Hang on a second. The clocks int that experiment were off around ther world. There was a difference in them when compared later. Yet this difference is not being attributed to simlpe motion one way and the other. Whereas in a similar experiment (that big loop on the group, or square, with a light beam sent both ways around it), it is attributed to the simple fact of Earth's spin, or so it seems to me. It looks like they are the same effect but explained two different ways.
okay thed, let me think about this BUT they shouldn't have given the plane experiment, cause I know it and we don't need it here ... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
hum, I don't think it proves it -----> it proves it for you cause you *assume* a few things .........*....muon travelling at high speed ....¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨...earth surface + observer with clock - observer measures let us say a few seconds, that's what it takes for the muon the reach us - but muons normally decay already in this timespan - conclusion, time went slower for the muon, it went faster for us But what was of importance for us in THIS discussion? James R rightly said that, in this case, IF such a muon would see time slowing down there where the observer is with his clock, then marmet cannot be correct and relativity is. I don't see, again, how the muons bring any clarity in this. James R told me experiment contradiced Marmet. I don't see this. follwing seems to be the key in this discussion: --> aren't we talking about time dilation? it seems that here Q is talking about the distance ... I thought the point was that muons' time went slower so, logically, they would decay longer and thus travel a greater distance ... great. but it stil doesn't explain what James R said was prooved experimental OUR clock has to be seen slowing down as well this has not been seen as far as I know NOW
cest moi Simple apply James R explanation on SR from the other light/mass thread tho the muon experiment and you should be able to put it all together.
I tried Q, I think James R explained it very well but that's not the prob I think. He said: "To clarify my previous point: Take two observers A and B. A is at rest, B is moving with constant speed. According to Einstein, A would see B's clocks as running slower than his. and B would see A's clocks running slower that his. According to Marmet, both A and B would see B's clock running slower than A's. Experiments support Einstein." I am still waiting 4 such an experiment. the muons do not show this
..both A and B would see B's clock running slower than A's. I am still waiting 4 such an experiment. the muons do not show this Yes they do. Quite well in fact. But what you're inferring is that if A is the muon and B is the Earth observer in the lab, then the Earth observer views his own clock as running slow. He doesn't, he views his own clock as running normal relative to his lab.
Maybe you should Marmet first cause that's what it is about. james r says that: "According to Marmet, both A and B would see B's clock running slower than A's" I haven't read where Marmet says so in fact ... (sometimes I just get confused with all those FOR etc. that at the end I don't know anymore what they are trying to say) Let me say my position (which I think is also Marmet's position): the muon can't see his own clock slowing down you don't know good if there's no evil ... you see what I mean A slows down B sees A slow down A does not see B slow down Einstein says A sees B slow down as well where is the experiment ...
A slows down B sees A slow down A does not see B slow down Einstein says A sees B slow down as well where is the experiment ... A will view B clock as going slower. B will view A clock as going slower. Why? Simple. Because there is no absolute frame of reference. Neither A nor B can tell which one is in motion. Is the muon traveling near light speed compared with the Earth observer or is the Earth observer traveling near light speed compared with the muon? Neither can say, absolutely. That is the "crux of the apostrophe.' Zappa
I was promessed that experiment proved this. I am still waiting for it. You can prove it yourself. Get in your car, drive somewhere so that a large truck blocks out the view completely outside the drivers window. Now wait till the truck begins to move. If your view was that of the truck ONLY, how is it that you are able to tell, absolutely, that it is the truck moving and not you. Without the reference of the ground or other surroundings within your view, you can't. In fact, if your on a hill and you release the brake, you can't tell if you're rolling or whether the truck is moving. It's really that simple.
I thought there would have been a nice experiment which ultimetly proves that both clocks slow down. Since there is only the principle itself left, I can think and read some more about the very principle itself without worrying about such an experiment. (just a thought: When I lift you up and I throw you away in the sky at a considerable speed (i'm superman) would you say that you don't feel any different and that it could be me + the earth who's moving away from you?)
(just a thought: When I lift you up and I throw you away in the sky at a considerable speed (i'm superman) would you say that you don't feel any different and that it could be me + the earth who's moving away from you?) YES !!! You got it.
c'est moi, Now you know why we can't win any arguments on these boards. It's hard to prove something using logic to illogical people. Tom
c'est moi: I tried to explain experimental evidence to you before, but it seems I need to try to find a simpler, more transparent explanation. I will think about that and get back to you. In the meantime, consider this: Imagine you are the only thing in the universe. You look around you and all you see is empty space. There's no gravity, nothing to pull you in any direction. Just you and space. Ask yourself: is there anything you can do to tell if you are moving or not? I don't think there is. Now, imagine there are two things in the universe, say you and a soccer ball, separated by some distance. You see the ball coming towards you. Again, ask yourself: is there any experiment you can perform to tell if it is really you or the soccer ball moving? I don't think there is. Now, consider you and the Earth. You are out in space and you see the Earth coming towards you. Is there any way you can tell that you are moving towards the Earth and that the Earth is not moving towards you? Well, you might answer that you can look at the sun, or the moon or satellites orbiting the Earth. They all seem to stay in the same place relative to each other, and they all seem to move in the same way relative to you, so perhaps that tells you that you are moving? But consider what it really tells you. It tells you NOTHING about you "absolute" movement. All you know is your motion relative to the Earth and the satellites and the sun and so on. You can NEVER know whether it is you or the rest of the stuff in the universe which is moving. Wrap a box around yourself and as you fall towards the Earth there is NO experiment you can perform in the box which will tell you that the box is falling towards the Earth rather than floating freely in deep space. That is the essence of relativity. There are no preferred reference frames.
Not a belief, it's based on fact. How can a EM wave have rest mass? Maxwell's equations (50 yrs before Einstein) explained this. Why are having problems understanding physics nearly 150 yrs old. Non sequitur You obviously don't understand that they are different. Apples and oranges. Maxwell explained electromagnetism, learn that first. You can assume electrons don't have charge so electricity is the flow of tapioca. It has as much validity. They do, your ignorance of fact is outstanding. So what do they detect in neutrino detectors? More ignorance from you. WTF is a bipolar gravitational field vs a monopolar field. Inventing new terms for the sake of it? The only Quant I know of is Mary. [/QUOTE] Total and complete baloney. My bogosity meter just pegged.
Hamster, I'm talking about a small enough box here. The equivalence principle is a local theory, as I suspect you are aware.
James R., this hamster’s physics is rusty and limited. Have read about equivalence of inertial mass and gravitational mass. However this pedantic hamster believes that any box sufficiently large as to contain a hamster is also large enough that the difference in the inverse square gravity field of the Earth along the length of the box should allow detection of the gravity field. Observation of a ball placed slightly off the box center should suffice as it moves to an end of the box. Each point in the hamster sized box follows a distinct space-time curve that should indicate the presence of Earth’s gravity. In the experiment presented it should be possible to determine whether the box is accelerating toward Earth rather than floating freely in deep space. (Didn’t mean to detract from your explanations. This hamster learns from reading these threads.)
