Re: Twin paradox revisited ll

"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:1185192380.289601.223070@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

On Jul 23, 7:21 am, bz <bz+na...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Sue..." <suzysewns...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
innews:1185165923.734777.4890@
57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com:

.....

There is no sign that they observed anomalous muon half lifetimes.

Would you like to try again to cite something that actually supports
what you have been saying?

Sorry... muons just ain't your daddy's railroad watch.
Nor are they they like a hair follicle.
Nor are they produced only in the upper atmosphere.
That is my point. The experiment does not
support "anomalous ageing of a twin".

It supports normal ageing of a muon.

Normal ageing of a stationary muon, regardless of what they are 'coupled
to'.

Whereas muons kept moving near c age much slower, be they in the upper
atmosphere or in a particle accelerator.

I do NOT see how that supports your position, which would seem to require
those in strong magnetic fields (or blocks of iron) to live longer, even
if they were stationary.


Ah, but Caesar was an honorable man and Sue never is wrong.

I was wrong when I predicted you would give up on the
absurd twins myth within a year. :-(

"The [ ] Incompatibility of the Law of Propagation of
Light with the Principle of Relativity [is only] Apparent"
http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html

So 'light always travels at c' is compatible with 'the principle of
relativity'. SR rules [within its domain]. What else is new? Why do you
continue to cite that quotation as if it showed a problem with SR?

That is a bit hard to see if you model Newton's light bullets
but if you use Maxwell's equations, which Einstein was
defending anyway, it works just fine.

Why do you insist on rejecting Maxwell's equations?

I have nothing against Maxwell's equations.
Where do they say that travel through minkowski time-space will force both
the stationary twin (be it muon or hu-muon) and the traveling twin to end
up traveling the same distance, time-wise, even though they have travailed
different paths space-time wise (or unwise)?


There are certain path dependent integrals and this is one such.



Einstein changed his explanation of the differential aging from that in
t
he
1905 paper but I do not see anywhere that he abandoned the differential
aging.

See the chapter on Minkowski space. He attaches the imaginary
operator which you can pull out of the equations for wave impedance.

It may be complex, but the fact the operator involves the 'i' axis does
not make the time any less real.

It is just a convenient way of expressing a complex number.

You seem to think that 'imaginary' means 'unreal' in this context. It does
not.

I have yet to see you present ANY evidence that stationary muons live
just as long as traveling muons or that the traveling twin will have
just as many gray hairs (and show the same amount of aging on a
cellular level) as the stay at home twin.

I have yet to see you subject Stella to the Coulomb forces a
muon experiences in its lifetime and show she lives longer
than 2.2 us as a result of her motion relative to her birthday
calendar book.

The comparison is absurd.
Muons couple to their surroundings with a force
10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times

See Carol here:
http://uw.physics.wisc.edu/~wonders/Van_derr_Graaff4
Her hair is coming out at the roots and she isn't even
moving yet.

You may get a charge out of such citations and pictures but they do not
effect the path taken through space-time. Travel at high velocity DOES
effect the path.

The fact remains that you "can't get there from here" while traveling vast
distances in very short times without traversing a different total amount
of time than if you had traveled no distance and ended at the same
space-time coordinates, if you have a well integrated personality(or even
if you don't have any personality, as in the case of the muons).

And advanced or retarded waves do not make Stella's hair any more or less
chic when it remains dark while her stay at home sister has
tell-tail-grey.


--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

bz+spr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
.

Relevant Pages
Quantcast