Science > Physics > The Fundamental Absurdity of the Theory of Relativity
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Pentcho Valev" |
| Date: |
08 Feb 2006 12:39:53 AM |
| Object: |
The Fundamental Absurdity of the Theory of Relativity |
Albert Einstein, 1905:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ :
"From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the
points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the
stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with
the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two
clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags
behind the other which has remained at B by tv^2/2c^2 (up to magnitudes
of fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in the journey
from A to B.
It is at once apparent that this result still holds good if the clock
moves from A to B in any polygonal line, and also when the points A and
B coincide."
Let there be, initially, many synchronous stationary clocks scattered
on the polygonal line (or the original line AB). Then they get moved
along the polygonal line, simultaneously and with constant speed v,
some in one direction, others in the other. According to Einstein's
theory, any moving clock lags behind stationary clocks by tv^2/2c^2.
Therefore, judging from the stationary system, as moving clocks pass
one another, their readings coincide (on their meeting, moving clocks
prove equally slow with respect to a nearby stationary clock).
On the other hand, according to Einstein's theory, as moving clocks
pass one another, their readings cannot coincide. Judging from their
own inertial systems, moving clocks lag behind with respect to one
another as described on p. 7 in
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch10.pdf
The only solution to the problem involves abandoning Einstein's false
principle of constancy of the speed of light (the c principle) and
returning to Newton's true principle of variability of the speed of
light (the c+v principle).
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: The Fundamental Absurdity of the Theory of Relativity |
05 Mar 2006 05:20:05 PM |
|
|
Henri Wilson wrote:
On 3 Mar 2006 09:26:00 -0800, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:
Spaceman wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1141403761.083309.275780@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
The time of flight of muons is measured by scintillators separated
along the path of travel. The speed is easily determined from the
distance between the scintillators and the time difference between the
signals in the scintillator. It is a subluminal speed.
Fine
so they "live" longer because of the extra motion (energy)
they have.
Just like a top that is spinning will spin longer (live longer) than
a top that is not spinning and falls (dies) basically right away.
(or as fast as it falls anyway)
The more energy you give to the top, the longer it "lives".
Several comments:
1. I was talking to Henri and not to you. He made the claim that muons
are superluminal and I was addressing that claim. This is the last that
I will deal with you on this topic.
2. A top's *motion* lasts longer if you give it a bigger spin, just
like a shopping cart will roll farther if you push it harder. This does
not mean that the top becomes something else when it has stopped moving
or that the shopping cart decays into something else when it stops
rolling.
3. The muon does decay only after slowing down and stopping. A
fast-moving muon decays while it is still going, even if its speed is
unchanged for the whole flight. We know that it is still going when it
decays by at least a couple of independent means:
a) The muon can decay between a pair of scintillators in the chain of
scintillators that is used for the time-of-flight measurement. None of
the previous scintillators indicate a slowing down and there is no
reason to believe that it suddenly decided to slow down to a stop in
that last interval between scintillators before decaying.
b) The muon decays into an electron and neutrinos, conserving energy
and momentum in that process. The momentum of the products tells us
that the muon was still moving when it decayed.
4) It is not true that a muon is only a muon if it is moving. You seem
to be saying that a top ceases to be a top once its motion stops. This
is not true for the top and it is not true for a muon.
5) You have no mechanism, real or imagined, why the *decay* of a muon
into something completely different (electrons and neutrinos) would be
delayed by its having motion.
Motion wrt what?
A good question to ask spaceman. He's the one that says motion makes
the muon live longer.
Take away the Earth. To what is the muon's 'speed' relative now?
Should it take more time or less time to decay?
Basically, you have no idea what you're talking about. You just like
tossing out "maybes" and "sorta likes" and "what ifs" to hear yourself
talk.
PD
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: The Fundamental Absurdity of the Theory of Relativity |
05 Mar 2006 05:55:19 PM |
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1141600805.328732.145430@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Henri Wilson wrote:
On 3 Mar 2006 09:26:00 -0800, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:
Spaceman wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1141403761.083309.275780@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
The time of flight of muons is measured by scintillators separated
along the path of travel. The speed is easily determined from the
distance between the scintillators and the time difference between
the
signals in the scintillator. It is a subluminal speed.
Fine
so they "live" longer because of the extra motion (energy)
they have.
Just like a top that is spinning will spin longer (live longer) than
a top that is not spinning and falls (dies) basically right away.
(or as fast as it falls anyway)
The more energy you give to the top, the longer it "lives".
Several comments:
1. I was talking to Henri and not to you. He made the claim that muons
are superluminal and I was addressing that claim. This is the last that
I will deal with you on this topic.
2. A top's *motion* lasts longer if you give it a bigger spin, just
like a shopping cart will roll farther if you push it harder. This does
not mean that the top becomes something else when it has stopped moving
or that the shopping cart decays into something else when it stops
rolling.
3. The muon does decay only after slowing down and stopping. A
fast-moving muon decays while it is still going, even if its speed is
unchanged for the whole flight. We know that it is still going when it
decays by at least a couple of independent means:
a) The muon can decay between a pair of scintillators in the chain of
scintillators that is used for the time-of-flight measurement. None of
the previous scintillators indicate a slowing down and there is no
reason to believe that it suddenly decided to slow down to a stop in
that last interval between scintillators before decaying.
b) The muon decays into an electron and neutrinos, conserving energy
and momentum in that process. The momentum of the products tells us
that the muon was still moving when it decayed.
4) It is not true that a muon is only a muon if it is moving. You seem
to be saying that a top ceases to be a top once its motion stops. This
is not true for the top and it is not true for a muon.
5) You have no mechanism, real or imagined, why the *decay* of a muon
into something completely different (electrons and neutrinos) would be
delayed by its having motion.
Motion wrt what?
A good question to ask spaceman. He's the one that says motion makes
the muon live longer.
LOL
You are also saying so.
You say it lived longer through time dilation caused by the motion.
You still need to answer for such.
So don't ignore the question PD like you always do.
The more motion I am speaking of is simply the more motion
than the "at rest" WRT Earth motion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: The Fundamental Absurdity of the Theory of Relativity |
06 Mar 2006 07:58:12 AM |
|
|
Spaceman wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1141600805.328732.145430@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Henri Wilson wrote:
On 3 Mar 2006 09:26:00 -0800, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:
Spaceman wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1141403761.083309.275780@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
The time of flight of muons is measured by scintillators separated
along the path of travel. The speed is easily determined from the
distance between the scintillators and the time difference between
the
signals in the scintillator. It is a subluminal speed.
Fine
so they "live" longer because of the extra motion (energy)
they have.
Just like a top that is spinning will spin longer (live longer) than
a top that is not spinning and falls (dies) basically right away.
(or as fast as it falls anyway)
The more energy you give to the top, the longer it "lives".
Several comments:
1. I was talking to Henri and not to you. He made the claim that muons
are superluminal and I was addressing that claim. This is the last that
I will deal with you on this topic.
2. A top's *motion* lasts longer if you give it a bigger spin, just
like a shopping cart will roll farther if you push it harder. This does
not mean that the top becomes something else when it has stopped moving
or that the shopping cart decays into something else when it stops
rolling.
3. The muon does decay only after slowing down and stopping. A
fast-moving muon decays while it is still going, even if its speed is
unchanged for the whole flight. We know that it is still going when it
decays by at least a couple of independent means:
a) The muon can decay between a pair of scintillators in the chain of
scintillators that is used for the time-of-flight measurement. None of
the previous scintillators indicate a slowing down and there is no
reason to believe that it suddenly decided to slow down to a stop in
that last interval between scintillators before decaying.
b) The muon decays into an electron and neutrinos, conserving energy
and momentum in that process. The momentum of the products tells us
that the muon was still moving when it decayed.
4) It is not true that a muon is only a muon if it is moving. You seem
to be saying that a top ceases to be a top once its motion stops. This
is not true for the top and it is not true for a muon.
5) You have no mechanism, real or imagined, why the *decay* of a muon
into something completely different (electrons and neutrinos) would be
delayed by its having motion.
Motion wrt what?
A good question to ask spaceman. He's the one that says motion makes
the muon live longer.
LOL
You are also saying so.
You say it lived longer through time dilation caused by the motion.
No I didn't. You apparently didn't understand a word I said.
You still need to answer for such.
Not the way you mangled it.
So don't ignore the question PD like you always do.
Perhaps if you asked a question...
The more motion I am speaking of is simply the more motion
than the "at rest" WRT Earth motion.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: The Fundamental Absurdity of the Theory of Relativity |
05 Mar 2006 03:52:30 PM |
|
|
On 3 Mar 2006 08:36:01 -0800, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 22:56:51 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
The Muons were superluminal.
False statement
Prove it.
The time of flight of muons is measured by scintillators separated
along the path of travel. The speed is easily determined from the
distance between the scintillators and the time difference between the
signals in the scintillator. It is a subluminal speed.
Androcles asserts that the superluminal muons are slowed by passage
through the first (scintillator) in this spaced set, thereafter traveling
subluminally to the following scintillators. He makes this assertion
despite the fact that this slowing would have to be to the same
subluminal speed regardless of the initial (superluminal) speed of the
muon, regardless of the thickness of the scintillator (which can be
changed with no observed effect on the time of flight measurement), and
despite the fact that the energy deposited in the first scintillator is
identical to the deposits made in the following scintillators. Would
you offer the same idiotic explanation?
I certainly would include that. You have made quite ridiculous and erroneous
claims here by the way..
I would also point out that most muon slowing takes place in the lower
atmosphere and even though many mouns may pass betwen the scintillators at <c,
they would have been traveling much faster for most of their journeys through
the atmosphere.
If you read about these muon eperiments, you will find other obvious flaws.
For instance an electronic delay is inclued BASED ON an assumption that the
muons DO travel at near c.
Another very strange feature is the mean muon velocity is calculated as the
reciprocal of their mean travel time between scintillators.
Any fool can see the obvious statistical error here.
The H&K has been officially withdrawn.
False statement
Prove it.
Your assertion is one of historical record. You need to provide
evidence of the "official withdrawal".
PD
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: The Fundamental Absurdity of the Theory of Relativity |
05 Mar 2006 05:34:54 PM |
|
|
Henri Wilson wrote:
On 3 Mar 2006 08:36:01 -0800, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 22:56:51 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
The Muons were superluminal.
False statement
Prove it.
The time of flight of muons is measured by scintillators separated
along the path of travel. The speed is easily determined from the
distance between the scintillators and the time difference between the
signals in the scintillator. It is a subluminal speed.
Androcles asserts that the superluminal muons are slowed by passage
through the first (scintillator) in this spaced set, thereafter traveling
subluminally to the following scintillators. He makes this assertion
despite the fact that this slowing would have to be to the same
subluminal speed regardless of the initial (superluminal) speed of the
muon, regardless of the thickness of the scintillator (which can be
changed with no observed effect on the time of flight measurement), and
despite the fact that the energy deposited in the first scintillator is
identical to the deposits made in the following scintillators. Would
you offer the same idiotic explanation?
I certainly would include that. You have made quite ridiculous and erroneous
claims here by the way..
I would also point out that most muon slowing takes place in the lower
atmosphere and even though many mouns may pass betwen the scintillators at <c,
they would have been traveling much faster for most of their journeys through
the atmosphere.
Ah, good. Then you should be able to use the information about the
density of the atmosphere and the thickness traversed through that
density to then estimate the *additional* slowing to be expected on the
passage through each slab of much denser scintillator, and then compare
that with experiment to see if this slowing in the scintillator is in
fact observed. Now, if the scintillator does NOT slow it down by nearly
the factor expected, then you'd have to explain how it is a sparse
atmosphere can dramatically slow a muon much more effectively than a
slab of scintillator.
If you read about these muon eperiments, you will find other obvious flaws.
For instance an electronic delay is inclued BASED ON an assumption that the
muons DO travel at near c.
This technique is called gating. Use arrival of one signal and a
guessed velocity to open a gate at a subsequent detector and see if a
signal is made inside that narrow gate. If there *is* a signal, then
there are two explanations:
1) the particle did indeed travel at the guessed-at velocity and caused
the signal at the subsequent detector
2) the particle did not travel at the guessed-at velocity and the
second signal was created by the arrival of a completely different
particle in an accidental hit.
The second explanation does indeed cause a contribution to the
coincidence (where "coincidence" strictly means the incidence of both
counters firing) rate, which is statistically calculable from the pulse
width and the average rate of single hits in any counter. This
accidental rate is customarily suppressed/controlled by chaining the
gated detectors to include more than just two, which lowers the
fraction of accidentals by a power, equal to the number of detectors in
the chain. For this exercise, it is sufficient to lower the accidental
rate to be less than a percent or so.
Another very strange feature is the mean muon velocity is calculated as the
reciprocal of their mean travel time between scintillators.
Indeed for any passage, the velocity is D/t where D is the distance
between the scintillators and t is the time of flight between the
scintillators. And be sure you mean "reciprocal of their mean travel
time" as opposed to the "mean of the reciprocal of the travel time".
Any fool can see the obvious statistical error here.
Which would be what, exactly?
The H&K has been officially withdrawn.
False statement
Prove it.
Your assertion is one of historical record. You need to provide
evidence of the "official withdrawal".
I take it there isn't any, and you just made it up.
PD
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: The Fundamental Absurdity of the Theory of Relativity |
06 Mar 2006 04:20:50 PM |
|
|
On 5 Mar 2006 15:34:54 -0800, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On 3 Mar 2006 08:36:01 -0800, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 22:56:51 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
The Muons were superluminal.
False statement
Prove it.
The time of flight of muons is measured by scintillators separated
along the path of travel. The speed is easily determined from the
distance between the scintillators and the time difference between the
signals in the scintillator. It is a subluminal speed.
Androcles asserts that the superluminal muons are slowed by passage
through the first (scintillator) in this spaced set, thereafter traveling
subluminally to the following scintillators. He makes this assertion
despite the fact that this slowing would have to be to the same
subluminal speed regardless of the initial (superluminal) speed of the
muon, regardless of the thickness of the scintillator (which can be
changed with no observed effect on the time of flight measurement), and
despite the fact that the energy deposited in the first scintillator is
identical to the deposits made in the following scintillators. Would
you offer the same idiotic explanation?
I certainly would include that. You have made quite ridiculous and erroneous
claims here by the way..
I would also point out that most muon slowing takes place in the lower
atmosphere and even though many mouns may pass betwen the scintillators at <c,
they would have been traveling much faster for most of their journeys through
the atmosphere.
Ah, good. Then you should be able to use the information about the
density of the atmosphere and the thickness traversed through that
density to then estimate the *additional* slowing to be expected on the
passage through each slab of much denser scintillator, and then compare
that with experiment to see if this slowing in the scintillator is in
fact observed. Now, if the scintillator does NOT slow it down by nearly
the factor expected, then you'd have to explain how it is a sparse
atmosphere can dramatically slow a muon much more effectively than a
slab of scintillator.
Atmosphere is not exactly empty you know.
10 metres of air has about as many molecules as 2cms of scintillator.
If you read about these muon eperiments, you will find other obvious flaws.
For instance an electronic delay is inclued BASED ON an assumption that the
muons DO travel at near c.
This technique is called gating. Use arrival of one signal and a
guessed velocity to open a gate at a subsequent detector and see if a
signal is made inside that narrow gate. If there *is* a signal, then
there are two explanations:
1) the particle did indeed travel at the guessed-at velocity and caused
the signal at the subsequent detector
2) the particle did not travel at the guessed-at velocity and the
second signal was created by the arrival of a completely different
particle in an accidental hit.
The second explanation does indeed cause a contribution to the
coincidence (where "coincidence" strictly means the incidence of both
counters firing) rate, which is statistically calculable from the pulse
width and the average rate of single hits in any counter. This
accidental rate is customarily suppressed/controlled by chaining the
gated detectors to include more than just two, which lowers the
fraction of accidentals by a power, equal to the number of detectors in
the chain. For this exercise, it is sufficient to lower the accidental
rate to be less than a percent or so.
....which all goes to show that the setup is pretty well incapable of detecting
superluminal muons. They are discarded as 'spurious' because Einsteiniana says
it simply cannot happen.
Another very strange feature is the mean muon velocity is calculated as the
reciprocal of their mean travel time between scintillators.
Indeed for any passage, the velocity is D/t where D is the distance
between the scintillators and t is the time of flight between the
scintillators. And be sure you mean "reciprocal of their mean travel
time" as opposed to the "mean of the reciprocal of the travel time".
Any fool can see the obvious statistical error here.
Which would be what, exactly?
Paul, what is the mean of (0.00001),1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1
Answer:..about 1.000001
Its reciprocal is ~0.999999
What is the mean of (1/0.00001),1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1
Answer: ..about 10000
Its reciprocal is ~0.00001
The muon experiment uses the first method.
It automaticaly rejects the influence of fast muons.
The H&K has been officially withdrawn.
False statement
Prove it.
Your assertion is one of historical record. You need to provide
evidence of the "official withdrawal".
I take it there isn't any, and you just made it up.
It was found to statistically insignificant.
But we all knew that anyway...
PD
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: The Fundamental Absurdity of the Theory of Relativity |
06 Mar 2006 04:50:06 PM |
|
|
Henri Wilson wrote:
On 5 Mar 2006 15:34:54 -0800, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On 3 Mar 2006 08:36:01 -0800, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 22:56:51 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
The Muons were superluminal.
False statement
Prove it.
The time of flight of muons is measured by scintillators separated
along the path of travel. The speed is easily determined from the
distance between the scintillators and the time difference between the
signals in the scintillator. It is a subluminal speed.
Androcles asserts that the superluminal muons are slowed by passage
through the first (scintillator) in this spaced set, thereafter traveling
subluminally to the following scintillators. He makes this assertion
despite the fact that this slowing would have to be to the same
subluminal speed regardless of the initial (superluminal) speed of the
muon, regardless of the thickness of the scintillator (which can be
changed with no observed effect on the time of flight measurement), and
despite the fact that the energy deposited in the first scintillator is
identical to the deposits made in the following scintillators. Would
you offer the same idiotic explanation?
I certainly would include that. You have made quite ridiculous and erroneous
claims here by the way..
I would also point out that most muon slowing takes place in the lower
atmosphere and even though many mouns may pass betwen the scintillators at <c,
they would have been traveling much faster for most of their journeys through
the atmosphere.
Ah, good. Then you should be able to use the information about the
density of the atmosphere and the thickness traversed through that
density to then estimate the *additional* slowing to be expected on the
passage through each slab of much denser scintillator, and then compare
that with experiment to see if this slowing in the scintillator is in
fact observed. Now, if the scintillator does NOT slow it down by nearly
the factor expected, then you'd have to explain how it is a sparse
atmosphere can dramatically slow a muon much more effectively than a
slab of scintillator.
Atmosphere is not exactly empty you know.
10 metres of air has about as many molecules as 2cms of scintillator.
Right, at sea level. So on the basis of slowing a v=200c superluminal
muon down to c due to the integrated density of the atmosphere,
calculate the anticipated slowing of a muon through 2 cm of
scintillator. We'll check that against experimental results when you're
done.
If you read about these muon eperiments, you will find other obvious flaws.
For instance an electronic delay is inclued BASED ON an assumption that the
muons DO travel at near c.
This technique is called gating. Use arrival of one signal and a
guessed velocity to open a gate at a subsequent detector and see if a
signal is made inside that narrow gate. If there *is* a signal, then
there are two explanations:
1) the particle did indeed travel at the guessed-at velocity and caused
the signal at the subsequent detector
2) the particle did not travel at the guessed-at velocity and the
second signal was created by the arrival of a completely different
particle in an accidental hit.
The second explanation does indeed cause a contribution to the
coincidence (where "coincidence" strictly means the incidence of both
counters firing) rate, which is statistically calculable from the pulse
width and the average rate of single hits in any counter. This
accidental rate is customarily suppressed/controlled by chaining the
gated detectors to include more than just two, which lowers the
fraction of accidentals by a power, equal to the number of detectors in
the chain. For this exercise, it is sufficient to lower the accidental
rate to be less than a percent or so.
...which all goes to show that the setup is pretty well incapable of detecting
superluminal muons. They are discarded as 'spurious' because Einsteiniana says
it simply cannot happen.
Ah, so you think there is a slight mix of superluminal muons mixed in
with a whole bunch of muons with velocity just under c? And why would
the distribution be peaked that way? And are you aware of the procedure
of watching the coincidence rate as the gate width is panned down? You
are aware, then, that this rate is plateaued to be sure some
fundamental rate that is not attributable to accidentals is not being
removed?
Another very strange feature is the mean muon velocity is calculated as the
reciprocal of their mean travel time between scintillators.
Indeed for any passage, the velocity is D/t where D is the distance
between the scintillators and t is the time of flight between the
scintillators. And be sure you mean "reciprocal of their mean travel
time" as opposed to the "mean of the reciprocal of the travel time".
Any fool can see the obvious statistical error here.
Which would be what, exactly?
Paul, what is the mean of (0.00001),1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1
Answer:..about 1.000001
Its reciprocal is ~0.999999
What is the mean of (1/0.00001),1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1
Answer: ..about 10000
Its reciprocal is ~0.00001
The muon experiment uses the first method.
It automaticaly rejects the influence of fast muons.
As I said, you certainly need to be careful to take the mean of the
reciprocals, not the reciprocal of the mean. Why, doing the latter
would be just.... stupid.
The H&K has been officially withdrawn.
False statement
Prove it.
Your assertion is one of historical record. You need to provide
evidence of the "official withdrawal".
I take it there isn't any, and you just made it up.
It was found to statistically insignificant.
But we all knew that anyway...
Back that up, please.
PD
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: The Fundamental Absurdity of the Theory of Relativity |
07 Mar 2006 06:24:30 PM |
|
|
On 6 Mar 2006 14:50:06 -0800, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On 5 Mar 2006 15:34:54 -0800, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:
Ah, good. Then you should be able to use the information about the
density of the atmosphere and the thickness traversed through that
density to then estimate the *additional* slowing to be expected on the
passage through each slab of much denser scintillator, and then compare
that with experiment to see if this slowing in the scintillator is in
fact observed. Now, if the scintillator does NOT slow it down by nearly
the factor expected, then you'd have to explain how it is a sparse
atmosphere can dramatically slow a muon much more effectively than a
slab of scintillator.
Atmosphere is not exactly empty you know.
10 metres of air has about as many molecules as 2cms of scintillator.
Right, at sea level. So on the basis of slowing a v=200c superluminal
muon down to c due to the integrated density of the atmosphere,
calculate the anticipated slowing of a muon through 2 cm of
scintillator. We'll check that against experimental results when you're
done.
Why did you assume they start out at 200c and end up at c?
Plenty could start out at 2c and end up at 1.9c...or whatever.
Are you asuming they all travel at around the same 0.998c for the whole trip?
If you read about these muon eperiments, you will find other obvious flaws.
For instance an electronic delay is inclued BASED ON an assumption that the
muons DO travel at near c.
This technique is called gating. Use arrival of one signal and a
guessed velocity to open a gate at a subsequent detector and see if a
signal is made inside that narrow gate. If there *is* a signal, then
there are two explanations:
1) the particle did indeed travel at the guessed-at velocity and caused
the signal at the subsequent detector
2) the particle did not travel at the guessed-at velocity and the
second signal was created by the arrival of a completely different
particle in an accidental hit.
The second explanation does indeed cause a contribution to the
coincidence (where "coincidence" strictly means the incidence of both
counters firing) rate, which is statistically calculable from the pulse
width and the average rate of single hits in any counter. This
accidental rate is customarily suppressed/controlled by chaining the
gated detectors to include more than just two, which lowers the
fraction of accidentals by a power, equal to the number of detectors in
the chain. For this exercise, it is sufficient to lower the accidental
rate to be less than a percent or so.
...which all goes to show that the setup is pretty well incapable of detecting
superluminal muons. They are discarded as 'spurious' because Einsteiniana says
it simply cannot happen.
Ah, so you think there is a slight mix of superluminal muons mixed in
with a whole bunch of muons with velocity just under c? And why would
the distribution be peaked that way? And are you aware of the procedure
of watching the coincidence rate as the gate width is panned down? You
are aware, then, that this rate is plateaued to be sure some
fundamental rate that is not attributable to accidentals is not being
removed?
The system rejects coincidences that would undicate speeds >c....because
Einsteiniana says they MUST BE spurious.
The bloody system is not quick enough to detect superluminal time differencess
anyway.
Another very strange feature is the mean muon velocity is calculated as the
reciprocal of their mean travel time between scintillators.
Indeed for any passage, the velocity is D/t where D is the distance
between the scintillators and t is the time of flight between the
scintillators. And be sure you mean "reciprocal of their mean travel
time" as opposed to the "mean of the reciprocal of the travel time".
Any fool can see the obvious statistical error here.
Which would be what, exactly?
Paul, what is the mean of (0.00001),1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1
Answer:..about 1.000001
Its reciprocal is ~0.999999
What is the mean of (1/0.00001),1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1
Answer: ..about 10000
Its reciprocal is ~0.00001
The muon experiment uses the first method.
It automaticaly rejects the influence of fast muons.
As I said, you certainly need to be careful to take the mean of the
reciprocals, not the reciprocal of the mean. Why, doing the latter
would be just.... stupid.
that's what happens in the muon experiment I have in front of me.
The mean muon speed is calculated as the inverse of the mean travel time
between detectors. Stupid, right!
I take it there isn't any, and you just made it up.
It was found to statistically insignificant.
But we all knew that anyway...
Back that up, please.
Why do you think the experiment has never been repeated?
PD
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: The Fundamental Absurdity of the Theory of Relativity |
08 Mar 2006 08:58:06 AM |
|
|
Henri Wilson wrote:
On 6 Mar 2006 14:50:06 -0800, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On 5 Mar 2006 15:34:54 -0800, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:
Ah, good. Then you should be able to use the information about the
density of the atmosphere and the thickness traversed through that
density to then estimate the *additional* slowing to be expected on the
passage through each slab of much denser scintillator, and then compare
that with experiment to see if this slowing in the scintillator is in
fact observed. Now, if the scintillator does NOT slow it down by nearly
the factor expected, then you'd have to explain how it is a sparse
atmosphere can dramatically slow a muon much more effectively than a
slab of scintillator.
Atmosphere is not exactly empty you know.
10 metres of air has about as many molecules as 2cms of scintillator.
Right, at sea level. So on the basis of slowing a v=200c superluminal
muon down to c due to the integrated density of the atmosphere,
calculate the anticipated slowing of a muon through 2 cm of
scintillator. We'll check that against experimental results when you're
done.
Why did you assume they start out at 200c and end up at c?
Plenty could start out at 2c and end up at 1.9c...or whatever.
Two comments:
1. We know how much further the muons go in the atmosphere, compared
with how far we would expect them to be able to go if they were at most
luminal in speed and lived for only 2.2 microseconds (660 m). You are
proposing that they still live only 2.2 microseconds even in the Earth
frame, but that they travel superluminally to achieve that distance.
Note that an initial speed of 2c will not account for how far they
actually make it in the atmostphere.
2. We know they don't end up at 1.9c, because they are observed to go
at subluminal speeds between the scintillators. If you suppose that the
atmosphere reduced the speed of the muon from 2c to 1.9c, then you
would have to account for why the first scintillator was then able to
reduce the speed from 1.9c to 0.998c while the atmosphere reduced it by
only 0.1c, and you would also have to account for why the second
scintillator in the stack did not reduce it from 0.998c to something
substantially lower.
Are you asuming they all travel at around the same 0.998c for the whole trip?
I'm *measuring* they're traveling at 0.998c at the end of the trip,
through all the scintillators in the stack. If I imagine they are going
faster than 1c at the beginning of the trip, I have to account for how
it would lose a lot of speed before hitting the first scintillator in
the stack, and then not lose appreciable speed in the subsequent
scintillators and the intervening material. By the way, I've done
similar measurements with eight feet of *steel* between the fourth and
fifth (in a stack of six) muon detectors, and there isn't an
appreciable change in the speed of the muons through that steel.
If you read about these muon eperiments, you will find other obvious flaws.
For instance an electronic delay is inclued BASED ON an assumption that the
muons DO travel at near c.
This technique is called gating. Use arrival of one signal and a
guessed velocity to open a gate at a subsequent detector and see if a
signal is made inside that narrow gate. If there *is* a signal, then
there are two explanations:
1) the particle did indeed travel at the guessed-at velocity and caused
the signal at the subsequent detector
2) the particle did not travel at the guessed-at velocity and the
second signal was created by the arrival of a completely different
particle in an accidental hit.
The second explanation does indeed cause a contribution to the
coincidence (where "coincidence" strictly means the incidence of both
counters firing) rate, which is statistically calculable from the pulse
width and the average rate of single hits in any counter. This
accidental rate is customarily suppressed/controlled by chaining the
gated detectors to include more than just two, which lowers the
fraction of accidentals by a power, equal to the number of detectors in
the chain. For this exercise, it is sufficient to lower the accidental
rate to be less than a percent or so.
...which all goes to show that the setup is pretty well incapable of detecting
superluminal muons. They are discarded as 'spurious' because Einsteiniana says
it simply cannot happen.
Ah, so you think there is a slight mix of superluminal muons mixed in
with a whole bunch of muons with velocity just under c? And why would
the distribution be peaked that way? And are you aware of the procedure
of watching the coincidence rate as the gate width is panned down? You
are aware, then, that this rate is plateaued to be sure some
fundamental rate that is not attributable to accidentals is not being
removed?
The system rejects coincidences that would undicate speeds >c....because
Einsteiniana says they MUST BE spurious.
I've just told you how the experimental tuning and the gate adjustment
would be sensitive to that.
The bloody system is not quick enough to detect superluminal time differencess
anyway.
Here I see you know nothing about gating and how quick it can be. The
time of flight at c is roughly 3ns/m, so that a space of 3m between
successive layers of a scintillator hodoscope would correspond to a
time delay of 9ns. A gate delay of 100 ps is easily achieved (I gather
you don't know how this is accomplished), meaning that with this stack
separation, we would be sensitive to a superluminal speed of v=90c. Of
course, we also have muon beamlines, where the scintillator separation
can be 3 km if desired, corresponding to being sensitive to
superluminal speeds of v=1000c.
Another very strange feature is the mean muon velocity is calculated as the
reciprocal of their mean travel time between scintillators.
Indeed for any passage, the velocity is D/t where D is the distance
between the scintillators and t is the time of flight between the
scintillators. And be sure you mean "reciprocal of their mean travel
time" as opposed to the "mean of the reciprocal of the travel time".
Any fool can see the obvious statistical error here.
Which would be what, exactly?
Paul, what is the mean of (0.00001),1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1
Answer:..about 1.000001
Its reciprocal is ~0.999999
What is the mean of (1/0.00001),1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1
Answer: ..about 10000
Its reciprocal is ~0.00001
The muon experiment uses the first method.
It automaticaly rejects the influence of fast muons.
As I said, you certainly need to be careful to take the mean of the
reciprocals, not the reciprocal of the mean. Why, doing the latter
would be just.... stupid.
that's what happens in the muon experiment I have in front of me.
The mean muon speed is calculated as the inverse of the mean travel time
between detectors. Stupid, right!
The first method is correct. The correct mean of 1/0.00001, 1, 1, 1, 1,
1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1 is ~0.999999. The mean of those numbers is not
~0.00001. The second method would be stupid to use, because it gives
the wrong answer.
I take it there isn't any, and you just made it up.
It was found to statistically insignificant.
But we all knew that anyway...
Back that up, please.
Why do you think the experiment has never been repeated?
OK, let me see if I have this straight before I answer.
You are saying that not repeating an experiment is tantamount to an
"official withdrawal" of the results?
PD
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: The Fundamental Absurdity of the Theory of Relativity |
10 Mar 2006 04:33:49 PM |
|
|
On 8 Mar 2006 06:58:06 -0800, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On 6 Mar 2006 14:50:06 -0800, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On 5 Mar 2006 15:34:54 -0800, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:
Ah, good. Then you should be able to use the information about the
density of the atmosphere and the thickness traversed through that
density to then estimate the *additional* slowing to be expected on the
passage through each slab of much denser scintillator, and then compare
that with experiment to see if this slowing in the scintillator is in
fact observed. Now, if the scintillator does NOT slow it down by nearly
the factor expected, then you'd have to explain how it is a sparse
atmosphere can dramatically slow a muon much more effectively than a
slab of scintillator.
Atmosphere is not exactly empty you know.
10 metres of air has about as many molecules as 2cms of scintillator.
Right, at sea level. So on the basis of slowing a v=200c superluminal
muon down to c due to the integrated density of the atmosphere,
calculate the anticipated slowing of a muon through 2 cm of
scintillator. We'll check that against experimental results when you're
done.
Why did you assume they start out at 200c and end up at c?
Plenty could start out at 2c and end up at 1.9c...or whatever.
Two comments:
1. We know how much further the muons go in the atmosphere, compared
with how far we would expect them to be able to go if they were at most
luminal in speed and lived for only 2.2 microseconds (660 m). You are
proposing that they still live only 2.2 microseconds even in the Earth
frame, but that they travel superluminally to achieve that distance.
Note that an initial speed of 2c will not account for how far they
actually make it in the atmostphere.
You are making assumptions about where they originate.
2. We know they don't end up at 1.9c, because they are observed to go
at subluminal speeds between the scintillators. If you suppose that the
atmosphere reduced the speed of the muon from 2c to 1.9c, then you
would have to account for why the first scintillator was then able to
reduce the speed from 1.9c to 0.998c while the atmosphere reduced it by
only 0.1c, and you would also have to account for why the second
scintillator in the stack did not reduce it from 0.998c to something
substantially lower.
That's rubbish.
The system cannot measure anything >c because it rejects such coincidences as
spurious.
Are you asuming they all travel at around the same 0.998c for the whole trip?
I'm *measuring* they're traveling at 0.998c at the end of the trip,
through all the scintillators in the stack. If I imagine they are going
faster than 1c at the beginning of the trip, I have to account for how
it would lose a lot of speed before hitting the first scintillator in
the stack, and then not lose appreciable speed in the subsequent
scintillators and the intervening material. By the way, I've done
similar measurements with eight feet of *steel* between the fourth and
fifth (in a stack of six) muon detectors, and there isn't an
appreciable change in the speed of the muons through that steel.
Once again, the experiement wouldn't be capable of detecting any.
If you read about these muon eperiments, you will find other obvious flaws.
For instance an electronic delay is inclued BASED ON an assumption that the
muons DO travel at near c.
This technique is called gating. Use arrival of one signal and a
guessed velocity to open a gate at a subsequent detector and see if a
signal is made inside that narrow gate. If there *is* a signal, then
there are two explanations:
1) the particle did indeed travel at the guessed-at velocity and caused
the signal at the subsequent detector
2) the particle did not travel at the guessed-at velocity and the
second signal was created by the arrival of a completely different
particle in an accidental hit.
The second explanation does indeed cause a contribution to the
coincidence (where "coincidence" strictly means the incidence of both
counters firing) rate, which is statistically calculable from the pulse
width and the average rate of single hits in any counter. This
accidental rate is customarily suppressed/controlled by chaining the
gated detectors to include more than just two, which lowers the
fraction of accidentals by a power, equal to the number of detectors in
the chain. For this exercise, it is sufficient to lower the accidental
rate to be less than a percent or so.
...which all goes to show that the setup is pretty well incapable of detecting
superluminal muons. They are discarded as 'spurious' because Einsteiniana says
it simply cannot happen.
Ah, so you think there is a slight mix of superluminal muons mixed in
with a whole bunch of muons with velocity just under c? And why would
the distribution be peaked that way? And are you aware of the procedure
of watching the coincidence rate as the gate width is panned down? You
are aware, then, that this rate is plateaued to be sure some
fundamental rate that is not attributable to accidentals is not being
removed?
The system rejects coincidences that would undicate speeds >c....because
Einsteiniana says they MUST BE spurious.
I've just told you how the experimental tuning and the gate adjustment
would be sensitive to that.
The bloody system is not quick enough to detect superluminal time differencess
anyway.
Here I see you know nothing about gating and how quick it can be. The
time of flight at c is roughly 3ns/m, so that a space of 3m between
successive layers of a scintillator hodoscope would correspond to a
time delay of 9ns. A gate delay of 100 ps is easily achieved (I gather
you don't know how this is accomplished), meaning that with this stack
separation, we would be sensitive to a superluminal speed of v=90c. Of
course, we also have muon beamlines, where the scintillator separation
can be 3 km if desired, corresponding to being sensitive to
superluminal speeds of v=1000c.
It's all speculative stuff.
The gating and time delay setups always assume the muons are subluminal.
Another very strange feature is the mean muon velocity is calculated as the
reciprocal of their mean travel time between scintillators.
Indeed for any passage, the velocity is D/t where D is the distance
between the scintillators and t is the time of flight between the
scintillators. And be sure you mean "reciprocal of their mean travel
time" as opposed to the "mean of the reciprocal of the travel time".
Any fool can see the obvious statistical error here.
Which would be what, exactly?
Paul, what is the mean of (0.00001),1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1
Answer:..about 1.000001
Its reciprocal is ~0.999999
What is the mean of (1/0.00001),1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1
Answer: ..about 10000
Its reciprocal is ~0.00001
The muon experiment uses the first method.
It automaticaly rejects the influence of fast muons.
As I said, you certainly need to be careful to take the mean of the
reciprocals, not the reciprocal of the mean. Why, doing the latter
would be just.... stupid.
that's what happens in the muon experiment I have in front of me.
The mean muon speed is calculated as the inverse of the mean travel time
between detectors. Stupid, right!
The first method is correct. The correct mean of 1/0.00001, 1, 1, 1, 1,
1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1 is ~0.999999. The mean of those numbers is not
~0.00001. The second method would be stupid to use, because it gives
the wrong answer.
that's right.
It is USED.
Back that up, please.
Why do you think the experiment has never been repeated?
OK, let me see if I have this straight before I answer.
You are saying that not repeating an experiment is tantamount to an
"official withdrawal" of the results?
a cover up.
PD
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: The Fundamental Absurdity of the Theory of Relativity |
11 Mar 2006 05:29:08 AM |
|
|
Henri Wilson wrote:
On 8 Mar 2006 06:58:06 -0800, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On 6 Mar 2006 14:50:06 -0800, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On 5 Mar 2006 15:34:54 -0800, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:
Ah, good. Then you should be able to use the information about the
density of the atmosphere and the thickness traversed through that
density to then estimate the *additional* slowing to be expected on the
passage through each slab of much denser scintillator, and then compare
that with experiment to see if this slowing in the scintillator is in
fact observed. Now, if the scintillator does NOT slow it down by nearly
the factor expected, then you'd have to explain how it is a sparse
atmosphere can dramatically slow a muon much more effectively than a
slab of scintillator.
Atmosphere is not exactly empty you know.
10 metres of air has about as many molecules as 2cms of scintillator.
Right, at sea level. So on the basis of slowing a v=200c superluminal
muon down to c due to the integrated density of the atmosphere,
calculate the anticipated slowing of a muon through 2 cm of
scintillator. We'll check that against experimental results when you're
done.
Why did you assume they start out at 200c and end up at c?
Plenty could start out at 2c and end up at 1.9c...or whatever.
Two comments:
1. We know how much further the muons go in the atmosphere, compared
with how far we would expect them to be able to go if they were at most
luminal in speed and lived for only 2.2 microseconds (660 m). You are
proposing that they still live only 2.2 microseconds even in the Earth
frame, but that they travel superluminally to achieve that distance.
Note that an initial speed of 2c will not account for how far they
actually make it in the atmostphere.
You are making assumptions about where they originate.
Yes, indeed. Now if you want to talk about what we know about cosmic
rays, or if you want to explain where they originate and how you know
that...
2. We know they don't end up at 1.9c, because they are observed to go
at subluminal speeds between the scintillators. If you suppose that the
atmosphere reduced the speed of the muon from 2c to 1.9c, then you
would have to account for why the first scintillator was then able to
reduce the speed from 1.9c to 0.998c while the atmosphere reduced it by
only 0.1c, and you would also have to account for why the second
scintillator in the stack did not reduce it from 0.998c to something
substantially lower.
That's rubbish.
The system cannot measure anything >c because it rejects such coincidences as
spurious.
I've already alluded to the plateauing procedure that checks that. You
just blew by that without comment.
Are you asuming they all travel at around the same 0.998c for the whole trip?
I'm *measuring* they're traveling at 0.998c at the end of the trip,
through all the scintillators in the stack. If I imagine they are going
faster than 1c at the beginning of the trip, I have to account for how
it would lose a lot of speed before hitting the first scintillator in
the stack, and then not lose appreciable speed in the subsequent
scintillators and the intervening material. By the way, I've done
similar measurements with eight feet of *steel* between the fourth and
fifth (in a stack of six) muon detectors, and there isn't an
appreciable change in the speed of the muons through that steel.
Once again, the experiement wouldn't be capable of detecting any.
Well, in my own measurement that's simply not the case because the
detectors were not gated scintillators but proportional wire chambers.
:>)
If you read about these muon eperiments, you will find other obvious flaws.
For instance an electronic delay is inclued BASED ON an assumption that the
muons DO travel at near c.
This technique is called gating. Use arrival of one signal and a
guessed velocity to open a gate at a subsequent detector and see if a
signal is made inside that narrow gate. If there *is* a signal, then
there are two explanations:
1) the particle did indeed travel at the guessed-at velocity and caused
the signal at the subsequent detector
2) the particle did not travel at the guessed-at velocity and the
second signal was created by the arrival of a completely different
particle in an accidental hit.
The second explanation does indeed cause a contribution to the
coincidence (where "coincidence" strictly means the incidence of both
counters firing) rate, which is statistically calculable from the pulse
width and the average rate of single hits in any counter. This
accidental rate is customarily suppressed/controlled by chaining the
gated detectors to include more than just two, which lowers the
fraction of accidentals by a power, equal to the number of detectors in
the chain. For this exercise, it is sufficient to lower the accidental
rate to be less than a percent or so.
...which all goes to show that the setup is pretty well incapable of detecting
superluminal muons. They are discarded as 'spurious' because Einsteiniana says
it simply cannot happen.
Ah, so you think there is a slight mix of superluminal muons mixed in
with a whole bunch of muons with velocity just under c? And why would
the distribution be peaked that way? And are you aware of the procedure
of watching the coincidence rate as the gate width is panned down? You
are aware, then, that this rate is plateaued to be sure some
fundamental rate that is not attributable to accidentals is not being
removed?
The system rejects coincidences that would undicate speeds >c....because
Einsteiniana says they MUST BE spurious.
I've just told you how the experimental tuning and the gate adjustment
would be sensitive to that.
And you didn't respond...
The bloody system is not quick enough to detect superluminal time differencess
anyway.
Here I see you know nothing about gating and how quick it can be. The
time of flight at c is roughly 3ns/m, so that a space of 3m between
successive layers of a scintillator hodoscope would correspond to a
time delay of 9ns. A gate delay of 100 ps is easily achieved (I gather
you don't know how this is accomplished), meaning that with this stack
separation, we would be sensitive to a superluminal speed of v=90c. Of
course, we also have muon beamlines, where the scintillator separation
can be 3 km if desired, corresponding to being sensitive to
superluminal speeds of v=1000c.
It's all speculative stuff.
No, it's practical reality.
The gating and time delay setups always assume the muons are subluminal.
I'm sorry, Henri. I've done these measurements, in a beamline as well
as from cosmic rays. You are simply wrong about how this is done.
Another very strange feature is the mean muon velocity is calculated as the
reciprocal of their mean travel time between scintillators.
Indeed for any passage, the velocity is D/t where D is the distance
between the scintillators and t is the time of flight between the
scintillators. And be sure you mean "reciprocal of their mean travel
time" as opposed to the "mean of the reciprocal of the travel time".
Any fool can see the obvious statistical error here.
Which would be what, exactly?
Paul, what is the mean of (0.00001),1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1
Answer:..about 1.000001
Its reciprocal is ~0.999999
What is the mean of (1/0.00001),1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1
Answer: ..about 10000
Its reciprocal is ~0.00001
The muon experiment uses the first method.
It automaticaly rejects the influence of fast muons.
As I said, you certainly need to be careful to take the mean of the
reciprocals, not the reciprocal of the mean. Why, doing the latter
would be just.... stupid.
that's what happens in the muon experiment I have in front of me.
The mean muon speed is calculated as the inverse of the mean travel time
between detectors. Stupid, right!
The first method is correct. The correct mean of 1/0.00001, 1, 1, 1, 1,
1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1 is ~0.999999. The mean of those numbers is not
~0.00001. The second method would be stupid to use, because it gives
the wrong answer.
that's right.
It is USED.
No, you said the first method is used, and that's the one that is
correct. The second method is not used, because that would be stupid.
Back that up, please.
Why do you think the experiment has never been repeated?
OK, let me see if I have this straight before I answer.
You are saying that not repeating an experiment is tantamount to an
"official withdrawal" of the results?
a cover up.
Ah, so from "officially withdrawn" we have now migrated to "a cover
up".
Bit of a difference, don't you think?
PD
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd Parker" |
|
| Title: Re: The Fundamental Absurdity of the Theory of Relativity |
24 Feb 2006 02:21:07 AM |
|
|
In article <fkasv11l00mp0qe34pnp4ur48gqbdski7l@4ax.com>,
HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 00:19:16 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
Plenty of people know there is a big problem.
Einstein's version of relativity is plain BULL!!!!
Henri Wilson doesn't even understand relativity. There has
never been a prediction of SR or GTR that was contradicted
by an observation. Who is posting bull?
there has never been an observation that is directly related to relativity.
Bending of light, longer lifetime of particles, clocks running slower, ...
Your inability to read and comprehend is not the same as no evidence.
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: The Fundamental Absurdity of the Theory of Relativity |
26 Feb 2006 04:08:46 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 24 Feb 06 08:21:07 GMT, (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
In article <fkasv11l00mp0qe34pnp4ur48gqbdski7l@4ax.com>,
HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 00:19:16 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
Plenty of people know there is a big problem.
Einstein's version of relativity is plain BULL!!!!
Henri Wilson doesn't even understand relativity. There has
never been a prediction of SR or GTR that was contradicted
by an observation. Who is posting bull?
there has never been an observation that is directly related to relativity.
Bending of light,
Purely ballistic....
longer lifetime of particles,
.... due to the effect of huge constraining magnetic fields....
clocks running slower, ...
never even observed....
Your inability to read and comprehend is not the same as no evidence.
...you epitomize the pope's message, "if you have enough faith, you will see
evidence for it all around you".
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd Parker" |
|
| Title: Re: The Fundamental Absurdity of the Theory of Relativity |
27 Feb 2006 03:45:53 AM |
|
|
In article <2g94025q53mvv82koboo2gkqpcir2apnea@4ax.com>,
HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 06 08:21:07 GMT, (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
In article <fkasv11l00mp0qe34pnp4ur48gqbdski7l@4ax.com>,
HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 00:19:16 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
Plenty of people know there is a big problem.
Einstein's version of relativity is plain BULL!!!!
Henri Wilson doesn't even understand relativity. There has
never been a prediction of SR or GTR that was contradicted
by an observation. Who is posting bull?
there has never been an observation that is directly related to relativity.
Bending of light,
Purely ballistic....
Absurd.
longer lifetime of particles,
.... due to the effect of huge constraining magnetic fields....
Not required. Cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere show this.
clocks running slower, ...
never even observed....
Yes, observed. Take a clock on a fast plane.
Your inability to read and comprehend is not the same as no evidence.
...you epitomize the pope's message, "if you have enough faith, you will see
evidence for it all around you".
I take science as proof. You take your imagination.
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: The Fundamental Absurdity of the Theory of Relativity |
27 Feb 2006 06:41:30 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 27 Feb 06 09:45:53 GMT, (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
In article <2g94025q53mvv82koboo2gkqpcir2apnea@4ax.com>,
HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 06 08:21:07 GMT, (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
In article <fkasv11l00mp0qe34pnp4ur48gqbdski7l@4ax.com>,
HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 00:19:16 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
Plenty of people know there is a big problem.
Einstein's version of relativity is plain BULL!!!!
Henri Wilson doesn't even understand relativity. There has
never been a prediction of SR or GTR that was contradicted
by an observation. Who is posting bull?
there has never been an observation that is directly related to relativity.
Bending of light,
Purely ballistic....
Absurd.
longer lifetime of particles,
.... due to the effect of huge constraining magnetic fields....
Not required. Cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere show this.
clocks running slower, ...
never even observed....
Yes, observed. Take a clock on a fast plane.
Your inability to read and comprehend is not the same as no evidence.
...you epitomize the pope's message, "if you have enough faith, you will see
evidence for it all around you".
I take science as proof. You take your imagination.
reply not warranted...
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: The Fundamental Absurdity of the Theory of Relativity |
19 Feb 2006 06:12:03 PM |
|
|
Henri Wilson wrote:
[snip]
Plenty of people know there is a big problem.
Einstein's version of relativity is plain BULL!!!!
Yet you are incapable of stating what Einstein's version of relativity
IS without getting it wrong.
[...]
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
