Re: TIME DILATION


"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:9s44r3-r25.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| In sci.physics.relativity, Sorcerer
| <Headmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
| wrote
| on Sun, 13 Aug 2006 12:22:22 GMT
| <2QEDg.40604$Ca.21637@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
| >
| > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message
| > news:v4a2r3-jim.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | In sci.physics.relativity, Sorcerer
| > | <Headmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
| > | wrote
| > | on Sat, 12 Aug 2006 17:26:23 GMT
| > | <3boDg.82204$9d4.59529@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
| > | >
| > | > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
| > message
| > | > news:1v91r3-nln.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | > | In sci.physics.relativity, Sorcerer
| > | > | <Headmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
| > | > | wrote
| > | > | on Sat, 12 Aug 2006 14:23:22 GMT
| > | > | <uvlDg.86109$F8.46557@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
| > | > | >
| > | > | > "Dirk Van de moortel"
<dirkvandemoortel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
| > | > wrote
| > | > | > in message news:f0lDg.17859$Nu3.385127@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | > | >
| > | > | >
| > | > | > [anip]
| > | > | > Have you found the difference between xi and x' yet, local
village
| > | > idiot?
| > | > | > Androcles
| > | > | >
| > | > |
| > | > | x' = phi(-v)*beta(-v)*(xi + v*tau)
| > | > | where beta(v) = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
| > | > |
| > | > | Since phi(-v) = 1,| x' = beta(-v)*(xi + v*tau) = (xi +
| > | > v*tau)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
| > | > |
| > | > | therefore
| > | > | xi - x' = xi - (xi + v*tau)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) .
| > | > |
| > | > | http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
| > | > |
| > | > | Since tau is a free variable no conclusions can be drawn regarding
| > | > | whether xi < x', xi > x', or xi = x'.
| > | >
| > | > Ahem....
| > | >
| > | > "If we place x'=x-vt, it is clear that a point at rest in the system
k
| > must
| > | > have a system of values x', y, z, independent of time. "
| > | > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
| > | >
| > | > NOTE... "IT IS CLEAR". Einstein said so and unless you think the
length
| > | > of a train will change overnight, is is very clear.
| > | >
| > |
| > | Yes, it is clear that Einstein is making an invalid
| > | assumption.
| >
| >
| > Hahahaha!
| > He makes a lot of them, but x-vt being constant isn't one of them.
| >
| >
| > | And train lengths *do* change overnight, as
| > | cars are coupled and decoupled and placed on sidings or
| > | added to the train; there's also some give in the couplings
| > | as trains accelerate, simply from metal strain, and also
| > | by design.
| >
| >
| > That's right.
| > x' + n cars = x+n cars - vt.
| >
| > x' is the length of the penis, x is the distance it moves along the
vagina
| > from the labia, xi is for pricks with a hard-on for time dilation.
| >
| >
| > | This makes length experiments very tricky,
| > | as Miller found out in his determinations that we are
| > | moving generally southward in the celestial sphere.
| > |
| > | Not that Miller used trains, but he *did* have problems
| > | with length fluctuation -- this time from temperature.
| > |
| >
| > That has nothing to do with Dork not understanding xi-x' > 0.
| >
| >
| > | >
| > | > | Note that there is a minor error in the paper,
| > | >
| > | > Yes, there is a MAJOR error on the paper. Several, in fact, the
first
| > being
| > | > the so-called light postulate for which there never was any physical
| > | > foundation,
| > |
| > | I was referring to x'. However, you are correct; there is a major
error
| > | in the paper that requires lightspeed to be zero.
| >
| >
| > Err... not really. You can claim c = 0, but the speed of light isn't c
| > and should not be confused with c. In the original paper Einstein called
it
| > V.
| > The speed of light is 300,000 km/s relative to the source.
|
| The Newtonian speed of light is *NOT* constant; an
| elementary consideration of gas kinetic theory should
| convince you of that. If one assumes the sun's surface
| is pure diatomic hydrogen (monatomic hydrogen will speed
| up things by a factor of sqrt(2) = 1.414) then one gets
| a v_RMS of approximately
|
| v_RMS = sqrt(3*k*T/(M_H2))
|
| where k = 1.3807*10^-23 J/K is the Boltzmann Constant,
| T = 5800 K (the Sun's surface temperature),
| and M_H2 = 0.002 kg/mol /N = 0.002 kg/mol / (6.022 * 10^23 at/mol)
| = 3.3212 * 10^-27 kg/at.
|
| So v_rms = 8.505 km/s or 2.835 * 10^-5 c. In SR this fuzzes out
| the visible light spectra by a few picometers. In Newtonian math
| one gets a time adjustment of about 14 milliseconds -- not enough
| to bother SOHO or heliographs.
|
| Of course one might (correctly) claim that it is constant
| relative to the atom radiating the light but because the
| atom is exhibiting Brownian motion, the source containing
| the atom will be seen as moving relative to the actual
| light generator, and even if the observer is motionless
| relative to the macro light source, he will *not* be
| motionless relative to the generator, the hot atom.
|
| (In SR this doesn't affect lightspeed but it does fuzz out the
| spectral lines a bit. Since you are on record as stating that
| SR is fradulent I mention this only for completeness.)

Fuzz out the spectral lines a bit into a continuous spectrum.
We do not see emission lines from the sun, only absorption lines
where the light has passed through outer layers of helium and
hydrogen.






|
| > The problem is that Einstein's paper is completely divorced from
| > physics, it is a rant by an incompetent moron.
| > We see enough of those in these newsgroups, you've seen them as
| > much as I. We can either take the piss out of them or ignore them,
| > so I take the piss out of Einstein and any of his moronic disciples.
| >
| > |
| > | Not 0/0. Not a constant. Not a variable. Zero. This is near the
| > | bottom of section 1 (corrected as per requirements):
| > |
| > | In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity
| > |
| > | (AB+BA)/(t'_A-t_A) = c
| > |
| > | to be a universal constant--the velocity of light in empty space.
| > |
| > | since after all the light is being bounced back from a mirror.
| > |
| > | This value is *zero*, since AB+BA = 0 as a vector and t'_A-t_A is
| > | nonzero.
| >
| > Err... it takes no time at all to get from A to A. I can get from A to A
| > in no time at all as well.
| > But no matter, the definition given is not valid mathematically and
| > c doesn't represent speed or velocity.
|
| c represents a measured velocity of something; it's a vector.
| Since it's zero it's not all that interesting.
|
| >
| > | 0/t = 0 for any t > 0. (For any t < 0 as well, for
| > | that matter.) This also means c is a *vector*, and is identically
zero.
| >
| >
| >
| > |
| > | Therefore, c = (0,0,0), |c| = 0, and the entire rest of the
| > | paper falls apart.
| >
| > Ok. I've been saying that to sci.physics.relativity since Wed, Mar 17
1999
| > 9:00 am
| > http://tinyurl.com/mxhm6
| > despite all sarcasm and criticism. Why has it taken this long for you
| > (and others) to catch on? Even Wilson is stupid enough to insist
| > Einstein's gibberish is correct, but nevertheless the paper crumbles
| > at this very point. How does he dismiss the paper by saying it is
| > wrong if he can't find WHERE it goes wrong? That, to me, is
| > blatant stupidity.
| >
| >
| >
| > That SR and GR have been confirmed by
| > | many experiments (so the scientists say) leads one to many
| > | interesting paths, some of them suggesting the scientists
| > | are corrupt graft-seeking bloodsucking leeches on society;
| > | others simply referring that the AB+BA logic interpretation
| > | is flat-out wrong.
| >
| > It's pretty easy to confirm the existence of virgin births and
| > visitations by angels, the bible says so. We can clone sheep, too,
| > and become the good shepherd. You'll find relativists are cloned
| > sheep, all eating the same grass in the meadow and each other's ***.
| > They bleat with one song, and it isn't intelligence. They wish to
| > portray the semblance of intelligence, but they do not have it.
| >
| >
| >
| > |
| > | Of course, most now simply take the simpler (to them) path:
| > | that 2AB/(t'_A-t_A) = c was correct in the first place
| > | and that "Lichtgeschwindigkeit", the original term used,
| > | was intended to mean speed, despite its ambiguity in German.
| >
| > But c *cannot* mean speed because Einstein uses the terms
| > c+v and c-v to derive the cuckoo transformations, and in any case
| > the train does not go back and forth.
| >
| >
| > |
| > | > the next being the time postulate and the stupid assumption that the
| > speed
| > | > of light is measured from A to A in time t'A-tA instead of from A to
B
| > in
| > | > time t, from which comes "the velocity of light in our theory plays
the
| > | > part,
| > | > physically, of an infinitely great velocity."
| > | > Einstein plays the part of con-artist gigolo and you play the part
of a
| > | > Neanderthal troglodyte pretending to be a ghost. I play the part
| > | > of a slave and Dork plays the part of himself, he can't even spell
his
| > own
| > | > name.
| > |
| > | You are not a slave. You are a superintelligent pandimensional being.
| > | Don't play stupid.
| >
| > LOL! Whilst I may have an IQ above 100, I am far from superintelligent.
| > Think of the crime and the plodding policeman trying to solve it. He
| > makes errors along the way, the defence attorney tries to trip him up
| > on the witness stand. But a crime has been committed and Einstein
| > is the perpetrator. All I'm doing is showing how the crime was carried
| > out, others are insisting there is no crime.
|
| And still others are lurking trying to figure this all out -- the jury.
|
| But you will have to at some point explain Ives and
| Stillwell, Hafele and Keating (you've already explained
| Sagnac), and the superluminal 120xc muon only having an
| energy of 2 GeV when it should have an energy far above
| that. A muon at lightspeed has a halflife of 660 meters
| (speed = 300,000 km/s, lifetime = 2.2 microseconds).

Haefele and Keating? A fucking joke, bouncing a clock around
on a plane looking for the smallest change between that seemed
significant.
E = 1/2 m * 120^2c^2, don't mix Newtonian values with wrong relativistic
calculations.
In Earth's FoR, the muon travels 62 miles in 2.2 usec.
In the muon's FoR, the earth travels xi miles in tau seconds.
I'm not interested in the muon's opinion of Earth's speed and energy,
it doesn't have a clock of its a own, so quit frame hopping.






| A muon at rest has an energy equivalent of 105.66 MeV, give or take;

Prove it.


| this means that a muon traveling at 120x nominal lightspeed should
| last for about 80 meters but also have energy
| 1/2 * (120^2) * (105.66 MeV) = .761 TeV. .759 TeV of that energy
| is now unaccounted for, and is floating around somewhere in the
| atmosphere.
|
| (Contemporary SR equivalent theories assume 6 GeV incoming, with
| 4 GeV lost to ionization as the cuckoo-transformed muon wanders
| down into ground level. The required gamma is about 120, which
| is the same as the time dialation factor, resulting in an energy
| of about 12.68 GeV -- a bit high but not nearly as far off.)
|
| While the aurora borealis and aurora australis might be
| barely sufficient to explain this energy loss in far
| northern or far southern areas, muons can be detected
| pretty much anywhere. A SLAC Visitor Center Web cam is
|
| http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/cosmicrays/crdatacenter.html
|
| together with a data retrieval option that among other things
| returns counts and flux, measured as counts/minute/cm^2/sterad.
| I don't know offhand how to translate this into average MeV/muon,
| though it should be possible.
|
| http://muweb.millersville.edu/~physics/exp.of.the.month/27/index.html
|
| describes a relatively simple device for "trapping" muons in a jug.
| While such a device will give one little more than average counts,
| it can be done almost anywhere there is a suitable jug, water,
| electrical power, and sufficient technology for the detection equipment.
|
| Whoever's selling such equipment is committing fraud as well, since
| the calculations accompaying the page are consistent to shoot Newton's
| superluminal muon theory in the head. :-) (Especially since Venus is
| easily seen in the pre-dawn or post-dusk sky.)
|
| For its part SLAC is a linear accelerator capable of
| accelerating electrons and positrons up to 50 GeV.
| Since an electron has a rest mass energy equivalency of only 510 keV,
| it has a problem similar to LHC and the Bevatron.
|

Yawn... Prove it.
As far as I'm concerned the distance is 62 miles in 2.2 usec
because that is what is claimed and I don't care about the muon's
opinion of the speed of Earth in the muon's frame of reference.
The Earth must be enormously time dilated, it has been around for
4,000,000,000 years without decaying. We are all traveling at light
speed in the frame of the muon.
Androcles.



| >
| >
| >
| >
| >
| > | >
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > | since x' is defined twice
| > | > | in section 3; an alternate answer to your question is therefore
| > | > |
| > | > I didn't find that, you are seeing double.
| > |
| > | And you are not seeing.
| > |
| > | Near the top of Section 3:
| > |
| > | If we place x'=x-vt, it is clear that a point at rest in the system
| > | k must have a system of values x', y, z, independent of time. We
| > | first define tau as a function of x', y, z, and t. To do this we
| > | have to express in equations that $\tau$ is nothing else than the
| > | summary of the data of clocks at rest in system k, which have been
| > | synchronized according to the rule given in section 1.
| > |
| > | Near the bottom:
| > |
| > | For this purpose we introduce a third system of co-ordinates K',
which
| > relatively to the system k is in a state of parallel
| > | translatory motion parallel to the axis of Xi (footnote 1) such
that
| > the
| > | origin of co-ordinates of system K, moves with velocity -v
| > | on the axis of Xi. At the time t=0 let all three origins
| > | coincide, and when t=x=y=z=0 let the time t' of the system K
| > | be zero. We call the co-ordinates, measured in the system K,
| > | x', y', z', and by a twofold application of our equations of
| > | transformation we obtain [...]
| > |
| > | Clearly there are two definitions of x', one simply equating x'=x-vt,
| > | the other defining x' as the first coordinate in a third 4-space,
moving
| > | in the direction opposite to k.
| > |
| > "it is clear that the transformation from K to must be the identical
| > transformation. "
| >
| > It is clear that we further assume in agreement with experience that K'
is a
| > system of coordinates (another train) passing in the opposite
direction.
| > What the fool is trying to do is get away from the track and embankment
| > concept and show only relative motion between two trains, each of length
x'.
| >
| > Even his dialogue is pure persuasion, he was a confidence trickster,
| > but you've pointed out mutual time dilation, or the twin paradox.
|
| I've computed it. It is a mathematical curiosity only, except that
| according to Wiki this has been measured by such as Rossi and Hall,
| Hasselkamp, Mondry, and Scharmann, and of course Hafele and Keating,
| though H&K had to do some trickery to get around statistical issues
| with their cesium-ion clocks. (Modern clocks can detect the difference
| in a flight from NY to London, and don't require two trips around
| the world.)
|
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation
|
| It's a *big* con job, if pages such as
|
| http://www.physlink.com/Education/askExperts/ae611.cfm
|
| and the LHC specs (which I don't have bookmarked anymore since I lost
| my bookmarks some time back) are any indication.
|
| > If the passing train is contracted in length then its clocks are dilated
| > too,
| > and when the trains turn around and meet again the time agrees.
| > "Turning around" can simply be two satellites going in opposite
directions
| > and meeting again on the opposite side of the Earth, but then the morons
| > whine that they need GR to solve it, and YOU are too stupid to
understand
| > what they pretend they can do.
| >
| >
| > | >
| > | > | xi - (x - vt) = xi - x + vt
| > | > |
| > | > | and we still can draw no conclusions about the relative ordering
of x'
| > | > | and xi.
| > | > |
| > | > | Does this answer your question? :-)
| > | >
| > | > My question was to Dork. He thinks x' = xi, but one would expect
that
| > | > from a moron.
| > |
| > | It would appear the second definition of x' = x, not xi.
| >
| >
| > No no... the train is moving relative to the station.
|
| Apparently, there are *two* trains, and they are *both* moving.
| The station is K, with coordinates (t,x,y,z). Moving Train #1 is k,
| with coordinates (tau,xi, eta, zeta). Moving Train #2 is K',
| with coordinates (t',x',y',z'), with the aforementioned error in x'.
| Train #1 is known to be moving relative to the station at +v.
| Train #2 is known to be moving relative to train #1 at -v.
|
|
| > x is increasing
| > because time is increasing and v is constant. x = vt (+ a constant)
| > because we integrate dx/dt and we know that there is a constant
| > when we do that.
| > In other words if the locomotive starts moving 1 mile from
| > the station, the caboose which is at the station also moves,
| > and the train is (1 mile long which is x') and does not change as
| > a function of time. So :
| > x' = x - (integral [dx/dt] .dt) * t
| > = k, the length of the train
| >
| > But look earlier... to differentiate the fool says
| > "hence, if x' be taken infinitessimally small"
| > So the train is almost zero length and we are back to c being
| > from A to A in zero time again.
| >
| > All the way through, c = 0. That is either gross incompetence or
| > deliberate fraud. I say fraud, the guy knew what he was doing
| > enough to cheat. "In agreement with experience we further assume"
| > is clearly a con, given away by those words, we have no such experience.
|
| It's a "fraud" apparently being perpetrated by our top scientists as well.
|
| >
| >
| > | Not that
| > | it matters; beta(v) = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) is not a function since
| > | vector c is zero (c^2 = c dot c is a reasonable interpretation).
| > |
| > But it does matter.
|
| This function is useless in its current form if c^2 = 0.
|
| > Muons originate in upper atmosphere and
| > decay in 2.2 usec. In race between a photon and a muon over
| > 62 miles, the muon wins, yet this is upheld as "proof" of time dilation.
|
| It is not proof. Physical results can never be proven; they can
| only be upheld or disproven.
|
| > We cannot advance physics based on division by zero, and
| > we don't need school teachers like Baez globe trotting on other people's
| > money. I can understand his desire to get away from Southside
| > Los Angeles, but he is not honest and neither are so-called physicists
| > in general. Taking money under false pretenses is a crime in my
| > country, people like Hawking in Britain and Baez in California
| > should be prosecuted.
|
| You are welcome to attempt to notify the country DA.
|
| http://da.co.la.ca.us/fraud.htm
| http://da.co.la.ca.us/htcu.htm
|
| are the official starting points and may be of some assistance. I'm
| assuming this falls under "high tech fraud" since accelerators are
| darned technical beasties. :-) Certainly Baez knows far more about
| tensors than I do.
|
| You will, of course, need goodly amounts of evidence, plus the relevant
| statutes, which should be somewhere in Penal, Corporations, Commercial,
| or Public Resources.
|
| http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html
|
| Since this is a criminal allegation and you are not
| directly affected thereby, expect no remunerations
| even if successful.
|
| Happy hunting, but keep in mind filing false charges is also
| criminal. :-)
|
|
| > Frigging CERN costs a king's ransom,
| > which is ok if it used to investigate Nature, but a waste of money
| > if used to "prove" Einstein was correct when he wasn't.
|
| The Large Hadron Collider already has a problem in
| that it is assuming that a 7 TeV proton zooming around
| a ring of 27km circumference takes 89 microseconds.
| 27km/89microseconds = c, give or take.
|
| Since sqrt(7TeV / (1/2)(938MeV)) = 122 they should be zipping around
| taking 730 nanoseconds.
|
| Since there's talk of a Very Large Hadron Collider with a ring of
| at least 100 km and a beam energy of 87.5 TeV, somebody's doing
| some interesting things here with grant money.
|
| This can't possibly be an unknown problem; the Bevatron had 6.3 GeV
| protons back in the 1950's -- well above the lightspeed proton (Newtonian)
| energy of (1/2)(938 MeV) = 469 MeV.
|
| Why are we building bigger and bigger proton accelerators/synchrotrons?
| Why would we need to?
|
| I should note here that the Texas Superconducting
| Supercollider is an illustration of total idiocy unrelated
| to its theoretical beam parameters. It would have had a
| circumference of 54 miles or 87 km -- and reportedly would
| have cost less to *mothball* than to abort construction,
| which is what Congress did. This is not to say that every
| bevatron, synchrotron, and accelerator is stuffed with
| graft, but this one had some major management problems
| which were unrelated to the actual science.
|
| [rest snipped]
|
| --
| #191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
| Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.


.