Re: The clock malfunctioned.

On Jul 27, 3:46 pm, srp2...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On 27 juil, 14:56, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jul 26, 11:01 am, srp2...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

On 25 juil, 16:58, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jul 25, 9:04 am, srp2...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

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.

Not at all. Populations of free neutrons with different lab speeds
have *different* mean decay times.

Definitely, just like muons with different lab speeds will
have a different rate of decay inducing interaction.

Really? Why?

Because possibility of interaction is related to relative velocities
of the interacting particles.

How so? What is the relation? Please derive a relation between the
possibility of interaction and relative velocity of interacting
particles.


Different mean interaction delays with thermal neutrons
and higher energy neutrons.

Really? Why?

Same reason. Some decaying interactions can occur only at
low relative velocities while others can occur only at higher
relative velocities.

Please show this. I'm sure I can follow a derivation.


Each type has its own characteristics. How can you not know that ?

The same for all unstable particles.

No relation whatsoever with any time dilation, except for
whoever wants to see it there.

Not a proof of time dilation, just an interpretation as proof.

In other words, wishfull thinking.

Special relativity is not proven at the exclusion of all other
possibilities.

You bet.

No theory ever is.

I disagree.

Please give me an example of a physical theory that is *proven*.
Also please check in with some basic materials about the scientific
method. I recommend Hatton and Plouffe.


And what you say is correct: "It could be due to something else
entirely that mimics the same results."

Not that "mimics" the same results. That "explains" the same results.

However, such a quantitatively accurate model has yet to be put
forward, that is competitive in predicting the same things that
relativity predicts.

Not good enough. It will have to predict all of what SR and GR
"correctly" predict within their limited frame and also, on top of
this explain all other now know phenomena that neither SR nor
GR can explain.

OK, if you wish. Such a model has yet to be put forward successfully.


You are welcome to put forward a model that explains why *all*
unstable particles, regardless of the fundamental interaction or
selection rules that control their decay, decay at slower rates
if they are traveling faster through the miasma of things they
could interact with.

Not even need for a new model for this. Plain and simple
common sense is enough.

I disagree. Theories make *quantitative* predictions. Common sense
rarely does.
There is a vast difference between a model *allowing* for a
phenomenon, and a model *insisting* that a particular phenomenon will
occur and at such-and-such a rate under such-and-such conditions.
Witness "intelligent design" which *allows* for any number of
phenomena, but *predicts* none.

You are welcome to put forward a model that *quantitatively predicts*
the relationship between the rate of interaction and the velocity
between interacting particles.

Making the statement that "there obviously is such a relationship"
does not cut scientific mustard.


Note that relativity was able to *predict* this well in advance of even
the discovery of neutron and muons and most of the other unstable
particles.

SR did not predic in any way the then unknown existence of neutrons
nor
of muons neither of any other then undiscovered unstable states.

No, but it *certainly* predicted the dependence of their measured
lifetime as a function of their velocity in the laboratory, even
before they were discovered!


This was accomplished through fine analysis of experimental scattering
results. That's all.

If your proposed alternate can make similar *predictions* rather than
a collection of postdictions, you may be onto something.

As I said, I am positive that you will be unable to understand the
new space model. This dosn't mean that it could not predict, even
if frustrates you no end, the so-called "anomalous" acceleration of
both Pioneer crafts, and also their less well know so-called
"anomalous"
axial spin slowdown.

It predicted both, as well as explaining atomic clocks rate change
with altitude and also the fluctuations in Earth's and Moon orbits
and earth rotation rate and slow Moon orbit expansion and all
related astronomical phenomena from the very same and simple
reason. A simple reason that you are unable to apprehend from
your irrational Copenhagen viewpoint and that also reveals a
new way to generate practically unlimited energy.

And even if I was "on to something" as you say, you will have no
role to play either to defeat or promote it. All of this is way
above your head, and even mine at this point. No turning back
possible.

The box has been opened and when time is ripe, the Jack will
jump out on its own. Just a matter of time.

[snip for brevity]

I know that's what they were not referring to. You have made the
implication that they did not, that time dilation ONLY arises as the
result of gravitational effects and spacetime curvature. Nowhere do
Ciufolini and Wheeler say that or imply it.

Never did I make such an assertion. I say that time dilation simply
does not exist for the reason already explained, and is not required
at all.

And certainly Ciufolini and Wheeler do not make THAT statement.


I assure you that the authors of the papers referenced are also of
considerable reputation, and I'll leave it to you to read those papers
to see what they say. Your misconstrual of what Wheeler and Ciufolini
wrote notwithstanding.

I think you did.

As for the papers you are referring to, they all are dealing
with the difference in behavior of energetic particles with
respect to their behavior when less energetic.

No different from energetic protons with respect to
thermal protons.

A no starter as far as proving any time dilation.

Feel free to keep on believing it however.

But you still need to provide ref to a paper that
describes an experiment specifically designed
to prove time dilation ...

No experiment PROVES A THEORY.  

Meaningless sidestepping.

Either you can prove a theory right, or else it is wrong
somehow.

That is incorrect. That is NOT how science works.
You may want to revisit the basics of the scientific method and how
science does what it does.

Either a theory correctly describes reality or else it does
not and is worthless.

That is correct. But correctly describing reality does not prove that
it is the sole model that does so, at the logical exclusion of other
possible models.

The scientific method chooses theories that agree on a class of
experimental data, by developing the theories further to the point
where they make *different* quantitative predictions. Then this
prediction can be put to experimental test, so that a measurement
unambiguously favors one experiment over the other.

If you didn't know how the scientific method works, then you should
have said so in the first place, and we could have started back with
real basics.


What a theory does is show results that are consistent with
a theory or not consistent with a theory. If there is a large body
of evidence from a number of independent experiments that are
consistent with a theory, to a degree that is superior to any proposed,
competing theories, then that theory gains favor.

That's baloney. If even one repeatable experiment proves
a theory wrong, It is wrong however well it covers other cases.
This means that it is not extensive enough to cover all cases.
Back to square one in search for a more extensive theory.

But no theory is ever proven. If your challenge is to demand
proof of a theory, then you've come to the wrong place.

How so. This is sci.physics, an unmoderated group for conversation
on physics. This is exactly the right place to air any opinion
whatsoever on the matter. Anyone is free to participate.

Well, that's certainly true. You are free to express the opinion that
the scientific method should be chucked and that science should go
about its business differently, providing *proof* of its models to the
exclusion of other models or you won't be satisfied. Good luck with
that.

I just wonder what happened to you in your primary and secondary
school science classes when the basics of what science *means* was
discussed.


The "pure of heart" can safely retreat to moderated groups.
Be my guest.

I gave you a number of experiments specifically designed to *test*
special relativity, and the collection of these experiments also serve
to test other theories, such as ballistic theory or Lorentz-ether
theories or tired-light theories. To date, the theory that survives
best is relativity.

They survive through dogged blind faith of some and absolute
indifference of a majority, not through actual scientific proof.

André Michaud

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Clock synch
    ... reaching the Earth's surface as being proof of time dilation. ... Muons aren't clocks and your accelerator observations are the same ... Einstein addressed the twin paradox in special relativity ... Einstein's resolution and several conceptual issues ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Time Dilation Test
    ... This includes time dilation due to the earth's rotation ... > their flying clocks with a stationary one in Denver. ... and gravitation when comparing clocks accurately. ... Einstein addressed the twin paradox in special relativity ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Is "malfunctioning" absolute or relative?
    ... time dilation of relativity, except perhaps to say they are real ... these facts are relative to the frame of reference. ... It seems not so clear when we turn to rates of clocks, ... he is experiencing time dilation. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The clock malfunctioned.
    ... that has been known about clocks for centuries. ... and not based on atomic clocks, confirms so-called time dilation? ... I don't really care about your twisted flavor of scientific method. ... special relativity, and the collection of these experiments also serve ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: SR consistency is crap.
    ... >>JUST as easily have used this to DEFINE similarity amongst clocks. ... > you've invoked the principle of relativity, ... you understand how to extract predictions about the ... > Invariance under a space translation. ...
    (sci.physics)
Loading