Twin paradox (Pete and MacM)

[Pete]

Here's the spacetime diagram again from the ship's point of view. This time it is in 2 dimensions to make it easier to see... the Y direction is into the page.

Which two events on the spaceship worldline would a spaceship observer use when timing the laser beam's passage?

D and E? or F and G?

What significance (if any) does the spaceship observer attach to points D and E in relation to the laser beam?

<img src="/attachment.php?attachmentid=3502&stc=1">

 

[Pete]

Compare with this diagram of a relativistic muon born high in the atmosphere in the frame of the Earth:
<img src="/attachment.php?attachmentid=3510&stc=1">
If you are in the laboratory, how do you determine the muon's lifespan in your frame?
Do you just take the difference between the time coordinates of the moun's birth and reception?
Or do you determine the time in the laboratory which was simultaneous with the muon's birth in the muon's frame, and use that as your start time?

 

[MacM]

Pete & Paul T,

You both should read the following experiment and learn.

I draw your attention to section #1 Signifigance of Research and #3 - Theory.

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V03NO2PDF/V03N2MON.PDF

Muon life is shown to be correlated to an absolute space and not time dilation in accordance with SRT.

And [post=714909]Physicists World Wide, Conferances, Correspondances and Generally Ignored Experiments[/post]

 

[Paul T]

MacM,

You both should read the following experiment and learn.

I draw your attention to section #1 Signifigance of Research and #3 - Theory.

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V03NO2PDF/V03N2MON.PDF

Muon life is shown to be correlated to an absolute space and not time dilation in accordance with SRT.

And [post=714909]Physicists World Wide, Conferances, Correspondances and Generally Ignored Experiments[/post]

So this was another of your "killer paper" that "debunk relativity", huh? Let's have a little look.

First of all, the authors assumed from the very beginning that SR was not applicable in their analysis and probably in any other cases since -- for instance -- they applied Galilean relativity (GR)'s addition of velocities formula v = v' + v_o (instead of SR's one) to compute their so called solar system "absolute velocity", whatever that means. The authors don't seem to try to debunk SR (contrary to what you might had expected) but to prove that muon flux anisotropy enable them to predict our solar system "absolute velocity" (well, it is absolute velocity so it is relative to nothing -- let's ignore this part for now).

Now, if the muon velocity relative to earth (v') is 0.9991c and the "absolute solar system velovity" (v_o) is 300 km/s or 0.001c, what would be v? It is v = 0.9991c + 0.001c = 1.0001c, exceeds the speed of light slightly! Then, equation:

t = t_o [1-v²/c²]^1/2​

fails miserably since we will get an imaginary figure on the right side of equation.

You may say, hey the muon relative velocity is not 0.999c...it is just about 0.95c. Although a small numbers of the muon may have relative velocity 0.999c or more, for you only, let assume v' is just 0.95c. Now we have this situation. Based on their massive 18 years of measurement of muon flux, the authors calculated that our solar system "absolute velocity" v_o is 359 plus or minus 180 km/s. Say, the figure is 300km/s or 0.001c just for simplicity sake. They computed using GR, therefore in their computation v should be 0.951c (max) and 0.949c (min).

They did not measure v_o directly, they computed it. Let's try to redo their calculation using SR instead of GR (not general relativity). I estimated v_o should be about 0.01036c or 3,107 km/s, ten times their given estimate! If they computed this way, shey should had thrown their 18 years research into the drain (instead of published it and misled smart guys like you) since they failed to match the figure around 300 km/s obtained by others using other method and seem to be for other reason -- not about solar system "absolute velocity".

This is enough. Did you see what I see here MacM? I don't think you did. You seem to value any paper that "disprove" SR as pure germ, doesn't matter the content or whether the paper or experiment or calculation is logical. If you ask me, I would say your killer paper here is gabage grade and I think you will ask me, "what paper have you written?" or "have you ever conducted any pasta pot experiment?"

 

[MacM]

MacM,

So this was another of your "killer paper" that "debunk relativity", huh? Let's have a little look.

First of all, the authors assumed from the very beginning that SR was not applicable in their analysis and probably in any other cases since -- for instance -- they applied Galilean relativity (GR)'s addition of velocities formula v = v' + v_o (instead of SR's one) to compute their so called solar system "absolute velocity", whatever that means. The authors don't seem to try to debunk SR (contrary to what you might had expected) but to prove that muon flux anisotropy enable them to predict our solar system "absolute velocity" (well, it is absolute velocity so it is relative to nothing -- let's ignore this part for now).

Now, if the muon velocity relative to earth (v') is 0.9991c and the "absolute solar system velovity" (v_o) is 300 km/s or 0.001c, what would be v? It is v = 0.9991c + 0.001c = 1.0001c, exceeds the speed of light slightly! Then, equation:

t = t_o [1-v²/c²]^1/2​

fails miserably since we will get an imaginary figure on the right side of equation.

You may say, hey the muon relative velocity is not 0.999c...it is just about 0.95c. Although a small numbers of the muon may have relative velocity 0.999c or more, for you only, let assume v' is just 0.95c. Now we have this situation. Based on their massive 18 years of measurement of muon flux, the authors calculated that our solar system "absolute velocity" v_o is 359 plus or minus 180 km/s. Say, the figure is 300km/s or 0.001c just for simplicity sake. They computed using GR, therefore in their computation v should be 0.951c (max) and 0.949c (min).

They did not measure v_o directly, they computed it. Let's try to redo their calculation using SR instead of GR (not general relativity). I estimated v_o should be about 0.01036c or 3,107 km/s, ten times their given estimate! If they computed this way, shey should had thrown their 18 years research into the drain (instead of published it and misled smart guys like you) since they failed to match the figure around 300 km/s obtained by others using other method and seem to be for other reason -- not about solar system "absolute velocity".

This is enough. Did you see what I see here MacM? I don't think you did. You seem to value any paper that "disprove" SR as pure germ, doesn't matter the content or whether the paper or experiment or calculation is logical. If you ask me, I would say your killer paper here is gabage grade and I think you will ask me, "what paper have you written?" or "have you ever conducted any pasta pot experiment?"

Clever diversion but harldly impressive. I never said anything about SRT. The paper shows independant calculations. That is the point.

Thanks for pointing out then that SRT yields nonsensical data to the issue of 18 years of measured muon flux patterns. Where I set out to simply show there is work which yields correct data to observation which do not rely on SRT, you have gone one step further and shown that SRT violates such meticulous, almost two decades, collection of raw data.

It is clear therefore that it is your assumption of Relativity that fails to fit raw data. -GOOD SHOW. Glad to have you on my side for a change.

Readers should note that their results were consistant with (7) other simular findings over the years from different experiments. That makes it 8/1 in favor of SRT not being valid.

 

[Paul T]

Clever diversion but harldly impressive. I never said anything about SRT. The paper shows independant calculations. That is the point.

Thanks for pointing out then that SRT yields nonsensical data to the issue of 18 years of measured muon flux patterns. Where I set out to simply show there is work which yields correct data to observation which do not rely on SRT, you have gone one step further and shown that SRT violates such meticulous, almost two decades, collection of raw data.

It is clear therefore that it is your assumption of Relativity that fails to fit raw data. -GOOD SHOW. Glad to have you on my side for a change.

Readers should note that their results were consistant with (7) other simular findings over the years from different experiments. That makes it 8/1 in favor of SRT not being valid.

Sigh...you are not smart after all. You missed the point again, as always. The computation with SR that I have given you was to show that your recomended paper is a junk material. If you are smart -- the fact you missed the point tell us that you are not -- you would have seen that I have presented you two points before concluded that your paper was gabage.

First point:

The formula containing g make no sense once complex number enter into the picture. It is just very logical to most people (except you) that muon could have velocity anything less than c, 0.999999c or whatever. Since the authors of your "killer paper" decided that galilean relativity addition of velocities is appropriate in that case, they certainly did not consider that once v' is larger than 0.999c, they would get v > c. Without making reference to SR, we know that this is not acceptable as it would make formula containing g fails.

You haven't read your own recommended "killer paper", have you? Next time read carefully, think about it first before recommend a paper for us to read. A garbage paper just makes you look horribly unconvincing!​

Second point:

If someone decided that SR addition of velocities should be employed instead GR's one (that as reasoned above would give us imaginary time) then, your "killer paper" lose all its teeth as the claim that muon flux anisotropy could be used to predict solar system "absolute velocity" is totally falsified. It doesn't mean that SR gives wrong result. You can't be that slow on this, come on. Because your authors decided that computation using galilean relativity would give matching result doesn't prove that galilean relativity is correct or applicable in this situation... it is not, as shown above you would get imaginary time with GR!​

The point is, your "killer paper" contains cooked up figures. It was based on a wrong set of equation (galilean relativity addition of velocities) in the first place, which is incurable unless the silly idea that "muon flux anisotropy" has anything to do with solar system velocity be thrown out the window. The hypothesis just plain wrong, no argument about it and therefore stop arguing that simply they give some figures that match commonly reported figures about somehing else means that the paper worth second look. Get over it...the world will not end because of you have just posted another garbage paper.

 

[Paul T]

It is clear therefore that it is your assumption of Relativity that fails to fit raw data. -GOOD SHOW. Glad to have you on my side for a change.

Hehehe, quite silly indeed. Do you have any idea what sort of RAW DATA they have collected? Time dilation or solar system "absolute velocity"? From what I see, they have just gotten some geiger counter data obtained from time to time. They still relied on standard equation used to predict the elongation of muon half-life, except they suggested that v should mean v' + v_o, where v_o they claimed as somesort of solar system "absolute velocity". They did not collected v_o data, they computed using the said equation (that they claimed -- somehow -- just look likes SR time dilation formula, by accident). Do you now understand that v_o is secondary in this case and it depends on how they approach that v using v' + v_o, which you should know is wrong since v' approaches c and therefore v would exceed c? Still unable to see the point of its failure? I don't know what to say....sigh.

 

[MacM]

Sigh...you are not smart after all. You missed the point again, as always. The computation with SR that I have given you was to show that your recomended paper is a junk material. If you are smart -- the fact you missed the point tell us that you are not -- you would have seen that I have presented you two points before concluded that your paper was gabage.

Unfortunately it is you that have posted garbage.

First point:

The formula containing g make no sense once complex number enter into the picture. It is just very logical to most people (except you) that muon could have velocity anything less than c, 0.999999c or whatever. Since the authors of your "killer paper" decided that galilean relativity addition of velocities is appropriate in that case, they certainly did not consider that once v' is larger than 0.999c, they would get v > c. Without making reference to SR, we know that this is not acceptable as it would make formula containing g fails.​

You imbecile. They haven't concluded the relavistic gamma was appropriate, they showed that the gamma function has a different origin using Galilean concepts.

You haven't read your own recommended "killer paper", have you? Next time read carefully, think about it first before recommend a paper for us to read. A garbage paper just makes you look horribly unconvincing!

Ditto.

Second point:

If someone decided that SR addition of velocities should be employed instead GR's one (that as reasoned above would give us imaginary time) then, your "killer paper" lose all its teeth as the claim that muon flux anisotropy could be used to predict solar system "absolute velocity" is totally falsified. It doesn't mean that SR gives wrong result. You can't be that slow on this, come on. Because your authors decided that computation using galilean relativity would give matching result doesn't prove that galilean relativity is correct or applicable in this situation... it is not, as shown above you would get imaginary time with GR!​

Your error is to make the assumption that relavistic velocity addition is correct as is the velocity limit of v = c. Any alternative to Relativity will not incorporate directly relavisitc mathematics and should not result in the same mathematical predictions.

You have no proof that the VAF nor the v = c limit are valid assumptions.

Forget it you are trying to overturn important discovery by invoking unproving attributes of Relativity. Your assumption that they are wrong is based on your wrong assumption that Relativity is right. You are in a rut.

It should not go unnoticed that their calculated results are consistant with (7) other experiments showing motion of the solar system in a universal background.

The point is, your "killer paper" contains cooked up figures. It was based on a wrong set of equation (galilean relativity addition of velocities) in the first place, which is incurable unless the silly idea that "muon flux anisotropy" has anything to do with solar system velocity be thrown out the window. The hypothesis just plain wrong, no argument about it and therefore stop arguing that simply they give some figures that match commonly reported figures about somehing else means that the paper worth second look. Get over it...the world will not end because of you have just posted another garbage paper.

Oh, now I see you nor Relativity could possibly be wrong therefore they have screwed up.

You stupid idiot. That was their purpose of the study and 18 years of data collection, was to show that the Galilean principle works.

 

[MacM]

Hehehe, quite silly indeed. Do you have any idea what sort of RAW DATA they have collected? Time dilation or solar system "absolute velocity"? From what I see, they have just gotten some geiger counter data obtained from time to time.

From what I see that is more than you have supporting the initial; assumption for the postulates of Relativity.

They still relied on standard equation used to predict the elongation of muon half-life, except they suggested that v should mean v' + v_o, where v_o they claimed as somesort of solar system "absolute velocity".

You really do have my sympathy. I understand your limited vision and understanding.

They did not collected v_o data, they computed using the said equation (that they claimed -- somehow -- just look likes SR time dilation formula, by accident).

That is precisely what I would expect. The underlying cause for certain relavistic observations would mimic the original formula, least the results would not be compatable with observation. THAT IS NOT AN ACCIDENT.

Do you now understand that v_o is secondary in this case and it depends on how they approach that v using v' + v_o, which you should know is wrong since v' approaches c and therefore v would exceed c? Still unable to see the point of its failure? I don't know what to say....sigh.

Again your feloneous assertion that v = c is an actual proven law of nature. I am most happy to consider it bullshit as I have said many times before.

 

[Paul T]

You imbecile. They haven't concluded the relavistic gamma was appropriate, they showed that the gamma function has a different origin using Galilean concepts.

Tsk..tsk...tsk, unbelievable silly! I suggest you to just read once your own recommended paper. It quoted this equation:

t = t_o [1-v²/c²]^1/2​

as the equation underlying the muon half-life elongation. They claimed that the equation has nothing to do with SR. Let's accept that claim and forget about SR. Muon half-life elongation remains even according to your heros who wrote that "killer paper". This equation (except v being muon "absolute velocity") is the basis for their data analysis. And, just think with your head that this equation fails once v exceeds c. This doesn't mean that SR forbid that, it is just the nature of the equation. You are unbelievable, couldn't even grasp this very simple fact.

How many times should I repeat that v being "muon absolute velocity" following v' + v_o could be any value even exceed the speed of light. It is not a matter of SR forbid that situation, but once v>c, t = t_o [1-v²/c²]^1/2 become as useless as you, it predicts nothing no more. What does this mean? Your heros made a serious mistake by claiming that galilean relativity was good and sound in this situation.

Your error is to make the assumption that relavistic velocity addition is correct as is the velocity limit of v = c. Any alternative to Relativity will not incorporate directly relavisitc mathematics and should not result in the same mathematical predictions.

No error. Assuming that SR wrong and forget about SR addition of velocities equation. Does it change the fact that t = t_o [1-v²/c²]^1/2 could give imaginary result? The question is not whether SR applicable or not here, but that galilean relativity cannot be used here! I can't believe you are this silly in thinking that the fact they could cook up something based on GR means GR is valid.

 

[Paul T]

You stupid idiot. That was their purpose of the study and 18 years of data collection, was to show that the Galilean principle works.

Hehehe, I am sure galilean principle works fine...in your a**hole! Hahahaha

 

[MacM]

Hehehe, I am sure galilean principle works fine...in your a**hole! Hahahaha

Doesn't warrant a reply, at least not one that I choose to give. If you cannot discuss these matters rationally then there is no discussion.

 

[Persol]

You'll note that he did make the mistake of bothering to look at your sources, and pointed out a problem.

Of course you didn't have any response besides 'la la la, you stupid idiot.'

 

[MacM]

You'll note that he did make the mistake of bothering to look at your sources, and pointed out a problem.

Of course you didn't have any response besides 'la la la, you stupid idiot.'

Poor you you never have known which side to take. He made up his own problem where there is none fool.

 

[Paul T]

Doesn't warrant a reply, at least not one that I choose to give. If you cannot discuss these matters rationally then there is no discussion.

Rational? Hahaha, like you have one. You couldn't even able to see what your "killer paper" all about or its seriuos defect. You call that you have given us rational assesment? Tsk..tsk..tsk...this is the usual MacM.

Yep, you don't have to give any more reply on this matter. We have seen the truth about it.

 

[Persol]

Three problems with MacM's assertions have been pointed out today. Paul's issue, some stuff he quoted out of a paper and tried to say was in UniKEF, and a claim that another of his papers didn't use a compressible ether.

He ignored them all.

Now he's started a poll trying to make it so he can block people from posting in his threads. Basically MacM is upset that people are questioning him... he wants a stage to voice his unsupported BS... not a discussion.

 

[MacM]

Rational? Hahaha, like you have one. You couldn't even able to see what your "killer paper" all about or its seriuos defect. You call that you have given us rational assesment? Tsk..tsk..tsk...this is the usual MacM.

Yep, you don't have to give any more reply on this matter. We have seen the truth about it.

READERS:

Due to the obvious failure of Paul T to contribute anything meaningful and his unending BS be advised that in addition to having just placed Persol and Yuriy on "Ignore" that I am placing Paul T on "Ignore".

You will continue to be able to see his BS but the fact that I have stopped responding to him lends NO CREDENCE what-so-ever to whatever they post.

If these members continue to disrupt threads you are interested in following let me suggest you do the same and simply put them on "Ignore".

If enough people put them on ignore perhaps they can learn to contribute to discussions rather than make unwarranted personal attacks. If they become sufficiently isolated perhaps they will get the message.

 

[Persol]

I have stopped responding to him lends NO CREDENCE what-so-ever to whatever they post

If that were the case, you'd have a response.

Paul pointed out an issue with the paper you linked to. You refused to actually respond. Instead you've stuck your head in the sand.

Don't worry, everyone will continue to correct you... if only for the sake of others.

 

[Paul T]

READERS:

Due to the obvious failure of Paul T to contribute anything meaningful and his unending BS be advised that in addition to having just placed Persol and Yuriy on "Ignore" that I am placing Paul T on "Ignore".

You will continue to be able to see his BS but the fact that I have stopped responding to him lends NO CREDENCE what-so-ever to whatever they post.

If these members continue to disrupt threads you are interested in following let me suggest you do the same and simply put them on "Ignore".

If enough people put them on ignore perhaps they can learn to contribute to discussions rather than make unwarranted personal attacks. If they become sufficiently isolated perhaps they will get the message.

Thanks for including me in your ignore list. It's an honour. After all, I don't remember seeing any fruitful discussion with you. You are immune toward "teaching" as you have stopped learning since...God know when.

However, there are a couple of good things from you though. Since you posted so many silly ideas, to certain stage they are quite entertaining...until you start pushing your butt in front (usually when cornered) your posts became disgustingly boring. Honestly, I did learn from some of your silly ideas, not because they are bright...they are silly, but when crafting argument to crack those silly ideas I learn quite a bit. So, I believe people do get some indirect benefit from your silly posts. Isn't that amazing?

 

[Persol]

but when crafting argument to crack those silly ideas I learn quite a bit. So, I believe people do get some indirect benefit from your silly posts. Isn't that amazing?

Sad but true. Generally the most informative posts in this forum are from Pete or James in response to MacM's claims.

When I was in college we spent a week looking at perpetual motion machines and trying to explain why they wouldn't work... the designs generally had silly flaws and a lack of understanding, but trying to explain what the flaw was helped one to understand the idea. MacM threads continually remind me that ignorant people are helpful, if only because they force the more educated to explain.