Twin paradox (Pete and MacM)

[Paul T]

That happens to be precisely correct. Time dialtion is prerceptional and not physical reality.

Again precisely right. You should read the paper I posted to Billy t above regarding the finding that radioactive decay is not random but cyclicly linked to cosmology enfluences. Fits my view not yours.

Laugh away. Theu say ignorance is bliss. you should be a very happy guy.

PS: To assume anybody that rejects Relativity is ignorant is the height of arrogance.

Well, then I am done. You may not believe me, but I must honestly remind you that your believe are all craps. However, that's your own problem. I see no chance anybody here could convince you to accept time dilation just as impossible as it is for you to convince many here that time dilation doesn't exist.

PS: Yep, you are ignorant. I hope one day you'll realize that. This should make me arrogance...but, then who cares.

 

[MacM]

MacM:

Then you're full of crap, because that's what you've been saying all along. Your claim, in case you've forgotten, is that all clocks in "reality" tick at the same rate.

Simply more distortions of historical fact. Your saying this does not make it true. Yes clocks only have one tick rate but to link that with your fabricated statement that an observer see only one tick rate is unjustified crap suggesting I have somehow said something different. Of course an observer only sees one tick rate.

But I have never made that statement. My statement is physical clocks possess only one actual tick rate and the Relavistic conclusion that clocks have multiple tick rates simultaneously is mere perception.

Read my previous post again, MacM. You didn't get it the first time. Your lie is exposed in black and white.

In your Fu_king ear James R., I'm damn tired of your BS propaganda. I have not once lied and your repeating this shows YOU SIR ARE A DAMNED LIAR.

That should alert many as to where to actually anchor their faith. When cornered on an issue such as the digital link between clocks showing I am right and you are BS you start your campaign of lies and distortions.

Yes, because our view is right, and nobody has given us any reason to change it.

Considering the digital link issue, suggests more than anythingelse that your position is mere intrenchment and a faith based response that refuses to bend in face of overwhelming truth.

You can't even bring yourself to acknowledge that Relativity might be perception. It must be physical reality. LOL. I have not denied the mathematical data or test data but I have shown it cannot be physically real.

The only other realistic option left is to understand it is perception. Considering that is preciesly what we are doing doesn't make that assumption very hard to recognize.

We are observing, percieving. That is all it is. But the reality is the clocks tick at the same initial rate and are unchanging in physical reality and will read the same upon being brought back together. Any failure of a clock to do so would be as a cause other than Relativity's time dilation concept.

i.e - Please comment on the Russian finding about radioactive decay of muons
not being random but as a consequence of cyclic changes in cosmology.

It seems my previously expressed view on the muon decay issue may be much closer to reality than your assumption that it is time dilation.

Bait and switch. Start a new thread, if you want to discuss that.

This shows exactly what I mean. The challenge was made in this thread for me to explain the muon decay. It was absolute proof of your view (made By Billy T).

My position has been and was expressed as being that muon decay was not proof of time dilation, that it is a process affected by outside enfluences, energy changes etc.

Billy T made the challenge and suggested we concentrate on it for there time dilation would be vindicated or fail as the only cause for the observation.

Well it fails. I have shown my point. And you want to claim "Bait and Switch"? Bullshit. Had I not answered Billy T's challenge then all we would hear is "You couldn't answer, etc, etc"

You are one piece of crap James R, when you start this sort of BS. I answered the question and challenge put to me in this thread. Do not tell me that is a "Bait and Switch" and to start a new thread.

Liar.

I suggest who the actual liar is is becoming very obvious. You have not provided an scientifically valid or physical response to my presentation. The best you can do is cry to mommy "But that isn't what SRT says". That should sink in as being just cause to shit can SRT as being physical reality since my presentation is absolutely valid.

Read my previous post again. Wilful blindness is dishonest, and I'm sick of it.

That seems to make two of us. As long as you can dance around you are content, as soon as you get boxed into a corner, you start to distort what people have said and to issue false claims by fiat how you have won.

1 - You have not provided a physical explanation which undermines my presentation. It stands and it shows all calibrated clocks remain calibrated and retain a common tick rate regardless of the postulates of Relativity. Sorry start over, you view is not reality.

Wrong. I've explained exactly why you are wrong, and pointed out exactly what your major misconceptions are.

Your rebuttal is nothing more that a citation of SRT claiming you are right by Fiat. You have been unable, and will remain unable to actually provide any actual physical points which shows a flaw in my presentation.

Give it up and lose gracefully for a change. Your desperation makes it clear your are trapped.

WEBSTER:

FIAT:

1 - An order issued by legal authority, usually beginning with "Let it be done" decree.

2 - a sanction, authorization

3 - an arbitrary order.

According to you we have no option but to accept SRT becasue SRT is absolutely valid. Anything that disagrees with SRT then must be false and has no need of explanation at a physical sciences level.

All of your responses are by fiat and fail to actually confront the issue and provide explanation. Fiat is an unacceptable appeal to authority response.

You have not therefore responded to my challenge and don't claim you have.

Your FIAT is not a legitimate response.

 

[MacM]

it is obvious that the bone of contention is simply the reality of what is called time dilation, and nothing else.

maybe there is another way of explaining the adjustments needed to achieve GPS and all the other evidence that shows that mass has changed it's tick rate.

although I can see no other way of describing the slowing of mass tick rate other than to call it time dilation.

The argument that it is perception I think is flawed in both camps. Dilation or mass tick rate dilation is a pheno that occurs whether we witness it of not.

unless every piece of practicle evidence is somehow explained away as illusion I can;t see how the concept of time dilation can be avoided.

Maybe if a list of adjustments that have been necessary to accomodate time dilation should be provided and an explanation why they are illusion be given.

GPS positioning is one I think, and no doubt there are many others.
The aeroplane clock experiment is another but has been compromised in some way.
what other examples of time dilation adjustments are there, in the physical world?

You as well as others here seem to miss the big picture. Can't see the forest for the trees.

The very fact that GPS must be compensated for relavistic observations to get a correct result proves that it is perception and not physical reality. One should not have to compensate to eliminate such data if it were reality. The fact that it is not demands it be viewed as "Un-real" and perceptional.

 

[MacM]

So you believe distance and time dilate when speed increases at extreme speeds,and that your time and my time are not the same?.

Well,to me that craps on common sense and allows for time travel,the twin paradox is not even a paradox,its fact if you consider theres an actual difference in time relative to speeds travelled.

Time travel into the future is therefore possible as a consequence.

Not only that,if time is different for all observers (your time and my time not being the same) then we have to say things like
"well you are in the past/future in comparrison to me"
under this concept it means the past and future exist independent of the present,they would have to cos it suggest there is no present as such.

Is there really a future version of me and past version of me?

Well if youre to believe relativity then YES the past is happening right now along with the future.

Apparently im the only person who thinks thats dumb,im not gonna dare say the whole thing is wrong,but i think theres more to consider,cos im not gonna believe time dilation effects and "time travel is possible" is a clear picture of reality,to me thats a clear picture they are missing something vital.

If light isnt a constant then we could say there is no time dilation and instead light dilates,light dilation seems more common sense,than the idea that going towards light speed and coming back to earth in the future.

Welcome to the club. You are on the right track. I'll only comment however, that the universe doesn't seem to care what we think is logical. Your opinion should be based in actual analysis, which is what I am trying to show.

 

[Billy T]

SRT can not be PROVEN, only observations consistent with it (& not MacM’s “Universal Time,” UT) exist. MacM thinks he can explain many conflicts with UT away as perceptual problems caused by communication delays, etc. He does not accept most of the “facts” we “believers in SRT” hold to be facts (such as the astronaut is younger when he returns, which admittedly is not our best fact as it is only a prediction). I admire intelligent doubters of theory, like MacM – Einstein was one. Copernicus was another, (although he may have thought the helio-centric system / Kepler’s 3 laws, etc. were only for computation, not reality – hard to tell. Fear of excommunication may have caused him to state this at times.)

If we focus on muons, MacM will not be able to escape into some new thread. (Looks like the “H&K test of SRT” escape has died out, like many before it. I see we had another about A, B, &C frames /clocks sub-thread going (Perhaps, Pete has let it die – I am still not up to date.). I have not read all these more recent sub-threads, nor will I read the next one carefully, unless it is based on both: (1) a “fact” MacM has accepted as fact and (2) MacM admits this fact is inconsistent with his UT. The unique SRT fact that meets both these requirements is that muons reach the Earth surface and this is in violation of his UT.

Unfortunately there is one experimental observation MacM can make that supports his UT. It is:
None of the sub-threads have thus far forced him to abandon UT. Thus, these sub-threads are WORSE than distractions. For MacM, they are experimental observations / confirmation that UT is OK, despite efforts of clever people like Pete and James R (et. al.) to show UT is flawed. MacM now has more distinct observations consistent with his UT surviving “smart guy challenges” than SRT has! (Like me, you may not agree that MacM is accumulation supporting observations for UT by surviving “smart guy challenges”, but what we think is unimportant, if the objective is to convince MacM that SRT is correct. – Only what MacM thinks is important.)

I think only the muon conflict with UT can be used to bring MacM to the SRT way of thinking. As far as I know from the posts I have read, all other sub-threads in some way rely on SRT or other “facts” that MacM has not accepted as facts requiring UT be abandoned. Thus, in the final analysis, from MacM’s viewpoint, our arguments become circular logic. I.e. SRT is true, SRT predicts X, X is an observed fact, not explainable by communication delays etc., thus UT is wrong (and SRT is true.)

The only “X” for which MacM has accepted as fact inconsistent with UT, not explainable by communication delays, perception, etc. that is muons survive to Earth’s surface. For all other “X” he can (and will) effectively say: “Whoooo, Stop. “X” is not true - it is perception, delay, etc. That is where you went wrong.”

This argument of MacM’s is also circular in that his reason / motivation for stating “X” is false or only a perception, is that it violates UT. In this situation we will always be only able to disagree. Generally MacM respects observations, not theory, but he is trapped with this muon fact. It all takes place on Earth. No communications delays. No perception problem. He has already admitted he has “no absolute explanation.” (GRT used to make GPS work may be another “all-on-Earth” club with which to beat MacM, but it is more complex as not SRT.)

A little focus on muons will soon force MacM to remove “absolute.” Then, because MacM is logical, respects facts, wants no internal inconsistencies in his mental structure, I predict he will recognize that SRT, even though very counter intuitive, is without observational conflict. Thus SRT must be better theory than intuitive UT, which like some of the other counter-intuitive facts of physic, E. g. individual photons must each goes through two different paths to produce the interference pattern (Actually observed with long exposure of the recording film and light so weak that rarely are two photons in flight at the “same time”, etc. I trust I can say “at the same time” as like the muon case everything is happening on Earth.) must be accepted. I have a lot of confidence in someone as obviously intelligent as MacM. He will “see the light” if the spotlight shines steadily on muons.

MacM has been working on the muon problem. Yesterday 24 th at 10:09 PM, he referred me to:

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.c...html#figure 2

I have not been there yet, but if it not peer reviewed in a well known journal, I will only briefly skim if I do. (Sorry MacM I know there is a catch 22 in this. – if you are not standard, you don’t get to these journals, but I am too busy to read even this one thread.)

I want to compliment both MacM and Pete, especially Pete, who if I did not skim to quickly, did a lot of calculations about these A, B, & C clock’s times as understood from the three frames, and many other things since then. (If the A,B,C was you, MacM, as one post I skimmed led me to think, you are rising even higher in my esteem.) I think James R is growing tired and beginning to lose his “kool” a little. Let’s all follow Pete’s example. If I am off base James, I apologize, but as moderator you carry an extra load.

I once thought I had time to boost my “% read” from 10% but fear it is actually falling. I mainly check in every other day or so to see if as I advocate, the spot light is on muons. Sadly I always find it is not. Instead I find we are off on some new sub-thread which I don’t have time to read. See you all in a couple of days.

 

[MacM]

SRT can not be PROVEN, only observations consistent with it (& not MacM’s “Universal Time,” UT) exist. MacM thinks he can explain many conflicts with UT away as perceptual problems caused by communication delays, etc. He does not accept most of the “facts” we “believers in SRT” hold to be facts (such as the astronaut is younger when he returns, which admittedly is not our best fact as it is only a prediction). I admire intelligent doubters of theory, like MacM – Einstein was one. Copernicus was another, (although he may have thought the helio-centric system / Kepler’s 3 laws, etc. were only for computation, not reality – hard to tell. Fear of excommunication may have caused him to state this at times.)

If we focus on muons, MacM will not be able to escape into some new thread. (Looks like the “H&K test of SRT” escape has died out, like many before it. I see we had another about A, B, &C frames /clocks sub-thread going (Perhaps, Pete has let it die – I am still not up to date.). I have not read all these more recent sub-threads, nor will I read the next one carefully, unless it is based on both: (1) a “fact” MacM has accepted as fact and (2) MacM admits this fact is inconsistent with his UT. The unique SRT fact that meets both these requirements is that muons reach the Earth surface and this is in violation of his UT.

Unfortunately there is one experimental observation MacM can make that supports his UT. It is:
None of the sub-threads have thus far forced him to abandon UT. Thus, these sub-threads are WORSE than distractions. For MacM, they are experimental observations / confirmation that UT is OK, despite efforts of clever people like Pete and James R (et. al.) to show UT is flawed. MacM now has more distinct observations consistent with his UT surviving “smart guy challenges” than SRT has! (Like me, you may not agree that MacM is accumulation supporting observations for UT by surviving “smart guy challenges”, but what we think is unimportant, if the objective is to convince MacM that SRT is correct. – Only what MacM thinks is important.)

I think only the muon conflict with UT can be used to bring MacM to the SRT way of thinking. As far as I know from the posts I have read, all other sub-threads in some way rely on SRT or other “facts” that MacM has not accepted as facts requiring UT be abandoned. Thus, in the final analysis, from MacM’s viewpoint, our arguments become circular logic. I.e. SRT is true, SRT predicts X, X is an observed fact, not explainable by communication delays etc., thus UT is wrong (and SRT is true.)

The only “X” for which MacM has accepted as fact inconsistent with UT, not explainable by communication delays, perception, etc. that is muons survive to Earth’s surface. For all other “X” he can (and will) effectively say: “Whoooo, Stop. “X” is not true - it is perception, delay, etc. That is where you went wrong.”

This argument of MacM’s is also circular in that his reason / motivation for stating “X” is false or only a perception, is that it violates UT. In this situation we will always be only able to disagree. Generally MacM respects observations, not theory, but he is trapped with this muon fact. It all takes place on Earth. No communications delays. No perception problem. He has already admitted he has “no absolute explanation.” (GRT used to make GPS work may be another “all-on-Earth” club with which to beat MacM, but it is more complex as not SRT.)

A little focus on muons will soon force MacM to remove “absolute.” Then, because MacM is logical, respects facts, wants no internal inconsistencies in his mental structure, I predict he will recognize that SRT, even though very counter intuitive, is without observational conflict. Thus SRT must be better theory than intuitive UT, which like some of the other counter-intuitive facts of physic, E. g. individual photons must each goes through two different paths to produce the interference pattern (Actually observed with long exposure of the recording film and light so weak that rarely are two photons in flight at the “same time”, etc. I trust I can say “at the same time” as like the muon case everything is happening on Earth.) must be accepted. I have a lot of confidence in someone as obviously intelligent as MacM. He will “see the light” if the spotlight shines steadily on muons.

MacM has been working on the muon problem. Yesterday 24 th at 10:09 PM, he referred me to:

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.c...html#figure 2

I have not been there yet, but if it not peer reviewed in a well known journal, I will only briefly skim if I do. (Sorry MacM I know there is a catch 22 in this. – if you are not standard, you don’t get to these journals, but I am too busy to read even this one thread.)

I want to compliment both MacM and Pete, especially Pete, who if I did not skim to quickly, did a lot of calculations about these A, B, & C clock’s times as understood from the three frames, and many other things since then. (If the A,B,C was you, MacM, as one post I skimmed led me to think, you are rising even higher in my esteem.) I think James R is growing tired and beginning to lose his “kool” a little. Let’s all follow Pete’s example. If I am off base James, I apologize, but as moderator you carry an extra load.

I once thought I had time to boost my “% read” from 10% but fear it is actually falling. I mainly check in every other day or so to see if as I advocate, the spot light is on muons. Sadly I always find it is not. Instead I find we are off on some new sub-thread which I don’t have time to read. See you all in a couple of days.

Your thread is appreciated, even if perhaps patronizing a bit.

However, you miss a couple of important issues. Muon decay is not your saving grace, nor is GPS. The article I posted is peer reviewed and published in a highly respected Russian physics journal and is based on 30+ years of data. The results confirm my suspecion that muon decay may be affected by external energy issues and not merely time dilation.

GPS on the other hand actually proves my case and not vice-versa. If Relavistic observation were truyely reality then one woujld not need to correct data to get a correct physical reality result.

The fact that we make an effort to omit the perceptional distortions of Relativity, show that it is not reality but merely distorted perception. Otherwise it would provide a correct answer without deleting it from the result.

 

[AndersHermansson]

MacM you keep mentioning physical reality. Wtf is that?

 

[Paul T]

However, you miss a couple of important issues. Muon decay is not your saving grace, nor is GPS. The article I posted is peer reviewed and published in a highly respected Russian physics journal and is based on 30+ years of data. The results confirm my suspecion that muon decay may be affected by external energy issues and not merely time dilation.

Quite often your argument doesn't really make sense. For example your above argument about an article published in a highly respected Russian physics journal. What so special about that in your opinion? I still remember very clearly, you told us a few days ago that H&K's paper was wrong even though it was also published in a highly respective scientific journal, so to speak. So what make the paper you referred to us so difference than H&K's paper or even Einstein's relativity papers (I think you regarded the later as wrong too since you said relativity is wrong). I am sure that is not because of those "highly respected scientific journal" factor as you don't seem to think that make any difference.....unless you have another criteria about how to determine the correctness of a paper. That other criteria (key criteria) seem to be "The results confirm my suspecion". So you thought it support your gut feeling, then the paper must be correct. That's not the way scientist think. Well, glad to know that you are not a scientist.

 

[MacM]

MacM you keep mentioning physical reality. Wtf is that?

Amazing you should even have to ask. "Physical Reality" is a physical clock that ticks. It's tick rate is that clocks reality. An observers view of that clocks tick rate is an observation, a perception but that differning perception does not alter the clocks true tick rate (It's physical reality).

 

[MacM]

Quite often your argument doesn't really make sense. For example your above argument about an article published in a highly respected Russian physics journal. What so special about that in your opinion? I still remember very clearly, you told us a few days ago that H&K's paper was wrong even though it was also published in a highly respective scientific journal, so to speak. So what make the paper you referred to us so difference than H&K's paper or even Einstein's relativity papers (I think you regarded the later as wrong too since you said relativity is wrong). I am sure that is not because of those "highly respected scientific journal" factor as you don't seem to think that make any difference.....unless you have another criteria about how to determine the correctness of a paper. That other criteria (key criteria) seem to be "The results confirm my suspecion". So you thought it support your gut feeling, then the paper must be correct. That's not the way scientist think. Well, glad to know that you are not a scientist.

Show me a sound analysis that is in disagreement then perhaps I might think differently but to my knowledge there is none. In the case of H&K there are several that have expressed outrage at the absolutely sloppy, if not fraudulent, information posted in the paper.

The paper on its surface seems to support their arguement. It is only when you look at the actual raw data that you see their claimed data as published is hogwash.

 

[Billy T]

MacM:

It is now Saturday late enough for my phone company (São Paulo) to have turned off the charge /metering clock on my local call to my ISP. (Can I use this fact to prove UT is false? I will try to put a smiley here later) Thus, I got back to this thread sooner than I expected.

I expected a little “tar and feathers” for praising your doubting SRT in the same sentence that mentioned Einstein and Copernicus were well known doubters too, but not that you would think I was patronizing you. Certainly that was not my intent and I think you will agree if you read again. Perhaps your are referring to my posts of a few days ago, where I pretended to be a “Stump Preacher” trying to show you the light, save you sinning soul, redeem you for “our god Einstein” etc. (I grew up in the hills of W. Va, and don’t care if I offended them while plagiarizing my “sermon” to you.) I have not been back to see if I offended any serious follower of religion, even though I clearly stated I did not intend to, but was only trying to “lighten up” a little. This too was not patronizing you. If one can see a little below the surface text, I was really making fun of the arrogance, some people develop when they get a lot of letters from universities to place after their names.

I think Paul T (no relation to Billy T, put another smiley here) makes a good point. You have found one peer reviewed journal that may help you escape from the muon trap (I doubt this – more in a minute) but there are thousands of peer reviewed ones that support muons as violating UT. You can’t pick and chose, except by the criteria Paul T suggests. I still have not been to that Russian journal article/ page. Since thousands of journal articles suggest that radioactive decay is well insulated for chemistry, magnet and electric fields, etc., I suspect that the Russian effect must be a very small change in the life time, even if it is real. If this is the case, then it would not explain the muons at the surface.

To briefly depart from the thread and give an example, also about radioactive decay: Some experts think there is a threshold for lasting tissue damage, others that that there is not (the NLT group). Some of the threshold group think a small amount is actually good for you as it helps keep the body’s defenses against background radiation strong, like a “protective vaccine.” I honestly don’t know what to think, except that it probably does not make much difference, down at the threshold level. If the effect were significant, only a few people would be in one group and most knowledgeable people would be in the other (Might not so divide, as this is a charged issue, if science clearly favored the threshold group. There might be enough anti-nuclear people to still keep the irrational NLT group well populated.) MY POINT IS: even without reading your one Russian article, I am confident their data suggests only an insignificant susceptibility of the muon decay rate to “energy fields” etc. There are many Rusian article that support strange things (especially in parapsychology). I have seen photo of Krillian (? on spelling) Energy fields. There was a reputable Russian journal article about a lady who could read newspapers blind folded and in the dark thru a plate of glass with her finger tips. Etc. There were, in the western journals articles, years ago, articles about “clever Hans,” a horse that could correctly answer “yes / no” questions or do simple sums by tapping his hoof. Etc. (Han’s skill was finally explained after universities et. al. conducted many tests.) I mention this just to show there is no anti Russian bias. To conclude this diversion, I’ll steal from Porgy and Bess: “It ain’t necessarily so” even if published in reputable peer reviewed journals, but to return more quantatively to the point:

By what percent does, assuming it to be true, does the Russian data change the muon decay rate? Better still if they tell how far from the accepted values their most extreme measurements are in sigma. If it is only one or two sigma, I will yawn.

 

[James R]

MacM:

I wrote:

Your claim, in case you've forgotten, is that all clocks in "reality" tick at the same rate.

Your response:

My statement is physical clocks possess only one actual tick rate and the Relavistic conclusion that clocks have multiple tick rates simultaneously is mere perception.

So, I was right, despite your protestations.

That should alert many as to where to actually anchor their faith. When cornered on an issue such as the digital link between clocks showing I am right and you are BS you start your campaign of lies and distortions.

See the following post, where I put this to rest once and for all.

i.e - Please comment on the Russian finding about radioactive decay of muons not being random but as a consequence of cyclic changes in cosmology.

Start a new thread if you want to discuss that.

The rest of your post is the same old crap and not worth responding to.

 

[MacM]

MacM:

It is now Saturday late enough for my phone company (São Paulo) to have turned off the charge /metering clock on my local call to my ISP. (Can I use this fact to prove UT is false? I will try to put a smiley here later) Thus, I got back to this thread sooner than I expected.

I expected a little “tar and feathers” for praising your doubting SRT in the same sentence that mentioned Einstein and Copernicus were well known doubters too, but not that you would think I was patronizing you. Certainly that was not my intent and I think you will agree if you read again. Perhaps your are referring to my posts of a few days ago, where I pretended to be a “Stump Preacher” trying to show you the light, save you sinning soul, redeem you for “our god Einstein” etc. (I grew up in the hills of W. Va, and don’t care if I offended them while plagiarizing my “sermon” to you.) I have not been back to see if I offended any serious follower of religion, even though I clearly stated I did not intend to, but was only trying to “lighten up” a little. This too was not patronizing you. If one can see a little below the surface text, I was really making fun of the arrogance, some people develop when they get a lot of letters from universities to place after their names.

I think Paul T (no relation to Billy T, put another smiley here) makes a good point. You have found one peer reviewed journal that may help you escape from the muon trap (I doubt this – more in a minute) but there are thousands of peer reviewed ones that support muons as violating UT. You can’t pick and chose, except by the criteria Paul T suggests. I still have not been to that Russian journal article/ page. Since thousands of journal articles suggest that radioactive decay is well insulated for chemistry, magnet and electric fields, etc., I suspect that the Russian effect must be a very small change in the life time, even if it is real. If this is the case, then it would not explain the muons at the surface.

To briefly depart from the thread and give an example, also about radioactive decay: Some experts think there is a threshold for lasting tissue damage, others that that there is not (the NLT group). Some of the threshold group think a small amount is actually good for you as it helps keep the body’s defenses against background radiation strong, like a “protective vaccine.” I honestly don’t know what to think, except that it probably does not make much difference, down at the threshold level. If the effect were significant, only a few people would be in one group and most knowledgeable people would be in the other (Might not so divide, as this is a charged issue, if science clearly favored the threshold group. There might be enough anti-nuclear people to still keep the irrational NLT group well populated.) MY POINT IS: even without reading your one Russian article, I am confident their data suggests only an insignificant susceptibility of the muon decay rate to “energy fields” etc. There are many Rusian article that support strange things (especially in parapsychology). I have seen photo of Krillian (? on spelling) Energy fields. There was a reputable Russian journal article about a lady who could read newspapers blind folded and in the dark thru a plate of glass with her finger tips. Etc. There were, in the western journals articles, years ago, articles about “clever Hans,” a horse that could correctly answer “yes / no” questions or do simple sums by tapping his hoof. Etc. (Han’s skill was finally explained after universities et. al. conducted many tests.) I mention this just to show there is no anti Russian bias. To conclude this diversion, I’ll steal from Porgy and Bess: “It ain’t necessarily so” even if published in reputable peer reviewed journals, but to return more quantatively to the point:

By what percent does, assuming it to be true, does the Russian data change the muon decay rate? Better still if they tell how far from the accepted values their most extreme measurements are in sigma. If it is only one or two sigma, I will yawn.

1 - This was not a study of specific energy and a decay response. It is 30 years of studying decay statistics compiled which showed a cyclic link to cosmology!

2 - Even in the absence of any such affect. It would still be my guess that the muon observation is not related to time dilation. My digital synchronization proposal shows clearly that clock A is still running at 1 tick per second inspite of B's view of its tick rate.

That overturns any possibility that SRT time dilation could by any stretch of the imagination be reality but is forever limited to a distortion of observation or a perception and observers motion has no affect on the observed clock.

Further without having been able to show a method of synchronizing clocks my opinion would still have been the same. I am a realist and grant little to the subjective.

So frankly I think you misjudge my conviction on this issue. In total absence of anything but simple logic that a physical clock cannot have two or more tick rates simultaneously would be enough to reject SRT even without an alternative.

Just note that I do not (at least at this juncture) claim that the observation or perception does not occur, nor that the observations do not generally follow SRT mathematically. Only that it does not alter the clock observed which means on rejoining the clocks they will indeed read the same accumulated time assuming they were calibrated to each other at the outset and continued to operate properly.

3 - Assuming that the Russian data shows what it appears to show, I do not believe you could still claim time dilation regardless of how minor such an affect was pending and until and unless you could show that the affect of penetrating earth's atmosphere at high velocity, etc. had no such energy affect.

 

[James R]

[size=+2]Refutation of MacM's "digital" clock synchronisation proposal[/size]

MacM's claim is that he can sychronise two clocks at a distance, as follows:

1. Make sure clocks A and B are initially ticking at the same rate and emitting light beams at 1 MHz. These beams are transmitted continuously by both clocks, and each aimed at the other clock.
2. Accelerate B until it reaches a speed of 0.9c relative to A. This is determined by measuring the received beam frequency. The correct speed is reached when the received frequency is 0.229 MHz.
3. After the correct speed has been attained, A is to send the number "10" to B using side-band modulation. "10" is the previously agreed signal which means "clock ticks at 1 tick per second".
4. When B receives the number "10" from A, B sets his "monitor" of A's clock to tick at 1 tick per second.
5. MacM then claims that B's monitor of A's clock ticks at the same rate as B's local clock, and so the two clocks are sychronised.

Why this doesn't actually synchonise the clocks:

1. Step 3 doesn't actually communicate any information about A's clock rate to B. There is nothing magical about sending the "digital" number "10" and there is nothing magical about side-band modulation.

A could just as well send the information "Mary had a little lamb" in digital form to B, and B could understand that as a signal to set his monitor of A's clock to 1 tick per second.

Also, A could just as well use amplitude modulation, or frequency modulation, or phase modulation or whatever to send this digital message to B. The details are not important.

Note: A doesn't send to B ANY meaningful information about the actual rate at which A's clock is ticking. All A has sent is a message saying how fast A's clock appears to be ticking, as far as A is concerned. "Mary had a little lamb" could be translated by B to mean "A sees his clock ticking at 1 tick per second".

2. Step 4 can only be achieved by B referencing his own clock. B does not have A's clock at hand, so to set B's monitor to 1 tick per second, as specified in the message sent from A, B must use a local time standard. The only one he has available is his own clock.

So, the outcome of step 4 is that B sets his monitor of clock A to 1 tick per second, as measured by B's local clock.

3. Step 5 is clearly, then, a false, and stupid claim.

Sure, B's "monitor" is now ticking away at 1 tick per second, exactly in step with B's own clock, but that's not surprising, is it? After all, B set the monitor using his own clock.

The "monitor" says nothing at all about the rate at which A's local clock is ticking relative to B.

Conclusion

It has been clearly shown (again) that MacM's proposal to "synchonise" the local clocks fails.

When reduced to essentials, it is clear that this method never had a chance of doing what MacM said it would do. It is stupid and naive to assume that it would. So, why did MacM make this assumption? Simple:

MacM's major misconception

MacM has assumed a priori that B's local clock ticks at the same rate as A's local clock, regardless of the states of motion of the two clocks.

In other words, MacM assumes what he says he is setting out to prove. He assumes that universal time exists and time dilation does not exist.

He is wrong, but that is not the topic of this post.

This post only shows that his supposed "demonstration" that universal time exists and relativity is wrong, is, as usual, based on nothing more than simple stupidity and lack of thinking through his own example.

 

[MacM]

MacM:

I wrote:

Your response:

So, I was right, despite your protestations.

Hardly you are trying to define my statement in a manner other than what is written. Yours assumes to much and opens the door to later challenge should one say that. All clocks do not tick at the same rate. An atomic clock clearly ticks at a much higher rate than my Mickey Mouse.

My statement means that whatever a physical clocks tick rate is, it remains unchanged by the relative velocity of an observer(s) of the clock. That is simple common sense.

See the following post, where I put this to rest once and for all.

Have seen this claim before but no actual achievement of same.

Start a new thread if you want to discuss that.

You are a monitor and I suppose we will be obliged to obey but I fail to understand your request considering this goes to time dilation and proof or lack of it. Further muon decay was presented several times in this thread as jproof of time dilation but now that some question may be drawn on that issue you don't want it here.

Why don't you just declare "Do not post unless you agree with me".

The rest of your post is the same old crap and not worth responding to.

My post is in kind.

 

[James R]

MacM:

Your Russian paper is another bait-and-switch tactic, aimed at drawing the conversation onto a different aspect of the question. That's why it doesn't belong in this thread, and that is why I will not respond to it here.

On another issue, if you don't mean what you write, then you should be more careful to write what you mean.

 

[MacM]

[size=+2]Refutation of James R's Refutation Claim[/size]

[size=+2]Refutation of MacM's "digital" clock synchronisation proposal[/size]

MacM's claim is that he can sychronise two clocks at a distance, as follows:

1. Make sure clocks A and B are initially ticking at the same rate and emitting light beams at 1 MHz. These beams are transmitted continuously by both clocks, and each aimed at the other clock.

Correct.

2. Accelerate B until it reaches a speed of 0.9c relative to A. This is determined by measuring the received beam frequency. The correct speed is reached when the received frequency is 0.229 MHz.

Correct.

3. After the correct speed has been attained, A is to send the number "10" to B using side-band modulation. "10" is the previously agreed signal which means "clock ticks at 1 tick per second".

Correct in principle but not factually. "A" sends a SBM which the carrier frequency divided by the modulation was choosen to be "10" to be in seconds to 0.1 second accuracy. It could also be 100 for two decimal places, etc.

The point being it is a signal generated by "A" which is in actual proportion to "A's" physical tick rate. Not just some preagreed message.

4. When B receives the number "10" from A, B sets his "monitor" of A's clock to tick at 1 tick per second.

Correct but using his 1MHz standard since both had 1 MHz standards when calibrated and since Relativity says neither inertial system undergoes observable change locally regardless of velocity.

5. MacM then claims that B's monitor of A's clock ticks at the same rate as B's local clock, and so the two clocks are sychronised.

Correct. Because it is so.

Why this doesn't actually synchonise the clocks:

1. Step 3 doesn't actually communicate any information about A's clock rate to B. There is nothing magical about sending the "digital" number "10" and there is nothing magical about side-band modulation.[/quotre]

False. As pointed out above.

A could just as well send the information "Mary had a little lamb" in digital form to B, and B could understand that as a signal to set his monitor of A's clock to 1 tick per second.

True IF "A's" rate was indeed still 1 tick per second. But to do so would certainly not have near the signifigance of transmitting a signal which is based on "A's" actual tick rate.

Also, A could just as well use amplitude modulation, or frequency modulation, or phase modulation or whatever to send this digital message to B. The details are not important.

Correct. The form of information is not important as long as it is linked to the carrier beam so as to transmit "A's" actual tick rate such that the information is not distorted by SRT. Digital or analog ratios seem to do that.

Note: A doesn't send to B ANY meaningful information about the actual rate at which A's clock is ticking. All A has sent is a message saying how fast A's clock appears to be ticking, as far as A is concerned. "Mary had a little lamb" could be translated by B to mean "A sees his clock ticking at 1 tick per second".

Unbelieveable. Simply unbelievable. You now want to claim we can't say "A's" tick rate is what "A" says it is. HeHeHe. You are desperate. You have just managed to destroy your own SRT. No clock actually keeps time. HeHeHe.

2. Step 4 can only be achieved by B referencing his own clock. B does not have A's clock at hand, so to set B's monitor to 1 tick per second, as specified in the message sent from A, B must use a local time standard. The only one he has available is his own clock.

Absolutely. Neat isn't it. Both clocks have 1 MHz carrier beams. Neither beam is altered at the local proper time (according to Relativity). Hence "B's" local 1 MHz signal must equate to "A's" 1 MHz local signal since neither have changed at the local level.

So, the outcome of step 4 is that B sets his monitor of clock A to 1 tick per second, as measured by B's local clock.

Absolutely. Do you want to deny that "A" and/or "B" do not see their clocks tick rate as 1 tick per second, or that their carrier beam is anything other than 1 MHz? I'm waiting. Go ahead destroy your own Relativity by claiming it is so.

3. Step 5 is clearly, then, a false, and stupid claim.

I suggest what is stupid here is becoming much more obvious. You have no legitimate refutation of the synchronization process. Your post is desperation to save face. But if what you now want to claim were true then no clock keeps time, even proper time and anything SRT might have to say about such a clock is meaningless. Either your clocks keep time or they don't which is it. If they do I'm right.

If they don't you could be right but you have just made SRT worthless since you are now adjusting time in clocks that are not keeping time.

Sure, B's "monitor" is now ticking away at 1 tick per second, exactly in step with B's own clock, but that's not surprising, is it? After all, B set the monitor using his own clock.[/quotre]

Not his clock but his 1 MHz standard. But you are failing to follow the process to its conclusion. What are the readings upon return and direct comparison of clocks and monitors in the same inertial system?

Do I have to tell you or are you man enough to admit that Both clocks and both monitors will now read the same accumulated time. So I guess B's calibration of its "A" monitor was correct after all. B's monitor agrees with the "A" clock. Hmmmm.

The "monitor" says nothing at all about the rate at which A's local clock is ticking relative to B.

Wrong. As just pointed out above. Go ahead make up some crap about "A" stopped ticking at 1 tick per second and doesn't agree with B's monitor because when you do I am going to also ask:

1 - How does that alter the synchronization. "A" would send a signal of its tick rate be it a 9.9 or 10.1 signal if that were the case.

2 - what does "A" read when you also have clock "C" at 0.7c, clock "D" at 0.5c, clock "E" at 0.3c and clock "F" at 0.1 c; plus clock "G" at 0.00000000000001 c.

Give me one accumulated time number display please.

Conclusion

It has been clearly shown (again) that MacM's proposal to "synchonise" the local clocks fails.

Wrong. It has been shown again that you either do not understand or deliberately refuse to acknowledge defeat.

When reduced to essentials, it is clear that this method never had a chance of doing what MacM said it would do. It is stupid and naive to assume that it would. So, why did MacM make this assumption?

Save your lecture until you actually invalidate the proceedure. You have not. You have talked garbage and said nothing.

Simple:

MacM's major misconception

MacM has assumed a priori that B's local clock ticks at the same rate as A's local clock, regardless of the states of motion of the two clocks.

In other words, MacM assumes what he says he is setting out to prove. He assumes that universal time exists and time dilation does not exist.

And you continue to assume SRT is valid and attempt to use SRT as its own proof. Stick with the issue. Show the failure of "B's" monitor upon return, not showing the same accumulated time as clock "A". You can't because it does.

He is wrong, but that is not the topic of this post.

This post only shows that his supposed "demonstration" that universal time exists and relativity is wrong, is, as usual, based on nothing more than simple stupidity and lack of thinking through his own example.

Covered above. You have failed once again. Fiat is not an acceptable response.

 

[MacM]

MacM:

Your Russian paper is another bait-and-switch tactic, aimed at drawing the conversation onto a different aspect of the question. That's why it doesn't belong in this thread, and that is why I will not respond to it here.

Pardon me but this is absolute nonsense. The issue is time dilation. Your side brought up muon decay (you included) as absolute proof of SRT. But I am not allowed to post a paper that draws that Fiat into question?

Sorry makes no sense James. It all has to do with the time dilation debate.

On another issue, if you don't mean what you write, then you should be more careful to write what you mean.

Like I said my post is in kind. I guess how much I mean it depends on how much you mean the slanders you try to attach to me.

 

[Billy T]

MacM

I am going to bed soon, but wanted first to tell you that I also have some 30 year old data. I was once a “card carrying member” of the Am. Phy. Soc. – I mean that literally. I still have the useful wallet card they gave out at a Washing DC meeting. Useful in that one side had most of the important physical constants printed on it with the margin of error. A year or so ago I noticed that some currently measured values were outside those printed margins. Is this (like the 30 year old Russian paper about cosmological change in muon decay) proof of something significant? I think not. I will comment only quickly on the rest of your reply. I only hope that you were tired when you wrote it. Otherwise, I will be forced to conclude James R’s comment about your posts are correct. These below certainly seem to be the same old unjustified line.

(1) “ I guess that the muon observation is not related to time dilation.”

I can’t believe you said this.


(2) “My digital synchronization proposal shows clearly that clock A is still running at 1 tick per second inspite of B's view of its tick rate. That overturns any possibility that SRT time dilation could by any stretch of the imagination be reality “

Perhaps you should tell the muons about this. They don’t seem to know that they can’t reach the ground before decaying on you uniiversal time.


3) “Further without having been able to show a method of synchronizing clocks my opinion would still have been the same. I am a realist and grant little to the subjective.

I did not understand muons hitting ground based detectors was “subjective”

4) “I do not believe you could still claim time dilation regardless of how minor such an affect was pending and until and unless you could show that the affect of penetrating earth's atmosphere at high velocity, etc. had no such energy affect.

Some, if not most (I don’t know which) muons reach the ground with essentially no atmospheric interaction, after their birth, as if the atmosphere were not there. (Recall my tall evacuated tube thought experiment a few posts back when you were talking about this.) The charged muons do have a slight (de-)acceleration (and mainly that is only a small mass loss, not slowing down much for c.) due to production of Cerinkov radiation, but to avoid even this, lets focus on the neutral muons, which do not have any interaction with the atmosphere. They are not even “connected” to this “decay time modifying”, ill described “energy field” of yours. They live to reach the ground because their “clocks” are running slow, just as SRT predicts, instead of keeping UT which would kill almost all before they could get to the ground. (I don’t care if you don’t want to term this “time dilation” or not. What we call these facts is not important.) The presence muons at the ground is a concrete fact, you have admitted, not some “subjective” fact and certainly these physical observations (detections of muon at the surface) are not disproven by your thought experiment with clocks A & B!

Go to bed, as I am now, and try to be more coherent tomorrow, you usually are, in my view.

1 - This was not a study of specific energy and a decay response. It is 30 years of studying decay statistics compiled which showed a cyclic link to cosmology!

2 - Even in the absence of any such affect. It would still be my guess that the muon observation is not related to time dilation. My digital synchronization proposal shows clearly that clock A is still running at 1 tick per second inspite of B's view of its tick rate.

That overturns any possibility that SRT time dilation could by any stretch of the imagination be reality but is forever limited to a distortion of observation or a perception and observers motion has no affect on the observed clock.

Further without having been able to show a method of synchronizing clocks my opinion would still have been the same. I am a realist and grant little to the subjective.

So frankly I think you misjudge my conviction on this issue. In total absence of anything but simple logic that a physical clock cannot have two or more tick rates simultaneously would be enough to reject SRT even without an alternative.

Just note that I do not (at least at this juncture) claim that the observation or perception does not occur, nor that the observations do not generally follow SRT mathematically. Only that it does not alter the clock observed which means on rejoining the clocks they will indeed read the same accumulated time assuming they were calibrated to each other at the outset and continued to operate properly.

3 - Assuming that the Russian data shows what it appears to show, I do not believe you could still claim time dilation regardless of how minor such an affect was pending and until and unless you could show that the affect of penetrating earth's atmosphere at high velocity, etc. had no such energy affect.

 

[MacM]

MacM

I am going to bed soon, but wanted first to tell you that I also have some 30 year old data. I was once a “card carrying member” of the Am. Phy. Soc. – I mean that literally. I still have the useful wallet card they gave out at a Washing DC meeting. Useful in that one side had most of the important physical constants printed on it with the margin of error. A year or so ago I noticed that some currently measured values were outside those printed margins. Is this (like the 30 year old Russian paper about cosmological change in muon decay) proof of something significant? I think not. I will comment only quickly on the rest of your reply. I only hope that you were tired when you wrote it. Otherwise, I will be forced to conclude James R’s comment about your posts are correct. These below certainly seem to be the same old unjustified line.

(1) “ I guess that the muon observation is not related to time dilation.”

I can’t believe you said this.

I didn't. You choose to impose the term "guess" where I used physical science data. I will continue to say so until you or anybody provides an explanation that is acceptable of just how clock "A' records more than one tick rate. The numbers accumulated on "A" clock is representative of its true physical tick rate and if it is in disagreement with any observers view then it is the observer that is in error not clock "A".

(2) “My digital synchronization proposal shows clearly that clock A is still running at 1 tick per second inspite of B's view of its tick rate. That overturns any possibility that SRT time dilation could by any stretch of the imagination be reality “

Perhaps you should tell the muons about this. They don’t seem to know that they can’t reach the ground before decaying on you uniiversal time.

Perhaps you should tell the muons not to get cicky. Their life span is at my mercy should I choose to comove along side. All kidding aside, I hope you understand that you are "guessing" that the observed muon extension of life is a time dilation affect.

[qote=MacM]3) “Further without having been able to show a method of synchronizing clocks my opinion would still have been the same. I am a realist and grant little to the subjective.[/quote]

I did not understand muons hitting ground based detectors was “subjective”

No it isn't but the assumption that it is due to SRT certainly is.

4) “I do not believe you could still claim time dilation regardless of how minor such an affect was pending and until and unless you could show that the affect of penetrating earth's atmosphere at high velocity, etc. had no such energy affect.

Some, if not most (I don’t know which) muons reach the ground with essentially no atmospheric interaction, after their birth, as if the atmosphere were not there. (Recall my tall evacuated tube thought experiment a few posts back when you were talking about this.) The charged muons do have a slight (de-)acceleration (and mainly that is only a small mass loss, not slowing down much for c.) due to production of Cerinkov radiation, but to avoid even this, lets focus on the neutral muons, which do not have any interaction with the atmosphere. They are not even “connected” to this “decay time modifying”, ill described “energy field” of yours. They live to reach the ground because their “clocks” are running slow, just as SRT predicts, instead of keeping UT which would kill almost all before they could get to the ground. (I don’t care if you don’t want to term this “time dilation” or not. What we call these facts is not important.) The presence muons at the ground is a concrete fact, you have admitted, not some “subjective” fact and certainly these physical observations (detections of muon at the surface) are not disproven by your thought experiment with clocks A & B!

1 - Muon decay nor any measurement is actually a direct measure of time. All are process subject to outside enfluance, even if we do not yet know what or how that may occur.

2 - If synchronizing clocks shows the failure of SRT how do you propose to still claim a faulty theory is the cause of extended muon life?

Go to bed, as I am now, and try to be more coherent tomorrow, you usually are, in my view.

I've still got 3-6 hours left. It is only 9:00PM here.

OH WAIT. I JUST REALIZED. THE MUONS (BEING CLOCK B IN MY SCENARIO) ARE MOVING RELATIVE TO US IN THE LAB AND "B" CHANGED OUR CLOCKS MADE THE ENTIRE PLANET OF CLOCKS RUN SLOW. :bugeye:

HeHeHe.

But then again do all muons travel at the same exact speed? And if not which one did our clock adjust to? How did our clock know which muon we would be looking at? Smart clock.

But wait. If our clock changed the way James R wants to claim, then the muon didn't actually live longer did it. ?

You guys need to have a meeting and decide if our clocks change because a muon is coming at us. If they do then the muon didn't live longer. If they don't then my synchronization holds and SRT fails.

Damn seems like SRT fails either way.