Twin paradox (Pete and MacM)

[MacM]

James R, All other Relativists and most importantly "ALL READERS FOLLOWING THIS THREAD BUT HAVE NOT POSTED"

In the following attachment you will find the response of an independant physicist from the U of Texas - "Ask a Physicist" web site.

Please note that the first paragraph is a precise answer to the conditions specified by my presentation. As I have claimed the situation is symmetrical and reciprocity mandates that there is no affect on clocks due to relative velocity. The only affects are as a consequence of acceleration and energy change of one clock differentiated by a non-acclerated clock.

Note also that energy in my theory is the basis of time and I state that accleration and gravity do alter the illusion of time. Time is a consequence (property) of an energetic space and not as time in a 4th dimension subject to alteration by relative velocity.

In the following two paragraphs, he reverts to a general discussion of non-inertial affects but they have not been contested here in that they involve forces of acceleration, hence changes in energy of one clock vs the other clock, hence have no bearing on the test as presented.

All synchronization and all data taken in my presentation are in inertial frames only and hence only paragraph #1 applies to the issues at hand in this thread.

His response is absolutely correct and mimics my claims in every respect.

SORRY GUYS YOU LOSE. All your hype and distortion have been for naught and guess what old MacM isn't so stupid after all.

How does it feel to be put in your place by an ignorant, stupid, febble minded, uneducated old man that lacks basic understanding of Relativity, that is living in a fantasy land?

http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3308&stc=1

Now to be fair as I always have been I will conceed that my presentation has not focused as well on the root issue which was started in my "3 Clocks Paradox" thread over 1 1/2 years ago.

The issue then and the issue now is the invalidity of the t2 = t1 (1 - v^2/ c^2)^.5 time dilation formula. Not that clocks may under some circumstances accumulate different amounts of times.

In that respect I have reviewed some comments made in this thread which IF taken out of the overall context of prior posts does not properly convey the meaning. I would expect that regular members here that have debated this issue should not have been confused by it but others that may be reading only this thread may be.

That is that the statement that "A twin traveling at relative velocity will not return younger than his brother". That statement was made in the context of "Due to relative velocity". This is not a change in position but a clarification of other posts I have made regarding this issue.

Further to eliminate this issue and to return to the entire point of this discussion which is the lack of relavistic velocity having an affect on time and the invalidity of the time dilation formula itself.

Please in the future address this case as where both clocks A & B acclerate away from each other at equal rates and coast upon seeing the preagreed doppler shift in their respective communication light beams.

You now have the precise condition of my complaint without the diversion of there having been some differential in terms of acceleration (energy change) in one clock vs the other.

We are now strictly dealing with relative velocity and the formula in relativity which IS INVALID.

 

[AndersHermansson]

MacM you're sure reading alot into that response you got. Tell him that t2 = t1 (1 - v^2/ c^2)^.5 is in fact invalid and post his response here to us.

 

[Persol]

I personally like how he wants to convince all the people who don't know any better or understand his argument.

 

[Billy T]

MacM

You said: Relatvistics mathematics also predict singularities and infinities in physical realities. They do not exist”

Some might accuse you of dangling bait in front of me, I don’t think that was your intent but even if it was, I won’t bite. I am fixated on muons, because, IMHO, they are your weakest point. I think we are showing some progress. You have demonstrated for all to see that you are capable of being persuaded (You dropped part of your latest explanation of “why muons reach the earth” when I pointed out the clairvoyance it implied, but I promised to not say more, so I only note this is to your credit and would otherwise keep my promise; but there is one minor related point, which need not be discussed, but should be corrected for the record:

You said: “My point dealt with the issue of the photon release which is a major transition of ineternal energy. .... Let me also point out that energy content is also a relavistic notion. But the change in internal energy due to pressure, heating. static charge, acceleration and/or deceleration forces etc are energy changing external enfluences;

I know, and think you do too, that the “photon release” is by the atoms of the detector, not the muon. The muons role is to excite the “releasing atom.” I am sure you also know that it is produced / created, not “released” like is had previously existed in a cage. For the record, I also want to note that “pressure” is only a macro, not atomic, concept – it is the mean of many forces individually acting (via the electric force -- 1 of 4 that exists) in a unit area. (God, I still sound like the old precise physics professor that I am.)

Now no longer “just for the record:”

What follows several paragraphs down is extremely damaging to your idea that “atmospheric energy transfer”, not SR’s TD, is the cause of the cause of the extension of the muon lifetimes. IMHO, my attack presented in this post is much more damaging and much more forceful than my “no clairvoyance argument” that has already persuaded you to change your view about one alternative to SR’s TD as the mechanism!

I would bet against clairvoyance being real, but there are many well documented scientific tests that have supported it, especially those by Dr Rhine (name may be spelled wrong) which extended for at least 20 years at Duke University years ago (and may even still be ongoing, for all I know.). You like Russian papers (at least that one which you think contradicts all the thousands that have shown radioactive decay to be completely immune to any magnetic or electric fields, even those very much stronger than man can make, inside crystals). The Russian government had considerable faith in clairvoyance, based in part on the thousands of Russian papers that supported clairvoyance. I am too cautious to say clairvoyance is impossible, but I don’t like the idea that the future is predetermined. This “caution and open mindedness” should impress upon you the strength of my conviction when I say:

“It is IMPOSSIBLE for any of the excitation energy to come from the “internal states” of the muon, unless we throw away everything we “know” about Quantum Mechanics.”

(Surely you don’t want to throw away all of QM’s successful predictions only so you can reinterpret SR as “mathematically correct” but speaking to perception, not reality.)

It is amazing that that I can say “its impossible” and yet admit that I know nothing about the “internal states” of the muon, or even if there are any, but read on. –As I tell on what this “its impossible” statement is based:

I am sure we agree that the excitation energy for the detector’s photon, approximately 2 or 3 ev, comes from the muon; and that it is an extremely small fraction of the total energy. I am also confident that you want to claim: (1) that at least part of it comes from the internal states of the muon and that (2) a change in internal muon states of the muon could very well change the muon lifetime (and is required for a change in lifetime). I completely accept part two of “your claim” (which I am only presuming you want to make).

I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but if this is not your current explanation for the cause of the lifetime change, I don’t understand you and request more detailed discussion of what it is you are now postulating as the mechanism (use only the electric force, none of the other three, please) by which the change in muon lifetime is achieved. You need to offer something when rejecting the SR explanation, which is that time for the muon in the Earth frame IN FACT, not just “in perception” (human’s or the muon’s - you still have not clarified whose perception), is passing more slowly. I.e. “Time Dilation” is the explanation, to quickly state what I believe, but you think not even real, and consequently not possible as an explanation of how the muon travels so far (or anything else).

Superficially, it does seem at least possible for some part of the excitation energy to come from some internal state transition of the muon, but this is impossible because the lowest internal energy state is thousands, if not millions of times greater than the 2 or 3 ev and it is quantized so you get all or none. How do I know this, despite not knowing anything about these internal states or even if they exist? Read on:

One of the first problems any serious student of quantum mechanics does is to compute the energy levels in a “square potential well.” As the “well” becomes more narrow, the lowest excited state energy increases. The muon is physically very small and its “internal structure” can’t be significantly bigger than the muon is. This fact with the other facts I have just explained, makes me sure that the fraction of the 2 or 3ev excitation energy given to the atom that comes for the internal states of the muon is ZERO, unless it is giving off gamma rays every time it excites an atom which subsequently radiates a photo. (concurrent production of gamma rays could in principle take care of the gross energy excess, but does not happen.) With no possibility of internal state change, there is no possibility of decay rate change. –The muon remains the same in all of its features, including its lifetime.

It is not as valid an argument as the exact calculation, but in case you never have done the “square well problem” of QM, but know of QM’s “uncertainty principle,” which crudely says (in one of its several forms) that the better you know where a particle is, then the less well you know its energy (“velocity” to be more accurate, but you will get the drift). Thus if the excited state is inside the small box of the muon, then its energy is quite uncertain (must be possible for it to be large.)

I don’t think even you want to discard all of quantum mechanics to save an “ad hoc” alternative to the nearly universally accepted view that it is TD which prolongs the lifetime of a muon moving near c (actually faster than c in the air) through the atmosphere so that it can reach the surface. (If you are willing to go to this extreme of denying QM also, I will follow the examples of others and terminate the discussion.)

Since this argument against your alternative to SR’s TD is so much stronger than the clairvoyance one (which could have been defeated by simply allowing that clairvoyance is real, without any need to discard all of QM) I expect you to accept it also. Thus, as I see it you now have three, not very pleasant, choices still open to you:

1) Find a new ad hoc explanation that replaces both SR’s TD and your now shown to be defective “atmospheric energy transfer” one, which can slow the muon down, can cause Cerinkov radiation (so long as its speed remains above c in air), but CAN NOT make any internal state change in the muon, as would be required to change its lifetime.

COMMENTS: I doubt internal muon states even exist because the muon may be just a “heavy electron” which can decay into a “light electron” and probably one or more gamma rays plus maybe a neutrino or two – James if you are reading, help me out on the decay path and products. (Perhaps the best way to think of the muon is that it is an excited, unstable state of the electron. - I seem to recall having this idea many years ago.)

If there is no “internal state change in the muon” clearly its lifetime does not change either. Lifetimes must be something internal to the muon, not set by the things around it, as all the “radioactive-decay-is-immune-to-external-factors” experiments have shown, except perhaps your “30-year-cosmic-drift-in-published-lifetime-values” Russian paper, which as I commented earlier, is very much like my 30 year old APS card’s printed values for the fundamental constant being slightly different from the best recent values. – Not much of an argument for the “cosmological influence” on either fundamental “constants” or decay rates being susceptible to external influences.

Even if I were to accept that the fundamental “constants” are slowly changing (I can’ be sure they are not) and either because of this, or independent of it, the decay rate of muons and other radioactive particles is slowly changing, it would not explain the large change in the lifetime (occurring in less than 1ms, not 30 years) that permits the muon to travel to the surface, so lets stop trying to support the now shown to be unsupportable (unless QM goes to the trash can, and with it my further debating you) “atmospheric energy transfers” with either my 30 year old APS card or this one Russian paper. (Several times, by several people, you have been accused of accepting as “indisputable” a paper that supports, even in a minor way, your view, while rejecting thousand that don’t. Don’t continue using this selection criterion for evaluating the merit of journal articles. – Friendly advise intended.)

2) Postulate a new “fifth force” for nature.

COMMENT: How ad hoc will you go? (For a lost cause.)

3) Accept SR’s TD as explaining how muons get to earth, GPS works only with a relativity theory correction, is required for some of the finer details of accelerator design, etc.

COMMENT: One answer for many things is far better than many ad hoc answers, different for each of the many things SR explains. Occam will cut you to shreds with his sharp razor, if he finds out where you live - that’s a fact, not a perception!

Too keep this post from being excessively long , even for me, I’ll stop here. There were other points I should address, in your most recent post directed to me, but this is the most important one. One that might even (but I doubt it) make you chose option 3 before that cruel Occam gets to you.

PS My money is on unlisted “option 4” as your response.

 

[Persol]

You said: Relatvistics mathematics also predict singularities and infinities in physical realities. They do not exist”

Some might accuse you of dangling bait in front of me, I don’t think that was your intent but even if it was, I won’t bite.

Especially since singularities and infinities are a part of mathematics in EVERY field of physics.

 

[MacM]

MacM you're sure reading alot into that response you got. Tell him that t2 = t1 (1 - v^2/ c^2)^.5 is in fact invalid and post his response here to us.

Hi,

I'm not assuming anything. I already have stated the time dilation formula, and he has replied I have both written and used the formula correctly.

Let me ask you a question. Once you answer I'll be giving you a reply.

Given a case where two clocks A & B have a relative velocity of 0.9c.

A may be on one galaxy and B on another galaxy. Or they can be clocks on spaceships.

What is the time dilation ratio or relationship between them t1/t2 = _____?

 

[MacM]

I personally like how he wants to convince all the people who don't know any better or understand his argument.

Well that must make us even since I don't understand your comment.

 

[MacM]

Especially since singularities and infinities are a part of mathematics in EVERY field of physics.

The difference of course is when we use mathematics and they result in x/0 = infinity, we have the common sense to not base some new state of existance and contrived systematic relationships based on their physical existance.

 

[crazeeeeeem]

I'm indebted to a reader for the following extract from a recent Hersh lecture: "Some of the worst things that happened that you don't know about. OK? Videos. There are women there. Some of you may have read that they were passing letters out, communications out to their men. This is at Abu Ghraib... The women were passing messages out saying please come and kill me because of what's happened. And basically what happened is that those women who were arrested with young boys, children, in cases that have been recorded, the boys were sodomised, with the cameras rolling, and the worst above all of them is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking..."

ref: http://www.counterpunch.org/fisk09282004.html

Whatever you are doing. Time to stop. They are fighting in your head.

 

[MacM]

Billy T,

As usual your posts are indepth and considerate, albeit a bit over confident and lengthy.

Rather than attempt to respond point by point let me simply summarize.

1 - Clairvoyance might well describe the nature of photons, etc given their conduct in double slit experiments where the slits are open and closed.

However, rather than believe in predestination or foreknowledge, let me suggest what we really should see is that we are simply ignorant of the underlying physics that is taking place. We are not yet seeing the entire picture which I am convienced lies with learning and understanding of particle entanglement.

2 - I do not see your muon as being of any signifigance what-so-ever, since it nor anything, can violate physical impossibilities.

Time dilation per Relativity's t2 = t1 ( 1 - v^2 / c^2 ) ^.5 has no meaning.

It has no underpinning in physical reality and simply cannot be accepted since it can cause results which are not merely "Counter Intuitive" but "Impossible".

Nothing impossible can be accepted as physics, regardless of the appearance of data. It must rationally be placed in the hold box and studied to learn the underlying truths and not taken and ran with in a theory based on nothing but mathematics.

I too would not attempt to define the inner working of a muon but it is not necessary once you understand that time dilation due to relative velocity is shear nonsense.

If you disagree with this assessment I challenge you to answer the question I posed to AndersHermansson in:

[post=687357]Here[/post]

Once you state your results, I will confirm in very clear terms where you and others here have been and are proveably wrong and the formula is wortheless, albeit perhaps useful in some limited way.

 

[Pete]

What is the time dilation ratio or relationship between them t1/t2 = _____?

*sigh*

Your question once again betrays your failure to understand SR.

In the context of SR, your question is meaningless unless a reference frame is specified.

It would also help if you were more specific in defining t1 and t2.

 

[James R]

MacM:

In the following attachment you will find the response of an independant physicist from the U of Texas - "Ask a Physicist" web site.

Please note that the first paragraph is a precise answer to the conditions specified by my presentation. As I have claimed the situation is symmetrical and reciprocity mandates that there is no affect on clocks due to relative velocity. The only affects are as a consequence of acceleration and energy change of one clock differentiated by a non-acclerated clock.

The response you received says nothing of the kind. It nowhere says that there is "no effect" on clocks due to relative velocity. The first paragraph simply says "the spacetime transformations between frames have a symmetry to them".

That means simply that if A sees B as running slow, then B also sees A as running slow.

Once again, you have failed to understand the response you have been given.

Note that the response also confirms time dilation. It specifically states "they will both notice their relative speeds because they will both see dilated and compressed signals at various times".

His reference to calculus only refers to the accelerated portions of the trip, if you wanted to work out the difference in elapsed time between the clocks, as opposed to the difference in tick rates when they are moving at constant relative speed.

His response is absolutely correct and mimics my claims in every respect.

No it doesn't.

SORRY GUYS YOU LOSE. All your hype and distortion have been for naught and guess what old MacM isn't so stupid after all.

MacM is too stupid to understand another response he has received which is in complete accord with all the previous responses he has received.

Please in the future address this case as where both clocks A & B acclerate away from each other at equal rates and coast upon seeing the preagreed doppler shift in their respective communication light beams.

We have done nothing different from that in this thread.

We are now strictly dealing with relative velocity and the formula in relativity which IS INVALID.

Perhaps if you'd been up front in your queries you would have received clearer responses. Try telling your "Ask a physicist" guy that you think your method proves relativity is wrong, and see what his reply is.

 

[AndersHermansson]

Hi,

I'm not assuming anything. I already have stated the time dilation formula, and he has replied I have both written and used the formula correctly.

Let me ask you a question. Once you answer I'll be giving you a reply.

Given a case where two clocks A & B have a relative velocity of 0.9c.

A may be on one galaxy and B on another galaxy. Or they can be clocks on spaceships.

What is the time dilation ratio or relationship between them t1/t2 = _____?

... 5,3

But you said:
"The issue then and the issue now is the invalidity of the t2 = t1 (1 - v^2/ c^2)^.5 time dilation formula."

But it's not and it would surprise me if dr. ask-a-physicist would reply in favour of your comment!

 

[MacM]

*sigh*

Your question once again betrays your failure to understand SR.

In the context of SR, your question is meaningless unless a reference frame is specified.

It would also help if you were more specific in defining t1 and t2.

Well, I'll have to give you credit, where you refuse to give me credit. My question was deliberately framed as it was in hopes that you and/or others would jump at the opportunity to calculate an answer based on relative velocity.

Since you haven't, you have helped confirm my point however. The only variable information going into that formula is relative velocity and with that knowledge alone you cannot evaluate any ratio of time tick rates which will be shown on clocks upon later inspection, that is the reality of clock performance.

This being the case in most natural events limits application of the formula to having a result which is clearly false, unsupported by facts or correct only by accident.

In absence of knowledge about historical acceleration the relative velocity between objects says nothing about their time.

a - If clocks A & B both accelerate in opposite directions with equal rates to some given relative velocity and you do your calculation you will get different results. The problem is symmetrical and the consequences of relativity become net null.

As I have said here several times Relativity by its definition requires a mutually reversable or reciprocity for relative motion between objects. That is both slow down equally.

Clearly if clocks running at 1 tick per second side by side at rest are mutually accelerated to 0.9c such that both clocks are theoretically taking 2.29 seconds per tick, they are still synchronized and their can be no net time dilation between them and their clocks upon later inspection side by side are not going to read the observed tick rate difference as claimed by each observer. That is the physical impossibility associated with viewing TD as reality instead of as observational.

The clocks are going to read an equal display, no shifted time between the clocks inspite of the predictions of the TD formula.

Here we have a case of equal acceleration and a given relative velocity which gives a particular result upon comparison of the clocks.

b - Now accelerate both clocks with the same rate as above but in a comoving direction. You get no relative velocity no affect and yet each have undergone the same change in energy. You will say there has been no energy change between them and I will agree.

But there is infact energy change with respect to the balance of the universe such that while there is no TD between them their time (in theory) will be different than when you declared them at rest. The consequence of all this is you actually have no knowledge about their time in absence of knowledge about how the relative velocity has occurred, which in most natural situations you do not.

You only hypothetically know in cases where you arbitrarily assume a rest status of a particle etc. When in reality you don't know if one particle has accelerated or if the other decelerated or it is a result of both accelerating or decelerating and to what proportional degree each has changed its time.

c - As evidenced by your request for more information you are confirming that the TD formula is flawed since it cannot give you meaningful results.

Why do you think that since day one when I posted the 3 Clock Paradox 1 1/2 years ago that I have insisted that all testing be done in a steady relative velocity condition and exclude periods of acceleration. It has been to show that infact relative velocity in of itself is inadequate to declare any time differentials.

Would I expect physicists to say the TD formula is invalid? Probably not. Should they? Absolutely.

When relative motion is the consequence of a symmetrical acceleration the result is symmetrical and the equal slowing of both clocks makes the very point that TD is not in relation to each other but can only be in relation to a background time base where at 0.9c each clock has slowed to 0.435 ticks per second in UT but have no such shift between them upon later comparison.

Thank you for helping make my point about UT. Although I do not envision UT in the same light that you and others do. UT is not some time which can be said to exist universally - i.e. - it is 12:00PM throughout the universe but that there is a Fixed Time (FT) constituting a Dynamic Present at each and every ordinate point and where each dynamic present is different throughout the universe by being both into the past and future relative to each adjacent ordinate point by a UT standard value of planck time shift.

In that light each particle must be evaluated as to its motion relative to the background FT grid of the universe to be able to use relative velocity.

Relative velocity between objects does not tell you the historical acceleration and motion. FT does.

This goes to my prior use of the concept of A = B = C and where C = A is valid in an FT view. Without FT, A = B = C but C x=x A.

Unfortunately we have no way of invoking FT unless we assume an ether. An ether only makes sense if it is a dynamic ether (not the historical ether sought by MM and others). Such an ether actually allows the derivation of ( 1 - V^2 / c^2 ) ^.5 from (c+v) and (c-v). The dynamic, energetic UniKEF field.

It simply boggles the mind that so many here want to argue that TD is physically real and that B's view of A and A's view of B are physically real when in fact this symmetry and reciprocity between TD causes clocks to both slow down equally and to which in the final analysis both clocks will read the same upon later comparision.

Yes you can create situations arbitrarily where you can claim an object at rest and you can compute TD but that TD is observational and does not result in the same prediction actually changing the others clocks displayed time upon later comparison. Hence it is observational and not physical.

When you calibrate two clocks side by side at rest as I have done here. Yes you can cause them to tick at a common rate. As James has pointed out a clock could be defective and not maintain its tick rate. Or upon calibration the fact is changing the clocks tick rate in no manner has altered time. Time is fixed (FT) and the tick rates of clocks do not alter time in the universe.

Clocks are observational as to how many ticks per series of events the clock makes. That is an arbitrary number and calibrating a clock does not alter time.

SUMMARY:

It has been a long fight on this issue and members here defending Relativity have resisted every effort to allowsynchronization to show such clock comparision because you know such comparison shows the disparity I propose and it exposes the impossibility of TD as presented by Relativity as being physically real.

I do believe however, if you were honest you would have to admit that the light beam constant communication, which is symmetrical in its process does in fact allow synchronizing clocks and their operations and permits such direct comparison. As a consequence this failure of the "Stand alone" concept of relative velocity and TD is exposed for what it is, and that is not physical reality.

Clearly given a situation where you claim that two clocks either slow or increase their tick rates equally will remain synchronized and display equal passage of time upon later inspection, which is inconsistant with the predictions of the TD formula in and of by itself.

There can be no rational arguement on this point and yet you chose to continue to do so. I suggest that it is your thinking, it is your understanding of the meaning of Relativity that is flawed, and not mine.

H&K clock experiment and muon decay simply have some unknown caues other than time dilation.

Have a nice day.

 

[MacM]

MacM:

The response you received says nothing of the kind. It nowhere says that there is "no effect" on clocks due to relative velocity. The first paragraph simply says "the spacetime transformations between frames have a symmetry to them".

That means simply that if A sees B as running slow, then B also sees A as running slow.

Once again, you have failed to understand the response you have been given.

Note that the response also confirms time dilation. It specifically states "they will both notice their relative speeds because they will both see dilated and compressed signals at various times".

His reference to calculus only refers to the accelerated portions of the trip, if you wanted to work out the difference in elapsed time between the clocks, as opposed to the difference in tick rates when they are moving at constant relative speed.

No it doesn't.

MacM is too stupid to understand another response he has received which is in complete accord with all the previous responses he has received.

We have done nothing different from that in this thread.

Perhaps if you'd been up front in your queries you would have received clearer responses. Try telling your "Ask a physicist" guy that you think your method proves relativity is wrong, and see what his reply is.

I'll not bother responding directly to your post but simply link you to my answer above to Pete.

[post=687678]Here[/post]

 

[MacM]

... 5,3

But you said:
"The issue then and the issue now is the invalidity of the t2 = t1 (1 - v^2/ c^2)^.5 time dilation formula."

But it's not and it would surprise me if dr. ask-a-physicist would reply in favour of your comment!

Actually you appear to have done what I hoped others here would do and that is compute some relationship.

If I understand your ..5,3 post you are saying if t1 = 5 then t2 = 3 at 0.9c.

If so I not only disagree with your calculation result but also disagree that you can even make this calculation. You don't have enough information to calculate TD.

Which has been my very point all along. Relative velocity is not in of itself a valid formula yet it is routinely used and applied and is presented as a stand alone enity in physics books. It is wrong.

 

[Billy T]

MacM

I am too busy now to carefully examine the steps of your “mathematical proof” (no offense intended by the quotes – only expressing my doubt it is valid) that Time Dilation is in error / false / non-existent. I do not expect that I will be able to point out anything that convinces you there is an error, because others more proficient in SRT’s math have failed to do so (don’t quote this “failed” out of context – what I am admitting is: “failed to be convincing”, not “failed to find the flaw or flaws”) This will probably be my last post in this thread for at least 15 days so I want to make a new point (at the end) and to summarize where we are on my “muons at surface prove TD is real, not illusion” discussion with you:

YOU ADMIT you have no explanation as to how muons get down from the high atmosphere prior to decay, but note: “we are simply ignorant of the underlying physics that is taking place.” I agree we don’t understand everything and think this is the best position for you to adopt, if you are sure you have shown TD is false, because there is nothing in our current understanding of physics OTHER than TD being real, which can explain how the muons can travel so far without decaying very near the start of their journey. (This is why I accept TD as real.)

I congratulate you on not sticking with your “atmospheric-energy-transfers-changes-the-decay-rate” explanation in response to my demonstration that this required you deny quantum mechanics as well. I again note for others, that MacM is logical and persuadable and has demonstrated this three times now when pressed by my muons. He now has found a defensive position in ignorance that I can not destroy / attack with muons.

I ADMIT that IF your “proof” is correct and TD is false, then we can add “cosmic ray muons at the surface” to the list of things we do not yet understand / are ignorant about. Thus, until some one does convenience you that at least one step of your “TD is false proof” is in error you will continue defending your view regardless of how many people with lots of degrees after their name say it is wrong (AND YOU SHOULD). Hitler got a 100 German scientist to sign a statement that Einstein’s “Jewish physic” was wrong, but that did not make it so, even though you agree for more honorable reasons.

I want to extend my “friendly advice” to you: You have nothing to gain by finding a (or several) physicists with degrees after their name who agree with you, nor do you gain by finding a journal article that supports some aspect of your position. Physics is not determined by popular vote, and even if it were, the “TD is real” party would win by a landslide. By selectively citing those journals or physicists who agree with you, you divert attention for your “proof” and expose yourself to ridicule. Stop this. Adopt Einstein’s position. Not about SRT, although I wish you would, but his: “If I am wrong, 100 saying so will not demonstrate it - one showing where I error is sufficient.” This “search for allies” in print or in person, is wasting your time. Keep the focus on your “proof.”

Now some friendly unsolicited advice to others in our “MacM assault team” – Stop attacking MacM, that only makes him more stubborn in his defense of his proof. He will not be convinced by that approach. I strongly suspect that James, Pete et. al. have pointed out flaws in his “proof.” (I have not had time to evaluate these “found flaws.”) Focus on trying to convence MacM. I admit it is quite possible that he is too fixed in his belief, or proud of his achievement, etc. to be convincible, but think attacks on his character, intelligence, etc. are counter productive. I have convinced him three times now to change his view. I am sure a stronger attempt at convincing him can be made, admit that even it may also fail, but one never knows till one tries.

Finally, I need to make clear to MacM and to others who may have visited my site - DarkVisitor.com - (so I do it publicly) that I do not really think the ice age will rapidly return in 2008. Dark Visitor is a disguised physics book, intended to attract young people to careers in science, especially physics, by scaring them. I thought Dark Visitor would be more scary and effective as a recruiting tool if it appeared to be an astronomer’s scientific (plausible and consistent with physics) warning to the public of a rapidly approaching cosmic disaster. This is why I used the fact that a small, stellar-core, black hole, the first of a gravitational bound pair, (Stars usually form in pairs and most from the first stellar generations, when universe was denser, were large enough to leave black hole pair residues) may have passed by the solar system in late 1920s, be the reason why Neptune was perturbed, led to Pluto’s discovery, tilted Pluto’s orbit plane, etc. as part of the story.

The story’s astronomer has just realized that current perturbations in Pluto’s orbit are best explained by the approach of the second member of the 1920s black hole pair, predicted its trajectory, concluded the Earth will soon have a 378 day year, with e = 0.0836, etc. The most scary part is that it all could be true – passing black holes don’t reflect sunlight (a Dark Visitor). Very small perturbations in planet orbits would be the first, perhaps only, effect detected. Pluto is so weakly bound to the sun that it is occasionally perturbed, presumably by unseen Ort Cloud objects, but a small distantly passing black hole could be responsible. Unfortunately, the approaching small one (now 130 AU away) will miss Earth by only 12AU in late 2007 according to the astronomer’s finite-time-step solution that best fits his observed perturbations.

I fear for the economic future of my grandchildren. China and India alone are producing 15 times more advanced degree graduates in the hard sciences (including computer science) than the US. This, with double-digit economic growth rates, will shift the center of science to the Far East in one generation. The western world had already lost technological leadership, and not because of low labor cost. (Cheap workers don’t design robots that can play a bugle while walking or launch a man into orbit as China recently did.) I don’t want scientific leadership to follow, at least not in my grandchildren’s lifetimes. Dark Visitor is my effort to prevent this, but others must be concerned and do what they can to get more students into science careers. This, not interest in SR physics, is why I have been active here. Visit my site to learn more.

 

[Persol]

The difference of course is when we use mathematics and they result in x/0 = infinity, we have the common sense to not base some new state of existance and contrived systematic relationships based on their physical existance.

Lol, you're kidding right? What new 'state of existance' is required by this in Realtivity? This is one of those questions which relativity does NOT answer (just like every other field of physics).

 

[MacM]

Lol, you're kidding right? What new 'state of existance' is required by this in Realtivity? This is one of those questions which relativity does NOT answer (just like every other field of physics).

Are you being obtuse deliberately or do you not consider something having infinite density in a zero volume singularity a bit of new existance?

 

[Persol]

No... it means that the limit is either unreachable or undefined....

That's what it means in EVERY field of physics.