1. Originally Posted by RealityCheck
Oh, and leave out any more 'gossipy' accusations based on your own opinions. Thanks.

Cheers!

.
That's an awfully high benchmark.., don't ya think?

2. Originally Posted by RealityCheck
Only 'time dilation' has 'actual' direct proof irrespective of theory.

Assumption of 'distance contraction' is only theoretical to adjust for clock-based measurements which are only things so far observed to be 'actually' directly affected by speed.
Speaks for itself:
...the phenomenon of time dilation requires the complementary phenomenon of length contraction... -http://faraday.physics.utoronto.ca/P...hContract.html

3. Originally Posted by Syne
Speaks for itself:
The only obvious thing directly involved is that the muon's decay 'clock' is slowed. So of course the longer travel time for the longer 'lifetime' when speed affects muon process which determines decay 'countdown' after creation.

See? The argument from the earth perspective is a non-relevant to what is happening to muon. It is the muon that is experiencing clcok rate slowdown in its process, not the earth. So using any information or motion of erath is irrelevant to actual processes involved in muon lifetime.

Hence muon actually lives longer because of muon speed irrespective of what earth or other objects are doing.

Muon speed is not relative to earth, it is relative to WHAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN if the same muon were created in a 'stationary/slower' state at the same altitude as the speeding muon is created. Same for its lifetime process 'countdown' is compared ONLY to what it would have been if created 'stationary/slow' at same altitude.

So NO actual 'complementarity' of distance contraction is required or demonstrated in fact. The earth frame/motion aspects are irrelevant to muon actual inherent speed and decay clock/process 'countdown to decay'. The life of the muon is ITS LIFE at ITS SPEED irrespective of speeds of other frames.

So still no actual direct proof of 'distance contraction'; merely direct proof of actual muon 'clock/process' rate dilation which let's it cover more distance. Any distance contraction overlay is frame-shifting theoretical ad hoc assumptions which are really not required since the muon lifetime and its slowed 'decay countdown' clock/time 'resonance' processes explain directly its longer travel time. Period.

Cheers!

PS: Gotta go for the day. G'night!

.

4. Originally Posted by RealityCheck
The only obvious thing directly involved is that the muon's decay 'clock' is slowed. So of course the longer travel time for the longer 'lifetime' when speed affects muon process which determines decay 'countdown' after creation.

See? The argument from the earth perspective is a non-relevant to what is happening to muon. It is the muon that is experiencing clcok rate slowdown in its process, not the earth. So using any information or motion of erath is irrelevant to actual processes involved in muon lifetime.

Hence muon actually lives longer because of muon speed irrespective of what earth or other objects are doing.

Muon speed is not relative to earth, it is relative to WHAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN if the same muon were created in a 'stationary/slower' state at the same altitude as the speeding muon is created. Same for its lifetime process 'countdown' is compared ONLY to what it would have been if created 'stationary/slow' at same altitude.

So NO actual 'complementarity' of distance contraction is required or demonstrated in fact. The earth frame/motion aspects are irrelevant to muon actual inherent speed and decay clock/process 'countdown to decay'. The life of the muon is ITS LIFE at ITS SPEED irrespective of speeds of other frames.

So still no actual direct proof of 'distance contraction'; merely direct proof of actual muon 'clock/process' rate dilation which let's it cover more distance. Any distance contraction overlay is frame-shifting theoretical ad hoc assumptions which are really not required since the muon lifetime and its slowed 'decay countdown' clock/time 'resonance' processes explain directly its longer travel time. Period.

Cheers!

PS: Gotta go for the day. G'night!

.
Another person claiming absolute motion.

5. Originally Posted by Syne
Another person claiming absolute motion.

No-one claimed 'absolute motion'. The point is that ONLY the muon's OWN INHERENT decay/harmonic processes are the ONLY effective determinant of anything.

All else is theory overlay BESIDE THE FACT that muon states are the only valid compared quantities/effects NOT earth-muon or muon-anything else comparisons.

Did you miss that it is the muon motion/clock 'decay countdown' processes that are the determining factor of it's lifetime and distance traveled during that lifetime?

It is THAT internal/inherent factor that changes with speed, nothing else is determinant of anything but other 'perspective' IN THEORY and not more.

The actual factors in evidence DIRECTLY are the muon and its internal processes which DELAY decay because of the known effects of speed on clocks/processes.

Whatever other theoretical overlays invoking 'relative motion' are not relevant or effective elements in the muon's lifetime or distance traveled.

Try again. But be quick!....I have to go!

PS: You should consider: If we shoot a laser from the altitude/position where/when we create a 'high-speed' muon and a 'stationary/slow' muon, we will have a refence base for comparative speeds of muons compared to the lightspeed. So timing the arrival of muons on surfcae and comparing that arrival time with that of laser light, then we have a muon speed measure relative to lightspeed.

If a slow muon never arrives on the surface of earth we assume that its speed was much slower than lightspeed and much slower than high-speed muon. No mystery that it didn't make it because its lifetime was not long enough because its speed compared to laser light speed was not high enough like the high-speed muon. No 'absolute motion'. Just experimental data base to identify actual factors/variables and ignore irrelevancies and theoretical overlays after the fact. Gotta go! G'night!

.
.

6. RC is just another relativity denier. Instead of drawing pictures, he tosses word salad.

7. AlexG:

Do you plan to continue in the same vein that got you banned last time?

8. Nobody responded to this, so I'll re-post it:

So let's try it out.

$t=\frac{d}{\frac{1}{2}(u+v)}$

The traveling twin starts at an initial velocity ($u$) of 0 m/s. At a constant rate he changes to a velocity ($v$) 239,833,966.4 m/s (.8c). He reaches that velocity of 239,833,966.4 m/s when he is 383,734,346.24 meters ($d$) away from his starting point.

$t=\frac{383,734,346.24}{\frac{1}{2}(0+239,833,966. 4)}$

$t=3.2 seconds.$

So at t=3.2 seconds, the traveling twin has a .8c velocity, and he is 383,734,346.24 meters away from his starting point.

The light was emitted at t=0, and at t=3.2 the light sphere has a radius of 959,335,865.6 meters.

That means the light is 959,335,865.6 meters-383,734,346.24=575,601,519.36 meters further than he is from the coordinate (0,0,0 where his stay at home twin is) after 3.2 seconds has elapsed.

So from his perspective, the light traveled 575,601,519.36 meters away from him. In order for the speed of light to be 299,792,458 m/s in his frame, his watch must show a time of 1.92 seconds. It's either that, or he has to admit that according to his frame, the light traveled 179,875,474.8 m/s if the watch reads 3.2 seconds.

Let's just start from this basic premise.

What are the distances and times according to the traveler and his watch?

This is simply the first acceleration in the OP.

The traveler starts at an initial velocity of 0 m/s at t=0. At t=3.2 seconds the traveler reaches the velocity of .8c, and he is 383,734,346.24 meters away from his starting point. At t=3.2 seconds the light sphere has a radius of 959,335,865.6 meters. According to the stay at home twin, those are the facts.

What does the traveler say the facts are?
How much time elapses according to the travelers watch from the time he starts traveling (t=0) until the time he reaches the velocity of .8c? How far away does he think he is from his stay at home brother when he reaches .8c, and what does he think the radius of the light sphere is when he reaches the velocity of .8c?

9. Originally Posted by RealityCheck
Hi Tach.

You meant to say "Theoretically,....it does!". Didn't you?
Nope.

10. Originally Posted by RealityCheck

No-one claimed 'absolute motion'. The point is that ONLY the muon's OWN INHERENT decay/harmonic processes are the ONLY effective determinant of anything.
Yes, I think we all get that you don't understand the consequences of what you claim.
Originally Posted by RealityCheck
See? The argument from the earth perspective is a non-relevant to what is happening to muon. It is the muon that is experiencing clcok rate slowdown in its process, not the earth. So using any information or motion of erath is irrelevant to actual processes involved in muon lifetime.
If the motion of the Earth, as seen from the muon frame, is irrelevant then you are implying that the muon has some absolute motion, since it is "irrelevant" whether its speed is relative to the Earth or not.

All else is theory overlay BESIDE THE FACT that muon states are the only valid compared quantities/effects NOT earth-muon or muon-anything else comparisons.
And you continue to verify your claim of absolute motion, all unbeknownst to you, apparently.

Whatever other theoretical overlays invoking 'relative motion' are not relevant or effective elements in the muon's lifetime or distance traveled.
How more blatantly can you state it without admitting it to yourself? If relative motion is irrelevant, that only leaves you with absolute motion.

PS: You should consider: If we shoot a laser from the altitude/position where/when we create a 'high-speed' muon and a 'stationary/slow' muon, we will have a refence base for comparative speeds of muons compared to the lightspeed. So timing the arrival of muons on surfcae and comparing that arrival time with that of laser light, then we have a muon speed measure relative to lightspeed.

If a slow muon never arrives on the surface of earth we assume that its speed was much slower than lightspeed and much slower than high-speed muon. No mystery that it didn't make it because its lifetime was not long enough because its speed compared to laser light speed was not high enough like the high-speed muon. No 'absolute motion'. Just experimental data base to identify actual factors/variables and ignore irrelevancies and theoretical overlays after the fact. Gotta go! G'night!
You obviously don't understand the invariance of c. If the speed of light is always measured as c by any observer then you must define the given observer you wish to measure light. Since you deny the Earth observer, that only leaves the muon itself. But the muon is an observer that measures the invariant speed of light to be c. So where is your supposed comparison?

Wait, but then you introduce "the surface of earth" again.

Why don't you take some time and collect your thoughts a bit?

11. Originally Posted by James R
Originally Posted by AlexG
RC is just another relativity denier. Instead of drawing pictures, he tosses word salad.
AlexG:

Do you plan to continue in the same vein that got you banned last time?

James, what part of RealityCheck's post (#245) seems to be accurate SR to you?

12. Originally Posted by RealityCheck

No-one claimed 'absolute motion'. The point is that ONLY the muon's OWN INHERENT decay/harmonic processes are the ONLY effective determinant of anything.

All else is theory overlay BESIDE THE FACT that muon states are the only valid compared quantities/effects NOT earth-muon or muon-anything else comparisons.

Did you miss that it is the muon motion/clock 'decay countdown' processes that are the determining factor of it's lifetime and distance traveled during that lifetime?

It is THAT internal/inherent factor that changes with speed, nothing else is determinant of anything but other 'perspective' IN THEORY and not more.

The actual factors in evidence DIRECTLY are the muon and its internal processes which DELAY decay because of the known effects of speed on clocks/processes.

Whatever other theoretical overlays invoking 'relative motion' are not relevant or effective elements in the muon's lifetime or distance traveled.

Try again. But be quick!....I have to go!

PS: You should consider: If we shoot a laser from the altitude/position where/when we create a 'high-speed' muon and a 'stationary/slow' muon, we will have a refence base for comparative speeds of muons compared to the lightspeed. So timing the arrival of muons on surfcae and comparing that arrival time with that of laser light, then we have a muon speed measure relative to lightspeed.

If a slow muon never arrives on the surface of earth we assume that its speed was much slower than lightspeed and much slower than high-speed muon. No mystery that it didn't make it because its lifetime was not long enough because its speed compared to laser light speed was not high enough like the high-speed muon. No 'absolute motion'. Just experimental data base to identify actual factors/variables and ignore irrelevancies and theoretical overlays after the fact. Gotta go! G'night!

.
.
The muons in this case are not artificially created. They begin with the interaction of relativistic particles (usually free protons) higher up in the atmosphere. The experiment is comparing detectable events at two altitudes along the muon path and the calculating the average half-life required to explain the data. Also note that the conclusions have been verified.., I think it was at CERN.

My only personal comment on this experiment is that the conclussions remain theoretical. The theory seems sound to me, but as much as we accept SR, GR and QM, they remain theory. All three have a great deal of both observational and experimental support. In all three there remain issues that have yet to be fully resolved.

13. Originally Posted by OnlyMe
The muons in this case are not artificially created. They begin with the interaction of relativistic particles (usually free protons) higher up in the atmosphere. The experiment is comparing detectable events at two altitudes along the muon path and the calculating the average half-life required to explain the data. Also note that the conclusions have been verified.., I think it was at CERN.

My only personal comment on this experiment is that the conclussions remain theoretical.
How can they be "theoretical" when they have been verified experimentally (see your first sentence). You are contradicting yourself. You are contradicting mainstream science.

14. Tach, Do you know the answers to my questions in this post?

What are the distances and times according to the traveler's watch from his initial velocity of 0 m/s to when he reaches the velocity of .8c?

15. Originally Posted by Tach
How can they be "theoretical" when they have been verified experimentally (see your first sentence). You are contradicting yourself. You are contradicting mainstream science.
Tach, here I am not really questioning the conclusions. What I was trying to point out is that in both the original experiment and the CERN case, a great deal of data is obtained and then interpreted from the context of a theoretical model.

It may not have been clear in the next sentence, where I was attempting qualify that statement.

I do accept that the data and conclusions are consistent with our understanding of how all three theoretical models seem to be involved. (SR, GR & QM) I only add the "seem" aspect here because there are aspects of especially how the standard model of particle physics is involved that I must take on faith from the conclusions of the pratical physicists involved. All who have a far better understanding of that field than I.

16. Originally Posted by James R
AlexG:

Do you plan to continue in the same vein that got you banned last time?

And what do you find offensive or ban worthy about that post?

17. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
Tach, Do you know the answers to my questions in this post?
Yes.

What are the distances and times according to the traveler's watch from his initial velocity of 0 m/s to when he reaches the velocity of .8c?
Try plugging in the above numbers into the formulas from the link I already posted. Do you think you can handle a numerical substitution all by yourself?

18. Originally Posted by OnlyMe
Tach, here I am not really questioning the conclusions. What I was trying to point out is that in both the original experiment and the CERN case, a great deal of data is obtained and then interpreted from the context of a theoretical model.
Actually, you are lying, you have been denying distance contraction

I do accept that the data and conclusions are consistent with our understanding of how all three theoretical models seem to be involved. (SR, GR & QM) I only add the "seem" aspect here because there are aspects of especially how the standard model of particle physics is involved that I must take on faith from the conclusions of the pratical physicists involved. All who have a far better understanding of that field than I.
This thread has nothing to do with the standard model. It has everything to do with your inability to understand things that are a lot more basic, like length contraction, please stop trying to move the goalposts.

19. Originally Posted by Tach
Try plugging in the above numbers into the formulas from the link I already posted. Do you think you can handle a numerical substitution all by yourself?
No, I need your help. Can you post the answers while showing your work so I can learn from you?

20. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
Sorry, I am not in the business of wasting my time trying to teach you relativity only to see you denying it.

Can you post the answers while showing your work so I can learn from you?
You do not want to learn, you want to troll.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•