Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Motor Daddy, May 12, 2010.
Moderator, Cesspool, please. BOTH the post AND the author.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
A bit excessive, that response Tach!
The relevant sentences of his post follow,
While I don't agree with Emil's position on most of what has been posted, I also have no real knowledge as to the context of the educational system in Transylvania, Romainia where he lives. There are some places where I am almost certain there have been translation issues and individuals on both sides of the discussion have at times posted inflammatory comments.
The first attempt to do that failed in 1887. They have been failing ever since. But I encourage you to try it; you'll learn something new about the world you live in. (Well, new to you.)
As I understand it, they teach that Dracula is undead, not an amalgamation of muons and neutrinos. Relativity doesn't explicitly forbid the undead from travelling faster than light, since Relativity doesn't say anything about the undead in the first place, but there's no logical reason for Emil to apply this to subatomic particles, or they'd be teaching that vampire-antivampire collisions are an effective means of annihilating them when garlic and wooden stakes aren't available.
It only exhausts you before you struggle to understand. And as for 'tramps' didn't you complain when I called you stupid? So it's okay for you to insult people but you don't like it when its done to you?
I went through an in depth discussion of how the experiment doesn't exclude the possibility muons move faster than light so your assertions are demonstrably false.
In fact, and this is a bit of a non-subtle plug, I even just finished writing it all up in a single post on my 1 day old website. It's to replace my now defunct uni website where I just listed a bucketload of lecture notes and little else but experience has taught me it would save time if I put lengthy explanations somewhere easily accessible so I don't have to tell cranks the same thing every month.
It's the light of other additional experiments which kill such a notion for this type of phenomena. The accurate data is on our side.
I don't for a second think you prepared a reply with accurate data. I don't think you understand any of this stuff.
It just allows us to build giant working accelerating machines and GPS tracking systems accurate down to the nanosecond and the centimetre?
Please don't delude yourself. You don't show any intellectual curiosity, you have shown you're incapable of an honest discussion. And you can't learn GR without understanding SR, since SR is a special case of GR. This just illustrates how deluded you are about you understanding.
And while it might sound snobby you studied in the 'faculty of automation' at a polytechnic, that doesn't exactly prime you for a good understanding of theoretical physics. Most of my friends from uni who did a maths degree and even PhD haven't got a clue about theoretical physics and they did all the required primer courses!
You cannot remove SR from GR, if you knew GR you're know this.
Except there already are technologies based on special and general relativity, quantum mechanics and quantum field theory.
You're denying reality.
Alpha, I never understood that experiment to be measuring the "same" muons at both detectors, just the number of muons at each detector.
I had the impression from the web page that you are/were assuming the same muons were measured at both locations..?
Was this what was happening? Or did I misunderstand something?
Really you're not measuring the literal same muons because the detectors will result in them being slowed and deflected. It doesn't really make any difference if you assume all the ones detected at the bottom are detected at the top too. The relevant quantity is the relative density of muons in the region around each detector and more clicks means more muons and then you just compare ratios. Imagining the 'rain' of muons moving from the top to the bottom, decaying a bit as it goes, is something even Emil might manage to grasp.
I would guess the experiment didn't measure both because the counts are per hour and so the two detectors would both register a click in the same few microseconds, then wait several seconds before the next almost simultaneous click.
It had always been my understanding that the experiment assumed the muons all originate from a general area of the upper atmosphere and that each of the detectors were measuring different muons. The two detectors one atop the mountain and one at its base could not even be in line with one another in any practical sense.
I have no problem with the experiment or conclusions. It just struck me as I read your web page it sounded in your restating of the experiment that the detectors were counting the same muons, rather than the muon density over a specific time.
Not really, this is precisely where such posts belong.
Please stop invoking the linguistic excuses. He knows what he's saying and it belongs in the cesspool.
Yeah, I've reworded it to use the rain analogy a bit better. Thanks for the comments.
Back on 10 June, 2011, I asked for the 5th time whether or not an object is always at rest in its own reference frame.
You've had 9 months now to think about this question. Have you come up with an answer yet?
That is a nonsensical question. What you are asking is if a ball has a velocity compared to itself? The question of the ball's velocity is not reference to the ball itself, but in reference to the distance the ball travels in space. The ball has its own velocity in space relative to the preferred frame, in which light defines distance in that preferred frame.
Not at all, but the fact you that you think it is speaks volumes.
Yes, that's what I'm asking. Can you answer the question? And, if your answer is "yes", what is that velocity?
But there is no preferred frame. That's what the Principle of Relativity says. Any old inertial frame will do just fine.
The ball does not have a velocity compared to itself, so no.
You are trying to prove relativity using relativity?
The ball travels in space. The ball has a velocity in space relative to that space. Good now?
So, let me get this straight.
You are asserting that we cannot work in the reference frame of a ball.
Is that correct?
Are there any other forbidden objects that can't have reference frames attached to them?
No. Are you trying to prove Motor Daddy physics using Motor Daddy physics?
No, that doesn't help at all, because space isn't a substance. There's no way to establish one's velocity in "space".
We already established earlier in this thread that measuring light travel times in boxes doesn't work as a measure of the kind of "absolute" velocity you're talking about.
You're not just going to repeat yourself again, are you? Got anything new?
If you want to measure the velocity of the ball you do NOT try to measure that velocity compared to the ball.
Do you measure the speed of your car compared to your car?
Do you really believe that a ball can travel away from itself?
No, I'm proving Motor Daddy physics using the definitions of distance and time, as they are defined.
Right, space isn't a substance, it is volume, which is simply 3 dimensional distance. Space is 3 dimensional distance which is defined by light travel time. Distance in the volume of space is defined by light travel time. Good now?
Perhaps you DO not, but COULD you? What do you think? And what answer would you get if you did?
Not usually. But then, I also don't usually measure it with respect to the Sun, either. Or your foot.
I don't think so. I can't recall ever expressing such a belief, anyway.
Can't be done.
You can't prove a theory from a bunch of definitions. The definitions are the axioms.
The only way to prove a physical theory is with real-world tests.
Got any real-world tests, Motor Daddy?
Let me answer for you: no. You've got zip.
That's approximately what Einstein said, too.
It doesn't seem to advance your argument.
So, I guess we let this thread die for another 9 months to give you more time to think.
hmm... What is this Motor daddy physics?
A quick summary is posts #1452-#1456.
And what is that you are trying to prove?
Separate names with a comma.