3 Clock Rates (Again)

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

James R.,

ANS: Like I said I can't vouch for this site however the above paragraph is discussing muon and other decays, it further states that they show solving that problem by an important parameter having been ignored.

If they don't do what they say then I don't know what to say. I did scan through and they seem to be saying that speed, frequency ect., of sub atomic activities vary as a function of energy (excitation) due to mass change and/or dimensional change.

So other than perhaps just being incorrect I don't see how you say it doesn't address the issue.

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

In reply to:

Please explain what it is which changes the observed muon half-life, if not relativistic time dilation. In other words, do you have any alternative explanation in terms of physical processes relating to the decay which explains the observations? Or is your point of view nothing more than wishing it were so?

How about introducing the concept of a yet undiscovered variable density aether, which retards and slows the physical processes at the sub-atomic level. Seems more intuitive than incorporating the concept of time slowing into the equations. Especially as time doesn't exist!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Nice to see that you have an intuition to what is going at very high speed.

In my every day life, the maximal velocity I went was about 1000 km/hour as a passenger in a plane, so I don't have an intuition about what is going at these speeds.

So instead of using there my intuition, I rely on experiments that physicist perform, and then I have to choose between two possible explanations of the results:

1. I live in a world that is very simple but is not in accordance wit the extrapolation of my intuition to these places I haven't been there. The laws of this world are tested even today at higher and higher precision.

2. My intuition of everyday life is correct, even for places I haven't been there. To keep this intuition correct, I have to invent some matter with very peculiar properties which, alltogether have formed some conspiracy in order to give the experiments results.


I choose 1.

 

I don't understand what is intuitive in an aether that is reppeled by masses (as I read somewhere in this thread or in another one), but is getting denser near masses in order to slow them.

 

Originally posted by MacM
Lets see. Lets try if it exists as a seperate enity (4th dimension) you could not have motion without passage of time.
And? This has nothing to do with an absolute time frame existing.

Without motion you could have no energetic particles (such as quarks and gluons) and even if they existed they couldn't move
hence creation would be timeless and there would be no events hence no concept of time.
As you noted, processes don't follow you universal frame of reference. The movement of quarks and gluons are themselves processes, as is everything else. Why would quarks and gluons follow universal time, but not any other matter?

Very simply, everything is a process. Nothing would follow this universal frame of reference... and so it isn't much of a reference frame.

 

Persol,

You are greatly over simplifying; plus you fail to recognize that what really matters is what is reality.

You just don't want to accept that reality may not be Relativity.

Thanks for making my point that everything is a process, now we can concentrate on what affects those processes and "Causs" the illusions of Relativity.


Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

 

James R.,

ANS: You should pay more attention. I believe it has been shown that clocks tick at a local rate and that the Relavistic view of what you think other clocks are doing is an illusion. Understannding that is not useless.

It has been shown that Pi does not change on a rotating merry go round for an observer on the merry go round. That knowledges is not useless, indeed others had a misconception about that issue.

It can be shown that distance between moving objects doesn't change, when most say it does but when asked to measure the distance they find it has to measure the same because the ruler in motion has undergone the same contraction as the proclaimed distance change, hence no measurable difference exits.. That is not useless information.

Understanding the alternatives to the above issues is not useless information. It is the pathway to our future.

There are physical realities and to many people have become so confused by Relativity they are making all sorts of erroneous statements and drawing incorrect conclusions of what it all really means.

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

 

It is all well and good to declare 'this is reality', but it is an empty statement that can never be demonstrated, a time frame which can never be known, and a useless concept that only makes you feel better because it's universal.

You still have no concept of the relation between reality and observation. You are getting boring.

 

Persol,

ANS: Not nearly as boring as the same old song and dance you try to pull.

If you were to actually answer some questions instead of looking up the answer in your handy Pocket Version of Relativity you might find some of these issues are rather tantilizing.

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

 

Still here Mac! Same old bullshit I see. Persol, I can't believe you are still arguing with this fool.

Yeah right, same Old song and dance. Same Old Mac, With the same old fucking dance. I'll come back in a few months and see if anything productive has transpired.

 

Ryans,

ANS: I would hope that in a few months you will have been able to derive the correct answer for the Changing Pi problem on a merry-go-round.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

 

Whatever Mac. You get beaten on all counts of your arguements. You then wait a couple of months then start the same shit, with the same arguements all over again. If you had have learned your lesson , you would have spent that time learning calculus

 

Ryans,

ANS: And you would have done well to have gained enough character to admit you made a simple error and that as described in the test Pi does not change. But you continue to claim you were right when everybody (without an axe to grind) see how wrong you were.

Admit your simple mistake and lets move on or contiune your denial and see it forever.


Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

 

James R,

That's a silly statement. If time doesn't exist, why do we talk about the past, present and future? What do clocks do? What stops everything happening at once?


Time is a similar concept to thought. Thought and consciousness are a result of complex physical processes, it's kind of there but try putting your finger it! You could argue that it doesn't exist! My opinion is that it doesn't , but hey, who cares what I think

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

For a start, you'll need to explain why the ether is less dense in the lab and more dense in the upper atmosphere.

Well, it's the other way round, actually! If you would have read and digested my 'Aether and a matter of time thread', you'd have known that. I don't blame you for not remembering this though, I fully understand that you will not consider anything other than the doctrine that Einstein has set!

 

James R.,

"About Changing Pi":

ANS: WHAT? I can understand Ryans wanting to forget but there were other that initially claimed I was wrong and tried to give esoteric explanations (You were one of them as I recall). It was a long string. How can you say nobody here disagrees ?

(or should I say now "Disagreed").

ANS: Again you seem to miss the point. I do not say that Lorentz Contraction doesn't occur. So your answer doesn't apply to me.

What I hve done is ask for an explanation of how distance changes when the ruler also changes and you will get the same measurement.

I did notice that you didn't answer that question.

That suggest that something may be missing here don't you think?

ANS: There is a fine line between showing something in error and pointing out its short comings.

Until you or another Relativist explains the above question I think my understanding of physics and the short comings of Relativity are doing just fine.


Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

 

Originally posted by MacM
WHAT? I can understand Ryans wanting to forget but there were other that initially claimed I was wrong and tried to give esoteric explanations...
As I recall, the original question was ill-defined. The only bickering was who was the observer and how he was observing. Once that was actually clarified the solution was not difficult.

What I hve done is ask for an explanation of how distance changes when the ruler also changes and you will get the same measurement.
As was stated before the ruler is not alwasy in the same frame of reference.

There is a fine line between showing something in error and pointing out its short comings.
Well... no. An error is "you said [this] and [that] and [this] is wrong because of [evidence]." A short coming is "your theory is [this], but it does not solve when [that] happens." A poor argument is "your theory of [this] does not take into account the 'underlying truth'."