Re: The clock malfunctioned.

On 28 juil, 12:04, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 28, 9:42 am, srp2...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

On 28 juil, 09:06, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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:

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.

Do you really think that I am open to discussing physics with
you ?

Delusion.

Ah. I'm disappointed, of course.

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.

I'm sure you can. See above.

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.

The physical theory that the mass of an electron at rest is
9.10938188E-31 kg.

Do you know the difference between a theory and a measurement, Andre?

I sure do. Do you know the difference between trying to prove a theory
and
trying to explain how physical reality works ?

The latter is what I am about.

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.

It has been put forward. You just don't know about it and couldn't
even understand it even if you tried.

If it's in your little book, then I'll be delighted to look it over
when it arrives.

It sure is. Been floating about for years. Out of reach of the
hindering hand of the Copenhagen bunch. Beyond their
power to restrain before critical eradication possibility phase
is history.

If it's not there, but is hidden in a little wooden
box under your mattress, then I guess it hasn't been put forward. If
it is not hidden, but also not in an orderable ISBN, then I'm not sure
what you mean by "put forward".

It has been put forward. Out of your control. More widespread now
than any issue of most scientific journals.

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.

I simply disagree.

I see. Then you and I disagree on what science is.

Certainly with your flavor of scientific method.

You disagree as well with the majority of scientists and
philosophers about what science is. That is your option,
of course.

Yes, I am in sync with a minority of scientists and
philosophers on this issue.

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.

Obviously it doesn't cut mustard with your flavor of scientific
method.

Well, to be frank, it doesn't cut mustard with the prevailing flavor
of the scientific method, which is, by the way, the same method that
is described in the opening chapters of textbooks in biology,
chemistry, geology, as well as physics, as well as the scientific
method that is taught in schools from the 6th grade on. But again, if
you don't agree with the scientific method, that's good to know.

I don't agree with your flavor of scientific method.

I am a causalist. Period.

It does with mine.

Yes, creationists feel the same way about their approach.

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!

It didn't predict it. It only mimics it by coincidence. Just like
the triceratop mimics the rhyno.

Sorry, it gets the answer right and does so before the measurement is
made. That is what is connoted by the term "prediction".

There are insects apparently exactly mimiquing wasps. The only problem
with
them is that they can't sting. They seem to be the real deal, but they
simply
aren't.

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.

No. I made it.

Yes, and this is why it mystifies me why you would bring Ciufolini and
Wheeler in as support.

Just to counter your assertion that there was another experiment that
had been carried out besides atomic clocks that proved gravitational
time dilation.

Confirming that none was before 1995, and none has been since.

Masters if the field confirm that there isn't. Just gave you the ref.

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.

Well, that's how I work. "science" will have to adapt.

OK, then. Have at it. As long as you are clear that what you
are doing is not science in the *conventional* meaning of the
term.

It is science in the real sense of the word.

Research to understand physical reality.

You may want to revisit the basics of the scientific method and how
science does what it does.

Already visited. Disagreement with your sacrosanct method.

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

That is correct.

Bingo.

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

Illogical. Sorry. No ifs and no buts.

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.

I don't really care about your twisted flavor of scientific method.

Again, let me just reiterate that this is not "my" flavor of the
scientific method.

Ok. I meant the flavor that you adhere to.

This is the scientific method that is taught in
schools from the 6th grade on, and how it is described in virtually
every introductory science text in any scientific discipline. Thus, if
you consider the scientific *community's* flavor of the scientific
method twisted, that is again your option, but it is a different kind
of battle you're engaged in.

Obviously. A battle to bring back logics where it should never have
been removed.

Either
a theory is right or else it is wrong. No half pregnancies allowed.

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.

Thank you, but luck not required.

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

Fortunately, I was taught formal logic through the whole Euclidian
theorems sequence before I was exposed to your tainted flavor of
scientific method.

No effect can occur without a cause, cause happens before effect,
and there has to be a continuous logical path between both.

Ah. And I think that Euclid, who I believed lived 2300 years ago,
might indeed be surprised by how science has developed in the
interim.

I am sure he would be devastated by the state of "scientific method"
today.

You may not be particularly happy about that. Since Euclid is dead,
it's not clear whether he would be happy or sad.

Very clear to me.

André Michaud

All else is pathetic and meaningless blah blah.

So you can stop wondering.


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.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Your Communication Problems
    ... >>> Mathematics is not empirical science. ... >>> scientific method, which is essentially inductive and iterative. ... Let us say that science has provided them with the means to do their ... called "scientists". ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Why did Richard P. Feynman say, "I love only nature, and I hate mathematicians"?
    ... Half of the scientific method is not the scientific method. ... airy theorising is complete science. ... (although a large part of it is what scientists have done). ... It would certainly rule out almost all mathematics. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: The clock malfunctioned.
    ... What do you think time dilation *means*, ... Then you and I disagree on what science is. ... well with the majority of scientists and philosophers about what ... you don't agree with the scientific method, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Why did Richard P. Feynman say, "I love only nature, and I hate mathematicians"?
    ... Half of the scientific method is not the scientific method. ... airy theorising is complete science. ... (although a large part of it is what scientists have done). ... specifically to exclude amateurs who don't know how to use the method. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Honest Creationists Argument wanted
    ... I would think that most scientists have no intention of being dishonest ... science. ... DNA strands. ... parts of the theory of evolution) that can be presented rather easily. ...
    (talk.origins)