On May 29, 10:49 pm, Peri of Pera <rie... at (no spam) yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

Muonhoaksypoaksy

Special relativity asserts that space muons enjoy a prolonged life due
to their speed at near the speed of light and because of the effects
of time dilation. This is a fallacy. Muons are at rest in their frame
and the time dilation that is perceived by an observer measuring the
muons from his frame cannot affect the muons in any way. Their real
lifespan is invariant. Existence of space muons near the surface of
the earth is no evidence of the validity of special relativity.

Peter Riedt

Peter, muons created on the fly *on earth* live longer than 2.2
microseconds on average. This is verified (and is in fact built into
the design) at the g-2 experiment, and in about a dozenmuonbeamlines
at accelerators around the world.

It's a basic fact, expressing a basic principle. And it's in fact
useful.

On May 30, 5:16 am, Pentcho Valev <pva... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:



On May 30, 10:42 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" wrote in sci.
physics.relativity:

1) There are no space muons.
Muons are created when cosmic rays or particles hit the
upper parts of the atmosphere.

2) Time dilation is not a cause of anything. It is a description
of something.

3) Special relativity asserts nothing. It models the behaviour
of particles, based on precise measurements and on the
way properties of particles are defined. Muons at rest
live a certain amount of time. Moving muons live longer...

Bravo Moortel Moortel! Clever zombie! But how exactly do you measure
the lifetime of "muons at rest"?

Muons are quite easy to make in the laboratory, and you don't need to
harvest them from cosmic rays.

Pions can be created with low speed, and these decay into muons, some
of which are ejected in the opposite direction of the pion's motion,
so that the muons are in fact very slow-moving. So slow-moving, in
fact, that you can do chemistry with them, dropping them into ions so
that the muon sits in the spot where the missing electron should be,
which leads to all sorts of interesting studies.

Your slim and highly selective culling of the experimental literature
works to your own disadvantage. You may need some help in knowing
where to find the right papers.

On May 30, 5:16 am, Pentcho Valev <pva... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:

[...]
Muons are quite easy to make in the laboratory, and you don't need to
harvest them from cosmic rays.

Pions can be created with low speed, and these decay into muons, some
of which are ejected in the opposite direction of the pion's motion,
so that the muons are in fact very slow-moving. So slow-moving, in
fact, that you can do chemistry with them, dropping them into ions so
that the muon sits in the spot where the missing electron should be,
which leads to all sorts of interesting studies.

Your slim and highly selective culling of the experimental literature
works to your own disadvantage. You may need some help in knowing
where to find the right papers.
[...]
http://web.mit.edu/c_hill/www/muons_paper.pdf
"In this experiment, we measure two of the basic properties of the
muon, namely, its mean lifetime and mass in its rest frame. We measure
the decay curve of cosmic-ray muons that have come to rest in a
plastic scintillator by looking for electrons produced in their
decay."

Pentcho Valev

On Jun 4, 4:16 am, Eric Gisse <jowr... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 3, 6:05 am, Alen <al... at (no spam) westserv.net.au> wrote:
[...]

Anyone who thinks special relativity and Minkowski space are different
is unqualified to judge.

No point in arguing with the hopelessly ignorant.

That is a catch22 argument worthy of the worst kind of
superstition in the most tyrannical kind of church: "You can't
ever dispute or disagree with our doctrine because, if
you do, you are automatically unqualified to do so,
merely by doing so".

A pity I saw your 'alt.morons' redirect before I posted, isn't
it? Are you disappointed? People of your standard of
behaviour among orthodox supporters are a greater threat
to the status of science as an arena of objective truth than
anyone you people like to call a 'crackpot', because you
people have the power to turn science into dogma and
scientists into a priesthood. Such is the consequence of
catch22 type arguments.

Alen

On Jun 5, 4:41 am, Eric Gisse <jowr... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 4, 6:13 am, Alen <al... at (no spam) westserv.net.au> wrote:

[...]

Educate yourself.

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s3-09/3-09.htm

You suppose that this kind of thing (as quoted below)
cannot but be so persuasive as to put the matter
beyone dispute?

"Minkowski's insight that Lorentz invariance is purely an expression
of the (pseudo) metric of a combined four-dimensional space-time
manifold at one stroke renders special relativity into a constructive
theory, the thing for which Einstein had sought so "desperately"
for so long"

This kind of thing changes nothing. It persuades you, but only
confirms for me what an appallingly powerful mirage hyperbolic
spacetime has been. It doesn't compel me to change my
mind at all! So much for the perpetual insistence that I
should 'educate' myself. How about you acknowledge, for
a change, that I simply dispute the validity of Minkowski
spacetime, for reasons I have given on other occasions?!

Alen

On Jun 5, 4:41 am, Eric Gisse <jowr... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Jun 4, 6:13 am, Alen <al... at (no spam) westserv.net.au> wrote:

Educate yourself.

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s3-09/3-09.htm

You suppose that this kind of thing (as quoted below)
cannot but be so persuasive as to put the matter
beyone dispute?

"Minkowski's insight that Lorentz invariance is purely an expression
of the (pseudo) metric of a combined four-dimensional space-time
manifold at one stroke renders special relativity into a constructive
theory, the thing for which Einstein had sought so "desperately"
for so long"

This kind of thing changes nothing.

It persuades you, but only
confirms for me what an appallingly powerful mirage hyperbolic
spacetime has been. It doesn't compel me to change my
mind at all! So much for the perpetual insistence that I
should 'educate' myself. How about you acknowledge, for
a change, that I simply dispute the validity of Minkowski
spacetime, for reasons I have given on other occasions?!

...all physical phenomena are affected identically
!!! =96 including their rates of temporal progression =96 !!!
by their state of inertial motion (which is not a locally
sensible condition).
Surely you've mis-understood the meaning of that sentence. It doesn't
say physical phenomena are unaffected by their state of motion, it
says that all phenomena - if they are affected - are affected in
exactly the same way by their state of motion.
Motion with respect to what point of reference?

... you seem to think it says that (for example) all clocks progress by
the same amount between two events, regardless of their states of
motion in between those events.
They do maintain there rate. Otherwise you would have a detector
of absolute motion which the relativity principle says can't exist.

My wrist watch is in motion wrt near luminal cosmic particles. It
doesn't change shape when I shield the particles nor does its rate of
progress change.

What is a "state of motion" if you not have specified a point of
reference.

On May 30, 6:16 am, Pentcho Valev <pva... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:



On May 30, 10:42 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" wrote in sci.
physics.relativity:

1) There are no space muons.
Muons are created when cosmic rays or particles hit the
upper parts of the atmosphere.

2) Time dilation is not a cause of anything. It is a description
of something.

3) Special relativity asserts nothing. It models the behaviour
of particles, based on precise measurements and on the
way properties of particles are defined. Muons at rest
live a certain amount of time. Moving muons live longer...

Bravo Moortel Moortel! Clever zombie! But how exactly do you measure
the lifetime of "muons at rest"?

     Muons are often created and examined in laboratory accelerators,
not just from secondary-collision cosmic-rays. One can manipulate the
muons until they are nearly at rest in the laboratory frame. The
properties of the muons at rest in the laboratory, including the rest
lifetime of muons, has been measured.
    If you don't believe this has been done, Google the phrase "muonic
atoms." Scientists have produced muons in the laboratory using
laboratory accelerated particles, and slowed them down. The muons have
been used to replace electrons in atoms. Yes, muons have been formed
bound to protons. The spectra of the electromagnetic radiations
emitted from these muons verify some of the calculated results of
quantum theory. However, QM is irrelevant.
   The fact is, rest muons have been experimentally examined. Muons at
high velocities relative to the measurement apparatii have been
measured. The predictions of SR have been validated with muons. Your
original claim concerning the nonexistence of rest muons is completely
is not only untrue, it shows your poor research skills.
      Before making such a claim about what other people haven't done,
you should try looking up what they claim. If you don't like their
claims, then maybe you can develop a case. However, not making even a
superficial effort to look up previous research indicates that you
have no interest in the science. You just like to slander physicists.
     Look up "muon experiments" and "muonic atoms." If you don't, I
stand by my claim that you are a phoney.

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 09:07:02 -0700 (PDT), "Sue..."

suzysewns... at (no spam) yahoo.com.au> wrote:
I suggest you read the entire article so you have some context
to interpret the authors intent.

If the context of the article you quoted implied that the phrase "are
affected" is to be interpreted as "are not affected", then you would
have a point. But it doesn't, so you don't.

On Jun 16, 2:02 pm, "Paul B. Andersen"



paul.b.ander... at (no spam) hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
Sue... wrote:
Again:
Can you with
confidence assert that  A can be greater than B
while B is greater than A?

I suppose this is a naive persons idea of "mutual time dilation".

I challenge you to explain why you find "mutual time dilation"
contradictory.

You can do it by pointing out what is contradictory in
the following scenario.

You can read it here:http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf
or below:

Let's have two synchronized clocks (according to Einstein's definition)
in each of two inertial frames of reference, let the clocks be a proper
distance d from each other in their respective frames, let the frames
move with a relative speed v.

            -d       0  x'
K' frame:   B'------A'--> -> v
K  frame:           A ------B--
                     0       d  x

There are three events of interest:
E1:  A and A' adjacent
E2:  A and B' adjacent
E3:  B and A' adjacent

Let's calculate what the clocks will show at these events:
E1:  A = t1 = 0, A' = t1' = 0  (by fiat, we set the clocks thus)
E2:
  In the K' frame, A will be at the position -d at t2' = d/v
  LT: t2 = (d/v + (-d)*v/c^2)/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
      t2 = (d/v)*sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
E3:
  In the K frame, A' will be at the position d at t3 = d/v
  LT: t3' = (d/v - d*v/c^2)/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
      t3' = (d/v)*sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)

Summing up, the readings of the clocks will be:
E1: A = t1 = 0,                     A'= t1'= 0
E2: A = t2 =(d/v)*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2),  B'= t2'= d/v
E3: B = t3 = d/v,                   A'= t3'=(d/v)*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

The symmetry is obvious.
So which clock is running slow or fast relative to which?
The answer depends on how we compare the clocks!
==============================================
In the K-frame, we can measure the rate dt'/dt of
the moving A' clock by comparing the reading of A'
with the _two_ clocks A and B as it passes them:
dt'/dt = (t3' - t1')/(t3 - t1) = sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
Conclusion #1:
   A' runs slow as measured in the K frame.
   ======================================
In the K'-frame, we can measure the rate dt/dt' of
the moving A clock by comparing the reading of A
with the _two_ clocks A' and B' as it passes them:
dt/dt' = (t2 - t1)/(t2' - t1') = sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
Conclusion #2;
   A runs slow as measured in the K' frame.
   ======================================
This is what is meant by "mutual time dilation".
Conclusion #1 does not contradict conclusion #2.
They state in fact two different things.

But we can draw more conclusions:

We can measure the rate R' at which an observer in K'
will see the co-ordinate time of K run by reading the
clocks A and B as they passes the A' clock:
R' = (t3 - t1)/(t3' - t1') = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
Conclusion #3:
  The co-ordinate time of K runs _fast_ as measured in the K'-frame
  ================================================================
We can measure the rate R at which an observer in K
will see the co-ordinate time of K' run by reading the
clocks A' and B' as they passes the A clock:
R = (t2' - t1')/(t2 - t1) = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
Conclusion #4:
  The co-ordinate time of K' runs _fast_ as measured in the K-frame
  ================================================================
There is nothing contradictory between conclusion #3 and #4 either,
as they too state different things.

It is in fact conclusions #1 and #3 and conclusions #2 and #4
respectively that state the same facts.

-----------------------

You now have the following options:
1. You can ignore the challenge.
2. You can give an irrelevant URL.
3. You can try to be witty.
4. You can mumble something about marbles or garden hoses.

Trying to meet the challenge is of course no option for the Sue entity.
So what will it be this time?

--
Paul

http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/

The logical error made by Einsteinian relativists
consists in confusing observations using light with
physical reality.
For instance, they believe that synchronized clocks
put into orbit around the Earth will show different
times when brought back to Earth after a number
of orbits (cf. their conclusions of the controversial H&K

experiment), simply because they observe different
clock rates when the cloks are orbiting.
They are like infants thinking that the world disappear
when they close their eyes.

Marcel Luttgens

On Jun 17, 2:59 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns... at (no spam) yahoo.com.au> wrote:

On Jun 17, 6:47 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 17, 5:07 am, mluttg... at (no spam) wanadoo.fr wrote:
[snip]

I don't have to do anything. Kelly is not a physicist and his opinion
has been debunked repeatedly over the years because people like you
keep referencing him.

If proximity to a mass slows an atomic clock, will
the atomic clock slow even more, if the mass is
spinning ?

Sue...

Kerr metric - work it out.

On Jun 17, 12:51 am, Dono <sa... at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:

On Jun 16, 3:06 pm, mluttg... at (no spam) wanadoo.fr wrote:
repeated imbecilities snipped

So, following the same logic, if the clocks deployed in space were to
return on Earth, the same exact effect would be observed. The one
correctly predicted by GR, the theory that you try in vain to dispute,
old fart!

Durak! In a correct experiment, no difference would be
observed between clocks brought back on Earth and
Earth clocks. The frequency shift of GPS clocks is
a mere observational artefact, that should not be
interpreted as due to a physical effect on the ticking rate
of orbiting clocks.

Marcel Luttgens

On Jun 18, 6:36 am, Alen <al... at (no spam) westserv.net.au> wrote:
[...]

In order to test for residual effects of GR and SR on
a GPS clock, the GPS clock would have to record its
total accumulated time from the time it was launched until
the time it was brought back to earth. Then, allowing for
all effects on the clock caused by the launching process
and the process of returning it to earth, you would have
to calculate the cumulative effects of GR and/or SR,
and compare them with the total time shown on the
GPS clock's own record.

I think that the most difficult part might be to
calculate and exclude all effects of the launch
and return-to-earth processes on the accumulated
time, due to temporary effects on the clock
rate during either of these processes. I suspect that
such an experiment is really too large-scale and
'segmented' to be subject to sufficient control to
allow the results to be conclusive, especially where
SR effects are concerned.

Alen

...but the part with launching the clocks aboard the satellites and
use them on a daily basis is already prove. It is called....GPS, you
clown. Now, watch your pair, Marcel, come back into the act.