Re: TIME DILATION

In sci.physics.relativity, Sorcerer
<Headmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote
on Sat, 19 Aug 2006 18:26:15 GMT
<bJIFg.15694$fV1.10100@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4mpjr3-can.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| In sci.physics.relativity, Sorcerer
| <Headmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
| wrote
| on Fri, 18 Aug 2006 16:34:15 GMT
| <b_lFg.112613$F8.6569@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
| >
| > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message
| > news:od4hr3-sga.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | In sci.physics.relativity, Sorcerer
| > | <Headmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
| > | wrote
| > | on Fri, 18 Aug 2006 10:03:44 GMT
| > | <4ggFg.109209$F8.37454@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
| > | >
| > | > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
| > message
| > | > news:s4vfr3-esj.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | > | In sci.physics.relativity, Sorcerer
| > | > | <Headmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
| > | > | wrote
| > | > | on Thu, 17 Aug 2006 22:01:55 GMT
| > | > | <nH5Fg.4632$fV1.3827@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
| > | > | >
| > | > | > "Dirk Van de moortel"
<dirkvandemoortel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
| > | > wrote
| > | > | > in message news:oP4Fg.27115$Hn3.459807@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | "Stamenin" <tasko.s@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > | > | > news:1155690017.627763.167180@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | [snip]
| > | > | > |
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Ok, snip .. I thought it was [anip].
| > | > | >
| > | > | > x', xi?
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Androcles
| > | > | >
| > | > |
| > | > | This is all mathematical crap anyway. You want *physical* proof.
| > | >
| > | > I already have all the physical proof I need.
| > | > Sagnac and V 1493 Aql will do very nicely.
| > |
| > | OK. Write a paper and submit it to _Nature_. That's about all that's
| > | required, really.
| >
| >
| > I don't subscribe to Nature, nor am I required to do so.
| > You write a paper instead.
|
| Why would *I* want to do so? It's your fame.
|
| >
| >
| > |
| > | >
| > | > If a $7 greenback were a blankback, it woud be an invalid banknote
| > | > that any American would recognise even without President Einstein's
| > | > portrait on the front.
| > | >
| > | > Half the analysis of
| > | > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Rocket/eq22.A.GIF
| > | > is missing, so as you say, mathematical crap.
| > | > If these so-called physicists are so darned clever, how come they
| > | > are blind?
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > |
| > | > | The best I can do is an experimental cite such as:
| > | > |
| > | > | * Herbert E. Ives and G.R. Stilwell, "An experimental study of
| > | > | the rate of a moving clock"
| > | > |
| > | > | J. Opt. Soc. Am 28 215-226 (1938) and part II. J.
Opt.
| > | > | Soc. Am. 31, 369-374 (1941)
| > | > |
| > | > | Unfortunately, throwing this at Google just returned me back to
| > | > |
| > | > | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transverse_Doppler_effect
| > | > |
| > | > | (where I got this from), which isn't all that good an explanation
IMO.
| > | > |
| > | > | (I'm not sure how to better it without throwing in a lot of what
might
| > | > | be considered irrelevant calculations, though, leading to the
other
| > | > | formula sqrt(1+v/c)/sqrt(1-v/c) or its reciprocal.)
| > | >
| > | > You should look at the transverse mass effect.
| > | >
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img155.gif
| > | > All this crap should tell a sane man something is seriously wrong
with
| > | > Einstein's math. Any normal mathematical investigator (not a genius)
| > | > should be able to trace it.
| > |
| > | That's easy. Einstein made the fundamental mistake that lightspeed is
| > | constant.
| >
| > It should have been easy, but you missed it for years until I rubbed
| > your nose in it and you are still blabbing away about how to measure
| > fundamental particle energy as if you had a clue. Isn't it time you
wised
| > up?
|
| No.

Ok. Remain ignorant, it's no skin off my nose.

As you wish.



| In any event you have yet to submit experimental
| results consistent with the hypothesis. So far, as far
| as I can tell, your hypothesis/results are that:
|
| - ground level muons are measured at 2 GeV

Electron volt is a measure of charge, 1.0000 eV per electron by definition.

Doesn't quite work that way. 1 eV is the charge of 1 electron moving
through a field difference of 1 volt. This is a unit of energy.

But never mind, this isn't real physics anyway. All I'm doing is
parroting The Establishment(tm). So we'll see how this goes.

Why are you trying to hoodwink me into thinking charge is energy?
Isn't it time you wised up?

In Establishment Physics(tm),
1 eV = 1.602176462 �± 0.000000063* 10^-19 Joule
A Joule is a unit of energy -- 1 kg uniformly accelerated,
as much as possible, over a time of 1 second with 1 Newton
of force.

Unless you had a different unit of energy in mind, such
as a BTU, calorie, or horsepower-minute. I'd have to look
up the conversion factors.


| - they are created 100 km up

So it is claimed by shitheaded relativists. I see no reason why I
shouldn't use their data against them, its a fair fight that way.
If you prefer, muons are created 600 metres up.
Isn't it time you wised up?

If muons are created 600 meters up, why are they detected at 41000 feet?

http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/cosmicrays/tourstop3.html



| - therefore, muons are 200 keV at rest

Electron volt is a measure of charge, 1.0000 eV per electron by definition.
Why are you trying to hoodwink me into thinking charge is energy?
Isn't it time you wised up?

OK, lessee. eV is a unit of charge. I'll record that for your benefit.
This means, of course, that a neutron is charged a little more than a proton,
since a proton has a charge of 938.2 MeV, and a neutron 939.5 MeV.

And of course an electron has a charge of 0.511 MeV --
1/1836th of a proton. This means that a carbon nucleus
actually has about 22,000 electrons whizzing around it in
order to neutralise the charge.

Interesting chemistry you've got there.


| - and are superluminal

They originate 600 metres up. Definitely subluminal.
Isn't it time you wised up?

Will you make up your mind? Either they're superluminal, or they're
not.



| Muons are reasily enough created in the lab, and can be
| measured therein. The third should be easy to verify.


Those are domesticated muons. I'm talking about wild, feral muons
that originate 600 metres up and drop dead after 2.2 usec because
they are subluminal, same as domestic muons.

Ah, so we're postulating two entirely different particles. Interesting!



| The second will probably require a balloon and an
| instrumentation package.

Hmm... well, there are domesticated muons that originate 600 meters
above the balloon, but they are dead before the hit the ground and
don't trigger scintillators. It's the wild muons that make it to sea level,
or so the shithead relativists tell me.
Still, you go play with your balloon, I'm not buying your ***.

| As for the fourth, you'll probably need to build a particle
| accelerator and try to accelerate a particle. The LHC,
| Bevatron, and a few other accelerators all have the same
| fundamental problem: they make the assumption that their
| beam bunches are slower than lightspeed. This can be
| attributed either to Einstein's theory (the traditional
| explanation) or to the simple fact of brehmsstrahlung,
| or synchrotron radiation, leaking away sufficient energy
| to slow down the particle. I don't know, and have not
| computed the latter.

But you are wising up slowly. Sorry to hasten it, play with
a balloon instead. See if you can spend taxpayers money on
your ride. As you've seen, it cannot be Einstein's crackpottery.

Maybe not, but someone had better tell the LHC it won't work with its
present parameters.




|
| >
| > He did much worse than make a fundamental blunder, he built a theory
| > on it to fold in his crackpot ideas about time, too. Researchers have
| > missed finding information in astronomy and particle physics for 100
| > years because of the arrogant ***.
| >
| > The very least you could do is spread the word around the newsgroups,
| > you were certainly sarcastic enough before.
|
| I am not a physicist.

That statement was redundant by its obviousness. You are not a
mathematician, either. See, even a car speedometer reads distance/time,

Of course not. But you are. It's obvious by the many theoretical
papers you have submitted to that well-known journal:

http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html

and 100km/2.2 usec = 15* speed of photons. That's a little difficult
to grasp, but you'll get there slowly. Now say "baaa" like a good sheep.

I'm not a good sheep. I'm a very baaaa-a-a-a-a-d sheep. :-P

Androcles.

|
| > You lot are like a bunch a sheep, all bleating the same baaaa, all
eating
| > the same grass and all swallowing each other's ***.
| > If I've woken just one of you up I've achieved something.
| >
| >
| > | > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/DominoEffect.GIF
| > | > Make one error, it propagates. Einstein made many. There can be
| > | > no relationship between reality and the ravings of a lunatic.
| > | >
| > | > Androcles.
| > | >
| > | >
| > |
| > |
| > | --
| > | #191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.
| >
| >
|
|
| --
| #191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
| Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.




--
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.
.