Expanding space?

Posturing? Egad, how boorish you are!

But I did make a mistake because I intended to post the link where I took that quote from: http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cach..."physical structure"&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us

Go down near the bottom, under the heading "atomic clock" and then come back and correct your "posture."

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Read-Only. Was this your point?

So they are sealed against humidity and can maybe tolerate 10-30.C . Not what I am talking about, as in a good shaking. The experiments were worthless as they had no control atomic clocks which went through this "shaking". I was always told in experiments that a "control" was important. So, bad science.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Are we arguing time dilation here? And basing it on whether an atomic clock is sensitive to vibrations or not? Come on. Ignore the clocks (which are inherently insensitive to such vibrations anyway).

Look at the trace of a particle with a known liftime in it's rest frame, as it travels at a known speed through a detector. It's precise. It's undeniable. It's relativistic time dilation at it's simplest.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A 3D expanding sphere doesn't fit the expanding universe model as everything is expanding away from a definite central point. The 4D hypersphere is closer to the standard BB idea.

Since everything in space (EMR, gravity, etc) moves at light speed, I would think that was a property of space itself so it too cannot move at FTL speeds but would allow an expanding universe to keep up with it.

In the BB idea, it is generally accepted that there was nothing (here) before the universe started. Literally nothing. If space already existed, then that would suggest that maybe a previous universe existed as in maybe we are on a rebound from a previous collapse.

 

You have a flow of heated atoms which when in a certain state are counted. Atomic clocks are very precise because of the delicate conditions they operate under. As I have pointed out, there has never been a control clock used in such an experiment, so bad science.

Aren't we talking particles that have travelled through atmopsphere, as in muons? The problem is not knowing their EXACT source. You cannot automatically assume these particles are created only at the edge of our atmosphere when we know that cosmic rays which create them reach ground level and below ground level, as in coal mines. Go check for muons there, where they should not be.

 

No. Forget the muons, even though we do in fact know the general altitude at which they are created and that the numbers we detect at various lower altitudes mean that they are "living" much longer.

Focus kaneda. Particle accelerators. Precisely controlled and measured conditions.

Quit pretending you didn't read the most important part of my post. Particle accelerators. Unless, of course, you don't know what a particle accelerator is. Let me know, I'll post some helpful links.

 

superluminal. Cosmic rays create muons. If a cosmic ray reaches the surface, which they do, it can create a muon there.

Explain to me your point on particle accelerators and I'll get back to you tomorrow. Xmas is just another day here in Bangkok and I have somewhere to go.

 

Ok. (What the hell are you doing in Bangkok anyway?)

First, here's a link to a good page on particle detectors among other things.

http://universe-review.ca/R15-20-accelerators.htm

The detector I mentioned before (the bubble chamber) is described here. You can see the exact trace of the path of a particle and it's interactions with other particles. You can tell what kind of particle you have by looking at the way the trace curves in a magnetic field. You know its speed also. So, if a known particle that has a rest frame lifetime of 100ns is moving through the detetor at .85c and makes a trace that exists for 1000ns (1us) and this agrees with the lorentz values exactly, then you have time dilation staring you in the face, as it were.

And here's a little bit about the relativistic effects observed with cosmic-ray induced atmospheric muons.

http://cosmic.lbl.gov/SKliewer/Cosmic_Rays/Muons.htm

 

superluminal. I winter here for 3 months (with side trips to Hong Kong and Singapore this year). To get away from too cold, I go somewhere it is too hot. Smart, eh? I think I may stay home next year.

How big is this cloud chamber if you have particle trails that are 297 metres long? I always thought of cloud chambers as fairly small. What is the particle? I see 2 decays there. Which trail is it?

Cosmic ray energy at creation is given as 6x10^12 eV. But cosmic rays go up over 10^20 eV. Plenty of energy to spare to create muons at ground level or even in coal mines.

 

It's not a cloud chamber (I built one of those when I was a kid). It's a bubble chamber. And we're not talking about 2.2us muons or cosmic rays. We're talking about other particles generated in a particle accelerator. I thought my links were pretty explanitory...

And please don't ask me to analyze the individual traces in a particle detector experiment. I clearly can't do that.

 

Did you not look at my link that explains how cosmic ray induced muons are analyzed for relativistic effects?

 

You gave me examples of times and I assumed they were related to that actual picture. Something travelling at almost light speed can travel at almost 300 metres in one micro-second. So, what are these particles that can be traced from birth to death with complete exactitude?

That is the point about such traces. They must be analyzed to find out what they PROBABLY are.

 

Yes, but they are not magic. It merely takes a cosmic ray particle with enough energy to create a muon and that can be done as easily at sea-level as at the edge of Earth's atmosphere. The official explanation assumes that no cosmic ray ever gets beyond the boundary of our atmosphere, which is nonsense.

 

I can't imagine it making any difference to you, but here's a link:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

From the link, here are the relevant references that you can look up for yourself if you want:

Have fun.

 

Unfortunately that's not true. The energies of the produced muons are related to their production energy, which is a reasonably known value and occurrs at a reasonably known altitude.

But it dosen't matter I suppose.

 

No. There is a completely assumed value of 6 GeV at the top of Earth's atmosphere but we do know that cosmic rays are not standard as they have been detected upto 100,000,000 GeV. A cosmic ray of 10 GeV which reached ground would produce the same muon as a 6 GeV particle which only made the upper atmosphere. It is all assumptions so bad science. And yet people accept it!!!

 

http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Key/relgen.htm


What I said about driving clocks to the airport, putting them in planes, etc being different from a clock on the mantlepiece the whole time. However it is down to the mechanism of the clock, how it works and not to mythical time altering.

 

Sorry kaneda, but that textbook exercise in your link does not hold up experimentally. Have you heard of the 'clock postulate'? It has been experimentally shown that circular acceleration has no effect on a clocks timing, only velocity. It has been verified up to 10^18 g acceleration. Here is a link:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/clock.html

 

2inquisitive. Dictionary.com on the word postulate:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/postulate

Creationists postulate that God is self evident (Romans 1:20, etc). But like the clock IDEA, it only works if you believe, so is bad science. I want evidence which this dreamer is not able to provide.

10^18g acceleration. That means each gram weighs in at one trillion metric tons which would crush a clock down to atoms. You are SO gullible to believe such guesswork without giving it a single moment's thought.

A constant speed is not acceleration.

There is also the point that this article is about a clock. No mention of atomic clock which if it works on a stream of heated cesium atoms would be different from most clocks and would be vulnerable to acceleration.

 

kenada,

I am not gullible enough to assume an actual clock was accelerated to 10^18 g. Do you know what a particle accelerator accelerates? Do you understand that an increase in the mean lifetime of an unstable particle is 'time dilation'? Do you understand that the Lorentz transforms give a prediction as to the amount of time dilation an unstable particle will experience based on its velocity? Do you understand that, according to the equivalence principle, an acceleration of 10^18g should give a huge amount of time dilation in addition to the amount based on velocity alone? That additional time dilation due to acceleration is not evident in particle accelerator measurements. By even gently moving an atomic clock to a different gravitational potential, the tick rate of the clock will be altered in addition to any velocity effects on its tick rate.

A particle, or clock, moving in a circle at a constant speed will experience a centripetal acceleration. Duh.