Re: Bill Bryson and the big bang

From: Bjoern Feuerbacher (feuerbac_at_thphys.uni-heidelberg.de)
Date: 07/05/04 

Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2004 10:58:14 +0200

vonroach wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 10:37:55 +0200, Bjoern Feuerbacher
> <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote:
>
>
>>[snip]
>
>
> We are not communicating well, so I'll say good bye.
>
> The effects that I was seeking in were penetration of solid structures
> and production of damage within,

For that, the energy of individual photons is mainly responsible, so
no, one couldn't "simulate" that with light of lower frequency.

> or perhaps an image on emerging.

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean here.

> I have the idea that matter contracts and time `passes' slower in
> space acceleration (relative to earth) in absence of much mass in the
> vicinity.

Where did you get that idea from?

> I have the idea that the atmosphere as part of the earth is quite
> massive judging by atmospheric pressure, and that the muon experiment
> is not helpful.

So you attribute the muon time dilation to the mass of the atmosphere,
or what???

The speed of these muons was measured. If you calculate the time
dilation from that speed, according to SR, you get consistent results.

Further, time dilation of the decay rate of fast-moving particles was
alsp measured in the laboratory. The time dilation rate there also was
shown to be consistent with the one predicted by SR.

> I have the idea that the standard earth clock measures time by means
> of radioactive decay of Cesium . .And that decay was the mechanism of
> an atomic clock.

That idea of you is wrong. Where did you get this from?

[snip]

> And for some reason it comes to my mind that it was a favorite ploy of
> Socrates to always answer a question with a question. (you will
> probably have no idea what I'm thinking about. and think irrelevant)

Yes, I answered some of your questions with a question. You did that,
too. Your point?

Bye,
Bjoern

Relevant Pages
Quantcast