Mac's Final Relativity Thread

OMG, Please not muons again. I have shot you down to many times on that arguement.

1 - It is not a controlled lab enviornment.

2 - You have no consideration of possible affects of passing though earth's magnetic field at high velocity.

3 - You have no consideration of relavistic motion in an increasing gravity field.

4 - You have no consideration for the fact that muons will clearly will be changing velocity passing through the atmosphere; hence are not in an inertial frame.

5 - Most important is that your data is strictly from the view point of the lab clock at rest. You have not addressed reciprocity inherent in a relative velocity view as advocated by SR for time dilation.

Please post data showing that from the muon's frame the lab clock lost time. Then we can talk but not before.

]


What about length contraction not producing time dilation do you not understand?. I have posted proof positive several times now that assuming length contraction leaves all clocks ticking in sync. Yuor theory is flawed and does not produce time dilation by length contraction. Get over it.

REALLY. I guess I missed the data from the muon's frame showing the lab clocks lost time. Please re-post that data.

I have made no theoretical claims. I do suggest that eneergy level may be a factor. But if no so be it. It damn sure isn't length contraction.

Funny. I have repeatedly noted that the only empirical data available is for the accelerated frame. I have also pointed out that unless you know who accelerated SR is worthless.

Whatever are you babbeling about. How in the hell would you know which one if either have accelerated.?

More Billy T's lies. I have not once rejected any empirical data (except H&K which was fraud).

Yes I accept time dilation but not due to "Relative Velocity? since both clocks share relative veloicty and only one dilates. It is rather obvious that the one that dilates is the one that accelerates. The resting clock never dilatess just as one would expect (unless you are a relativists arguing for a defunct theory.

I have said many times SR has utility and no need to shit can it but to merely acknowledge that it is NOT physical reality and has limits of application. There is every reason to reject it's validity due to length contraction not producing the predicted time dilaton affect.

No you have been given access but continue to ignore it.

.....___TT____
v = 0.5d / 0.5t

This represents the rhetoric of SR. The traveling twin travels 1/2 the distance in 1/2 the time. Yes/No?

The correct answer is Yes since you will refuse to do the math.

Now note that 0.5d / 0.5t = d / t

And both the TT clock and RT clock must tick in sync such that upon the TT's return both clocks must display equal accumulated time. SR prediction is false and further is not tested and therer is no empirical data to support it.

I have no obligation to spoon feed you with a new theory. You have an obligation to recognize the failure of your theory.

See above and several postings of the proof which you continue to dodge.

And you continue to rant and rave without ever addressing the issue. Wonder why? Perhaps because you can't.

Like I said dumb ass. I have no obligation to spoon feed you a new theory. You however are obligated to respond in defense of your theory weith something other than personal innuendo and attacks or reciting SR or appealing to authority.

Try actually explaining just how you (SR) claims of time dilaton via length contraction occurs. IT DOES NOT.

Now I expect you to actually respond to the issue and stop waffeling.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Spare me. Just respond to the issue I have raised. Your attacks are not a physics rebuttal.

Well considering that the issue is really very very simple I don't think you need a bunch of wanna-be experts telling you what to think. Think for yourself. Post a physics rebuttal to the failure of length contraction to produce time dilation as advocated by SR.

Or are you incapable of thinking at that depth?

Prove it. Post one case of em[irical data supporting length contraction caused time dilation. Post a physics rebuttal of my proof. Otherwise I suggest the rhetoric is coming from your mouth not mine.

OMG, Please not muons again. I have shot this arguement down to many times.

1 - It is not a controlled lab enviornment.

2 - You have no consideration of possible affects of passing though earth's magnetic field at high velocity.

3 - You have no consideration of relavistic motion in an increasing gravity field.

4 - You have no consideration for the fact that muons will clearly will be changing velocity passing through the atmosphere; hence are not in an inertial frame.

5 - Most important is that your data is strictly from the view point of the lab clock at rest. You have not addressed reciprocity inherent in a relative velocity view as advocated by SR for time dilation.

Please post data showing that from the muon's frame the lab clock lost time. Then we can talk but not before.

Yep and all tests are for the view from the lab resting clock. Please post ONE test and empirical data that proves the inherent reciprocity of the relative velocity view as advocated bySR. Go ahead we anxiously await your post.

I still see no physicas rebuttal of fact here. I see dogma, rhetoric and BS.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Pardon my french but FU. Just how do you see repeating a mathematical proof which YOU and the others refuse to address is blind assertions. You sir are blind. You sir are the ignorant one. You nor they have prese4ntedc any evidence against me. You and they choose to continue as you are here to slander me but that down't alter the facts on the ground.

v = 0.5d /0.5t = d / t and that proves without any wiggle room for you guys tht liength contraction does NOT produce time diatlkion. Sorry but you just choose to eithercignore tht fact and/or recite theory. We know what SR claims but we also know now that it is just false BS.

The equation above mandates that both clocks tick in unision and NO time dilation occurs. Sorry that is just a physical fact. Get over it.

 

It's a bigger effect with cosmic ray muons because they move very fast, but you can also see the effect in muons that are produced in colliders, which certainly is a "controlled lab environment" and inertial frame. They leave a longer track than you would expect - from our perspective time is slower for them, from their perspective the distance they cover is shorter than what we measure.

What? Are you serious? Muons are point particles not meteorites. Even crappy alpha radiation sources that get used by 17 and 18 year old students can penetrate the air quite a long way and alpha particles are big composite particles. Muons are much smaller and are super duper high energy in comparison.

 

Correct and all such testing only demonstrates time dilation of the muon. NONWE demonstrate the reciprocity advocated by SR where according to the muon the lab clock lost time.

If I'm wrong on this point please post your empirical data. You seem to skip over this issue everytime. Wonder why? Also please show where I have even once said muons do not time dilate.

So now you want to argue finite amounts of non-inertial? It is either inertial or it is not. If it is an approximation then say so. But don't pretend there are no enviornmental affects of a muon (fat electron) blastng through a magnetic field, increasing gravity well and the atmosphere.

BTW: I forgot the other affect:

Ansitrophy showing muon life more connected to motion to the CMB than earth.

 

A muon is not a "fat" electron. It's a particle that has the same quantum numbers as the electron but is more massive. Both the electron and the muon are point particles.

 

No. You have speculated that the confirmed predictions of SR could be due to a multitude (you listed 5below) of other cases that just happen by chance to cause the agreement with SR's predictions. Let's consider your five:

On first sentence of (5):
(5a)There are no fast moving observers to describe the tick rate of Earth clocks in terms of their clock’s seconds. SR effects are not as you assert "physical changes" but created by DESCRIBING the effects occurring in another frame in terms of your frame's seconds and meters. So until some fast moving intelligent aliens do DESCRIBE how slowly time passes on Earth this SR prediction cannot be tested.

It is accepted as it follows mathematically from the same theoretical formulation that has had ALL its testable predictions confirmed, INCLUDING RECIPROCITY (of space contractions) AS EXHIBITED by the cosmic ray muons which make it thru only meters thick / deep (in their frame) atmosphere, as it is for them the air is contracted to only few dozen meters thick (and very much denser as each atom of it has more mass). See (5b) reply below for more.

Note even if your five alternative suggestions were not demonstrable false, but true, it would be an astounding chance happening that they reproduced the observed predictions of SR but your five above "by-chance" agreeing with SR alternatives are ALL false as I now show:

(1) False - Muon curved tracks in thick photographic emulsion films, commonly used to capture and record nuclear physics experiments with high energy particle accelerators confirm in the lab the same facts that the cosmic ray muons do. (From the radius of curvature in the uniform magnetic field their speed is learned and with it the expected density of ionization along the track can be computed, and is essentially constant as predicted while they are still with nearly the speed of light, But as they near the end of their track tracks the time dilation is reduced and this statical decrease in muon flux (due to them decaying more rapidly) AND increase in associated muon decay events is reflected in the ionization track density (along the track) and is as predicted by SR. (If it were not, but conflicted with SR, then getting a Noble prize would be easy - any of the dozen graduate student at JHU doing these types of experiments while I was graduate student there could have gained the Noble prize. (JHU is one of the univerisities that control the Brookhaven accelerator so the high energy physic students were the second largest group.)

(2) False - If crossing magnetic field lines were why muons live much longer than their rest frame lifetimes, then zero muons would reach the surface at the magnetic poles as travel along field lines has no effects on anything (There is no magnetic force then.). The muon flux should show a strong latitude effect, strongest at the magnetic equator, but it does not.
(MacM you really need to learn some physics to avoid pulling nonsense like this out of your dark smelly place.)

(3) False - Gravity was considered, but it is much too weak to have any effect - Even the effect of the gravity field at the surface of the sun can barely be detected and then only because it accumulates the bending of the ray while it is passing by the sun.

(4) False - The muons travel at essentially the speed of light all the way down to the surface, except for those that do make the "daughters" of the "cosmic ray shower" via a close impact on a nucleus of an atom (normally oxygen or nitrogen nucleus). These nuclei are so tiny that their projected cross section of all, makes most of the energy loss be due to "Compton scattering" (By bound atmospheric electron ejected for its atom). The deflection of the muon is very tiny, but even if considered it just makes it more astounding that they reach the surface with the slightly longer than straight path.

(5b) False - Total nonsense. The muon measurements DEMONSTRATE SR predicted effects in both earth and muon frames. Your alternative unsupported guesses that these effects are caused by something else that just happen by chance to match SR's predictions are all four above shown to be false.
Reach AGAIN in your dark smelly place and see if you can pull some other, less obviously false, alternative out.

Nothing to get over as I never suffered from the stupidity that length contraction causes time dilation. They are on equal footing as both follow mathematically from SR two well confirmed postulates. To show how silly your thought process is to even suggest this consider the following postulate of math: a+b =b+a. From this, and definition of integers, it mathematically follows that 2+3 = 5 and 3+2 = 5, the second is not true because of the first being true, nor is time dilation true because length contraction is true. You just have little ability to think logically.

Simple. I applied YOUR logic (in large bold type of post 1307) that states SR is wrong because there is nowhere in the universe that is free of gravity field. Thus, there is no particle in the entire universe that is not now being accelerated. Also none have ever NOT been accelerated. So for the whole history of the universe both Frame A & B have been accelerated and your speaking of a common rest frame is non-existent nonsense.

Now of course any same person would recognized that even if not exactly an inertial frame SR can be used (and has been) to predict result accurately the effect of gravity fields even in much larger than the Earth's filedl which has effects too small to detect. (Except if the effect is allowed to accumulate for a sufficiently long periods.) However, you are not a sane person as one of your two arguments for rejecting SR is that there is no inertial frame anywhere in the universe as gravity is everywhere. (The other is that as not every SR prediction can be tested, so with your version of logic, you conclude SR must be false. - That is as stupid as to claim the core of the Earth is not mainly molten iron / nickel because it has never been tested.)

and your proof of this false assertion is?

Both frames have been accelerated, since the beginning of time - (Your first of two arguments against SR thrown back at you.) and even if SR is a good approximation, either can claim to be the "rest frame" as both have been accerated, perhaps quite strongly at least once in the past 10 billion years - So again I ask, for you to again ignore:
How do you know which is now the "rest frame" with no SR effects for the other to describe? You claim reciprocity is false, but have no way to tell which frame is the rest frame without any SR effects for other frames.

Oh? Then tell how you know which frame SR applies to and which is the "rest frame" to which SR does do not apply.

If you wish, I can count this as your third false and most silly reason for rejecting SR as SR does not even make the claim that length contraction produces time dilation - As noted earlier, both are equal status mathematical results from the two postulates.

Confirming your Crackpot status, I see. You think that your extraordinary claim that > 100,000 Ph.D.s in physics during the last 100 years are all wrong and all the confirmed predictions of SR just happened by chance to agree with what SR predicts, but in "fact" were due to some other effect like the five you postulated above, should bow down and worship the reviled "truth" that came out of MacM's dark smelly place with no supporting math, no supporting evidence of SR error, no supporting theory, no confirmed predictions (except those supporting standard SR) and MacM's SR is not even with any mathematical formulation with which predictions could be made!

Thus, MacM's SR has made zero new predictions (except does accept part of SR math derived perditions and rejects others equally firmly derived from the same math).

Well 100,000 well educated people ain't gona bow down and accept your nonsense as your "extraordinary claims" require "extraordinary evidence." (And you have none, except the extraordinary stink that still lingers on your "facts" is extraordinary and self contradictions show in post 1166, 198, and 118. Plus I guess your “extraordinary egotism," expecting all to accept your unsupported POV can be allowed.

SR DOES NOT make that silly claim, which is just more of your fabrication (or lies, if you understand what SR does claim).

Ditto. What is your extraordinary evidence?

 

Yes I notice just how bored you are. You can't let this go. You keep coming back and while ignoring the issue keep making the same false claims.

Outright lies and selfserving BS. You haven't ONCE provided a physics rebutal to the issue. All you know how to do is cry "BUT SR SAYS SO". Not impressed.

So then your position is that the mathematical based theory SR is immune from adhering to mathematical consequences?

Because the formula (and diagrams) show without any doubt that assuming length contraction both clocks continue to tick in unison. Being in sync they must display the same accumulated time upon the twins return. - PERIOD. SR's claim is falsified.

WOW. WE ARE MAKING PROGRESS EVEN IF YO DID HAVE TO LIE ONCE AGAIN. Are you going to force me to go back and prove how many times you have said it does or that SR says it does?

Get this folks James R has just said the claim by SR that the traveling twin travels less distance causes him to become younger is false.

I cannot believe you are this stupid. Of sourse it addresses tick rates.

Your false slander and lies do not amount to a physics rebuttal. You have done NOTHING but recite theory and state your belief that SR is valid. You have not addressed the issue itself not even once. So at least be honest.

Just pretending that SR doesn't advocate reciproicty of relavistic affects doesn't make it go away.

Funny I don't see a response here to a charged particle zipping though a magnetic field. I thought you knew physics.

Considering that this post continues to promote lies and dodge the issue I won't even bother with further correction. But you really shuld get some sleep. Apparently all this is keeping you awake a lot.

After all we have just seen a few cracks in the crock pot.

1 - Acknowledgement that gravity is everywhere and that SR is just an approximation. albeit a good one but an approximation none-the-less.

2 - Length Contraction doesn't cause time dilation.

3 - SR is immune from any mathematical inconsistancies.

 

WOW :bugeye:

And I thought you knew physics.

******************************************************

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon

Muons have a mass of 105.7 MeV/c2, which is about 200 times the mass of the electrons. Since their interactions are very similar to those of the electron, a muon can be thought of as a much heavier version of the electron.

********************************************************

It also has the same charge as an electron. BTW I have designed a muon catalyzed fusion reaction chamber.

Muon catalyzed fusion works because this FAT ELECTRON replaces the standard electron and reduces the orbit dimension bringing atoms closer together and hence requiring less columb force repulsion which allows fusion to occur n the everyday range of 1,500F - 2,500F.

*************************************************************************************
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon-catalyzed_fusion

As said previously, the muon may bump the electron from one of the hydrogen isotopes. The muon, 207 times more massive than the electron, effectively shields and reduces the electromagnetic resistance between two nuclei and draws them much closer into a covalent bond than an electron can. Because the nuclei are so close, the strong nuclear force is able to kick in and bind both nuclei together. They fuse,
****************************************************************************************

You really should learn to shut your mouth when you don't actually know what you are talking about.

.

 

Muons and electrons are both point particles. The muon is heavier than the electron as I said but it's not "bigger" in size. Is wikipedia the best reference you can come up with?

 

If it's 'fat' compared to the electron then you'll be able to provide its physical radius, as well as the electron's physical radius for comparison.

And try not to fall into the easy trap....

And you've managed this given your utter lack of experience or knowledge of any quantum mechanical theory, process or phenomena?

Well I've designed a Uranium powered time machine. I was 7 and I did the drawings in crayon. But none-the-less I've designed a time machine.

See, making BS claims you have no intention of backing up with working details is easy. But then you know that, it's all you ever do.

 

Nope but it is still a fat electron.[/b][/color]

**************************************************************************

http://books.google.com/books?id=am...esnum=1#v=onepage&q=muon fat electron&f=false

"It is just a fat electron. It has been renamed simply the muon.


http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache...ps muon fat electron&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

During the past few decades, scientists have learned that matter is made up of three distinct flavors or types. This
means that there are three flavors of neutrinos -- the electron neutrino associated with the electron, the muon
neutrinos, associated with the muon particle, which is a kind of fat electron, and the tau neutrino, associated with
the tau particle, an even fatter relative of the electron...

DOE 9/07/05
File Format: Microsoft Powerpoint - View as HTML
What is a muon? a fat electron. an elementary particle. How do you make them? P+Cu->pi+stuff. pi->mu+2 neutrinos. How do you make them useful? ...
www.muonsinc.com/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=636 - Similar

*******************************************************************
Seems everybody but you ,knows the muon is a fat electron. You aren't very well read are you?. Google, colleges, the DOE, WoW


Virtually every reference including government thinks it is a fat electron. Hmmmm

 

Your sarcasm noted or was it jealousy?.

BTW wise guy quantuum mechanical theory isn't required.

 

So what is the size of a muon then, compared to the size of the electron? PS, the electron and the muon and the other fundamental particles are described by the standard model which certainly does require quantum mechanics. I feel pretty sorry for you - you've gone through life learning nothing and all you can do is whine at people trying to educate you on the internet. It won't be long until we all decide you're a waste of time.

 

Why would I be jealous of the fact you've made a completely unsupported delusional lie you have absolutely no ability to justify or support in any way at all?

I'm not jealous of your ability to make up BS, I can do that if I so wish. Of course if you aren't the big fat delusional liar so many of us think you are, why don't you justify your claim you "designed a muon catalyzed fusion reaction chamber. ". Any patents? Any working scale models? Any work incorporated into current reactor technology (which you can prove originated from your own work)?

Nope, just yet more empty lies from you. Tell me again what you have which would possibly make me jealous....

No, why would quantum mechanical processes need quantum theory to describe them. Would you care to back up that claim by explicit demonstration you have an accurate working grasp of muon related phenomena? Of course you wouldn't, because you aren't.

Seriously, I feel sorry for your family.

Fat as in more massive. Not fat as in larger in physical extension. I notice you ignored the second half of my last post where I asked you to provide the physical size of the electron and the muon. Odd how you specifically ignored that half of my post, almost like you know you've got something you don't want to admit....

 

Look in the mirror. Feel sorry for yourself. You can't even resopnd to grade school level math with a rebvuttal and you want to pretend to know all about muon catalyzed fusion, quantum mechanics, etc. WOW. what a joke.

I'd adk you some nuclear physics question but you would just google and come back pretending you knew the anwers all along.

 

Right like v = 0.5d / 0.5t = d / t and causes time dilation making the TT younger. - You are a joke James R.