Re: TIME DILATION

In sci.physics.relativity, Sorcerer
<Headmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote
on Sun, 20 Aug 2006 18:19:56 GMT
<gJ1Gg.131812$F8.1161@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:2igmr3-fk1.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| In sci.physics.relativity, YBM
| <ybmess@xxxxxxxx>
| wrote
| on Sun, 20 Aug 2006 17:27:15 +0200
| <44e87e98$0$19773$636a55ce@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
| > Sorcerer a écrit :
| >> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message
| >> news:ejskr3-csk.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > ...
| >> | 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.
| >>
| >>
| >>
| >>
| >> Ok :-)
| >> Just wondered if you knew. So 2,000,000,000 V, 100,000 metres,
| >
| > Disgusting hypocrite...
|
| He is what he is. For the most part he's also wrong. :-)
| Yet no one can effectively refute him since he comes up
| with the most outlandish arguments (without any basis in
| experimental fact), though the lurkers who know something
| will probably be able to make up their own minds with
| any luck -- if they've not killfiled me or him already.

That's ok, show me the experimental basis for the most outlandish
arguments in SR, disgusting hypocrite. For the whole part, you
are wrong and Your Basic Moron was killfiled a long time ago.

Noted.



| Dirk, to his credit, has catalogued some of them; I hope
| he's catalogging his latest fumbles. An interesting
| notion, generating a muon mass 2/5th of an electron's,
| for example; presumably this has been measured to death
| in cloud chambers.
|
| I'm not sure what to do about AQL1493. This is equal to a "proof"
| that c'=c+v only in the way that a firefly is equal to the Sun
| in light ability.

HAHAHAHA! Too funny.

"This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, "proof" is completely irrelevant" - Tom
Roberts

Ah, so AQL1493 *disproves* SR/GR and thereby *proves* Newtonian theory?

I might buy the first, though it would have to be convincing evidence,
tied together with other observations from other stars that show a
similar disproof of SR/GR. Proving Newtonian theory has the same
problems as proving any theory: one can at best show evidence therefore,
but not prove it except in a highly theoretical sense. For now, the
question of AQL1493's behavior remains unresolved because of lack of data.

Bear also in mind that many atomic and subatomic experiments show
fairly convincing evidence for SR, and specifications such as those
for the Large Hadron Collider assume SR, for whatever reason.

This includes lab muon creation.

And then there are interesting neutron star pairs which show good
evidence for general relativity. One such is PSR J0737-3039.

http://www.atnf.csiro.au/news/press/neutron_binary/

I'm satisfied that SR is for the most part mathematically consistent.
I lack the tools to check GR because I do not know tensors. Newtonian
theory has some problems, especially in light of the MMX, though I'll
have to find some data on pointing an MMX apparatus at a *moving*
source; MMX pointing at a still source cannot differentiate between
SR and frictionless aether theory (or for that matter constant-source
non-aether theory, if you prefer).

However, I can also point at a rather sophisticated GR experiment that
involved bouncing radio waves off Venus. Or:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity

B. Bertotti, L. Iess and P. Tortora, "A test of general relativity using
radio links with the Cassini spacecraft", Nature 425, 374 (2003)

is one that might interest you. There is also the LATOR mission:

Turyshev, Slava G.; Shao, Michael; Nordtvedt Jr, Kenneth (2003-11-07)
In Classical and Quantum Gravity 21 2773 (2004)

which is presumably an improvement over

K. Nordtvedt, Testing relativity with laser ranging to the moon",
Phys. Rev." 170 1186-7 (1968).


I'm not sure what to do about the firefly, it is better the moon in light
ability, the moon has none.


The moon generates plenty of "light" in the gamma wavelengths -- more
than the Sun, in fact.

For what it's worth.

http://www.airynothing.com/high_energy_tutorial/sources/moon.html

| In any event, mass = energy to some extent, if only because
| one can pass a photon near an atom and "split" it into an
| electron-positron pair, and vice versa. The conversion factors
| are well known, or should be.

"This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, "proof" is completely irrelevant" - Tom
Roberts
(or should be, probably, disgusting hypocrite)
Ghost, to his debit, is hypocritical enough to require physical proof
when it suits him but willingly accepts a mathematical paper without proof.

One cannot prove using a mathematical paper. You should know; your
attempts are laughable. All I can do is point out at evidence, which
for whatever reason you're either ignoring or have already analyzed in
detail (incorrectly, I might add, in many cases -- I'll admittedly have
to look for them but Dirk has some of them on file).

His prejudice shows, though the lurkers who know something will probably
be able to make up their own minds without luck being involved, and
those that know nothing will continue to have their prejudices with luck.
Androcles


Ah, of course. I'm the prejudiced one here, and you're not.

Well, there is something to that; I've been prejudiced by our
educational system and my brain has been ruined by reading
various news releases and the occasional textbook. Of course,
you appear to be prejudiced against SR. Why is that?

Is it because:

- you refuse to consider that t' != t?
- you refuse to consider that w != (u+v)?
- you refuse to consider that c' = c?

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

Relevant Pages

  • Re: TIME DILATION
    ... Pray for your kinetic energy in going around the sun to be removed ... | I might buy the first, though it would have to be convincing evidence, ... | problems as proving any theory: one can at best show evidence therefore, ... |> His prejudice shows, though the lurkers who know something will ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: WingNutDaily: Hal Lindsey on Bishop Ussher
    ... There is no evidence based solely on solar observations, Eddy stated, ... Earth and Sun. ... direct evidence that the Sun was 4.5 billion years old. ... and in 2006 there is direct evidence for the Sun's age as well as ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: yeah. riiiight!!
    ... they will turn their beautiful leaves toward the sun. ... explain how you recognize design. ... _leaves_ toward the sun afer they found support. ... examine and discuss the evidence. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: yeah. riiiight!!
    ... beautiful leaves toward the sun. ... explain how you recognize design. ... _leaves_ toward the sun afer they found support. ... examine and discuss the evidence. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: yeah. riiiight!!
    ... beautiful leaves toward the sun. ... explain how you recognize design. ... _leaves_ toward the sun afer they found support. ... examine and discuss the evidence. ...
    (talk.origins)