Laws of Physics
Peri of Pera
observers, indeed for 'all observers', inertial or not? Who has ever
claimed there were different laws of physics applying to the same
phenomenen? Is this postulate not ridiculous and meaningless?
Peri
Spaceman
"Peri of Pera" <rie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1142992015....@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
The "laws" of physics are the same for all observers,
that is why lightspeed should not be able to avoid relative motion
and should not be considered a constant speed to all observers.
:)
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Peri of Pera" <rie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1142992015....@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Why should the laws of physics not be the same for
> all inertial observers, indeed for 'all observers', inertial
> or not?
c varies under acceleration. Geometry (pi, totals of subtended
angles of plane figures) fails as compared to inertial frames.
Probably more. Makes measurements more difficult too.
> Who has ever
> claimed there were different laws of physics applying
> to the same phenomenen?
Many "dragged aetherists" did.
> Is this postulate not ridiculous and meaningless?
It is what differentiates special relativity from general
relativity.
David A. Smith
ABarlow
by definition. How could we possibly have a coherent system of
mathematics if in one frame of reference the number 2 was 2, and in
some other frame it was pi, and in a third it was 1236.75?
A.
Spaceman
"ABarlow" <impartial...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1142995414.3...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> All constants are the same for all observers in all frames of reference
> by definition.
It seems some people don't think a constant meter is constant for all
and some don't think a constant second is a constant to all,
and by the way, having such variable constants are how light speed
is kept constant.
So guess what?
The constants have been screwed up.
:)
> How could we possibly have a coherent system of
> mathematics if in one frame of reference the number 2 was 2, and in
> some other frame it was pi, and in a third it was 1236.75?
Ask relativists that.
They seem to think 2 meters can not be 2 meters in all observers
frames.
The same is true with their "seconds".
The sad part is they need to do such to make lights speed
constant to all.
LOL
>
> A.
>
Bill Hobba
"Peri of Pera" <rie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1142992015....@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
One must take it in context and give a reasonable interpretation of what it
means. In SR it does not mean - if it is not the same in a different frame
then it is not a law - such a statement is vacuous. What it means is the
same experimental setup taken to a different inertial frame will yield
exactly the same results. This is all you need to use in deriving the
Lorentz transformations. Also in the POR where it says the laws of physics
are the same in all inertial reference frames or frames traveling at
constant velocity wrt to an inertial frame the implication is frames
traveling at constant velocity to an inertial frame are also inertial. This
immediately rules out an aether because the direction of an aether wind
breaks isotropy thus making such frames non inertial. Of course such views
are open to interpretation and you will find slightly different views in
some sources - eg see page 449 Griffith's - Introduction to Electrodynamics
for a slightly different view. The thing is it is not really important
which view you adhere to - what is important is you understand the issues.
In GR it means exactly that - it is not to be counted as a law of nature
unless it is the same in all coordinates which the idea of objective reality
more or less demands. It also means that the laws of nature should be
covariant. However it is now well known that covariance alone is not
enough - it needs to be upgraded to the principle of general invariance
which says not only should the laws be covariant but absolute and dynamical
terms should remain unchanged - see Ohanian and Ruffini - Gravitation and
Space-time page 370 - 380. It was this problem that Krecthmann beat
Einstein over the head with in the early days of GR.
Thanks
Bill
>
> Peri
>
ABarlow
Spaceman wrote:
> "ABarlow" <impartial...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1142995414.3...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > All constants are the same for all observers in all frames of reference
> > by definition.
>
> It seems some people don't think a constant meter is constant for all
> and some don't think a constant second is a constant to all,
> and by the way, having such variable constants are how light speed
> is kept constant.
> So guess what?
> The constants have been screwed up.
> :)
No, they are self consistent. A meter is, by definition, the distance
that light travels in 1 / 299 792 458 of a second, and the second is
the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to
the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of
the caesium-133 atom. Neither of these are fundamental constants--more
to the point, neither of these need necessarily be constant.
> > How could we possibly have a coherent system of
> > mathematics if in one frame of reference the number 2 was 2, and in
> > some other frame it was pi, and in a third it was 1236.75?
>
> Ask relativists that.
> They seem to think 2 meters can not be 2 meters in all observers
> frames.
> The same is true with their "seconds".
> The sad part is they need to do such to make lights speed
> constant to all.
> LOL
I am talking about *constants.* You are talking about variable
quantities. The fact that 2x does not necessarily equal 2y does not
mean that 2 does not equal 2.
A.
> >
> > A.
> >
Spaceman
>
> Spaceman wrote:
>> "ABarlow" <impartial...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1142995414.3...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > All constants are the same for all observers in all frames of reference
>> > by definition.
>>
>> It seems some people don't think a constant meter is constant for all
>> and some don't think a constant second is a constant to all,
>> and by the way, having such variable constants are how light speed
>> is kept constant.
>> So guess what?
>> The constants have been screwed up.
>> :)
>
> No, they are self consistent. A meter is, by definition, the distance
> that light travels in 1 / 299 792 458 of a second,
length contraction of a meter to prove lightspeed is constant.
> and the second is
> the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to
> the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of
> the caesium-133 atom.
So that means the clocks that do not do such periods
the same "timing" that others do are goofing up.
> Neither of these are fundamental constants--more
> to the point, neither of these need necessarily be constant.
Correct,
because if either were constant like they actually should be
Lightspeed would nto be constant.
but that is the problem,
a meter abnd a second should be constant for scientific
timing to be done correctly and such not based upon a constant
(lightspeed) that can not be constant and needs the meter and the
second to change unit standards to create such a constant.
>> Ask relativists that.
>> They seem to think 2 meters can not be 2 meters in all observers
>> frames.
>> The same is true with their "seconds".
>> The sad part is they need to do such to make lights speed
>> constant to all.
>> LOL
>
> I am talking about *constants.* You are talking about variable
> quantities. The fact that 2x does not necessarily equal 2y does not
> mean that 2 does not equal 2.
I am talking about constants and variables that have been changed
from the constants they used to be in order for a different
constant that is not actually a constant at all to be constant.
The speed of 186,000 can not be constant to all.
do you get that?
186,000 miles per second can not be 186,000 miles per second
to all observers.
So..
your constant is variable and it is funny that you need to play tricks
on the meter and the second to make such a constant at all.
LOL
As I always say.
rubber rulers and malfunctioning clocks = constant lightspeed.
That is the worst science we have ever followed so far.
LOL
>
Tom Roberts
> Why should the laws of physics not be the same for all inertial
> observers,
In 1905, it was generally thought that there was an aether, and the laws
of electrodynamics were different in its rest frame from any other
frame. Whereas the laws of mechanics were indeed the same in any
inertial frame.
> indeed for 'all observers', inertial or not?
It took a while to understand the implications of non-inertial
observers, and general curvilinear coordinates. GR is the result, and
indeed the laws of physics are the same for all observers, inertial or
not. But they are rather more complicated laws than those of SR....
> Who has ever
> claimed there were different laws of physics applying to the same
> phenomenen?
Most advocates of an aether.
> Is this postulate not ridiculous and meaningless?
No. But it far predates Einstein. The key point of his 1905 article on
SR was to being this principle back into general applicability,
including electrodynamics.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Eric Gisse
ABarlow wrote:
[snip]
Spaceshit is an idiot.
All you need to know about him is that it took him several years to
understand that -1 * -1 = 1.
zzbu...@netscape.net
For one reason is that the so-called "laws"
are nothing but transformations. So they
actually have nothing to do
with even frames, nevermind anything
except morons and virtual photons.
> Peri
The Ghost In The Machine
>
> "Peri of Pera" <rie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1142992015....@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> [quoted text muted]
>
> The "laws" of physics are the same for all observers, that is why
> lightspeed should not be able to avoid relative motion and should not be
> considered a constant speed to all observers.
OK, dumb question. Is constant lightspeed a law or not, as required by,
say, Maxwell's Equations?
>> [quoted text muted]
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Hayek
Peri of Pera wrote:
It has been correct so far.
I have been thinking about what would happen to
relativity, if there was a local experiment that would
indicate absolute speed to an inertial observer.
Nothing much actually, clocks would be correctly
called inertiameters, and it would be easier to define
simultaneity.
Actually a clock would then be called a relative
inertiameter, and the new device-experiment could be
called an absolute inertiameter.
Sorry guys, I admit I cheated : I did not use any
reasoning, since you all know I do not have a brain or
knowledge. I used a combination of a crystal ball and
time machine, which I inherited from my Uncle. So I
stole some physics insight from the future. Now, I
just hope my Uncle does not claim priority.
Uwe Hayek.
--
This is the bitterest pain among men, to have much
knowledge but no power.
Herodotus (484 BC - 430 BC), The Histories of Herodotus
Human beings, who are almost unique in having the
ability to learn from the experience of others, are
also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to
do so. -- Douglas Adams, Last Chance to See
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 21:00:13 -0500, Spaceman wrote:
>
>>
>> "Peri of Pera" <rie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:1142992015....@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>> [quoted text muted]
>>
>> The "laws" of physics are the same for all observers, that is why
>> lightspeed should not be able to avoid relative motion and should not be
>> considered a constant speed to all observers.
>
>OK, dumb question. Is constant lightspeed a law or not, as required by,
>say, Maxwell's Equations?
>
equations are indeed invariant laws of nature, holding relative to all
inertial reference frames, *then* lightspeed is the same relative to
all reference frames. If, on the other hand, Maxwell's equations hold
with no modifications only relative to one preferred reference frame
then also lightspeed has the value resulting from said equations only
relative to this preferred reference frame. This was the essence of
the debate in physics during the last quarter of the 19th century.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Jeff…Relf
no matter your acceleration or speed.
What makes you think the speed of light should be any different ?
Don't forget, an _Ideal_ vacuum is the only medium we're talking about here.
Light even has somthing like sonic booms, Cherenkov radiation.
A type of radiation which includes
a bluish visible component in its spectrum.
The radiation is analogous to the sonic boom phenomenon in sound
and is caused by particles moving through a medium with
a velocity greater than the velocity of light in that medium.
__ WikiPedia.ORG/wiki/Cherenkov_effect
tadchem
Jeff...Relf wrote:
> Hi Spaceman, Given the same medium, the speed of sound is always the same,
> no matter your acceleration or speed.
> What makes you think the speed of light should be any different ?
The speed of sound depends on the *composition* of the medium. Sound
is propagated by movements of the particles of the medium and the way
they collide with each other. What is an ideal vacuum composed of? How
much inertia do the particles comprising the vaccum have? How fast do
they move? How do they collide with each other?
> Don't forget, an _Ideal_ vacuum is the only medium we're talking about here.
I won't forget if *you* don't.
> Light even has somthing like sonic booms, Cherenkov radiation.
>
> A type of radiation which includes
> a bluish visible component in its spectrum.
>
> The radiation is analogous to the sonic boom phenomenon in sound
> and is caused by particles moving through a medium with
> a velocity greater than the velocity of light in that medium.
> __ WikiPedia.ORG/wiki/Cherenkov_effect
"Cherenkov radiation (also spelled Cerenkov or sometimes Cerenkov) is
electromagnetic radiation emitted when a charged particle passes
through an insulator at a speed greater than the speed of light in the
medium. "
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerenkov_radiation]
Bottom line: speeding *particles* can make shock waves whether they are
exceeding the speed limit for sound or for light in a medium. [This is
totally irrelevant to light in a vacuum.]
"Analogies are like ropes; they tie things together well, but you won't
get very far if you try to push them." - Thaddeus Stout
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
Jim Black
"Peri of Pera" <rie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1142992015....@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> claimed there were different laws of physics applying to the same
> phenomenen?
Einstein gave a good example at the beginning of his first paper on
special relativity. Consider a magnet and a wire. If the magnet is
moved, the moving magnet causes an electric field, which causes forces
on the electrons in the wire, which causes a measurable voltage
difference between the ends of the wire. If the wire moves toward the
magnet, there is no electric field, but the magnetic field causes a
force on the moving charges in the wire, also causing a voltage
between the ends of the wire.
Clearly these two cases are the same phenomenon in different reference
frames, but the way we've explained them, it sounds like they have
different causes -- in the first case, the force on the electrons
comes from the electric field, and in the second, the force comes from
the magnetic field.
The resolution lies in understanding that a field which is purely
magnetic in one reference frame can have an electric component when
measured in a different reference frame. It's the same field, but
whether we see it as a purely magnetic field or as a magnetic field
and an electric field depends on our frame of reference.
You can find a translation of Einstein's paper here:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Mike
Peri of Pera wrote:
> Why should the laws of physics not be the same for all inertial
> observers, indeed for 'all observers', inertial or not?
It is better to avoid negation when posing a question. For instance:
Should the laws of physics be the same for all moving observers?
Newton's 2nd law, F = dp/dt applies only in inertial reference frames.
In non-inertial reference frames it fails the status of a law of nature
since one must account for ficticious forces like Coriolis and
Centrigugal. This means that motion in those frames is not fully
explained by impressed forces alone.
Even with SR/GR this problem has not been solved. Einstein's proposed
solution was absurd, he transfers out these ficticious forces by making
motion causeless, something that mathematically makes sense of course
but no reasonable physicist can accept that.
So the answer is that people are still looking for such laws and they
wish to find them.
> Who has ever
> claimed there were different laws of physics applying to the same
> phenomenen? Is this postulate not ridiculous and meaningless?
>
This postulate is of fundamental importance if we are to "save the
phenomena", a philosophical term I cannot analyze now. It turns out,
however, that when this postulate is combined with other postulates,
like the constancy of the speed of light, you get several logical
violations, such as the twins paradox. And do not let anyone fool you
that these paradoxes are solved.
The other replies you got are in my opinion crackpot stuff, none of
these people understand the issue.
Mike
> Peri
Mike
Peri of Pera wrote:
> Why should the laws of physics not be the same for all inertial
> observers, indeed for 'all observers', inertial or not?
It is better to avoid negation when posing a question. For instance:
Should the laws of physics be the same for all moving observers?
Newton's 2nd law, F = dp/dt applies only in inertial reference frames.
In non-inertial reference frames it fails the status of a law of nature
since one must account for ficticious forces like Coriolis and
Centrigugal. This means that motion in those frames is not fully
explained by impressed forces alone.
Even with SR/GR this problem has not been solved. Einstein's proposed
solution was absurd, he transfers out these ficticious forces by making
motion causeless, something that mathematically makes sense of course
but no reasonable physicist can accept that.
So the answer is that people are still looking for such laws and they
wish to find them.
> Who has ever
> claimed there were different laws of physics applying to the same
> phenomenen? Is this postulate not ridiculous and meaningless?
>
This postulate is of fundamental importance if we are to "save the
Dirk Van de moortel
"Mike" <ele...@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1143028362.9...@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
> The other replies you got are in my opinion crackpot stuff, none of
> these people understand the issue.
That's what you get when you killfile everone except coneheads
like Spaceman and Hayek :-)
Dirk Vdm
Jeff…Relf
What is an ideal vacuum composed of ?
How much inertia do the particles comprising the vaccum have ?
How fast do they move ? How do they collide with each other ?
Great questions... and you'd surely get the Nobel prize of you answered them.
Today's best observations/theories can't do it, but who knows about tomorrow ?
Hexenmeister
"ABarlow" <impartial...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1142995414.3...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Actually it works quite well. My speed relative to the steering wheel
of my car is 0 mph as I observe it, the steering wheel stays right in
front of me. My speed is 30 mph hour relative to the road.
How could we possibly have a coherent system of
mathematics if in one frame of reference the number 0 was 0 mph,
and in some other frame it was 30 mph?
How can you be such a blithering idiot? Oh wait.. you are impartially
insane. Ok.
Androcles.
Hexenmeister
"Peri of Pera" <rie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1142992015....@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| observers, indeed for 'all observers', inertial or not?
Nobody here knows what they are. Handwaving suited Einstein
as well as his disciples.
| Who has ever
| claimed there were different laws of physics applying to the same
| phenomenen? Is this postulate not ridiculous and meaningless?
Well, you see, the actual postulate is embedded here:
"Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a
conductor. The observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative
motion of the conductor and the magnet"
ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
See that "relative motion" embedded in Einstein's sentence?
That's a postulate. It isn't ridiculous at all.
Then he goes on:
Examples of this sort... yakety yak yak yak ... will hereafter be called
the ``Principle of Relativity''.
You are quoting the ridiculous yakety yak yak yak.
Androcles.
Spaceman
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.03.22...@earthlink.net...
> On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 21:00:13 -0500, Spaceman wrote:
>
>>
>> "Peri of Pera" <rie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:1142992015....@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>> [quoted text muted]
>>
>> The "laws" of physics are the same for all observers, that is why
>> lightspeed should not be able to avoid relative motion and should not be
>> considered a constant speed to all observers.
>
> OK, dumb question. Is constant lightspeed a law or not, as required by,
> say, Maxwell's Equations?
A constant lightspeed is fine and works for maxwell because
he is simply using it as a constant speed.
In no way does Maxwell need it to be constant to all observers.
Could you show me one place in Maxwells work
that would be affected if "relative to observer" speeds were not c?
Mike
Tom Roberts wrote:
> Peri of Pera wrote:
> > Why should the laws of physics not be the same for all inertial
> > observers,
>
> In 1905, it was generally thought that there was an aether, and the laws
> of electrodynamics were different in its rest frame from any other
> frame. Whereas the laws of mechanics were indeed the same in any
> inertial frame.
>
>
> > indeed for 'all observers', inertial or not?
>
> It took a while to understand the implications of non-inertial
> observers, and general curvilinear coordinates. GR is the result, and
> indeed the laws of physics are the same for all observers, inertial or
> not. But they are rather more complicated laws than those of SR....
Please, state what laws of physics GR proposes. In particular, state
the GR law of physics that detrmines the motion of a rigid body in the
presence of an impressed force.
Mike
T Wake
"Spaceman" <Real...@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:3rmdnVqj6sW...@comcast.com...
>
> "ABarlow" <impartial...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1142996739.8...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> that light travels in 1 / 299 792 458 of a second,
> That is not consistant since one would need to allow for
> length contraction of a meter to prove lightspeed is constant.
Ok brainchild, how do you define the meter?
Spaceman
"T Wake" <tasw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:__6dnUUUb6J...@pipex.net...
Whatver way I chose I would not use it as a variable distance
like you have accepted.
It is kinda sad you have accepted a variable meter at all.
Why would you want to use a rubber ruler at all?
T Wake
"Spaceman" <Real...@comcast.not> wrote in message
>
> "T Wake" <tasw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:__6dnUUUb6J...@pipex.net...
>>
>> "Spaceman" <Real...@comcast.not> wrote in message
>> news:3rmdnVqj6sW...@comcast.com...
>>>
>>> "ABarlow" <impartial...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1142996739.8...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>> No, they are self consistent. A meter is, by definition, the distance
>>>> that light travels in 1 / 299 792 458 of a second,
>>> That is not consistant since one would need to allow for
>>> length contraction of a meter to prove lightspeed is constant.
>>
>> Ok brainchild, how do you define the meter?
>
> Whatver way I chose I would not use it as a variable distance
> like you have accepted.
Answer the question then.
> It is kinda sad you have accepted a variable meter at all.
> Why would you want to use a rubber ruler at all?
Answer the question brains.
Spaceman
>
> "Spaceman" <Real...@comcast.not> wrote in message
> news:ndidnTKZD4zMMbzZ...@comcast.com...
>>
>> "T Wake" <tasw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:__6dnUUUb6J...@pipex.net...
>>>
>>> "Spaceman" <Real...@comcast.not> wrote in message
>>> news:3rmdnVqj6sW...@comcast.com...
>>>>
>>>> "ABarlow" <impartial...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:1142996739.8...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> No, they are self consistent. A meter is, by definition, the distance
>>>>> that light travels in 1 / 299 792 458 of a second,
>>>> That is not consistant since one would need to allow for
>>>> length contraction of a meter to prove lightspeed is constant.
>>>
>>> Ok brainchild, how do you define the meter?
>>
>> Whatver way I chose I would not use it as a variable distance
>> like you have accepted.
>
> Answer the question then.
I did.
The answer is to use a non variable meter.
Like a stick that we can determine when physical
changes occur to such and adjust for such to keep
the meter a true constant even if the stick changes
length because of any physical forces.
>> It is kinda sad you have accepted a variable meter at all.
>> Why would you want to use a rubber ruler at all?
>
> Answer the question brains.
Now answer my question Mr no brains.
Why would you want to use a variable distance standard?
Might as well make rulers out of rubber bands.
LOL
T Wake
"Spaceman" <Real...@comcast.not> wrote in message
>
> "T Wake" <tasw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:37mdnXCTbcKUMLzZ...@pipex.net...
>>
>> "Spaceman" <Real...@comcast.not> wrote in message
>> news:ndidnTKZD4zMMbzZ...@comcast.com...
>>>
>>> "T Wake" <tasw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:__6dnUUUb6J...@pipex.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Spaceman" <Real...@comcast.not> wrote in message
>>>> news:3rmdnVqj6sW...@comcast.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> "ABarlow" <impartial...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:1142996739.8...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, they are self consistent. A meter is, by definition, the distance
>>>>>> that light travels in 1 / 299 792 458 of a second,
>>>>> That is not consistant since one would need to allow for
>>>>> length contraction of a meter to prove lightspeed is constant.
>>>>
>>>> Ok brainchild, how do you define the meter?
>>>
>>> Whatver way I chose I would not use it as a variable distance
>>> like you have accepted.
>>
>> Answer the question then.
>
> I did.
> The answer is to use a non variable meter.
So define this meter then.
How can you, over the internet, impart the dimensions of this meter to me?
> Like a stick that we can determine when physical
> changes occur to such and adjust for such to keep
> the meter a true constant even if the stick changes
> length because of any physical forces.
How will we know if physical forces have changed its dynamics?
Or do you anticipate an infinte array of sticks to compare against each
other to check each one is working.
>>> It is kinda sad you have accepted a variable meter at all.
>>> Why would you want to use a rubber ruler at all?
>>
>> Answer the question brains.
>
> Now answer my question Mr no brains.
> Why would you want to use a variable distance standard?
Because if functions perfectly well in all experimental circumstances. The
current SI standards are not arbritrary. They are measureable at any point
and provide scientists with the ability to check and determine their work.
Can you cite a single occasion where the SI units of measurement have either
been falsified or failed in an experiment?
> Might as well make rulers out of rubber bands.
You could do that if you wanted. However making childish comparisons only
amuses the children.
Did you ever answer the question about the muon?
I can repeat it for you if you want - imagine a muon moving at any speed you
determine - lets use c for this thought experiment. A muon has a lifespan of
2.2x10^-6 seconds. How far can this muon travel before it disintegrates?
Spaceman
> How can you, over the internet, impart the dimensions of this meter to me?
A certain amount of atoms of a certain material in certain conditions.
(all conditions must be the same)
Just as the standard for non variable measurement unit of weight
has been created.
>> Like a stick that we can determine when physical
>> changes occur to such and adjust for such to keep
>> the meter a true constant even if the stick changes
>> length because of any physical forces.
>
> How will we know if physical forces have changed its dynamics?
The same way we know physical forces have changed a unit of "wieght".
by actually "caring about physics".
Unlike you are doing for a meter that is variable.
>> Now answer my question Mr no brains.
>> Why would you want to use a variable distance standard?
>
> Because if functions perfectly well in all experimental circumstances. The
> current SI standards are not arbritrary. They are measureable at any point
> and provide scientists with the ability to check and determine their work.
Variable units will allow all sorts of bullshit to be true.
You don't get the "time travel" bullshit huh?
> Can you cite a single occasion where the SI units of measurement have
> either been falsified or failed in an experiment?
How can you falsify a rubber unit standard ?
I make a ruler out of rubber and I mark 1 foot on it.
It will make lots of things only 1 foot long.
Will you argue the ruler is rubber?
Funny, that is what I am arguing.
The only way lightspeed can be constant is with a rubber meter
that changes "as needed" for proof.
Sheesh!
LOL
> You could do that if you wanted. However making childish comparisons only
> amuses the children.
No,
If you had a brain you would understand that is what you are using
for a meter and length contraction is the "rubber" part of it.
Wow you really do not want to think at all huh?
> Did you ever answer the question about the muon?
>
> I can repeat it for you if you want - imagine a muon moving at any speed
> you determine - lets use c for this thought experiment. A muon has a
> lifespan of 2.2x10^-6 seconds. How far can this muon travel before it
> disintegrates?
Depends on what energy you use for it to move and what it moves through.
How long will an elephant live if you don't let it move?
How long will it live if you let it move but there is no food around?
How long will it live if you place it in a place where there is plenty of
food?
Your Muon is not a perfect clock just as an elephant is not.
Why would it not change lifetime rate with difffert conditions?
T Wake
"Spaceman" <Real...@comcast.not> wrote in message
>
> "T Wake" <tasw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:tISdnTMdqICcJbzZ...@pipex.net...
>> How can you, over the internet, impart the dimensions of this meter to
>> me?
>
> A certain amount of atoms of a certain material in certain conditions.
> (all conditions must be the same)
> Just as the standard for non variable measurement unit of weight
> has been created.
What unit of weight are you talking about? The SI unit of mass is similar to
what you describe - however neither address the fact you are demanding this
be used to measure distance.
Using a "certain amount of atoms of a certain material in certain
conditions" still leads to a varying system in as much as the current meter
does.
Also this only provides a method to measure lengths in your certain
conditions. As soon as they change, the ruler changes.
Your ruler is not just rubber but vapour.
>>> Like a stick that we can determine when physical
>>> changes occur to such and adjust for such to keep
>>> the meter a true constant even if the stick changes
>>> length because of any physical forces.
>>
>> How will we know if physical forces have changed its dynamics?
>
> The same way we know physical forces have changed a unit of "wieght".
> by actually "caring about physics".
Well, we use the laws of physics to determine the change to length of the
meter, only you wish to pick and choose which bits of the physics you want
to use.
> Unlike you are doing for a meter that is variable.
Far from the case.
>>> Now answer my question Mr no brains.
>>> Why would you want to use a variable distance standard?
>>
>> Because if functions perfectly well in all experimental circumstances.
>> The current SI standards are not arbritrary. They are measureable at any
>> point and provide scientists with the ability to check and determine
>> their work.
>
> Variable units will allow all sorts of bullshit to be true.
What is your absolute frame of reference which you use to determine what is
variable and what isnt?
> You don't get the "time travel" bullshit huh?
No I dont.
>> Can you cite a single occasion where the SI units of measurement have
>> either been falsified or failed in an experiment?
>
> How can you falsify a rubber unit standard ?
Well, if it works what is your problem with it?
> I make a ruler out of rubber and I mark 1 foot on it.
> It will make lots of things only 1 foot long.
I assume you are either streching or compressing the ruler as in its normal
state a rubber ruler would be as accurate as you require here. You are
talking about 1 foot so you dont mind much error in the accuracy.
> Will you argue the ruler is rubber?
No, it obviously is? Would you argue the measurements are inaccurate enough
to cause a problem?
Lots of people use paper based tape measures when they measure their houses
etc for furniture. These all have a certain amount of elasticity, so pulling
them will stretch them by a significant amount. That means when they measure
their carpet as 12' 6" it may actually be 12' 61/4". They don't mind because
it is within the required accuracy.
Even a "solid" measure has some level of elasticity, so a steel ruler under
sufficient compression will measure within a range of accuracy.
Do you call all of these "rubber rulers?"
> Funny, that is what I am arguing.
> The only way lightspeed can be constant is with a rubber meter
> that changes "as needed" for proof.
Why do you have a problem with this?
>> You could do that if you wanted. However making childish comparisons only
>> amuses the children.
>
> No,
> If you had a brain you would understand that is what you are using
> for a meter and length contraction is the "rubber" part of it.
> Wow you really do not want to think at all huh?
You have no concept of what thinking entails.
You are obsessed with the most basic approximation of what you think is
universally true and *you* refuse to think about it any more and accept that
what you see day to day is simply an approximation of what happens when you
go beyond your own personal scale.
You are the one who refuses to think. You already have the ideas in your
head and you refuse to listen to either the experimental evidence or the
theoretical framework.
>> Did you ever answer the question about the muon?
>>
>> I can repeat it for you if you want - imagine a muon moving at any speed
>> you determine - lets use c for this thought experiment. A muon has a
>> lifespan of 2.2x10^-6 seconds. How far can this muon travel before it
>> disintegrates?
>
> Depends on what energy you use for it to move and what it moves through.
The energy to cause it to move is a high energy collision between solar
particles. It is moving through air.
What is the answer?
> How long will an elephant live if you don't let it move?
About 7 days.
> How long will it live if you let it move but there is no food around?
About 7 days.
> How long will it live if you place it in a place where there is plenty of
> food?
About 50 years.
> Your Muon is not a perfect clock just as an elephant is not.
Who said anything about it being a perfect clock. I was asking a question
about basic mathematics.
> Why would it not change lifetime rate with difffert conditions?
Well, lifetime is an interesting word. I used it as an example of how much
time elapsed between creation and destruction for the muon, you are using it
in the context the muon needs to eat, drink, breathe etc.
Can you answer the question?
Puppet_Sock
> Why should the laws of physics not be the same for all inertial
> claimed there were different laws of physics applying to the same
Please don't cross post between sci.physics and s.p.relativity.
The group s.p.relativity was created, partly, specifically to keep
such discussion out of sci.physics.
The laws of physics are clearly not the same for
non-inertial observers. For example, a rotating observer
who insists that his frame of reference is just as good as
others will observe this extra force that tends to make things
behave rather strangely in his frame of reference. Indeed,
part of what we do to determine whether a frame of reference
is inertial is to look for such extra forces.
There is no mathematical law that says two different
inertial observers have to observe the same thing. There
*could* have been frame dependence. For example, if
there were some effect due to "the universe at large" that
picked out some frame of reference as special, then that
might have been a privilidged coordinate system. People
still hunt for such effects in various solar system and
cosmological data. So far, no "New York Times" moments.
But people do still play with physics theories that have
special frames of reference.
Consider, for example, a gravity theory that had a velocity
term. If you looked at the matter of the universe at large,
say on a scale of billions of light years, you might be
able to construct a theory that worked fairly well except
that it picked out the frame with zero as the total linear
momentum of all the matter in the universe. (Supposing
that that total actually makes sense, which isn't obvious.)
Such a frame might have particular meaning in such a
gravity theory, and so there might be meaning to using
it as a special frame. Laws of physics in other frames
might have this extra velocity term, just as rotating frames
have a centripetal force term.
So, no, the postulate is not meaningless. It forms the basis
of a category of theories. And holding it to be false forms the
basis for another category of theories. So far, there is only
data on the side of it being valid.
Socks
Spaceman
>
> "Spaceman" <Real...@comcast.not> wrote in message
> news:PIWdnYvMy7oGIrzZ...@comcast.com...
>>
>> "T Wake" <tasw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:tISdnTMdqICcJbzZ...@pipex.net...
>>> How can you, over the internet, impart the dimensions of this meter to
>>> me?
>>
>> A certain amount of atoms of a certain material in certain conditions.
>> (all conditions must be the same)
>> Just as the standard for non variable measurement unit of weight
>> has been created.
>
> What unit of weight are you talking about? The SI unit of mass is similar
> to what you describe - however neither address the fact you are demanding
> this be used to measure distance.
Apparently you don't know that weight standards are equal
to mass standards?
Or do you think 1 lb of meat is less meat when it is on the moon?
> Using a "certain amount of atoms of a certain material in certain
> conditions" still leads to a varying system in as much as the current
> meter does.
>
> Also this only provides a method to measure lengths in your certain
> conditions. As soon as they change, the ruler changes.
That is where the rest of physics comes in to know when there
is a problem with the measurement and remove the "rubber"
problems to keep a standard as a non variable standard.
> Your ruler is not just rubber but vapour.
No,
It is a standard that is non variable and when any variations
do occur from physical problems, they can be removed
to realize how much the standard was changed because of
a physical problem as the cause.
Your "rubber: meter does nto allow this adjustement
and it is allowed to be a variable without the cause
of the variable changes being accounted for.
(the only way you can make a speed constant to all)
>> The same way we know physical forces have changed a unit of "wieght".
>> by actually "caring about physics".
>
> Well, we use the laws of physics to determine the change to length of the
> meter, only you wish to pick and choose which bits of the physics you want
> to use.
The finding out what the changes are do not accept the change
as a change to the standard like your rubber meter is doing.
>> Unlike you are doing for a meter that is variable.
>
> Far from the case.
Nope.
You are using length contraction and saying the meter itself
changed.
You are losing the standard when you do such.
You are allowing for a rubber ruler to still be a correct
measurement even though it is not anymore.
simple as that.
>> Variable units will allow all sorts of bullshit to be true.
>
> What is your absolute frame of reference which you use to determine what
> is variable and what isnt?
I told you,
You would need a standard enviroment like any other
standard is set with.
I see you don't want such for the meter because then
the lightspeed would not be constant.
LOL
>> You don't get the "time travel" bullshit huh?
>
> No I dont.
When a person leaves Earth and the clock they have does not match
Earth's clock, it means one is wrong.
Being that the Earth clock is what we use to time the rest of the universe,
you should admit your "space-going clock" is the malfunctioning one.
No matter what your "space" clock states, the Earth clocks states
how long you were away from Earth when you return.
Did you even grasp my Captain Gissse story at all?
Wow!
LOL
>> How can you falsify a rubber unit standard ?
>
> Well, if it works what is your problem with it?
My problem is that is lost standards for both the meter
and a second.
> Lots of people use paper based tape measures when they measure their
> houses etc for furniture. These all have a certain amount of elasticity,
> so pulling them will stretch them by a significant amount. That means when
> they measure their carpet as 12' 6" it may actually be 12' 61/4". They
> don't mind because it is within the required accuracy.
And you don't mind when you have a "rubber meter" that stretches
just enough to keep lightspeed as constant to all.
I can see you don't care about standards.
That is a bad scientific point of view.
You have accepted two variable standards to allow a non
constant to be a constant.
LOL
>> Funny, that is what I am arguing.
>> The only way lightspeed can be constant is with a rubber meter
>> that changes "as needed" for proof.
>
> Why do you have a problem with this?
Because it is completely stupid.
Allowing two standards to vary just so one can be
constant even if it is not, is the saddest science of measurement
ever used in the history of humans so far.
> You have no concept of what thinking entails.
Fuch off Wake.
I can see you don't want to think at all.
Nevermind
Stay clueless forever for all I care.
You can join Captain Gisse and run out of fuel
because you use the wrong clock!
LOL
T Wake
"Spaceman" <Real...@comcast.not> wrote in message
>
> "T Wake" <tasw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:wuidndNsQ9MpWbzZ...@pipex.net...
>>
>> "Spaceman" <Real...@comcast.not> wrote in message
>> news:PIWdnYvMy7oGIrzZ...@comcast.com...
>>>
>>> "T Wake" <tasw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:tISdnTMdqICcJbzZ...@pipex.net...
>>>> How can you, over the internet, impart the dimensions of this meter to
>>>> me?
>>>
>>> A certain amount of atoms of a certain material in certain conditions.
>>> (all conditions must be the same)
>>> Just as the standard for non variable measurement unit of weight
>>> has been created.
>>
>> What unit of weight are you talking about? The SI unit of mass is similar
>> to what you describe - however neither address the fact you are demanding
>> this be used to measure distance.
>
> Apparently you don't know that weight standards are equal
> to mass standards?
Nope, I didnt know that. Where did you get that gem from?
> Or do you think 1 lb of meat is less meat when it is on the moon?
Interesting comparison. Can you point me to where the pound is a mass or
weight standard please?
You are comparing the mass of meat that weighs 1lb on the surface of the
Earth with what it would consist of on the moon.
The mass would remain the same, yet I defy you to measure its weight as 1lb.
Then we come into the wonderful world of breaking down the units. Try doing
some mathematics on the 1lb and see what sort of odd numbers you run into.
For example, take a 10lb block of explosive and determine how what the
maximum energy release is possible from it.
What units do you end up with?
>> Using a "certain amount of atoms of a certain material in certain
>> conditions" still leads to a varying system in as much as the current
>> meter does.
>>
>> Also this only provides a method to measure lengths in your certain
>> conditions. As soon as they change, the ruler changes.
>
> That is where the rest of physics comes in to know when there
> is a problem with the measurement and remove the "rubber"
> problems to keep a standard as a non variable standard.
So you are happy with the "rubber" effect of your (ahem) theory and not
happy with it in others? You are happy to apply transforms to your own ideas
but not others.
Very consistent of you.
>> Your ruler is not just rubber but vapour.
>
> No,
> It is a standard that is non variable and when any variations
> do occur from physical problems, they can be removed
> to realize how much the standard was changed because of
> a physical problem as the cause.
It is a standard that is as non-variable as any of the current SI standards.
What physical law do you ascribe to which demands length remains constant in
all frames of reference?
For your "standard" to work it needs an absolute frame of reference against
which the descision to modify the local effects can be determined.
What have you done to determine this absoulte frame and measure against it?
> Your "rubber: meter does nto allow this adjustement
> and it is allowed to be a variable without the cause
> of the variable changes being accounted for.
> (the only way you can make a speed constant to all)
So you assume that because you dont want c to remain constant you want the
meter to be a constant? What makes this any more acceptable than a constant
c?
From first principles, can you explain why the length of an object should
remain constant to all observers and how this can be measured for a moving
object without stopping it?
>>> The same way we know physical forces have changed a unit of "wieght".
>>> by actually "caring about physics".
>>
>> Well, we use the laws of physics to determine the change to length of the
>> meter, only you wish to pick and choose which bits of the physics you
>> want to use.
>
> The finding out what the changes are do not accept the change
> as a change to the standard like your rubber meter is doing.
Eh? I dont follow this sentence. Sorry.
>>> Unlike you are doing for a meter that is variable.
>>
>> Far from the case.
>
> Nope.
> You are using length contraction and saying the meter itself
> changed.
Yet you are using a contraction to say the speed of light changed, which is
experimentally falsified.
For your relative measurement of the speed of light to be anything other
than c, you need to have an absolute frame of reference. Where do you find
this?
You (in previous posts) alluded to the fact the movement of the emitter
doesnt change the relative speed, yet the movement of the emitter produces a
relative speed difference in the observer - unless you have this absolute
frame of reference against which both speeds can be measured.
You have neither.
> You are losing the standard when you do such.
Why?
> You are allowing for a rubber ruler to still be a correct
> measurement even though it is not anymore.
> simple as that.
So you say. There is no evidential proof to support your claim therefore the
current theory stands.
>>> Variable units will allow all sorts of bullshit to be true.
>>
>> What is your absolute frame of reference which you use to determine what
>> is variable and what isnt?
>
> I told you,
> You would need a standard enviroment like any other
> standard is set with.
And an absolute frame of reference to set the standard against.
> I see you don't want such for the meter because then
> the lightspeed would not be constant.
You dont want a constant lightspeed because then your meter isnt constant.
> Did you even grasp my Captain Gissse story at all?
No, it was science fiction and bored me.
>
>>> How can you falsify a rubber unit standard ?
>>
>> Well, if it works what is your problem with it?
>
> My problem is that is lost standards for both the meter
> and a second.
No it isnt. the meter and second dont have to be constant to be a standard.
>> Lots of people use paper based tape measures when they measure their
>> houses etc for furniture. These all have a certain amount of elasticity,
>> so pulling them will stretch them by a significant amount. That means
>> when they measure their carpet as 12' 6" it may actually be 12' 61/4".
>> They don't mind because it is within the required accuracy.
>
> And you don't mind when you have a "rubber meter" that stretches
> just enough to keep lightspeed as constant to all.
Not at all.
> I can see you don't care about standards.
Far from the truth. For example I know that the SI unit for mass is the kg
and the closest thing to an SI unit for "weight" is the Newton. I also know
that Newtons are a derived unit.
> That is a bad scientific point of view.
You dont know enough to tell the difference between good and bad scienctific
points of view.
> You have accepted two variable standards to allow a non
> constant to be a constant.
Why do you have a problem with this? You are one of the few people who think
c is not a constant. Ever wonder why it is only you and the cranks on the
internet who think this?
>>> Funny, that is what I am arguing.
>>> The only way lightspeed can be constant is with a rubber meter
>>> that changes "as needed" for proof.
>>
>> Why do you have a problem with this?
>
> Because it is completely stupid.
Why?
> Allowing two standards to vary just so one can be
> constant even if it is not, is the saddest science of measurement
> ever used in the history of humans so far.
A standard can vary. There is nothing which says a standard has to be
constant. Look up the others.
>> You have no concept of what thinking entails.
>
> Fuch off Wake.
> I can see you don't want to think at all.
> Nevermind
> Stay clueless forever for all I care.
> You can join Captain Gisse and run out of fuel
> because you use the wrong clock!
Tell me more about the muon Spaceman. I am sorry to spoil your fantasy space
ship thing.
How far will the muon travel between creation and disintegration?
For ease of mathematics assume it is travelling from the edge of the Earths
atmosphere towards the surface. It has been created by a collision of solar
particles approximately 10 Km from the surface of the Earth. It is
travelling, for this thought experiment, at c. It will last 2.2x10^-6
seconds before it decays.
How far will it travel before it decays?
Henry Haapalainen
"Peri of Pera" <rie...@yahoo.co.uk> kirjoitti viestissä
news:1142992015....@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Why should the laws of physics not be the same for all inertial
> observers, indeed for 'all observers', inertial or not? Who has ever
> claimed there were different laws of physics applying to the same
> phenomenen? Is this postulate not ridiculous and meaningless?
>
The laws are the same when the theories are correct.
Henry Haapalainen
Henry Haapalainen
"Spaceman" <Real...@comcast.not> kirjoitti viestissä
news:2cGdnTGT2cI4Mr3Z...@comcast.com...
> > Why should the laws of physics not be the same for all inertial
> > observers, indeed for 'all observers', inertial or not? Who has ever
> > claimed there were different laws of physics applying to the same
> > phenomenen? Is this postulate not ridiculous and meaningless?
>
> that is why lightspeed should not be able to avoid relative motion
> and should not be considered a constant speed to all observers.
Children would understand that easily. It is a problem for some adults.
Henry Haapalainen
T Wake
"Henry Haapalainen" <kir...@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message
news:dvsj66$qn1$1...@phys-news4.kolumbus.fi...
Interesting analogy.
Children mostly believe in Father Christmas. As they grow older they realise
that he does not exist.
Children mostly believe in the tooth fairy. As they grow older they realise
that it does not exist.
Children probably do think the speed of light is a varying quantity.
Hopefully, as they grow older they realise this is not the case.
Sadly, some children never grow up and, even as adults, are stuck in their
childlike thought state. They struggle to grasp concepts that are not
completely intuitive and anything which requires abstract thought.
This is a pity, but such is life.
Bill Hobba
>
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>> Peri of Pera wrote:
>> > Why should the laws of physics not be the same for all inertial
>> > observers,
>>
>> In 1905, it was generally thought that there was an aether, and the laws
>> of electrodynamics were different in its rest frame from any other
>> frame. Whereas the laws of mechanics were indeed the same in any
>> inertial frame.
>>
>>
>> > indeed for 'all observers', inertial or not?
>>
>> It took a while to understand the implications of non-inertial
>> observers, and general curvilinear coordinates. GR is the result, and
>> indeed the laws of physics are the same for all observers, inertial or
>> not. But they are rather more complicated laws than those of SR....
>
>
> Please, state what laws of physics GR proposes.
No prior geometry, gravity is space-time curvature, the metric is a
dynamical variable etc.
> In particular, state
> the GR law of physics that detrmines the motion of a rigid body in the
> presence of an impressed force.
The PLA which is also true in GR.
Bill
Spaceman
> The mass would remain the same, yet I defy you to measure its weight as
> 1lb.
This statement alone shows you have no clue about standards of today.
I will end this by laughing at you because you just proved you do not
know what the standards say about weight.
LOL
Spaceman
"Henry Haapalainen" <kir...@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message
news:dvsj66$qn1$1...@phys-news4.kolumbus.fi...
>
Seems to be a massive problem for a few too many adults.
If they would only allow themselves to "think" again like
they may have a while ago.
:)
:)
Mike
Bill Hobba wrote:
> "Mike" <ele...@yahoo.gr> wrote in message
> news:1143052411.4...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Tom Roberts wrote:
> >> Peri of Pera wrote:
> >> > Why should the laws of physics not be the same for all inertial
> >> > observers,
> >>
> >> In 1905, it was generally thought that there was an aether, and the laws
> >> of electrodynamics were different in its rest frame from any other
> >> frame. Whereas the laws of mechanics were indeed the same in any
> >> inertial frame.
> >>
> >>
> >> > indeed for 'all observers', inertial or not?
> >>
> >> It took a while to understand the implications of non-inertial
> >> observers, and general curvilinear coordinates. GR is the result, and
> >> indeed the laws of physics are the same for all observers, inertial or
> >> not. But they are rather more complicated laws than those of SR....
> >
> >
> > Please, state what laws of physics GR proposes.
>
> No prior geometry, gravity is space-time curvature, the metric is a
> dynamical variable etc.
Learn the difference between laws of physics and definitions or
postulates. it seems you do not know the essence of basic things.
>
> > In particular, state
> > the GR law of physics that detrmines the motion of a rigid body in the
> > presence of an impressed force.
>
> The PLA which is also true in GR.
The PLA was known much before GR, I think at least 100 years. It may be
true in GR but it is not GR. I guess you got no GR laws of motion to
state for the case I gave.
I give one cent to anyone who will state something other than Newton's
law.
Mike
Bill Hobba
>
> Bill Hobba wrote:
>> "Mike" <ele...@yahoo.gr> wrote in message
>> news:1143052411.4...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > Tom Roberts wrote:
>> >> Peri of Pera wrote:
>> >> > Why should the laws of physics not be the same for all inertial
>> >> > observers,
>> >>
>> >> In 1905, it was generally thought that there was an aether, and the
>> >> laws
>> >> of electrodynamics were different in its rest frame from any other
>> >> frame. Whereas the laws of mechanics were indeed the same in any
>> >> inertial frame.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > indeed for 'all observers', inertial or not?
>> >>
>> >> It took a while to understand the implications of non-inertial
>> >> observers, and general curvilinear coordinates. GR is the result, and
>> >> indeed the laws of physics are the same for all observers, inertial or
>> >> not. But they are rather more complicated laws than those of SR....
>> >
>> >
>> > Please, state what laws of physics GR proposes.
>>
>> No prior geometry, gravity is space-time curvature, the metric is a
>> dynamical variable etc.
>
> Learn the difference between laws of physics and definitions or
> postulates. it seems you do not know the essence of basic things.
All of what I said above is a law.
>
>
>>
>> > In particular, state
>> > the GR law of physics that detrmines the motion of a rigid body in the
>> > presence of an impressed force.
>>
>> The PLA which is also true in GR.
>
> The PLA was known much before GR, I think at least 100 years. It may be
> true in GR but it is not GR. I guess you got no GR laws of motion to
> state for the case I gave.
Nor does EM change the concept of force either.
Bill
Peri of Pera
Socks,
1. laws of physics is beyond just relativity.
2. the point I am trying to make is:
Nature knows and uses only one way to express herself. How we
understand and describe her immutable laws is subjectiv, incomplete,
arbitrary and often false. Especially SR and the host of other bizarre
theories.
Peter Riedt
T Wake
"Spaceman" <Real...@comcast.not> wrote in message
Ok, genius. What do standards say about weight? A citation link would be
nice.
As it stands, in the absence of an answer to this I will assume you simply
don't understand the terms you are trying to use and have gotten confused.
I await your response.
(and the answer to the muon question)
T Wake
"Spaceman" <Real...@comcast.not> wrote in message
>
>
> Seems to be a massive problem for a few too many adults.
> If they would only allow themselves to "think" again like
> they may have a while ago.
I notice you seem to be having trouble getting an answer to the muon
distance question.
Can I refer you to your preference for basic mathematics and the apparent
law of physics which ascribes distance = speed*time.
The muon will exist for 2.2x10^-6 seconds after its creation and is moving
at 3x10^8ms^-1.
How far will it go?
Mike
You seem not to understand the difference between definitions,
postulates and laws. that explains where your crackpot ideas have their
source at. A complte, total confusion of what consitutes a valid
physical theory.
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >> > In particular, state
> >> > the GR law of physics that detrmines the motion of a rigid body in the
> >> > presence of an impressed force.
> >>
> >> The PLA which is also true in GR.
> >
> > The PLA was known much before GR, I think at least 100 years. It may be
> > true in GR but it is not GR. I guess you got no GR laws of motion to
> > state for the case I gave.
>
> Nor does EM change the concept of force either.
>
You got no GR laws of motion to state. All there is is Newton's Laws.
The PLA, as you call it wrong bacause modern physics calls it the
Action Principle and it seems you are an old-timer, is not considered
by anyone serious in the filed a law of motion. True, laws can be
derived from that but that does not make it a law irself.
GR is a model of gravitational effects but offeres no complete
descriptions of phenomena and as such it cannot replace NM. This is the
simple reason NM is taught in all levels of education and GR is fading
away due to its conficting predictions with QM.
Mike
Spaceman
> I notice you seem to be having trouble getting an answer to the muon
> distance question.
>
> Can I refer you to your preference for basic mathematics and the apparent
> law of physics which ascribes distance = speed*time.
>
> The muon will exist for 2.2x10^-6 seconds after its creation and is moving
> at 3x10^8ms^-1.
Where are you finding this crap from?
The time you are using is for when the Muon is trapped and timed
It is nto the lifetime for the moving muon.
You should re-read your Muon stuff.
Spaceman
> Ok, genius. What do standards say about weight? A citation link would be
> nice.
Somewhere in all this junk.
http://ts.nist.gov/ts/htdocs/230/235/h44-06.htm
I am very surprised to find out you don't know about
how products that are sold have to be measured with a standard
so the people don't get ripped off for the amoun of product they
would get.
Then again, maybe you would like such since you seem to
like the rubber ruler and variable second also.
LOL
PD
Spaceman thinks that giving a muon some kinetic energy extends its life
somehow, though he's not quite sure how that happens.
Moreover, it doesn't occur to him that two different observers will see
the muon as having two different kinetic energies and measure two
different lifetimes for the *same* muon. It would be a neat trick for
kinetic energy to extend the life of the same muon differently for two
different observers. But spaceman is convinced this is how it does it,
anyway.
PD
Spaceman
"PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143131950.3...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Again, as usual, you twist completely away from what was stated.
Where did I say that is was the KE of the motion that is keeping it
alive longer?
Hmm,
we roll a ball on earth and it rolls at 10 mph wrt earth.
The KE is relative, yet the life of the ball remains the same.
why are you saying it is the KE that is keeping the ball "alive"
longer or shorter?
KE is relative and of course so is speed,
but when it comes to the life of an object.
the relatives are null and void according to the rolling ball.
HA HA!
PD
Spaceman
But the point is I am not talking about the relative KE,
I am talking about the physical KE in the situation given.
Why did you ignore all that is below?
You can't figure how a relative KE is making the
ball only move so far no matter the other observers KE
measurements?
The ball rolls at 10 mph on earth.
The KE of the ball is relative and of course the speed is
also.
Why would the ball only roll so far (life)
and why would the ball have longer life with more speed
but such longer life would increase according to the speed
wrt the earth and not give a crap about other observers speeds
wrt it it.
Seems you can't grasp that KE being relative has nothing to
do with a Muon's speed and life time, just as KE being
relative has nothing to do with a ball rolling on the gounds
lifetime.
Sheesh
You are truly very ignorant.
LOL
PD
Did I say anything about physical KE or relative KE? What's the
difference, by the way? And before you say that physical KE is the KE
given to the object while it's on earth, keep in mind that cosmic ray
muons didn't get their KE while on earth.
> Why did you ignore all that is below?
> You can't figure how a relative KE is making the
> ball only move so far no matter the other observers KE
> measurements?
So answer T Wake's question, since you can do it for a ball. Here, I'll
repeat it for you:
The muon will exist for 2.2x10^-6 seconds after its creation and is
moving at 3x10^8ms^-1.
How far will it go?
>
Spaceman
The physical KE it would be getting is from the medium it travels
through.
>> Why did you ignore all that is below?
>> You can't figure how a relative KE is making the
>> ball only move so far no matter the other observers KE
>> measurements?
>
> So answer T Wake's question, since you can do it for a ball. Here, I'll
> repeat it for you:
> The muon will exist for 2.2x10^-6 seconds after its creation and is
> moving at 3x10^8ms^-1.
>
> How far will it go?
The muon lives longer when it is in motion.
why are you giving that incorrct lifetime for the motion
version.
You completely ignore the rolling ball analogy don't you.
I know why also..
Answer why the relative KE of the ball does not matter
to to the balls lifetime and only the physical KE does?
You are afraid of such an analogy huh?
PD
Really? How does that work?
>
> >> Why did you ignore all that is below?
> >> You can't figure how a relative KE is making the
> >> ball only move so far no matter the other observers KE
> >> measurements?
> >
> > So answer T Wake's question, since you can do it for a ball. Here, I'll
> > repeat it for you:
> > The muon will exist for 2.2x10^-6 seconds after its creation and is
> > moving at 3x10^8ms^-1.
> >
> > How far will it go?
>
> The muon lives longer when it is in motion.
> why are you giving that incorrct lifetime for the motion
> version.
> You completely ignore the rolling ball analogy don't you.
Not at all. Note that in the rolling ball analogy you said the ball
does NOT live longer.
Are you saying the *meters* it goes is its lifetime and not the
*seconds* it does it in?
> I know why also..
> Answer why the relative KE of the ball does not matter
> to to the balls lifetime and only the physical KE does?
The ball's lifetime is affected by the physical KE?
Spaceman
The same way the ball lives only one amount longer and ignores the
multiple relative KE's and only follows the local KE it is truly
experiencing.
>> The muon lives longer when it is in motion.
>> why are you giving that incorrct lifetime for the motion
>> version.
>> You completely ignore the rolling ball analogy don't you.
>
> Not at all. Note that in the rolling ball analogy you said the ball
> does NOT live longer.
I did not say that.
What the frig is wrong with you.
You are now showing to be a pathalogical lying sack
of shit PD.
> The ball's lifetime is affected by the physical KE?
Yes,
It "lives" longer the faster it rolls.
Why are you so reluctant to think of such at all?
Dirk Van de moortel
"Spaceman" <Real...@comcast.not> wrote in message news:lvidnWMMs9E...@comcast.com...
>
> "PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1143135691....@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Spaceman wrote:
> >> "PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1143134313.1...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >> >
> >> > Spaceman wrote:
<unsnip from
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/32c72133b08f532d >
| "Hmm,
| we roll a ball on earth and it rolls at 10 mph wrt earth.
| The KE is relative, yet the life of the ball remains the same."
| why are you saying it is the KE that is keeping the ball "alive"
| longer or shorter?
| KE is relative and of course so is speed,
| but when it comes to the life of an object.
| the relatives are null and void according to the rolling ball.
| HA HA!
</unsnip>
> >> You completely ignore the rolling ball analogy don't you.
> >
> > Not at all. Note that in the rolling ball analogy you said the ball
> > does NOT live longer.
>
> I did not say that.
> What the frig is wrong with you.
> You are now showing to be a pathalogical lying sack
> of shit PD.
>
>
> > The ball's lifetime is affected by the physical KE?
>
> Yes,
> It "lives" longer the faster it rolls.
> Why are you so reluctant to think of such at all?
Seems like we have "pathalogically" *dumb* sack of something
here:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/LyingSack.html
:-)
Dirk Vdm
Spaceman
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:yABUf.333068$QL2.10...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
Nice work Dirk,
Taking things out of context and creating your little world of
fumbles as usual.
If you read the actual entire thread,
I had stated the relative KE does not change the life.
the physical KE does.
Of course, that would be too hard for the fumble master
to grasp either.
LOL
Dirk Van de moortel
"Spaceman" <Real...@comcast.not> wrote in message news:0bednYpKQcB...@comcast.com...
>
> "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
> in message news:yABUf.333068$QL2.10...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
[snip]
> > Seems like we have "pathalogically" *dumb* sack of something
> > here:
> > http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/LyingSack.html
> > :-)
>
> Nice work Dirk,
Thanks!
Dirk Vdm
T Wake
"Spaceman" <Real...@comcast.not> wrote in message
>
> "T Wake" <tasw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:77GdnVQoj8P...@pipex.net...
>> Ok, genius. What do standards say about weight? A citation link would be
>> nice.
>
>
> Somewhere in all this junk.
> http://ts.nist.gov/ts/htdocs/230/235/h44-06.htm
> I am very surprised to find out you don't know about
> how products that are sold have to be measured with a standard
> so the people don't get ripped off for the amoun of product they
> would get.
Interesting link - what has this got to do with physics? Your "standards"
here dont even apply in my country let alone on a universal scale.
I have looked through that, and at which point does it say the weight of an
object has to be the same on the moon as it is at sea level on Earth.
Sadly, this is a close as you get to actual science.
> Then again, maybe you would like such since you seem to
> like the rubber ruler and variable second also.
If this is your best defence for the consistency of a standard then you've
lost.
T Wake
"Spaceman" <Real...@comcast.not> wrote in message
>
> "T Wake" <tasw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7OadnaMmHv2KA7_Z...@pipex.net...
>> I notice you seem to be having trouble getting an answer to the muon
>> distance question.
>>
>> Can I refer you to your preference for basic mathematics and the apparent
>> law of physics which ascribes distance = speed*time.
>>
>> The muon will exist for 2.2x10^-6 seconds after its creation and is
>> moving at 3x10^8ms^-1.
>
> Where are you finding this crap from?
I like the way you express your understanding of particle physics. (Sorry, I
should have said "lack of")
> The time you are using is for when the Muon is trapped and timed
> It is nto the lifetime for the moving muon.
What you are saying here is you cant work out the answer, isnt it.
> You should re-read your Muon stuff.
You have no idea what you are talking about do you?
T Wake
"Spaceman" <Real...@comcast.not> wrote in message
>
> Hmm,
> we roll a ball on earth and it rolls at 10 mph wrt earth.
> The KE is relative, yet the life of the ball remains the same.
> why are you saying it is the KE that is keeping the ball "alive"
> longer or shorter?
> KE is relative and of course so is speed,
> but when it comes to the life of an object.
> the relatives are null and void according to the rolling ball.
What has this got to do with your pathetic evasive techniques.
How far will the muon travel before it decays.
The muon is created by a high energy event at the Earth's atmosphere. How
far will it travel before it decays when it will live for 2.2x10^-6 seconds
and is moving at 3x10^8m s^-1?
If you cant answer admit it.
Is basic mathematics not helping you out here?
T Wake
"Spaceman" <Real...@comcast.not> wrote in message
>
> The ball rolls at 10 mph on earth.
> The KE of the ball is relative and of course the speed is
> also.
> Why would the ball only roll so far (life)
> and why would the ball have longer life with more speed
> but such longer life would increase according to the speed
> wrt the earth and not give a crap about other observers speeds
> wrt it it.
> Seems you can't grasp that KE being relative has nothing to
> do with a Muon's speed and life time, just as KE being
> relative has nothing to do with a ball rolling on the gounds
> lifetime.
Does the ball decay at the end of the roll? No.
Irrelevant analogy.
Spaceman
> Interesting link - what has this got to do with physics? Your "standards"
> here dont even apply in my country let alone on a universal scale.
Oh,
So your country is not using any standard for a kilogram or pound etc?
Do you actually believe such bullshit?
> I have looked through that, and at which point does it say the weight of
> an object has to be the same on the moon as it is at sea level on Earth.
Weight is equal to mass in the trade industry of the entire world.
It is pretty funny you do not know such.
LOL
T Wake
"Spaceman" <Real...@comcast.not> wrote in message
We can ask the same question assuming the muon is travelling through a
vacuum if you wish. I used the Earth to keep things in a manner you may find
comfortable.
> The muon lives longer when it is in motion.
How long and how do you determine that?
> why are you giving that incorrct lifetime for the motion
> version.
The lifetime is not inccorect.
> You completely ignore the rolling ball analogy don't you.
Because it is not a proper analogy.
> I know why also..
> Answer why the relative KE of the ball does not matter
> to to the balls lifetime and only the physical KE does?
The ball continues to exist when it has stopped rolling. The time span we
have for the muon is the time between its creation and disintergration, not
the time it is moving.
Spaceman
>
> "Spaceman" <Real...@comcast.not> wrote in message
> news:7rGdnVChmOS...@comcast.com...
>>
>> Hmm,
>> we roll a ball on earth and it rolls at 10 mph wrt earth.
>> The KE is relative, yet the life of the ball remains the same.
>> why are you saying it is the KE that is keeping the ball "alive"
>> longer or shorter?
>> KE is relative and of course so is speed,
>> but when it comes to the life of an object.
>> the relatives are null and void according to the rolling ball.
>
> What has this got to do with your pathetic evasive techniques.
>
> How far will the muon travel before it decays.
It depends what keeps it "alive".
Why would you ignore such a fact at all?
> The muon is created by a high energy event at the Earth's atmosphere. How
> far will it travel before it decays when it will live for 2.2x10^-6
> seconds and is moving at 3x10^8m s^-1?
The muon's lifetime was not measured in the situation you
are giving.
You are giving incorrect data to begin with.
Why would I want to use such incorrect data at all?
> Is basic mathematics not helping you out here?
It always helps me here.
It is pretty sad you forgot how and when to use it.
:)
John C. Polasek
>Hi tadchem, You asked me:
>
> What is an ideal vacuum composed of ?
> How much inertia do the particles comprising the vaccum have ?
> How fast do they move ? How do they collide with each other ?
>
>Great questions... and you'd surely get the Nobel prize of you answered them.
>Today's best observations/theories can't do it, but who knows about tomorrow ?
See my permittivity paper on my website that tells how still-uncreated
pairs make up the vacuum. They don't move. You can create an electron
by taking it out, but there's no way to do it; an electric field takes
both = pair production.
John Polasek
http://www.dualspace.net
Spaceman
Yes, the "rolling energy" does decay and ends up dead in the end.
(The ball rolling had a "rotational energy" that was gone when it
stopped didn't it?)
The energy died.
You refuse to even attempt to think at all anymore huh?
T Wake
"Spaceman" <Real...@comcast.not> wrote in message
> "T Wake" <tasw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:L-udnQ38St2...@pipex.net...
>> Interesting link - what has this got to do with physics? Your "standards"
>> here dont even apply in my country let alone on a universal scale.
>
> Oh,
> So your country is not using any standard for a kilogram or pound etc?
> Do you actually believe such bullshit?
However the standards definied by NIST are not the standards that apply to
every country in the world. The standards you are refering to are for
commercial transactions.
>> I have looked through that, and at which point does it say the weight of
>> an object has to be the same on the moon as it is at sea level on Earth.
>
> Weight is equal to mass in the trade industry of the entire world.
> It is pretty funny you do not know such.
Because the trade industry makes a simplification does not make it correct.
If mass didn't change weight while retaining mass all manner of things would
go wrong. Weight is not a constant.
Spaceman
> We can ask the same question assuming the muon is travelling through a
> vacuum if you wish. I used the Earth to keep things in a manner you may
> find comfortable.
No, you can't because you have no clue about muons in vacuum.
So you are now lying about such to begin with.
>> The muon lives longer when it is in motion.
>
> How long and how do you determine that?
>
>> why are you giving that incorrct lifetime for the motion
>> version.
>
> The lifetime is not inccorect.
The situation you are giving with that lifetime is incrrect.
You know it does not only live that long at that speed
according to an Earth based observer don't you?
>> You completely ignore the rolling ball analogy don't you.
>
> Because it is not a proper analogy.
It is close enough.
I see how you like to ignore anything that can explain
your "time dilation effect" on a "lifetime" in a different way.
LOL
> The ball continues to exist when it has stopped rolling. The time span we
> have for the muon is the time between its creation and disintergration,
> not the time it is moving.
The balls energy dies and the energy will last longer
with the higher speed of the ball and will last even longer
with even higher speeds of the ball.
The analogy is acceptable to anyone with a brain.
I can see you don't want to use your brain.
That is a shame for you.
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>
>"Spaceman" <Real...@comcast.not> wrote in message
>> "T Wake" <tasw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:L-udnQ38St2...@pipex.net...
>>> Interesting link - what has this got to do with physics? Your "standards"
>>> here dont even apply in my country let alone on a universal scale.
>>
>> Oh,
>> So your country is not using any standard for a kilogram or pound etc?
>> Do you actually believe such bullshit?
>
>every country in the world. The standards you are refering to are for
>commercial transactions.
>
>>> an object has to be the same on the moon as it is at sea level on Earth.
>>
>> Weight is equal to mass in the trade industry of the entire world.
>> It is pretty funny you do not know such.
>
>If mass didn't change weight while retaining mass all manner of things would
>go wrong. Weight is not a constant.
>
"weight" means mass in commercial uses. This is not a simplification
or an approximation. This is the meaning of the word (in the context
mentioned above). In scientific usage it means something diffferent
to the extent it really means much.
Same word can mean different things in different contexts. The world
"vector", to a biologist, means something different than to a
mathematician.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
T Wake
"Spaceman" <Real...@comcast.not> wrote in message
>
>>
>> How far will the muon travel before it decays.
>
> It depends what keeps it "alive".
> Why would you ignore such a fact at all?
See, this is proof that you have not answered the question. You keep coming
up with evasive manoeuvres.
I can refine the question for you if it is too hard.
A high energy event takes place in a particle collider in which two
particles are smashed together and a muon results from the collision moving
at 0.996c.
Muons have a lifespan of 2.2x10^-6 seconds. This does not depend on the
speed they are moving at. (Saying otherwise is like saying a human on a
treadmill for his/her entire life will live to be 500 years old)
The energy going into the reaction to create the muon is the same as the
energy required to create a muon which is then held in a static field.
Once created the muon is going to move around a ring structure approximately
26 miles in diameter. it does not interact with anything during its travels.
The muon is travelling at (0.996*3x10^8)m s-1.
How far will it travel before it disintegrates.
>> The muon is created by a high energy event at the Earth's atmosphere. How
>> far will it travel before it decays when it will live for 2.2x10^-6
>> seconds and is moving at 3x10^8m s^-1?
>
> The muon's lifetime was not measured in the situation you
> are giving.
It is like saying your lifespan hasnt been measuring if you stand up and
talk gibberish.
> You are giving incorrect data to begin with.
Nope.
> Why would I want to use such incorrect data at all?
Well, if you could work it out you would.
Lets face it. You have no idea what you are talking about on a science
group.
You have seen this question and you smell a trap. However, your lack of
understanding means you don't know if there is a trap or, more worryingly to
you, you don't know how to get out of the trap you think you are in.
You have been babbling on for what seems like eternity about "basic algebra"
and how it can solve everything.
You have all the information you require to solve this question.
Solve the question.
>> Is basic mathematics not helping you out here?
>
> It always helps me here.
> It is pretty sad you forgot how and when to use it.
Solve the question then.
Spaceman
Really?
So, If I take a 1 pound mass and place it one side of a scale
and place a 1 pound "weight" on the other side it would not balance
if it were on the moon?
LOL
You are truly clueless Mr Wake.
LOL
T Wake
"Spaceman" <Real...@comcast.not> wrote in message
The ball was still there. The muon is gone.
Does your lifespan depend on how fast you are running?
T Wake
"Spaceman" <Real...@comcast.not> wrote in message
>
> "T Wake" <tasw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:U4Cdne4tToK...@pipex.net...
>> We can ask the same question assuming the muon is travelling through a
>> vacuum if you wish. I used the Earth to keep things in a manner you may
>> find comfortable.
>
> No, you can't because you have no clue about muons in vacuum.
> So you are now lying about such to begin with.
Not true.
>>> The muon lives longer when it is in motion.
>>
>> How long and how do you determine that?
>>
>>> why are you giving that incorrct lifetime for the motion
>>> version.
>>
>> The lifetime is not inccorect.
>
> The situation you are giving with that lifetime is incrrect.
> You know it does not only live that long at that speed
> according to an Earth based observer don't you?
You are trying to twist your way out of the question now (despite claiming
you answered it).
At the end of the day, the theory you want to disparage makes a prediction
for the answer to this question which accurately matches the experimental
and observational data.
Your desire for "basic algebra" has left you unable to answer a simple
distance=speed*time question.
>>> You completely ignore the rolling ball analogy don't you.
>>
>> Because it is not a proper analogy.
>
> It is close enough.
No it isnt.
> I see how you like to ignore anything that can explain
> your "time dilation effect" on a "lifetime" in a different way.
It bears no relation to the question. You have never tested the lifespan of
a ball travelling at 0.996c have you?
>> The ball continues to exist when it has stopped rolling. The time span we
>> have for the muon is the time between its creation and disintergration,
>> not the time it is moving.
>
> The balls energy dies and the energy will last longer
> with the higher speed of the ball and will last even longer
> with even higher speeds of the ball.
Total nonsense. You are talking crap here. The faster the ball moves the
shorter it will roll unless extra energy is added to the system (normally
this is from gravity).
> The analogy is acceptable to anyone with a brain.
You forgot the word "out" which should have been attached to the "with"
above.
> I can see you don't want to use your brain.
> That is a shame for you.
You cant answer the question can you?
T Wake
<mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:vgCUf.19$25....@news.uchicago.edu...
Yes. I stand corrected.
T Wake
"Spaceman" <Real...@comcast.not> wrote in message
Well, you really are clueless aren't you.
Spaceman
>
> "Spaceman" <Real...@comcast.not> wrote in message
> news:4vSdnbEoNuGZc7_Z...@comcast.com...
>>
>>>
>>> How far will the muon travel before it decays.
>>
>> It depends what keeps it "alive".
>> Why would you ignore such a fact at all?
>
> See, this is proof that you have not answered the question. You keep
> coming up with evasive manoeuvres.
No,
I keep telling you the question needs facts in it if I am going
to answer it at all.
> I can refine the question for you if it is too hard.
>
> A high energy event takes place in a particle collider in which two
> particles are smashed together and a muon results from the collision
> moving at 0.996c.
>
> Muons have a lifespan of 2.2x10^-6 seconds.
They do not have that lifetime at a speed of almost c.
You are still incorrect.
> This does not depend on the speed they are moving at.
Yes it does.
>(Saying otherwise is like saying a human on a treadmill for his/her entire
>life will live to be 500 years old)
No,
That is a completely ignorant statement.
> The energy going into the reaction to create the muon is the same as the
> energy required to create a muon which is then held in a static field.
>
> Once created the muon is going to move around a ring structure
> approximately 26 miles in diameter. it does not interact with anything
> during its travels.
ROFLOL
It does not interact with anything?
Are you that freakin dense?
It has to interact with the magnetic field holding it in it's path
around the circle.
Sheesh!
you are totally ignorant!
LOL
> The muon is travelling at (0.996*3x10^8)m s-1.
While traveling through a magnetic field that simply
can give it a spin that will keep it alove longer.
(funny. just like a ball rolling..)
LOL
> How far will it travel before it disintegrates.
It will last longer than the normal lifetime so
your question is still wrong to begin with.
LOL
> Lets face it. You have no idea what you are talking about on a science
> group.
Let's face it,
You think a magnetic field with a longer path on the outside
than the inside would not impart spin to a muon traveling along
such path and therefore would keep it "with charge" for a longer
period of time.
You are an ignorant moron at best.
Spaceman
The balls energy is gone.
Just like the energy of the muon.
> Does your lifespan depend on how fast you are running?
According to relativity, yes.
In reality, no.
Time is not relative to reality.
:)
Spaceman
> Your desire for "basic algebra" has left you unable to answer a simple
> distance=speed*time question.
You are not giving a simple distance = speed* time question.
You are asking about lifetime of a particle that is moving
and you are even giving the wrogn lifetime of the particle in
such a situation.
you are trying to say time dilated for the muon,
but other observers are just going to say, it lived longer
than the lifetime you have given it.
> It bears no relation to the question. You have never tested the lifespan
> of a ball travelling at 0.996c have you?
Why do I have to?
I am simply giving an energy "death" timing situation just like you are.
It is pretty sad you can not grasp such a good simple explanation.
LOL
>> The balls energy dies and the energy will last longer
>> with the higher speed of the ball and will last even longer
>> with even higher speeds of the ball.
>
> Total nonsense. You are talking crap here. The faster the ball moves the
> shorter it will roll unless extra energy is added to the system (normally
> this is from gravity).
Wow, you are totally off here now.
The faster the ball moves the longer it would roll.
you should really Wake up Mr Wake.
> You cant answer the question can you?
Why would I answer a question that is incorrect in it's assumption
to begin with?
According to outside observers, the muon will live longer than
you are saying when it is traveling at that speed.
You seem to not grasp that fact either.
LOL
T Wake
"Spaceman" <Real...@comcast.not> wrote in message
>
> "T Wake" <tasw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:YdWdncy6DJe...@pipex.net...
>>
>> "Spaceman" <Real...@comcast.not> wrote in message
>> news:4vSdnbEoNuGZc7_Z...@comcast.com...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> How far will the muon travel before it decays.
>>>
>>> It depends what keeps it "alive".
>>> Why would you ignore such a fact at all?
>>
>> See, this is proof that you have not answered the question. You keep
>> coming up with evasive manoeuvres.
>
> No,
> I keep telling you the question needs facts in it if I am going
> to answer it at all.
I have told you every fact required (and then some) for some one with a
passing knowledge of physics to be able to answer the question - and,
importantly, give the answer which matches the observed data.
I see you want to know more.
What else do you need to know.
>> I can refine the question for you if it is too hard.
>>
>> A high energy event takes place in a particle collider in which two
>> particles are smashed together and a muon results from the collision
>> moving at 0.996c.
>>
>> Muons have a lifespan of 2.2x10^-6 seconds.
>
> They do not have that lifetime at a speed of almost c.
> You are still incorrect.
Really? How long do they live at a speed of almost c?
>> This does not depend on the speed they are moving at.
>
> Yes it does.
Prove it.
>>(Saying otherwise is like saying a human on a treadmill for his/her entire
>>life will live to be 500 years old)
>
> No,
> That is a completely ignorant statement.
Why, it is identical. You say the faster the muon goes, the longer it lives.
I say that is crap and you have no theoretical basis for it, let alone any
experimental evidence.
>> The energy going into the reaction to create the muon is the same as the
>> energy required to create a muon which is then held in a static field.
>>
>> Once created the muon is going to move around a ring structure
>> approximately 26 miles in diameter. it does not interact with anything
>> during its travels.
>
> ROFLOL
> It does not interact with anything?
> Are you that freakin dense?
> It has to interact with the magnetic field holding it in it's path
> around the circle.
As you would have noticed in the bit you snipped, this was me rephrasing the
thought experiment for your needs.
I can see you really dont want to answer the question and will continue to
evade at all costs.
>
>> The muon is travelling at (0.996*3x10^8)m s-1.
>
> While traveling through a magnetic field that simply
> can give it a spin that will keep it alove longer.
Oddly this is not what the experimental data shows.
Would the life giving "spin" be the same in an large collider as, for
example, moving through the atmosphere?
How much of a "spin" would the magnetic field give it?
Cant you work out how far round the ring the muon will go?
It is strange that 15 year olds can normally answer this in a physics
lesson - with less data than you already have - and give the correct answer.
Isnt that amazing?
>> How far will it travel before it disintegrates.
>
> It will last longer than the normal lifetime so
> your question is still wrong to begin with.
Translation:
"I have no idea so I will keep coming up with objections as to why I cant
answer"
>> Lets face it. You have no idea what you are talking about on a science
>> group.
>
> Let's face it,
> You think a magnetic field with a longer path on the outside
> than the inside would not impart spin to a muon traveling along
> such path and therefore would keep it "with charge" for a longer
> period of time.
> You are an ignorant moron at best.
You still have no idea what you are talking about. You would be out of your
depth in a science conversation with 10 year olds.
T Wake
"Spaceman" <Real...@comcast.not> wrote in message
No. The ball still has energy - in its mass and it has gravitational energy.
The muon has changed into different particles which are long gone.
>> Does your lifespan depend on how fast you are running?
>
> According to relativity, yes.
Really? By how much?
> In reality, no.
> Time is not relative to reality.
So why cant you answer the question about the muon then?
Spaceman
Not at all,
You are the clueless one on this.
Thanks for the proof .
LOL
Spaceman
So, the parts of the muon no longer exist?
WRONG!
HA HA!
> The muon has changed into different particles which are long gone.
The particles the muon was made of are not long gone.
Where do you get that crap from?
T Wake
"Spaceman" <Real...@comcast.not> wrote in message
>
> "T Wake" <tasw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:v7adnbDO8q7zb7_Z...@pipex.net...
>> Your desire for "basic algebra" has left you unable to answer a simple
>> distance=speed*time question.
>
> You are not giving a simple distance = speed* time question.
> You are asking about lifetime of a particle that is moving
> and you are even giving the wrogn lifetime of the particle in
> such a situation.
You really are pathetic.
You are so inept at mathematics you cant begin to answer a question which is
answerable by high school students.
You claim your overhaul of relativity is better than the real theory which
you claim doesnt work in "reality," yet relativity makes a testable
prediction which matches the experimental data.
Well done crankman.
> you are trying to say time dilated for the muon,
I am not trying to say anything. I am trying to get you to answer a simple
question.
> but other observers are just going to say, it lived longer
> than the lifetime you have given it.
You really need to listen to yourself sometimes.
>> It bears no relation to the question. You have never tested the lifespan
>> of a ball travelling at 0.996c have you?
>
> Why do I have to?
> I am simply giving an energy "death" timing situation just like you are.
> It is pretty sad you can not grasp such a good simple explanation.
See, you complained that you thought I was using an example which hadnt been
tested, but now you say you dont have to test your example.
Typical spaceman crankness.
Your ball analogy is false.
>>> The balls energy dies and the energy will last longer
>>> with the higher speed of the ball and will last even longer
>>> with even higher speeds of the ball.
>>
>> Total nonsense. You are talking crap here. The faster the ball moves the
>> shorter it will roll unless extra energy is added to the system (normally
>> this is from gravity).
>
> Wow, you are totally off here now.
> The faster the ball moves the longer it would roll.
> you should really Wake up Mr Wake.
The faster the ball moves, the more energy it needs. Unless you have a
varying energy system.
If you drive your car faster, does it go further on a full tank?
>> You cant answer the question can you?
>
> Why would I answer a question that is incorrect in it's assumption
> to begin with?
Odd how everyone else can answer the question isnt it.
> According to outside observers, the muon will live longer than
> you are saying when it is traveling at that speed.
> You seem to not grasp that fact either.
What outside observers. Why will they say that? How do you tell who is
correct?
Will you ever (like you said you had) be able to answer the question?
T Wake
"Spaceman" <Real...@comcast.not> wrote in message
>
> Not at all,
> You are the clueless one on this.
> Thanks for the proof .
The funny thing is, and what keeps you entertaining, is that you truly are
too stupid to even see how wrong you are.
Amazing.
You are an example as to why inbreeding is wrong.
Spaceman
> I have told you every fact required (and then some) for some one with a
> passing knowledge of physics to be able to answer the question - and,
> importantly, give the answer which matches the observed data.
>
> I see you want to know more.
>
> What else do you need to know.
How long would you say the muon lasts for at that speed?
> Why, it is identical. You say the faster the muon goes, the longer it
> lives. I say that is crap and you have no theoretical basis for it, let
> alone any experimental evidence.
So you say the muon does not "last longer" when in motion close
to c and no "time dilation" is going to occur at all then?
>> While traveling through a magnetic field that simply
>> can give it a spin that will keep it alove longer.
>
> Oddly this is not what the experimental data shows.
So you are now saying no time dilation occurs?
> Would the life giving "spin" be the same in an large collider as, for
> example, moving through the atmosphere?
>
> How much of a "spin" would the magnetic field give it?
>
> Cant you work out how far round the ring the muon will go?
Why should I bother.
using math is and predicting is boring mathematics,
finding out what actually is happening is physics.
You truly think the magnetic field does not affect the muon at all?
ROFLOL
> You still have no idea what you are talking about. You would be out of
> your depth in a science conversation with 10 year olds.
You truly are ignorant to the first degree.
You think on your own as well as a brick wall would.
LOL
T Wake
"Spaceman" <Real...@comcast.not> wrote in message
The ball is still there and it is still a discrete object. 1 ball still
exists.
The muon is now new particles and saying "parts" of it still exist is simply
the same as saying parts of everything still exist, rendering the sentence
meaningless.
Although you wont understand that.
>> The muon has changed into different particles which are long gone.
>
> The particles the muon was made of are not long gone.
> Where do you get that crap from?
They have accelerated away from the decay point at high speed. Where do you
think they will be?
Spaceman
> You really are pathetic.
So filter me out and ignore me.
It is sad you don't grasp the ball analogy.
I guess I can not expect to much from a brick wall
with the name of T Wake.
:(
T Wake
"Spaceman" <Real...@comcast.not> wrote in message
>
> "T Wake" <tasw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:LYCdnaNqDqi5Zb_Z...@pipex.net...
>> You really are pathetic.
>
> So filter me out and ignore me.
You cant answer the question can you?
How far will a muon travel at 0.998c?
It should be easy for a basic mathematics wizard like yourself. I mean, its
not as if all the school kids doing it struggle.
Spaceman
> The ball is still there and it is still a discrete object. 1 ball still
> exists.
But it's "rolling life" is dead and gone.
You can think this is not a good analogy all you want T Wake.
It only proves how close minded you are.
T Wake
"Spaceman" <Real...@comcast.not> wrote in message
>
> "T Wake" <tasw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3eqdnT4C7dPoa7_Z...@pipex.net...
>> I have told you every fact required (and then some) for some one with a
>> passing knowledge of physics to be able to answer the question - and,
>> importantly, give the answer which matches the observed data.
>>
>> I see you want to know more.
>>
>> What else do you need to know.
>
> How long would you say the muon lasts for at that speed?
2.2x10^-6 seconds.
>> Why, it is identical. You say the faster the muon goes, the longer it
>> lives. I say that is crap and you have no theoretical basis for it, let
>> alone any experimental evidence.
>
> So you say the muon does not "last longer" when in motion close
> to c and no "time dilation" is going to occur at all then?
I have no idea.
I know that the measured life span for a muon in motion is observed to be
2.2x10^-6 seconds.
>>> While traveling through a magnetic field that simply
>>> can give it a spin that will keep it alove longer.
>>
>> Oddly this is not what the experimental data shows.
>
> So you are now saying no time dilation occurs?
I never said anything about time dilation.
We can debate why the answer is the answer when we know the answer.
>> Would the life giving "spin" be the same in an large collider as, for
>> example, moving through the atmosphere?
>>
>> How much of a "spin" would the magnetic field give it?
>>
>> Cant you work out how far round the ring the muon will go?
>
> Why should I bother.
> using math is and predicting is boring mathematics,
> finding out what actually is happening is physics.
Really? This is why you know nothing about science.
> You truly think the magnetic field does not affect the muon at all?
You have no idea how much it does or doesnt affect the muon. What is the
difference between the magnetic field in the collider and the the
atmosphere?
>> You still have no idea what you are talking about. You would be out of
>> your depth in a science conversation with 10 year olds.
>
> You truly are ignorant to the first degree.
> You think on your own as well as a brick wall would.
Well said, brains. What is the answer to the question?
Spaceman
> How far will a muon travel at 0.998c?
It depends on what keeps it "alive" and how long
it travels at that speed.
If you can't accept that answer.
You have big problems with reality.
T Wake
"Spaceman" <Real...@comcast.not> wrote in message
>
> "T Wake" <tasw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4fqdncGPEox...@pipex.net...
>> The ball is still there and it is still a discrete object. 1 ball still
>> exists.
>
> But it's "rolling life" is dead and gone.
So what? This is why the analogy doesnt work.
> You can think this is not a good analogy all you want T Wake.
It doesnt.
> It only proves how close minded you are.
>
The bit you missed out read:
"The muon is now new particles and saying "parts" of it still exist is
simply
the same as saying parts of everything still exist, rendering the sentence
meaningless.
Although you wont understand that."
And I see I was correct. You didn't understand it.
The important bit you missed was
"They have accelerated away from the decay point at high speed. Where do you
think they will be? "
What was your answer?
QCD Apprentice
> "T Wake" <tasw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:LYCdnaNqDqi5Zb_Z...@pipex.net...
>
>>You really are pathetic.
>
>
> So filter me out and ignore me.
You like arguing like this, don't you?
T Wake
"Spaceman" <Real...@comcast.not> wrote in message
(despite "big problems with reality" I can provide an answer that is
consistent with the experimental data based on that one line alone. You, I
notice, cant.)
It appears your understanding of the universe is seriously limited.
T Wake
"QCD Apprentice" <qcd.app...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dvutfv$cf2$1...@news.doit.wisc.edu...
It appeals to the obsessive compulsive in him :-)
Spaceman
No, not really,
I like to try and enlighten people and make them
think, but it sure does seem like Mr Wake does
not want to ever do such so I might as well filter him
it seems
Sorry to those that actually do think.
T Wake
"Spaceman" <Real...@comcast.not> wrote in message
>
> No, not really,
> I like to try and enlighten people and make them
> think, but it sure does seem like Mr Wake does
> not want to ever do such so I might as well filter him
> it seems
> Sorry to those that actually do think.
>
This is your slang for saying you cant answer the question and cant explain
why you cant.
Well done.