Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #400396 > unrolled thread

Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-11-30 20:29 -0600
    Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-12-01 04:00 -0800
      Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 09:38 -0600
        Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-12-01 11:53 -0800
          Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 13:58 -0600
            Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-12-01 22:46 -0800
              Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-12-02 04:31 -0800
                Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-12-04 22:59 -0600
                  Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-12-04 23:16 -0800
                    Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-12-05 10:00 -0600
                  Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-04 23:18 -0800
              Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-02 08:48 -0600
                Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-03 02:49 -0800
            Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-12-02 14:46 +0100
              Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-02 08:50 -0600
              Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-12-03 10:07 -0800
                Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-12-03 20:22 +0100
                  Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-03 11:32 -0800
                    Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-12-03 21:17 +0100
                      Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-04 01:38 -0800
                        Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 16:00 -0800
                          Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-05 23:43 -0800
                            Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-12-07 18:01 -0800
                              Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-09 02:48 -0800
                              Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-14 16:32 -0600
                                Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-15 03:09 -0800
                                  Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-15 03:36 -0800
                                    Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-15 03:58 -0800
                                      Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-15 04:24 -0800
                  Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-12-03 12:07 -0800
                    Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-12-03 21:44 +0100
                      Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-12-04 02:20 -0800
                        Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-12-04 18:48 +0100
                          Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-04 10:18 -0800
                          Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-12-04 10:34 -0800
                            Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-12-04 20:07 +0100
                              Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-12-04 11:29 -0800
                                Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-04 11:42 -0800
                                  Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-04 11:49 -0800
                                Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-04 11:46 -0800
                                Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-12-04 21:09 +0100
                                  Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Wilda Bolander <WdaaddoiBleld@WdaaddoiBleld.Wda> - 2016-12-04 20:23 +0000
                                    Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-05 15:13 +0100
                                      Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Chantell Dillingham <lntliiDtilnigDlnii@lntliiDtilnigDlnii.lnt> - 2016-12-05 14:17 +0000
                                        Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-06 13:04 +0100
                                  Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-04 12:25 -0800
                                    Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-04 12:27 -0800
                                  Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-04 13:06 -0800
                        Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-04 21:26 -0800
                        Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-12-04 23:29 -0600
                          Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-12-04 23:35 -0800
                    Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-12-05 10:04 -0600
      Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-12-04 23:16 -0600

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#400783

worlov@yandex.ru wrote:

> Am Sonntag, 4. Dezember 2016 20:07:18 UTC+1 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars'
> Lahn:
>> worlov@yandex.ru wrote:
>> > Should I start from scratch?
>> 
>> Good idea.
>> 
> I'm making this simple, summary:
> https://sites.google.com/site/testsofphysicaltheories/English/time-dilation

If you want to argue in your favor, your arguments belong *here*, not on the 
Web.  (Contrary to what you might think, you are _not_ posting to a Web 
forum.)

Also, repeating nonsense does not make it true.  Experimental evidence 
*refutes* your claims.

In particular, contrary to what you claimed in
<news:b2464ce3-7f13-4eaa-b0eb-ea15a5d3a2e7@googlegroups.com> and claiming on 
your Web site, the experiment in Darmstadt has _not_ “shown that the time 
dilation is instantaneous”, or at least that is not what the result means as 
that is just gibberish from you again.

It means instead that time dilation and length contraction, as predicted by 
the special theory relativity, are *real*, *observable* effects, which is 
why muons can travel further in the observer’s frame of reference than their 
decay rate would suggest.

In the case of atmospheric muons, it is why, although their mean lifetime in 
the rest frame is 2.1969811 ± 0.0000022 µs, they can reach Terra’s surface 
by the ten thousands every minute although they are produced in the upper 
atmosphere, some tens of kilometers above the surface.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon>

It is unfortunate that you have evidently no clue what you are talking about 
but do not realize that.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400785

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> In the case of atmospheric muons, it is why, although their mean
> lifetime in the rest frame is 2.1969811 ± 0.0000022 µs, they can reach
> Terra’s surface by the ten thousands every minute although they are
> produced in the upper atmosphere, some tens of kilometers above the
> surface.

You are far from being precise and conclusive.

* * *   P L O N K   * * * 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400842

On 04.12.2016 21:23, Wilda Bolander wrote:
 > []

It doesn't help to change your name,
the trolling idiot is recognized anyway.

One can but wonder what kind of mental disturbance make
a person constantly change his name and write nonsense only.

plonk

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400843

Paul B. Andersen wrote:

> On 04.12.2016 21:23, Wilda Bolander wrote:
>  > []
> It doesn't help to change your name, the trolling idiot is recognized
> anyway.  One can but wonder what kind of mental disturbance make a person
> constantly change his name and write nonsense only. plonk

Idiot. It doesn't help to change your name,
the trolling idiot is recognized anyway.

One can but wonder what kind of mental disturbance make
a person constantly change his name and write nonsense only.

*===   P L O N K !   ===*

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400943

On 05.12.2016 15:17, Chantell Dillingham wrote:
>[]

It doesn't help to change your name even if you do it
several times each day, the trolling idiot is recognized anyway.

One can but wonder what kind of mental disturbance make
a person constantly change his name and write nonsense only.

plonk

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400786

Thomas Lahn wrote:

It means instead that time dilation and length contraction, as predicted by 
the special theory relativity, are *real*, *observable* effects, which is 
why muons can travel further in the observer’s frame of reference than their 
decay rate would suggest. 

In the case of atmospheric muons, it is why, although their mean lifetime in 
the rest frame is 2.1969811 ± 0.0000022 µs, they can reach Terra’s surface 
by the ten thousands every minute although they are produced in the upper 
atmosphere, some tens of kilometers above the surface. 

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon> 

It is unfortunate that you have evidently no clue what you are talking about 
but do not realize that. 

http://i57.tinypic.com/102v0gh.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koide_formula

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400787

Thomas Lahn wrote: 

It means instead that time dilation and length contraction, as predicted by 
the special theory relativity, are *real*, *observable* effects, which is 
why muons can travel further in the observer’s frame of reference than their 
decay rate would suggest. 

In the case of atmospheric muons, it is why, although their mean lifetime in 
the rest frame is 2.1969811 ± 0.0000022 µs, they can reach Terra’s surface 
by the ten thousands every minute although they are produced in the upper 
atmosphere, some tens of kilometers above the surface. 

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon> 

It is unfortunate that you have evidently no clue what you are talking about 
but do not realize that. 

http://i57.tinypic.com/102v0gh.jpg 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koide_formula 

Walter Orlov is correct

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400789

W dniu niedziela, 4 grudnia 2016 21:09:52 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars' 

> It means instead that time dilation and length contraction, as predicted by 
> the special theory relativity, are *real*, *observable* effects,

A lie, as expected from relativistic trash.
Observation shows that time (as defined by your
idiot guru himself) is galilean with the precision
of an acceptable error.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400823

On Sunday, December 4, 2016 at 4:20:22 AM UTC-6, wor...@yandex.ru wrote:
> Am Samstag, 3. Dezember 2016 21:44:03 UTC+1 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
> > worlov@yandex.ru wrote:
> > 
> > > [...] The right answer is: 29 times faster!
> >
> > How did you get that idea?
> > 
> 
> CERN Muon Storage Ring had the diameter of 14m. If the experimenter would be in the middle, it is r = 7m. From there r/c = 23ns, which is negligibly small compared to 2.2μs or 64µs. Therefore we can ignore the effects caused by the light running time.
> 
> Through the radioactive decay of the pions the resulting muons saw that the experimenter had started his stopwatch at 0μs. When 2.2μs of their lives were over, they saw that the experimenter had stopped his stopwatch at 64μs. Hence they would have calculated: (64µs - 0µs)/2.2µs = 29.


[Centripetal velocity (299792458/(tau * 7) *14)] + [Radial velocity] of muons in muon ring = higher time dilation

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400824

On 12/4/16 12/4/16   4:20 AM, worlov@yandex.ru wrote:
> CERN Muon Storage Ring had the diameter of 14m. If the experimenter would be
> in the middle, it is r = 7m. From there r/c = 23ns, which is negligibly small
> compared to 2.2μs or 64µs. Therefore we can ignore the effects caused by the
> light running time.
>
> Through the radioactive decay of the pions the resulting muons saw that the
> experimenter had started his stopwatch at 0μs. When 2.2μs of their lives were
> over, they saw that the experimenter had stopped his stopwatch at 64μs. Hence
> they would have calculated: (64µs - 0µs)/2.2µs = 29.

This is a case where one must be VERY PRECISE in writing the conclusion. You 
have confused yourself through insufficient precision in thought and word.

The muons would see the experimenter's clock advancing between meetings 29 times 
more than their own clock.

	Note the subjunctive case ("would") -- we don't actually know
	what the muons see.

The muons CANNOT conclude that the experimenter's clock ticks 29 times faster 
than their own, because they are NOT measuring its tick rate.

	Measuring the tick rate of a moving clock requires multiple
	clocks synchronized to the observer's clock, and that
	requires the observer (and all these clocks) be at rest in
	some inertial frame. One must pre-arrange that two of those
	clocks are co-located with successive ticks of the moving
	clock; since they are synchronized, one can subtract their
	readings to obtain the time between ticks of the moving
	clock as measured in this inertial frame. Note those muons
	are NOT at rest in any inertial frame, and this procedure
	is QUITE different from the physical situation of those
	muons in a storage ring.

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400829

Am Montag, 5. Dezember 2016 06:29:31 UTC+1 schrieb tjrob137:
> The muons CANNOT conclude that the experimenter's clock ticks 29 times faster 
> than their own, because they are NOT measuring its tick rate.
> 
But they have measured the "ticks". Let us calculate. Circumference of the ring 2*pi*r = 2*pi*7m = 44m. The muons moved at near light speed c. So they have rounded the ring 64µs*c/44m = 436 times. In this way they could see every 64µs/436 = 0.15µs of the experiment's stopwatch ;)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400862

On 12/3/16 12/3/16 - 2:07 PM, worlov@yandex.ru wrote:
> I know the fundamentals of relativity.

No, you DO NOT. With every post you make you demonstrate your personal ignorance 
of SR.

Yes, your personal MISCONCEPTIONS about relativity are inconsistent. But that 
does not affect the theory itself.

You will remain mystified until you LEARN about relativity and what it ACTUALLY 
says. You are wasting your time -- spend it STUDYING instead.

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400822

On 12/1/16 12/1/16   6:00 AM, worlov@yandex.ru wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 1. Dezember 2016 03:29:03 UTC+1 schrieb tjrob137:
>> ... WRONG ... wrong ...
>
> Do not get me wrong. I do not think wrong.

But you definitely write wrong.

> I mean that the real time stretching is not the same as relativistic time
> dilation.

I don't know what you mean by "real time stretching" -- you'll have to define or 
describe it before we can proceed.

If, perhaps, you mean the "time stretching" that WOULD BE observed by the muons 
in Bailey et al's storage ring, then you are definitely thinking wrong.

	Hint: you cannot claim that something that has never been
	observed is "real". What those muons might see has never been
	observed. Moreover, as I pointed out in a recent post, SR
	predicts that the muons would see the observer's clock advancing
	between meetings 29 times more than their own clock (this is not
	a physical situation to which "time dilation" applies).

> Relativistic time dilation is an artificial construct and is more
> complex than reality.

Not really. After all, SR agrees with every experiment within its domain, 
including myriad measurements of "time dilation".

> The real time stretching is a process that can happen in a medium. When a
> light clock is moving in the medium, the light ways are longer and the clock
> ticks accordingly slower...  but already immediately, real, without return...
> as in the experiment...

WHAT EXPERIMENT???? -- there has never been an experiment that used a light 
clock, much less one that used a light clock moving relative to a medium.

> Yes, in principle only real time stretching can be measured. And because of
> that the relativistic imaginary consideration is removed from the basis. It
> is an auxiliary construct, which should underpin the principle of relativity.

As best I can tell this is word salad -- meaningless drivel constructed out of 
seemingly scientific words. If you want others to understand your writing, you 
must either use standard vocabulary or define your terms.

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web