Re: The Cosmic Muons Paradox

On Sep 6, 8:02 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
<kens...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:0348b65a-4ce2-40aa-b359-21821bd87c44@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Sep 4, 6:50 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
<kens...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:0b3df001-22b5-40f9-bcf5-ab7b2de1e808@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Sep 3, 10:01 am, "Inertial" <relativ...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
<kens...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:c1b4d0bd-5dde-4e8e-886d-592b1e5d0ce8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Sep 3, 8:38 am, blackhead <larryhar...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2 Sep, 16:45, "kens...@xxxxxxxxxx" <kens...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sep 2, 10:08 am, blackhead <larryhar...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 2 Sep, 14:55, "kens...@xxxxxxxxxx" <kens...@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Sep 1, 10:35 pm, blackhead <larryhar...@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On 1 Sep, 13:05, "kens...@xxxxxxxxxx" <kens...@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Aug 31, 2:52 pm, blackhead <larryhar...@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On 31 Aug, 15:29, "kens...@xxxxxxxxxx"
<kens...@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Aug 31, 10:13 am, blackhead
<larryhar...@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On 31 Aug, 14:08, "kens...@xxxxxxxxxx"
<kens...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Aug 31, 7:07 am, blackhead
<larryhar...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 29 Aug, 21:55, "kens...@xxxxxxxxxx"
<kens...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Aug 29, 9:47 am, blackhead
<larryhar...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[snipped]

According to your theory, if the the Earth
observer measures the speed
of the Earth to be v, then the muon
observer
measures the speed of the
Earth to be -gamma*v, correct?

No.....gamma_muon is derive from v_e (v_e is
velocity of earth as
measured by the muon clock). So v_e cannot be
gamma*v. Gamma_muon is
used to determine the clock rate of the
earth.
In
IRT the muon
observer gives the following two predictions
for
the rate of the earth
clock:
T_e = gamma_muon*T_muon........(1)
OR
T_e = T_muon/gamma_muon........(2)

Obviously equation (1) is the correct
prediction.

Ken Seto

According to your theory, what's the
relationship
between the velocity
of the Earth measured in the muon frame, and
the
velocity of the muon
measured in the Earth
frame?

According to the muon observer the velocity of
the
earth is:
V_me = Lambda(F_mm - F_me)
V_me = veloocity of the earth as measured by the
muon
observer.
Lambda = wavelength of a standard light source in
the
muon frame.
F_mm = Frequency of a standard light source in
the
muon
frame.
F_me = Tranverse Doppler frequency of an
identical
standard light
source in the earth frame as measured by the muon
observer.

According to the earth observer the velocity of
the
muon is:
 V_em = Lambda(F_ee - F_em)
V_em = velocity of the muon as measured by the
earth
observer.
Lambda = wavelength of a standard light source in
the
earth frame.
F_ee = Frequency of a standard light source in
the
earth frame.
F_em = Transverse Doppler frequency of an
identical
standard light
source in the muon frame as measured by the earth
observer.

Thanks. So if V_em was measured by the Earth
observer
and
he took his
clock and ruler with him into the frame of the
muon,
can't your theory
predict what V_me he would measure?

I don't understand your question. The earth observer
becomes the muon
observer and he would measure V_me as ahown above.

Would he measure:

V_me = V_em?

No....why? Because 1 second on the muon clock has a
longer
duration
(absolute time) than 1 second on the earth clock.

V_me = gamma_me* V_em?

No....I guess that:
V_me = V_em/gamma_me

V_me = f(V_me)*V_em?

 > ?????

f(V_me) is an arbitary function of V_me. From above you
seem
to
think
that f(V_me) = 1/gamma_me.

For SR, V_me = -V_em, so I thought you might have a
similar
expression
for your theory.

This SR assertion is wrong. It assumes that a clock
second
used
to
measure speed is a universal interval of time....In other
words, the
passage of a clock second in the earth frame corresponds
to
the
passage of a clock second in the muon frame.

If you can't give an exact answer, can you at least
say whether V_em > V_em for all V_em?

?????????????????????
How can V_em>V_em????

Whoops, should be V_em > V_me for all V_em.

In conclusion, you have:

V_em = gamma_me*V_me, gamma_me = 1/sqrt(1 - (v_me/c)^2).

So if the limiting velocity of a muon in the Earth frame is
c,
then:

V_em = gamma_me*V_me = c ==> V_me < c

i.e the limiting velocity in the

muon frame is less than the limiting velocity in the Earth
frame
meaning the speed of light is different in both frames. Do
you
know
about this, or am I wrong?

You are wrong. In IRT the speed of light is a constant math
ratio
in
all frames as follows:
Light path length of ruler (299.792,458 m long
physically)/the
absolute time content for a clock second co-moving with the
ruler.
What this mean is that there is no absolute value for the
speed
of
light since a clock second use to measure the speed of light
is
not
a
universal interval of time.

I don't see how I'm wrong if I'm using your equations to show
that
the
limiting speed and the speed of light, according to your
theory,
varies from frame to frame, and you agree with this conclusion.

No I didn't agree with this conclusion. I  said that the speed of
light is a constant ratio in every frame......but this does not
mean
that the speed fo lgiht is a universal constant as asserted by
you
and
SR.

The important thing is that the speed of light isn't a
universal
constant, according to your theory.

Right....the speed of light is not a universal constant. It is a
constant math ratio. Think about it: if the speed of light is a
universal constant then we have:
1. The speed of light in A's frame is 299,792,458 m/1 A second
2. The speed of light in B's frame is 299,792,458 m/1 B second..
This means that the passage of 1 A second = to the passage of 1 B
second. This violates the SR concept that the passage of 1 A
second
corresponds to the passage of less than 1 B second.

The passage of less than 1B second also has a corresponding Lorentz
contraction which means the light in B doesn't have to travels as
far
as in A.

Right....this means that a clock second is not a universal interval
of
time

There is no universal interval of time.  That's the whole point.  Its
all
relative to the observer.

and that the speed of light is a constant math ratio

It is a constant speed.  That's why it is called 'speed of light'..

as assumed by IRT.

IRT is crap and nonsense.

You are a fucking idiot.

Clearly not at all.

Furthermore why is the SR observer only predicts length
contraction?....Why not length expansion?

Why should there be both?

Hey idiot if there is length contraction there is length expansion.

There is when you slow down

Who slows down?

The who who's length you are measureing


So are you saying the the moving ruler slows down accoridng to the SR
observer? But even in that case the ruler is still contracted
according to the SR observer......less contraction is not expansion.


When it moves faster its length is contracted, when it moves slower its
leangth is expanded.

No not according to the SR observer....he predict the ruler contracted
less when it moves slower.....that's not expansion.


Also why is the observer's meter stick is the longest
meter stick in the universe?

They are all the same length in their own frames.

You didn't answer my question....Why is the SR observer's meter stick
is the longest meter stick in the universe? Does this mean that the SR
observer and his meter stick is in a preferred frame?


When they move, things get shorter in the observers frame.

So your theory is different to SR (so not a superset and different math) and
you have things sometimes bigger and sometimes smaller?

IRT is a superset of SR. IRT predicts the following for A MOVING
RULER:
1. The light path length of a moving ruler is shorter than the light
path length of the observer's ruler when the ruler is in a higher
state of absolute motion than the IRT observer. This predict is the
same as the SR prediction that the geometric projection of a moving
ruler is shorter than the SR observer's ruler.
2. The light path length of a moving ruler is longer thanthe light
path length of the IRT observer's ruler when the ruler is in a lower
state of absolute motion than the IRT observer. This prediction is not
included in SR and that's why SR is an incomplete theory and that's
why it is only a subset of IRT.

 how does yout
theory say which it is going to be.  

I told you many times. You have to do both calculation and to see
which calculation fits observation.

If A and B are moving at half the speed
of light relative to each other .. will A see B's metre stick as longer or
shorter .. which one?

In IRT A will do both calculations and see which calculation fits
observation. If the observation agrees that B's light path length is
shorter then A's light path length is longer than B's light path
length. In IRT the material length of a ruler remains the same length
in all frames of reference.


Ken Seto


 will A see B's clock ticking faster or slower ..
which one?

 If length contracts with speed (ie absolute
velocity), there is no room for expansion.

How do you know who is moving at a higher absolute velocity????

You measure their velocities and take the absolute value of it .. the
speed.
That is what I was meaning by

ROTFLOL "take the absolute value of it"...is there no limit to your
stupidity?

I see you've never studied maths or physics and don't understand that the
absolute value of a velocity gives you the speed.  That explains a lot.

.

Quantcast