Re: The clock malfunctioned.

On 25 juil, 08:37, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 25, 7:12 am, srp2...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:



On 24 juil, 22:00, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jul 24, 8:18 pm, srp2...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

On 24 juil, 18:47, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jul 24, 2:31 pm, srp2...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

On 24 juil, 15:01, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jul 24, 10:57 am, srp2...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

On 23 juil, 01:18, "Spaceman" <space...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

If 2 clocks show different times.
At least one clock malfunctioned in it's proper
counting rate.

Clocks are nothing more that "periodic counting machines"..
When a clock does not "count" at the same
rate as another clock, at least one lost it's proper
counting rate.

Only relativist fools can not grasp such a simple fact
that has been known about clocks for centuries.
:)

The real problem really is that rate difference between ground
based atomic clocks and altitude based similar clocks is taken
as ultimate proof of time dilation

Well, THAT'S certainly not true. There's oodles of evidence of time
dilation that don't involve clocks up in the air at all. I don't know
where you get the idea that the whole thing depends on one experiment.

How vaguer and informationless can one get !

Ok. Out with your extended knowledge on the matter.

What other experiment was carried out, not involving atomic clocks
and not based on atomic clocks, confirms so-called time dilation ?

Lots of them:
1. Cosmic ray muon telescopes. Now routine. No atomic clocks.

And no trace of any proof of time dilation either.

Of course there was. Do you know what the measured lifetime of the
muons in this experiment is?

Measuring the lifetime of muons in no way proves time dilation
except in you credulous mind.

???
What do you think time dilation *means*, Andre?
Supposing time dilation were to have tangible effects, just for a
moment, how do you suppose it would show up in the measured lifetime
of decaying particles?

Exactly like any recorded decay time of free neutrons show up with
respect the the formally recognized mean decay time.

Just as meaningless as the color of your first tie (if you ever had
any)
as to bearing on the time dilation issue.

Hey, they measured the lifetime of free neutrons. Here's my proof
that there is no time dilation.

Yes, and *they* live longer if moving quickly too. That's been
measured as well.

Longer with respect to what ? Previous data for the same particles ?

You obviously never heard about means in data collection.

2. Muon beamlines at accelerator labs. Now routine. No atomic clocks.

Same. No trace of any proof of time dilation.

3. Muon storage rings, like the ones for the g-2 experiment. No atomic
clocks.

Same.

4. K-long decay pipes. Now routine. No atomic clocks.

Same.

5. Muonic atoms, in experiments dating back to the 1960's. No atomic
clocks.

Same.

6. B-meson vertex reconstruction in silicon strip detectors in
collider experiments. No atomic clocks.

Same.

7. Neutrino oscillation studies since SuperKamiokande. No atomic
clocks.

Same.

This is just a sample of the ones I know off the top of my head
without doing any literature searches.

Well, you should have. Your opinion is worthless.

It's not my opinion. It's documented experimental research. Is it your
opinion that documented experimental research is all a matter of
opinion?

It is your opinion when no verifiable ref is provided.

Read first, open your yap second. I gave you several, just below.

None of those are relevant. Give us one on confirming proof
of time dilation not involving atomic clocks. Very simple.

Where has such a big discovery as a proof of time dilation
not involving atomic clocks been discussed in the literature ?

What books from famous physicists expound on it ?

Give us verifiable refs.

I repeat my simple question:

Find one experiment proving time dilation that was
carried out not based on atomic clocks. Give us
the formal reference and explain the proof for the
benefit of us all.

Tell you what. I'll give you appropriate references for one of the
experiments listed.

Any experiment that measures lifetime of unstable particles
cannot be an experimental proof of time dilation except in
your credulous mind.

Since having the reference would allow you to read
the explanation written in the reference for yourself, I'll presume
that's the reason you're asking for it. If I were to explain it all
for you here, there would be no need to supply you with the reference..
Yu. Orlov, C.S. Ozben and Y.K. Semertzidis, Nucl. Instr. Methods A 482
(2002) 767-775.
R. Prigl, U. Haeberlen, K. Jungmann, G. zu Putlitz and P. von Walter,
Nucl. Instr. Methods A 374 (1996) 118-126.
R.M. Carey, et. al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 1632 (1999).
and the technical design report, which can be found here:http://www.g-2.bnl.gov/publications/tdr/index.html

Hiding behind a string of names without being able to explain
the discovery simply means that there is no discovery. You
are talking about stuff you barely understand.

Oh, bull***. It's not a "string of names" without explanation. It's a
REFERENCE. In case you've forgotten, you ASKED for a REFERENCE. Here
is what you do with a reference, Andre: you REFER to it. This means
you look it up and read it because that's where the explanation sits
-- IN THE REFERENCE that you REFER to.

Sure. I can give you more than one reference to stuff in the Sears
catalogue
that will have the same bearing on the time dilation issue.

Meaningless if you don't explain so that we can verify that you
understood
the papers correctly, which you simply can't have.

See below.

Geez, Andre, do you have ANY idea what a loon you are making yourself
look like?

Much less of a loon than an ignorant keyboard addict like you, that's
for sure. You see, well known and even famous real physicists have
flatly stated in well known books that there is no other proof than
atomic clocks for time dilation.

For example, according to Wheeler and Ciufolini, (you probably don't
even know their names, but they are known to all physicists as
leaders
in the field), the degree of precision reached in the verification of
the
slowing down of atomic clocks and the deflection of electromagnetic
waves by massive bodies represent the only truly feasible
verification
of Einstein's spacetime curvature.

Which means that if it was possible to attribute these two effects
in a credible manner to other causes, the notion that spacetime
really is curved and that time dilates, would lose all of their
anchoring
points in reality.

Gravitation and Inertia, Ignazio Ciufolini & John Archibald Wheeler,
Princeton University Press, 1995, page 139

Fairly recent. So all of your pseudo refs dating back to before 1995
simply are meaningless.

And if a confirming proof of time dilation not involving atomic clocks
had come up since 1995, we would all know about it since it would
have been such a huge breakthrough.

You are pathetic.

André Michaud

Or is this big discovery a secret ?

Out with it. Explain to us how the experiment was conducted
and how it proves time dilation.

We will then follow the ref and verify if you understood
correctly.

Are you a real physicist of the
lonely keyboard addict you always proved to be ?

You DO know how to do a literature search, don't you?

Sure do. Do you ?

Yup. I've done a little of it for you above. Now it's your turn,
pretender.

It is you who pretended that there is separate proof.

Unless you come up with a real description of a real
time dilation experiment not involving atomic clocks
that all can verify from a verifyable ref that you will
provide, you just proved what you showed all along,
which is that you are just a loudmouth pretending to
be a physicist and a keyboard addict constantly
looking for attention.

André Michaud

.

Loading