Muon hoaksy poaksy
Peri of Pera
Special relativity asserts that space muons enjoy a prolonged life due
to their speed at near the speed of light and because of the effects
of time dilation. This is a fallacy. Muons are at rest in their frame
and the time dilation that is perceived by an observer measuring the
muons from his frame cannot affect the muons in any way. Their real
lifespan is invariant. Existence of space muons near the surface of
the earth is no evidence of the validity of special relativity.
Peter Riedt
Dirk Van de moortel
b322cfaf-3c50-4672...@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com
> Muon hoaksy poaksy
>
> Special relativity asserts that space muons enjoy a prolonged life due
> to their speed at near the speed of light and because of the effects
> of time dilation. This is a fallacy.
Yes, a complete fallacy.
1) There are no space muons.
Muons are created when cosmic rays or particles hit the
upper parts of the atmosphere.
2) Time dilation is not a cause of anything. It is a description
of something.
3) Special relativity asserts nothing. It models the behaviour
of particles, based on precise measurements and on the
way properties of particles are defined. Muons at rest
live a certain amount of time. Moving muons live longer,
even if you refuse to accept that because you don't
understand "how that can be". The muons seem not to be
interested in your shortcomings.
> Muons are at rest in their frame
Everything is at rest in its frame, by definition.
What else is new.
> and the time dilation that is perceived by an observer measuring the
> muons from his frame cannot affect the muons in any way.
Indeed. And yet this observer measures a longer lifetime.
> Their real
> lifespan is invariant.
Their real lifespan as measured in their own rest frame is
indeed invariant.
The number 9 is invariant as well.
what else is new.
> Existence of space muons near the surface of
> the earth is no evidence of the validity of special relativity.
1) There are no space muons.
2) No one is interested in evidence of its validity anymore.
We have enough of that already. If you want to ban special
relativity, you must provide evidence of its INvalidity.
But never mind.
Dirk Vdm
Pentcho Valev
physics.relativity:
> 1) There are no space muons.
> Muons are created when cosmic rays or particles hit the
> upper parts of the atmosphere.
>
> 2) Time dilation is not a cause of anything. It is a description
> of something.
>
> 3) Special relativity asserts nothing. It models the behaviour
> of particles, based on precise measurements and on the
> way properties of particles are defined. Muons at rest
Bravo Moortel Moortel! Clever zombie! But how exactly do you measure
the lifetime of "muons at rest"? When cosmic-ray muons bump into an
obstacle so that their speed instantly changes from about 300000km/s
to zero, their forced disintegration makes Einsteinians sing "Divine
Einstein" and go into convulsions. Simply because in Einstein zombie
world, when a muon undergoes a terrible crash, this muon is "at rest"
during the crash and, in perfect accordance with Divine Albert's
Divine Theory,
disintegrates more quickly than another muon that has not undergone a
crash:
http://web.mit.edu/c_hill/www/muons_paper.pdf
"In this experiment, we measure two of the basic properties of the
muon, namely, its mean lifetime and mass in its rest frame. We measure
the decay curve of cosmic-ray muons that have come to rest in a
plastic scintillator by looking for electrons produced in their
decay."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
PD
Peter, muons created on the fly *on earth* live longer than 2.2
microseconds on average. This is verified (and is in fact built into
the design) at the g-2 experiment, and in about a dozen muon beamlines
at accelerators around the world.
It's a basic fact, expressing a basic principle. And it's in fact
useful.
PD
> On May 30, 10:42 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" wrote in sci.
> physics.relativity:
>
> > 1) There are no space muons.
> > Muons are created when cosmic rays or particles hit the
> > upper parts of the atmosphere.
>
> > 2) Time dilation is not a cause of anything. It is a description
> > of something.
>
> > 3) Special relativity asserts nothing. It models the behaviour
> > of particles, based on precise measurements and on the
> > way properties of particles are defined. Muons at rest
> > live a certain amount of time. Moving muons live longer...
>
> Bravo Moortel Moortel! Clever zombie! But how exactly do you measure
> the lifetime of "muons at rest"?
Muons are quite easy to make in the laboratory, and you don't need to
harvest them from cosmic rays.
Pions can be created with low speed, and these decay into muons, some
of which are ejected in the opposite direction of the pion's motion,
so that the muons are in fact very slow-moving. So slow-moving, in
fact, that you can do chemistry with them, dropping them into ions so
that the muon sits in the spot where the missing electron should be,
which leads to all sorts of interesting studies.
Your slim and highly selective culling of the experimental literature
works to your own disadvantage. You may need some help in knowing
where to find the right papers.
Pentcho Valev
> On May 30, 5:16 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 30, 10:42 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" wrote in sci.
> > physics.relativity:
>
> > > 1) There are no space muons.
> > > Muons are created when cosmic rays or particles hit the
> > > upper parts of the atmosphere.
>
> > > 2) Time dilation is not a cause of anything. It is a description
> > > of something.
>
> > > 3) Special relativity asserts nothing. It models the behaviour
> > > of particles, based on precise measurements and on the
> > > way properties of particles are defined. Muons at rest
> > > live a certain amount of time. Moving muons live longer...
>
> > Bravo Moortel Moortel! Clever zombie! But how exactly do you measure
> > the lifetime of "muons at rest"?
>
> Muons are quite easy to make in the laboratory, and you don't need to
> harvest them from cosmic rays.
You want Einstein zombie world to forget the original hoax and
concentrate on new stories your Masters have prepared? Impossible. For
many decades the Glory of Divine Albert's Divine Theory has been based
on the Story about COSMIC-RAY muons that live a long life etc. That
is the Story Einstein zombie world knows and would hear again and
again. If this Story is a hoax, that would be the end of Divine
Albert's Divine Theory. Nobody would give a shit about other stories.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
PD
> On May 30, 2:51 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 30, 5:16 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 30, 10:42 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" wrote in sci.
> > > physics.relativity:
>
> > > > 1) There are no space muons.
> > > > Muons are created when cosmic rays or particles hit the
> > > > upper parts of the atmosphere.
>
> > > > 2) Time dilation is not a cause of anything. It is a description
> > > > of something.
>
> > > > 3) Special relativity asserts nothing. It models the behaviour
> > > > of particles, based on precise measurements and on the
> > > > way properties of particles are defined. Muons at rest
> > > > live a certain amount of time. Moving muons live longer...
>
> > > Bravo Moortel Moortel! Clever zombie! But how exactly do you measure
> > > the lifetime of "muons at rest"?
>
> > Muons are quite easy to make in the laboratory, and you don't need to
> > harvest them from cosmic rays.
>
> You want Einstein zombie world to forget the original hoax and
> concentrate on new stories your Masters have prepared?
Well, see, here's the thing. Muons are muons. They behave the way they
ALWAYS have. It's not like their behavior has changed because of what
we believe. So what we learn *later* about how muons have ALWAYS
behaved is still relevant to the understanding of the theory.
You are intent on focusing on the past, and on the smart guesses that
were based on a veiled view decades ago. You insist that the ideas
must be evaluated on the veiled view only, without the benefit of any
confirming information later.
It's like there is a plate on the table with an object or two on it,
but the objects are covered with a cloth. Someone looks carefully at
the bumps on the cloth and the way the cloth is hanging over the
objects and after a bit says, "It's an apple and a slice of cake." You
look at the same cloth and say, "Don't be ridiculous, it could well be
a telephone, or a sleeping cat," and you rant for three days about how
ridiculous a notion it is that it could be an apple and a slice of
cake. Then someone raises the cloth and it is indeed an apple and a
slice of cake. In a huff, you grab the cloth and put it back over the
plate and say, "That's not fair! Whether it is an apple and a piece of
cake is an idea that must be judged with the cloth ON! Now look at it!
It could well be a telephone, or a sleeping cat! An apple and a piece
of cake indeed! Imagine such a foolish idea!"
Dirk Van de moortel
4ad5534c-c6d5-4ac0...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com
> On May 30, 8:53 am, Poncho Valve <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On May 30, 2:51 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On May 30, 5:16 am, Poncho Valve <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On May 30, 10:42 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" wrote in sci.
>>>> physics.relativity:
>>
>>>>> 1) There are no space muons.
>>>>> Muons are created when cosmic rays or particles hit the
>>>>> upper parts of the atmosphere.
>>
>>>>> 2) Time dilation is not a cause of anything. It is a description
>>>>> of something.
>>
>>>>> 3) Special relativity asserts nothing. It models the behaviour
>>>>> of particles, based on precise measurements and on the
>>>>> way properties of particles are defined. Muons at rest
>>>>> live a certain amount of time. Moving muons live longer...
>>
>>>> Bravo Moortel Moortel! Clever zombie! But how exactly do you measure
>>>> the lifetime of "muons at rest"?
>>
>>> Muons are quite easy to make in the laboratory, and you don't need to
>>> harvest them from cosmic rays.
>>
>> You want Einstein zombie world to forget the original hoax and
>> concentrate on new stories your Masters have prepared?
>
> Well, see, here's the thing. Muons are muons. They behave the way they
> ALWAYS have. It's not like their behavior has changed because of what
> we believe.
But they *have* changed.
They were first invented to confuse the Russians.
Nowadays they seem to mainly confuse the Bulgarians.
> So what we learn *later* about how muons have ALWAYS
> behaved is still relevant to the understanding of the theory.
>
> You are intent on focusing on the past, and on the smart guesses that
> were based on a veiled view decades ago. You insist that the ideas
> must be evaluated on the veiled view only, without the benefit of any
> confirming information later.
>
> It's like there is a plate on the table with an object or two on it,
> but the objects are covered with a cloth. Someone looks carefully at
> the bumps on the cloth and the way the cloth is hanging over the
> objects and after a bit says, "It's an apple and a slice of cake." You
> look at the same cloth and say, "Don't be ridiculous, it could well be
> a telephone, or a sleeping cat," and you rant for three days about how
> ridiculous a notion it is that it could be an apple and a slice of
> cake. Then someone raises the cloth and it is indeed an apple and a
> slice of cake. In a huff, you grab the cloth and put it back over the
> plate and say, "That's not fair! Whether it is an apple and a piece of
> cake is an idea that must be judged with the cloth ON! Now look at it!
> It could well be a telephone, or a sleeping cat! An apple and a piece
> of cake indeed! Imagine such a foolish idea!"
VERY appropriate :-)
Dirk Vdm
Dono
>
> It's like there is a plate on the table with an object or two on it,
> but the objects are covered with a cloth. Someone looks carefully at
> the bumps on the cloth and the way the cloth is hanging over the
> objects and after a bit says, "It's an apple and a slice of cake." You
> look at the same cloth and say, "Don't be ridiculous, it could well be
> a telephone, or a sleeping cat," and you rant for three days about how
> ridiculous a notion it is that it could be an apple and a slice of
> cake. Then someone raises the cloth and it is indeed an apple and a
> slice of cake. In a huff, you grab the cloth and put it back over the
> plate and say, "That's not fair! Whether it is an apple and a piece of
> cake is an idea that must be judged with the cloth ON! Now look at it!
> It could well be a telephone, or a sleeping cat! An apple and a piece
> of cake indeed! Imagine such a foolish idea!"
>
Brilliant description! Unfortunately it will be lost on Pancho Valdez,
the anti-relativity crusader.
Pentcho Valev
An irrelevant parable. The experiment is done in 2006:
http://web.mit.edu/c_hill/www/muons_paper.pdf
"In this experiment, we measure two of the basic properties of the
muon, namely, its mean lifetime and mass in its rest frame. We measure
the decay curve of cosmic-ray muons that have come to rest in a
plastic scintillator by looking for electrons produced in their
decay."
and muons undergoing a terrible crash in the "plastic scintillator"
are called "muons at rest". That is, the "old" lie is still quite
actual. Hitler's propaganda minister, Joseph Goebels, once observed: a
lie repeated often enough is eventually believed.
Joseph Goebels' ideas are even more relevant here (note what "later
writers" have done):
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/02/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
PD
As I said, you need some guidance on how to find a better balance of
experimental results. You've selected only cosmic ray experiments, as
though that is the only source of muons. Muons at rest have been
routinely produced in the lab for decades now, but your narrow vision
prevents you from finding any of those cases.
It appears you are in the need of a support group.
http://www.blindness.org/maculardegeneration/
Peri of Pera
PD,
I am not disputing your statement. I merely want to point out that the
claim of SR that the delayed decay of space muons as distinct from lab
muons is proof of the validity of special relativity. SR applies a
double standard, pretending on the one hand that relativity effects
are perceptions of the observer and that on the other hand they affect
the observed object physically.
Regards,
Peter Riedt
Eric Gisse
> On May 30, 5:16 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 30, 10:42 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" wrote in sci.
> > physics.relativity:
>
> > > 1) There are no space muons.
> > > Muons are created when cosmic rays or particles hit the
> > > upper parts of the atmosphere.
>
> > > 2) Time dilation is not a cause of anything. It is a description
> > > of something.
>
> > > 3) Special relativity asserts nothing. It models the behaviour
> > > of particles, based on precise measurements and on the
> > > way properties of particles are defined. Muons at rest
> > > live a certain amount of time. Moving muons live longer...
>
> > Bravo Moortel Moortel! Clever zombie! But how exactly do you measure
> > the lifetime of "muons at rest"?
>
> Muons are quite easy to make in the laboratory, and you don't need to
> harvest them from cosmic rays.
>
> Pions can be created with low speed, and these decay into muons, some
> of which are ejected in the opposite direction of the pion's motion,
> so that the muons are in fact very slow-moving. So slow-moving, in
> fact, that you can do chemistry with them, dropping them into ions so
> that the muon sits in the spot where the missing electron should be,
> which leads to all sorts of interesting studies.
Muonium!
Its' unfortunate that the muon decays even while bound to a proton - I
can imagine that things would be very interesting if a macroscopic
amount of material that was built with muons instead of electrons were
created.
>
> Your slim and highly selective culling of the experimental literature
> works to your own disadvantage. You may need some help in knowing
> where to find the right papers.
No, he doesn't. He does not wish to learn.
[...]
Alen
> On May 30, 5:16 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Muons are quite easy to make in the laboratory, and you don't need to
> harvest them from cosmic rays.
>
> Pions can be created with low speed, and these decay into muons, some
> of which are ejected in the opposite direction of the pion's motion,
> so that the muons are in fact very slow-moving. So slow-moving, in
> fact, that you can do chemistry with them, dropping them into ions so
> that the muon sits in the spot where the missing electron should be,
> which leads to all sorts of interesting studies.
>
> Your slim and highly selective culling of the experimental literature
> works to your own disadvantage. You may need some help in knowing
> where to find the right papers.
> >http://web.mit.edu/c_hill/www/muons_paper.pdf
> > "In this experiment, we measure two of the basic properties of the
> > muon, namely, its mean lifetime and mass in its rest frame. We measure
> > the decay curve of cosmic-ray muons that have come to rest in a
> > plastic scintillator by looking for electrons produced in their
> > decay."
>
> > Pentcho Valev
I think that it is not really clear as to what is happening with
cosmic ray muons. If we speculate that the muon's clock is
determined by the photons in its field, then an event that
happens to the muon in the upper atmosphere will not interact
with the reference frame of the earth at that position, if the
muon is travelling close to the velocity of light, but will
interact with the earth's frame much further away, and much
later in time, as indicated by the SR equations. In this case
the muon itself is never at the surface of the earth, but, rather,
interacts with the surface of the earth from a considerable
distance away, via its lightspeed bosons.
Alen
Eric Gisse
In what way is science "not really clear" on cosmic ray muons?
[snip remaining ignorant speculative nonsense]
Dirk Van de moortel
60661a74-e1a6-4209...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com
> On May 30, 8:45 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 29, 10:49 pm, Peri of Pera <rie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Muonhoaksypoaksy
>>
>>> Special relativity asserts that space muons enjoy a prolonged life due
>>> to their speed at near the speed of light and because of the effects
>>> of time dilation. This is a fallacy. Muons are at rest in their frame
>>> and the time dilation that is perceived by an observer measuring the
>>> muons from his frame cannot affect the muons in any way. Their real
>>> lifespan is invariant. Existence of space muons near the surface of
>>> the earth is no evidence of the validity of special relativity.
>>
>>> Peter Riedt
>>
>> Peter, muons created on the fly *on earth* live longer than 2.2
>> microseconds on average. This is verified (and is in fact built into
>> the design) at the g-2 experiment, and in about a dozenmuonbeamlines
>> at accelerators around the world.
>>
>> It's a basic fact, expressing a basic principle. And it's in fact
>> useful.
>
> PD,
> I am not disputing your statement. I merely want to point out
then you merely have the wrong attitude, and you also
picked the wrong message subject.
> that the
> claim of SR that the delayed decay of space muons as distinct from lab
> muons is proof of the validity of special relativity.
That is not "a claim of SR".
Claims originate in people.
> SR applies a
> double standard, pretending on the one hand that relativity effects
> are perceptions of the observer and that on the other hand they affect
> the observed object physically.
SR does pretend. People pretend.
SR describes.
>
> Regards,
Regards?
For you?
Forget it, creep.
Dirk Vdm
Alen
> On May 31, 8:42 pm, Alen <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote:
>
> > I think that it is not really clear as to what is happening with
> > cosmic ray muons.
>
> In what way is science "not really clear" on cosmic ray muons?
Of course, with Minkowski spacetime, seen as the sole
possibility, you don't have to be unclear or in doubt about
anything. That is its disastrous and fatal achievement. How
else could such a mirage have survived for a century?
Alen
Tom Roberts
> On May 30, 4:51 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Pions can be created with low speed, and these decay into muons, some
>> of which are ejected in the opposite direction of the pion's motion,
>> so that the muons are in fact very slow-moving. So slow-moving, in
>> fact, that you can do chemistry with them, dropping them into ions so
>> that the muon sits in the spot where the missing electron should be,
>> which leads to all sorts of interesting studies.
>
> Muonium!
No. PD described muonic atoms. Muonium is a bound state of mu+ e-, or
occasionally mu- e+ (MUCH more difficult to achieve!).
> Its' unfortunate that the muon decays even while bound to a proton - I
> can imagine that things would be very interesting if a macroscopic
> amount of material that was built with muons instead of electrons were
> created.
Indeed the lifetime of the muon is reduced when bound, being shorter for
higher-Z nuclei.
Tom Roberts
PD
Actually, SR does not make the claim that relativity effects are
"perception" effects. This is something that is confusing to novices,
because they divide reality into that which is "physically real" (and
necessarily observer-independent) and that which is a "perception
illusion (and thus observer-dependent). Reality is in fact just a
touch more complicated, there being a third class: that which is very
real physically but nevertheless observer-dependent.
A simple example illustrates. Momentum of an object has no single
"physically real" value. The momentum of an object depends *entirely*
on the frame of reference in which it is observed. However, momentum
is VERY real, as real as it gets in physics.
Once you accept that there are perfectly valid physical quantities
that are nevertheless observer dependent, much of your predispositions
against relativity will be eased.
PD
Several comments:
1. The lifetime of the muon is determined by a weak process, not by an
electromagnetic process. The weak interaction was so called precisely
because the interaction rate was decidedly much different than the
faster e.m. rate. Consequently, interaction with the photon field is
not a good candidate for describing the muon lifetime.
2. It's *always* possible to *imagine* some process that mimics the
effect that is completely described by another theory. Time dilation
of muons is *quantitatively* predicted by SR. Is it *possible* that
something else is responsible for the dilation of the lifetime so that
it just so *happens* to have the same amount predicted by SR? Yes. But
has one come to surface that explains it? No. You are free to
speculate, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating. When there
is a theory that is quantitatively developed enough to come up with
the same predictions, *then* it's worth looking at. (In fact, there is
an additional requirement that it explain *more* than SR, but first
things first.)
3. No, we do not record the passage of muons by virtue of a long-
thrown boson. The muons pass directly through a detector, and they
excite the material in the detector exactly where they are. If you'd
like to look up "scintillator telescope" this might help you learn
something about basic experimental methods here.
PD
Eric Gisse
Come on Alen. You can't even answer a simple question without your
relativity myopia kick in!
Let me ask again: In what way is science "not really clear" on cosmic
ray muons? The objects have been detected in high altitude
observations since the 30's, extensively studied since the 50's, and
don't require that much energy to create.
The question you need to ask yourself is why you think relativity is
special. There are any number of highly complex and technical fields
that are _not_ relativity - even in physics - that will evade your
understanding forever. I do not see you raging against partition
functions, Legendre transformations, Hamiltonians, or band gaps. Bu
Alen
> On Jun 1, 5:45 am, Alen <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote:
> > > In what way is science "not really clear" on cosmic ray muons?
>
> > Of course, with Minkowski spacetime, seen as the sole
> > possibility, you don't have to be unclear or in doubt about
> > anything. That is its disastrous and fatal achievement. How
> > else could such a mirage have survived for a century?
>
> > Alen
>
> Come on Alen. You can't even answer a simple question without your
> relativity myopia kick in!
>
> Let me ask again: In what way is science "not really clear" on cosmic
> ray muons? The objects have been detected in high altitude
> observations since the 30's, extensively studied since the 50's, and
> don't require that much energy to create.
I suppose my initial sentence could have been better phrased.
I don't mean that the existence of the muons is not clear,
or that those who assume Minkowski spacetime is
correct will find anything unclear about them. I really meant
to suggest that an explanation of their extended lifetimes
is necessary if Minkowski spacetime is not assumed
correct, so I offered an alternative possibility that might
explain it. What I want to say, in effect, is that they don't
PROVE the correctness of Minkowski spacetime over
any other possibility.
> The question you need to ask yourself is why you think relativity is
> special. There are any number of highly complex and technical fields
> that are _not_ relativity - even in physics - that will evade your
> understanding forever. I do not see you raging against partition
> functions, Legendre transformations, Hamiltonians, or band gaps. Bu
I already know the answer to that, as follows, in case you are
interested: SR has had a much more important and direct impact
on mankind's understanding of the reality they inhabit than
any of the other topics, which you suppose I have no capacity
to understand. I understand Minkowski spacetime, but claim to
have shown it to be wrong. I cannot prevent you interpreting this
as simply a failure, on my part, to understand it after all.
The neat contortions by which it supplies answers, plus its
apparent geometrical connection with GR, and the concept of
Lorentz invariance, still don't prove that it is the only possible,
and therefore correct, description of the reality specified by SR.
Alen
Eric Gisse
Babbling idiot. The time for other theories has came and went - any
theory that replaces SR will have to reproduce Lorentz invariance to a
large degree because there hasn't been a violation of it in a century
of looking.
This is 2008 - not 1908. The experimental evidence in favor of special
relativity were it to topple over would bury you for all time.
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
If you want to push special relativity out, you'll have to replicate
ALL OF THAT. Seriously - all of it. Not just the one experiment here
or there that can be re-cast to make another theory look good.
Then you'll have to assault the juggernaut that is quantum field
theory and quantum chromodynamics. They incorporate special relativity
by default - what then?
> > The question you need to ask yourself is why you think relativity is
> > special. There are any number of highly complex and technical fields
> > that are _not_ relativity - even in physics - that will evade your
> > understanding forever. I do not see you raging against partition
> > functions, Legendre transformations, Hamiltonians, or band gaps. Bu
>
> I already know the answer to that, as follows, in case you are
> interested: SR has had a much more important and direct impact
> on mankind's understanding of the reality they inhabit than
> any of the other topics, which you suppose I have no capacity
> to understand.
The partition function is a concept from thermodynamics. One can
express all the relevant thermodynamic variables as functions or
derivatives of the partition function.
Legendre transformations are a mathematical tool that are most
commonly used in classical mechanics - the Hamiltonian is a Legendre
transformation from the Lagrangian. Also used in thermodynamics as the
Gibbs free energy and Helmholtz free energies are Legendre
transformations from entropy and temperature.
Band gaps are a concept from solid state physics whose most immediate
applications are solar cells and LEDs.
Feel free to challenge my knowledge of thermodynamics or solid state
physics - I'm pretty sure my one semester course in both trumps your
idiocy.
So basically you don't know what the hell you are talking about. As
usual.
> I understand Minkowski spacetime, but claim to
> have shown it to be wrong. I cannot prevent you interpreting this
> as simply a failure, on my part, to understand it after all.
Emphasis on "claim". You cannot disprove Minkowski space no more than
you can disprove Euclidean space. You can make the argument that
Minkowski space is a poor description for reality - but you'd be
wrong.
> The neat contortions by which it supplies answers, plus its
> apparent geometrical connection with GR, and the concept of
> Lorentz invariance, still don't prove that it is the only possible,
> and therefore correct, description of the reality specified by SR.
Lorentz invariance is special relativity is Minkowski space, idiot.
Nobody cares if it is the only "possible" description, just that it
has been repeatedly proven that any theory that has Lorentz invariance
is indistinguishable from SR. If you have a theory that is (locally,
globally) Lorentz invariant, you have special relativity.
[snip bleeding stupidity]
Pentcho Valev
> Indeed the lifetime of the muon is reduced when bound...
And when crashing into a "plastic scintillator" Roberts Roberts?
Alen
> On Jun 2, 6:12 am, Alen <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote:
>
> > I really meant
> > to suggest that an explanation of their extended lifetimes
> > is necessary if Minkowski spacetime is not assumed
> > correct, so I offered an alternative possibility that might
> > explain it. What I want to say, in effect, is that they don't
> > PROVE the correctness of Minkowski spacetime over
> > any other possibility.
>
> Babbling idiot. The time for other theories has came and went - any
> theory that replaces SR will have to reproduce Lorentz invariance to a
> large degree because there hasn't been a violation of it in a century
> of looking.
Why do you call me an idiot for saying what I did not say?
Where did I ever say that Lorentz invariance does not have to
be reproduced?
>
> This is 2008 - not 1908. The experimental evidence in favor of special
> relativity were it to topple over would bury you for all time.
>
> http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtmlhttp://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
I don't have to discard any of the experimental evidence, except
for the highly suspect results of Hafele Keating type experiments.
[snip material mostly extraneous to discussion]
>
> > I understand Minkowski spacetime, but claim to
> > have shown it to be wrong. I cannot prevent you interpreting this
> > as simply a failure, on my part, to understand it after all.
>
> Emphasis on "claim". You cannot disprove Minkowski space no more than
> you can disprove Euclidean space. You can make the argument that
> Minkowski space is a poor description for reality - but you'd be
> wrong.
No, I wouldn't. Minkowski spacetime is a disaster except in
its narrow application to single experiments in isolation.
Globally, it cannot possibly exist, as I have shown elsewhere
on this NG in the past.
> > The neat contortions by which it supplies answers, plus its
> > apparent geometrical connection with GR, and the concept of
> > Lorentz invariance, still don't prove that it is the only possible,
> > and therefore correct, description of the reality specified by SR.
>
> Lorentz invariance is special relativity is Minkowski space, idiot.
No, they aren't Minkowski space. That is a myopic blindness of
physics for the last century. The Minkowski equation is really
a time dilation equation applicable to all interactions involving
lightspeed bosons, and that is why Lorentz invariance is relevant.
It is not because the equation involves some spacetime geometry,
which is a mistaken interpretation that is too neat and fits too well
for anyone, apparently, to see past it.
> Nobody cares if it is the only "possible" description, just that it
> has been repeatedly proven that any theory that has Lorentz invariance
> is indistinguishable from SR. If you have a theory that is (locally,
> globally) Lorentz invariant, you have special relativity.
I will try once more: SR IS NOT IDENTICALLY MINKOWSKI
SPACETIME!. You can have Lorentz invariance with the Minkowski
equation as a time dilation equation only, and not as a kind of
spacetime. Its geometric origin can be seen in the relationship
of the trajectories, in stationary and moving frames, of a photon
oscillating in a direction transverse to the direction of relative
motion.
There doesn't have to be any hyperbolic spacetime at all!
Alen
Eric Gisse
[...]
Anyone who thinks special relativity and Minkowski space are different
is unqualified to judge.
No point in arguing with the hopelessly ignorant.
Pentcho Valev
> On Jun 3, 6:05 am, Alen <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote:
> [...]
>
> Anyone who thinks special relativity and Minkowski space are different
> is unqualified to judge.
Imagine Harvey Brown and Oliver Pooley had written a paper entitled:
"Special relativity: a glorious non-entity":
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001661/
"Minkowski space-time: a glorious non-entity"
Harvey Brown is a Big Boss in Einstein cult so be a nice sycophant and
don't say anything bad about him.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Alen
That is a catch22 argument worthy of the worst kind of
superstition in the most tyrannical kind of church: "You can't
ever dispute or disagree with our doctrine because, if
you do, you are automatically unqualified to do so,
merely by doing so".
A pity I saw your 'alt.morons' redirect before I posted, isn't
it? Are you disappointed? People of your standard of
behaviour among orthodox supporters are a greater threat
to the status of science as an arena of objective truth than
anyone you people like to call a 'crackpot', because you
people have the power to turn science into dogma and
scientists into a priesthood. Such is the consequence of
catch22 type arguments.
Alen
Eric Gisse
> On Jun 4, 4:16 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 3, 6:05 am, Alen <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote:
> > [...]
>
> > Anyone who thinks special relativity and Minkowski space are different
> > is unqualified to judge.
>
> > No point in arguing with the hopelessly ignorant.
>
> That is a catch22 argument worthy of the worst kind of
> superstition in the most tyrannical kind of church: "You can't
> ever dispute or disagree with our doctrine because, if
> you do, you are automatically unqualified to do so,
> merely by doing so".
If you want to argue about the doctrine you have to understand the
doctrine. Arguing about your personal misconceptions is a wasted
effort.
Not understanding that the geometric representation of special
relativity is Minkowski space means that you don't know what the hell
you are talking about. This was hashed out TWO YEARS after Einstein
published his 1905 paper.
It is rather remarkable to see how people living in the 21st century
are stuck with 19th century knowledge who refuse to learn what was
discovered in the 20th century.
>
> A pity I saw your 'alt.morons' redirect before I posted, isn't
> it? Are you disappointed? People of your standard of
> behaviour among orthodox supporters are a greater threat
> to the status of science as an arena of objective truth than
> anyone you people like to call a 'crackpot', because you
> people have the power to turn science into dogma and
> scientists into a priesthood. Such is the consequence of
> catch22 type arguments.
>
> Alen
You think way too highly of yourself for it to be healthy.
Do yourself a favor and visit a research library and do some reading.
You and your ilk have spent several man-centuries trapped on a basic
subject that was dealt with near a century ago now. Your whining isn't
interesting, certainly not productive and most DEFINITELY not
"threatening". The only way your spew would be threatening is if it
was printed out and used to give paper cuts.
PD
> On Jun 4, 4:16 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 3, 6:05 am, Alen <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote:
> > [...]
>
> > Anyone who thinks special relativity and Minkowski space are different
> > is unqualified to judge.
>
> > No point in arguing with the hopelessly ignorant.
>
> That is a catch22 argument worthy of the worst kind of
> superstition in the most tyrannical kind of church: "You can't
> ever dispute or disagree with our doctrine because, if
> you do, you are automatically unqualified to do so,
> merely by doing so".
You confuse disputing a doctrine you understand with disputing a
doctrine you don't understand. The former is worth entertaining, the
latter is not. The value of the dispute is not tenable until it is
established that you understand what it is you are disputing. It is
not the dispute that is rejected, it is the estimation of your
understanding of what you dispute.
This is a common falling among cranks, who think they are being
shunned because they have a dispute. This is not the issue at all, but
they tell themselves this, so that they don't have to face what it is
that is really the issue. For reference, consider the difference
between Ilja Schmeltzer and Ken Seto and their reception by physicists
here.
Alen
I confuse no such thing. My confusion is in your heads, not mine.
I have said enough over numerous occasions to show that I
understand, but disagree, and I have explained why I disagree.
I am therefore entitled to conclude that the concentration on
my supposed misunderstanding of the theory is no better
than a dogmatic refusal to acknowledge a dispute. You can
presuppose that I must be a 'crank', which entitles me to
conclude that you are no better than a dogmatic priesthood.
Alen
Alen
> On Jun 3, 6:21 pm, Alen <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 4, 4:16 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 3, 6:05 am, Alen <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote:
> > > [...]
>
> > > Anyone who thinks special relativity and Minkowski space are different
> > > is unqualified to judge.
>
> > > No point in arguing with the hopelessly ignorant.
>
> > That is a catch22 argument worthy of the worst kind of
> > superstition in the most tyrannical kind of church: "You can't
> > ever dispute or disagree with our doctrine because, if
> > you do, you are automatically unqualified to do so,
> > merely by doing so".
>
> If you want to argue about the doctrine you have to understand the
> doctrine. Arguing about your personal misconceptions is a wasted
> effort.
>
> Not understanding that the geometric representation of special
> relativity is Minkowski space means that you don't know what the hell
> you are talking about. This was hashed out TWO YEARS after Einstein
> published his 1905 paper.
>
> It is rather remarkable to see how people living in the 21st century
> are stuck with 19th century knowledge who refuse to learn what was
> discovered in the 20th century.
I refuse to learn that Minkowski spacetime is THE geometric
representation of special relativity???!!! It is remarkable that I
haven't yet called this a definite DISCOVERY? I suppose
I have to regard it as beyond all dispute?! What is that, if not
dogma?
Alen
Eric Gisse
Alen
> On Jun 4, 6:13 am, Alen <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote:
>
>
> Educate yourself.
>
> http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s3-09/3-09.htm
You suppose that this kind of thing (as quoted below)
cannot but be so persuasive as to put the matter
beyone dispute?
"Minkowski's insight that Lorentz invariance is purely an expression
of the (pseudo) metric of a combined four-dimensional space-time
manifold at one stroke renders special relativity into a constructive
theory, the thing for which Einstein had sought so "desperately"
for so long"
This kind of thing changes nothing. It persuades you, but only
confirms for me what an appallingly powerful mirage hyperbolic
spacetime has been. It doesn't compel me to change my
mind at all! So much for the perpetual insistence that I
should 'educate' myself. How about you acknowledge, for
a change, that I simply dispute the validity of Minkowski
spacetime, for reasons I have given on other occasions?!
Alen
Eric Gisse
I can't help but wonder how people who are so ignorant get such strong
opinions.
Alen
Your own judgment of them being 'so ignorant' is what causes you
to wonder. Human beings have the ability to think freely and
independently for themselves, if they apply themselves to
do so. Understanding that sufficiently to actually grasp it is a
part of YOUR 'education' that you, perhaps, need to work on.
Alen
Bryan Olson
> On Jun 5, 4:41 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 4, 6:13 am, Alen <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote:
>>
>> Educate yourself.
>>
>> http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s3-09/3-09.htm
>
> You suppose that this kind of thing (as quoted below)
> cannot but be so persuasive as to put the matter
> beyone dispute?
That's not the supposition, no. Persuasive as the case may be,
nothing is beyond dispute, if only because idiots are granted
the same fundamental freedoms as everyone else.
The important supposition is that when everyone has their say,
the correct reasoning will enjoy a decisive advantage.
> "Minkowski's insight that Lorentz invariance is purely an expression
> of the (pseudo) metric of a combined four-dimensional space-time
> manifold at one stroke renders special relativity into a constructive
> theory, the thing for which Einstein had sought so "desperately"
> for so long"
>
> This kind of thing changes nothing.
It merely shows that the objection to relativity stated in this
thread is nothing new. One side made its case; the other, not so
much. That does not mean we are certain, nor that the case can
never be re-opened. Clue-stick beatings are not about convincing
the clueless.
> It persuades you, but only
> confirms for me what an appallingly powerful mirage hyperbolic
> spacetime has been. It doesn't compel me to change my
> mind at all! So much for the perpetual insistence that I
> should 'educate' myself. How about you acknowledge, for
> a change, that I simply dispute the validity of Minkowski
> spacetime, for reasons I have given on other occasions?!
Alen, your reasons showed that you simply do not understand SR
and Minkowski spacetime. You refuted your own misconception of
the theory, and your invincible ignorance prevents you from
learning what the theory actually says.
--
--Bryan
Alen
> Alen wrote:
> > On Jun 5, 4:41 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Jun 4, 6:13 am, Alen <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote:
>
> >> Educate yourself.
>
> >>http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s3-09/3-09.htm
>
> > You suppose that this kind of thing (as quoted below)
> > cannot but be so persuasive as to put the matter
> > beyone dispute?
>
> That's not the supposition, no. Persuasive as the case may be,
> nothing is beyond dispute, if only because idiots are granted
> the same fundamental freedoms as everyone else.
>
> The important supposition is that when everyone has their say,
> the correct reasoning will enjoy a decisive advantage.
That would be a very good and rational statement to
contribute to a discussion, were it not spoiled by the
inevitable reference to 'idiots'.
> > "Minkowski's insight that Lorentz invariance is purely an expression
> > of the (pseudo) metric of a combined four-dimensional space-time
> > manifold at one stroke renders special relativity into a constructive
> > theory, the thing for which Einstein had sought so "desperately"
> > for so long"
>
[...]
>
> > It persuades you, but only
> > confirms for me what an appallingly powerful mirage hyperbolic
> > spacetime has been. It doesn't compel me to change my
> > mind at all! So much for the perpetual insistence that I
> > should 'educate' myself. How about you acknowledge, for
> > a change, that I simply dispute the validity of Minkowski
> > spacetime, for reasons I have given on other occasions?!
>
> Alen, your reasons showed that you simply do not understand SR
> and Minkowski spacetime. You refuted your own misconception of
> the theory, and your invincible ignorance prevents you from
> learning what the theory actually says.
>
> --
> --Bryan
Here we descend back to the usual level of discussion,
referring always only to interpretations of my dispute as
my failure to 'understand', as my refuting only my own
misconceptions, as my 'invincible ignorance', etc.
What prevents me from 'learning' is my perception of the
impossibility that a Minkowski spacetime could ever exist
in reality. You can all spend another 100 years wasting your
time being enthralled by the Minkowski spacetime mirage if
you want to. I don't intend to be duped by its plausible
'counterintuitivity', even if the rest of the world is content
to be so.
Alen
Peri of Pera
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
PD,
You have almost precisely identified three levels of reality within
special relativity:
1. Physical reality which is observer independent.
2. Perception illusion which is observer dependent.
3. Physical reality which is observer dependent.
According to 1 to 3, there are these muon scenarios:
1. Muons have their real life prolonged proportional to their speed
and regardless if observed or not.
2. An observer measures his speed relative to a muon. He uses the
measured speed as the value of v in the time dilation equation to
calculate a dilated age for the muon but it is assumed that the
relativity effect is an illusion.
3. An observer measures his speed relative to a muon. He uses the
measured speed as the value of v in the time dilation equation to
calculate a dilated age for the muon but in this case it is assumed
that the relativity effect is real.
IMHO muons always have a natural lifespan unaffected by any speed and
unaffected if such speed is either observed or not observed. This case
constitutes an unconditional physical reality. It is different from
case 1 above as it rejects the dogmas of SR.
Peter Riedt
PD
OK up to here. Now here is where you have to ask how to tell the
difference between the last two. It appears that you would hold that
there's no way to tell, and that the only difference between the two
is an assumption. As long as you maintain that, according to you, the
choice is a matter of opinion only (and you choose to hold the
opposite opinion).
Physicists would strenuously disagree, of course. An illusion is
something that you can demonstrate to be an illusory by virtue of a
carefully chosen measurement. "But what if," you ask, "all
measurements are affected by the illusion, so that it's impossible to
make a measurement that unmasks the illusion?" Well, in that case,
you're supposing a reality that is disconnected from the ability to
measurement, and that is philosophy and no longer physics.
>
> According to 1 to 3, there are these muon scenarios:
> 1. Muons have their real life prolonged proportional to their speed
> and regardless if observed or not.
> 2. An observer measures his speed relative to a muon. He uses the
> measured speed as the value of v in the time dilation equation to
> calculate a dilated age for the muon but it is assumed that the
> relativity effect is an illusion.
> 3. An observer measures his speed relative to a muon. He uses the
> measured speed as the value of v in the time dilation equation to
> calculate a dilated age for the muon but in this case it is assumed
> that the relativity effect is real.
>
> IMHO muons always have a natural lifespan unaffected by any speed and
> unaffected if such speed is either observed or not observed.
The problem is, your opinion (humble or not) has nothing to do with
it. In physics, the matter is decided by *measurement*, not by what
you can suppose. It does no good at all to further suppose that all
measurements are affected in such a way that the underlying truth
can't be found. All that does is push the opinion (humble or not) into
unconfirmable fantasy.
PD
By the way, the "three levels of reality" above are not specific to SR
or even to 20th century physics. I mentioned the case of momentum
because that is *classical* physics, 400 years old, and it exhibits
the same "three levels of reality".
PD
Bryan Olson
> Bryan Olson wrote:
>> Alen wrote:
>>> On Jun 5, 4:41 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Jun 4, 6:13 am, Alen <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote:
>>>> Educate yourself.
>>>> http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s3-09/3-09.htm
>>> You suppose that this kind of thing (as quoted below)
>>> cannot but be so persuasive as to put the matter
>>> beyone dispute?
>> That's not the supposition, no. Persuasive as the case may be,
>> nothing is beyond dispute, if only because idiots are granted
>> the same fundamental freedoms as everyone else.
>>
>> The important supposition is that when everyone has their say,
>> the correct reasoning will enjoy a decisive advantage.
>
> That would be a very good and rational statement to
> contribute to a discussion, were it not spoiled by the
> inevitable reference to 'idiots'.
That comment doesn't call anyone in particular an idiot.
It merely notes that idiots exists, so nothing is beyond
dispute.
>>> "Minkowski's insight that Lorentz invariance is purely an expression
>>> of the (pseudo) metric of a combined four-dimensional space-time
>>> manifold at one stroke renders special relativity into a constructive
>>> theory, the thing for which Einstein had sought so "desperately"
>>> for so long"
> [...]
>>> It persuades you, but only
>>> confirms for me what an appallingly powerful mirage hyperbolic
>>> spacetime has been. It doesn't compel me to change my
>>> mind at all! So much for the perpetual insistence that I
>>> should 'educate' myself. How about you acknowledge, for
>>> a change, that I simply dispute the validity of Minkowski
>>> spacetime, for reasons I have given on other occasions?!
>> Alen, your reasons showed that you simply do not understand SR
>> and Minkowski spacetime. You refuted your own misconception of
>> the theory, and your invincible ignorance prevents you from
>> learning what the theory actually says.
>
> Here we descend back to the usual level of discussion,
> referring always only to interpretations of my dispute as
> my failure to 'understand', as my refuting only my own
> misconceptions, as my 'invincible ignorance', etc.
And don't forget, Alen, that I have the facts to back it up.
You described an experiment where you thought that the theory
predicts two *co-located* observers would each see the other
as younger. You object to a theory that you do not understand.
The discussion is at the level of a big red X through sophomore
physics homework. If that's to change, it's up to you, Alen.
> What prevents me from 'learning' is my perception of the
> impossibility that a Minkowski spacetime could ever exist
> in reality. You can all spend another 100 years wasting your
> time being enthralled by the Minkowski spacetime mirage if
> you want to. I don't intend to be duped by its plausible
> 'counterintuitivity', even if the rest of the world is content
> to be so.
Am I wasting my time? I fully realize the futility of trying
to get the relativity deniers here to seriously study anything.
They serve instead as cautionary tales to others.
Truth be told, I am a former relativity denier. SR made no sense
to me, and I was convinced I knew better. I'm glad I decided to
make sure I understood the subject before I'd go proclaiming all
those physicists wrong. Turned out I was mistaken.
--
--Bryan
kp
> Truth be told, I am a former relativity denier. SR made no sense
> to me, and I was convinced I knew better. I'm glad I decided to
> make sure I understood the subject before I'd go proclaiming all
> those physicists wrong. Turned out I was mistaken.
>
This can't be true. No one in this ng has ever changed his or her
stance, much less make an effort to understand the subject at hand.
kp
Alen
> > Here we descend back to the usual level of discussion,
> > referring always only to interpretations of my dispute as
> > my failure to 'understand', as my refuting only my own
> > misconceptions, as my 'invincible ignorance', etc.
>
> And don't forget, Alen, that I have the facts to back it up.
> You described an experiment where you thought that the theory
> predicts two *co-located* observers would each see the other
> as younger. You object to a theory that you do not understand.
> --Bryan
This is not the first time you have referred to that. That was
a description of the experiment from my alternative viewpoint,
and not from the Minkowski spacetime viewpoint. My
viewpoint includes the argument that nonsimultaneity
cannot be relevant, because nonsimultaneity is only an
illusion created by light, and doesn't really exist as an
underlying spacetime reality. The consequence is that
each observer, while they are in relative motion, sees
the other to be younger. That is a description of the
experiment from my viewpoint of SR as a theory of light.
It is not, and was not meant to be, a description of the
experiment from the viewpoint of SR as a spacetime theory.
I argued elsewhere that a supposed permanent, global
nonsimultaneity relationship between inertial frames is
impossible. Therefore I don't use, or put forward, Minkowski
spacetime arguments to describe such experiments.
Alen
Bryan Olson
> Bryan Olson wrote:
>> Alen wrote:
>>> Bryan Olson wrote:
> [...]
>>> Here we descend back to the usual level of discussion,
>>> referring always only to interpretations of my dispute as
>>> my failure to 'understand', as my refuting only my own
>>> misconceptions, as my 'invincible ignorance', etc.
>> And don't forget, Alen, that I have the facts to back it up.
>> You described an experiment where you thought that the theory
>> predicts two *co-located* observers would each see the other
>> as younger. You object to a theory that you do not understand.
> [...]
>
> This is not the first time you have referred to that. That was
> a description of the experiment from my alternative viewpoint,
> and not from the Minkowski spacetime viewpoint. My
> viewpoint includes the argument that nonsimultaneity
> cannot be relevant, because nonsimultaneity is only an
> illusion created by light, and doesn't really exist as an
Alen, you had concluded "This paradox appears to be
unanswerable from the orthodox viewpoint, without some kind
of fudging of the POR concept [...]"
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/ce465799e57f9905
Now you say the description was was from your own
"alternative viewpoint". So why did you fault orthodox SR
for a mess you made with your own theory?
> underlying spacetime reality. The consequence is that
> each observer, while they are in relative motion, sees
> the other to be younger. That is a description of the
> experiment from my viewpoint of SR as a theory of light.
> It is not, and was not meant to be, a description of the
> experiment from the viewpoint of SR as a spacetime theory.
What a scientific theory predicts is not a matter of one's
viewpoint. Predictions are definite, specific.
> I argued elsewhere that a supposed permanent, global
> nonsimultaneity relationship between inertial frames is
> impossible.
And you've proven quite able to fool yourself with your
arguments.
> Therefore I don't use, or put forward, Minkowski
> spacetime arguments to describe such experiments.
Instead you put forward made-up nonsense.
--
--Bryan
Bryan Olson
It helped that I decided to check *before* I'd shoot off my mouth.
Plus, I'm probably just lucky that I had no Usenet access back when
I was correcting relativity, trisecting angles with ruler and
compass, and designing motors powered solely by permanent magnets.
--
--Bryan
Alen
> Alen wrote:
> > Bryan Olson wrote:
[...]
> > a description of the experiment from my alternative viewpoint,
> > and not from the Minkowski spacetime viewpoint. My
> > viewpoint includes the argument that nonsimultaneity
> > cannot be relevant, because nonsimultaneity is only an
> > illusion created by light, and doesn't really exist as an
>
> Alen, you had concluded "This paradox appears to be
> unanswerable from the orthodox viewpoint, without some kind
> of fudging of the POR concept [...]"
>
>
> Now you say the description was was from your own
> "alternative viewpoint". So why did you fault orthodox SR
> for a mess you made with your own theory?
'Mess' is, of course, your viewpoint. I made only a vague
reference to orthodox SR, without being definite about what
its supporters might say, since it is for its supporters, and
not for me, to defend it. I already showed why the orthodox
position is untenable in other posts, dealing with nonsimultaneity
etc. So I had already done my part to address the orthodox
view. Perhaps I should have made a less offhand remark
in that post as well, but I saw no need to do so. However, I will
take note of your argument and phrase the matter differently
next time, if I ever have occasion to do so.
> > underlying spacetime reality. The consequence is that
> > each observer, while they are in relative motion, sees
> > the other to be younger. That is a description of the
> > experiment from my viewpoint of SR as a theory of light.
> > It is not, and was not meant to be, a description of the
> > experiment from the viewpoint of SR as a spacetime theory.
>
> What a scientific theory predicts is not a matter of one's
> viewpoint. Predictions are definite, specific.
You descend to the level of taking meaningless advantage
of semantics. viewpoint = theory, in the way I used it.
> > I argued elsewhere that a supposed permanent, global
> > nonsimultaneity relationship between inertial frames is
> > impossible.
>
> And you've proven quite able to fool yourself with your
> arguments.
You are entitled to your view.
> > Therefore I don't use, or put forward, Minkowski
> > spacetime arguments to describe such experiments.
>
> Instead you put forward made-up nonsense.
>
> --
> --Bryan
Call it what you like. It is an alternative SR that
makes sense, and works, and easily solves all
paradoxes, without any 'counterintuitivity' problems,
and also provides a basis to unite SR with phenomena
associated with nonlocality, etc., whether you
like to see it that way or not.
Alen
Bryan Olson
> Bryan Olson <fakeaddr...@nowhere.org> wrote:
>> Alen wrote:
>>> Bryan Olson wrote:
> [...]
>>> This is not the first time you have referred to that. That was
>>> a description of the experiment from my alternative viewpoint,
>>> and not from the Minkowski spacetime viewpoint. My
>>> viewpoint includes the argument that nonsimultaneity
>>> cannot be relevant, because nonsimultaneity is only an
>>> illusion created by light, and doesn't really exist as an
>> Alen, you had concluded "This paradox appears to be
>> unanswerable from the orthodox viewpoint, without some kind
>> of fudging of the POR concept [...]"
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/ce465799e57...
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/ce465799e57f9905
>> Now you say the description was was from your own
>> "alternative viewpoint". So why did you fault orthodox SR
>> for a mess you made with your own theory?
>
> 'Mess' is, of course, your viewpoint.
'Paradox appears to be unanswerable' was yours.
> I made only a vague
> reference to orthodox SR, without being definite about what
> its supporters might say, since it is for its supporters, and
> not for me, to defend it.
You mean that first sentence in your concluding paragraph,
where faulted orthodox theory for what is actually an
unanswerable paradox in a theory you made up yourself? Is
that the "vague reference" at issue?
> I already showed why the orthodox
> position is untenable in other posts, dealing with nonsimultaneity
> etc.
And decided not to reference any of those, nor to mention
you were describing a theory you made up.
> So I had already done my part to address the orthodox
> view. Perhaps I should have made a less offhand remark
> in that post as well, but I saw no need to do so. However, I will
> take note of your argument and phrase the matter differently
> next time, if I ever have occasion to do so.
So it seems we have some agreement. The unanswerable paradox
is in your own theory, Alen, and you incorrectly faulted the
orthodox view.
>>> underlying spacetime reality. The consequence is that
>>> each observer, while they are in relative motion, sees
>>> the other to be younger. That is a description of the
>>> experiment from my viewpoint of SR as a theory of light.
>>> It is not, and was not meant to be, a description of the
>>> experiment from the viewpoint of SR as a spacetime theory.
>> What a scientific theory predicts is not a matter of one's
>> viewpoint. Predictions are definite, specific.
>
> You descend to the level of taking meaningless advantage
> of semantics. viewpoint = theory, in the way I used it.
Ah, so you merely appear to fail to understand SR, because
when you say "SR", you mean *your* theory of SR, which is in
fact contrary to established SR.
>>> I argued elsewhere that a supposed permanent, global
>>> nonsimultaneity relationship between inertial frames is
>>> impossible.
>> And you've proven quite able to fool yourself with your
>> arguments.
>
> You are entitled to your view.
>
>>> Therefore I don't use, or put forward, Minkowski
>>> spacetime arguments to describe such experiments.
>> Instead you put forward made-up nonsense.
>
> Call it what you like.
Some of your terms are not far off the mark on this one
Alen: An unanswerable paradox in a description of the
experiment from your alternative viewpoint; and
viewpoint = theory the way you use it.
> It is an alternative SR that
> makes sense, and works, and easily solves all
> paradoxes, without any 'counterintuitivity' problems,
> and also provides a basis to unite SR with phenomena
> associated with nonlocality, etc., whether you
> like to see it that way or not.
Had the unanswerable paradox been in established SR, that
would have been justification for seeking an alternative
to SR. Alen, the paradox was in your own theory.
--
--Bryan
Alen
[...]
> > It is an alternative SR that
> > makes sense, and works, and easily solves all
> > paradoxes, without any 'counterintuitivity' problems,
> > and also provides a basis to unite SR with phenomena
> > associated with nonlocality, etc., whether you
> > like to see it that way or not.
>
> Had the unanswerable paradox been in established SR, that
> would have been justification for seeking an alternative
> to SR. Alen, the paradox was in your own theory.
>
> --
> --Bryan
You try to throw the whole concept of a paradox onto
an invention of my own, and separate orthodox SR from
it altogether. That is a fabrication. I didn't invent the concept
of 'paradox'. Such experiments are always introduced
as apparent 'paradoxes' in standard SR texts. So you have
no right to make out that I invented the concept.
Orthodox SR typically introduces an experiment as an
apparent paradox, and then trys to show that it is not really
paradoxical. That is no different to what I did. The difference
is that the orthodox 'solution' relies on principles (such as
orthodox nonsimultaneity) that I have shown are untenable
and impossible. Orthodox theory therefore doesn't really
solve the 'paradox' at all, but only appears to. In the orthodox
theory, the paradox is, therefore, 'unanswerable'. I therefore
offer an alternative that does really solve the apparent paradox.
I didn't introduce the matter any differently to the way in
which it is always introduced in the orthodox practice, i.e.,
as a 'paradox'.
Alen
Bryan Olson
> Bryan Olson wrote:
>> Alen wrote:
>>> Bryan Olson <fakeaddr...@nowhere.org> wrote:
> [...]
>>> It is an alternative SR that
>>> makes sense, and works, and easily solves all
>>> paradoxes, without any 'counterintuitivity' problems,
>>> and also provides a basis to unite SR with phenomena
>>> associated with nonlocality, etc., whether you
>>> like to see it that way or not.
>> Had the unanswerable paradox been in established SR, that
>> would have been justification for seeking an alternative
>> to SR. Alen, the paradox was in your own theory.
>
> You try to throw the whole concept of a paradox onto
> an invention of my own, and separate orthodox SR from
> it altogether. That is a fabrication. I didn't invent the concept
> of 'paradox'. Such experiments are always introduced
> as apparent 'paradoxes' in standard SR texts. So you have
> no right to make out that I invented the concept.
Alen's claim of "always introduced" is of course too strong,
but that's not the real issue.
Alen, I'll agree that I "have no right to make out that [you]
invented the concept [of paradox]". That's why I did no such
thing.
In this thread, I noted:
You described an experiment where you thought that the
theory predicts two *co-located* observers would each see
the other as younger.
Here again is the article where you did that:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/ce465799e57f9905
Alen, you responded
That was a description of the experiment from my alternative
viewpoint [...]
There was no note in that article that the theory with the
unanswerable paradox was one you invented. It article read as
if you were faulting conventional relativity; in fact, you
specifically stated, "This paradox appears to be unanswerable
from the orthodox viewpoint [...]".
"Unanswerable from the orthodox viewpoint"? Established SR
simply has no such paradox.
> Orthodox SR typically introduces an experiment as an
> apparent paradox, and then trys to show that it is not really
> paradoxical. That is no different to what I did.
The difference is that orthodox SR proves that outcomes that
may seem paradoxical are in fact consistent, and goes on to
stake its case on experimental confirmation of the specific
predictions. Alen-theory simply blamed its own contradiction
on others.
> The difference
> is that the orthodox 'solution' relies on principles (such as
> orthodox nonsimultaneity) that I have shown are untenable
> and impossible. Orthodox theory therefore doesn't really
> solve the 'paradox' at all, but only appears to. In the orthodox
> theory, the paradox is, therefore, 'unanswerable'. I therefore
> offer an alternative that does really solve the apparent paradox.
>
> I didn't introduce the matter any differently to the way in
> which it is always introduced in the orthodox practice, i.e.,
> as a 'paradox'.
You relativity deniers are a hoot. Alen, you yourself stated
that where your paradox appears "unanswerable", you were
actually describing your own alternative theory.
Alen, you claim to understand orthodox SR. Looking at your
"REAL TWINS PARADOX" article, linked above, can you find the
first assertion where your theory disagrees with SR? People
who understand SR can. They can read that post and think:
sure... O.K... that bit could work at least in principle...
Oh No! -- It's just that old mistake again.
--
--Bryan
PD
I would dispute that. Nonsimultaneity follows *directly* from the
accepted laws of physics (e.g. Maxwell's equations) and the principle
of relativity. Therefore if you find "orthodox nonsimultaneity" to be
untenable, then you are finding either the principle of relativity or
the laws of physics to be untenable. The acceptance of SR does not
hinge on the resolution of apparent paradoxes. The acceptance of SR
hinges on the *accurate* experimental predictions of those laws of
physics and of SR. Once that happens, then this establishes the
validity of the laws of physics and the principle of relativity. Then
one is forced to accept the "orthodox nonsimultaneity". Then one is
forced to accept the resolution of the apparent paradox.
You are just choosing to not accept something at a point where it is
easiest in your mind to do so, without following the implications of
what else you must not accept as a result.
Alen
[...]
> Alen, you claim to understand orthodox SR. Looking at your
> "REAL TWINS PARADOX" article, linked above, can you find the
> first assertion where your theory disagrees with SR? People
> who understand SR can. They can read that post and think:
> sure... O.K... that bit could work at least in principle...
> Oh No! -- It's just that old mistake again.
>
> --
> --Bryan
The post you concentrate on was one in a series of ten
posts which were created to go together. If you want to
understand what I said (which I doubt, in view of your
nit-picking dissection of one of them), you have to read
all ten together. If you want to defend the orthodox theory
you also have to do more than merely criticise my method
of presentation.
Alen
Alen
> On Jun 7, 10:57 pm, Alen <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote:
> > Orthodox SR typically introduces an experiment as an
> > apparent paradox, and then trys to show that it is not really
> > paradoxical. That is no different to what I did. The difference
> > is that the orthodox 'solution' relies on principles (such as
> > orthodox nonsimultaneity) that I have shown are untenable
> > and impossible.
>
> I would dispute that. Nonsimultaneity follows *directly* from the
> accepted laws of physics (e.g. Maxwell's equations) and the principle
> of relativity. Therefore if you find "orthodox nonsimultaneity" to be
> untenable, then you are finding either the principle of relativity or
> the laws of physics to be untenable. The acceptance of SR does not
> hinge on the resolution of apparent paradoxes. The acceptance of SR
> hinges on the *accurate* experimental predictions of those laws of
> physics and of SR. Once that happens, then this establishes the
> validity of the laws of physics and the principle of relativity. Then
> one is forced to accept the "orthodox nonsimultaneity". Then one is
> forced to accept the resolution of the apparent paradox.
>
> You are just choosing to not accept something at a point where it is
> easiest in your mind to do so, without following the implications of
> what else you must not accept as a result.
No, one is not forced to accept orthodox nonsimultaneity, unless
one has accepted Minkowski spacetime. Nonsimultaneity is a
direct result of the light postulate, even without Minkowski
spacetime.
It can be a result of the working of light alone, without any
dependence
on any underlying property of spacetime. The spacetime version of
nonsimultaneity results from the interpretation that time is not the
same for all observers. The resulting Minkowski spacetime leads to
the concept that there is a fundamental nonsimultaneity relationship
between inertial frames in relative motion. But I put the alternative
that
it is light, and not time, that is not the same for all observers, and
this does not lead to the spacetime version of nonsimultaneity, but
only to nonsimultaneity as an effect created by light alone, in which
there is no underlying spacetime-based nonsimultaneity relationship
between inertial frames in relative motion.
There are therefore two versions of nonsimultaneity indicated here,
and I have argued that the spacetime version is impossible, leaving
only the light-based version as viable. SR as a theory of light can
support the SR equations, and all experimental results of SR, except
those of Hafele Keating type experiments, which are suspect, and
therefore prove nothing.
Alen
PD
Well, first of all, note the contradiction in the above two sentences.
First you say that Minkowski spacetime is a necessary presumption,
then you say it's not.
Secondly, the light postulate is accepted precisely because of what I
earlier said: It produces predictions of experimentally verifiable
results that indeed are verified with actual measurement. It is the
experimental verification (and not the resolution of the paradoxes)
that gives credence to that postulate. Once the postulate is given
credence, then "orthodox nonsimultaneity" becomes necessary. And then
the supposed paradoxes are also resolved as a by-product. You keep
thinking that there is something unverifiable and therefore disputable
here. There's not. The postulates are *tested* by their experimental
implications. That's how science is done.
> It can be a result of the working of light alone, without any
> dependence
> on any underlying property of spacetime.
OK, so what you are doing here is saying "OK, so the experimental
implications could be due to something *else* other than the validity
of the light postulate." This is true. At that point, the onus falls
on the speculator to produce an *alternate* mechanism that does
several things:
1) Demonstrably (through explicit derivation) produces the same
quantitative experimental predictions.
2) Is consistent with the same laws of physics (e.g. Maxwell's
equations) without alteration.
3) Is not logically equivalent to the postulates it replaces it.
You have not done that.
Your sniffing that "it could be something else" without producing a
viable candidate for the something else, is a vacuous claim. Your
incredulity is not a sufficient motivation in science.
> The spacetime version of
> nonsimultaneity results from the interpretation that time is not the
> same for all observers.
Yes.
> The resulting Minkowski spacetime leads to
> the concept that there is a fundamental nonsimultaneity relationship
> between inertial frames in relative motion. But I put the alternative
> that
> it is light, and not time, that is not the same for all observers, and
> this does not lead to the spacetime version of nonsimultaneity,
You have not done this to the depth required. (See above.) An idle
speculation does not a viable alternative make. You have to
demonstrate how a model that produces a different behavior of light
will *quantitatively* match the predictions of SR, as well as not
disrupt the laws *governing* light's behavior (notably Maxwell's
equations, but more precisely, the QED Lagrangian).
> but
> only to nonsimultaneity as an effect created by light alone, in which
> there is no underlying spacetime-based nonsimultaneity relationship
> between inertial frames in relative motion.
>
> There are therefore two versions of nonsimultaneity indicated here,
> and I have argued that the spacetime version is impossible,
I see no evidence of demonstration of impossibility. All I have seen
is your preference for some other, yet-to-be-specified-beyond-vaguery,
alternative.
Bryan Olson
> On Jun 8, 6:52 pm, Bryan Olson <fakeaddr...@nowhere.org> wrote:
>> Alen wrote:
>>> Bryan Olson wrote:
> [...]
>> Alen, you claim to understand orthodox SR. Looking at your
>> "REAL TWINS PARADOX" article, linked above, can you find the
>> first assertion where your theory disagrees with SR? People
>> who understand SR can. They can read that post and think:
>> sure... O.K... that bit could work at least in principle...
>> Oh No! -- It's just that old mistake again.
>
> posts which were created to go together. If you want to
> understand what I said (which I doubt, in view of your
> nit-picking dissection of one of them), you have to read
> all ten together. If you want to defend the orthodox theory
> you also have to do more than merely criticise my method
> of presentation.
Yeah, I didn't think you could.
--
--Bryan
Sue...
> I would dispute that. Nonsimultaneity follows *directly* from the
> accepted laws of physics (e.g. Maxwell's equations) and the principle
> of relativity.
Non simultaneity would be a violation of the principle of relativity.
"All inertial frames are totally equivalent for the
performance of all physical experiments."
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/jk1/lectures/node7.html
<<From the scientific point of view, the important thing is
to understand the clearly defined meaning of “proper time”,
based on the concept of an “ideal clock” corrected for all
local sensible conditions, justified by the empirical fact
that all physical phenomena are affected identically
!!! – including their rates of temporal progression – !!!
by their state of inertial motion (which is not a locally
sensible condition). >>
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s4-07/4-07.htm
See also:
~Why you can't compare light to bullets~
http://nobelprize.org/physics/articles/ekspong/index.html
Sue...
Sue...
>
> What prevents me from 'learning' is my perception of the
> impossibility that a Minkowski spacetime could ever exist
> in reality. You can all spend another 100 years wasting your
> time being enthralled by the Minkowski spacetime mirage if
> you want to. I don't intend to be duped by its plausible
> 'counterintuitivity', even if the rest of the world is content
> to be so.
Do you similarly doubt that:
a^2 + b^2 = c^2
(Pythagora's relation) ?
or
i = 1/r^2
(Inverse square distance law) ?
If you don't hold such doubt's then it isn't a
great leap to accept the valitity of the notion"
<< that the four-dimensional space-time continuum of
the theory of relativity, in its most essential formal
properties, shows a pronounced relationship to the
three-dimensional continuum of Euclidean geometrical
space. 1 In order to give due prominence to this
relationship, however, we must replace the usual
time co-ordinate t by an imaginary magnitude
sqrt(-1)
ct proportional to it. >>
http://www.bartleby.com/173/17.html
That is pure maths.
What you may challenge physically is the notion:
<< Under these conditions, the natural laws satisfying the
demands of the (special) theory of relativity assume mathematical
forms, in which the time co-ordinate plays exactly the same
role as the three space co-ordinates. >>
http://www.bartleby.com/173/17.html
If rotating the imaginary co-ordinate system used to
measure the physics can't affect the physics then
the Minkowski system seems valid.
<<if you know about complex numbers you will notice that
the space part enters as if it were imaginary
R2 = (ct)2 + (ix)2 + (iy)2 + (iz)2 = (ct)2 + (ir)2
where i^2 = -1 as usual. This turns out to be the essence
of the fabric (or metric) of spacetime geometry - that space
enters in with the imaginary factor i relative to time. >>
http://www.aoc.nrao.edu/~smyers/courses/astro12/speedoflight.html
See also:
"Space Time"
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node113.html
Sue...
>
> Alen
Alen
> On Jun 8, 9:39 am, Alen <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote:
>
> > No, one is not forced to accept orthodox nonsimultaneity, unless
> > one has accepted Minkowski spacetime. Nonsimultaneity is a
> > direct result of the light postulate, even without Minkowski
> > spacetime.
>
> Well, first of all, note the contradiction in the above two sentences.
> First you say that Minkowski spacetime is a necessary presumption,
> then you say it's not.
>
> Secondly, the light postulate is accepted precisely because of what I
> earlier said: It produces predictions of experimentally verifiable
> results that indeed are verified with actual measurement. It is the
> experimental verification (and not the resolution of the paradoxes)
> that gives credence to that postulate. Once the postulate is given
> credence, then "orthodox nonsimultaneity" becomes necessary. And then
> the supposed paradoxes are also resolved as a by-product. You keep
> thinking that there is something unverifiable and therefore disputable
> here. There's not. The postulates are *tested* by their experimental
> implications. That's how science is done.
[...]
> > Alen
I didn't say anything of all this. If you make no effort to
understand what I actually say but, instead, on the basis
of the blind prejudice that this ignorance allows (typical
of the orthodoxy on this NG), you then proceed to give me
an introductory lecture about 'how science is done', as an
expression of your self-hypnotic conviction of my ignorance,
I can only leave you to the enjoyment of your own fantasies.
Alen
Eric Gisse
Finally.
PD
Certainly not.
>
> "All inertial frames are totally equivalent for the
> performance of all physical experiments."http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/jk1/lectures/node7.html
And that statement needs careful qualification, because those who take
it at face value, as you have done, will draw erroneous conclusions
from that statement.
This statement does NOT mean that what is simultaneous in one frame
must be simultaneous in another frame. That is not what the principle
of relativity says.
Likewise, the principle of relativity does NOT say that if an object
is stationary (and has zero kinetic energy) in one inertial frame,
then it is stationary (and with zero kinetic energy) in every inertial
frame. A moment's thought will tell you the principle of relativity
cannot say that.
So then it is a fair question what the principle of relativity DOES
mean, if it doesn't mean that the same adjectives can be applied to an
object or set of events for all inertial frames.
Sue...
It most certainly does. The reaction of a candle burning in one
IRF will be identical to a similar candle in another IRF.
Identical candles will burn out *simultaneously" regardless
of their relative motion.
>
> Likewise, the principle of relativity does NOT say that if an object
> is stationary (and has zero kinetic energy) in one inertial frame,
> then it is stationary (and with zero kinetic energy) in every inertial
> frame. A moment's thought will tell you the principle of relativity
> cannot say that.
The way kinetic energy is specified has nothing to do with it.
The abstraction of inertial mass accounts for it properly.
http://www.bartleby.com/173/15.html
>
> So then it is a fair question what the principle of relativity DOES
> mean, if it doesn't mean that the same adjectives can be applied to an
> object or set of events for all inertial frames.
It means the traveling candle will be the same length on
reunion as the candle which did not travel.
>
>
>
> > <<From the scientific point of view, the important thing is
> > to understand the clearly defined meaning of “proper time”,
> > based on the concept of an “ideal clock” corrected for all
> > local sensible conditions, justified by the empirical fact
> > that all physical phenomena are affected identically
>
> > !!! – including their rates of temporal progression – !!!
>
> > by their state of inertial motion (which is not a locally
> > sensible condition). >>
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s4-07/4-07.htm
>
> > See also:
> > ~Why you can't compare light to bullets~
http://nobelprize.org/physics/articles/ekspong/index.html
Sue...
>
> > Sue...
PD
Sorry, Sue, but no, it doesn't. It says ONLY that the laws of physics
are the same in all inertial reference frame. It does NOT say that the
solutions to the laws of physics will be the same in all inertial
reference frames. A particular solution can exhibit traits that other
solutions do not. This is the difference that boundary conditions
impose. The principle of relativity does NOT require that the
particular state descriptors will be identical; it only requires that
the state by one that satisfies identical laws of physics.
> The reaction of a candle burning in one
> IRF will be identical to a similar candle in another IRF.
>
> Identical candles will burn out *simultaneously" regardless
> of their relative motion.
And that is demonstrably, experimentally, wrong.
>
> > Likewise, the principle of relativity does NOT say that if an object
> > is stationary (and has zero kinetic energy) in one inertial frame,
> > then it is stationary (and with zero kinetic energy) in every inertial
> > frame. A moment's thought will tell you the principle of relativity
> > cannot say that.
>
> The way kinetic energy is specified has nothing to do with it.
> The abstraction of inertial mass accounts for it
> properly.http://www.bartleby.com/173/15.html
Drop that chaff, bub, and stay on topic. "Stationary" is a state
descriptor. The principle of relativity does NOT require that if an
object is stationary in one inertial frame, then it is stationary in
all inertial frames.
Likewise, the principle of relativity does NOT say that if two events
are simultaneous in one inertial frame, then they are simultaneous in
all inertial frames.
>
> > So then it is a fair question what the principle of relativity DOES
> > mean, if it doesn't mean that the same adjectives can be applied to an
> > object or set of events for all inertial frames.
>
> It means the traveling candle will be the same length on
> reunion as the candle which did not travel.
That is not correct, and that is not what the principle of relativity
says.
In physics, there are frame-independent physical and measurable
quantities, and there are frame-dependent physical and measurable
quantities. The principle of relativity in NO WAY rules out the
latter.
PD
Paul B. Andersen
Quite
So if we have two identical candles, and two identical clocks,
we will both in our respective rest frames measure the same
time for our candles to burn out.
> Identical candles will burn out *simultaneously" regardless
> of their relative motion.
Can you please explain how you from the statement:
"All inertial frames are totally equivalent for the
performance of all physical experiments."
arrived at that conclusion?
Of course you can't.
You can give an irrelevant URL, though.
--
Paul
Howie Buhlers
<suzyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>Non simultaneity would be a violation of the principle of relativity.
>"All inertial frames are totally equivalent for the
>performance of all physical experiments."
>http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/jk1/lectures/node7.html
>
><<From the scientific point of view, the important thing is
>based on the concept of an =93ideal clock=94 corrected for all
>local sensible conditions, justified by the empirical fact
>that all physical phenomena are affected identically
>by their state of inertial motion (which is not a locally
>sensible condition). >>
Surely you've mis-understood the meaning of that sentence. It doesn't
say physical phenomena are unaffected by their state of motion, it
says that all phenomena - if they are affected - are affected in
exactly the same way by their state of motion. For example, if a bar
of gold shrinks to half its length in a certain direction due to a
certain state of motion, then a wooden ruler will also shrink to half
its length, as will everything else, when in that same state of
motion, and as a result the state of motion is not detectable from
phenomena that all share the same state of motion (i.e., "not locally
sensible"). You seem to be interpreting that sentence to be saying
almost exactly the opposite of what it says, i.e., you seem to think
it says that (for example) all clocks progress by the same amount
between two events, regardless of their states of motion in between
those events. It certainly doesn't say that, unless the clocks were in
the _same_ state of motion throughout that interval. Your construal of
your other reference is likewise opposite to its actual meaning.
Sue...
> On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 12:28:52 -0700 (PDT), "Sue..."
>
> >Non simultaneity would be a violation of the principle of relativity.
> >"All inertial frames are totally equivalent for the
> >performance of all physical experiments."
> >
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/jk1/lectures/node7.html
>
> ><<From the scientific point of view, the important thing is
> >to understand the clearly defined meaning of =93proper time=94,
> >based on the concept of an =93ideal clock=94 corrected for all
> >local sensible conditions, justified by the empirical fact
> >that all physical phenomena are affected identically
> >!!! =96 including their rates of temporal progression =96 !!!
> >by their state of inertial motion (which is not a locally
> >sensible condition). >>
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s4-07/4-07.htm
>
> Surely you've mis-understood the meaning of that sentence. It doesn't
> say physical phenomena are unaffected by their state of motion, it
> says that all phenomena - if they are affected - are affected in
> exactly the same way by their state of motion.
Motion with respect to what point of reference?
> For example, if a bar
> of gold shrinks to half its length in a certain direction due to a
> certain state of motion, then a wooden ruler will also shrink to half
> its length, as will everything else, when in that same state of
> motion, and as a result the state of motion is not detectable from
> phenomena that all share the same state of motion (i.e., "not locally
> sensible"). You seem to be interpreting that sentence to be saying
> almost exactly the opposite of what it says, i.e., you seem to think
> it says that (for example) all clocks progress by the same amount
> between two events, regardless of their states of motion in between
> those events.
They do maintain there rate. Otherwise you would have a detector
of absolute motion which the relativity principle says can't exist.
> It certainly doesn't say that, unless the clocks were in
> the _same_ state of motion throughout that interval. Your construal of
> your other reference is likewise opposite to its actual meaning.
My wrist watch is in motion wrt near luminal cosmic particles. It
doesn't
change shape when I shield the particles nor does its rate of
progress change.
What is a "state of motion" if you not have specified a point
of reference. Have you gone back in time and gathered a
sample of Newton's ether? :o)
Sue...
Sue...
[...]
>
> In physics, there are frame-independent physical and measurable
> quantities, and there are frame-dependent physical and measurable
> quantities. The principle of relativity in NO WAY rules out the
> latter.
If you think a burning candle is frame dependent then I suppose you
don't think much of Einstein's use of tensor calculus.
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node111.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem
Sue...
>
> PD
PD
> On Jun 10, 8:41 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
>
>
>
> > In physics, there are frame-independent physical and measurable
> > quantities, and there are frame-dependent physical and measurable
> > quantities. The principle of relativity in NO WAY rules out the
> > latter.
>
> If you think a burning candle is frame dependent
Yes.
> then I suppose you
> don't think much of Einstein's use of tensor calculus.
I don't know why you would suppose that. It has absolutely nothing to
do with it.
Furthermore, I don't know why you would post a link to Noether's
theorem which has nothing to do with either Einstein's use of tensor
calculus or frame-dependent variables.
>
> Sue...
>
>
>
> > PD
Sue...
> On Jun 10, 12:11 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 10, 8:41 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > [...]
>
> > > In physics, there are frame-independent physical and measurable
> > > quantities, and there are frame-dependent physical and measurable
> > > quantities. The principle of relativity in NO WAY rules out the
> > > latter.
>
> > If you think a burning candle is frame dependent
>
> Yes.
>
> > then I suppose you
> > don't think much of Einstein's use of tensor calculus.
>
> I don't know why you would suppose that. It has absolutely nothing to
> do with it.
>
I guess you didn't make it to the second sentence of the web page.
>
>
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node111.html
http://...
>
> Furthermore, I don't know why you would post a link to Noether's
> theorem which has nothing to do with either Einstein's use of tensor
> calculus or frame-dependent variables.
Because other participants in this discussion may not be
as pig headed as you are. You'll never read anything that
offers rational solution to your
your mathematically absurd twins myth.
Well... at least you can recognise the folly of casting
pearls before swine.
Sue...
>
>
>
> > Sue...
>
> > > PD
PD
> On Jun 10, 3:18 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 10, 12:11 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 10, 8:41 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > [...]
>
> > > > In physics, there are frame-independent physical and measurable
> > > > quantities, and there are frame-dependent physical and measurable
> > > > quantities. The principle of relativity in NO WAY rules out the
> > > > latter.
>
> > > If you think a burning candle is frame dependent
>
> > Yes.
>
> > > then I suppose you
> > > don't think much of Einstein's use of tensor calculus.
>
> > I don't know why you would suppose that. It has absolutely nothing to
> > do with it.
>
> I guess you didn't make it to the second sentence of the web page.
Ah, so that's what you were referring to. Try clicking Next and read
the next page, especially the part near the bottom about classifying
the relationships that are described by the laws of physics.
Simultaneity between two events is not one of those relationships ---
it is not a law of physics. Neither is the length of time a candle
burns, regardless of inertial frame. --- that is not a law of physics.
>
>
>
> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node111.html
>
> http://...
>
>
>
> > Furthermore, I don't know why you would post a link to Noether's
> > theorem which has nothing to do with either Einstein's use of tensor
> > calculus or frame-dependent variables.
>
> Because other participants in this discussion may not be
> as pig headed as you are. You'll never read anything that
> offers rational solution to your
> your mathematically absurd twins myth.
There is nothing absurd, mathematically or physically, about the twin
puzzle. What do you find absurd, and why are you on such a quest to
find a solution other than the rational one that is already offered?
Howie Buhlers
<suzyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>> > ...all physical phenomena are affected identically
>> >!!! =96 including their rates of temporal progression =96 !!!
>> >by their state of inertial motion (which is not a locally
>> >sensible condition).
>> say physical phenomena are unaffected by their state of motion, it
>> says that all phenomena - if they are affected - are affected in
>> exactly the same way by their state of motion.
>Motion with respect to what point of reference?
You mis-read my comment. It didn't say "all phenomena are affected in
exactly the same way by their state of motion", it said "it [the
referenced you cited] says that all phenomena - if they are affected -
are affected in exactly the same way by their state of motion." You
cited this in support of your contention that phenomena are not
affected at all, and I pointed out that it says just the opposite.
(You're welcome.) So now, after it's been pointed out that your
supporting reference actually contradicts your beliefs, you challenge
*me* to justify the terms of *your* reference. I can't help wondering
why you didn't ask yourself the question above ("Motion with respect
to what point of reference?") when you originally posted that quote as
if it expressed your beliefs. Strange.
>> ... you seem to think it says that (for example) all clocks progress by
>> the same amount between two events, regardless of their states of
>> motion in between those events.
>They do maintain there rate. Otherwise you would have a detector
>of absolute motion which the relativity principle says can't exist.
A clock always has whatever rate it has, so we can't assess its rate
by comparing it with itself. If we compare a clock to some other
physical process, and if that process is at rest relative to the
(ideal) clock, then they will be in the same proportion, regardless of
how they are moving relative to something else. But we can't say the
clock has maintained its same rate, we can only say the rates of all
phenomena are affected equally by their state of motion, hence the
undetectability of absolute motion, and hence all three of the
assertions in your two brief sentences are wrong.
>My wrist watch is in motion wrt near luminal cosmic particles. It
>doesn't change shape when I shield the particles nor does its rate of
>progress change.
Were you, by any chance, enjoying a drink when you typed that? Maybe
if you waited until you sober up before posting again, your messages
will make more (or at least some) sense.
>What is a "state of motion" if you not have specified a point of
>reference.
One can speak of two objects being in the same location without
specifying an absolute location. Likewise one can speak of two objects
being in the same state of motion (i.e., at rest with respect to each
other) without specifying an absolute motion. I'm quite sure you
rarely if ever object to speaking about spatial relations between
objects (things being either here or there), despite the fact that you
can't define or detect the absolute spatial position of an object, so
your objection to speaking about motional relations is intellectually
dishonest - which brings us back to your habit of citing things that
say the opposite of what you claim.
Sue...
> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 09:55:25 -0700 (PDT), "Sue..."
>
> >> > ...all physical phenomena are affected identically
> >> >!!! =96 including their rates of temporal progression =96 !!!
> >> >by their state of inertial motion (which is not a locally
> >> >sensible condition).
> >> Surely you've mis-understood the meaning of that sentence. It doesn't
> >> say physical phenomena are unaffected by their state of motion, it
> >> says that all phenomena - if they are affected - are affected in
> >> exactly the same way by their state of motion.
> >Motion with respect to what point of reference?
>
> You mis-read my comment. It didn't say "all phenomena are affected in
> exactly the same way by their state of motion", it said "it [the
> referenced you cited] says that all phenomena - if they are affected -
> are affected in exactly the same way by their state of motion."
I don't find such a statement in either of the references I
cited:
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/jk1/lectures/node7.html
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s4-07/4-07.htm
But the meaning seems clear:
<< So, what we are really saying is that the laws of physics
do not depend on our choice of coordinate system. In particular,
if a law of physics is true in one coordinate system then it is
automatically true in every other coordinate system, subject to
the proviso that both coordinate systems are inertial. >>
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node112.html
> You
> cited this in support of your contention that phenomena are not
> affected at all, and I pointed out that it says just the opposite.
> (You're welcome.) So now, after it's been pointed out that your
> supporting reference actually contradicts your beliefs, you challenge
> *me* to justify the terms of *your* reference. I can't help wondering
> why you didn't ask yourself the question above ("Motion with respect
> to what point of reference?") when you originally posted that quote as
> if it expressed your beliefs. Strange.
Ok... how is the burning of a candle affected by motion?
>
> >> ... you seem to think it says that (for example) all clocks progress by
> >> the same amount between two events, regardless of their states of
> >> motion in between those events.
> >They do maintain there rate. Otherwise you would have a detector
> >of absolute motion which the relativity principle says can't exist.
>
> A clock always has whatever rate it has, so we can't assess its rate
> by comparing it with itself. If we compare a clock to some other
> physical process, and if that process is at rest relative to the
> (ideal) clock, then they will be in the same proportion, regardless of
> how they are moving relative to something else. But we can't say the
> clock has maintained its same rate, we can only say the rates of all
> phenomena are affected equally by their state of motion, hence the
> undetectability of absolute motion, and hence all three of the
> assertions in your two brief sentences are wrong.
Are clocks affected by motion?
>
> >My wrist watch is in motion wrt near luminal cosmic particles. It
> >doesn't change shape when I shield the particles nor does its rate of
> >progress change.
>
> Were you, by any chance, enjoying a drink when you typed that? Maybe
> if you waited until you sober up before posting again, your messages
> will make more (or at least some) sense.
If you are seeing your watch change shape and rate as cosmic
particles zip past it, it is *you* who needs to sober up...
or post some pictures of your deformed watch.
>
> >What is a "state of motion" if you not have specified a point of
> >reference.
>
> One can speak of two objects being in the same location without
> specifying an absolute location. Likewise one can speak of two objects
> being in the same state of motion (i.e., at rest with respect to each
> other) without specifying an absolute motion.
That is fair enough. So, Is the motion of cosmic particles
relative to my watch affecting the shape or rate of my
wrist watch?
> I'm quite sure you
> rarely if ever object to speaking about spatial relations between
> objects (things being either here or there), despite the fact that you
> can't define or detect the absolute spatial position of an object, so
> your objection to speaking about motional relations is intellectually
> dishonest - which brings us back to your habit of citing things that
> say the opposite of what you claim.
Where do you find in this excerpt, any lattitude for a candle
to burn different *because* of its motion, relative or absolute?
<< The key to understanding special relativity is Einstein's
relativity principle, which states that
All inertial frames are totally equivalent for
the performance of all physical experiments.
In other words, it is impossible to perform a physical experiment
which differentiates in any fundamental sense between different
inertial frames. By definition, Newton's laws of motion take the
same form in all inertial frames. Einstein generalized this result
in his special theory of relativity by asserting that all laws of
physics take the same form in all inertial frames. >>
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/jk1/lectures/node7.html
Sue...
Howie Buhlers
> "...all physical phenomena are affected identically ... by their
> state of inertial motion..."
On Jun 11, 12:54 am, hbuhl...@spamlessss.com (Howie Buhlers) wrote:
> ...it said "it [the referenced you cited] says that all phenomena
> are affected in exactly the same way by their state of motion..."
suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
>I don't find such a statement in either of the references I cited.
The first excerpt above is an exact quote of *your* message in which
you quoted the words "all physical phenomena are affected
identically...by their state of inertial motion" First you claimed
these words represent your position, which you regard as
self-evidently true. Then you argued that the words were
incomprehensible because they refer to "state of motion". Now you
claim that you never quoted them in the first place. So it goes...
Darwin123
> On May 30, 10:42 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" wrote in sci.
> physics.relativity:
>
> > 1) There are no space muons.
> > Muons are created when cosmic rays or particles hit the
> > upper parts of the atmosphere.
>
> > 2) Time dilation is not a cause of anything. It is a description
> > of something.
>
> > 3) Special relativity asserts nothing. It models the behaviour
> > of particles, based on precise measurements and on the
> > way properties of particles are defined. Muons at rest
> > live a certain amount of time. Moving muons live longer...
>
> Bravo Moortel Moortel! Clever zombie! But how exactly do you measure
> the lifetime of "muons at rest"?
Muons are often created and examined in laboratory accelerators,
not just from secondary-collision cosmic-rays. One can manipulate the
muons until they are nearly at rest in the laboratory frame. The
properties of the muons at rest in the laboratory, including the rest
lifetime of muons, has been measured.
If you don't believe this has been done, Google the phrase "muonic
atoms." Scientists have produced muons in the laboratory using
laboratory accelerated particles, and slowed them down. The muons have
been used to replace electrons in atoms. Yes, muons have been formed
bound to protons. The spectra of the electromagnetic radiations
emitted from these muons verify some of the calculated results of
quantum theory. However, QM is irrelevant.
The fact is, rest muons have been experimentally examined. Muons at
high velocities relative to the measurement apparatii have been
measured. The predictions of SR have been validated with muons. Your
original claim concerning the nonexistence of rest muons is completely
is not only untrue, it shows your poor research skills.
Before making such a claim about what other people haven't done,
you should try looking up what they claim. If you don't like their
claims, then maybe you can develop a case. However, not making even a
superficial effort to look up previous research indicates that you
have no interest in the science. You just like to slander physicists.
Look up "muon experiments" and "muonic atoms." If you don't, I
stand by my claim that you are a phoney.
Pentcho Valev
Another zombie called "Draper" has already suggested that Einstein
zombie world should forget the cosmic-ray-muons-at-rest hoax:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/9762856a0306c829
Impossible. The cosmic-ray-muons-at-rest hoax is unforgettable.
Einstein zombie world has no capacity to worship new hoaxes. It does
not even sing "Divine Einstein" anymore.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Sue...
You are quoting the article from mathpages:
<<From the scientific point of view, the important thing
is to understand the clearly defined meaning of
“proper time”, based on the concept of an “ideal clock”
corrected for all local sensible conditions, justified
by the empirical fact that all physical phenomena are
affected identically
– including their rates of temporal progression –
by their state of inertial motion (which is not a locally
sensible condition). >>
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s4-07/4-07.htm
That says candles in relative motion burn at
the same rate. I have never claimed otherwise.
Sue...
Howie Buhlers
<suzyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>You are quoting the article from mathpages:
>
>the same rate. I have never claimed otherwise.
Once again, that is not what it says. It says nearly the exact
opposite. Perhaps English is not your first language, and you are
struggling with some translation issues. Let me see if I can help you
out. It says all physical phenomena ARE AFFECTED in exactly the same
way ("identically") by their state of motion. The statement that you
are making, in contrast, says that physical phenomena ARE NOT AFFECTED
at all by their state of motion. (And please let us not circle the
barn again over your dodge that we cannot speak of objects having
different states of motion, as if we can't speak of them having
different positions. In any case, your reference speaks of objects
having different states of motion, so if you don't agree with it, you
shouldn't cite it in support of your views.) Honestly, if you are
unable to grasp the rudimentary conceptual distinction between "are
affected" and "are not affected", it's hard to imagine how you can
believe yourself mentally equipped to understand theoretical physics.
Bryan Olson
> "Sue..." wrote:
>> You are quoting the article from mathpages:
>> all physical phenomena are affected identically...
>> by their state of inertial motion
>>
>> That says candles in relative motion burn at
>> the same rate. I have never claimed otherwise.
>
> Once again, that is not what it says. It says nearly the exact
> opposite.
Welcome to the world according to Sue, where theories mean
their opposites, and learned sources support Sue's position
regardless of what they actually say.
Beware: Sue is better than the average kook at wasting other
people's time. Citing random references takes far less effort
than studying them.
--
--Bryan
Sue...
> On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 23:38:00 -0700 (PDT), "Sue..."
>
I suggest you read the entire article so you have some context
to interpret the authors intent. Parsing phrases isn't
usually helpful when nature always has the last word.
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s4-07/4-07.htm
Sue...
Howie Buhlers
<suzyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>I suggest you read the entire article so you have some context
>to interpret the authors intent.
If the context of the article you quoted implied that the phrase "are
affected" is to be interpreted as "are not affected", then you would
have a point. But it doesn't, so you don't.
Sue...
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 09:07:02 -0700 (PDT), "Sue..."
>
> >I suggest you read the entire article so you have some context
> >to interpret the authors intent.
>
> If the context of the article you quoted implied that the phrase "are
> affected" is to be interpreted as "are not affected", then you would
> have a point. But it doesn't, so you don't.
PD's candle can burn slower than yours so he will be happy.
Your candle can burn slower than PD's, so you will be happy.
Ignorance is bliss so neither one of you will have to
worry about what the trying to say.
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s4-07/4-07.htm
Sue...
Bryan Olson
> Howie Buhlers wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 09:07:02 -0700 (PDT), "Sue..."
>>
>> <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>> I suggest you read the entire article so you have some context
>>> to interpret the authors intent.
>> If the context of the article you quoted implied that the phrase "are
>> affected" is to be interpreted as "are not affected", then you would
>> have a point. But it doesn't, so you don't.
>
> PD's candle can burn slower than yours so he will be happy.
> Your candle can burn slower than PD's, so you will be happy.
Relativity gets it right so serious students of physics
are happy.
Sue dumbs it all down so Sue is happy.
> Ignorance is bliss so neither one of you will have to
> worry about what the trying to say.
> http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s4-07/4-07.htm
Thanks Sue. I could not ask for better confirmation of my
previous post to this thread.
--
--Bryan
Sue...
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s4-07/4-07.htm
Except for a few uncomplimentary words about Herbert
Dingle the article seems devoid of personal insults,
the only content in your previous posts.
Would you care to explain why force-free motion
should be included or excluded from the below list
of factors, representative of a burning candle.
<<The following affect the rate of combustion,
or simply put, how fast something burns. Note
that 3 components of the fire triangle are present
among the five factors.
· The nature of the fuel used.
· The concentration of oxygen
· The surface area of the fuel
· Temperature
· Presence of catalysts >>
http://www.emsb.qc.ca/laurenhill/science/rate2.html
Sue...
>
> --
> --Bryan
Bryan Olson
Would I care to expend more time on the assumption that
your citations, Sue, must have some significance, or
else you would not have cited them? Nope. Been there,
done that.
Fool me once, shame on thee; fool me twice, shame on me.
Actually, to my shame, I followed up about maybe a dozen
of Sue's false citations. Sue cited course material from
MIT and U Texas to support her "twins myth" position.
Turned out those universities -- the ones Sue chose to
bring up -- teach the twins paradox as genuine phenomenon,
and an outcome of relativity.
Howie proved sharper than was I. He spanked Sue with her
own citations right off.
> <<The following affect the rate of combustion,
> or simply put, how fast something burns. Note
> that 3 components of the fire triangle are present
> among the five factors.
>
> · The nature of the fuel used.
> · The concentration of oxygen
> · The surface area of the fuel
> · Temperature
> · Presence of catalysts >>
> http://www.emsb.qc.ca/laurenhill/science/rate2.html
Typical Sue. A fine source, talking about nothing at issue
here.
--
--Bryan
Sue...
So after comparing U.Texas with MIT, can you with
confidence assert that A can be greater than B
while B is greater than A?
Can you also confidently assert that uniform relative
motion should be included among the factors that affect
the combustion rate of a candle?
These *seem* to be the positions you are taking and
I would suggest you might find some supporing material
by examining the record of Caltech's football team for
the past five years. :o)
Sue...
>
> --
> --Bryan
Bryan Olson
> Bryan Olson wrote:
>> Sue... wrote:
>>> <<The following affect the rate of combustion,
>>> or simply put, how fast something burns. Note
>>> that 3 components of the fire triangle are present
>>> among the five factors.
>>> · The nature of the fuel used.
>>> · The concentration of oxygen
>>> · The surface area of the fuel
>>> · Temperature
>>> · Presence of catalysts >>
>>> http://www.emsb.qc.ca/laurenhill/science/rate2.html
>> Typical Sue. A fine source, talking about nothing at issue
>> here.
>
> So after comparing U.Texas with MIT, can you with
> confidence assert that A can be greater than B
> while B is greater than A?
I can confidently assert, Sue, that you don't know what
you are talking about.
If you ever get around to reading the material you've
cited, you might notice those little prime marks on some
of the variables. Did you think those were just
decorative?
> Can you also confidently assert that uniform relative
> motion should be included among the factors that affect
> the combustion rate of a candle?
> These *seem* to be the positions you are taking and
> I would suggest you might find some supporing material
> by examining the record of Caltech's football team for
> the past five years. :o)
Typical Sue.
--
--Bryan
Sue...
If little prime marks will help you state your own position
then be my guest.
Again:
<<Can you with
confidence assert that A can be greater than B
while B is greater than A?
Can you also confidently assert that uniform relative
motion should be included among the factors that affect
the combustion rate of a candle? >>
Sue...
>
> Typical Sue.
>
> --
> --Bryan
Paul B. Andersen
> Again:
> <<Can you with
> confidence assert that A can be greater than B
> while B is greater than A?
I suppose this is a naive persons idea of "mutual time dilation".
I challenge you to explain why you find "mutual time dilation"
contradictory.
You can do it by pointing out what is contradictory in
the following scenario.
You can read it here:
http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf
or below:
Let's have two synchronized clocks (according to Einstein's definition)
in each of two inertial frames of reference, let the clocks be a proper
distance d from each other in their respective frames, let the frames
move with a relative speed v.
-d 0 x'
K' frame: B'------A'--> -> v
K frame: A ------B-->
0 d x
There are three events of interest:
E1: A and A' adjacent
E2: A and B' adjacent
E3: B and A' adjacent
Let's calculate what the clocks will show at these events:
E1: A = t1 = 0, A' = t1' = 0 (by fiat, we set the clocks thus)
E2:
In the K' frame, A will be at the position -d at t2' = d/v
LT: t2 = (d/v + (-d)*v/c^2)/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
t2 = (d/v)*sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
E3:
In the K frame, A' will be at the position d at t3 = d/v
LT: t3' = (d/v - d*v/c^2)/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
t3' = (d/v)*sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
Summing up, the readings of the clocks will be:
E1: A = t1 = 0, A'= t1'= 0
E2: A = t2 =(d/v)*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), B'= t2'= d/v
E3: B = t3 = d/v, A'= t3'=(d/v)*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
The symmetry is obvious.
So which clock is running slow or fast relative to which?
The answer depends on how we compare the clocks!
===============================================
In the K-frame, we can measure the rate dt'/dt of
the moving A' clock by comparing the reading of A'
with the _two_ clocks A and B as it passes them:
dt'/dt = (t3' - t1')/(t3 - t1) = sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
Conclusion #1:
A' runs slow as measured in the K frame.
=======================================
In the K'-frame, we can measure the rate dt/dt' of
the moving A clock by comparing the reading of A
with the _two_ clocks A' and B' as it passes them:
dt/dt' = (t2 - t1)/(t2' - t1') = sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
Conclusion #2;
A runs slow as measured in the K' frame.
=======================================
This is what is meant by "mutual time dilation".
Conclusion #1 does not contradict conclusion #2.
They state in fact two different things.
But we can draw more conclusions:
We can measure the rate R' at which an observer in K'
will see the co-ordinate time of K run by reading the
clocks A and B as they passes the A' clock:
R' = (t3 - t1)/(t3' - t1') = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
Conclusion #3:
The co-ordinate time of K runs _fast_ as measured in the K'-frame
=================================================================
We can measure the rate R at which an observer in K
will see the co-ordinate time of K' run by reading the
clocks A' and B' as they passes the A clock:
R = (t2' - t1')/(t2 - t1) = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
Conclusion #4:
The co-ordinate time of K' runs _fast_ as measured in the K-frame
=================================================================
There is nothing contradictory between conclusion #3 and #4 either,
as they too state different things.
It is in fact conclusions #1 and #3 and conclusions #2 and #4
respectively that state the same facts.
-----------------------
You now have the following options:
1. You can ignore the challenge.
2. You can give an irrelevant URL.
3. You can try to be witty.
4. You can mumble something about marbles or garden hoses.
Trying to meet the challenge is of course no option for the Sue entity.
So what will it be this time?
--
Paul
Sue...
<paul.b.ander...@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
[...]
>
> You can do it by pointing out what is contradictory in
> the following scenario.
>
> You can read it here:
http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf
...Nice work typesetting the pretty pdf equations. Now see if you
can find how to code the symbol for tau so you have
a snowball's chance in hell of writing something that
agrees with the theory.
"Proper [space] Time
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node114.html
Sue...
[...]
>
> --
> Paul
>
mlut...@wanadoo.fr
The logical error made by Einsteinian relativists
consists in confusing observations using light with
physical reality.
For instance, they believe that synchronized clocks
put into orbit around the Earth will show different
times when brought back to Earth after a number
of orbits (cf. their conclusions of the controversial H&K
experiment), simply because they observe different
clock rates when the cloks are orbiting.
They are like infants thinking that the world disappear
when they close their eyes.
Marcel Luttgens
Dono
>
> The logical error made by Einsteinian relativists
> consists in confusing observations using light with
> physical reality.
> For instance, they believe that synchronized clocks
> put into orbit around the Earth will show different
> times when brought back to Earth after a number
> of orbits (cf. their conclusions of the controversial H&K
> experiment), simply because they observe different
> clock rates when the cloks are orbiting.
Marcel,
Even if Haefele-Keating experiment was controversial, the GPS is NOT.
So, you ate shit again.
mlut...@wanadoo.fr
Poor Dono, he can't even realize that
the *observed* clock rates are different when the clocks
are orbiting, like in the GPS or the H&K experiment.
He is a typical Einsteinian crackpot!
Marcel Luttgens
Dono
Marcelito, old fart
The same GR correction needs to be applied in both cases. Have you
taken your Alzheimer pills today?
mlut...@wanadoo.fr
Of course, the same GR corrections have to be applied
in both cases to link the observations on Earth to
the clock rate of the orbiting clocks!
But you have been too 'brainwashed' to understand what
I wrote:
"The logical error made by Einsteinian relativists
consists in confusing observations using light with
physical reality.
For instance, they believe that synchronized clocks
put into orbit around the Earth will show different
times when brought back to Earth after a number
of orbits (cf. their conclusions of the controversial H&K
experiment), simply because they observe different
clock rates when the cloks are orbiting."
Marcel Luttgens
Dono
>
> - Show quoted text -
Old fart,
The clocks used by GPS need to be adjusted to accomodate the GR
predictions. In this respect, their behavior is indistinguishable from
the behavior of the clocks used in the H&K experiment. Take your
Alzheimer pills, you will perform much better!
mlut...@wanadoo.fr
What is ajusted, Donito?
Their frequency, of course, by an amount chosen in such
way that their *observed* frequency is identical to the
frequency of clocks situated on Earth.
And if you bring back those GPS clocks on Earth,
their frequency will differ from that of the Earth clocks
exactly by such amount.
Suck at your feeding bottle. In a few years, you will
perhaps be able to distinguish between observed and real
changes.
Marcel Luttgens
Dono
>And if you bring back those GPS clocks on Earth,
> their frequency will differ from that of the Earth clocks
> exactly by such amount.
....which means that the GPS and the H&K produce the SAME exact
effects, the effects correctly predicted by GR theory, the theory
that you try in vain to deny, old fart. Checkmate!
mlut...@wanadoo.fr
Donito, contrary to the GPS clocks, the H&K clocks were
*not* adjusted, and the Einsteinian relativists happily
endorsed the conclusions of the authors, i.e. that the
clocks underwent a real and permanent change of frequency
during the flight:
"When they *returned* and compared their clocks with the
clock of the Observatory in Washington, D.C., they had
gained about 0.15 microseconds compared to the ground
based clock.
Eastward Journey Westward Journey
Predicted -40 +/- 23 ns + 275 +/- 21 ns
Measured -59 +/- 10 ns + 273 +/- 7 ns "
Needless to repeat that those findings are highly
controversial.
Marcel Luttgens
Dono
<repeated imbecilities snipped>
So, following the same logic, if the clocks deployed in space were to
return on Earth, the same exact effect would be observed. The one
correctly predicted by GR, the theory that you try in vain to dispute,
old fart!
Eric Gisse
...in what way is it "controversial"?
Let us see if you can answer the question without referencing a
certain engineer's discredited opinion.