Re: 1c+1c Closing Velocity of Light and Matter

From: Tom Capizzi (tom.capizzi_at_verizon.net)
Date: 01/10/05 

Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 05:12:08 GMT

"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
news:7mu3u0h6vkh99bf8onkf7go0rgurffheu6@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 00:13:37 GMT, "Tom Capizzi" <tom.capizzi@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
>>news:0473u0dm22ji2rut7pf9ocdr2ampqa6i67@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 01:40:54 GMT, "Tom Capizzi"
>>> <tom.capizzi@verizon.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>
>>>>Give me a single good reason to believe even 1 muon travels
>>>>superluminally,
>>>>ever.
>>>
>>> Because they appear to travel further than they should. How much more
>>> evidence
>>> do you need?
>>>
>>
>>Since time dilation has been demonstrated at much lower velocities with
>>real
>>clocks,
>>you must prove that this effect is not responsible before you can call
>>this
>>evidence.
>
> Time dilation has never been convincingly proved in clocks anywhere.
>

Liar.

> I suppose you believe jesus christ cured blind men too.

Silly and irrelevant.

>
>>>>also need
>>>>to know what fraction are still superluminal at ground level, since
>>>>according to you
>>>>they are not detected. And while you're at it, tell us how to detect a
>>>>superluminal
>>>>muon so we can repeat your experiment and confirm your results.
>>>>
>>
>>I asked for hard data, not fairy tales. How much faster than light are you
>>claiming, exactly? And what experiment can we try to confirm your claim?
>
> Light moves at c relative to its source.
> That measn it moves at some oyther velocity wrt an observer moving wrt the
> source.
> That is obvious.
>

More lies.

>>
>>>>I have to warn you, you've got a big problem. For moderately fast muons
>>>>(.98c),
>>>>at 10000 m altitude, only 0.3 out of 1 million are expected to survive
>>>>the
>>>>trip to
>>>>ground level. Note that these are not superluminal to begin with. The
>>>>actual
>>>>probability is about 49000 per million. That's more than 100000 times
>>>>the
>>>>rate
>>>>of survival of slow muons. So unless you are postulating enormous
>>>>violations
>>>>of light speed, you are forced to assert that superluminal muons occur
>>>>at
>>>>around 100000 times the rate of subluminal muons.
>>>
>>> There is no limit to light speed or its 'violation'...at least in a
>>> perfect
>>> vacuum.
>>
>>Maybe in your universe. And how do you relate wavelength, frequency and
>>velocity if light can travel at any speed? How does light decide what
>>velocity
>>to travel at for a given frequency and/or wavelength?
>
> Light initially moves at c wrt its source. Its speed will be affected by
> many
> factors as it travels through space.
>
>>
>>> In a medium such as air, the velocity of any light entering at any
>>> speed will tend towards c relative to that air. The time taken to do
>>> this
>>> depends on the air density.
>>> I presume muons behave similarly.
>>> Why shouldn't they?
>>>
>>
>>You presume too much.
>>
>>>>Even worse if they don't
>>>>all slow down to less than c by ground level. Of course, the problem is
>>>>even
>>>>worse for faster muons. The time dilation factor for .98c is about 5. At
>>>>.9995c
>>>>the dilation factor is about 30. The survival probability goes up by
>>>>more
>>>>than
>>>>a factor of 10, approximately 600000 per million. In the limit of light
>>>>speed, all
>>>>muons survive.
>>>
>>> Time dilation does not exist...except in an artificial universe whose
>>> geometry
>>> is skewed to make one-way light speed always equal c..even between all
>>> relatvely moving bodies.
>>>
>>
>>Or in the real universe where one-way light speed is always equal to c
>>even
>>between all relatively moving bodies. Time dilation has been measured on
>>real clocks in experiments that have been repeated and confirmed. Your
>>statement is just plain false. You are not merely interpreting the
>>experiment
>>erroneously, but you are inventing your own rules of physics to do it.
>>Rules
>>that contradict the experimental evidence, to boot.
>
> The H&K has already been withdrawn.
> Total bull***.
>

How fast are the muons? What fraction of them travel at that speed?
Where are the numbers? What experiment confirms them? By the way, what does
H&K stand for in Henri-speak?

>>
>>>
>>>>Actual flight time changes are insignificant, so the original
>>>>probability of 0.3 per million remains. So how do we detect the millions
>>>>of
>>>>times more superluminal muons than subluminal muons?
>>>
>>> Most of them slow down in the lower atmosphere.
>>>
>>
>>Why should most of the millions of times more superluminal muons slow
>>down enough to be counted? Presumably they slow down by colliding with
>>air molecules. Where is the evidence of all these events?
>>
>>It is now clear that you believe in fantasy physics. Any further
>>discussion
>>is pointless. In fact, it isn't worth the time to even read your posts
>>anymore.
>>You should stick to fiction - that would be more honest.
>>
>
> Your SR is fantasy physics.
> The ballistic theory is backed by every experiment.
>

Let's see. SR works and you ignore all experiments where ballistic theory
fails.
You present no data or analysis, assert falsehoods and reject credible
results
from other scientists. Talking to a brick wall would be more productive.

Quantcast