving past the muon at 0.995c, there is no way that the muon would survive until all the atmosphere passed. The atmosphere would have moved only 10% past before the muon decayed. However, it is observational fact that the muon survives all the way through the atmosphere.
This is so bonehead easy to understand that I'm frankly astonished that you have got your knickers in a twist about it.
> PD, you are confusing the EARTH atmosphere with the MUON distances. > If you disregard the earth atmosphere for a second, and consider only > the DISTANCE the muon measures from the muon to the earth, you will > realize that this distance is not subject to length contraction. Strich.9 - 19 Nov 2008 19:55 GMT http://groups.google.com/group/sci.logic/msg/5c2f83b5e2e1a3c9
[Refer to my original example...]
The muon forms at F, which is at a DISTANCE of 6000m from E. The distance is [F-E] = 6000m. The atmosphere is irrelevant. {I know this is initially hard. If you finally see it, I won't rub it in. It is not defeat. It is understanding. Good luck.}
{Let's take another example. The muon forms from a speeding proton from deep space. Let us say the source P is 10 light years away. From the reference frame of the proton, the distance from its origin to the earth is [P-E] = 10 light years. Would you contract this as well? NO. The distances measured in the rest frame by the rest frame do not contract.}
PD - 19 Nov 2008 20:17 GMT > On Nov 19, 2:28 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:http://groups.google.com/group/sci.logic/msg/5c2f83b5e2e1a3c9 > > [Refer to my original example...] > > The muon forms at F, which is at a DISTANCE of 6000m from E. That distance is frame-dependent, as verified in experiment. The value of 6000 m is a number that is valid in a frame in which the Earth is at rest and the muon is moving. It is not a valid number in a frame in which the muon is at rest and the earth is moving.
> The > distance is [F-E] = 6000m. The atmosphere is irrelevant. {I know [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > {Let's take another example. The muon forms from a speeding proton > from deep space. Let us say the source P is 10 light years away. As measured in the frame where the Earth is at rest... OK.
> From the reference frame of the proton, the distance from its origin > to the earth is [P-E] = 10 light years. Not from the frame in which the proton is at rest, it isn't.
> Would you contract this as > well? NO. Of course, yes. If the proton were traveling at 0.995c, then the distance between P and the Earth, as measured in this frame, is only 1 light year.
> The distances measured in the rest frame by the rest frame do not > contract.} I see that you are having no ends of problems understanding what relativity says. I've been trying to make what relativity says more accessible to you, but you seem to be stuck. Would you like a recommendation of an accessible book for layfolk on the subject so you can learn what relativity says?
PD
Strich.9 - 19 Nov 2008 21:22 GMT > > {Let's take another example. The muon forms from a speeding proton > > from deep space. Let us say the source P is 10 light years away. > > As measured in the frame where the Earth is at rest... OK. OF COURSE.
> > From the reference frame of the proton, the distance from its origin > > to the earth is [P-E] = 10 light years. > > Not from the frame in which the proton is at rest, it isn't. NOT. The two frames are symmetric. [E-P] = 10 Ly from the NON-MOVING earth frame; [P-E] = 10 Ly from the NON-MOVING proton frame.
{while before you argued the ATMOSPHERE of the earth contracted. now you argue that SPACE simply contracted. is the space MOVING WITH with the earth when the proton looks at it? NOOOOOO. does the atmosphere of the earth reach up to 10Ly? NOOOOO.
so how come you are STUCK with a contraction of that space between the proton and the earth, when the PROTON LOOKS at it, but not when the EARTH LOOKS at it.}
PD - 19 Nov 2008 22:18 GMT > > > {Let's take another example. The muon forms from a speeding proton > > > from deep space. Let us say the source P is 10 light years away. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > NOT. The two frames are symmetric. [E-P] = 10 Ly from the NON-MOVING > earth frame; [P-E] = 10 Ly from the NON-MOVING proton frame. Nope. I don't know where you got the idea that distance is a frame- invariant quantity. It's not.
What do you think the principle of relativity says, Strich9?
And let's be clear about something. It is plain that YOU think that [E- P] = 10 Ly implies that [P-E] = 10 Ly. However, it is certainly not a claim of relativity. If you think it IS a claim of relativity, then let's talk about what you THINK relativity says.
If you think relativity is wrong and you are right, then the arbiter of that argument is experiment, and then we can talk about the experimental facts surrounding those muons.
> {while before you argued the ATMOSPHERE of the earth contracted. now > you argue that SPACE simply contracted. No, I said no such thing. I said that the measured distance between two landmarks that are moving in this reference frame is contracted. This is experimentally confirmed.
I see you are stuck on wondering how this can happen, and are now trying to determine if it is something that happens to moving "stuff" between those landmarks (which is a possibility with moving atmosphere, but does not seem to be a possibility with space that can't be said to be "stuff" at all, let alone "moving stuff".) It doesn't have anything to do with that.
> is the space MOVING WITH with > the earth when the proton looks at it? NOOOOOO. does the atmosphere [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > proton and the earth, when the PROTON LOOKS at it, but not when the > EARTH LOOKS at it.} I'm not stuck with it. It is what's consistent with experimental observation. Having a theory that is consistent with experimental observation is generally not thought of in science as being "stuck". It's considered a good thing. You don't think it's a good thing?
Strich.9 - 19 Nov 2008 22:29 GMT > > NOT. The two frames are symmetric. [E-P] = 10 Ly from the NON-MOVING > > earth frame; [P-E] = 10 Ly from the NON-MOVING proton frame. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > What do you think the principle of relativity says, Strich9? EXACTLY. Where does relativity state that [P-E] = 10Ly is contracted? JUSTIFY the contraction!
papa_rios@hotmail.com - 19 Nov 2008 22:52 GMT > > > NOT. The two frames are symmetric. [E-P] = 10 Ly from the NON-MOVING > > > earth frame; [P-E] = 10 Ly from the NON-MOVING proton frame. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > EXACTLY. Where does relativity state that [P-E] = 10Ly is > contracted? JUSTIFY the contraction! Relativity says that if you have two inertial frames K and K', which are moving one from the other at a constant speed v, the observer O located at rest with respect to frame K, will measure observer O' (moving with respect to K) to be contracted (shorter in the direction of movement) and clocks moving with the same observer O' will be measured to run slow, according to the Lorentz equations. Viceversa, observer O', located at rest in frame K', will similarly measure observer O, moving with respect to frame K', to be contracted and time dilated.
While these measurements seem to be contradictory, they are not, since they only express the fact that neither of those two observers and frames of reference has any privilege situation, in terms of affirming who is right. Actually from the point of view of how a science test is done, both are completely right in their measurements.
Miguel Rios
Strich.9 - 19 Nov 2008 23:56 GMT On Nov 19, 5:52 pm, papa_r...@hotmail.com wrote: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/7dd2781aa45aa429
> > EXACTLY. Where does relativity state that [P-E] = 10Ly is > > contracted? JUSTIFY the contraction! [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > located at rest with respect to frame K, will measure observer > O' (moving with respect to K) to be contracted... BZZZZT. The distance [P-E]=10Ly is at rest wrt the proton. So tell me why it should contract wrt the proton?
PD - 20 Nov 2008 00:17 GMT > On Nov 19, 5:52 pm, papa_r...@hotmail.com wrote:http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/7dd2781aa45aa429 > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > BZZZZT. The distance [P-E]=10Ly is at rest wrt the proton. So tell > me why it should contract wrt the proton? BZZZT. The theory doesn't have to explain why its suppositions are true. It has to be able to predict measurable data well, and if it is successful, then the suppositions are taken to be correct, whether they seem crazy or not.
Quantum mechanics accurately predicts interference patterns of particles fired one at a time through a pair of slits, on the supposition that a single particle passes through both slits at once. Because it does so extravagantly well, the supposition is taken to be correct, even if you think a single particle passing through both slits at once is crazy. Quantum mechanics does not own the responsibility of making you comfortable with the idea that a single particle passes through both slits at once.
Relativity does not own the responsibility of making you comfortable with the idea that distance is a frame-dependent quantity.
PD
Strich.9 - 20 Nov 2008 00:35 GMT > > On Nov 19, 5:52 pm, papa_r...@hotmail.com wrote:http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/7dd2781aa45aa429 > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > successful, then the suppositions are taken to be correct, whether > they seem crazy or not. According to you, the theory predicts that [P-E]=10Ly will contract. Surely there must be a basis? A calculation perhaps.
[So you do not embarrass yourself, let me remind you the distance is NOT MOVING wrt the proton. Thus v=0, that is if you plan to use the LTE.]
PD - 20 Nov 2008 13:00 GMT > > > On Nov 19, 5:52 pm, papa_r...@hotmail.com wrote:http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/7dd2781aa45aa429 > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > According to you, the theory predicts that [P-E]=10Ly will contract. > Surely there must be a basis? It depends on what you mean by a basis. It can be derived by starting with the laws of electrodynamics, assuming they are true, and assuming that they are invariant with respect to change of inertial reference frame. From this, length contraction is inevitable. If you'd like to have a reading reference where you can see how this is inevitably concluded, I'd be happy to recommend a couple. If you find this to be a compelling basis for what makes length contract, because you are looking for some particular sort of basis, I'm not sure you'll be successful.
> A calculation perhaps. > > [So you do not embarrass yourself, let me remind you the distance is > NOT MOVING wrt the proton. Thus v=0, that is if you plan to use the > LTE.] Strich.9 - 20 Nov 2008 13:22 GMT > > > > On Nov 19, 5:52 pm, papa_r...@hotmail.com wrote:http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/7dd2781aa45aa429 > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > respect to change of inertial reference frame. From this, length > contraction is inevitable. I'm not disputing length contraction. I'm just wondering how you computed the contraction of [P-E]=10Ly to 1Ly. I presume it is not simply magic :)
papa_rios@hotmail.com - 20 Nov 2008 01:00 GMT > On Nov 19, 5:52 pm, papa_r...@hotmail.com wrote:http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/7dd2781aa45aa429 > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > BZZZZT. The distance [P-E]=10Ly is at rest wrt the proton. So tell > me why it should contract wrt the proton? Are you saying a distance is an object?...oh my God...you are so confused...
Miguel Rios
Strich.9 - 20 Nov 2008 01:14 GMT On Nov 19, 8:00 pm, papa_r...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Nov 19, 5:52 pm, papa_r...@hotmail.com wrote:http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/7dd2781aa45aa429 > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Miguel Rios If it will help your case, go ahead, consider distance as an object.
Again, the distance [P-E]=10Ly is at rest wrt the proton. How does relativity compute a contraction for this?
[It is a rhetorical question. Relativity DOES NOT compute a contraction in [P-E]=10Ly from the proton reference frame. Period.]
John J - 20 Nov 2008 01:25 GMT > On Nov 19, 8:00 pm, papa_r...@hotmail.com wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > [It is a rhetorical question. Relativity DOES NOT compute a > contraction in [P-E]=10Ly from the proton reference frame. Period.] the sci.physics.research group has been kind enough to ignore your plea. They get so many of you sad half-assed thinkers who cannot get the terms right that they are sparing you.
So you come back here.
It must suck to be you.
Strich.9 - 20 Nov 2008 01:34 GMT > snip The deluded John J: Special forces friends: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/msg/8d595e5aef4d462b Oxford degree: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/msg/425da5bdb19eb173
John J - 20 Nov 2008 01:39 GMT >> snip > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Oxford degree: > http://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/msg/425da5bdb19eb173 Keep on. Everyone but you has a sense of humor and reality. You just dig yourself deeper and deeper into the Net Kook classification. Keep on and you will be there.
Strich.9 - 20 Nov 2008 01:42 GMT > Everyone but you has a sense of humor... Where's yours? Ah yes, logic is not your virtue...
doug - 20 Nov 2008 04:02 GMT > On Nov 19, 8:00 pm, papa_r...@hotmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > [It is a rhetorical question. Relativity DOES NOT compute a > contraction in [P-E]=10Ly from the proton reference frame. Period.] Except, of course for the fact that you are wrong. You need to study some relativity and then come back and apologize to everyone here.
PD - 20 Nov 2008 13:01 GMT > On Nov 19, 8:00 pm, papa_r...@hotmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > [It is a rhetorical question. Relativity DOES NOT compute a > contraction in [P-E]=10Ly from the proton reference frame. Period.] Well, yes, actually it does. If you'd like some material to inform you about what relativity actually says, I'm sure I can suggest some.
PD
doug - 20 Nov 2008 04:05 GMT > On Nov 19, 5:52 pm, papa_r...@hotmail.com wrote: > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/7dd2781aa45aa429 [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > BZZZZT. The distance [P-E]=10Ly is at rest wrt the proton. So tell > me why it should contract wrt the proton? Since you cannot read or understand, I will point out to you your mistake that the moderator in sci.physics.research pointed out to you. You need to consider events, not distances because simple minds like yours get confused. The muon sees the distance to earth as 600meters by its own measurement. Your delusion prevents you from seeing the truth. You stll think it is 6000meters even though the experiments show reality. You have no connection with reality.
Strich.9 - 20 Nov 2008 05:45 GMT > wooof woof woof You're up early. Your blow-up doll keeping you awake? MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
PD - 19 Nov 2008 22:58 GMT > > > NOT. The two frames are symmetric. [E-P] = 10 Ly from the NON-MOVING > > > earth frame; [P-E] = 10 Ly from the NON-MOVING proton frame. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > > What do you think the principle of relativity says, Strich9? You didn't answer this question.
> EXACTLY. Where does relativity state that [P-E] = 10Ly is > contracted? JUSTIFY the contraction! If you don't know what relativity says, we can start there. Or if you prefer, I can point you to several really good books at the introductory level that you can probably read even with the straps tight.
The justification can be found in the experimental evidence. Do you want to respond to my reply to you about the experimental *facts* about muon survival?
PD
Strich.9 - 19 Nov 2008 23:53 GMT > > EXACTLY. Where does relativity state that [P-E] = 10Ly is > > contracted? JUSTIFY the contraction! > > The justification can be found in the experimental evidence. Do you > want to respond to my reply to you about the experimental *facts* > about muon survival? BZZZZZT. Let me remind you, since you seem to be getting forgetful, that we are still on the theory. Don't jump to the experiment yet. Where does relativity state that [P-E] = 10Ly is contracted? JUSTIFY the contraction!
PD - 19 Nov 2008 20:27 GMT > On Nov 19, 2:28 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:http://groups.google.com/group/sci.logic/msg/5c2f83b5e2e1a3c9 > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > The distances measured in the rest frame by the rest frame do not > contract.} Taking one more tack to find some way to get your poor mangled mind to absorb some of this, let's revisit what I said about the experimental evidence.
In the frame where the muon is at rest, the muon lives for 2.2 us. This is experimental fact.
In the frame where the muon is at rest, the earth and its atmosphere are moving by the muon at 0.995c. This is also experimental fact.
The point of creation of the muon is at the top of the atmosphere. This is also experimental fact.
Anything moving by the muon -- anything at all -- at 0.995c can only get 600 m before the average muon will decay. This is undeniable and comes from simple application of distance = velocity x time.
If the distance in this frame between where the muon is created and the surface of the earth were 6000 m, then the average muon would not survive to the surface of the earth.
But the average muon DOES survive to the surface of the earth. This is also experimental fact.
Given the experimental facts, it is plain that *something* in the above analysis must be wrong. And so I ask you, what are the possible things that are wrong?
PD
PD - 20 Nov 2008 13:03 GMT > > On Nov 19, 2:28 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:http://groups.google.com/group/sci.logic/msg/5c2f83b5e2e1a3c9 > [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > PD Strich9, I was wondering if you've been able to sort through this set of experimental facts and to figure out where the mistaken assumption is.
PD
doug - 20 Nov 2008 03:57 GMT > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.logic/msg/5c2f83b5e2e1a3c9 > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > this is initially hard. If you finally see it, I won't rub it in. It > is not defeat. It is understanding. Good luck.} Strich is too stupid to understand what he is saying. The distance in the muon frame is 600meters as is shown by experiment. Strich wants to ignore the reality and wants to follow his delusion.
> {Let's take another example. The muon forms from a speeding proton > from deep space. Let us say the source P is 10 light years away. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The distances measured in the rest frame by the rest frame do not > contract.} doug - 20 Nov 2008 03:59 GMT >>On Nov 19, 10:28 am, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > not allowed to contract the the distances the MUON measures from > itself. You are deluded. The muon MEASURES the distance to be 600meters. That is an experimental fact. You trying to ignore the truth just shows your delusions.
> PD, you are confusing the EARTH atmosphere with the MUON distances. > If you disregard the earth atmosphere for a second, and consider only > the DISTANCE the muon measures from the muon to the earth, you will > realize that this distance is not subject to length contraction. papa_rios@hotmail.com - 19 Nov 2008 16:06 GMT On 19 nov, 12:05, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Nov 19, 8:43 am, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > > It does NOT refer to motion of *objects* in either frame. In a paroxysmal burst of intelligence our beloved Strich wrote:
"Look who is confused with relativity. Any object can be in any frame. If an object B is moving in a frame A with velocity Vb, then the object B is also said to be in frame B moving with velocity Vb relative to frame A. Then the LTE applies again."
OK, Strich...give it a rest....you are too dumb to have an IQ of 200 Whoever told you that you could argue about science was totally wrong. Stop making the fool. it's not even funny anymore.
Miguel Rios
John J - 18 Nov 2008 18:28 GMT On Nov 18, 12:05 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote:
>> strich.9...@gmail.com writes: >> >I don't think you can sell your interpretation of the muon experiment >> >to the orthododxy. > >> The "orthodoxy" (scientists worldwide) uses exactly this all the time, >> because it works.
> Sorry. You are not a physicist and you have misunderstood the > orthodoxy. Better luck with your next set of pretenses. Are you a physicist, strichnine?
PD - 18 Nov 2008 18:47 GMT On Nov 18, 11:46 am, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Nov 18, 12:05 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Sorry. You are not a physicist and you have misunderstood the > orthodoxy. Better luck with your next set of pretenses. Um. I *am* a physicist and I understand the orthodoxy. What you just said is not accurate.
PD
Jeff▲Relf - 18 Nov 2008 20:21 GMT A photon “ feels ” ∞ splatter after traveling Ø feet in Ø seconds.
PD - 17 Nov 2008 22:23 GMT > The MUON Experiment. > > [The standard interpretation of the muon experiment is as follows. > Muons are formed in the upper atmosphere. They move with a velocity > close to light at v=0.995c. The muon has a supposed resting half-life > of about Th ~ 2ìs measured by ¡stopping¢ a speeding muon. This certainly is not the only way to measure the half-life of a resting muon.
> But the > muon somehow reaches the earth, travelling up to D=6000m. With this [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > heading towards the north pole. This muon will travel at around > v=0.995c and reach the north pole. Well, first of all, it would be useful to know the difference between a fixed lifetime and a half-life is. Do you know what the difference is?
> Before we make any computations, let us define the four times we are > going to measure: [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > of the Lorentz transformation equation (LTE) relating Te' and Te as > follows: Te' = Te / gamma. The lifetime of the muon *is* a clock. The half-life of muons can be used to time processes, in exactly the same way that the half-life of carbon-14 can be used as a clock to tell you how long ago certain events happened. That is what carbon-dating is.
> This is not quite correct as the standard > LTE should relate the clock in the muon as measured by the muon > observer (foreign co-inertial) to the clock in the muon as measured by > the earth observer (native trans-inertial). However, due to some > similarity in measurements this erroneous use of the LTE seem to yield > the correct numbers. Yes, and it does it for all velocities of the muon, regardless of the muon's environment. Remarkable, no?
> This is the standard analyses of the Muon experiment. Note that > experiments have measured a stopped muon and noted a half life of > ~2us. Note also that a stopped muon is one that decays within the > detector so it is usually a less energetic muon. Well, of course. The half life of a resting muon is by definition the life of a less energetic muon. Resting I believe implies less energy.
> But we are not here > to dispute experimental methodology and interpretation so we will [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > muon decays, travelling a distance of D=6000m with a velocity of > 0.995c. No, the distance is not 6000 m in this reference frame. Whoops. (Hint: it is 600 m.)
> Just as the muon and its observer passes away, he notes that > his stopwatch registered: > > Tm = D / v = 6000m / 0.995c = 20us. Error noted. [Rest ignored as being founded on a bonehead boo-boo.]
> Now the muon based observer also observes the earth stopwatch start at > the beginning of the earth¢s journey, and just as the muon passes away [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] > Strich > Using the Power of IQ Strich.9 - 17 Nov 2008 23:12 GMT Strich wrote: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.logic/msg/6dc5ea38420c1906
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.logic/msg/e80633e266e5cfdd
> Well, first of all, it would be useful to know the difference between > a fixed lifetime and a half-life is. Do you know what the difference > is? > > I I picked a fixed lifetime for this illustration so your low IQ brain will not get confused.
> No, the distance is not 6000 m in this reference frame. Whoops. > (Hint: it is 600 m.) BZZZZZT. The distance is NOT MOVING. This is what I mean by relativist STUPIDITY. What makes you think it is contracted in the local frame?
As seen by the native observer at rest with the earth, the muon is moving and contracted, but the distance between them is not moving, and is measured co-inertially at D=6000m.
As seen by the foreign observer at rest with the muon, the earth is moving and contracted, but the distance between them is not moving, and is measured co-inertially at D=6000m.
To repeat, from the earth rest frame, the moving muon is traversing an uncontracted EARTH distance measured locally at D=6000m.
From the muon rest frame, the moving earth is traversing an uncontracted MUON distance measured locally at D=6000m.
Ladies and Gents, the relativist argument relies in an WRONG measurement of distance, shown clearly by PD's argument.
PD - 17 Nov 2008 23:37 GMT > Strich wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > BZZZZZT. The distance is NOT MOVING. It doesn't have to be. But note that the top of the atmosphere is moving in this frame and the surface of the earth is moving in this frame, because (as you say) the earth is moving in this frame. So if two end-points of a moving stick are moving, is the distance between the end-points of the moving stick moving?
> This is what I mean by > relativist STUPIDITY. What makes you think it is contracted in the > local frame? Because it is, according to related measurements.
> As seen by the native observer at rest with the earth, the muon is > moving and contracted, but the distance between them is not moving, > and is measured co-inertially at D=6000m. Yes.
> As seen by the foreign observer at rest with the muon, the earth is > moving and contracted, but the distance between them is not moving, > and is measured co-inertially at D=6000m. No.
> To repeat, from the earth rest frame, the moving muon is traversing an > uncontracted EARTH distance measured locally at D=6000m. Yes.
> From the muon rest frame, the moving earth is traversing an > uncontracted MUON distance measured locally at D=6000m. No.
> Ladies and Gents, the relativist argument relies in an WRONG > measurement of distance, shown clearly by PD's argument. Why do you think it's a wrong measurement?
Strich.9 - 17 Nov 2008 23:47 GMT > > As seen by the native observer at rest with the earth, the muon is > > moving and contracted, but the distance between them is not moving, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > No. The two frames are symmetrical (except for a negligible fraction of time when the muon accelerates from 0 to 0.995c).
As I said, the distance is not moving. You have to visualize the earth at point E and the muon at point F so you do not have a hard time. The atmosphere is part of the earth, but it is NOT the distance. The distance is SIMPLY a measurement between E and F, and the fact that the atmosphere may overlap it is irrelevant. The distance E-F does not move with respect to the co-inertial or the trans-inertial frame.
PD - 17 Nov 2008 23:51 GMT > > > As seen by the native observer at rest with the earth, the muon is > > > moving and contracted, but the distance between them is not moving, [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > earth at point E and the muon at point F so you do not have a hard > time. And in the reference frame of the muon, F is not moving and E is definitely moving. (That's what a reference frame means.) All points that are fixed relative to E are also moving, and this includes the top of the atmosphere and the surface of the earth.
Are you having difficulty understanding what a reference frame is?
> The atmosphere is part of the earth, but it is NOT the > distance. The distance is SIMPLY a measurement between E and F, and > the fact that the atmosphere may overlap it is irrelevant. The > distance E-F does not move with respect to the co-inertial or the > trans-inertial frame. Strich.9 - 18 Nov 2008 00:00 GMT > > > > As seen by the native observer at rest with the earth, the muon is > > > > moving and contracted, but the distance between them is not moving, [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > that are fixed relative to E are also moving, and this includes the > top of the atmosphere and the surface of the earth. You mean to say that if I construct a MUON highway from the muon out to the earth, and mark this in meters, 6000 to be exact, that this MUON highway would move with the earth? Of course not. This highway is fixed with the MUON and hence does NOT move, and hence does NOT contract. Now, was that difficult for you?
PD - 18 Nov 2008 14:24 GMT > > > > > As seen by the native observer at rest with the earth, the muon is > > > > > moving and contracted, but the distance between them is not moving, [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > MUON highway would move with the earth? Of course not. This highway > is fixed with the MUON and hence does NOT move, I'm sorry, I don't follow. If I make a highway for a car to travel on, and the car travels along the highway, is the highway fixed relative to the car?
Do you have ANY idea what you're talking about?
Here's a little exercise. There is a bicyclist and a car traveling side by side at the same speed on a road. In one reference frame, call it A, a fire hydrant is stationary. In this reference frame, the speed of the road is 0, the speed of the car is 21 mph, and the speed of the bicycle is 21 mph. Now, there is another reference frame, call it B, in which the car is stationary. In frame B, what is the speed of the fire hydrant? In frame B, what is the speed of the road? In frame B, what is the speed of the bicycle?
> and hence does NOT > contract. Now, was that difficult for you? strich.9991@gmail.com - 18 Nov 2008 14:44 GMT > > You mean to say that if I construct a MUON highway from the muon out > > to the earth, and mark this in meters, 6000 to be exact, that this [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > and the car travels along the highway, is the highway fixed relative > to the car? Of course not. That is what I am telling you.
First of all, do not forget we are using the MUON frame. In this frame, the muon is at REST, the 'muon highway' is at REST, and none of these are contracted.
The earth, and its baggage, then travels along this uncontracted 'highway'. The earth is Lorentz contracted, but not the 'highway'.
As for your second question, you can contract the atmosphere, but not the 'highway'. You leave the length of the 'highway' at 6000m.
PD - 18 Nov 2008 17:56 GMT On Nov 18, 8:44 am, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > You mean to say that if I construct a MUON highway from the muon out > > > to the earth, and mark this in meters, 6000 to be exact, that this [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > frame, the muon is at REST, the 'muon highway' is at REST, and none of > these are contracted. I don't know why you think the muon highway is at rest. The highway the car travels on is not at rest in the car's frame, either. Neither is the muon's highway in the muon's rest frame. After all, the landmarks on the muon highway (the top of the atmosphere and the surface of the earth) are all moving, just like the landmarks on the car's highway (the mile markers, the stripes on the road) are all moving.
> The earth, and its baggage, then travels along this uncontracted > 'highway'. The earth is Lorentz contracted, but not the 'highway'. Well, if the earth is Lorentz contracted, then I'm sure all the stuff between the top of the atmosphere and the surface of the earth is Lorentz contracted, too.
> As for your second question, you can contract the atmosphere, but not > the 'highway'. You leave the length of the 'highway' at 6000m. Sorry, but if the atmosphere is contracted, then the distance between the top of the atmosphere and the bottom of the atmosphere is obviously contracted.
I don't know why this is so difficult for someone with an IQ of 200.
PD
PD - 17 Nov 2008 23:52 GMT > > > As seen by the native observer at rest with the earth, the muon is > > > moving and contracted, but the distance between them is not moving, [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > distance E-F does not move with respect to the co-inertial or the > trans-inertial frame. You didn't answer this question: But note that the top of the atmosphere is moving in this frame and the surface of the earth is moving in this frame, because (as you say) the earth is moving in this frame. So if two end-points of a moving stick are moving, is the distance between the end-points of the moving stick moving?
PD
PD - 18 Nov 2008 14:24 GMT > > > > As seen by the native observer at rest with the earth, the muon is > > > > moving and contracted, but the distance between them is not moving, [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > PD You still didn't answer this question: But note that the top of the atmosphere is moving in this frame and the surface of the earth is moving in this frame, because (as you say) the earth is moving in this frame. So if two end-points of a moving stick are moving, is the distance between the end-points of the moving stick moving? Your answer (yes/no) goes here: ___________________
Uncle Al - 15 Nov 2008 15:49 GMT > This thread will resume in a few days. The topic will be the muon > experiment. We will complete the analysis. http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/analysis.jpg
idiot
 Signature Uncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Strich.9 - 22 Nov 2008 12:20 GMT Let me summarize this thread at this point. The relativist argument hinges on an ASYMMETRICAL measurement of distance.
Given any two world points A and B, the relativist argument states that the distance [A-B] measured by A is not equal to the distance [B- A] measured by B.
This is an obvious FALLACY.
Specifically, in the muon experiment, the [earth-muon] distance measured by the earth is CLAIMED ERRONEOUSLY to be not equal to the [muon-earth] distance measured by the muon.
Since the relativist argument about the muon experiment hinges on a WRONG premise, the conclusion is that the standard relativist interpretation of a time dilated muon is INCORRECT.
Thank you.
papa_rios@hotmail.com - 22 Nov 2008 15:58 GMT > Let me summarize this thread at this point. The relativist argument > hinges on an ASYMMETRICAL measurement of distance. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Thank you. It is so sad that so many people here are unable to follow the mathematics of the physics describing our model of how nature works. However the same people, who can't understand and are not willing to study what a given theory says, are the first in attacking it, like if by attacking a theory they will get to be somehow recognized. Many knowledgeable people here try to make these guys understand those theories, by providing examples that even a small child would understand, but to no avail. So we have Mr. Strich here who says he has an IQ of 200, and says he is an expert in logic, and says he has written books about important things, but who is totally unable to understand relativity. This Muon stuff is not a subject of research. It is a well known characteristic of nature and it is beyond contest. A basic and graphical discussion is given in http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/muon.html. So Mr. Strich, I'm afraid you selected a wrong subject to attack relativity. If I can make you a suggestion, try a gedanken like the bug-rivest paradox. You will see that there are more things to discuss in that paradox and, who knows, it may well be that you have there your chance to debunk special relativity for good. I don't think so but it is a free world.
Miguel Rios
Strich.9 - 22 Nov 2008 17:04 GMT On Nov 22, 10:58 am, papa_r...@hotmail.com wrote: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/41604db0e50cf84b
It is equally sad that relativists resort to these sort of defenses when the theory is challenged. Here I have shown conclusively that the muon experiment, if properly analyzed, yields no time dilation effect.
The only counterargument offered so far is an asymmetrical contraction of distance: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/a385abb0b9139b55 http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/b2965ac2b400c891
Which I repeatedly challenged for a calculation and was eventually left unanswered: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/a05ba38532ae0bf2
I find it surprising that the only defense that relativity can mount against these attacks based on logic and mathematics is an appeal to emotion, that the theory is supposedly right, has been proven indirectly in experiments, and we should just all swallow the theory based on faith.
I have shown a challenge on the orthodox muon experiment INTERPRETATION and shown that it is mistaken. I have not disputed the experimental fact, such as the muon traveling 6000m to reach the earth in a time span of 20us.
The supposed 2us life span at rest was measured on muons which are less energetic, and were measured from first detection by a detector to its decay, and were not measured from actual muon CREATION to muon DECAY. Frankly this latter method of measuring muon life span speaks of logical and methodological flaws which were never challenged simply because it would support the orthodox theory.
In my calculations, challenged but never proven wrong, the resting muon life span is still on the order of 20us.
Strich
doug - 23 Nov 2008 01:41 GMT > On Nov 22, 10:58 am, papa_r...@hotmail.com wrote: > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/41604db0e50cf84b [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the muon experiment, if properly analyzed, yields no time dilation > effect. What you have done so far is the following. 1. You put forth the strich theory of relativity in which length is frame independent. 2. You showed that the strich theory of relativity gives wrong predictions and is thus wrong.
No one cares about the strich theory of relativity since even you know it is wrong. People will continue to use Einstein's theory of relativity which gives correct predictions. You have been unable to understand Einstein's theory and keep presenting the strich theory which is wrong.
> The only counterargument offered so far is an asymmetrical contraction > of distance: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > of logical and methodological flaws which were never challenged simply > because it would support the orthodox theory. This is the Henri Wilson approach of saying the experimenters were incompetent or lying. This is your usual flailing and hoping no one will notice.
> In my calculations, challenged but never proven wrong, the resting > muon life span is still on the order of 20us. This is true in the strich theory of relativity but in Einstein's theory the lifetime is 2usec as demonstrated by calculation and experiment. You can look at the site Miguel posted to see where you went wrong. It might be simple enough for even you to understand. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/muon.html
> Strich Kelsey Bjarnason - 23 Nov 2008 21:42 GMT [snips]
> It is equally sad that relativists resort to these sort of defenses when > the theory is challenged. Here I have shown conclusively that the muon > experiment, if properly analyzed, yields no time dilation effect. Err... where exactly is "here"? I saw your article simply asserting that there's a problem, but you failed, in that post, to actually demonstrate anything of the sort, you simply asserted it.
> Which I repeatedly challenged for a calculation and was eventually left > unanswered: > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/a05ba38532ae0bf2 Actually, it seems to have been answered. The only objection involved, that I can see, was the supposed lack of a basis for the contraction, to which it was pointed out that one need not actually _have_ a basis for an explanation, as long as the explanation is in fact sufficient to explain the effects. Which is to say, we don't necessarily need to know _why_ a contraction occurs to notice that it does, even measure it and develop formulae to describe it.
> I find it surprising that the only defense that relativity can mount > against these attacks based on logic and mathematics is an appeal to > emotion, that the theory is supposedly right, has been proven indirectly > in experiments, and we should just all swallow the theory based on > faith. The defence is simply that it works, that it correctly describes and predicts the outcomes of observation and experiment, and thus far no other alternative which can do this has been offered up.
> I have shown a challenge on the orthodox muon experiment INTERPRETATION > and shown that it is mistaken. I have not disputed the experimental > fact, such as the muon traveling 6000m to reach the earth in a time span > of 20us. And what is this challenge?
> The supposed 2us life span at rest was measured on muons which are less > energetic, and were measured from first detection by a detector to its > decay, and were not measured from actual muon CREATION to muon DECAY. As I understand the experiment, this is simply irrelevant.
Perhaps my understanding of the experiment is incorrect, but as I understood it, it works as follows:
A particle of this type has a life expectancy of X
At the maximum speed possible for the particle, its lifespan limits its range of travel to a distance Y
Observation points out a number of particles travelling distance Z, where Z is greater than Y
From this, it is irrelevant whether we measure from creation to decay, as long as our measurements from first observation to last exceed the lifetime or distance limitations inherent in the particle's travels.
Let's put this in another context, a car driving down the highway. We want to know the average speed of cars going past a certain point. We mark a "start" point, we mark an "end" point, we record the time the cars arrive at the start and the time they pass the end, crank the numbers and voila - the average car is doing 60MPH at this point. Whether they were doing 150MPH five minutes ago, or 30MPH five minutes from now, or whether they were built in Detroit or Tokyo.
This, as I understand it, is much what they're doing here: measuring from some "start" point to some "end" point. What the ulitmate origins (or fate) of the particles are don't matter, as long as the measured part of the trip exceed the limits imposed by c and the lifespan of the particle.
If, in fact, such a measurement shows that particles are capable of making this trip, despite the fact that their lifespans and thus distance they can travel is less than this distance, then one of three things must be occurring:
1) They must, in fact, be getting created considerably further along the path than the first detector... which doesn't work if, in fact, they're being detected there 2) They are somehow experiencing a different distance travelled 3) They are somehow experiencing a different rate of time
Since they are, in fact, being detected at the "start", we're left with options 2 or 3, which, as I understand it, fall perfectly within the predictions of relativity, and the ultimate origins and fates of the particles are, as noted, simply irrelevant.
So which part of this am I misunderstanding? Are they in fact _not_ detecting the particles at the "start"? Or are the _not_ detecting them at the "end"? If either of these were true, they'd not be able to come up with any answers, one would think, yet they seem to be doing quite well, suggesting this isn't the case.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the bit about the particles' lifespans? If the particles exist for, oh, sixteen years then the measurements would presumably be meaningless in determining much of anything, making the whole experiment pointless - one would think the folks running the experiment would be reasonably careful to ensure they're dealing with particles whose lifespans are, in fact, quite well known - and sufficiently short to be useful in such an experiment.
Of course, if this is all true, then we're left with the inevitable conclusion that the relativistic effects do, in fact, occur. Whether we can explain *why* they occur is another matter, we can worry about that later, right now the only relevant question is *do* the effects occur? And if so, are they in line with the predictions made?
Apparently, from what I'm reading even of your objections, yes the particles do exist, yes their lifetimes are sufficiently short to make such a measurement meaningful, yes the results fit the predictions of relativistic effects, so everything is, in fact, exactly as it should be.
Where, exactly, is the problem here? Which bit am I misunderstanding?
Uncle Al - 22 Nov 2008 16:56 GMT > Let me summarize this thread at this point. [snip crap]
<http://www.scielo.br/img/revistas/mioc/v98s1/30p01.jpg> <http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff50/dolop_ghani/shit.jpg> <http://www.disclose.tv/files/photos/288cc0ff022877bL.png>
 Signature Uncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
doug - 23 Nov 2008 01:45 GMT > Let me summarize this thread at this point. The relativist argument > hinges on an ASYMMETRICAL measurement of distance. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > measured by the earth is CLAIMED ERRONEOUSLY to be not equal to the > [muon-earth] distance measured by the muon. This is the strich theory of relativity. Einstein's theory says that the distances are different. Einsteins says that length is a frame dependent measurement.
> Since the relativist argument about the muon experiment hinges on a > WRONG premise, the conclusion is that the standard relativist > interpretation of a time dilated muon is INCORRECT. Yes, you have shown that the strich theory of relativity is wrong.
> Thank you. John J - 23 Nov 2008 02:37 GMT Strich.9 wrote:
> Since the relativist argument about the muon experiment hinges on a > WRONG premise, the conclusion is that the standard relativist > interpretation of a time dilated muon is INCORRECT. OK. You are the only one in the world who is right. Lucky us! You are the genius of the century! Right here!
Of what other fallacies would you disabuse us?
Or are you just going to do another impotent BWAAA HAA thing that could come from any Joe 12-pack?
Strich.9 - 23 Nov 2008 05:18 GMT > psycho Haven't you killfiled me? Oh yes, you must have lied...
MalKantent - 25 Nov 2008 20:04 GMT >> psycho > >Haven't you killfiled me? Oh yes, you must have lied... http://www.gorillasushi.com/images/imce/Image/Jason/attentionwhore.jpg --
" If I had remembered that the name 'Galt' appears in one of her books, I would have chosen a different name for my character."
Stephen R. Donaldson, "Gradual Interview"
Strich.9 - 23 Nov 2008 05:30 GMT http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/5f503f59ee298841
> This is the strich theory of relativity. Einstein's theory says > that the distances are different. Einsteins says that length is > a frame dependent measurement. BZZZZT.
LENGTH of an object is frame dependent.
DISTANCE between two world points is NOT frame dependent.
DISTANCE = (x^2 + y^2 +z^2 -c^2t2) ^ (1/2)
Example:
In the earth muon setup, let us measure the distance from the earth E to the muon starting point F:
Th earth observer E sends a lightpulse from E to F and waits for its return back at E. The total time is 40us. Thus
Distance [E-F] = Distance [E-F-E] / 2 = tc/2 = 40us * 300000000m/s *1/2 = 6000m.
I assume you know some physics. Why don't you compute the distance [F- E]?
Distance [F-E] = ?
.
doug - 24 Nov 2008 02:59 GMT > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/5f503f59ee298841 > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Distance [F-E] = ? When you got tired of losing here, you ran off to sci.physics.research and posted your nonsense again. I posted the answer to the above question in that thread. The moderator both approved what I posted and no one else saw any problem or any need to comment on it. You even missed the point that the moderator put in your post about looking at events so you would not get confused. The answer has not changed and strich relativity still does not work. Just in case you cannot remember where you posted in the other group, here is the reference: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/browse_frm/thread/64cf507a36 de67c8/a3cd818308654c99
Dono gave you a nice reference to the muon experiment that he thought was simple enough for your level of education but you seemed to have not understood any of it.
Strich.9 - 24 Nov 2008 04:18 GMT > relativist scab http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/271d1058a85b2d6f
Why you moron, you cannot even answer a simple physics question and you pretend to have an education beyond the programmer degree you barely finished while serving time...
Let me repeat my question to this good-for-nothing moron...
LENGTH of an object is frame dependent. DISTANCE between two world points is NOT frame dependent. DISTANCE = (x^2 + y^2 +z^2 -c^2t^2) ^ (1/2)
In the earth muon setup, let us measure the distance from the earth E to the muon starting point F:
Th earth observer E sends a lightpulse from E to F and waits for its return back at E. The total time is 40us. Thus
Distance [E-F] = Distance [E-F-E] / 2 = tc/2 = 40us * 300000000m/s *1/2 = 6000m.
I assume you know some physics. Why don't you compute the distance [F- E]?
Distance [F-E] = ?
doug - 24 Nov 2008 04:25 GMT >>relativist scab > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Distance [F-E] = ? It is sad to see strich's total ignorance of relativity and strich's total inability to read. The answer was given to strich but he cannot even read it. That is pretty sad. My PhD trumps strich's ignorance. I also happen to be backed by a century of experimental evidence. Strich is backed by his delusions and lack of education.
Strich.9 - 24 Nov 2008 04:39 GMT > >>relativist scab > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > I also happen to be backed by a century of experimental evidence. > Strich is backed by his delusions and lack of education. You did not answer the question:
Measure the distance [F-E] = ?
(Hint: A regular IQ will do the job. Good luck.)
doug - 24 Nov 2008 17:41 GMT >>>>relativist scab >> [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > (Hint: A regular IQ will do the job. Good luck.) Lets review. Strich asks a question which I already answered in another thread. I point strich to the thread. Strich cannot read the answer and pretends it is my fault. How much of an iq does it take for him to read an answer? Clearly more than strich has. In addition, this answer has been posted on this newsgroup a number of times in threads by strich. In every case, he snipped the answer and pretended it did not exist since he was just looking to insult people who point out his mistakes.
PD - 26 Nov 2008 15:45 GMT > > relativist scab > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > LENGTH of an object is frame dependent. That's correct.
> DISTANCE between two world points is NOT frame dependent. > DISTANCE = (x^2 + y^2 +z^2 -c^2t^2) ^ (1/2) This is normally called "interval" in physics, but the quantity that you've defined is indeed frame-independent. You'll not that for a certain class of pair of world points ([ct]^2 > x^2 + y^2 + z^2) the sqrt you've written is not defined and so the interval needs to be defined.
The *distance* is normally taken to be the spatial part only.
But you're right, the *interval* between muon creation and muon decay are the same in both muon and earth frames. Would you like to have a reference to a lovely chapter in a book or two about how this works?
> In the earth muon setup, let us measure the distance from the earth E > to the muon starting point F: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Distance [F-E] = ? John J - 24 Nov 2008 17:43 GMT > LENGTH of an object is frame dependent. Why define length when you don't use it? Try LENGTH == DISTANCE with.
> DISTANCE between two world points is NOT frame dependent. TIME is frame dependent. DISTANCE is not constant to either the muon or the earth oberver. It is reconciled upon measurement.
> Example: > > In the earth muon setup, let us measure the distance from the earth E > to the muon starting point F: Yer heading into trouble there.
> Th earth observer E sends a lightpulse from E to F and waits for its > return back at E. That's another mistake. A more prudent measure would be to measure the number of muons at several altitudes.
Strich.9 - 24 Nov 2008 17:59 GMT > > LENGTH of an object is frame dependent. > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > That's another mistake. A more prudent measure would be to measure the > number of muons at several altitudes. I can see you took the basic orthodoxy tutorial.
Here is the summary. We have two points E and F. The distance EF measured from E is the same as the distance FE measured from F. Period. No ifs, ands or buts. Now if you have an entity moving with respect to the line segment defined by E and F, then maybe that distance will be different. But since E and F are at rest with respect to the line segment EF or FE, then each measures the SAME distance.
John J - 24 Nov 2008 18:25 GMT >Here is the summary. We have two points E and F. The distance EF >measured from E is the same as the distance FE measured from F. >Period. No ifs, ands or buts. The distance is the same to you. The muon is in a different frame entirely.
> Now if you have an entity moving with > respect to the line segment defined by E and F, then maybe that > distance will be different. Only if each E and F are in the same frame and they are not.
> But since E and F are at rest with > respect to the line segment EF or FE, then each measures the SAME > distance. You are presuming that the event-objects in each frame are at rest. They are not. And that's the whole point of this. If a muon could stop at the earth and look back, then the distance would be reconciled to your rest view. But it doesn't and it cannot.
If one could measure the density/count of muons at several altitudes (and hey, why not also 1K below earth), the earth measure would be clear.
Strich.9 - 24 Nov 2008 18:55 GMT > >Here is the summary. We have two points E and F. The distance EF > >measured from E is the same as the distance FE measured from F. > >Period. No ifs, ands or buts. > > The distance is the same to you. The muon is in a different frame entirely. The muon forms at F.
Points E and F are at rest with respect to one another.
John J - 24 Nov 2008 19:43 GMT On Nov 24, 1:25 pm, "John J" <n...@droffats.ten> wrote:
> "Strich.9" <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> The distance is the same to you. The muon is in a different frame >> entirely.
> The muon forms at F. > Points E and F are at rest with respect to one another. And the muon is moving at (say) .90c So it's not at rest. The muon is an event in progress.
There is no 'lag time' to the creation of a muon. It is in motion upon creation.
Strich.9 - 24 Nov 2008 20:54 GMT > On Nov 24, 1:25 pm, "John J" <n...@droffats.ten> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > So it's not at rest. > The muon is an event in progress. The muon is at rest in its own reference frame. According to Einstein, this reference frame is equally valid. In this frame, the muon is at rest, and the earth is moving towards it.
John J - 24 Nov 2008 21:11 GMT On Nov 24, 2:43 pm, "John J" <n...@droffats.ten> wrote:
> "Strich.9" <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > So it's not at rest. > The muon is an event in progress.
| The muon is at rest in its own reference frame. According to | Einstein, this reference frame is equally valid. In this frame, the | muon is at rest, and the earth is moving towards it. OK, so the earth is moving toward the muon at .90c. It's one or the other, and not both at .90c. Same outcome.
Strich.9 - 24 Nov 2008 22:55 GMT > On Nov 24, 2:43 pm, "John J" <n...@droffats.ten> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > OK, so the earth is moving toward the muon at .90c. It's one or the other, > and not both at .90c. Same outcome. Note that as John catches up with the correct logic that will debunk relativity, 3 relativist trolls Dirk, Michael and Doug swoop down on the defensive. Michael uses circular logic, Dirk and Doug use their standard ad hominems
John J - 25 Nov 2008 19:16 GMT >> On Nov 24, 2:43 pm, "John J" <n...@droffats.ten> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > the defensive. Michael uses circular logic, Dirk and Doug use their > standard ad hominems Note that when Strichnine senses he is mistaken he resorts to innuendo.
doug - 24 Nov 2008 21:39 GMT >>>Here is the summary. We have two points E and F. The distance EF >>>measured from E is the same as the distance FE measured from F. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Points E and F are at rest with respect to one another. You may be surprised to find this out but the muon is not at rest. In strich relativity it makes no difference and that is why it makes wrong predictions. In Einstein's relativity is does and that is why Einstein's relativity makes correct predictions.
Michael Moroney - 24 Nov 2008 21:18 GMT >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/5f503f59ee298841 >> >> This is the strich theory of relativity. Einstein's theory says >> that the distances are different. Einsteins says that length is >> a frame dependent measurement.
>LENGTH of an object is frame dependent.
>DISTANCE between two world points is NOT frame dependent. Note that this is worldline "distance" (length through spacetime), not simple spacial distance.
>DISTANCE = (x^2 + y^2 +z^2 -c^2t2) ^ (1/2) So, let's plug in numbers. First we'll define the coordinate system. X=length along the ground in one direction (to the east) in meters, y is at right angles to x along the ground (to the north) in meters, and z is height in meters. T is time in seconds.
First, since this is a timelike event, that is, something happens and something else happens in such a way that there is a cause-effect relation (muon is created, moves and is destroyed), we have to reverse the signs of the items we're taking the square root of. Thus:
Spacetime "distance" = sqrt(c^2t^2-x^2-y^2-z^2).
Muon frame: Muon sees itself as standing still. x=y=z=0. t=2*10^-6 s. Worldline distance = sqrt((3*10^8 * 2*10^-6)^2-0^2-0^2-0^2) = sqrt(360000) = 600m.
Earth frame: x=y=0. t=20uS. We'll calculate the distance travelled in that 20uS since we know the muon is moving at 0.995c. z=vt. z = (0.995 * 3*10^8) * 20*10^-6 = 5970m, close to the 6000m being talked about as the distance the earth observer sees the muon travel.
Worldline distance: sqrt((3*10^8 * 20*10^-6)^2-0^2-0^2-5970^2) = sqrt(359100) = 599.25m
This (nearly) agrees with the muon's view of 600m. The difference is from the fact that 0.995c isn't exactly the gamma=10 speed, and from using 3^10^8 for c, but you've been using the 600m/6000m/2uS/20uS/0.995c numbers all along.
Strich.9 - 24 Nov 2008 22:52 GMT On Nov 24, 4:18 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/fe8b3404627c3501
> Muon frame: Muon sees itself as standing still. x=y=z=0. t=2*10^-6 s. > Worldline distance = sqrt((3*10^8 * 2*10^-6)^2-0^2-0^2-0^2) = sqrt(360000) > = 600m. Since x=y=z=0, Equation simplifies to D=ct
Moron plugs in t=2us and obtains D=600m.
Note that moron uses the "relativity-friendly" value of t=2us (never been measured accurately) to obtain a shorter distance D and hence conclude a relativistic length contraction in D.
Note that genius (me) instead of assuming t=2us, actually computes a t=20us from basic relativity.
doug - 24 Nov 2008 23:15 GMT > On Nov 24, 4:18 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Note that moron uses the "relativity-friendly" value of t=2us (never > been measured accurately) Well, yes it has been measured. It is 2usec.
to obtain a shorter distance D and hence
> conclude a relativistic length contraction in D. > > Note that genius (me) instead of assuming t=2us, actually computes a > t=20us from basic relativity. This is from strich's relativity and is wrong so strich's relativity is wrong. See how easy that was? Einstein's relativity calculates 2usec which is correct. See how easy that was? Well, maybe not for you but for those who have studied physics it is.
Michael Moroney - 25 Nov 2008 01:58 GMT >On Nov 24, 4:18 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> Worldline distance = sqrt((3*10^8 * 2*10^-6)^2-0^2-0^2-0^2) = sqrt(360000) >> = 600m.
>Since x=y=z=0, Equation simplifies to D=ct Very good, fool.
>Moron plugs in t=2us and obtains D=600m. No, you didn't plug in 2uS, you used 20uS. That's where you went wrong. Remember, this is the muon's frame.
If the formula for distance isn't x=vt, what is it? v ~=c, t=2uS.
>Note that moron uses the "relativity-friendly" value of t=2us Again, you used 20uS, not 2uS. x=vt. Simple high school physics. Plug in c for v and 2uS for t.
> (never >been measured accurately) Wrong. LBL has the half-life measured to about 10ppm.
http://pdg.lbl.gov/2008/listings/s004.pdf
>Note that genius (me) For a so-called "genius", you're awfully stooopid, aren't you.
Strich.9 - 25 Nov 2008 04:17 GMT On Nov 24, 8:58 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote:
> >> Muon frame: Muon sees itself as standing still. x=y=z=0. t=2*10^-6 s. > >> Worldline distance = sqrt((3*10^8 * 2*10^-6)^2-0^2-0^2-0^2) = sqrt(360000) [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > No, you didn't plug in 2uS, you used 20uS. That's where you went wrong. > Remember, this is the muon's frame. Bzzzzt. That's where you got it wrong. You don't PLUG t in it, you COMPUTE for it assole. To compute you use the muon-earth distance and velocity. The muon-earth distance is computed from the reference frame of the muon, AT REST.
t=D/v=6000m/0.995c = 20us
> Wrong. LBL has the half-life measured to about 10ppm. > > http://pdg.lbl.gov/2008/listings/s004.pdf Bzzzzt. Your reference points to storage ring muons, not atmospheric muons. The latter half-life has NEVER been measured experimentally. . . . Two errors right there idiot. You have a logical and methodological error first, followed by an experimental error. Try to fool somebody else next time. Don't forget who has the IQ of 200.
doug - 25 Nov 2008 04:48 GMT > On Nov 24, 8:58 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > t=D/v=6000m/0.995c = 20us This is strich relativity and we all know that is wrong since it makes wrong predictions. If you use Einstein's relativity, you get the right answer. You certainly do not understand Einstein's version. If you were to sit on your ego for awhile and study some you would not look so foolish.
>>Wrong. LBL has the half-life measured to about 10ppm. >> >>http://pdg.lbl.gov/2008/listings/s004.pdf > > Bzzzzt. Your reference points to storage ring muons, not atmospheric > muons. The latter half-life has NEVER been measured experimentally. Ignoring experimental evidence is not going to get your version of relativity accepted. Henri tries that regularly.
> . > . > . > Two errors right there idiot. You have a logical and methodological > error first, followed by an experimental error. Try to fool somebody > else next time. Don't forget who has the IQ of 200. Strich tries to make up for his lack of education by boasting about a fake high iq, fake degrees and fake medals. Strich continues to look like a garden variety crank. Henri at least went to the trouble of photoshopping fake degrees.
Strich.9 - 25 Nov 2008 05:14 GMT > ...unable to compute the distance, Doug continues trolling... Let me repeat the information Doug is trying to suppress by trolling:
On Nov 24, 8:58 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote:
> >> Muon frame: Muon sees itself as standing still. x=y=z=0. t=2*10^-6 s. > >> Worldline distance = sqrt((3*10^8 * 2*10^-6)^2-0^2-0^2-0^2) = sqrt(360000) > >> = 600m. > >Since x=y=z=0, Equation simplifies to D=ct
> Very good, fool.
> >Moron plugs in t=2us and obtains D=600m.
> No, you didn't plug in 2uS, you used 20uS. That's where you went wrong. > Remember, this is the muon's frame. Bzzzzt. That's where you got it wrong. You don't PLUG t in it, you COMPUTE for it assole. To compute you use the muon-earth distance and velocity. The muon-earth distance is computed from the reference frame of the muon, AT REST.
t=D/v=6000m/0.995c = 20us
> Wrong. LBL has the half-life measured to about 10ppm.
> http://pdg.lbl.gov/2008/listings/s004.pdf Bzzzzt. Your reference points to storage ring muons, not atmospheric muons. The latter half-life has NEVER been measured experimentally. . . . Two errors right there idiot. You have a logical and methodological error first, followed by an experimental error. Try to fool somebody else next time. Don't forget who has the IQ of 200.
doug - 26 Nov 2008 03:10 GMT >>...unable to compute the distance, Doug continues trolling... > > Let me repeat the information Doug is trying to suppress by trolling: Strich considers pointing out his mistakes to be trolling. He has no physics answers so he just snips and hopes no one notices.
> On Nov 24, 8:58 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >>No, you didn't plug in 2uS, you used 20uS. That's where you went wrong. >>Remember, this is the muon's frame. It is 2usec in the muon frame. Strich blows it again.
> Bzzzzt. That's where you got it wrong. You don't PLUG t in it, you > COMPUTE for it assole. To compute you use the muon-earth distance and [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Bzzzzt. Your reference points to storage ring muons, not atmospheric > muons. The latter half-life has NEVER been measured experimentally. That is the lifetime of the muons. Strich does not like it but that does not change the answer.
> . > . > . > Two errors right there idiot. You have a logical and methodological > error first, followed by an experimental error. Try to fool somebody > else next time. Don't forget who has the IQ of 200. Yes, you are forgetting your place. Strich has a 2 digit iq and is trying to bluster his way to acceptance by claiming iq and degreees he does not have. You should not argue with those of us with high iq and real degrees.
Michael Moroney - 25 Nov 2008 18:33 GMT >On Nov 24, 8:58 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> No, you didn't plug in 2uS, you used 20uS. That's where you went wrong. >> Remember, this is the muon's frame.
>Bzzzzt. That's where you got it wrong. You don't PLUG t in it, you >COMPUTE for it assole. To compute you use the muon-earth distance and >velocity. The muon-earth distance is computed from the reference >frame of the muon, AT REST. I did. In the muon's frame, the earth is Lorentz contracted by 90% so the distance is 600m.
Thus t=D/v = 600m/0.995c = 2us. But we already had t, the known halflife of the muon. The real proof is that of Lorentz contraction, D=t*v. T is known and so is v, we compute D as 600m.
>> Wrong. LBL has the half-life measured to about 10ppm. >> >> http://pdg.lbl.gov/2008/listings/s004.pdf
>Bzzzzt. Your reference points to storage ring muons, not atmospheric >muons. The latter half-life has NEVER been measured experimentally. Muons are so easily produced and common, it is easy to calculate their half-life, moving or not moving. It's done all the time.
Besides, storage ring muons are travelling at nearly c.
> Don't forget who has the IQ of 200. I have a new theory. IQ is also Lorentz contracted, by the same formula as length contraction. I estimate that you must be moving at about 0.943c relative to the reference frame of the Earth. If you can calculate how your supposed 200 IQ appears in the reference frame of the Earth from travelling at 0.943c, I'll spot you 2 extra IQ points.
Strich.9 - 25 Nov 2008 19:28 GMT On Nov 25, 1:33 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/1af87bac5ab263c1
> >Bzzzzt. That's where you got it wrong. You don't PLUG t in it, you > >COMPUTE for it assole. To compute you use the muon-earth distance and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I did. In the muon's frame, the earth is Lorentz contracted by 90% > so the distance is 600m. Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt.
You are confused dumbboy.
The earth IS contracted. The distance IS NOT.
The distance IS NOT moving. So it does not contract.
[If I follow your reasoning to its logical conclusion: from the earth frame, the muon is Lorentz contracted, so the distance is also 600m. See how dumb you are and how worthless your conclusions can be. Please leave the thinking to people with high IQ.]
John J - 25 Nov 2008 19:40 GMT > The earth IS contracted. The distance IS NOT. Privilege frame == error
Flush and start all over.
Dirk Van de moortel - 23 Nov 2008 21:59 GMT Strich.9 <strich.9992@gmail.com> wrote in message 6df105bd-0b24-4512-add3-9040e67ffc9b@t3g2000yqa.googlegroups.com
> Let me summarize this thread at this point. No need. You got your answer on sci.physics.research: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/browse_frm/thread/64cf507a36 de67c8/a3cd818308654c99 You can't beat it properly there, so you come back here to harvest some abuse. Amusing - but nevertheless pathetic.
Dirk Vdm
Strich.9 - 24 Nov 2008 04:13 GMT On Nov 23, 4:59 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/001a0b5c0a7c4674
BZZZZT. Already answered. Twice in fact. Ask the moderators where my answer went. Talk about scientific CENSORSHIP.
Yet they post a comment from a known troll who parrots ideas he does not even understand.
What, do you think relativity can win by CENSORSHIP of ideas? It will eventually lose by sheer fallacy.
doug - 24 Nov 2008 04:21 GMT > On Nov 23, 4:59 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" > <dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > What, do you think relativity can win by CENSORSHIP of ideas? It will > eventually lose by sheer fallacy. You are ignoring the fact that you are a troll who knows no physics. In a moderated group, your bluster does not carry any weight. They know that you are ignorant of physics.
You are still trying to ignore a century of experiments and seem to want to try to "disprove" relativity by showing your ignorant misunderstanding of relativity. Your ignorance is not a proof. It fools noone except you.
Strich.9 - 24 Nov 2008 05:10 GMT > > On Nov 23, 4:59 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" > > <dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > misunderstanding of relativity. Your ignorance is not a proof. > It fools noone except you. You and the other relativists are trying to suppress a century of wrong experiments that purport to support relativity. And you are trying to suppress the facts:
FACT: Twin paradox cannot be explained by relativity. FACT: LIGO experiment was a failure. FACT: GPB experiment was a failure. FACT: No evidence of gravitational waves. FACT: No evidence of curvature of space. FACT: No evidence for dark matter.
gabydewilde - 24 Nov 2008 17:56 GMT > > On Nov 23, 4:59 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" > > <dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > You are ignoring the fact that you are a troll who knows no physics. I send a message to this group one time.
I got a really friendly email explaining my post was not an acceptable subject.
The thing was that I had quoted Royal Raymond Rife.
And some of Rife's work doesn't fit established believe systems.
His microscope would have violated known laws of physics.
The problem I see in this logic is that I added about 2 dozen google videos showing the microscopy.
For a theoretical physics to disrespect a doctor who makes videos of his accomplishments up to calling it a hoax is not just irrational it may even border illegal but the biggest problem is that "research" is a clearly defined term.
If research would have to follow established believe systems it immediately stops being research.
Here is one such video.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-661201775015095955
Looking at this can there be any question about this being real?
Can there?
Does a moderator who claims this microscopy violates known laws of physics have more credibility than the medical researcher who actually treats patients using this technology?
Me being a cook, a crank, a hoax, not real etc has very little to do with it.
The reason given did not include any of the childish arguments people like Dougie like to use.
It was a friendly email propagating a logic fallacy.
> In a moderated group, your bluster does not carry any weight. They > know that you are ignorant of physics. This was not the reason given in my case, I doubt this is the reason in this case.
The mod seemed friendly and rational but living inside a fixed believe system.
> You are still trying to ignore a century of experiments I know thousands of inventors who got perfectly ignored by the physics establishment.
I should now respect established dougma?
The Dougmatists didn't want to see the disproves.
> and seem to > want to try to "disprove" relativity by showing your ignorant > misunderstanding of relativity. Your ignorance is not a proof. > It fools noone except you. Your hate proves nothing Dougie. It only shows how closed minded you are.
Can you answer a simple question?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-661201775015095955
Looking at this can there be any question about this being real?
Are you ready to invade medical RESEARCH?
__________ http://knol.google.com/k/gaby-de-wilde/water-fueled-car/1yrf1mzjtxzk5/2
Dirk Van de moortel - 24 Nov 2008 10:41 GMT Strich.9 <strich.9992@gmail.com> wrote in message cf211a4d-622a-41f1-90de-c7b0fcef2dc2@x14g2000yqk.googlegroups.com
> On Nov 23, 4:59 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" > <dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote: > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/001a0b5c0a7c4674
>> Strich.9 <strich.9992@gmail.com> wrote in message >> 6df105bd-0b24-4512-add3-9040e67ffc9b@t3g2000yqa.googlegroups.com [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > BZZZZT. Already answered. Twice in fact. Ask the moderators where > my answer went. I don't have to ask. I know where it went.
> Talk about scientific CENSORSHIP. The one responsible for the format and content of your answers is you. In this case there was no talk about scientific censorship. There was a short chat about imbecile filtering.
Dirk Vdm
Strich.9 - 24 Nov 2008 14:02 GMT On Nov 24, 5:41 am, "Dirk Van de moortel"
> snip idiocies of an idot defending an idiotic theory My reply was CORRECT. That is why the moderators cannot post it.
If my reply had been incorrect, it would have been easy for the moderators to post it and note the error.
Relativists are now using the age-old tactics of censorship, propaganda and character assassination to prop up a theory.
I have posted here the proof that relativity is WRONG, and relativists have NOT ONE single factual counter-proof except the usual ad hominems, and censorship to boot. They can't even measure the distance from the muon to the earth.
Verdict: Another relativity victory hinges on the kangaroo relativity court judges.
Dirk Van de moortel - 24 Nov 2008 16:32 GMT Strich.9 <strich.9992@gmail.com> wrote in message c25876d2-8b44-46ec-8b78-df3d2ba2be68@j39g2000yqn.googlegroups.com
> On Nov 24, 5:41 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > My reply was CORRECT. Sure. You are convinced that you are correct. They all are. You probably never wondered why, but that is exactly why we call living tissue of your kind "imbecile".
> That is why the moderators cannot post it. What did you expect? It is after all sci.physics.research. Not sci.imbecile.research.
> If my reply had been incorrect, it would have been easy for the > moderators to post it and note the error. But it was correct, so there was no need to post it and note the error. You still don't get it. It is NOT sci.imbecile.research.
> Relativists are now using the age-old tactics of censorship, > propaganda and character assassination to prop up a theory. Character assassination? Duh, more like garbage collection.
> I have posted here the proof that relativity is WRONG, and relativists > have NOT ONE single factual counter-proof except the usual ad > hominems, and censorship to boot. They can't even measure the > distance from the muon to the earth. Ad hominem? FYI, we call this Ad Excrementem.
> Verdict: Another relativity victory hinges on the kangaroo relativity > court judges. Don't be shy, be honest and admit that you just love it.
Dirk Vdm
Strich.9 - 24 Nov 2008 21:38 GMT On Nov 24, 11:32 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote:
> Strich.9 <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > > - Show quoted text - What? No mathematical proof against my logic? Not even a measurement of distance FE to prove me wrong?
Dirk wastes his breath on ad hominems and slander to skirt the issue of the fallacy of relativity. That is what is a called a COWARD's proof :)
doug - 24 Nov 2008 21:50 GMT > On Nov 24, 11:32 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" > <dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 83 lines] > What? No mathematical proof against my logic? Not even a measurement > of distance FE to prove me wrong? Gee, all we have is a century of successful predictions of theory confirmed by experiments. There have been no failures or relativity.
> Dirk wastes his breath on ad hominems and slander to skirt the issue > of the fallacy of relativity. That is what is a called a COWARD's > proof :) This is strich running away again and trying to hide from his failures. All of your attempts to say anything about relativity have been wrong. You snip the posts that show you wrong and present insults since you have no physics answers. You were banned from the research groups since they do not need cranks there. You keep hoping no one will notice your mistakes.
Strich.9 - 24 Nov 2008 22:37 GMT > > On Nov 24, 11:32 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" > > <dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 97 lines] > they do not need cranks there. You keep hoping no one will notice your > mistakes. And you are the troll who pretended to have a degree in physics. So why should people believe you about relativity? I asked you to compute a distance and you never moved from square 1...
doug - 24 Nov 2008 22:56 GMT >>>On Nov 24, 11:32 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" >>><dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 101 lines] > why should people believe you about relativity? I asked you to > compute a distance and you never moved from square 1... I gave you the answer even before you asked the question. I gave it according to both experiment and Einstein's theory of relativity. I did not give it in strich's theory of relativity since that is wrong. The answer was also given in a link provided by Miguel where it even had nice pictures and the problem broken down into small enough chunks that even strich should have been able to understand the answer.
I also gave you the answer many times in earlier posts but it was too complicated for you to understand.
I point out facts, experiments and your mistakes. You consider that trolling. You post lies, exaggerations about personal qualities, mistakes and lots of personal attacks. You have a strange definition of trolling.
gabydewilde - 24 Nov 2008 22:45 GMT > > On Nov 24, 11:32 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" > > <dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 97 lines] > they do not need cranks there. You keep hoping no one will notice your > mistakes. HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Dougma skools us on dougma ethics.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHA
John J - 25 Nov 2008 19:31 GMT > What? No mathematical proof against my logic? Not even a measurement > of distance FE to prove me wrong? Might you consider that your posit of 'distance' is begging to invent a privileged frame? Wrong metrics, bubba. Just wrong.
Strich.9 - 25 Nov 2008 19:47 GMT > > What? No mathematical proof against my logic? Not even a measurement > > of distance FE to prove me wrong? > > Might you consider that your posit of 'distance' is begging to invent a > privileged frame? Wrong metrics, bubba. Just wrong. Nice try for a beginner. Here is the rub. By invoking length contraction of FE (muon-earth) distance, but not of EF (earth-muon) distance, one invokes an asymmetrical (hence erroneous) application of relativity.
Technically the EF/FE distance can contract from the standpoint of an astronaut passing by the EF/FE metric. So no privileged frame. Keep up the studying. It will reward you in due time.
John J - 25 Nov 2008 19:53 GMT On Nov 25, 2:31 pm, "John J" <n...@droffats.ten> wrote:
> "Strich.9" <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Might you consider that your posit of 'distance' is begging to invent a > privileged frame? Wrong metrics, bubba. Just wrong.
| Nice try for a beginner. Here is the rub. By invoking length | contraction of FE (muon-earth) distance, but not of EF (earth-muon) | distance, one invokes an asymmetrical (hence erroneous) application of | relativity. It IS asymmetric from either POV (frame).
| Technically the EF/FE distance can contract from the standpoint of an | astronaut passing by the EF/FE metric. So no privileged frame. Keep | up the studying. It will reward you in due time. Choose one. Not both.
Strich.9 - 25 Nov 2008 20:21 GMT > On Nov 25, 2:31 pm, "John J" <n...@droffats.ten> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Choose one. Not both. You just stepped over the cliff. Relativity states the contractions are symmetric meaning A sees B as contracted and B sees A as contracted.
John J - 26 Nov 2008 02:07 GMT >> On Nov 25, 2:31 pm, "John J" <n...@droffats.ten> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > are symmetric meaning A sees B as contracted and B sees A as > contracted. And what of it?
Your view of the event is entirely impoverished.
End of thread.
Strich.9 - 26 Nov 2008 03:25 GMT > >> "Strich.9" <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > End of thread. Back to philosophy for you. Easier to huff and bluff there...
John J - 26 Nov 2008 18:43 GMT >> Your view of the event is entirely impoverished. >> >> End of thread. > > Back to philosophy for you. Easier to huff and bluff there... So get your theory published in a competent journal. Make history. Or be sad.
doug - 24 Nov 2008 17:40 GMT > On Nov 24, 5:41 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" > >>snip idiocies of an idot defending an idiotic theory > > My reply was CORRECT. That is why the moderators cannot post it. No, your replies have not even risen to the level of wrong. The replies are uneducated and laughable.
> If my reply had been incorrect, it would have been easy for the > moderators to post it and note the error. They are there to not waste bandwidth.
> Relativists are now using the age-old tactics of censorship, > propaganda and character assassination to prop up a theory. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > hominems, and censorship to boot. They can't even measure the > distance from the muon to the earth. Strich ignored all the facts in making his arguments and has ignored all the facts when they were pointed out to him. Strich's theory of relativity is wrong and we all know that. Experiments demonstrate that strich's theory of relativity is wrong. That is why no one uses strich's theory of relativity.
And strich is wrong in the paragraph above about measurements. This was explained to him here a number of times and in the research group yet again. He does not like the answer so he ignores it and pretends it does not exist. That, however, is not a proof on his part.
> Verdict: Another relativity victory hinges on the kangaroo relativity > court judges. Uncle Al - 24 Nov 2008 17:31 GMT > On Nov 23, 4:59 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" > <dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote: > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/001a0b5c0a7c4674 > > BZZZZT. Already answered. Twice in fact. Ask the moderators where > my answer went. Talk about scientific CENSORSHIP. [snip crap]
sci.physics.research Moderators were directed through Google Groups to your posts in sci.phsyics - and it will require another Big Bang for you have any chance of posting there.
A man is the sum of his deeds. You are murine.
 Signature Uncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Strich.9 - 24 Nov 2008 18:02 GMT > sci.physics.research Moderators were directed through Google Groups to > your posts in sci.phsyics - and it will require another Big Bang for > you have any chance of posting there. Good. It's out in the open. The moderators are only supposed to FILTER innappropriate content and COMMENT on wrong statements. CENSORSHIP is not in their job description.
As for my chances of reposting there, why would I want to post in a group where my replies to defend my proofs are censored, giving the false impression that I cannot defend my proof?
The relativity scam is obvious. The orthodoxy is suppressing and censoring ideas that are contrary to their views.
Desertphile - 25 Nov 2008 01:56 GMT > On Nov 23, 4:59 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" > <dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > What, do you think relativity can win by CENSORSHIP of ideas? It will > eventually lose by sheer fallacy. Dear retard,
You may publish your amazing discoveries in dozens of refereed per-reviewed science journals and get all the fame and accolades you deserve.
 Signature http://desertphile.org Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Androcles - 25 Nov 2008 07:09 GMT >> On Nov 23, 4:59 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" >> <dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > per-reviewed science journals and get all the fame and accolades > you deserve. Deer fucktard, Get another new name. *plonk*
Michael Moroney - 25 Nov 2008 02:21 GMT >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/001a0b5c0a7c4674
>BZZZZT. Already answered. Twice in fact. Ask the moderators where >my answer went. Talk about scientific CENSORSHIP. No censorship. I'm sure the moderators of sci.physics.research have more ko0ks trying to post there than they know what to do with. Getting a post in s.p.r is a very high standard, unlike ordinary newsgroups. Somehow, (with heavy editing), you were able to get your question approved. You got an answer, the same one you've been getting when you repeatedly post it in sci.physics over and over again. If you want to get a post approved in s.p.r. again, you're going to have to include accurate and correct physics, which you are unable to do here.
S.p.r. serves a purpose. If someone wants to discuss serious physics without the ankle-biter k00ks such as yourself, they'll post there, after putting in enough effort to get the post approved. If they want to hear the rants from asylums full of anti-relativity k0oks, they know that sci.physics is the place.
Strich.9 - 25 Nov 2008 04:08 GMT On Nov 24, 9:21 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote:
> >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/001a0b5c0a7c4674 > >BZZZZT. Already answered. Twice in fact. Ask the moderators where [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > the rants from asylums full of anti-relativity k0oks, they know that > sci.physics is the place. Look how this real kook tries to call me a kook. Look in my next post how I debunk this kook's counterproof.
doug - 25 Nov 2008 04:48 GMT > On Nov 24, 9:21 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Look how this real kook tries to call me a kook. Look in my next post > how I debunk this kook's counterproof. Ignoring experimental evidence and misunderstanding relativity is not what scientists call debunking. It is called being a crank. Strich failed again.
Strich.9 - 25 Nov 2008 05:10 GMT > > On Nov 24, 9:21 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > not what scientists call debunking. It is called being a crank. > Strich failed again. Coming from a prankster and fraud like Doug, without any real degree, that statement does not say much.
|
|
|