My Favorite Post: Can the muon Move Heaven and Earth?
kenseto
point of view the earth is rushing toward it to meet it. Since there are
zillions of muons all around the upper atmosphere, the earth then must be
rushing to meet all these muons at different directions. This means that the
earth should have been exploded a long time ago. Thank God it didn't.
The other explanation is that the muon's point of view is a bunch of BULL.
:-)
Ken Seto
Titan Point
Dirk,
We have another Seto classic!
Dirk Van de moortel
"Titan Point" <titanpoi...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message news:pan.2003.08.28...@myrealbox.com...
I had seen it - I would have called it "Explosive Relativity",
but I think Seto is trying to make us believe that somewhere
in that big watery head of his he's got some kind of sense
of humour floating around...
Nice to have you back :-)
Dirk Vdm
Titan Point
Couldn't resist....sad really....
Is Spiecher back?
Dirk Van de moortel
"Titan Point" <titanpoi...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message news:pan.2003.08.28....@myrealbox.com...
Huh? Who's that?
If you mean Stephen Speicher, only for the "Who said this ( )"
contest...
Dirk Vdm
Titan Point
Yes. Me and my bad speling ;-)
Is Speicher back?
Titan Point
Never mind. Not only can I not spell - I can't read either!
TP
Dirk Van de moortel
Hm... this one *would* have made a fantastic fumble :-))
Dirk Vdm
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:vkse077...@corp.supernews.com...
*You* making simple frame jump errors, kenseto? How sophomoric. Thank God
you are using your brain more in your other posts.
David A. Smith
kenseto
"dl...@aol.com (formerly)" <dlzc1.cox@net> wrote in message
news:1Bw3b.27815$Qy4.11512@fed1read05...
> Dear kenseto:
>
> "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
> news:vkse077...@corp.supernews.com...
> > In the past Paul Andersen claimed that from an upper atmospheric muon's
> > point of view the earth is rushing toward it to meet it. Since there are
> > zillions of muons all around the upper atmosphere, the earth then must
be
> > rushing to meet all these muons at different directions. This means that
> the
> > earth should have been exploded a long time ago. Thank God it didn't.
> > The other explanation is that the muon's point of view is a bunch of
> BULL.
> > :-)
> >
>
> *You* making simple frame jump errors, kenseto?
No I didn't. I was quoting what Paul Andersen said.
>How sophomoric. Thank God
> you are using your brain more in your other posts.
ROTFLOL.....You are talking about yourself of course.
Ken Seto
Paul B. Andersen
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> skrev i melding
news:1es3b.5675$YX5.1...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
If you think this was meant as a joke from Ken's part,
I am sure you are wrong.
This is an old post, It originally went like this:
Ken Seto wrote in June 2000:
|
| SR experts Paul Andersen wrote the following and the top dog of the SR
| experts Jim Carr agreed:
|
| > >"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote:
| > >}
| > >} The muon's proper lifetime never change.
| > >} But in the moun's stationary frame the distance from the
| > >} top of the atmosphere to the ground is so short that the fast
| > >} moving ground has ample time to come up and hit the muon
| > >} during its very short lifetime.
|
| This says that from the decaying muon's point of view the earth is
| moving toward it. Since there are zillions of muons surrounding the
| earth the earth must be moving in different direction to meet these
| decaying muons. This means that the earth should have been torn apart
| long ago. Since the earth still exists (thank god) then the only other
| possible explanation is that the muon's point of view as set forth by
| SR is full of shit. What do you think? :-)
A long thread followed, where he furiously defended his claim
that my statement implied an exploding Earth.
So I can assure you that Ken is dead serious.
He still think he has found a fatal argument refuting SR.
Note "My Favourite Post:".
I cannot refrain from the temptation to quote another
Seto statement from said thread:
Ken Seto wrote in June 2000:
| BTW, here's the difference between a stupid SR muon and a smart muon:
| 1. A stupid SR muon says: The earth is moving toward me and thus its
| clock is running slow compared to my clock.
| 2. A smart muon says: I am going to use DRT to find out whether the
| earth clock is running fast or slow compared to my clock then I will
| know whether I am moving toward the earth or the earth is moving
| toward me. If the result shows that the earth clcok is running fast
| then I am moving toward the earth. If the result shows that the earth
| clock is running slow then the earth is moving toward me.
Ken is making good jokes only when he isn't trying.
But those jokes are hilarious.
Paul
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:vkuifb4...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "dl...@aol.com (formerly)" <dlzc1.cox@net> wrote in message
> news:1Bw3b.27815$Qy4.11512@fed1read05...
> > Dear kenseto:
> >
> > "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
> > news:vkse077...@corp.supernews.com...
> > > In the past Paul Andersen claimed that from an upper atmospheric
muon's
> > > point of view the earth is rushing toward it to meet it. Since there
are
> > > zillions of muons all around the upper atmosphere, the earth then
must
> be
> > > rushing to meet all these muons at different directions. This means
that
> > the
> > > earth should have been exploded a long time ago. Thank God it didn't.
> > > The other explanation is that the muon's point of view is a bunch of
> > BULL.
> > > :-)
> > >
> >
> > *You* making simple frame jump errors, kenseto?
>
> No I didn't. I was quoting what Paul Andersen said.
You were making a frame jump from one muon's frame, to all the muon's
frames to make your goofy-a**ed claim.
Here is what kenseto says with driving in cars instead of muons...
Oh look! If I am driving down the road at 60 km/hr and the fellow in the
oncoming lane is driving at 60 km/hr, then the Earth should be spinning
itself apart, because it is obviously rotating very fast. Relativity is
such a load...
Isn't that along the lines of what you said kenseto? You frame jump like
you knew nothing at all.
> >How sophomoric. Thank God
> > you are using your brain more in your other posts.
>
> ROTFLOL.....You are talking about yourself of course.
Whatever.
David A. Smith
kenseto
I am just saying that the SR muon's view is not real.
>
> Here is what kenseto says with driving in cars instead of muons...
> Oh look! If I am driving down the road at 60 km/hr and the fellow in the
> oncoming lane is driving at 60 km/hr, then the Earth should be spinning
> itself apart, because it is obviously rotating very fast. Relativity is
> such a load...
Your analogy is not even close. I think you got comprehension problem.
>
> Isn't that along the lines of what you said kenseto?
NO.
>You frame jump like
> you knew nothing at all.
Paul made the statement that from the muon's point of view the earth is
rushing to meet it. This obviously did not happen. Paul did say that the
space between the earth and the muon is contracted and this gives the
apparent that the earth is moving toward it. But this affect is clearly due
to the fact that the muon has a much higher state of absolute motion
compared to the lab muon and the higher state of absolute motion enables it
to travel a longer distance before decay.
Ken Seto
Dirk Van de moortel
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message news:binjr6$nfd$1...@dolly.uninett.no...
Indeed.
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NoJoke.html
Title: "Explosive Relativity - NO JOKE!"
Thanks for providing context and evidence :-)
Dirk Vdm
kenseto
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message
news:binjr6$nfd$1...@dolly.uninett.no...
It is not my claim. It's yours. The muon's point of view that the ground is
moving fast to meet it never happen. Your statement that the distance
between the muon and the ground is shortened has some validity. But it is
better to interpret the process as follows:
The space between the earth and the muon is contracted due to the higher
state of absolute motion of the muon. The higher state of absolute motion of
the traveling muon compared to the lab muon enables it to travel a longer
distance before decaying.
> So I can assure you that Ken is dead serious.
> He still think he has found a fatal argument refuting SR.
> Note "My Favourite Post:".
Yes I am dead serious about your assertion that the ground is moving to meet
the muon is wrong. It never happen.
>
> I cannot refrain from the temptation to quote another
> Seto statement from said thread:
>
> Ken Seto wrote in June 2000:
> | BTW, here's the difference between a stupid SR muon and a smart muon:
> | 1. A stupid SR muon says: The earth is moving toward me and thus its
> | clock is running slow compared to my clock.
> | 2. A smart muon says: I am going to use DRT to find out whether the
> | earth clock is running fast or slow compared to my clock then I will
> | know whether I am moving toward the earth or the earth is moving
> | toward me. If the result shows that the earth clcok is running fast
> | then I am moving toward the earth. If the result shows that the earth
> | clock is running slow then the earth is moving toward me.
>
>
> Ken is making good jokes only when he isn't trying.
> But those jokes are hilarious.
It is a joke when you say something happen never happen.
Ken Seto
Titan Point
Enough! Enough! You're killing me!
Dirk Van de moortel
"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message news:vkv13et...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message
> news:binjr6$nfd$1...@dolly.uninett.no...
[snip]
> > Ken is making good jokes only when he isn't trying.
> > But those jokes are hilarious.
>
> It is a joke when you say something happen never happen.
I love the structure of this sentence.
How sweet :-)
Dirk Vdm
kenseto
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message
news:binjr6$nfd$1...@dolly.uninett.no...
But the passage of a traveling muon's proper second does not correspond to
the passage of a proper second on earth So from that stand point this
statement is bogus.
> | > >} But in the moun's stationary frame the distance from the
> | > >} top of the atmosphere to the ground is so short that the fast
> | > >} moving ground has ample time to come up and hit the muon
> | > >} during its very short lifetime.
Obviously this description of the muon's point of view is bogus for the
following reasons:
1. The traveling muon started out with a higher state of absolute motion
than the lab muon.
1. The traveling muon will experience an acceleration of g continuously as
it falls toward the earth.
2. This continuous acceleration will continuously increasing the state of
absolute motion of the traveling muon.
3. The muon will be able to know that he is accelerating and thus he is
increasing his state of absolute motion.
4. Therefore he can conclude that he will travel a longer distance before
decayong.
Ken Seto
Titan Point
meaning....nothing at all.
> 1. The traveling muon will experience an acceleration of g continuously as
> it falls toward the earth.
...which means nothing at all. The acceleration is over such a short time
interval that it is ignored.
> 2. This continuous acceleration will continuously increasing the state of
> absolute motion of the traveling muon.
...meaning nothing at all.
> 3. The muon will be able to know that he is accelerating and thus he is
> increasing his state of absolute motion.
...meaning the muon is conscious?
> 4. Therefore he can conclude that he will travel a longer distance before
> decayong.
Muons can decide when they decay by looking out of the window?
>
> Ken Seto
Ken Seto: Unlimited time at keyboard. Extremely limited thinking at same
keyboard
HenriWilson
Would you please define "the passage of a proper second" Ken?
What actually is a 'passage'?
Do you mean the time rate of time flow? Is it dt1/dt2?
One day you will agree that there must be more than one time dimension if
everything you and the SRians say is not to be classified as just pure
horseshit.
>
>> | > >} But in the moun's stationary frame the distance from the
>> | > >} top of the atmosphere to the ground is so short that the fast
>> | > >} moving ground has ample time to come up and hit the muon
>> | > >} during its very short lifetime.
>
>Obviously this description of the muon's point of view is bogus for the
>following reasons:
>1. The traveling muon started out with a higher state of absolute motion
>than the lab muon.
>1. The traveling muon will experience an acceleration of g continuously as
>it falls toward the earth.
>2. This continuous acceleration will continuously increasing the state of
>absolute motion of the traveling muon.
>3. The muon will be able to know that he is accelerating and thus he is
>increasing his state of absolute motion.
>4. Therefore he can conclude that he will travel a longer distance before
>decayong.
That might sound OK to an aetherist but not to a H-aetherist. Haether is not a
local reference for anything but EM.
>
>Ken Seto
>
Henri Wilson.
See my animations and physics book at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm
Harry
SNIP
> Obviously this description of the muon's point of view is bogus for the
> following reasons:
> 1. The traveling muon started out with a higher state of absolute motion
> than the lab muon.
> 1. The traveling muon will experience an acceleration of g continuously as
> it falls toward the earth.
> 2. This continuous acceleration will continuously increasing the state of
> absolute motion of the traveling muon.
> 3. The muon will be able to know that he is accelerating and thus he is
> increasing his state of absolute motion.
> 4. Therefore he can conclude that he will travel a longer distance before
> decayong.
>
> Ken Seto
In fact some of what you say sometimes makes sense, like now - but I'm
afraid few people understand what you mean!
What you tried to express -I think- is that when the motion is not that of
two bodies in inertial motion, but you look at multiple bodies or
accelerated motion, then things become less "relative" -just like everyone
(?) knows that the universe isn't spinning around the earth, even if someone
shows that it can be pretended so by slick mathematical manipulation.
Right?
But then -it seems- you mix that up with the Lorentz transformation laws
(LET/SRT) which are *independent* of any state of "absolute" motion, no
matter how you like to define it. Or you deny those laws and also the
Principle of Relativity. (Note that this was discovered one century ago.)
Thus is my humble opinion.
Of course, if you point out that you assume that the earth moves at a
negligible "absolute" speed compared to that of the muons, then you can
claim that they have a higher state of absolute motion.
But don't overlook that, starting from high velocity and moving in opposite
direction, it's easy to accelerate to stand-still!
Harald
kenseto
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
news:oq26lvsgngjfo7cu4...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 08:51:20 -0400, "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message
> >news:binjr6$nfd$1...@dolly.uninett.no...
> >>
> >> "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
skrev
> >i melding
> >> news:1es3b.5675$YX5.1...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
> >> >
> >> > "Titan Point" <titanpoi...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
> >> | > >"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote:
> >> | > >}
> >> | > >} The muon's proper lifetime never change.
> >
> >But the passage of a traveling muon's proper second does not correspond
to
> >the passage of a proper second on earth So from that stand point this
> >statement is bogus.
>
> Would you please define "the passage of a proper second" Ken?
> What actually is a 'passage'?
Sound like you don't know what is a proper second. A proper second is a
clock second at the ret frame of the clock. Passage of a proper second is
the elapse of a clock second at the rest frame of the clock..
>
> Do you mean the time rate of time flow? Is it dt1/dt2?
NO and no.
>
> One day you will agree that there must be more than one time dimension if
> everything you and the SRians say is not to be classified as just pure
> horseshit.
Your idea of more than one time dimension is pure speculation bull shit. I
am not going to waste time on it.
>
> >
> >> | > >} But in the moun's stationary frame the distance from the
> >> | > >} top of the atmosphere to the ground is so short that the fast
> >> | > >} moving ground has ample time to come up and hit the muon
Paul andersen:
> >> | > >} during its very short lifetime.
> >
> >Obviously this description of the muon's point of view is bogus for the
> >following reasons:
> >1. The traveling muon started out with a higher state of absolute motion
> >than the lab muon.
> >1. The traveling muon will experience an acceleration of g continuously
as
> >it falls toward the earth.
> >2. This continuous acceleration will continuously increasing the state of
> >absolute motion of the traveling muon.
> >3. The muon will be able to know that he is accelerating and thus he is
> >increasing his state of absolute motion.
> >4. Therefore he can conclude that he will travel a longer distance before
> >decayong.
>
> That might sound OK to an aetherist but not to a H-aetherist. Haether is
not a
> local reference for anything but EM.
Haether is a bunch of pure speculation BULL shit. BTW, what is EM
physically??
Ken Seto
Ken Seto
Dirk Van de moortel
"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message news:vl6hofp...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
[snip]
> > One day you will agree that there must be more than one
> > time dimension if everything you and the SRians say is not
> > to be classified as just pure horseshit.
>
> Your idea of more than one time dimension is pure speculation
> bull shit. I am not going to waste time on it.
The Battle Of The Giants!
[snip]
> > That might sound OK to an aetherist but not to a H-aetherist.
> > Haether is not a local reference for anything but EM.
>
> Haether is a bunch of pure speculation BULL shit. BTW,
> what is EM physically??
>
> Ken Seto
The Clash Of The Titans!
Dirk Vdm
kenseto
"Harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:3f531dc6$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch...
>
> "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
> news:vl177rl...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> SNIP
>
> > Obviously this description of the muon's point of view is bogus for the
> > following reasons:
> > 1. The traveling muon started out with a higher state of absolute motion
> > than the lab muon.
> > 1. The traveling muon will experience an acceleration of g continuously
as
> > it falls toward the earth.
> > 2. This continuous acceleration will continuously increasing the state
of
> > absolute motion of the traveling muon.
> > 3. The muon will be able to know that he is accelerating and thus he is
> > increasing his state of absolute motion.
> > 4. Therefore he can conclude that he will travel a longer distance
before
> > decayong.
> >
> > Ken Seto
>
> In fact some of what you say sometimes makes sense, like now - but I'm
> afraid few people understand what you mean!
Oh yes they do even though they pretend that they don't.
>
> What you tried to express -I think- is that when the motion is not that of
> two bodies in inertial motion, but you look at multiple bodies or
> accelerated motion, then things become less "relative"
The muon feels the acceleration toward earth. Therefore it cannot expounds
the point of view that the earth is moving fast toward it. Therefore what
Paul said is refuted. This is on top of the fact that the earth would have
to rush to different directions at the same time to satisfy all those upper
atmosphere muons' point of view.
Just like you accelerated your car toward a tree....you don't say that the
tree is moving fast toward you.
> -just like everyone
> (?) knows that the universe isn't spinning around the earth, even if
someone
> shows that it can be pretended so by slick mathematical manipulation.
>
> Right?
>
> But then -it seems- you mix that up with the Lorentz transformation laws
> (LET/SRT) which are *independent* of any state of "absolute" motion, no
> matter how you like to define it.
NO...the LT is not independent of any state of absolute motion at all. The
transform equation: t'=gamma(t-xv/c^2)....the term xv/c^2 represents the
effect of absolute motion of the primed frame....where v is the vector
difference of their absolute motions between the primed and unprimed frame.
Also the effect of the state of absolute motion of the primed frame is
represented by "x".
>Or you deny those laws and also the
> Principle of Relativity. (Note that this was discovered one century ago.)
Thus is my humble opinion.
I don't deny anything of the sort. I expressed the view that the SRians are
mis-informed.
>
> Of course, if you point out that you assume that the earth moves at a
> negligible "absolute" speed compared to that of the muons, then you can
> claim that they have a higher state of absolute motion.
You don't get it. We don't know what is the absolute motion of the earth or
the muons. But the earth observer measures that the upper atmosphere have a
longer decay length than the lab muon and thus he conclude that the upper
atmosphere muon has a higher state of absolute motion. From the upper
atmosphere muon's point of view it did not measure the decay length of the
lab muon so it cannot conclude that the earth has a higher state of absolute
motion. OTOH, it experiences an acceleration toward the earth so it must
conclude that it is moving fast toward the earth...not the other way around
as Paul asserted.
> But don't overlook that, starting from high velocity and moving in
opposite
> direction, it's easy to accelerate to stand-still!
You are ill-informed about absolute motion.
Ken Seto
Titan Point
...and we're all gathered here at ringside for the World Intellectual
Featherweight title fight....who will land the first blow?
HenriWilson
Observing real scientists at work must fascinate the likes of Dick van der Head
and Titan.
Can't you just imagine them sitting open-mouthed in the front row watching the
wondrous discoveries emerge from the fantastic Wilson/Seto dialogue.
Titan Point
You're right. We're open mouthed...with laughter.