| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Peri of Pera" |
| Date: |
21 Mar 2006 07:46:55 PM |
| Object: |
Laws of Physics |
Why should the laws of physics not be the same for all inertial
observers, indeed for 'all observers', inertial or not? Who has ever
claimed there were different laws of physics applying to the same
phenomenen? Is this postulate not ridiculous and meaningless?
Peri
.
|
|
| User: "Henry Haapalainen" |
|
| Title: Re: Laws of Physics |
22 Mar 2006 04:31:57 PM |
|
|
"Peri of Pera" <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> kirjoitti viestissä
news:1142992015.826599.10390@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Why should the laws of physics not be the same for all inertial
observers, indeed for 'all observers', inertial or not? Who has ever
claimed there were different laws of physics applying to the same
phenomenen? Is this postulate not ridiculous and meaningless?
Peri
The laws are the same when the theories are correct.
Henry Haapalainen
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Black" |
|
| Title: Re: Laws of Physics |
22 Mar 2006 05:27:09 AM |
|
|
"Peri of Pera" <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1142992015.826599.10390@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Who has ever
claimed there were different laws of physics applying to the same
phenomenen?
Einstein gave a good example at the beginning of his first paper on
special relativity. Consider a magnet and a wire. If the magnet is
moved, the moving magnet causes an electric field, which causes forces
on the electrons in the wire, which causes a measurable voltage
difference between the ends of the wire. If the wire moves toward the
magnet, there is no electric field, but the magnetic field causes a
force on the moving charges in the wire, also causing a voltage
between the ends of the wire.
Clearly these two cases are the same phenomenon in different reference
frames, but the way we've explained them, it sounds like they have
different causes -- in the first case, the force on the electrons
comes from the electric field, and in the second, the force comes from
the magnetic field.
The resolution lies in understanding that a field which is purely
magnetic in one reference frame can have an electric component when
measured in a different reference frame. It's the same field, but
whether we see it as a purely magnetic field or as a magnetic field
and an electric field depends on our frame of reference.
You can find a translation of Einstein's paper here:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: Laws of Physics |
21 Mar 2006 09:04:01 PM |
|
|
"Peri of Pera" <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1142992015.826599.10390@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Why should the laws of physics not be the same for all inertial
observers, indeed for 'all observers', inertial or not? Who has ever
claimed there were different laws of physics applying to the same
phenomenen? Is this postulate not ridiculous and meaningless?
One must take it in context and give a reasonable interpretation of what it
means. In SR it does not mean - if it is not the same in a different frame
then it is not a law - such a statement is vacuous. What it means is the
same experimental setup taken to a different inertial frame will yield
exactly the same results. This is all you need to use in deriving the
Lorentz transformations. Also in the POR where it says the laws of physics
are the same in all inertial reference frames or frames traveling at
constant velocity wrt to an inertial frame the implication is frames
traveling at constant velocity to an inertial frame are also inertial. This
immediately rules out an aether because the direction of an aether wind
breaks isotropy thus making such frames non inertial. Of course such views
are open to interpretation and you will find slightly different views in
some sources - eg see page 449 Griffith's - Introduction to Electrodynamics
for a slightly different view. The thing is it is not really important
which view you adhere to - what is important is you understand the issues.
In GR it means exactly that - it is not to be counted as a law of nature
unless it is the same in all coordinates which the idea of objective reality
more or less demands. It also means that the laws of nature should be
covariant. However it is now well known that covariance alone is not
enough - it needs to be upgraded to the principle of general invariance
which says not only should the laws be covariant but absolute and dynamical
terms should remain unchanged - see Ohanian and Ruffini - Gravitation and
Space-time page 370 - 380. It was this problem that Krecthmann beat
Einstein over the head with in the early days of GR.
Thanks
Bill
Peri
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Laws of Physics |
21 Mar 2006 08:00:13 PM |
|
|
"Peri of Pera" <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1142992015.826599.10390@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Why should the laws of physics not be the same for all inertial
observers, indeed for 'all observers', inertial or not? Who has ever
claimed there were different laws of physics applying to the same
phenomenen? Is this postulate not ridiculous and meaningless?
The "laws" of physics are the same for all observers,
that is why lightspeed should not be able to avoid relative motion
and should not be considered a constant speed to all observers.
:)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Henry Haapalainen" |
|
| Title: Re: Laws of Physics |
22 Mar 2006 04:39:02 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> kirjoitti viestissä
news:2cGdnTGT2cI4Mr3ZnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@comcast.com...
"Peri of Pera" <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1142992015.826599.10390@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Why should the laws of physics not be the same for all inertial
observers, indeed for 'all observers', inertial or not? Who has ever
claimed there were different laws of physics applying to the same
phenomenen? Is this postulate not ridiculous and meaningless?
The "laws" of physics are the same for all observers,
that is why lightspeed should not be able to avoid relative motion
and should not be considered a constant speed to all observers.
:)
Children would understand that easily. It is a problem for some adults.
Henry Haapalainen
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Laws of Physics |
22 Mar 2006 04:34:56 PM |
|
|
"Henry Haapalainen" <kirppu@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message
news:dvsj66$qn1$1@phys-news4.kolumbus.fi...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> kirjoitti viestissä
news:2cGdnTGT2cI4Mr3ZnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@comcast.com...
"Peri of Pera" <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1142992015.826599.10390@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Why should the laws of physics not be the same for all inertial
observers, indeed for 'all observers', inertial or not? Who has ever
claimed there were different laws of physics applying to the same
phenomenen? Is this postulate not ridiculous and meaningless?
The "laws" of physics are the same for all observers,
that is why lightspeed should not be able to avoid relative motion
and should not be considered a constant speed to all observers.
:)
Children would understand that easily. It is a problem for some adults.
Interesting analogy.
Children mostly believe in Father Christmas. As they grow older they realise
that he does not exist.
Children mostly believe in the tooth fairy. As they grow older they realise
that it does not exist.
Children probably do think the speed of light is a varying quantity.
Hopefully, as they grow older they realise this is not the case.
Sadly, some children never grow up and, even as adults, are stuck in their
childlike thought state. They struggle to grasp concepts that are not
completely intuitive and anything which requires abstract thought.
This is a pity, but such is life.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Laws of Physics |
22 Mar 2006 04:47:53 PM |
|
|
"Henry Haapalainen" <kirppu@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message
news:dvsj66$qn1$1@phys-news4.kolumbus.fi...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> kirjoitti viestissä
news:2cGdnTGT2cI4Mr3ZnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@comcast.com...
"Peri of Pera" <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1142992015.826599.10390@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Why should the laws of physics not be the same for all inertial
observers, indeed for 'all observers', inertial or not? Who has ever
claimed there were different laws of physics applying to the same
phenomenen? Is this postulate not ridiculous and meaningless?
The "laws" of physics are the same for all observers,
that is why lightspeed should not be able to avoid relative motion
and should not be considered a constant speed to all observers.
:)
Children would understand that easily. It is a problem for some adults.
Seems to be a massive problem for a few too many adults.
If they would only allow themselves to "think" again like
they may have a while ago.
:)
:)
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Laws of Physics |
23 Mar 2006 07:09:35 AM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:epWdnSE9cMONSbzZnZ2dnUVZ_tSdnZ2d@comcast.com...
Seems to be a massive problem for a few too many adults.
If they would only allow themselves to "think" again like
they may have a while ago.
I notice you seem to be having trouble getting an answer to the muon
distance question.
Can I refer you to your preference for basic mathematics and the apparent
law of physics which ascribes distance = speed*time.
The muon will exist for 2.2x10^-6 seconds after its creation and is moving
at 3x10^8ms^-1.
How far will it go?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Laws of Physics |
23 Mar 2006 09:16:15 AM |
|
|
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7OadnaMmHv2KA7_ZnZ2dnUVZ8qOdnZ2d@pipex.net...
I notice you seem to be having trouble getting an answer to the muon
distance question.
Can I refer you to your preference for basic mathematics and the apparent
law of physics which ascribes distance = speed*time.
The muon will exist for 2.2x10^-6 seconds after its creation and is moving
at 3x10^8ms^-1.
Where are you finding this crap from?
The time you are using is for when the Muon is trapped and timed
It is nto the lifetime for the moving muon.
You should re-read your Muon stuff.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Laws of Physics |
23 Mar 2006 12:37:08 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:yMidnWnBPMcpJr_ZRVn-iA@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7OadnaMmHv2KA7_ZnZ2dnUVZ8qOdnZ2d@pipex.net...
I notice you seem to be having trouble getting an answer to the muon
distance question.
Can I refer you to your preference for basic mathematics and the apparent
law of physics which ascribes distance = speed*time.
The muon will exist for 2.2x10^-6 seconds after its creation and is
moving at 3x10^8ms^-1.
Where are you finding this crap from?
I like the way you express your understanding of particle physics. (Sorry, I
should have said "lack of")
The time you are using is for when the Muon is trapped and timed
It is nto the lifetime for the moving muon.
What you are saying here is you cant work out the answer, isnt it.
You should re-read your Muon stuff.
You have no idea what you are talking about do you?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Laws of Physics |
23 Mar 2006 10:39:10 AM |
|
|
Spaceman wrote:
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7OadnaMmHv2KA7_ZnZ2dnUVZ8qOdnZ2d@pipex.net...
I notice you seem to be having trouble getting an answer to the muon
distance question.
Can I refer you to your preference for basic mathematics and the apparent
law of physics which ascribes distance = speed*time.
The muon will exist for 2.2x10^-6 seconds after its creation and is moving
at 3x10^8ms^-1.
Where are you finding this crap from?
The time you are using is for when the Muon is trapped and timed
It is nto the lifetime for the moving muon.
You should re-read your Muon stuff.
Spaceman thinks that giving a muon some kinetic energy extends its life
somehow, though he's not quite sure how that happens.
Moreover, it doesn't occur to him that two different observers will see
the muon as having two different kinetic energies and measure two
different lifetimes for the *same* muon. It would be a neat trick for
kinetic energy to extend the life of the same muon differently for two
different observers. But spaceman is convinced this is how it does it,
anyway.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Laws of Physics |
23 Mar 2006 10:47:43 AM |
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143131950.380960.299240@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Spaceman wrote:
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7OadnaMmHv2KA7_ZnZ2dnUVZ8qOdnZ2d@pipex.net...
I notice you seem to be having trouble getting an answer to the muon
distance question.
Can I refer you to your preference for basic mathematics and the
apparent
law of physics which ascribes distance = speed*time.
The muon will exist for 2.2x10^-6 seconds after its creation and is
moving
at 3x10^8ms^-1.
Where are you finding this crap from?
The time you are using is for when the Muon is trapped and timed
It is nto the lifetime for the moving muon.
You should re-read your Muon stuff.
Spaceman thinks that giving a muon some kinetic energy extends its life
somehow, though he's not quite sure how that happens.
Moreover, it doesn't occur to him that two different observers will see
the muon as having two different kinetic energies and measure two
different lifetimes for the *same* muon. It would be a neat trick for
kinetic energy to extend the life of the same muon differently for two
different observers. But spaceman is convinced this is how it does it,
anyway.
Again, as usual, you twist completely away from what was stated.
Where did I say that is was the KE of the motion that is keeping it
alive longer?
Hmm,
we roll a ball on earth and it rolls at 10 mph wrt earth.
The KE is relative, yet the life of the ball remains the same.
why are you saying it is the KE that is keeping the ball "alive"
longer or shorter?
KE is relative and of course so is speed,
but when it comes to the life of an object.
the relatives are null and void according to the rolling ball.
HA HA!
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Laws of Physics |
23 Mar 2006 12:39:45 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:7rGdnVChmOS5TL_Z4p2dnA@comcast.com...
Hmm,
we roll a ball on earth and it rolls at 10 mph wrt earth.
The KE is relative, yet the life of the ball remains the same.
why are you saying it is the KE that is keeping the ball "alive"
longer or shorter?
KE is relative and of course so is speed,
but when it comes to the life of an object.
the relatives are null and void according to the rolling ball.
What has this got to do with your pathetic evasive techniques.
How far will the muon travel before it decays.
The muon is created by a high energy event at the Earth's atmosphere. How
far will it travel before it decays when it will live for 2.2x10^-6 seconds
and is moving at 3x10^8m s^-1?
If you cant answer admit it.
Is basic mathematics not helping you out here?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Laws of Physics |
23 Mar 2006 12:50:56 PM |
|
|
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:F8qdnb-yW4_mdr_ZnZ2dnUVZ8qWdnZ2d@pipex.net...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:7rGdnVChmOS5TL_Z4p2dnA@comcast.com...
Hmm,
we roll a ball on earth and it rolls at 10 mph wrt earth.
The KE is relative, yet the life of the ball remains the same.
why are you saying it is the KE that is keeping the ball "alive"
longer or shorter?
KE is relative and of course so is speed,
but when it comes to the life of an object.
the relatives are null and void according to the rolling ball.
What has this got to do with your pathetic evasive techniques.
How far will the muon travel before it decays.
It depends what keeps it "alive".
Why would you ignore such a fact at all?
The muon is created by a high energy event at the Earth's atmosphere. How
far will it travel before it decays when it will live for 2.2x10^-6
seconds and is moving at 3x10^8m s^-1?
The muon's lifetime was not measured in the situation you
are giving.
You are giving incorrect data to begin with.
Why would I want to use such incorrect data at all?
Is basic mathematics not helping you out here?
It always helps me here.
It is pretty sad you forgot how and when to use it.
:)
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Laws of Physics |
23 Mar 2006 01:03:35 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:4vSdnbEoNuGZc7_ZnZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d@comcast.com...
How far will the muon travel before it decays.
It depends what keeps it "alive".
Why would you ignore such a fact at all?
See, this is proof that you have not answered the question. You keep coming
up with evasive manoeuvres.
I can refine the question for you if it is too hard.
A high energy event takes place in a particle collider in which two
particles are smashed together and a muon results from the collision moving
at 0.996c.
Muons have a lifespan of 2.2x10^-6 seconds. This does not depend on the
speed they are moving at. (Saying otherwise is like saying a human on a
treadmill for his/her entire life will live to be 500 years old)
The energy going into the reaction to create the muon is the same as the
energy required to create a muon which is then held in a static field.
Once created the muon is going to move around a ring structure approximately
26 miles in diameter. it does not interact with anything during its travels.
The muon is travelling at (0.996*3x10^8)m s-1.
How far will it travel before it disintegrates.
The muon is created by a high energy event at the Earth's atmosphere. How
far will it travel before it decays when it will live for 2.2x10^-6
seconds and is moving at 3x10^8m s^-1?
The muon's lifetime was not measured in the situation you
are giving.
It is like saying your lifespan hasnt been measuring if you stand up and
talk gibberish.
You are giving incorrect data to begin with.
Nope.
Why would I want to use such incorrect data at all?
Well, if you could work it out you would.
Lets face it. You have no idea what you are talking about on a science
group.
You have seen this question and you smell a trap. However, your lack of
understanding means you don't know if there is a trap or, more worryingly to
you, you don't know how to get out of the trap you think you are in.
You have been babbling on for what seems like eternity about "basic algebra"
and how it can solve everything.
You have all the information you require to solve this question.
Solve the question.
Is basic mathematics not helping you out here?
It always helps me here.
It is pretty sad you forgot how and when to use it.
Solve the question then.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Laws of Physics |
23 Mar 2006 01:16:32 PM |
|
|
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:YdWdncy6DJeMbL_ZRVnyig@pipex.net...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:4vSdnbEoNuGZc7_ZnZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d@comcast.com...
How far will the muon travel before it decays.
It depends what keeps it "alive".
Why would you ignore such a fact at all?
See, this is proof that you have not answered the question. You keep
coming up with evasive manoeuvres.
No,
I keep telling you the question needs facts in it if I am going
to answer it at all.
I can refine the question for you if it is too hard.
A high energy event takes place in a particle collider in which two
particles are smashed together and a muon results from the collision
moving at 0.996c.
Muons have a lifespan of 2.2x10^-6 seconds.
They do not have that lifetime at a speed of almost c.
You are still incorrect.
This does not depend on the speed they are moving at.
Yes it does.
(Saying otherwise is like saying a human on a treadmill for his/her entire
life will live to be 500 years old)
No,
That is a completely ignorant statement.
The energy going into the reaction to create the muon is the same as the
energy required to create a muon which is then held in a static field.
Once created the muon is going to move around a ring structure
approximately 26 miles in diameter. it does not interact with anything
during its travels.
ROFLOL
It does not interact with anything?
Are you that freakin dense?
It has to interact with the magnetic field holding it in it's path
around the circle.
Sheesh!
you are totally ignorant!
LOL
The muon is travelling at (0.996*3x10^8)m s-1.
While traveling through a magnetic field that simply
can give it a spin that will keep it alove longer.
(funny. just like a ball rolling..)
LOL
How far will it travel before it disintegrates.
It will last longer than the normal lifetime so
your question is still wrong to begin with.
LOL
Lets face it. You have no idea what you are talking about on a science
group.
Let's face it,
You think a magnetic field with a longer path on the outside
than the inside would not impart spin to a muon traveling along
such path and therefore would keep it "with charge" for a longer
period of time.
You are an ignorant moron at best.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Laws of Physics |
23 Mar 2006 01:26:33 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:XNidnUgPBryZab_ZRVn-rA@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:YdWdncy6DJeMbL_ZRVnyig@pipex.net...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:4vSdnbEoNuGZc7_ZnZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d@comcast.com...
How far will the muon travel before it decays.
It depends what keeps it "alive".
Why would you ignore such a fact at all?
See, this is proof that you have not answered the question. You keep
coming up with evasive manoeuvres.
No,
I keep telling you the question needs facts in it if I am going
to answer it at all.
I have told you every fact required (and then some) for some one with a
passing knowledge of physics to be able to answer the question - and,
importantly, give the answer which matches the observed data.
I see you want to know more.
What else do you need to know.
I can refine the question for you if it is too hard.
A high energy event takes place in a particle collider in which two
particles are smashed together and a muon results from the collision
moving at 0.996c.
Muons have a lifespan of 2.2x10^-6 seconds.
They do not have that lifetime at a speed of almost c.
You are still incorrect.
Really? How long do they live at a speed of almost c?
This does not depend on the speed they are moving at.
Yes it does.
Prove it.
(Saying otherwise is like saying a human on a treadmill for his/her entire
life will live to be 500 years old)
No,
That is a completely ignorant statement.
Why, it is identical. You say the faster the muon goes, the longer it lives.
I say that is crap and you have no theoretical basis for it, let alone any
experimental evidence.
The energy going into the reaction to create the muon is the same as the
energy required to create a muon which is then held in a static field.
Once created the muon is going to move around a ring structure
approximately 26 miles in diameter. it does not interact with anything
during its travels.
ROFLOL
It does not interact with anything?
Are you that freakin dense?
It has to interact with the magnetic field holding it in it's path
around the circle.
As you would have noticed in the bit you snipped, this was me rephrasing the
thought experiment for your needs.
I can see you really dont want to answer the question and will continue to
evade at all costs.
The muon is travelling at (0.996*3x10^8)m s-1.
While traveling through a magnetic field that simply
can give it a spin that will keep it alove longer.
Oddly this is not what the experimental data shows.
Would the life giving "spin" be the same in an large collider as, for
example, moving through the atmosphere?
How much of a "spin" would the magnetic field give it?
Cant you work out how far round the ring the muon will go?
It is strange that 15 year olds can normally answer this in a physics
lesson - with less data than you already have - and give the correct answer.
Isnt that amazing?
How far will it travel before it disintegrates.
It will last longer than the normal lifetime so
your question is still wrong to begin with.
Translation:
"I have no idea so I will keep coming up with objections as to why I cant
answer"
Lets face it. You have no idea what you are talking about on a science
group.
Let's face it,
You think a magnetic field with a longer path on the outside
than the inside would not impart spin to a muon traveling along
such path and therefore would keep it "with charge" for a longer
period of time.
You are an ignorant moron at best.
You still have no idea what you are talking about. You would be out of your
depth in a science conversation with 10 year olds.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Laws of Physics |
23 Mar 2006 01:35:59 PM |
|
|
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3eqdnT4C7dPoa7_ZnZ2dnUVZ8qCdnZ2d@pipex.net...
I have told you every fact required (and then some) for some one with a
passing knowledge of physics to be able to answer the question - and,
importantly, give the answer which matches the observed data.
I see you want to know more.
What else do you need to know.
How long would you say the muon lasts for at that speed?
Why, it is identical. You say the faster the muon goes, the longer it
lives. I say that is crap and you have no theoretical basis for it, let
alone any experimental evidence.
So you say the muon does not "last longer" when in motion close
to c and no "time dilation" is going to occur at all then?
While traveling through a magnetic field that simply
can give it a spin that will keep it alove longer.
Oddly this is not what the experimental data shows.
So you are now saying no time dilation occurs?
Would the life giving "spin" be the same in an large collider as, for
example, moving through the atmosphere?
How much of a "spin" would the magnetic field give it?
Cant you work out how far round the ring the muon will go?
Why should I bother.
using math is and predicting is boring mathematics,
finding out what actually is happening is physics.
You truly think the magnetic field does not affect the muon at all?
ROFLOL
You still have no idea what you are talking about. You would be out of
your depth in a science conversation with 10 year olds.
You truly are ignorant to the first degree.
You think on your own as well as a brick wall would.
LOL
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Laws of Physics |
23 Mar 2006 01:41:37 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:O4qdnbsLevMJZb_ZnZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3eqdnT4C7dPoa7_ZnZ2dnUVZ8qCdnZ2d@pipex.net...
I have told you every fact required (and then some) for some one with a
passing knowledge of physics to be able to answer the question - and,
importantly, give the answer which matches the observed data.
I see you want to know more.
What else do you need to know.
How long would you say the muon lasts for at that speed?
2.2x10^-6 seconds.
Why, it is identical. You say the faster the muon goes, the longer it
lives. I say that is crap and you have no theoretical basis for it, let
alone any experimental evidence.
So you say the muon does not "last longer" when in motion close
to c and no "time dilation" is going to occur at all then?
I have no idea.
I know that the measured life span for a muon in motion is observed to be
2.2x10^-6 seconds.
While traveling through a magnetic field that simply
can give it a spin that will keep it alove longer.
Oddly this is not what the experimental data shows.
So you are now saying no time dilation occurs?
I never said anything about time dilation.
We can debate why the answer is the answer when we know the answer.
Would the life giving "spin" be the same in an large collider as, for
example, moving through the atmosphere?
How much of a "spin" would the magnetic field give it?
Cant you work out how far round the ring the muon will go?
Why should I bother.
using math is and predicting is boring mathematics,
finding out what actually is happening is physics.
Really? This is why you know nothing about science.
You truly think the magnetic field does not affect the muon at all?
You have no idea how much it does or doesnt affect the muon. What is the
difference between the magnetic field in the collider and the the
atmosphere?
You still have no idea what you are talking about. You would be out of
your depth in a science conversation with 10 year olds.
You truly are ignorant to the first degree.
You think on your own as well as a brick wall would.
Well said, brains. What is the answer to the question?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Euclid Uranium" |
|
| Title: Re: Laws of Physics |
18 Apr 2006 08:36:17 AM |
|
|
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote:
Oddly this is not what the experimental data shows.
Would the life giving "spin" be the same in an large collider as, for
example, moving through the atmosphere?
How much of a "spin" would the magnetic field give it?
Cant you work out how far round the ring the muon will go?
It is strange that 15 year olds can normally answer this in a physics
You won't. Also, unwilling the Klingons activation of the
another argument, is; Given that close, to the Joe keeping it
should logically; sound like to Stop Posting to Stop Posting
Crap To. Hath, is time progresses, once a pretty interesting to
non negligible; importance; of crystals behind by Dirk of the
charged. Hmmm: couldn't resist them. The spacetime and Update
had an opinion, which only the faster. We go no physically do
so you oscillated state University Louisiana the question of
sight. Debunked.
Usually by web or Theoretical grounds and absorbtion alert.
Don't blurt need anything Special case described in bed of
cellular automaton! Since this Darky: Listen please see last
Olympics. My children or Fast as else but ya, when you: don't
care for burning and.
Have little troll so never been converted into perfection and
access to Stop Posting. Ok, from kingdom, of elements heavier
certain special relativity the universe, light so wedded Dame
observer the Austin (American public academies in your answer
it must be Geometry or sideways movement that it was). Randy
was refering To find real i am impressed, and was at once
again, At from , in which , it is in the mechanical or be quite
well, by: a computer, in part section of The box with Proven
anything in thirteen Week Im Co moving creating an arrogant.
Ahaha.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Laws of Physics |
23 Mar 2006 11:04:51 AM |
|
|
Spaceman wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143131950.380960.299240@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Spaceman wrote:
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7OadnaMmHv2KA7_ZnZ2dnUVZ8qOdnZ2d@pipex.net...
I notice you seem to be having trouble getting an answer to the muon
distance question.
Can I refer you to your preference for basic mathematics and the
apparent
law of physics which ascribes distance = speed*time.
The muon will exist for 2.2x10^-6 seconds after its creation and is
moving
at 3x10^8ms^-1.
Where are you finding this crap from?
The time you are using is for when the Muon is trapped and timed
It is nto the lifetime for the moving muon.
You should re-read your Muon stuff.
Spaceman thinks that giving a muon some kinetic energy extends its life
somehow, though he's not quite sure how that happens.
Moreover, it doesn't occur to him that two different observers will see
the muon as having two different kinetic energies and measure two
different lifetimes for the *same* muon. It would be a neat trick for
kinetic energy to extend the life of the same muon differently for two
different observers. But spaceman is convinced this is how it does it,
anyway.
Again, as usual, you twist completely away from what was stated.
Where did I say that is was the KE of the motion that is keeping it
alive longer?
Would you like me to quote where you said have said this?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/bfcbbcc2278f31a6?hl=en&
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/9374a8740f829177?hl=en&
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/0aeb4343c5a076b4?hl=en&
Hmm,
we roll a ball on earth and it rolls at 10 mph wrt earth.
The KE is relative, yet the life of the ball remains the same.
why are you saying it is the KE that is keeping the ball "alive"
longer or shorter?
KE is relative and of course so is speed,
but when it comes to the life of an object.
the relatives are null and void according to the rolling ball.
HA HA!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Laws of Physics |
23 Mar 2006 11:10:23 AM |
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143133491.609624.84070@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Spaceman wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143131950.380960.299240@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Spaceman wrote:
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7OadnaMmHv2KA7_ZnZ2dnUVZ8qOdnZ2d@pipex.net...
I notice you seem to be having trouble getting an answer to the muon
distance question.
Can I refer you to your preference for basic mathematics and the
apparent
law of physics which ascribes distance = speed*time.
The muon will exist for 2.2x10^-6 seconds after its creation and is
moving
at 3x10^8ms^-1.
Where are you finding this crap from?
The time you are using is for when the Muon is trapped and timed
It is nto the lifetime for the moving muon.
You should re-read your Muon stuff.
Spaceman thinks that giving a muon some kinetic energy extends its life
somehow, though he's not quite sure how that happens.
Moreover, it doesn't occur to him that two different observers will see
the muon as having two different kinetic energies and measure two
different lifetimes for the *same* muon. It would be a neat trick for
kinetic energy to extend the life of the same muon differently for two
different observers. But spaceman is convinced this is how it does it,
anyway.
Again, as usual, you twist completely away from what was stated.
Where did I say that is was the KE of the motion that is keeping it
alive longer?
Would you like me to quote where you said have said this?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/bfcbbcc2278f31a6?hl=en&
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/9374a8740f829177?hl=en&
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/0aeb4343c5a076b4?hl=en&
But the point is I am not talking about the relative KE,
I am talking about the physical KE in the situation given.
Why did you ignore all that is below?
You can't figure how a relative KE is making the
ball only move so far no matter the other observers KE
measurements?
The ball rolls at 10 mph on earth.
The KE of the ball is relative and of course the speed is
also.
Why would the ball only roll so far (life)
and why would the ball have longer life with more speed
but such longer life would increase according to the speed
wrt the earth and not give a crap about other observers speeds
wrt it it.
Seems you can't grasp that KE being relative has nothing to
do with a Muon's speed and life time, just as KE being
relative has nothing to do with a ball rolling on the gounds
lifetime.
Sheesh
You are truly very ignorant.
LOL
Hmm,
we roll a ball on earth and it rolls at 10 mph wrt earth.
The KE is relative, yet the life of the ball remains the same.
why are you saying it is the KE that is keeping the ball "alive"
longer or shorter?
KE is relative and of course so is speed,
but when it comes to the life of an object.
the relatives are null and void according to the rolling ball.
HA HA!
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Laws of Physics |
23 Mar 2006 12:40:53 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:fuWdnZQ_yObpS7_ZnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@comcast.com...
The ball rolls at 10 mph on earth.
The KE of the ball is relative and of course the speed is
also.
Why would the ball only roll so far (life)
and why would the ball have longer life with more speed
but such longer life would increase according to the speed
wrt the earth and not give a crap about other observers speeds
wrt it it.
Seems you can't grasp that KE being relative has nothing to
do with a Muon's speed and life time, just as KE being
relative has nothing to do with a ball rolling on the gounds
lifetime.
Does the ball decay at the end of the roll? No.
Irrelevant analogy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Laws of Physics |
23 Mar 2006 12:54:48 PM |
|
|
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:zemdnU4V4NJedr_ZRVnyuw@pipex.net...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:fuWdnZQ_yObpS7_ZnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@comcast.com...
The ball rolls at 10 mph on earth.
The KE of the ball is relative and of course the speed is
also.
Why would the ball only roll so far (life)
and why would the ball have longer life with more speed
but such longer life would increase according to the speed
wrt the earth and not give a crap about other observers speeds
wrt it it.
Seems you can't grasp that KE being relative has nothing to
do with a Muon's speed and life time, just as KE being
relative has nothing to do with a ball rolling on the gounds
lifetime.
Does the ball decay at the end of the roll? No.
Yes, the "rolling energy" does decay and ends up dead in the end.
(The ball rolling had a "rotational energy" that was gone when it
stopped didn't it?)
The energy died.
You refuse to even attempt to think at all anymore huh?
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Laws of Physics |
23 Mar 2006 01:04:39 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:qK-dnaYEpfpwc7_ZnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:zemdnU4V4NJedr_ZRVnyuw@pipex.net...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:fuWdnZQ_yObpS7_ZnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@comcast.com...
The ball rolls at 10 mph on earth.
The KE of the ball is relative and of course the speed is
also.
Why would the ball only roll so far (life)
and why would the ball have longer life with more speed
but such longer life would increase according to the speed
wrt the earth and not give a crap about other observers speeds
wrt it it.
Seems you can't grasp that KE being relative has nothing to
do with a Muon's speed and life time, just as KE being
relative has nothing to do with a ball rolling on the gounds
lifetime.
Does the ball decay at the end of the roll? No.
Yes, the "rolling energy" does decay and ends up dead in the end.
(The ball rolling had a "rotational energy" that was gone when it
stopped didn't it?)
The energy died.
You refuse to even attempt to think at all anymore huh?
The ball was still there. The muon is gone.
Does your lifespan depend on how fast you are running?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Laws of Physics |
23 Mar 2006 01:18:27 PM |
|
|
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:upOdnRbCYZfqbL_ZRVnygQ@pipex.net...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:qK-dnaYEpfpwc7_ZnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:zemdnU4V4NJedr_ZRVnyuw@pipex.net...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:fuWdnZQ_yObpS7_ZnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@comcast.com...
The ball rolls at 10 mph on earth.
The KE of the ball is relative and of course the speed is
also.
Why would the ball only roll so far (life)
and why would the ball have longer life with more speed
but such longer life would increase according to the speed
wrt the earth and not give a crap about other observers speeds
wrt it it.
Seems you can't grasp that KE being relative has nothing to
do with a Muon's speed and life time, just as KE being
relative has nothing to do with a ball rolling on the gounds
lifetime.
Does the ball decay at the end of the roll? No.
Yes, the "rolling energy" does decay and ends up dead in the end.
(The ball rolling had a "rotational energy" that was gone when it
stopped didn't it?)
The energy died.
You refuse to even attempt to think at all anymore huh?
The ball was still there. The muon is gone.
The balls energy is gone.
Just like the energy of the muon.
Does your lifespan depend on how fast you are running?
According to relativity, yes.
In reality, no.
Time is not relative to reality.
:)
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Laws of Physics |
23 Mar 2006 01:27:54 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:SMGdnTmtTNXqab_Z4p2dnA@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:upOdnRbCYZfqbL_ZRVnygQ@pipex.net...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:qK-dnaYEpfpwc7_ZnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:zemdnU4V4NJedr_ZRVnyuw@pipex.net...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:fuWdnZQ_yObpS7_ZnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@comcast.com...
The ball rolls at 10 mph on earth.
The KE of the ball is relative and of course the speed is
also.
Why would the ball only roll so far (life)
and why would the ball have longer life with more speed
but such longer life would increase according to the speed
wrt the earth and not give a crap about other observers speeds
wrt it it.
Seems you can't grasp that KE being relative has nothing to
do with a Muon's speed and life time, just as KE being
relative has nothing to do with a ball rolling on the gounds
lifetime.
Does the ball decay at the end of the roll? No.
Yes, the "rolling energy" does decay and ends up dead in the end.
(The ball rolling had a "rotational energy" that was gone when it
stopped didn't it?)
The energy died.
You refuse to even attempt to think at all anymore huh?
The ball was still there. The muon is gone.
The balls energy is gone.
Just like the energy of the muon.
No. The ball still has energy - in its mass and it has gravitational energy.
The muon has changed into different particles which are long gone.
Does your lifespan depend on how fast you are running?
According to relativity, yes.
Really? By how much?
In reality, no.
Time is not relative to reality.
So why cant you answer the question about the muon then?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Laws of Physics |
23 Mar 2006 01:31:23 PM |
|
|
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:HpWdnchm_5tZa7_ZRVnyrw@pipex.net...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:SMGdnTmtTNXqab_Z4p2dnA@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:upOdnRbCYZfqbL_ZRVnygQ@pipex.net...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:qK-dnaYEpfpwc7_ZnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:zemdnU4V4NJedr_ZRVnyuw@pipex.net...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:fuWdnZQ_yObpS7_ZnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@comcast.com...
The ball rolls at 10 mph on earth.
The KE of the ball is relative and of course the speed is
also.
Why would the ball only roll so far (life)
and why would the ball have longer life with more speed
but such longer life would increase according to the speed
wrt the earth and not give a crap about other observers speeds
wrt it it.
Seems you can't grasp that KE being relative has nothing to
do with a Muon's speed and life time, just as KE being
relative has nothing to do with a ball rolling on the gounds
lifetime.
Does the ball decay at the end of the roll? No.
Yes, the "rolling energy" does decay and ends up dead in the end.
(The ball rolling had a "rotational energy" that was gone when it
stopped didn't it?)
The energy died.
You refuse to even attempt to think at all anymore huh?
The ball was still there. The muon is gone.
The balls energy is gone.
Just like the energy of the muon.
No. The ball still has energy - in its mass and it has gravitational
energy.
So, the parts of the muon no longer exist?
WRONG!
HA HA!
The muon has changed into different particles which are long gone.
The particles the muon was made of are not long gone.
Where do you get that crap from?
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Laws of Physics |
23 Mar 2006 01:36:52 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:9ZWdnZEXi-riar_ZnZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:HpWdnchm_5tZa7_ZRVnyrw@pipex.net...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:SMGdnTmtTNXqab_Z4p2dnA@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:upOdnRbCYZfqbL_ZRVnygQ@pipex.net...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:qK-dnaYEpfpwc7_ZnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:zemdnU4V4NJedr_ZRVnyuw@pipex.net...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:fuWdnZQ_yObpS7_ZnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@comcast.com...
The ball rolls at 10 mph on earth.
The KE of the ball is relative and of course the speed is
also.
Why would the ball only roll so far (life)
and why would the ball have longer life with more speed
but such longer life would increase according to the speed
wrt the earth and not give a crap about other observers speeds
wrt it it.
Seems you can't grasp that KE being relative has nothing to
do with a Muon's speed and life time, just as KE being
relative has nothing to do with a ball rolling on the gounds
lifetime.
Does the ball decay at the end of the roll? No.
Yes, the "rolling energy" does decay and ends up dead in the end.
(The ball rolling had a "rotational energy" that was gone when it
stopped didn't it?)
The energy died.
You refuse to even attempt to think at all anymore huh?
The ball was still there. The muon is gone.
The balls energy is gone.
Just like the energy of the muon.
No. The ball still has energy - in its mass and it has gravitational
energy.
So, the parts of the muon no longer exist?
The ball is still there and it is still a discrete object. 1 ball still
exists.
The muon is now new particles and saying "parts" of it still exist is simply
the same as saying parts of everything still exist, rendering the sentence
meaningless.
Although you wont understand that.
The muon has changed into different particles which are long gone.
The particles the muon was made of are not long gone.
Where do you get that crap from?
They have accelerated away from the decay point at high speed. Where do you
think they will be?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Laws of Physics |
23 Mar 2006 01:39:50 PM |
|
|
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4fqdncGPEox9Zb_ZRVny3g@pipex.net...
The ball is still there and it is still a discrete object. 1 ball still
exists.
But it's "rolling life" is dead and gone.
You can think this is not a good analogy all you want T Wake.
It only proves how close minded you are.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
