Mac's Final Relativity Thread

[MacM]

Your attention is again directed to the fact that the Earth's atmosphere, which is not at rest in rest frame of the cosmic ray muons is contracted to be only a dozen or so meters thick so most make it thru in their brief lifetime (during which even light can travel less than hundred meters.) - You simply chose to deny this confirmed and predicted by SR fact. You then proceed to postulate alternatives which have never been observed or predicted by any theory, such as that radioactive lifetimes are a function of speed.

OMG, Please not muons again. I have shot you down to many times on that arguement.

1 - It is not a controlled lab enviornment.

2 - You have no consideration of possible affects of passing though earth's magnetic field at high velocity.

3 - You have no consideration of relavistic motion in an increasing gravity field.

4 - You have no consideration for the fact that muons will clearly will be changing velocity passing through the atmosphere; hence are not in an inertial frame.

5 - Most important is that your data is strictly from the view point of the lab clock at rest. You have not addressed reciprocity inherent in a relative velocity view as advocated by SR for time dilation.

Please post data showing that from the muon's frame the lab clock lost time. Then we can talk but not before.

For earth observers the atmosphere, which is at rest in their frame, is not contracted but the muons which are not at rest in the Earth's frame do exhibit the SR predicted time dilation by living many of the muon decay lifetimes with very few decaying.

]


What about length contraction not producing time dilation do you not understand?. I have posted proof positive several times now that assuming length contraction leaves all clocks ticking in sync. Yuor theory is flawed and does not produce time dilation by length contraction. Get over it.

SR predicts this reciprocity and IS CONFRIMED by the above observations.

REALLY. I guess I missed the data from the muon's frame showing the lab clocks lost time. Please re-post that data.

- You just reject the theory that predicted these observations and suggested various alternatives you made up which have neither supporting theory nor any empirical confirmations of your postulated idea that radioactive decay lifetimes are a function of isotope or particle speed.

I have made no theoretical claims. I do suggest that eneergy level may be a factor. But if no so be it. It damn sure isn't length contraction.

Furthermore, as you reject and drastically modify SR because there is some gravity everywhere in the universe so inertial frames do not exist and SR is only a very good approximation (with no false predictions) I ask you how do you determine:

Which of two frames, A & B, is the one subject to SR effects in MacM’s SR and which is the "rest frame” with no SR effects? Or is there no way to distinguish them so either can be the "rest frame" ? (Reciprocity applies)

Funny. I have repeatedly noted that the only empirical data available is for the accelerated frame. I have also pointed out that unless you know who accelerated SR is worthless.

Note both are now and have always been accelerated by gravity. Thus, your idea of a "common rest frame" is non-existing nonsense.

Whatever are you babbeling about. How in the hell would you know which one if either have accelerated.?

(Two can play the game by which your reject SR due to gravity being everywhere.) However you replace the SR theory and its confirmed predictions

More Billy T's lies. I have not once rejected any empirical data (except H&K which was fraud).

(such as those in the first two paragraphs above) with a hodge-podge of "facts" you claim are "physically real" but lack any confirmation or supporting theory (except for the parts of standard SR you choose to accept.)

Yes I accept time dilation but not due to "Relative Velocity? since both clocks share relative veloicty and only one dilates. It is rather obvious that the one that dilates is the one that accelerates. The resting clock never dilatess just as one would expect (unless you are a relativists arguing for a defunct theory.

A reasonable person would acknowledge that both SR and Newtonian physics (F = ma) are not exactly correct, but are extremely good approximation for use in environments found in our solar system. I.e. there is no need to replace it with a different hodge-podge of unsupported "facts."

I have said many times SR has utility and no need to shit can it but to merely acknowledge that it is NOT physical reality and has limits of application. There is every reason to reject it's validity due to length contraction not producing the predicted time dilaton affect.

Standard SR follows mathematically for two well tested postulates. Where does MacM SR come from? (A dark smelly place only MacM has access to I bet.)

No you have been given access but continue to ignore it.

.....___TT____
v = 0.5d / 0.5t

This represents the rhetoric of SR. The traveling twin travels 1/2 the distance in 1/2 the time. Yes/No?

The correct answer is Yes since you will refuse to do the math.

Now note that 0.5d / 0.5t = d / t

And both the TT clock and RT clock must tick in sync such that upon the TT's return both clocks must display equal accumulated time. SR prediction is false and further is not tested and therer is no empirical data to support it.

If you cannot tell the principles your SR is derived from (its postulates), then state the laws of "MacM SR" mathematically. All physic has been mathematically stated since Newton wrote (in Latin) his great physic book. The original Latin title translates into English as: "Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy"* but it is often called The Principles of Mathematics or just The Principles

I have no obligation to spoon feed you with a new theory. You have an obligation to recognize the failure of your theory.

You seems to have neither mathematics nor principles nor coherent theory nor any supporting evidence for denying any part of standard SR.

See above and several postings of the proof which you continue to dodge.

MacM's version of relativity seem to be just a hodge-podge of claims pulled from a dark smelly place. If that is false, then state its foundation postulates and mathematical results that follow from them, which differ from standard SR.

And you continue to rant and rave without ever addressing the issue. Wonder why? Perhaps because you can't.

--------------
*In that era the term "physics" did not exist with its present meaning. What we now call "physics" was called "Natural Philosophy." I have a Ph. D. in physics. Note the name. The adjective follows the noun: Philosophy Doctrate. I.e. universities still keep the original words. Newton essentially DEFINED how physics is correctly done. You don't do it that way with well stated and tested postulates. You lack the ability and education to do it correctly. You pull your "physics" out of a dark smelly place as hodge-podge of "facts" with no math, no theory, and no confirmed measurements (except those of Standard SR.) You should not be surprised that no one even thinks you are doing physics.

Newton's Principles begins with eight definitions – yours with a fart? If not, tell your foundation.

Like I said dumb ass. I have no obligation to spoon feed you a new theory. You however are obligated to respond in defense of your theory weith something other than personal innuendo and attacks or reciting SR or appealing to authority.

Try actually explaining just how you (SR) claims of time dilaton via length contraction occurs. IT DOES NOT.

Now I expect you to actually respond to the issue and stop waffeling.

 

[MacM]

You are crazy. In the time since SR was introduced the human race has advanced more than in the previous thousands of years. Of the top of my head and completely at random we have the telephone and mass communications, the microprocessor with which you are able to connect to the internet and type rubbish. Health systems have vastly improved - anesthetics and antibiotics etc etc. In physics we have has quantum mechanics, quantum field theories like QED and QCD that accurately model all of the processes we've been able to produce in the colliders we've manufactured. If you call that no real progress then I honestly don't know what you would call it.

Spare me. Just respond to the issue I have raised. Your attacks are not a physics rebuttal.

If you mean I'm ignoring problems that you made up then yes I am. Hundreds of thousands if not millions of people have studied relativity over the years and you are the only one with this problem. You are either a genius or delusional, and since I've seen the contributors to this thread carefully explain why you are wrong about special relativity my money is firmly on the latter.

Well considering that the issue is really very very simple I don't think you need a bunch of wanna-be experts telling you what to think. Think for yourself. Post a physics rebuttal to the failure of length contraction to produce time dilation as advocated by SR.

Or are you incapable of thinking at that depth?

Originally Posted by MacM:"Originally Posted by MacM
Reciprocity of time dilation and/or length contrction simply do not exist and are not physical.

Rhetoric.

Prove it. Post one case of em[irical data supporting length contraction caused time dilation. Post a physics rebuttal of my proof. Otherwise I suggest the rhetoric is coming from your mouth not mine.

Muons. They are produced by cosmic rays and travel through the atmosphere at relativistic speeds. If there was no time dilation / length contraction they would decay before they got to the ground, however, we detect them in particle detectors. From our point of view the time they experience passing is less than we experience because they are in motion relative to us. From their point of view the distance they travel is less than we measure it to be because of length contraction. If there was one without the other there would be a paradox (although JamesR has already shown this to be inconsistent with the 2 postulates). If neither time dilation or length contraction is physical then we would not detect muons at all. Special relativity provides the explanation.

OMG, Please not muons again. I have shot this arguement down to many times.

1 - It is not a controlled lab enviornment.

2 - You have no consideration of possible affects of passing though earth's magnetic field at high velocity.

3 - You have no consideration of relavistic motion in an increasing gravity field.

4 - You have no consideration for the fact that muons will clearly will be changing velocity passing through the atmosphere; hence are not in an inertial frame.

5 - Most important is that your data is strictly from the view point of the lab clock at rest. You have not addressed reciprocity inherent in a relative velocity view as advocated by SR for time dilation.

Please post data showing that from the muon's frame the lab clock lost time. Then we can talk but not before.

Have a look

"URL="http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html"]here.[/URL]

Relativity has been tested a lot.

Yep and all tests are for the view from the lab resting clock. Please post ONE test and empirical data that proves the inherent reciprocity of the relative velocity view as advocated bySR. Go ahead we anxiously await your post.

As I said, it doesn't matter if you don't buy relativity. Nature does and that's just tough.

I still see no physicas rebuttal of fact here. I see dogma, rhetoric and BS.

 

[James R]

MacM:

There's little point in continuing this thread. It now consists of nothing but blind assertions on your part plus you parading your ignorance over and over again in the face of overwhelming evidence against you. Your many many silly errors have been exposed by a number of people, yet you still cannot see simple facts like the fact that 0.5/0.5=1 does not disprove relativity.

Let's just put some more of your errors to bed, then we're done.

OMG, Please not muons again. I have shot this arguement down to many times.

1 - It is not a controlled lab enviornment.

Nonsense. I've sat in a lab and measured the muons myself.

2 - You have no consideration of possible affects of passing though earth's magnetic field at high velocity.

Nonsense. What possible effects? Please explain the possible effects you think would affect the muon count, in detail. I think you're just blowing hot air here.

3 - You have no consideration of relavistic motion in an increasing gravity field.

Nonsense. There's no need. The difference in the gravitational field strength at a height of 100 km about the Earth's surface, compared with the field strength at the surface, amounts to approximately a 3% difference. If you think this 3% difference can explain the muon lifetimes, please provide a complete explanation of how it does that (preferably with references).

4 - You have no consideration for the fact that muons will clearly will be changing velocity passing through the atmosphere; hence are not in an inertial frame.

Nonsense. These muons are travelling at a very high fraction of the speed of light. If you believe they are slowed, please post details of how you think they are slowed (preferably with references).

5 - Most important is that your data is strictly from the view point of the lab clock at rest. You have not addressed reciprocity inherent in a relative velocity view as advocated by SR for time dilation.

Nonsense. In the muons' frame, length contraction is the only obvious explanation. If you believe that is not the case, please post your alternative explanation (preferably with references).

Go ahead we anxiously await your post.

Nonsense. There's no "we". There's just one crazy, stupid, stubborn old man who has forgotten how to learn.

 

[MacM]

MacM:

There's little point in continuing this thread. It now consists of nothing but blind assertions on your part plus you parading your ignorance over and over again in the face of overwhelming evidence against you.

Pardon my french but FU. Just how do you see repeating a mathematical proof which YOU and the others refuse to address is blind assertions. You sir are blind. You sir are the ignorant one. You nor they have prese4ntedc any evidence against me. You and they choose to continue as you are here to slander me but that down't alter the facts on the ground.

v = 0.5d /0.5t = d / t and that proves without any wiggle room for you guys tht liength contraction does NOT produce time diatlkion. Sorry but you just choose to eithercignore tht fact and/or recite theory. We know what SR claims but we also know now that it is just false BS.

The equation above mandates that both clocks tick in unision and NO time dilation occurs. Sorry that is just a physical fact. Get over it.

Your many many silly errors have been exposed by a number of people, yet you still cannot see simple facts like the fact that 0.5/0.5=1 does not disprove relativity.[?quote]

If there are errors you sure as hell have not shown any. And the equality between TT and RT mandates NO time dilation. I thought you believed in math :shrug: I guess that is only when it favors your point of view.

Let's just put some more of your errors to bed, then we're done.

Nonsense. I've sat in a lab and measured the muons myself.

1 - Either you have one of the largest labs in the world that extends to the edges of space or;

2 - You have switched from cosmic muons to lab generated muons. Please keep your responses on topinc. This is BS and proves nothing. Just where is the data supporting the muon's view of the lab clock proving the lab clock lost time compared to the muon?. Remember the issue here is reciprocity not just time dilation from the lab's view.

Nonsense. What possible effects? Please explain the possible effects you think would affect the muon count, in detail. I think you're just blowing hot air here.

Oh my yes what possible affect could a magnetic field have on a fat electron buzzing thorugh it. Sorry but the ball is in your court. Just because you hadn't thought far enough ahead about various physics correlations isn't my fault.

Nonsense. There's no need. The difference in the gravitational field strength at a height of 100 km about the Earth's surface, compared with the field strength at the surface, amounts to approximately a 3% difference. If you think this 3% difference can explain the muon lifetimes, please provide a complete explanation of how it does that (preferably with references).

I didn't say anything about affect on muon life times. I said the muons are not in n inertial frame. Still a matter to consider.

Nonsense. These muons are travelling at a very high fraction of the speed of light. If you believe they are slowed, please post details of how you think they are slowed (preferably with references).

No, it is incumbent upon you to show that muons are not slowed down by either the magnetic field affect and/or air resistance. Perhaps you choose to ignore the fact that objects burn up and disenigrate coming through the atmosphere at a mere fraction of c and yet you want to pretend that at those veloicties nothing happens. You are just plain nuts and in denial.

Nonsense. In the muons' frame, length contraction is the only obvious explanation. If you believe that is not the case, please post your alternative explanation (preferably with references).

Why on earth would I bother since I have shown (and you have not rebutted with any physics) the fact that length contraction does not produce time dilation. Continuing to ignore this fact doesn't make it go away.

Nonsense. There's no "we". There's just one crazy, stupid, stubborn old man who has forgotten how to learn.

Your definition or "learn" is that people accept your unsupported BS, rhetoric,. dogma, etc. Had you ever posted anythiong close to a sound physics reply I would have considered it but for you to continue to recite theory and ignore the gapping holes is not ground to alter ones view.

We all note you have not posted even one error and that you are merely repeating your slander against me and preconcieved ideas without actually thinking about the consequences of the simple little equation I have posted.

It mandates that the clocks tick in unison and hence there is no time dilation as proclaimed by SR due to length contraction. Einstein made a grave error and you have been sucked into a Black Hole that you cannot see your way out of.

You can close this thread but if you do so without a valid rebuttal to my falsification then it will clearly stand in others mind as unopposed and hence valid.

You, Billy T, and others have had ample opportunity to address it and all you choose to do is attack, attack, attack and repeat irrelevant BS.

 

[prometheus]

It's a bigger effect with cosmic ray muons because they move very fast, but you can also see the effect in muons that are produced in colliders, which certainly is a "controlled lab environment" and inertial frame. They leave a longer track than you would expect - from our perspective time is slower for them, from their perspective the distance they cover is shorter than what we measure.

No, it is incumbent upon you to show that muons are not slowed down by either the magnetic field affect and/or air resistance. Perhaps you choose to ignore the fact that objects burn up and disenigrate coming through the atmosphere at a mere fraction of c and yet you want to pretend that at those veloicties nothing happens. You are just plain nuts and in denial.

What? Are you serious? Muons are point particles not meteorites. Even crappy alpha radiation sources that get used by 17 and 18 year old students can penetrate the air quite a long way and alpha particles are big composite particles. Muons are much smaller and are super duper high energy in comparison.

 

[James R]

MacM:

More bluff and bluster from you, with no actual content. You're boring me.

*yawn*

Pardon my french but FU. Just how do you see repeating a mathematical proof which YOU and the others refuse to address is blind assertions.

What mathematical proof? You've drawn two crappy diagrams, come to a wrong conclusion on the basis of those, had your error pointed out to you at least 5 times, and done no maths at all except for grade 2 maths showing that 0.5/0.5=1. And you think that disproves relativity. *yawn*

v = 0.5d /0.5t = d / t and that proves...

...nothing at all about relativity.

...without any wiggle room for you guys tht liength contraction does NOT produce time diatlkion.

I never said length contraction produced time dilation. Your mind is going.

The equation above mandates that both clocks tick in unision and NO time dilation occurs. Sorry that is just a physical fact. Get over it.

0.5/0.5=1 says nothing about clock tick rates. That is just plain grade 2 maths. Get over it.

If there are errors you sure as hell have not shown any.

I've only explained it to you as if to a small child 5 times, but you're too thick to get it.

Just where is the data supporting the muon's view of the lab clock proving the lab clock lost time compared to the muon?

What are you on about now? You're ranting and foaming at the mouth but making no sense at all.

Nonsense. What possible effects? Please explain the possible effects you think would affect the muon count, in detail. I think you're just blowing hot air here.

Oh my yes what possible affect could a magnetic field have on a fat electron buzzing thorugh it. Sorry but the ball is in your court.

The ball was in your court, and you FAILED again. *yawn*

Nonsense. There's no need. The difference in the gravitational field strength at a height of 100 km about the Earth's surface, compared with the field strength at the surface, amounts to approximately a 3% difference. If you think this 3% difference can explain the muon lifetimes, please provide a complete explanation of how it does that (preferably with references).

I didn't say anything about affect on muon life times. I said the muons are not in n inertial frame. Still a matter to consider.

Once more you have FAILED to address the point. *yawn*

Nonsense. These muons are travelling at a very high fraction of the speed of light. If you believe they are slowed, please post details of how you think they are slowed (preferably with references).

No, it is incumbent upon you ... [snip]

FAIL again.

I mean, when put on the spot you just never come up with the goods, do you? You're useless.

Nonsense. In the muons' frame, length contraction is the only obvious explanation. If you believe that is not the case, please post your alternative explanation (preferably with references).

Why on earth would I bother .... [snip]

FAIL again.

You pretend you can't be bothered, but really it's just because you're incapable of responding when somebody points out one of your stupid mistakes, so you just ignore it and/or try to change the subject.

You're so transparent. *yawn*

We all note you have not posted even one error...

There is no "we all". There is no "we". It's just you, crazy old man.

Einstein made a grave error....

Yeah. Right, genius. You tell us. *yawn*

I've already proven you wrong 5 times.

 

[MacM]

It's a bigger effect with cosmic ray muons because they move very fast, but you can also see the effect in muons that are produced in colliders, which certainly is a "controlled lab environment" and inertial frame. They leave a longer track than you would expect - from our perspective time is slower for them, from their perspective the distance they cover is shorter than what we measure.

Correct and all such testing only demonstrates time dilation of the muon. NONWE demonstrate the reciprocity advocated by SR where according to the muon the lab clock lost time.

If I'm wrong on this point please post your empirical data. You seem to skip over this issue everytime. Wonder why? Also please show where I have even once said muons do not time dilate.

What? Are you serious? Muons are point particles not meteorites. Even crappy alpha radiation sources that get used by 17 and 18 year old students can penetrate the air quite a long way and alpha particles are big composite particles. Muons are much smaller and are super duper high energy in comparison.

So now you want to argue finite amounts of non-inertial? It is either inertial or it is not. If it is an approximation then say so. But don't pretend there are no enviornmental affects of a muon (fat electron) blastng through a magnetic field, increasing gravity well and the atmosphere.

BTW: I forgot the other affect:

Ansitrophy showing muon life more connected to motion to the CMB than earth.

 

[prometheus]

A muon is not a "fat" electron. It's a particle that has the same quantum numbers as the electron but is more massive. Both the electron and the muon are point particles.

 

[Billy T]

OMG, Please not muons again. I have shot you down to many times on that arguement.

No. You have speculated that the confirmed predictions of SR could be due to a multitude (you listed 5below) of other cases that just happen by chance to cause the agreement with SR's predictions. Let's consider your five:

1 - It is not a controlled lab enviornment.
2 - You have no consideration of possible affects of passing though earth's magnetic field at high velocity.
3 - You have no consideration of relavistic motion in an increasing gravity field.
4 - You have no consideration for the fact that muons will clearly will be changing velocity passing through the atmosphere; hence are not in an inertial frame.
5 - Most important is that your data is strictly from the view point of the lab clock at rest. You have not addressed reciprocity inherent in a relative velocity view as advocated by SR for time dilation.

On first sentence of (5):
(5a)There are no fast moving observers to describe the tick rate of Earth clocks in terms of their clock’s seconds. SR effects are not as you assert "physical changes" but created by DESCRIBING the effects occurring in another frame in terms of your frame's seconds and meters. So until some fast moving intelligent aliens do DESCRIBE how slowly time passes on Earth this SR prediction cannot be tested.

It is accepted as it follows mathematically from the same theoretical formulation that has had ALL its testable predictions confirmed, INCLUDING RECIPROCITY (of space contractions) AS EXHIBITED by the cosmic ray muons which make it thru only meters thick / deep (in their frame) atmosphere, as it is for them the air is contracted to only few dozen meters thick (and very much denser as each atom of it has more mass). See (5b) reply below for more.

Note even if your five alternative suggestions were not demonstrable false, but true, it would be an astounding chance happening that they reproduced the observed predictions of SR but your five above "by-chance" agreeing with SR alternatives are ALL false as I now show:

(1) False - Muon curved tracks in thick photographic emulsion films, commonly used to capture and record nuclear physics experiments with high energy particle accelerators confirm in the lab the same facts that the cosmic ray muons do. (From the radius of curvature in the uniform magnetic field their speed is learned and with it the expected density of ionization along the track can be computed, and is essentially constant as predicted while they are still with nearly the speed of light, But as they near the end of their track tracks the time dilation is reduced and this statical decrease in muon flux (due to them decaying more rapidly) AND increase in associated muon decay events is reflected in the ionization track density (along the track) and is as predicted by SR. (If it were not, but conflicted with SR, then getting a Noble prize would be easy - any of the dozen graduate student at JHU doing these types of experiments while I was graduate student there could have gained the Noble prize. (JHU is one of the univerisities that control the Brookhaven accelerator so the high energy physic students were the second largest group.)

(2) False - If crossing magnetic field lines were why muons live much longer than their rest frame lifetimes, then zero muons would reach the surface at the magnetic poles as travel along field lines has no effects on anything (There is no magnetic force then.). The muon flux should show a strong latitude effect, strongest at the magnetic equator, but it does not.
(MacM you really need to learn some physics to avoid pulling nonsense like this out of your dark smelly place.)

(3) False - Gravity was considered, but it is much too weak to have any effect - Even the effect of the gravity field at the surface of the sun can barely be detected and then only because it accumulates the bending of the ray while it is passing by the sun.

(4) False - The muons travel at essentially the speed of light all the way down to the surface, except for those that do make the "daughters" of the "cosmic ray shower" via a close impact on a nucleus of an atom (normally oxygen or nitrogen nucleus). These nuclei are so tiny that their projected cross section of all, makes most of the energy loss be due to "Compton scattering" (By bound atmospheric electron ejected for its atom). The deflection of the muon is very tiny, but even if considered it just makes it more astounding that they reach the surface with the slightly longer than straight path.

(5b) False - Total nonsense. The muon measurements DEMONSTRATE SR predicted effects in both earth and muon frames. Your alternative unsupported guesses that these effects are caused by something else that just happen by chance to match SR's predictions are all four above shown to be false.
Reach AGAIN in your dark smelly place and see if you can pull some other, less obviously false, alternative out.

Your theory is flawed and does not produce time dilation by length contraction. Get over it.

Nothing to get over as I never suffered from the stupidity that length contraction causes time dilation. They are on equal footing as both follow mathematically from SR two well confirmed postulates. To show how silly your thought process is to even suggest this consider the following postulate of math: a+b =b+a. From this, and definition of integers, it mathematically follows that 2+3 = 5 and 3+2 = 5, the second is not true because of the first being true, nor is time dilation true because length contraction is true. You just have little ability to think logically.

Whatever are you babbeling about. How in the hell would you know which one if either have accelerated.?

Simple. I applied YOUR logic (in large bold type of post 1307) that states SR is wrong because there is nowhere in the universe that is free of gravity field. Thus, there is no particle in the entire universe that is not now being accelerated. Also none have ever NOT been accelerated. So for the whole history of the universe both Frame A & B have been accelerated and your speaking of a common rest frame is non-existent nonsense.

Now of course any same person would recognized that even if not exactly an inertial frame SR can be used (and has been) to predict result accurately the effect of gravity fields even in much larger than the Earth's filedl which has effects too small to detect. (Except if the effect is allowed to accumulate for a sufficiently long periods.) However, you are not a sane person as one of your two arguments for rejecting SR is that there is no inertial frame anywhere in the universe as gravity is everywhere. (The other is that as not every SR prediction can be tested, so with your version of logic, you conclude SR must be false. - That is as stupid as to claim the core of the Earth is not mainly molten iron / nickel because it has never been tested.)

Yes I accept time dilation but not due to "Relative Velocity? since both clocks share relative veloicty and only one dilates.

and your proof of this false assertion is?

It is rather obvious that the one that dilates is the one that accelerates.

Both frames have been accelerated, since the beginning of time - (Your first of two arguments against SR thrown back at you.) and even if SR is a good approximation, either can claim to be the "rest frame" as both have been accerated, perhaps quite strongly at least once in the past 10 billion years - So again I ask, for you to again ignore:
How do you know which is now the "rest frame" with no SR effects for the other to describe? You claim reciprocity is false, but have no way to tell which frame is the rest frame without any SR effects for other frames.

I have said many times SR has utility...

Oh? Then tell how you know which frame SR applies to and which is the "rest frame" to which SR does do not apply.

There is every reason to reject it's validity due to length contraction not producing the predicted time dilaton affect.

If you wish, I can count this as your third false and most silly reason for rejecting SR as SR does not even make the claim that length contraction produces time dilation - As noted earlier, both are equal status mathematical results from the two postulates.

I have no obligation to spoon feed you with a new theory. You have an obligation to recognize the failure of your theory. ...

Confirming your Crackpot status, I see. You think that your extraordinary claim that > 100,000 Ph.D.s in physics during the last 100 years are all wrong and all the confirmed predictions of SR just happened by chance to agree with what SR predicts, but in "fact" were due to some other effect like the five you postulated above, should bow down and worship the reviled "truth" that came out of MacM's dark smelly place with no supporting math, no supporting evidence of SR error, no supporting theory, no confirmed predictions (except those supporting standard SR) and MacM's SR is not even with any mathematical formulation with which predictions could be made!

Thus, MacM's SR has made zero new predictions (except does accept part of SR math derived perditions and rejects others equally firmly derived from the same math).

Well 100,000 well educated people ain't gona bow down and accept your nonsense as your "extraordinary claims" require "extraordinary evidence." (And you have none, except the extraordinary stink that still lingers on your "facts" is extraordinary and self contradictions show in post 1166, 198, and 118. Plus I guess your “extraordinary egotism," expecting all to accept your unsupported POV can be allowed.

Try actually explaining just how you (SR) claims of time dilation via length contraction occurs.

SR DOES NOT make that silly claim, which is just more of your fabrication (or lies, if you understand what SR does claim).

Now I expect you to actually respond to the issue and stop waffling.

Ditto. What is your extraordinary evidence?

 

[MacM]

MacM:More bluff and bluster from you, with no actual content. You're boring me.

*yawn*

Yes I notice just how bored you are. You can't let this go. You keep coming back and while ignoring the issue keep making the same false claims.

What mathematical proof? You've drawn two crappy diagrams, come to a wrong conclusion on the basis of those, had your error pointed out to you at least 5 times, and done no maths at all except for grade 2 maths showing that 0.5/0.5=1. And you think that disproves relativity. *yawn*

Outright lies and selfserving BS. You haven't ONCE provided a physics rebutal to the issue. All you know how to do is cry "BUT SR SAYS SO". Not impressed.

Originally Posted by MacM:"“ v = 0.5d /0.5t = d / t and that proves... ”

...nothing at all about relativity.

So then your position is that the mathematical based theory SR is immune from adhering to mathematical consequences?

Because the formula (and diagrams) show without any doubt that assuming length contraction both clocks continue to tick in unison. Being in sync they must display the same accumulated time upon the twins return. - PERIOD. SR's claim is falsified.

I never said length contraction produced time dilation. Your mind is going.

WOW. WE ARE MAKING PROGRESS EVEN IF YO DID HAVE TO LIE ONCE AGAIN. Are you going to force me to go back and prove how many times you have said it does or that SR says it does?

Get this folks James R has just said the claim by SR that the traveling twin travels less distance causes him to become younger is false.

0.5/0.5=1 says nothing about clock tick rates. That is just plain grade 2 maths. Get over it.

I cannot believe you are this stupid. Of sourse it addresses tick rates.

...I've only explained it to you as if to a small child 5 times, but you're too thick to get it.

Your false slander and lies do not amount to a physics rebuttal. You have done NOTHING but recite theory and state your belief that SR is valid. You have not addressed the issue itself not even once. So at least be honest.

Originally Posted by MacM:"“ Just where is the data supporting the muon's view of the lab clock proving the lab clock lost time compared to the muon? ”

What are you on about now? You're ranting and foaming at the mouth but making no sense at all.

Just pretending that SR doesn't advocate reciproicty of relavistic affects doesn't make it go away.

Originally Posted by MacM:"Oh my yes what possible affect could a magnetic field have on a fat electron buzzing thorugh it. Sorry but the ball is in your court. ”

The ball was in your court, and you FAILED again. *yawn*

Funny I don't see a response here to a charged particle zipping though a magnetic field. I thought you knew physics.

Once more you have FAILED to address the point. *yawn*

Considering that this post continues to promote lies and dodge the issue I won't even bother with further correction. But you really shuld get some sleep. Apparently all this is keeping you awake a lot.

After all we have just seen a few cracks in the crock pot.

1 - Acknowledgement that gravity is everywhere and that SR is just an approximation. albeit a good one but an approximation none-the-less.

2 - Length Contraction doesn't cause time dilation.

3 - SR is immune from any mathematical inconsistancies.

 

[MacM]

A muon is not a "fat" electron. It's a particle that has the same quantum numbers as the electron but is more massive. Both the electron and the muon are point particles.

WOW :bugeye:

And I thought you knew physics.

******************************************************

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon

Muons have a mass of 105.7 MeV/c2, which is about 200 times the mass of the electrons. Since their interactions are very similar to those of the electron, a muon can be thought of as a much heavier version of the electron.

********************************************************

It also has the same charge as an electron. BTW I have designed a muon catalyzed fusion reaction chamber.

Muon catalyzed fusion works because this FAT ELECTRON replaces the standard electron and reduces the orbit dimension bringing atoms closer together and hence requiring less columb force repulsion which allows fusion to occur n the everyday range of 1,500F - 2,500F.

*************************************************************************************
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon-catalyzed_fusion

As said previously, the muon may bump the electron from one of the hydrogen isotopes. The muon, 207 times more massive than the electron, effectively shields and reduces the electromagnetic resistance between two nuclei and draws them much closer into a covalent bond than an electron can. Because the nuclei are so close, the strong nuclear force is able to kick in and bind both nuclei together. They fuse,
****************************************************************************************

You really should learn to shut your mouth when you don't actually know what you are talking about.

.

 

[prometheus]

Muons and electrons are both point particles. The muon is heavier than the electron as I said but it's not "bigger" in size. Is wikipedia the best reference you can come up with?

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Muon catalyzed fusion works because this FAT ELECTRON replaces the standard electron and reduces the orbit dimension bringing atoms closer together and hence requiring less columb force repulsion which allows fusion to occur n the everyday range of 1,500F - 2,500F.

If it's 'fat' compared to the electron then you'll be able to provide its physical radius, as well as the electron's physical radius for comparison.

And try not to fall into the easy trap....

BTW I have designed a muon catalyzed fusion reaction chamber.

And you've managed this given your utter lack of experience or knowledge of any quantum mechanical theory, process or phenomena?

Well I've designed a Uranium powered time machine. I was 7 and I did the drawings in crayon. But none-the-less I've designed a time machine.

See, making BS claims you have no intention of backing up with working details is easy. But then you know that, it's all you ever do.

 

[MacM]

Muons and electrons are both point particles. The muon is heavier than the electron as I said but it's not "bigger" in size. Is wikipedia the best reference you can come up with?

Nope but it is still a fat electron.[/b][/color]

**************************************************************************

http://books.google.com/books?id=am...esnum=1#v=onepage&q=muon fat electron&f=false

"It is just a fat electron. It has been renamed simply the muon.


http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache...ps+muon+fat+electron&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

During the past few decades, scientists have learned that matter is made up of three distinct flavors or types. This
means that there are three flavors of neutrinos -- the electron neutrino associated with the electron, the muon
neutrinos, associated with the muon particle, which is a kind of fat electron, and the tau neutrino, associated with
the tau particle, an even fatter relative of the electron...

DOE 9/07/05
File Format: Microsoft Powerpoint - View as HTML
What is a muon? a fat electron. an elementary particle. How do you make them? P+Cu->pi+stuff. pi->mu+2 neutrinos. How do you make them useful? ...
www.muonsinc.com/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=636 - Similar

*******************************************************************
Seems everybody but you ,knows the muon is a fat electron. You aren't very well read are you?. Google, colleges, the DOE, WoW


Virtually every reference including government thinks it is a fat electron. Hmmmm

 

[MacM]

If it's 'fat' compared to the electron then you'll be able to provide its physical radius, as well as the electron's physical radius for comparison.

And try not to fall into the easy trap....

And you've managed this given your utter lack of experience or knowledge of any quantum mechanical theory, process or phenomena?

Well I've designed a Uranium powered time machine. I was 7 and I did the drawings in crayon. But none-the-less I've designed a time machine.

See, making BS claims you have no intention of backing up with working details is easy. But then you know that, it's all you ever do.

Your sarcasm noted or was it jealousy?.

BTW wise guy quantuum mechanical theory isn't required.

 

[prometheus]

So what is the size of a muon then, compared to the size of the electron? PS, the electron and the muon and the other fundamental particles are described by the standard model which certainly does require quantum mechanics. I feel pretty sorry for you - you've gone through life learning nothing and all you can do is whine at people trying to educate you on the internet. It won't be long until we all decide you're a waste of time.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Your sarcasm noted or was it jealousy?.

Why would I be jealous of the fact you've made a completely unsupported delusional lie you have absolutely no ability to justify or support in any way at all?

I'm not jealous of your ability to make up BS, I can do that if I so wish. Of course if you aren't the big fat delusional liar so many of us think you are, why don't you justify your claim you "designed a muon catalyzed fusion reaction chamber. ". Any patents? Any working scale models? Any work incorporated into current reactor technology (which you can prove originated from your own work)?

Nope, just yet more empty lies from you. Tell me again what you have which would possibly make me jealous....

BTW wise guy quantuum mechanical theory isn't required.

No, why would quantum mechanical processes need quantum theory to describe them. Would you care to back up that claim by explicit demonstration you have an accurate working grasp of muon related phenomena? Of course you wouldn't, because you aren't.

Seriously, I feel sorry for your family.

Virtually every reference including government thinks it is a fat electron. Hmmmm

Fat as in more massive. Not fat as in larger in physical extension. I notice you ignored the second half of my last post where I asked you to provide the physical size of the electron and the muon. Odd how you specifically ignored that half of my post, almost like you know you've got something you don't want to admit....

 

[James R]

MacM:

More of the same from you. I'll ignore the repeated crap.

After all we have just seen a few cracks in the crock pot.

1 - Acknowledgement that gravity is everywhere and that SR is just an approximation. albeit a good one but an approximation none-the-less.

The twin paradox is an example of special relativity. Flat space is assumed for the purposes of the thought experiment. Your attempt to bring in general relativity (which you also do not believe in, I note) is irrelevant distraction.

2 - Length Contraction doesn't cause time dilation.

Correct. It does not.

3 - SR is immune from any mathematical inconsistancies.

Correct. It is beautifully self-consistent. Everything follows from just two postulates. There are no inconsistencies at all.

 

[MacM]

So what is the size of a muon then, compared to the size of the electron? PS, the electron and the muon and the other fundamental particles are described by the standard model which certainly does require quantum mechanics. I feel pretty sorry for you - you've gone through life learning nothing and all you can do is whine at people trying to educate you on the internet. It won't be long until we all decide you're a waste of time.

Look in the mirror. Feel sorry for yourself. You can't even resopnd to grade school level math with a rebvuttal and you want to pretend to know all about muon catalyzed fusion, quantum mechanics, etc. WOW. what a joke.

I'd adk you some nuclear physics question but you would just google and come back pretending you knew the anwers all along.

 

[MacM]

MacM:

More of the same from you. I'll ignore the repeated crap.



The twin paradox is an example of special relativity. Flat space is assumed for the purposes of the thought experiment. Your attempt to bring in general relativity (which you also do not believe in, I note) is irrelevant distraction.



Correct. It does not.



Correct. It is beautifully self-consistent. Everything follows from just two postulates. There are no inconsistencies at all.

Right like v = 0.5d / 0.5t = d / t and causes time dilation making the TT younger. - You are a joke James R.