OK Relavists

[lethe]

As a case in point, my proposed helical particle wave theorem explains various relativistic phenomena in a straight forward manner, including some for which no explanation exists as of now such as the duality of light

an explanation exists for the duality of light. it is called quantum mechanics.

The mu-meson or muon for short

the muon is a lepton, not a meson. the mistake was acceptable, even inevitable, in the 1950s, but it is just wrong today.

However, if we accept the proposition that a muon is a helical wave electron (or positron) the rate at which it is slowed down makes all the difference to its survival since it will decay into a linear spinning electron once its speed is reduced to a fraction of the speed of light

linear spinning? what is that supposed to mean? why on earth would a helix decay into a linear spinning wave? why is it in a helix in the first place? did you forget about newtons first law, or are we also going to revise newton, when we re done revising einstein?

maybe it is in a helix because of a magnetic field? then why does it decay to linear motion? did we violate conservation of charge?

this looks like a load of bunk to me, and i m prepared to stop reading soon.... i ll keep going a little further....

In summary, muons that travel through the atmosphere last longer than muons that have been stopped in a detector, so that their decay times at rest can be recorded, because muons are helical wave electrons which rapidly decay into ordinary electrons when they are slowed down to the point where they no longer travel at a relativistic speed. Consequently, fast moving particles do not age at a slower rate than particles that are at rest as Rossi and Hall would have us believe.

is he saying that the atmosphere is interacting? highly dubious, the mean free path in the atmosphere is pretty large, and these particles have very high energy, making it unlikely that the atmosphere would interact much.

the decay rate depends on the speed of the particle? if we are using galilean relativity instead of SR, then this implies that the particle takes longer to decay in its rest frame than it does in our frame. without a lorentz transformation, we see that the particle decays at two different times. this is contradictory.

this is a crackpot article, and i have read quite enough.

 

[lethe]

Re: Switched Arguements

Originally posted by MacM
ryans,

I can understand people make slips and know better. I am sure that is the case here but you seem to prefer to hide that fact and try to associate your post by reposting Toms answer. The following is my objection to your post.

And antway it is clear to see why your arguement is invalid. How would the sail maintain a velocity greater than c if it was traveling at c. At that instant, no photons would be incident on the sail ....[unquote].

Now tell me that doesn't mean that you were saying that the speed of light remained constant relative to the source and hence the sail would be receiving light at c-v.

If you screwed up say so and lets move on.

ryans is correct. you are inferring things that he never said, nor even implied. i m sure this makes it rather difficult for him to argue with you, since it is impossible to predict how you will interpret what he said. it makes one dubious about your ability to interpret scientific arguments in general as well.

 

[ryans]

This paper does not deal with 2 flaws in relativity, as relativity explains both experiments with unequaled pricision. I also like his references to Halliday, Resnick and Walker, a first year text, and 2 of his own papers. I also like the fact that in another paper on the site he explains gravitational lenses without a shread of mathematics, and offers an alternate theory for the mo-meson, as a helical wave electron. Why would he do this when the theory of mesons currently held as acceptable is perfectly fine. He offers no new phenomena predicted by his theory, he simply recasts it in a different framework.
It would be like me, in the 1800's coming up with a revolutionary new theory of gravitation which is analogous to gausses law in electrodynamics i.e. that the gravitational flux through a closed surface is zero unless there is a source of flux within this volume. It offers no new predictions and so is useless.

 

[MacM]

Concensus

The concenses seems to be that this guy is all wet and I wouldn't argue otherwise. But I hope at least you get the point that a lot of the misconceptions come from what to some of us appear to be bonified scientific work.

There is a matter that does bother me however and it is still this.

In plain english tell me why ryans statement does not say what it says and that is that at (or near) v =c away from a light source that no light reaches the sail>

ryan:And antway it is clear to see why your arguement is invalid. How would the sail maintain a velocity greater than c if it was traveling at c. At that instant, no photons would be incident on the sail ....[unquote].

 

[ryans]

I am answering the question within your framework. If c is relative then the photons will hit the sail with a velocity c-v. The all important point to notice here is that both classically and relativistically, the maximum speed of the sail is c as t approaches infinity. Thus if you conclude that the sail can attain a speed greater than c, you are in contradiction with both classical mechanics and SR. My arguement was not based on my knowledge (that c is invariant to the reference frame with which it is measured), but that even if you use classical arguements, c is not attainable. I do not expect an apology, because I think you are ****.

Moderator edit: Personal insults add nothing useful to the discussion.

 

[MacM]

No

ryan,

In that case no apology given ****. I told you your skin was thinner than mine. Now it is clear to all.

Perhaps you should invest some school time into writting composition. ****.

Moderator edit: Personal insults add nothing useful to the discussion.

 

[On Radioactive Waves]

Re: Right On

what the hell? are you looking for the truth or are you just trying to get other people to slip up?

I think I see what it is mac, you really do miss chroot don't you?

Originally posted by MacM
ryans,

......


It seems your quibbs bother me less than my returns of the favor bother you. You wet behind the ears dip. You think you can replace chroot. You don't have 10% the stuff fellow. You can't walk and chew gum at the same time withut an instruction manual. You ever do anything rather than quote what others say?

.........

 

[MacM]

CH

On Radioactive Waves,

He was a challenge. I respect true knowledge but resent smartass dumb asses.

 

[ryans]

MacM

It seems that your question tryed to catch us all off guard, and to see yourself as the all conquering genius who proved Einstein wrong. But it didn't go that way . The scene was set for you to bring in your paper from UCLA and see us weep. But that didn't happen. I am going to ask a question that will challenge relativity, I hope you don't mind me putting it on your thread.

Question.

This a thought experiment, which is idealised so as to ease calculation. So take it within the context that it is presented.

A 100g block of Uranium 239, which has a half life of 23.5 min is packed onto a rocket with an observer and sent off at 0.9c away from an observer on the ground. It returns to its original position after a period of 23.5 min with respect to the observer on the ground, who calculates that since the ship was gone for 23.5 min, then there should be only 50g of the Uranium 239 block remaining, the rest having decayed into other elements.
The observer in the rocket however, observes that he was gone for a period of 10.244225 min (roughly, I had no calculator) and so he calculates that the amount of U 239 in the sample is 79.12g.

Who is right, and why?

 

[MacM]

Not a Problem

ryan,

I don't mind. I think there needs to be some additional information. What is the acceleration rate and gross Kg of the craft at start, so that the force, time and distance can be computed.

We shall see but my expectations are that you are going to wrongfully look at the accelerating mass from the perspective of the earth observer, just as they did in James R., relavistic rocket.

 

[ryans]

All the information required is there. Ignore acceleration to ease in calculation. You do not need to compute forces, acceleration etc. Just tell me who is right in there conclusion, as both cannot be right, there is either 50g or 79.12g of U-239 left, not both.

 

[Janus58]

Re: Not a Problem

Originally posted by MacM
ryan,

I don't mind. I think there needs to be some additional information. What is the acceleration rate and gross Kg of the craft at start, so that the force, time and distance can be computed.

.
No additional info need be provided; enough is given to answer the question.

We shall see but my expectations are that you are going to wrongfully look at the accelerating mass from the perspective of the earth observer, just as they did in James R., relavistic rocket.

There is nothing wrong with analyzing the relativistic rocket from the frame of the Earth; it is just as valid as any other frame.

Analyzing the rocket's velocity from within its own frame, doesn't yield any useful information, as the rocket's velocity with respect to its own frame is always zero.

 

[lethe]

Originally posted by ryans
All the information required is there. Ignore acceleration to ease in calculation. You do not need to compute forces, acceleration etc. Just tell me who is right in there conclusion, as both cannot be right, there is either 50g or 79.12g of U-239 left, not both.

i don t know what you guys (janus and ryans) are talking about. to solve the twin paradox, you definitely need to know the acceleration of the rocket. "ignore acceleration to ease in calculation"? this is not correct. this problem cannot be solved if you ignore acceleration. if you neglect acceleration, set it equal to zero, then both observers see the same proper time passing. there is no disagreement.

janus, i thought you knew better than this. you were quite on top of the twin paradox when i did my twin paradox thread a few months ago.

Originally posted by ryans
I am going to ask a question that will challenge relativity, I hope you don't mind me putting it on your thread.

and secondly, how does the twin paradox challenge relativity? it doesn t. why are you trying to challenge relativity? are you a crackpot too?

and thirdly, why are you trying to show Mac holes in relativity theory (even though this isn t really a hole). he already doesn t believe the theory, i thought you were trying to convince him that relativity was correct, not that it was full of holes.

and what is the point of asking him to do a relativistic calculation, if he neither knows math, understands relativity, nor even believes that relativity is a correct or consistent theory? what exactly is that going to prove?

 

[ryans]

I am not trying to show MacM that relativity has holes, but rather that as this phenomena has been truely observed (not exactly the same circumstances, but essentially the same, I've changed it so that he can calculate some quantities without to much diffuculty) how is it accounted for if relativity is incorrect. This is not the twin paradox per se, but it highlights the fact that at the end of the day the 2 observers must agree on the number of particle that have decayed. I want to show him that if both use the time measured on there stop watch to calculate the number of particles that would have decayed, then they would have different answers, which is not physically possible because upon measurement of the number of particles that have decayed, they must agree.
And common lethe, the statement you gave is definately not correct;

this problem cannot be solved if you ignore acceleration. if you neglect acceleration, set it equal to zero, then both observers see the same proper time passing. there is no disagreement.

Look at your lorentz transformation formula's, no reference is made to acceleration, i.e. non inertial reference frames, this is a result of inertial observers in different frames of reference moving relative to one another.

I will post the answer to this problem as sonn as MacM posts his wrong answer.

 

[lethe]

Originally posted by ryans
This is not the twin paradox per se,

no? OK, i read the original post a little more closely. if you are saying that the rocket passed by the inertial observer without ever stopping, and reached its final destination without slowing down, then you are correct, this is not the twin paradox. but in that case, your statement that the two observers must agree at the end of the day is false: as long as they are in different frames, then they do not have to agree on how much time has passed or how much of the isotope has decayed.

since you said that they have to agree at the end of the day on how much isotope has decayed, i assumed you meant that they finished the trip and compared their results in some common inertial frame. if this is not the case, make that clear now. either way, i think the question is flawed.

Look at your lorentz transformation formula's, no reference is made to acceleration, i.e. non inertial reference frames, this is a result of inertial observers in different frames of reference moving relative to one another.

the answer is quite simple: how much isotope has decayed depends on how much proper time has passed for the isotope. this depends on the invariant length of the world line of the travelling observer, which depends very much on the form and magnitude of the acceleration.

I will post the answer to this problem as sonn as MacM posts his wrong answer.

i anxiously await. maybe i m wrong. i will wait to see your solution for the final verdict.

 

[ryans]

Are you serious lethe. This is a simple question, with I admit many approximations, which I may not have clearly defined. The crux of the problem is this.

The 2 observers are travelling relative to each other, one with the isotope. At the end of the day, when they measure the amount of U239 remaining, they must get the same value, there are either atoms N atoms there or not, they cannot get different values, as simple as that. However one of the calculations obtain by the observers will be in contradiction with the other and experiment. Whose calculation is wrong and why.
Again, they must both measure the same amount of U-239 in the sample.

 

[lethe]

i reread the post again. look at this statement:

Originally posted by ryans
It returns to its original position after a period of 23.5 min with respect to the observer on the ground,

the travelling observer cannot return to the original position without accelerating. this is the twin paradox.

as long as he does not accelerate, and is in a different relatively moving frame, they do not have to agree on how much isotope has decayed. in fact, it is basically the statement that their clocks disagree.

the stationary observer sees the same decay rate of the isotope relative to the travelling clock, but if he uses his own wristwatch, then they need not agree on the rates, and therefore nor on the total amount that has decayed.

 

[lethe]

Originally posted by ryans
Are you serious lethe. This is a simple question, with I admit many approximations, which I may not have clearly defined. The crux of the problem is this.

The 2 observers are travelling relative to each other, one with the isotope. At the end of the day, when they measure the amount of U239 remaining, they must get the same value, there are either atoms N atoms there or not, they cannot get different values, as simple as that. However one of the calculations obtain by the observers will be in contradiction with the other and experiment. Whose calculation is wrong and why.
Again, they must both measure the same amount of U-239 in the sample.

no approximation is necessary here. either you want both observers to be inertial, in which case they do not agree on how much uranium has decayed (unless they both use the travelling clock), or else you want the travelling observer to return home, and then they can use the same clock, and they must agree on how much uranium has decayed, and you have to take into account the acceleration.

 

[Janus58]

Originally posted by lethe


janus, i thought you knew better than this. you were quite on top of the twin paradox when i did my twin paradox thread a few months ago.

I said that there was enough info to answer the question: "Who is right, and why?" This does not require knowing the exact value of the accleration experienced by the one sample (you only need that if you want to figure out exactly how much the two samples differ, but this is already given in the question).

 

[ryans]

O.k. when I put the figures up I did not have a calculator, now I do.

Observer 1(on ground). time measured = 23.5 min. calculated amount of U-239 remaining = 50g

Observer 2(on rocket) time measured = 10.24 min. calculated amount of U-239 remaining = 73.933g

Who is right and why? Only one can be right since they must both measure, not calculate, the same number for the amount of U-239 remaining in the sample.

Note, rocket is travelling at 0.9c. That is all the information required to answer the question in its context.