The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity

[wor...@yandex.ru]

Hello!

Abstract: http://www.walter-orlov.wg.am/dilation.ppt

Two years ago was reported about allegedly the best confirmation of the special relativity. For example: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/einsteins-time-dilation-prediction-verified/

This is not true, the real time stretching confirms above all the ether theory.

The relativistic time dilation is determined by twinsparadoxone. The cunning twin must always return, so that his younger appearance can be confirmed. Otherwise according to special relativity from the point of view of each twin will be young the other twin. But in the experiments the return of cunning twin is not required, because by fast objects the time is already slower, without return!

The reality needs no complexity of relativity.


Best regards

Walter Orlov

[Dono,]

On Sunday, November 27, 2016 at 5:25:00 AM UTC-8, wor...@yandex.ru wrote:
>snip imbecilities<
Fuck off, wacko.

[wor...@yandex.ru]

Admittedly the experiments based on the twin-paradox principle in particle physics have long been a rutine. Thus the decay of muons is observed, which circling in a storage ring with near light speed (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v268/n5618/abs/268301a0.html). They decay much slower and return to the measuring apparatus over and over (over 1000 times) in the course of the experiment.

However, the condition with the return is artificial and superfluous. The experiment in Darmstadt https://arxiv.org/abs/1409.7951 has shown that the time dilation is instantaneous. Hence there is no agreement between reality and relativity.

[David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller]

Dono Brain = https://youtu.be/ex1Atx1tQPk?t=1m27s

David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller Brain = https://youtu.be/V49Jvz5X_lc?t=30s

[Sylvia Else]

As usual, a person who comes up with such stuff is so muddled in their
thinking that it's difficult to know how to explain where they've gone
wrong.

The experiment verifies that time for the lithium ions is dilated in the
frame of the experimenter. The experiment did not determine how things
look in the frame of the lithium ions. SR says that time for the
experimenter is dilated in the frame of the ions. Your "real time
stretching" notion would require some other outcome, but since the
experiment didn't examine that, it has nothing to say about your notion,
and in particular, does not support it.

There, I tried my best.

Sylvia.

[Helmut Wabnig]

On Sun, 27 Nov 2016 23:08:51 -0800 (PST), wor...@yandex.ru wrote:

>Admittedly the experiments based on the twin-paradox principle in particle physics have long been a rutine. Thus the decay of muons is observed, which circling in a storage ring with near light speed (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v268/n5618/abs/268301a0.html). They decay much slower and return to the measuring apparatus over and over (over 1000 times) in the course of the experiment.
>
>However, the condition with the return is artificial and superfluous. The experiment in Darmstadt https://arxiv.org/abs/1409.7951 has shown that the time dilation is instantaneous. Hence there is no agreement between reality and relativity.

The Darmstadt letter says:
>This allows us to verify the Special Relativity relation
>between the time dilation factor ? and the velocity ß,
>?p1-ß2 = 1 to within ±2.3 × 10-9 at this velocity.

I do not understand why you say:

>Hence there is no agreement between reality and relativity.

w.

[wor...@yandex.ru]

Am Montag, 28. November 2016 09:09:09 UTC+1 schrieb Sylvia Else:

>
> The experiment verifies that time for the lithium ions is dilated in the
> frame of the experimenter. The experiment did not determine how things
> look in the frame of the lithium ions.

From the point of view of the Li-ions the time in the laboratory goes faster... Why? Another experiment (Rossi–Hall experiment 1940) can help us, to understand this better.

My picture: http://walter-orlov.wg.am/myonen-flugzeug.png

Here the meyons move also only in one direction from heaven to earth without return. Their own time is slower (times relativistic gamma). In this time, however, the aircraft will travel a longer distance. In other words, from the point of view of the meyons the airplane will fly faster. Even if the muons see people on the plane, they will articulate with the limbs as if they were in a fast run.

[wor...@yandex.ru]

Am Montag, 28. November 2016 10:12:56 UTC+1 schrieb Helmut Wabnig:
>
> The Darmstadt letter says:
> >This allows us to verify the Special Relativity relation
> >between the time dilation factor ? and the velocity ß,
> >?p1-ß2 = 1 to within ±2.3 × 10-9 at this velocity.
>
> I do not understand why you say:
> >Hence there is no agreement between reality and relativity.
>

For the theory of relativity it is actually very important that the time dilation at first is seemingly. Only in this way can the principle of relativity work. If the slowing of the time in the reference system of one of the observers is real, then in the reference system of second observer must automatically increase the time speed. In this way the relativity principle collapses.

[Sylvia Else]

The ions have to allow for the changing relative position of the
aircraft. If the ion were actually looking at the aircraft, and were
intelligent, it would realise that it has to make allowance for the
changing time for the light from the aircraft to reach the ion's eyes
(we'll assume the ion has eyes as well). The ion would conclude that
time for the aircraft is going more slowly, and that the apparent higher
speed is because of the change in the light path length.

Just to muddy the waters further, the aircraft is not in an inertial
frame, whereas the ions are (more or less).

Sylvia.

[wor...@yandex.ru]

Am Dienstag, 29. November 2016 02:44:10 UTC+1 schrieb Sylvia Else:
>
> The ions have to allow for the changing relative position of the
> aircraft. If the ion were actually looking at the aircraft, and were
> intelligent, it would realise that it has to make allowance for the
> changing time for the light from the aircraft to reach the ion's eyes
> (we'll assume the ion has eyes as well). The ion would conclude that
> time for the aircraft is going more slowly, and that the apparent higher
> speed is because of the change in the light path length.

No matter how the ions are intelligent, they'll just see the plane fly by (relativistic muons have a half-life of 2.2 microseconds). The slower the time in the reference system of the ions, all the faster the aircraft flies. You can even paint the plane as a zebra. Then intelligent ions can count the strips. They will count times gamma more strips. This happens locally, we do not need to consider the speed of light during the transmission of information.

Ions and aircraft fly perpendicular to each other, so no length contraction takes place from the perspective of the others. Nevertheless, the ions will count more strips. Accordingly, they will measure an unbelievable speed of the aircraft: V = V0*gamma (gamma -> oo)... because the time stretching in the reference system of the ions is real!

[wor...@yandex.ru]

Sorry, of course I meant intelligent myones ;)

[David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller]

> Fuck off, wacko.

Kneel before Zod
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKDFop0aqYQ

Dono Brain = https://youtu.be/ex1Atx1tQPk?t=1m27s

David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller Brain = https://youtu.be/V49Jvz5X_lc?t=30s

https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/sci.physics.relativity/8K4Qdq1BvzM

[Sylvia Else]

You're being mislead by thinking that you can somehow sit outside this
and watch it happening.

In the frame of the ions, the aircraft is travelling almost directly
towards them at 2/3 the speed of light.

Sylvia.

[Tom Roberts]

On 11/27/16 11/27/16 7:24 AM, wor...@yandex.ru wrote:
> Abstract: http://www.walter-orlov.wg.am/dilation.ppt

I am not about to download and run such a file from an unknown source.

> Two years ago was reported about allegedly the best confirmation of the
> special relativity. For example:
> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/einsteins-time-dilation-prediction-verified/

As is all too often the case, popularizations like this use a loose and
misleading description. It is NOT a prediction of SR that "time moves slower for
a moving clock than for a stationary one", but in a short, non-technical article
it is difficult to describe it correctly.

Clocks tick at their usual rate regardless of how they might
be moving (relative to any other objects). "Time dilation"
is NOT about clocks "ticking at different rates", but rather
is a geometrical projection between the time coordinates of
relatively-moving clocks.

> This is not true, the real time stretching confirms above all the ether
> theory.

There is no "real time stretching" -- you seem to have been misled by the
incorrect language of that article (and of many other articles, and even some
textbooks).

> The relativistic time dilation is determined by twinsparadoxone. The cunning
> twin must always return, so that his younger appearance can be confirmed.
> Otherwise according to special relativity from the point of view of each twin
> will be young the other twin. But in the experiments the return of cunning
> twin is not required, because by fast objects the time is already slower,
> without return!

I'm not sure what you are trying to say, as your terminology here is not
standard ("cunning"???). But it is true that the twin paradox requires the
traveling twin returns to the homebound twin to compare clocks. It simply is not
true that "time is already slower", and the ACTUAL prediction of SR is more
subtle. Note also that experiments have implemented the "twin paradox", and the
results are in excellent agreement with the predictions of SR.

Until you learn what SR _ACTUALLY_PREDICTS_ you will remain confused.

Tom Roberts

[Tom Roberts]

On 11/28/16 11/28/16 1:08 AM, wor...@yandex.ru wrote:
> Admittedly the experiments based on the twin-paradox principle in particle
> physics have long been a rutine. Thus the decay of muons is observed, which
> circling in a storage ring with near light speed
> (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v268/n5618/abs/268301a0.html). They
> decay much slower and return to the measuring apparatus over and over (over
> 1000 times) in the course of the experiment.
>
> However, the condition with the return is artificial and superfluous.

Not really. In the context of the twin paradox the return is essential. But
indeed "time dilation" itself does not require such a return.

Note the twin paradox does NOT demonstrate "time dilation".
Rather it demonstrates the difference in elapsed proper times
over different paths through spacetime.

Consider triangle ABC. One side goes A->B, and the other two
sides go A->C->B; the lengths of these two paths between A
and B are different. That is PRECISELY what the twin paradox
demonstrates, but in a space-time plane.

> The experiment in Darmstadt https://arxiv.org/abs/1409.7951 has shown that
> the time dilation is instantaneous.

Yes. Note the authors claim agreement with SR.

> Hence there is no agreement between reality and relativity.

You got this WRONG. There is no agreement between reality and YOUR PERSONAL
MISUNDERSTANDINGS OF SR. But as this and zillions of other experiment show,
there _IS_ agreement between experiments and the actual predictions of SR.

> For the theory of relativity it is actually very important that the time
> dilation at first is seemingly.

I don't know what you mean by this, but it is probably wrong as you got it wrong
in other recent posts. "Time dilation" is not a mirage or mere appearance, and
it can have physical consequences (e.g. kilometer-long pion beams exist); but it
is NOT an actual slowing down of time or of clock tick rates -- it is GEOMETRY.

> If the slowing of the time in the reference system of one of the observers is
> real, then in the reference system of second observer must automatically
> increase the time speed. In this way the relativity principle collapses.

You are confused. There is no "slowing of time" in ANY system. What "collapses"
are your personal misunderstandings of SR.

Differently moving observers MEASURE each others' clocks to tick differently
from their own -- this is purely geometry and has NOTHING to do with "time
slowing down".

That's why I put "time dilation" in scare quotes -- it is a very
bad name as it has great potential to confuse people; apparently
it has confused you. But it is historical and we're stuck with it.

Note that the Principle of Relativity says that the laws of physics are the same
in all inertial frames. That means that TIME DOES NOT SLOW DOWN IN ANY INERTIAL
FRAME (because that would change the laws of physics). So it is quite clear YOU
got it wrong (perhaps aided and abetted by careless authors).

Tom Roberts

[wor...@yandex.ru]

Am Donnerstag, 1. Dezember 2016 03:29:03 UTC+1 schrieb tjrob137:

> ... WRONG ... wrong ...
>

Do not get me wrong. I do not think wrong. I mean that the real time stretching is not the same as relativistic time dilation. Relativistic time dilation is an artificial construct and is more complex than reality.

The real time stretching is a process that can happen in a medium. When a light clock is moving in the medium, the light ways are longer and the clock ticks accordingly slower... but already immediately, real, without return... as in the experiment...

Yes, in principle only real time stretching can be measured. And because of that the relativistic imaginary consideration is removed from the basis. It is an auxiliary construct, which should underpin the principle of relativity.

[Odd Bodkin]

You are looking for an alternate, more classical explanation of a
documented observational fact. Unfortunately, your proposal does not
match observations. If time stretching were due to motion through a
medium, then the time dilation would be single-valued, determined
strictly by the relative motion between the body and the medium, and all
observers would agree on the value of the time stretching regardless of
their individual observer motions. Unfortunately, that is not what is
seen. What is seen is that the SAME object looked at by several
different observers at the same time will see DIFFERENT amounts of time
stretching, and this can't be accounted for by the object's motion
through a medium.


--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[wor...@yandex.ru]

Am Donnerstag, 1. Dezember 2016 16:38:35 UTC+1 schrieb Odd Bodkin:

> ... If time stretching were due to motion through a

> medium, then the time dilation would be single-valued, determined
> strictly by the relative motion between the body and the medium, and all
> observers would agree on the value of the time stretching regardless of
> their individual observer motions. Unfortunately, that is not what is
> seen. What is seen is that the SAME object looked at by several
> different observers at the same time will see DIFFERENT amounts of time
> stretching, and this can't be accounted for by the object's motion
> through a medium.
>

That's no problem at all. Only one observer at rest has the reference time. By any other moving observer the time will slower depending on the speed. Therefore for different observers the time stretching of one fixed reference system will also be different.

[Odd Bodkin]

OK, I'm not sure I'm following. Suppose you have one observer at rest,
and there is an object that is moving through the medium at 0.5 c to the
east, and so it's time stretching is some factor (I think it's 15.5%).
Now you have some second observer that is moving 0.2c to the west and so
the time stretching factor for this second observer is 2.1%. For this
second observer, would you say the time stretching factor for the
original object is less than 15.5%, more than 15.5% or the same as 15.5%?

[wor...@yandex.ru]

Am Donnerstag, 1. Dezember 2016 20:58:29 UTC+1 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> OK, I'm not sure I'm following. Suppose you have one observer at rest,
> and there is an object that is moving through the medium at 0.5 c to the
> east, and so it's time stretching is some factor (I think it's 15.5%).
> Now you have some second observer that is moving 0.2c to the west and so

> the time stretching factor for this second observer is 2.1%...

You are now trying to draw me into a relativistic world of thought :)

But do you have such a practical example? Where is the experiment? - Otherwise this is just a brain training, such as school homework ;)

[wor...@yandex.ru]

So, we stay by real things: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v268/n5618/abs/268301a0.html . Let us imagine that the experiment has run like this.

An experimentator stood next to the accelerator with a stopwatch, to measure the lifetime of muons. He kept the clock so that the muons could "see" it. The experimentator stopped the clock after 64μs and said "Wow! The time went by muons 64µs/2.2µs = 29 times slower!".

Meanwhile the muons looked at his watch. They saw that the clock hand turned 29 times faster. In addition, they could still see that the experimentator stopped the clock at 64μs. For the muons, however, it was only 2.2μs. What could they conclude if they were still alive?

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Odd Bodkin wrote:

> On 12/1/2016 1:53 PM, wor...@yandex.ru wrote:

>> […]

I strongly suggest that you google “Walter Orlov” and stop wasting time.

--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 12/2/2016 12:46 AM, wor...@yandex.ru wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 1. Dezember 2016 20:58:29 UTC+1 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>> OK, I'm not sure I'm following. Suppose you have one observer at rest,
>> and there is an object that is moving through the medium at 0.5 c to the
>> east, and so it's time stretching is some factor (I think it's 15.5%).
>> Now you have some second observer that is moving 0.2c to the west and so
>> the time stretching factor for this second observer is 2.1%...
>
> You are now trying to draw me into a relativistic world of thought :)

No, I'm just asking a question. After all, you're the one claiming that
all the relativistic results can be explained without invoking
relativity. So you need to examine cases where relativity claims marked
differences from what classical physics would normally say happens, and
then look at whether IN THOSE CASES, an aether treatment will get the
same result as relativity.

>
> But do you have such a practical example? Where is the experiment? -
> Otherwise this is just a brain training, such as school homework ;)
>

There are oodles of documented practical tests of relativity. Are you
aware of them?

[Odd Bodkin]

On 12/2/2016 7:46 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
>> On 12/1/2016 1:53 PM, wor...@yandex.ru wrote:
>>> […]
>
> I strongly suggest that you google “Walter Orlov” and stop wasting time.
>

I know who he is. My interest here is admittedly limited.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu piątek, 2 grudnia 2016 15:48:12 UTC+1 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> There are oodles of documented practical tests of relativity. Are you
> aware of them?

Yes, poor idiot. Practical tests (GPS) has shown
your concept of counting time locally is exactly as
useless, as it looked, and even those like Tom or Jan
are not stupid enough to treat it seriously.

[wor...@yandex.ru]

Am Freitag, 2. Dezember 2016 14:46:10 UTC+1 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:

> I strongly suggest that you google “Walter Orlov” and stop wasting time.

Nevertheless, to which conclusion do the muons come in their muons sky? How quickly was the time in the reference system of the experimenter from the perspective of the muons?

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

wor...@yandex.ru wrote:

> […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:

>> I strongly suggest that you google “Walter Orlov” and stop wasting time.
>
> Nevertheless, to which conclusion do the muons come in their muons sky?

This sentence does not make sense. I strongly suggest that you learn proper
English or post (also) in a language that you are familiar with (this is an
*international* newsgroup after all).

> How quickly was the time in the reference system of the experimenter from
> the perspective of the muons?

Mu¹. To understand this you must ask:

“What is the time dilation in the frame of reference of the muons *compared
to* and *as observed by* the experimenter *in their rest frame*?”

Because the key point in the theories of relativity is the *relation* of the
same quantities in different frames of reference (and therefore how to
properly transform quantities from one frame of reference to another).
(So – as Tom Roberts already explained – the correct statement is NOT:
“Moving clocks tick slower than those at rest.”, BUT: “Clocks moving
*relative to* the observer *are observed by them* to tick *slower than*
those not moving *relative to* the observer”.)

To answer the right question, you could simply have googled “atmospheric
muons” and found, for example:

,-<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Particles/muonatm.html>
|
| Atmospheric Muons
|
| […]
| Measurement of muon flux at different altitudes is a useful example of
| <relativistic time dilation>. With an energy of 4 GeV, the time dilation
| factor is γ = 38.8 .

Next time, do your own homework.

__________
¹ <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu_(negative)>

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu sobota, 3 grudnia 2016 20:22:03 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napisał:

> “Moving clocks tick slower than those at rest.”, BUT: “Clocks moving
> *relative to* the observer *are observed by them* to tick *slower than*
> those not moving *relative to* the observer”.)

And an observer walking a street observes
trees and buildings running around him.
Relativistic moron imagined!
Relativistic moron simply can't be wrong.

[wor...@yandex.ru]

Am Samstag, 3. Dezember 2016 20:22:03 UTC+1 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
>[...]

Understand... I know the fundamentals of relativity. That relativistic logic has so successfully aggrieved the minds of the several generations of scientists is simply nonsense. You should realize that you should first suppress your mind before you have default relativistic answered. The right answer is: 29 times faster!

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:

> W dniu sobota, 3 grudnia 2016 20:22:03 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas
> 'PointedEars' Lahn napisał:
>
>> “Moving clocks tick slower than those at rest.”, BUT: “Clocks moving
>> *relative to* the observer *are observed by them* to tick *slower than*
>> those not moving *relative to* the observer”.)

This originally started with “So NOT: …”

You have shortened the quotation of my text to make it look like nonsense.
Typical.

> And an observer walking a street observes
> trees and buildings running around him.

If you replace “walking” with “sitting in a car”, and “trees and buildings”
with observable things that actually could move relative to the ground, you
will realize that if the observer cannot realize that the car they are
sitting in is moving relative to the ground, they could just as well assume
that the things they observe outside the car are moving relative to the
ground instead.

A better example of this, which is not just a gedankenexperiment¹, but is
from real life, are two trains halting next to each other at a train
station.² If the trains were constructed so that they accelerate very
slowly and "softly", several times I had a hard time figuring out, without
looking at the platform, whether the other train had started leaving the
station, the train I was sitting in, or both. All I could tell with
certainty was that the trains were moving *relative to each other*. Which
one was moving *relative to the station* was particularly hard to determine
at dawn or night, where from inside the illuminated train you could not see
well the platform on the other side of either train, the lights being
reflected in the windows.

> Relativistic moron imagined!
> Relativistic moron simply can't be wrong.

I hope for you that will get the chance to observe in your lifetime a
situation as I described above, so that you will finally realize that the
principle of relativity is one of the foundations of, but not limited to,
the theories of relativity, nor merely a theoretical construct, and as a
result how stupid *you* have acted in public all these years.

________
¹ Thought experiment. It is agreeable for me to find so many terms from my
native language in scientific English, which of course originated from
several German(-speaking) scholars.
² Maybe it is not mere coincidence that Einstein used trains in his thought
experiments.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

wor...@yandex.ru wrote:

> [gibberish] The right answer is: 29 times faster!

No.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

wor...@yandex.ru wrote:

> [gibberish] The right answer is: 29 times faster!

Given that I already referred you to the right answer,
which differs from what you claim here:

How did you get that idea?

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu sobota, 3 grudnia 2016 21:17:09 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napisał:
> > And an observer walking a street observes
> > trees and buildings running around him.
>
> If you replace “walking” with “sitting in a car”, and “trees and buildings”

And what if I don't replace anything?

> with observable things that actually could move relative to the ground, you
> will realize that if the observer cannot realize that the car they are
> sitting in is moving relative to the ground, they could just as well assume
> that the things they observe outside the car are moving relative to the
> ground instead.

Relativistic moron imagined!
Must be true, relativistic moron can
never be wrong.
Surely they can assume as well. Steering wheel?
Gearbox? Fuel? Ordinary common sense prejudices,
refuted by Michelson and Morley.

But, tell me, please, which precisely experiment
made you an expert in the subject "which assumptions
are well and which are wrong"?

[wor...@yandex.ru]

Am Samstag, 3. Dezember 2016 21:44:03 UTC+1 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
> wor...@yandex.ru wrote:
>
> > [...] The right answer is: 29 times faster!

>
> How did you get that idea?
>

CERN Muon Storage Ring had the diameter of 14m. If the experimenter would be in the middle, it is r = 7m. From there r/c = 23ns, which is negligibly small compared to 2.2μs or 64µs. Therefore we can ignore the effects caused by the light running time.

Through the radioactive decay of the pions the resulting muons saw that the experimenter had started his stopwatch at 0μs. When 2.2μs of their lives were over, they saw that the experimenter had stopped his stopwatch at 64μs. Hence they would have calculated: (64µs - 0µs)/2.2µs = 29.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

wor...@yandex.ru wrote:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Please post here using your real name.

> Am Samstag, 3. Dezember 2016 21:44:03 UTC+1 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars'
> Lahn:

It is called “attribution _line_”, not “attribution novel”. Please trim
your attributions to the relevant minimum, the name of the author or, *if
that is not available*, the sender e-mail address.

>> wor...@yandex.ru wrote:
>> > [...] The right answer is: 29 times faster!
>> How did you get that idea?
>
> CERN Muon Storage Ring had the diameter of 14m. If the experimenter would
> be in the middle, it is r = 7m. From there r/c = 23ns, which is negligibly
> small compared to 2.2μs or 64µs. Therefore we can ignore the effects
> caused by the light running time.

You are considerably confused, to say the least.

First of all, you have not said *which* muons you referred to in your
question to me. If you had cared to *read what I wrote*, I referred you to
a *general* explanation of muon trails based on special relativity that
refers to *atmospheric* muons instead: muons that are created when cosmic
rays collide with molecules in Terra’s atmosphere. And *for them*, at a
measured total energy of ca. E_µ = 4 GeV, the answer γ_µ = 38 given there is
approximately correct [from the basic equations of special relativity, which
you had claimed to know, follows γ_µ = E_µ∕(m_µ c²)].

It is ridiculous of you to claim to have “the right answer” – as opposed to
a “wrong” answer from me –, to *a question that you did not ask*.

Your logic is flawed in at least two other respects:

Because neither are muon measurements made at the center of a muon ring, nor
is it correct – as you presumably attempted – to calculate the relative
speed of a particle as r∕c, where r would be the radius of the ring. You
really need to *learn how the things work* that you are referring to, and
some elementary mathematics (like that the circumference c of a circle is
C = πd = 2πr, where d is its diameter and r is its radius) and physics (like
that particles with mass m > 0, such as muons, cannot and do not travel at
the speed of light, c), before you can have any hope of your statements
making sense (in addition to that that you should *really* post [also] in a
language that you are familiar with; the English text that you have posted
here so far was mostly *gibberish*).

If you follow the references in the article that you have referred to
in your OP, it is referring to an experiment at the “GSI Helmholtz Centre
for heavy-ion research in Darmstadt, *Germany*” (emphasis mine):

<http://www.nature.com/news/special-relativity-aces-time-trial-1.15970>

(as referred by <https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/einsteins-time-dilation-prediction-verified/>,
which you referred to in <news:872b50e2-80c6-4846-
afbe-2a8...@googlegroups.com>)

CERN is not anywhere near Germany; it is located near Geneva, on the French–
Swiss border, instead. I have no idea to what statements and experiments
you are referring to instead, but ISTM to be another straw man fallacy:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man>

> Through the radioactive decay of the pions the resulting muons saw that
> the experimenter had started his stopwatch at 0μs. When 2.2μs of their
> lives were over, they saw that the experimenter had stopped his stopwatch
> at 64μs. Hence they would have calculated: (64µs - 0µs)/2.2µs = 29.

Such a nonsense, it is not even wrong.

[David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller]

On Sunday, December 4, 2016 at 11:48:14 AM UTC-6, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> wor...@yandex.ru wrote:
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Please post here using your real name.

Yes ... Logic from Thomas Lahn

[wor...@yandex.ru]

Am Sonntag, 4. Dezember 2016 18:48:14 UTC+1 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
>[...]

Make it extra to play an unsuspecting? Have you read the discussion? Should I start from scratch?

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

wor...@yandex.ru wrote:

> Am Sonntag, 4. Dezember 2016 18:48:14 UTC+1 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars'
> Lahn:
>>[...]
>
> Make it extra to play an unsuspecting?

That is gibberish.

> Have you read the discussion?

Since I usually do not read postings injected from Google Groups unless they
are follow-ups to mine (too many spammers, trolls, and crackpots there), I
have only read it from the top now; later, you did refer to the experiment
in Darmstadt (<news:b2464ce3-7f13-4eaa...@googlegroups.com>).

However, proper posting on your part would have gone a long way to avoid
*this* misunderstanding.

So, have *you* read *any* of my postings in this thread?

> Should I start from scratch?

Good idea.

[wor...@yandex.ru]

Am Sonntag, 4. Dezember 2016 20:07:18 UTC+1 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:

> wor...@yandex.ru wrote:
>
> > Should I start from scratch?
>
> Good idea.
>

I'm making this simple, summary: https://sites.google.com/site/testsofphysicaltheories/English/time-dilation

[David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller]

wor...@yandex.ru

Nice to meet you Walter Orlov

https://sites.google.com/site/testsofphysicaltheories/system/app/pages/recentChanges

[David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller]

https://sites.google.com/site/lordkronosprime/theory-of-everything


(((137036^4) * (6.67406745595e-11^2)) * 2) = pi

[David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller]

LOL
LIGO car crash

https://2842c089-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/testsofphysicaltheories/russian/gravitacionnye-volny/LIGO-Autocrash.JPG

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

If you want to argue in your favor, your arguments belong *here*, not on the
Web. (Contrary to what you might think, you are _not_ posting to a Web
forum.)

Also, repeating nonsense does not make it true. Experimental evidence
*refutes* your claims.

In particular, contrary to what you claimed in
<news:b2464ce3-7f13-4eaa...@googlegroups.com> and claiming on
your Web site, the experiment in Darmstadt has _not_ “shown that the time
dilation is instantaneous”, or at least that is not what the result means as
that is just gibberish from you again.

It means instead that time dilation and length contraction, as predicted by
the special theory relativity, are *real*, *observable* effects, which is
why muons can travel further in the observer’s frame of reference than their
decay rate would suggest.

In the case of atmospheric muons, it is why, although their mean lifetime in
the rest frame is 2.1969811 ± 0.0000022 µs, they can reach Terra’s surface
by the ten thousands every minute although they are produced in the upper
atmosphere, some tens of kilometers above the surface.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon>

It is unfortunate that you have evidently no clue what you are talking about
but do not realize that.

[Wilda Bolander]

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> In the case of atmospheric muons, it is why, although their mean
> lifetime in the rest frame is 2.1969811 ± 0.0000022 µs, they can reach
> Terra’s surface by the ten thousands every minute although they are
> produced in the upper atmosphere, some tens of kilometers above the
> surface.

You are far from being precise and conclusive.

* * * P L O N K * * *

[David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller]

Thomas Lahn wrote:

It means instead that time dilation and length contraction, as predicted by
the special theory relativity, are *real*, *observable* effects, which is
why muons can travel further in the observer’s frame of reference than their
decay rate would suggest.

In the case of atmospheric muons, it is why, although their mean lifetime in
the rest frame is 2.1969811 ± 0.0000022 µs, they can reach Terra’s surface
by the ten thousands every minute although they are produced in the upper
atmosphere, some tens of kilometers above the surface.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon>

It is unfortunate that you have evidently no clue what you are talking about
but do not realize that.

http://i57.tinypic.com/102v0gh.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koide_formula

[David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller]

Walter Orlov is correct

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu niedziela, 4 grudnia 2016 21:09:52 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars'

> It means instead that time dilation and length contraction, as predicted by
> the special theory relativity, are *real*, *observable* effects,

A lie, as expected from relativistic trash.
Observation shows that time (as defined by your
idiot guru himself) is galilean with the precision
of an acceptable error.

[Tom Roberts]

On 12/2/16 12/2/16 6:31 AM, wor...@yandex.ru wrote:
> So, we stay by real things:
> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v268/n5618/abs/268301a0.html . Let us
> imagine that the experiment has run like this.
>
> An experimentator stood next to the accelerator with a stopwatch, to measure
> the lifetime of muons. He kept the clock so that the muons could "see" it.
> The experimentator stopped the clock after 64μs and said "Wow! The time went
> by muons 64µs/2.2µs = 29 times slower!".
>
> Meanwhile the muons looked at his watch. They saw that the clock hand turned
> 29 times faster. In addition, they could still see that the experimentator
> stopped the clock at 64μs. For the muons, however, it was only 2.2μs. What
> could they conclude if they were still alive?

They conclude that every time they pass by the experimenter, his clock has
advanced 29 times more than their own clock has advanced between meetings.

This does not refute SR, because SR predicts this.

Remember that SR's "time dilation" requires a VERY SPECIFIC way
of measuring the rate of the moving clock: an inertial observer
must use two synchronized clocks to measure its rate. The
physical situation above is quite different from that.

Stated differently: in SR "time dilation" is a geometrical
projection, but in the above physical situation the muons are
NOT projecting the experimenter's clock onto their own time
coordinate, they are merely observing it multiple times.

Tom Roberts

[Tom Roberts]

On 12/1/16 12/1/16 6:00 AM, wor...@yandex.ru wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 1. Dezember 2016 03:29:03 UTC+1 schrieb tjrob137:
>> ... WRONG ... wrong ...
>
> Do not get me wrong. I do not think wrong.

But you definitely write wrong.

> I mean that the real time stretching is not the same as relativistic time
> dilation.

I don't know what you mean by "real time stretching" -- you'll have to define or
describe it before we can proceed.

If, perhaps, you mean the "time stretching" that WOULD BE observed by the muons
in Bailey et al's storage ring, then you are definitely thinking wrong.

Hint: you cannot claim that something that has never been
observed is "real". What those muons might see has never been
observed. Moreover, as I pointed out in a recent post, SR
predicts that the muons would see the observer's clock advancing
between meetings 29 times more than their own clock (this is not
a physical situation to which "time dilation" applies).

> Relativistic time dilation is an artificial construct and is more
> complex than reality.

Not really. After all, SR agrees with every experiment within its domain,
including myriad measurements of "time dilation".

> The real time stretching is a process that can happen in a medium. When a
> light clock is moving in the medium, the light ways are longer and the clock
> ticks accordingly slower... but already immediately, real, without return...
> as in the experiment...

WHAT EXPERIMENT???? -- there has never been an experiment that used a light
clock, much less one that used a light clock moving relative to a medium.

> Yes, in principle only real time stretching can be measured. And because of
> that the relativistic imaginary consideration is removed from the basis. It
> is an auxiliary construct, which should underpin the principle of relativity.

As best I can tell this is word salad -- meaningless drivel constructed out of
seemingly scientific words. If you want others to understand your writing, you
must either use standard vocabulary or define your terms.

Tom Roberts

[David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller]

[Centripetal velocity (299792458/(tau * 7) *14)] + [Radial velocity] of muons in muon ring = higher time dilation

[Tom Roberts]

On 12/4/16 12/4/16 4:20 AM, wor...@yandex.ru wrote:
> CERN Muon Storage Ring had the diameter of 14m. If the experimenter would be
> in the middle, it is r = 7m. From there r/c = 23ns, which is negligibly small
> compared to 2.2μs or 64µs. Therefore we can ignore the effects caused by the
> light running time.
>
> Through the radioactive decay of the pions the resulting muons saw that the
> experimenter had started his stopwatch at 0μs. When 2.2μs of their lives were
> over, they saw that the experimenter had stopped his stopwatch at 64μs. Hence
> they would have calculated: (64µs - 0µs)/2.2µs = 29.

This is a case where one must be VERY PRECISE in writing the conclusion. You
have confused yourself through insufficient precision in thought and word.

The muons would see the experimenter's clock advancing between meetings 29 times
more than their own clock.

Note the subjunctive case ("would") -- we don't actually know
what the muons see.

The muons CANNOT conclude that the experimenter's clock ticks 29 times faster
than their own, because they are NOT measuring its tick rate.

Measuring the tick rate of a moving clock requires multiple
clocks synchronized to the observer's clock, and that
requires the observer (and all these clocks) be at rest in
some inertial frame. One must pre-arrange that two of those
clocks are co-located with successive ticks of the moving
clock; since they are synchronized, one can subtract their
readings to obtain the time between ticks of the moving
clock as measured in this inertial frame. Note those muons
are NOT at rest in any inertial frame, and this procedure
is QUITE different from the physical situation of those
muons in a storage ring.

Tom Roberts

[wor...@yandex.ru]

Am Montag, 5. Dezember 2016 06:00:02 UTC+1 schrieb tjrob137:

> They conclude that every time they pass by the experimenter, his clock has
> advanced 29 times more than their own clock has advanced between meetings.
>
> This does not refute SR, because SR predicts this.
>

The principle of relativity requires that every observer can imagine himself at rest and therefore they should see the same situation. In our specific case the experimenter is to observe the slowing of time by muons and the muons as well as the slowing of time by the experimenter.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu poniedziałek, 5 grudnia 2016 06:00:02 UTC+1 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał:

> > Meanwhile the muons looked at his watch. They saw that the clock hand turned
> > 29 times faster. In addition, they could still see that the experimentator
> > stopped the clock at 64μs. For the muons, however, it was only 2.2μs. What
> > could they conclude if they were still alive?
>
> They conclude that every time they pass by the experimenter, his clock has
> advanced 29 times more than their own clock has advanced between meetings.

Too bad muon's clocks exist only in imagination
of brainwashed idiots. Like yourself.

[wor...@yandex.ru]

Am Montag, 5. Dezember 2016 06:29:31 UTC+1 schrieb tjrob137:
> The muons CANNOT conclude that the experimenter's clock ticks 29 times faster
> than their own, because they are NOT measuring its tick rate.
>

But they have measured the "ticks". Let us calculate. Circumference of the ring 2*pi*r = 2*pi*7m = 44m. The muons moved at near light speed c. So they have rounded the ring 64µs*c/44m = 436 times. In this way they could see every 64µs/436 = 0.15µs of the experiment's stopwatch ;)

[Paul B. Andersen]

On 28.11.2016 10:13, wor...@yandex.ru wrote:
> Am Montag, 28. November 2016 09:09:09 UTC+1 schrieb Sylvia Else:
>
>>
>> The experiment verifies that time for the lithium ions is dilated in the
>> frame of the experimenter. The experiment did not determine how things
>> look in the frame of the lithium ions.
>
> From the point of view of the Li-ions the time in the laboratory goes faster... Why?

You obviously don't understand the concept "mutual time dilation".

https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[Paul B. Andersen]

On 04.12.2016 21:23, Wilda Bolander wrote:
> []

It doesn't help to change your name,
the trolling idiot is recognized anyway.

One can but wonder what kind of mental disturbance make
a person constantly change his name and write nonsense only.

plonk

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[Chantell Dillingham]

Paul B. Andersen wrote:

> On 04.12.2016 21:23, Wilda Bolander wrote:
> > []
> It doesn't help to change your name, the trolling idiot is recognized
> anyway. One can but wonder what kind of mental disturbance make a person
> constantly change his name and write nonsense only. plonk

Idiot. It doesn't help to change your name,

the trolling idiot is recognized anyway.

One can but wonder what kind of mental disturbance make
a person constantly change his name and write nonsense only.

*=== P L O N K ! ===*

[wor...@yandex.ru]

Am Montag, 5. Dezember 2016 15:01:10 UTC+1 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
>
> You obviously don't understand the concept "mutual time dilation".
>

This has nothing to do with my topic. The mutual time dilation merely tries to solve the paradox of the mutual slowing of time. The muons, however, do not observe a slowing but a fasting of time in the reference system of experimenter.

[Tom Roberts]

On 12/5/16 12/5/16 - 1:16 AM, wor...@yandex.ru wrote:
> The principle of relativity requires that every observer can imagine himself
> at rest and therefore they should see the same situation. In our specific
> case the experimenter is to observe the slowing of time by muons and the
> muons as well as the slowing of time by the experimenter.

You claim "to understand relativity", but this clearly shows that you DON'T.

In particular, you must READ the Principle of Relativity and LEARN what it says
-- it CLEARLY states that it applies only to "systems of co-ordinates in uniform
translatory motion", which we now know means inertial frames. Those muons are
NOT at rest in an inertial frame, the PoR does not apply.

You must also READ my previous post. It explains why "time dilation" does not
apply to this physical situation.

Tom Roberts

[Tom Roberts]

On 12/3/16 12/3/16 - 2:07 PM, wor...@yandex.ru wrote:
> I know the fundamentals of relativity.

No, you DO NOT. With every post you make you demonstrate your personal ignorance
of SR.

Yes, your personal MISCONCEPTIONS about relativity are inconsistent. But that
does not affect the theory itself.

You will remain mystified until you LEARN about relativity and what it ACTUALLY
says. You are wasting your time -- spend it STUDYING instead.

Tom Roberts

[Tom Roberts]

On 12/5/16 12/5/16 - 9:35 AM, wor...@yandex.ru wrote:
> This has nothing to do with my topic. The mutual time dilation merely tries
> to solve the paradox of the mutual slowing of time.

SR not only "tries" to do that, it SUCCEEDS.

> The muons, however, do
> not observe a slowing but a fasting of time in the reference system of
> experimenter.

For muons inn a storage ring, the muons do NOT "observe a fasting of time in the
reference system of the experimenter", because they are completely unable to
observe that. What they do observe is that they meet the experimenter multiple
times, and the experimenter's clock advances between meetings 29 times more than
their own clock. THAT is what they would observe, not any mystical "fasting of
time".

Go back and READ my previous post where I explain what it would take for the
muons to measure the tick rate of the experimenter's clock. That is QUITE
DIFFERENT from this physical situation.

OK, if one is willing to speak rather loosely, one could say
that the muons observe the experimenter's clock ticking faster
than their own. This is NOT what we normally mean by that, but
could be supported. So what? -- this does NOT refute SR, because
SR predicts this ("time dilation" does not apply, because the
muons are not moving inertially, and they are not using two
synchronized clocks to measure the experimenter's clock; i.e.
they are not performing the geometrical projection that is
called "time dilation").

IOW: words do not matter in science, what matters is the
comparison between the predictions of a theory and observations;
here there is NO PREDICTION that disagrees with the ACTUAL
observations (which of course do not include what the muons
might observe).

Tom Roberts

[kenseto]

On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 11:18:42 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 12/5/16 12/5/16 - 9:35 AM, wor...@yandex.ru wrote:
> > This has nothing to do with my topic. The mutual time dilation merely tries
> > to solve the paradox of the mutual slowing of time.
>
> SR not only "tries" to do that, it SUCCEEDS.
>
> > The muons, however, do
> > not observe a slowing but a fasting of time in the reference system of
> > experimenter.
>
> For muons inn a storage ring, the muons do NOT "observe a fasting of time in the
> reference system of the experimenter", because they are completely unable to
> observe that. What they do observe is that they meet the experimenter multiple
> times, and the experimenter's clock advances between meetings 29 times more than
> their own clock. THAT is what they would observe, not any mystical "fasting of
> time".
>
> Go back and READ my previous post where I explain what it would take for the
> muons to measure the tick rate of the experimenter's clock. That is QUITE
> DIFFERENT from this physical situation.
>
> OK, if one is willing to speak rather loosely, one could say
> that the muons observe the experimenter's clock ticking faster
> than their own.

That's what is observed between the twin clocks....the traveling twin clock accumulates clock seconds at a slower rate than the stay at home clock.

>This is NOT what we normally mean by that, but
> could be supported. So what? -- this does NOT refute SR,

Yes it does.

> because
> SR predicts this ("time dilation" does not apply, because the
> muons are not moving inertially,

This is an assertion......in SR every observer considers himself to be inertial.

> and they are not using two
> synchronized clocks to measure the experimenter's clock; i.e.
> they are not performing the geometrical projection that is
> called "time dilation").

No such two synched clocks used by the experimenter or the muon to measure each other's clock rate. Each uses the LT to predict the rate of a moving clock.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 12/5/2016 12:05 PM, kenseto wrote:
> This is an assertion......in SR every observer considers himself to be inertial.

It is clear that you don't know what SR says. You say the silliest
things about what SR says.

What did you use as a reference or a guide to learn SR?

--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[Chantell Dillingham]

kenseto wrote:

> On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 11:18:42 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
>> Go back and READ my previous post where I explain what it would take
>> for the muons to measure the tick rate of the experimenter's clock.
>> That is QUITE DIFFERENT from this physical situation.
>> OK, if one is willing to speak rather loosely, one could say that the
>> muons observe the experimenter's clock ticking faster than their own.
>
> That's what is observed between the twin clocks....the traveling twin
> clock accumulates clock seconds at a slower rate than the stay at home
> clock.

This is 100% correct, once you have an bus-arbiter. Without a bus-arbiter,
you have to use the Universe as arbiter, hence the longest PATH along the
Universe wins (I mean, accumulate seconds slower).

The said above is fully consistent with my Divergent Matter theory,
whereas GR, IRT, QM and QED are just subsets inputs you may apply at it.

[kenseto]

On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 1:14:32 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 12/5/2016 12:05 PM, kenseto wrote:
> > This is an assertion......in SR every observer considers himself to be inertial.
>
> It is clear that you don't know what SR says. You say the silliest
> things about what SR says.

Moron if he didn't consider himself to be inertial then he is not an SR observer. Gee you are stupid.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 12/5/2016 3:06 PM, kenseto wrote:
> On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 1:14:32 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 12/5/2016 12:05 PM, kenseto wrote:
>>> This is an assertion......in SR every observer considers himself to be inertial.
>>
>> It is clear that you don't know what SR says. You say the silliest
>> things about what SR says.
>
> Moron if he didn't consider himself to be inertial then he is not an SR observer.

According to whom? You?
It's not what SR says.

Face it, you don't know what SR says.

> Gee you are stupid.
>
>>
>> What did you use as a reference or a guide to learn SR?

No answer here.... That says something, doesn't it?

[Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog]

On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 3:06:28 PM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:

> Moron if he didn't consider himself to be inertial then he is not an SR observer.

No such thing as an "SR observer." There are just observers. What observers
measure does not depend on the theory that they believe in. Observers measure
what they measure.

[JanPB]

On Sunday, December 4, 2016 at 1:38:43 AM UTC-8, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> W dniu sobota, 3 grudnia 2016 21:17:09 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napisał:
> > > And an observer walking a street observes
> > > trees and buildings running around him.
> >
> > If you replace “walking” with “sitting in a car”, and “trees and buildings”
>
> And what if I don't replace anything?
>
> > with observable things that actually could move relative to the ground, you
> > will realize that if the observer cannot realize that the car they are
> > sitting in is moving relative to the ground, they could just as well assume
> > that the things they observe outside the car are moving relative to the
> > ground instead.
>
> Relativistic moron imagined!
> Must be true, relativistic moron can
> never be wrong.
> Surely they can assume as well. Steering wheel?
> Gearbox? Fuel? Ordinary common sense prejudices,
> refuted by Michelson and Morley.
>
> But, tell me, please, which precisely experiment
> made you an expert in the subject "which assumptions
> are well and which are wrong"?

Chill out. This is just a property of certain measurements.

--
Jan

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu poniedziałek, 5 grudnia 2016 17:18:42 UTC+1 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał:

> > The muons, however, do
> > not observe a slowing but a fasting of time in the reference system of
> > experimenter.
>
> For muons inn a storage ring, the muons do NOT "observe a fasting of time in the
> reference system of the experimenter", because they are completely unable to
> observe that. What they do observe is that they meet the experimenter multiple
> times

Wrong, poor idiot. Muons don't observe anything. They
have no eyes and no brains, you know.
The world you inhabit has nothing in common with
the world we inhabit:(

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

Certain measurements imagined by a relativistic moron.
Let's do a gedanken... you drive a car. You pass by
a policeman. He stops you and tell you you were driving
too fast. Will you insist your speed was 0 and it was
him that was too fast instead? Jan, you're an idiot, for
sure, but you're not THAT stupid, are you?

[wor...@yandex.ru]

Am Montag, 5. Dezember 2016 17:18:42 UTC+1 schrieb tjrob137:
> ("time dilation" does not apply, because the
> muons are not moving inertially, and they are not using two
> synchronized clocks to measure the experimenter's clock; i.e.
> they are not performing the geometrical projection that is
> called "time dilation").
>

The experiment is praised to be one of the best confirmation of the SPECIAL relativity. Unfortunately we can not read the original. But I've noticed that the authors could show that centrifugal acceleration has no effect on time dilation.

[Paul B. Andersen]

On 05.12.2016 15:17, Chantell Dillingham wrote:
>[]

It doesn't help to change your name even if you do it
several times each day, the trolling idiot is recognized anyway.

One can but wonder what kind of mental disturbance make
a person constantly change his name and write nonsense only.

plonk

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[kenseto]

On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 4:18:00 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 12/5/2016 3:06 PM, kenseto wrote:
> > On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 1:14:32 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 12/5/2016 12:05 PM, kenseto wrote:
> >>> This is an assertion......in SR every observer considers himself to be inertial.
> >>
> >> It is clear that you don't know what SR says. You say the silliest
> >> things about what SR says.
> >
> > Moron if he didn't consider himself to be inertial then he is not an SR observer.
>
> According to whom? You?
> It's not what SR says.

According to Tom Roberts:

Remember that SR's "time dilation" requires a VERY SPECIFIC way
of measuring the rate of the moving clock: an inertial observer

must use two synchronized clocks to measure its rate.

> Face it, you don't know what SR says.

ROTFLOL......pot kettle black.

[kenseto]

According to Tom Roberts:
Remember that SR's "time dilation" requires a VERY SPECIFIC way
of measuring the rate of the moving clock: an inertial observer

must use two synchronized clocks to measure its rate.

It appears that Tom said that only an inertial observer (an SR observer) is qualified to measure TIME DILATION.

[Paul B. Andersen]

On 05.12.2016 16:35, wor...@yandex.ru wrote:
> Am Montag, 5. Dezember 2016 15:01:10 UTC+1 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
>>
>> You obviously don't understand the concept "mutual time dilation".
>>
> This has nothing to do with my topic.

It is the topic!
Why didn't you read this?
https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf

Clock A' is stationary in frame K' and
clock A is stationary in frame K.
If the clocks are moving relative to each other,
then:
- Clock A' runs slow as measured in frame K
but A' observes that the coordinate time of K runs fast
- Clock A runs slow as observed in frame K'
but A observes that the coordinate time of K' runs fast

You wrote:
" From the point of view of the Li-ions the time in
the laboratory goes faster... Why?"

The answer is because of "mutual time dilation".

The Li-ion clock is measured to run slow in the lab frame,
and if the Li-ion observe the coordinate time of the lab
as it passes by the (imaginary) co-ordinate clocks in the lab
frame, it would observe the co-ordinate time to run fast.
But _a specific stationary clock in the lab frame_
runs slow as measured in the rest-frame of the Li-ion.

> The mutual time dilation merely tries to solve the paradox of the mutual slowing of time.

There is no paradox.
Read this and you will understand why:
https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf

> The muons, however, do not observe a slowing but a fasting of time in the reference system of experimenter.

Yes, the muon will observe the coordinate time in
the reference system of the experimenter to run fast,
but the rate of a stationary clock in the reference frame of
the experimenter will run slow when measured in the rest frame
of the muon.

The experimenter will observe the coordinate time of
the rest frame of the muon to run fast,
but the rate of the muon clock run slow when measured
the reference system of the experimenter.

That's mutual time dilation.

The point is that the phrase "slowing of time" is too
imprecise and ambiguous.
There is no such thing as "slowing of time" in SR.

What we are talking about is:
The rate of a moving clock as measured in a frame of reference.

A clock cannot measure the rate of another moving clock.
You must have two clocks synced in a frame of reference
to measure the rate of a moving clock.

A single clock can however measure the difference between
two clocks it passes by, and if these clocks are coordinate
clocks of a frame of reference, then it will find that the time
difference between the clocks is greater than its own proper
time between the passages of the clocks.
(time difference between the clocks)/(proper time) > 1
But no clock is measured to run fast.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu wtorek, 6 grudnia 2016 14:58:59 UTC+1 użytkownik Paul B. Andersen napisał:

> If the clocks are moving relative to each other,
> then:
> - Clock A' runs slow as measured in frame K
> but A' observes that the coordinate time of K runs fast
> - Clock A runs slow as observed in frame K'
> but A observes that the coordinate time of K' runs fast

And an observer walking a street observes trees,
building and lanterns running around him.
Relativistic moron imagined!!!
Relativistic moron can't be wrong.

[Odd Bodkin]

Yes, that's a statement about measuring time dilation. This does not
mean that EVERY OBSERVER in SR considers himself to be an inertial
observer. What it does say is that in order to make a SPECIFIC KIND OF
MEASUREMENT, then there are constraints on that observer.

It's interesting that what you know about SR seems to be purely a
distillation of what you've heard Tom Roberts say, and not any reference
book you've read on the subject. Are you telling me that everything you
know about relativity, you've learned on sci.physics.relativity????

>
>> Face it, you don't know what SR says.
>
> ROTFLOL......pot kettle black.
>
>

[wor...@yandex.ru]

Am Dienstag, 6. Dezember 2016 14:58:59 UTC+1 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:

> The experimenter will observe the coordinate time of
> the rest frame of the muon to run fast,

Have I missed anything? Where is this in the paper?

[kenseto]

On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 11:27:26 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 12/6/2016 7:50 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 4:18:00 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 12/5/2016 3:06 PM, kenseto wrote:
> >>> On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 1:14:32 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>> On 12/5/2016 12:05 PM, kenseto wrote:
> >>>>> This is an assertion......in SR every observer considers himself to be inertial.
> >>>>
> >>>> It is clear that you don't know what SR says. You say the silliest
> >>>> things about what SR says.
> >>>
> >>> Moron if he didn't consider himself to be inertial then he is not an SR observer.
> >>
> >> According to whom? You?
> >> It's not what SR says.
> >
> > According to Tom Roberts:
> > Remember that SR's "time dilation" requires a VERY SPECIFIC way
> > of measuring the rate of the moving clock: an inertial observer
> > must use two synchronized clocks to measure its rate.
>
> Yes, that's a statement about measuring time dilation. This does not
> mean that EVERY OBSERVER in SR considers himself to be an inertial
> observer. What it does say is that in order to make a SPECIFIC KIND OF
> MEASUREMENT, then there are constraints on that observer.

Idiot....This is a bunch of word salad.....SPECIAL KIND OF MEAUSREMENT INDEED but no such measurement ever been performed.
The SR postulates demand an inertial observer to use the SR math.
You SR experts are continually disagree with each other.....each of you have a different interpretation of what SR says, no wonder that after a 100 years of explanation you still failed to give a valid explanation of SR. All you ever do is to scold anybody who disagrees with your version of SR.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 12/6/2016 2:14 PM, kenseto wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 11:27:26 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 12/6/2016 7:50 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>> On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 4:18:00 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> On 12/5/2016 3:06 PM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 1:14:32 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/5/2016 12:05 PM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>>> This is an assertion......in SR every observer considers himself to be inertial.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is clear that you don't know what SR says. You say the silliest
>>>>>> things about what SR says.
>>>>>
>>>>> Moron if he didn't consider himself to be inertial then he is not an SR observer.
>>>>
>>>> According to whom? You?
>>>> It's not what SR says.
>>>
>>> According to Tom Roberts:
>>> Remember that SR's "time dilation" requires a VERY SPECIFIC way
>>> of measuring the rate of the moving clock: an inertial observer
>>> must use two synchronized clocks to measure its rate.
>>
>> Yes, that's a statement about measuring time dilation. This does not
>> mean that EVERY OBSERVER in SR considers himself to be an inertial
>> observer. What it does say is that in order to make a SPECIFIC KIND OF
>> MEASUREMENT, then there are constraints on that observer.
>
> Idiot....This is a bunch of word salad.

If you would like to learn what these statements mean, I can suggest a book.

> ....SPECIAL KIND OF MEAUSREMENT INDEED but no such measurement ever been performed.

Bullshit. Your ignorance of the results that have actually been acquired
in experiment is your own problem.

> The SR postulates demand an inertial observer to use the SR math.

Nope.

> You SR experts are continually disagree with each other.....each of you have a
> different interpretation of what SR says, no wonder that after a 100 years of
> explanation you still failed to give a valid explanation of SR. All you ever
> do is to scold anybody who disagrees with your version of SR.

There are no "versions" of SR. There is only one "version" of SR and you
do not know what it is. What you are complaining about is that you get
confused by how people on sci.physics.relativity explain SR to you. You
want there to be people on here that can explain it consistently and
simply to you in terms you understand. But THIS GROUP IS NOT THE PLACE
to get that. Where you need to get that information is from books or a
class. You don't want to go to books or take a class. Since you don't
want to get this information from the ONLY RELIABLE PLACES you can get
it, you're stuck, screwed, hopelessly lost, done for.

[Paul B. Andersen]

On 06.12.2016 19:51, wor...@yandex.ru wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 6. Dezember 2016 14:58:59 UTC+1 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:

>> On 05.12.2016 16:35, wor...@yandex.ru wrote:
>>>
>>> The muons, however, do not observe a slowing but a fasting of time in the reference system of experimenter.

The following is a response to your statement above:

>> The experimenter will observe the coordinate time of
>> the rest frame of the muon to run fast,

>> but the rate of a stationary clock in the reference frame of

>> the experimenter will run slow when measured in the rest frame
>> of the muon.

>>
>> The experimenter will observe the coordinate time of
>> the rest frame of the muon to run fast,

>> but the rate of the muon clock run slow when measured
>> the reference system of the experimenter.
>>
>> That's mutual time dilation.

And since I am responding to your postings,
the following remark of yours is pretty stupid.

>
> Have I missed anything? Where is this in the paper?

Yes, you have deliberately missed and snipped everything
I wrote as response to your statement:

| On 28.11.2016 10:13, wor...@yandex.ru wrote:
|>
|> From the point of view of the Li-ions the time in the laboratory goes
faster... Why?

I suspect that is because you have realized that I was right.
Or can you find any error in my following statement?

The answer is because of "mutual time dilation".

The Li-ion clock is measured to run slow in the lab frame,
and if the Li-ion observe the coordinate time of the lab
as it passes by the (imaginary) co-ordinate clocks in the lab
frame, it would observe the co-ordinate time to run fast.
But _a specific stationary clock in the lab frame_
runs slow as measured in the rest-frame of the Li-ion.

That's mutual time dilation.

If you read the following, you may learn what it is.
https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[kenseto]

On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 3:29:55 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 12/6/2016 2:14 PM, kenseto wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 11:27:26 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 12/6/2016 7:50 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >>> On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 4:18:00 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>> On 12/5/2016 3:06 PM, kenseto wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 1:14:32 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>>> On 12/5/2016 12:05 PM, kenseto wrote:
> >>>>>>> This is an assertion......in SR every observer considers himself to be inertial.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It is clear that you don't know what SR says. You say the silliest
> >>>>>> things about what SR says.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Moron if he didn't consider himself to be inertial then he is not an SR observer.
> >>>>
> >>>> According to whom? You?
> >>>> It's not what SR says.
> >>>
> >>> According to Tom Roberts:
> >>> Remember that SR's "time dilation" requires a VERY SPECIFIC way
> >>> of measuring the rate of the moving clock: an inertial observer
> >>> must use two synchronized clocks to measure its rate.
> >>
> >> Yes, that's a statement about measuring time dilation. This does not
> >> mean that EVERY OBSERVER in SR considers himself to be an inertial
> >> observer. What it does say is that in order to make a SPECIFIC KIND OF
> >> MEASUREMENT, then there are constraints on that observer.
> >
> > Idiot....This is a bunch of word salad.
>
> If you would like to learn what these statements mean, I can suggest a book.

Idiot.....SR does not measuring anything.....SR uses the LT to predict.

>
> > ....SPECIAL KIND OF MEAUSREMENT INDEED but no such measurement ever been performed.
>
> Bullshit. Your ignorance of the results that have actually been acquired
> in experiment is your own problem.

According to Tom's procedure for measuring time dilation: the inertial observer have two synched clocks in his frame and record the time when the moving clock pass these synched clocks.....such procedure never been performed. In fact it is impossible to do so. In the end SR uses the LT to predict the rate of a moving clock.
So you see all your baloney about measuring the rate of a moving clock is just a bunch of shit.

>
> > The SR postulates demand an inertial observer to use the SR math.
>
> Nope.
>
> > You SR experts are continually disagree with each other.....each of you have a
> > different interpretation of what SR says, no wonder that after a 100 years of
> > explanation you still failed to give a valid explanation of SR. All you ever
> > do is to scold anybody who disagrees with your version of SR.
>
> There are no "versions" of SR.

Sure there are between you SR fanatics.....eg you and Tom disagree that an inertial observer is needed to measure the rate of a moving clock.

>There is only one "version" of SR and you
> do not know what it is.

Neither do you.......that's why you keep on telling everybody to read a book.

> Neither do youWhat you are complaining about is that you get

> confused by how people on sci.physics.relativity explain SR to you.

You don't ever explaining anything. Tom does explain his version of SR and I take his word for it.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 5:37:49 PM UTC-7, tiresome kenseto wrote:
>
> Idiot

Yes, you are, and a tiresome one at that. End of story.

[wor...@yandex.ru]

Am Dienstag, 6. Dezember 2016 22:55:39 UTC+1 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:

>
> I suspect that is because you have realized that I was right.
> Or can you find any error in my following statement?
>

Yes, of course, one can combine the opposites in such a way that in the end everything fits the theory of relativity. Einstein is great! But come back from the fantasy world. http://walter-orlov.wg.am/einstein-film.jpg

There is no symmetry between the reference systems. The muons not only the observer, but the clock itself. Therefore, when the experimenter sees the muons decay more slowly, this affects both the lifetime of muons and coordinate time. In principle, the coordinate time of the muons can not run faster, because the same clock measures the time stretching.

[Paul B. Andersen]

On 07.12.2016 10:25, wor...@yandex.ru wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 6. Dezember 2016 22:55:39 UTC+1 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
>
>>
>> I suspect that is because you have realized that I was right.
>> Or can you find any error in my following statement?
>>
>
> Yes, of course,

And the errors are?

> one can combine the opposites in such a way that in the end everything fits the theory of relativity.
> Einstein is great! But come back from the fantasy world. http://walter-orlov.wg.am/einstein-film.jpg
>
> There is no symmetry between the reference systems. The muons not only the observer, but the clock itself.
> Therefore, when the experimenter sees the muons decay more slowly, this affects both the lifetime of muons and
> coordinate time. In principle, the coordinate time of the muons can not run faster, because the same clock measures
> the time stretching.

I see. You were unable to find any error in this:

The Li-ion clock is measured to run slow in the lab frame,
and if the Li-ion observe the coordinate time of the lab
as it passes by the (imaginary) co-ordinate clocks in the lab
frame, it would observe the co-ordinate time to run fast.
But _a specific stationary clock in the lab frame_
runs slow as measured in the rest-frame of the Li-ion.

That's mutual time dilation, which you don't know what is.

If you read the following, you may learn it.

[wor...@yandex.ru]

Am Mittwoch, 7. Dezember 2016 11:06:25 UTC+1 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:

> I see. You were unable to find any error in this:
>

I quite understand your thought. But in reality only two things are measurable:

1. The experimentator measures the time stretch by muons.
2. The muons can observe the speeding up of the time by experimenter.

How do you want to get this contradiction together?

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Paul B. Andersen wrote:

> […] can you find any error in my following statement?

Without having read your paper, based on what I already understand about
special relativity, I can find an inconsistency in it and in previous
statements that might be caused by choice of words only.

> The answer is because of "mutual time dilation".
>
> The Li-ion clock is measured to run slow in the lab frame,

ACK.

> and if the Li-ion observe the coordinate time of the lab

JFTR: That is not possible.

> as it passes by the (imaginary) co-ordinate clocks in the lab frame, it
> would observe the co-ordinate time to run fast.
> But _a specific stationary clock in the lab frame_
> runs slow as measured in the rest-frame of the Li-ion.

I do not understand this statement. Are there two times in the lab frame,
only one running according to clocks?

> That's mutual time dilation.

That means to me that each observer is observing the other’s clock running
slower than theirs. How can then “the co-ordinate time […] run fast”?

--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[Chantell Dillingham]

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

>> That's mutual time dilation.
>
> That means to me that each observer is observing the other’s clock
> running slower than theirs. How can then “the co-ordinate time […] run
> fast”?

No. That simply means that you are stupid.

[Tom Roberts]

On 12/6/16 12/6/16 2:00 AM, wor...@yandex.ru wrote:
> Am Montag, 5. Dezember 2016 17:18:42 UTC+1 schrieb tjrob137:
>> ("time dilation" does not apply, because the muons are not moving
>> inertially, and they are not using two synchronized clocks to measure the
>> experimenter's clock; i.e. they are not performing the geometrical
>> projection that is called "time dilation").
>>
> The experiment is praised to be one of the best confirmation of the SPECIAL
> relativity.

Yes, but it is only one of them. There are other, much more accurate experiments
that have tested SR and found agreement between predictions and measurements.
For instance, the operation of particle accelerators demonstrates considerably
more accurate agreement between the predictions of SR and the world we inhabit.

> Unfortunately we can not read the original.

I have no idea why you say this. The original papers are EASILY available, in
libraries and on the web.

> But I've noticed that
> the authors could show that centrifugal acceleration has no effect on time
> dilation.

Hmmm. The equation for "time dilation", WHEN IT APPLIES, involves the speed of
the moving clock relative to some inertial coordinates; acceleration does not
appear. The muons in Bailey et al are subject to an ENORMOUS acceleration of
10^18 g, yet the muons' decays behave as predicted by SR. That is, of course,
centripetal acceleration (it keeps them constrained in the ring); "centrifugal
acceleration" is purely fictitious (due purely to choice of coordinates) and
does not appear in the inertial frame of their lab.

You really should learn something about modern physics before attempting to
write about it.

Tom Roberts

[David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller]

On Wednesday, December 7, 2016 at 6:54:07 PM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote:

> You really should learn something about modern physics before attempting to
> write about it.
>
> Tom Roberts

(0.9*π/(sqrt(0.5)*4))^2*2/2.99792458 = 0.666659496558

Koide Formula https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koide_formula

http://i57.tinypic.com/102v0gh.jpg

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=solve+(0.9*%CF%80%2F(sqrt(0.5)*4))%5E2*2%2F2.99792458



0.6666594965576469306355880465394898643184092809854009

[JanPB]

That's NOT what the setup in physics is about.
That setup states precisely how certain quantities are to be evaluated.
When these numbers are obtained by the specified procedures, they (the
numbers) obey certain reciprocity laws. That's all.

> Jan, you're an idiot, for
> sure, but you're not THAT stupid, are you?

You either play games by posting nonsense and seeing what reactions
you get or you don't understand the details of the science in question.

--
Jan

[wor...@yandex.ru]

Am Donnerstag, 8. Dezember 2016 01:54:07 UTC+1 schrieb tjrob137:

> You really should learn something about modern physics...

You leave the subject. Let us not talk about general modern physics, but only about the muons in the storage ring and the relativity. Where is there a loophole in relativity theory that can explain the observations of both the experimenter and the muons?

[Paul B. Andersen]

On 07.12.2016 13:47, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>
>> […] can you find any error in my following statement?
>
> Without having read your paper, based on what I already understand about
> special relativity, I can find an inconsistency in it and in previous
> statements that might be caused by choice of words only.
>
>>

>> The Li-ion clock is measured to run slow in the lab frame,

Let the "Li-ion clock" be an observer with a clock hereafter called
'the moving clock'. Let's call the time of the moving clock t'.
Given an inertial frame of reference which we will call the 'lab frame'.
We will call the coordinate time of this frame t.
A number of synchronized clocks in this frame will show
the 'coordinate time' t.

Let the 'moving clock' move the speed 0.866c, gamma =2.
(the units may be nano-seconds and light-nano-seconds, or similar)

Event E0: moving clock at position x=0
---------------------------------------
t': 0 ->v (moving clock)
t: 0 0
|------|--------> x (lab frame) t0' = 0 t0 = 0 x0 = 0
x: 0 0.866

Event E1: moving clock at position x=0.866
------------------------------------------
t': 0.5 ->v (moving clock)
t: 1 1
|------|--------> x (lab frame) t1' = 0.5 t1 = 1 x1=0.866
x: 0 0.866

The moving clock will measure the time (t1'-t0') = 0.5
between the events E0 and E1. This is a proper time
because it is measured by one clock which is present
at both the events, which means that the spatial interval
in the rest frame of the clock is zero.
So the invariant spacetime interval between E0 and E1 is 0.5.

In the lab frame the temporal component of the interval
between the events is (t1-t0) = 1 while the spatial
component of the interval is (x1-x0) = 0.866.
The invariant interval is sqrt(1^2 - 0.866^2) = 0.5

The 'rate of the moving clock' is the ratio between
the proper time (interval) between the events (0.5),
and the projection of this interval in the lab frame (1).
dt'/dt = (t1'-t0')/(t1-t0) = 0.5

This is commonly expressed as:
"The rate of the moving clock as measured in
the lab frame is 0.5"
or:
"The moving clock runs slow as measured in the lab frame."

These statement must not be taken literally, though.
Proper clocks always run at their proper rate, they never
speed up or slow down.
But the rate of the moving clock appear to be slower
in the lab frame because of the projection mentioned above.

>
> ACK.
>
>> and if the Li-ion observe the coordinate time of the lab
>
> JFTR: That is not possible.
>
>> as it passes by the (imaginary) co-ordinate clocks in the lab frame, it
>> would observe the co-ordinate time to run fast.

Let's observe the scenario from the moving clock's point of view:

Event E0: moving clock at position x=0
---------------------------------------
t': 0 (moving clock)
t: 0 ?
v<- |------|--------> x (lab frame)
x: 0 ?
t0' = 0 t0 = 0 x0 = 0

Event E1: moving clock at position x=0.866
------------------------------------------
t': 0.5 (moving clock)
t: ? 1
v<- |------|-------> x (lab frame)
x: ? 0.866
t1' = 0.5 t1 = 1 x1=0.866

The moving clock can only observe the time (and position)
of the coordinate clock it is adjacent to and finds:
dt/dt' = (t1-t0)/(t1'-t0') = 2
So the moving clock can conclude that by reading off
a sequence of different coordinate clocks, the coordinate time
of the lab frame appears two run fast compared to his clock.

====================================================
But he can conclude nothing about the rate of any of
the clocks in the lab frame.
====================================================

In fact, the moving clock's observations are exactly
the same as the observations made by the experimenter:
dt/dt' = 2, so dt'/dt = 0.5.
So the moving clock can conclude that it must run slow
as measured in the lab frame.

>> But _a specific stationary clock in the lab frame_
>> runs slow as measured in the rest-frame of the Li-ion.

So how can the moving clock measure the rate of the clock at
x=0 in the lab frame? The answer is that to do the measurement
we must have at least one other comoving synced clock.
So we introduce a second clock at the position x' = -0.866


t: 0
v<- |--------> x (lab frame)
x: 0
t': 0 0
|------|---------> x' (moving clock frame)
x': -0.866 0



t: 0.5
v<- |--------> x (lab frame)
x: 0
t': 1 1
|------|---------> x' (moving clock frame)
x': -0.866 0

The rate of the clock at x = 0 in the lab frame can be measured
by comparing its reading with the clock at x'=0 (the 'moving clock')
when they are adjacent, and then comparing it to the clock
at x' =-1 when they are adjacent.
The clock at x=0 runs at the rate dt/dt' = 0.5 as measured in
the rest frame of the 'moving clock'.

Mutual time dilation.

> I do not understand this statement. Are there two times in the lab frame,
> only one running according to clocks?

I hope you understand it now.

>
>> That's mutual time dilation.
>
> That means to me that each observer is observing the other’s clock running
> slower than theirs.

Indeed.

> How can then “the co-ordinate time […] run fast”?

It can't.
But if a moving observer reads a sequence of coordinate
clocks as he passes them, he will find that the numbers
he reads off the series of clocks increases faster than
the number he reads off his own clock, so to him,
the coordinate time of the lab frame appears to run
faster than his own clock.

But this is an artefact of his own movement, and
the clocks he passes are obviously not affected
in any way by his motion. They all run an normal rate.


--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[Paul B. Andersen]

See my response to Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[Tom Roberts]

On 12/8/16 12/8/16 5:07 AM, wor...@yandex.ru wrote:
> [...]the muons in the storage ring and the relativity. Where is there a

> loophole in relativity theory that can explain the observations of both the
> experimenter and the muons?

A) We don't actually know what the muons observe.
B) SR predicts very accurately what the experimenters observe.

So no "loophole" is necessary IN SPECIAL RELATIVITY. It seems that your personal
MISCONCEPTIONS OF SR require a loophole -- THAT'S YOUR PROBLEM, not anybody
else's. The only resolution is for YOU to study and learn what relativity
ACTUALLY says.

We can use SR to compute what the muons "ought" to observe: at successive
meetings with the experimenter they should see the experimenter's clock
advancing 29 times more than their own clock.

There is no "loophole", it's just that "time dilation" does
not apply to the observation performed by the muons. It
does apply to the observation performed by the experimenters.

Paul Anderson's post reminded me of a gedanken using two inertial frames that
displays the importance of being precise about what is measured.

In inertial frame A, place a series of clocks at intervals along the X axis, and
synchronize them in frame A. Let inertial frame B have a clock that moves along
the X axis. When B's clock passes each A clock, observers in A located at each
clock can record the time on B's clock and their own clock; an observer with B's
clock can also record those values. OBVIOUSLY the multiple observers in A can
combine their records into a log that EXACTLY matches B's log. So frame A's
multiple clocks measure B's clock to run slow, and B's single clock measures A's
multiple clocks to run fast.

The way to measure "time dilation" in SR is to use the method of A, not B. Had
we put multiple clocks in B and a single clock in A, the fast/slow conclusion
would have A and B interchanged. The key is using multiple SYNCHRONIZED clocks
at rest in an inertial frame.

For the case of the muons in the circular storage ring, the experimenters need
only one clock, and since they are at rest in an inertial frame they can apply
the usual formula for "time dilation" in SR. The muons are not at rest in an
inertial frame, and cannot use that formula.

Tom Roberts

[Dono,]

On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 3:07:49 AM UTC-8, wor...@yandex.ru wrote:
> Where is there a loophole in relativity theory that can explain the observations of both the experimenter and the muons?

There is no loophole, crank.

[Odd Bodkin]

Bullshit. SR is a theory like all theories. It is tested by MEASUREMENT.

>
>>
>>> ....SPECIAL KIND OF MEAUSREMENT INDEED but no such measurement ever been performed.
>>
>> Bullshit. Your ignorance of the results that have actually been acquired
>> in experiment is your own problem.
>
> According to Tom's procedure for measuring time dilation: the inertial observer have
> two synched clocks in his frame and record the time when the moving clock pass these
> synched clocks.....such procedure never been performed.

Bullshit. As I said before, your ignorance of documented experimental
results is YOUR problem to fix.

> In fact it is impossible to
> do so. In the end SR uses the LT to predict the rate of a moving clock.
> So you see all your baloney about measuring the rate of a moving clock is just a
> bunch of shit.
>>
>>> The SR postulates demand an inertial observer to use the SR math.
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>>> You SR experts are continually disagree with each other.....each of you have a
>>> different interpretation of what SR says, no wonder that after a 100 years of
>>> explanation you still failed to give a valid explanation of SR. All you ever
>>> do is to scold anybody who disagrees with your version of SR.
>>
>> There are no "versions" of SR.
>
> Sure there are between you SR fanatics.....eg you and Tom disagree that an
> inertial observer is needed to measure the rate of a moving clock.

Tom didn't say that either. He was talking about the SPECIFIC
MEASUREMENT of mutual time dilation, not of any circumstance when you
are measuring the rate of a moving clock.

Ken, since you cannot read what people actually write, why do you post
to the group?

>
>> There is only one "version" of SR and you
>> do not know what it is.
>
> Neither do you.......that's why you keep on telling everybody to read a book.
>
>> Neither do youWhat you are complaining about is that you get
>> confused by how people on sci.physics.relativity explain SR to you.
>
> You don't ever explaining anything. Tom does explain his version of SR and
> I take his word for it.

Ken, all you've ever learned about SR is what you've heard on this
newsgroup. It's NO WONDER you are so confused. This is not a place to
learn SR.

[RichD]

On December 5, tjrob137 wrote:
> words do not matter in science, what matters is the
> comparison between the predictions of a theory and observations;

Then, is evolution science? Which consists of observations only;
no predictions. Although they do have theories -

-
Rich

[wor...@yandex.ru]

Exactly as an answer I expected. That is why I have written in advance: "Yes, of course, one can combine the opposites in such a way that in the end everything fits the theory of relativity." :)

Why the "moving clock can only observe the time ... of the coordinate clock"? Why that does not work for 'resting clock' relating to moving frame? We can also equip the moving frame with several synchronized clocks.

Incidentally in your PDF file both are symmetrical. Why in this particular case the situation is at once not symmetrical?

You should understand that you act against the principle of relativity ;)