MMx math

[Da Do Ron Ron]

Would you say that both people and clocks also have
intrinsic lifetimes?

No. <<snip>>

I certainly understand and even empathize with your
reticence to answer affirmatively, but we need to
further discuss this timely matter, much, I am sure,
to your dismay! (Sorry!)

I believe that we can agree that people (if not clocks)
_do_ have lifetimes, so all we have to worry about is
What sort of lifetimes, intrinsic or not?

According to you (and me also), the lengths of nonintrinsic
lifetimes are controlled by mere coordinate measurements,
so your "No" (re peoples' intrinsic lifetimes) means that you
believe that a person's lifetime varies with (is affected by)
external or coordinate measurements.

Am I reading you correctly here?

~RA~

[spudnik]

seems salutary, that the Harald of Aether didn't reply
to this stuff. so, what else do electromagnetic waves
-- forget about Newton's "phtoon theory" fot the momentbeing --
require, aside from atoms & ionized atoms?

thank you for your timely & cuntoomly reply,
doctor Androcles.

--les ducs d'oil sont Beyondeesh PetroeumeeshTM!
http://tarpley.net

--Light, A History plus Descartesian v. of Snell's law ...
could've been Sir Isaac's! http://wlym.com

[Androcles]

"Tom Roberts" <***@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:3f-***@giganews.com...
| On 10/13/10 10/13/10 - 4:14 PM, Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
| > On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 10:03:40 -0500, Tom Roberts<***@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
| >> For instance, Bailey et al measured the internal clock of a muon to be
| >> unaffected by the enormous acceleration of 10^18 g (induced by bending
magnets
| >> in their storage ring).
| >
| > Measured by an observer at rest wrt the ring?
|
| Yes, of course.
|
|
| > Then for the same reason, it is also unaffected by its speed through the
| > atmosphere wrt an Earthly observer.
|
| Yes, of course. Here "it" means the internal clock of a muon.
|
| AMAZING! You have finally made a correct statement. (That is rare enough
that I
| though I would remark upon it.)
|
| Note that the observers in Bailey et al, and earthbound observers of a
| cosmic-ray muon, do not directly measure the internal clock of the muon;
they
| observe "time dilation".
|
|
| Tom Roberts
|
Note that the observers in Bailey et al, and earthbound observers of a
cosmic-ray muon, directly measure the internal clock of the muon to be
2.2 usecs; they then ASSUME "time dilation" by ASSUMING the muon's
speed to be less than 300,000 km/sec. This is called "circularity",
anencephalous bigot.

<http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/circularity>
Definition of CIRCULAR
5: being or involving reasoning that uses in the argument or proof a
conclusion to be proved or one of its unproved consequences

1) But it is not possible without further ASSUMPTION to compare, in respect
of time, an event at A with an event at B.
2) We ASSUME that this definition of synchronism is free from
contradictions, and possible for any number of points;
3) In agreement with experience we further ASSUME the quantity 2AB/(t'A-tA)
= c
4) Current kinematics tacitly ASSUMES that the lengths determined by these
two operations are precisely equal
5) and where for brevity it is ASSUMED that at the origin of k, tau = 0,
when t=0.
6) If no ASSUMPTION whatever be made as to the initial position of the
moving system and as to the zero point of tau
7) We now have to prove that any ray of light, measured in the moving
system, is propagated with the velocity c, if, as we have ASSUMED, this is
the case in the stationary system
8) If we ASSUME that the result proved for a polygonal line is also valid
for a continuously curved line,
9) and our equations ASSUME the form
10) When phi = 0 the equation ASSUMES the perspicuous form
11) the equation for phi' ASSUMES the form
12) for the law of motion of which we ASSUME as follows
13) we may and will ASSUME that the electron, at the moment when we give it
our attention
14) From the above ASSUMPTION, in combination with the principle of
relativity

[ben6993]

Androcles is reduced to being a spam-bot.  BAHAHAHA

What's that?
bedpan is a stupid prat?
Each night
he pays for a double
but gets a half
and stares into his beer glass
every night ...
every week ...
every month ...
every year ...
every decade ...
all his life ...
but the bartender ...
always gets it right.

[Da Do Ron Ron]

No .. that is NOT what was said. You are being dishonest
.. and is WHY you should read what is said and not stop
at the first word

I did not stop at the first word. It is you who is being
deceitful. I prominently placed "<<snip>>" in my post to
show that I had read and discarded that which followed.
This is the purpose of "<<snip>>" as everyone knows.
A dishonest person (such as you) would not have done this.

Let's see if I can get through to Tom.

Everyone can agree that people have lifetimes.
(Hell, even tires have lifetimes!)

Everyone can also agree that either these lifetimes
are affected by mere coordinate measurements, or
they are not.

That is, can a mere coordinate measurement suddenly
change Tom's age from 20 to 45?

If not, then Tom's age is "immune to" such mere
measurements, which makes his lifetime (or his age
at any moment) intrinsic.

This has nothing to do with _how_ each person may
age due to external (or internal) factors. It
just means that a person's aging is not affected
by mere coordinate measurements, just as a muon's
lifetime is not.

The main points here are that people have lifetimes
that are not affected by or in any way related to
coordinate measurements, but such measurements are
the _only_ things that special relativity have to
"explain" any and all things about people's lifetimes
and clock rates.

SR does not exist until after each frame is given an
array of clocks and rulers, and the former have been
related per Einstein's definition. And this is _all_
that relativity has, a bunch of clocks and rulers.

It uses these clocks and rulers to make coordinate
measurements, after which it claims that these mere
coordinate measurements somehow show clock slowing
of the sort that is important to physics. However,
it is clear that this can only be non-intrinsic
"clock slowing," which means nothing to physics
because it has nothing to do with the actual or
intrinsic or physical slowing of a clock.

Additionally, since SR's full arsenal cannot even
touch intrinsic clock slowing or intrinsic aging,
SR cannot have any explanation for clocks actually
running at different intrinsic rates or for people
aging differently in different frames.

Let me put it this way:

Suppose Tom has triplet brothers named Tom2 and
Tome3. Now suppose Tom2 leaves Tom when they are
both the same age, and heads out (inertially) to
meet Tom3. When Tom2 and Tom3 meet in passing,
they see that they are the same age. Tom3 then
goes on to catch up with Tom, and they see that
they are _not_ the same age.

SR has no physical (or even mathematical) cause
or explanation for this simple difference of
intrinsic ages.

To repeat, all SR has at his disposal are mere
coordinate measurements, but such things have
nothing to do with a person's actual or real
or intrinsic aging.

What can cause people in different frames (as
were the Toms) to age differently?

Here is Tom's full reply (which I had snipped legally,
not dishonestly):

(I had asked Tom: Would you say that both people and
clocks also have intrinsic lifetimes?)

No. In part because there is no reason to apply such
a concept to them, and in part because in practice
external events always destroy people and clocks (they
don't internally self-destruct as muons do).

What about identical triplets who age differently with
no accelerations involved? What "external events" are
involved here? Why would anyone say that intrinsic
lifetimes of people are not involved or that there is
not reason to apply such a concept to them?

There is also the problem that it is not obvious at
precisely what point in time complicated objects like
clocks or humans start to be, and precisely when they
cease to be.
Tom Roberts

Well, we have no such problems in the given triplet case,
do we?

SR is a crock, and cannot explain or even talk about any
physically important phenomena such as people's intrinsic
aging or a clock's intrinsic rate or even a ruler's real
or intrinsic length.

SR is dishonest, claiming to be of value to physics, when
all it has is incorrect coordinate measurements. (They are
incorrect due to intrinsic clock slowing, intrinsic ruler
contraction, and Einstein's asynchronous clocks.)

~RA~

[spudnik]

there is n othing odd about special relativity, iff
the speed of light --not its velocity-- is also
the maximum speed for the angular momenta of atoms,
accelerated to any "relativistical" velocity (or speed .-)

incidentally, the first page of the MMx write-up says taht
they found an anomaly, not "no results."

thus:
what is left out, is the effect of Earth
upon Sun; eh?

--les ducs d'Enron sont Beyondeesh PetroleumeeshTM!
http://tarpley.net

--Light, A History, incl. Descartes's weird metaphors!
http://wlym.com

[Da Do Ron Ron]

[re-post]

No .. that is NOT what was said. You are being dishonest
.. and is WHY you should read what is said and not stop
at the first word

I did not stop at the first word. It is you who is being
deceitful. I prominently placed "<<snip>>" in my post to
show that I had read and discarded that which followed.
This is the purpose of "<<snip>>" as everyone knows.
A dishonest person (such as you) would not have done this.

Let's see if I can get through to Tom.

Everyone can agree that people have lifetimes.
(Hell, even tires have lifetimes!)

Everyone can also agree that either these lifetimes
are affected by mere coordinate measurements, or
they are not.

That is, can a mere coordinate measurement suddenly
change Tom's age from 20 to 45?

If not, then Tom's age is "immune to" such mere
measurements, which makes his lifetime (or his age
at any moment) intrinsic.

This has nothing to do with _how_ each person may
age due to external (or internal) factors. It
just means that a person's aging is not affected
by mere coordinate measurements, just as a muon's
lifetime is not.

The main points here are that people have lifetimes
that are not affected by or in any way related to
coordinate measurements, but such measurements are
the _only_ things that special relativity have to
"explain" any and all things about people's lifetimes
and clock rates.

SR does not exist until after each frame is given an
array of clocks and rulers, and the former have been
related per Einstein's definition. And this is _all_
that relativity has, a bunch of clocks and rulers.

It uses these clocks and rulers to make coordinate
measurements, after which it claims that these mere
coordinate measurements somehow show clock slowing
of the sort that is important to physics. However,
it is clear that this can only be non-intrinsic
"clock slowing," which means nothing to physics
because it has nothing to do with the actual or
intrinsic or physical slowing of a clock.

Additionally, since SR's full arsenal cannot even
touch intrinsic clock slowing or intrinsic aging,
SR cannot have any explanation for clocks actually
running at different intrinsic rates or for people
aging differently in different frames.

Let me put it this way:

Suppose Tom has triplet brothers named Tom2 and
Tome3. Now suppose Tom2 leaves Tom when they are
both the same age, and heads out (inertially) to
meet Tom3. When Tom2 and Tom3 meet in passing,
they see that they are the same age. Tom3 then
goes on to catch up with Tom, and they see that
they are _not_ the same age.

SR has no physical (or even mathematical) cause
or explanation for this simple difference of
intrinsic ages.

To repeat, all SR has at his disposal are mere
coordinate measurements, but such things have
nothing to do with a person's actual or real
or intrinsic aging.

What can cause people in different frames (as
were the Toms) to age differently?

Here is Tom's full reply (which I had snipped legally,
not dishonestly):

(I had asked Tom: Would you say that both people and
clocks also have intrinsic lifetimes?)

No. In part because there is no reason to apply such
a concept to them, and in part because in practice
external events always destroy people and clocks (they
don't internally self-destruct as muons do).

What about identical triplets who age differently with
no accelerations involved? What "external events" are
involved here? Why would anyone say that intrinsic
lifetimes of people are not involved or that there is
not reason to apply such a concept to them?

There is also the problem that it is not obvious at
precisely what point in time complicated objects like
clocks or humans start to be, and precisely when they
cease to be.
Tom Roberts

Well, we have no such problems in the given triplet case,
do we?

SR is a crock, and cannot explain or even talk about any
physically important phenomena such as people's intrinsic
aging or a clock's intrinsic rate or even a ruler's real
or intrinsic length.

SR is dishonest, claiming to be of value to physics, when
all it has is incorrect coordinate measurements. (They are
incorrect due to intrinsic clock slowing, intrinsic ruler
contraction, and Einstein's asynchronous clocks.)

~RA~

[Henry Wilson DSc]

No . based on the 'flow' of time in their own rest frame. The frames of
other observers make no different to the persons aging .. only on how
those
other observers would MEASURE the aging from THEIR frames.

All other observers age at that same rate.

O1
v<O2 O3>v
According to SR, O1's clock runs slow by the same amount in the frames of
both
O2 and O3.

O1's clock is measured as slower by clocks in O2's frame, and by clocks in
O3's frame .. just as I said above.

According to SR both O2 and O3's clocks run even more slowly in each
others'
frames.

O2's clock is measured as slower by clocks in O1's frame, and by clocks in
O3's frame .. just as I said above.
O3's clock is measured as slower by clocks in O1's frame, and by clocks in
O2's frame .. just as I said above.
All clocks tick at the 'rate' of one second per second in their own frames.
There is no intrinsic change in any of the clocks due to the movement of the
other clocks.

Hooray! You got that bit right.

Yet they can inform each other that they are both seeing O1's clock
running slow by the same amount

Yes .. that is what they will both measure about O1's clock (using their own
clocks)

and, since they are moving at the same speed
wrt O1, can therefore deduce that their clocks are actually running at the
same
ABSOLUTE rate.

All clocks tick at the 'rate' of one second per second in their own frames.
There is no intrinsic change in any of the clocks due to the movement of the
other clocks.

hahahahahahhaHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHHHAHHAHAHA!!!!!!!!

You're so stupid you can't even see how stupid that is.

If O2 and O3 both see O1's clock running slow by the same amount, ISN'T IT
FUCKING OBVIOUS THAT BOTH THEIR CLOCKS MUST BE RUNNING IN SYNCH?

YET You reckon O2 sees O3's clock running slow and vice versa.

What a fucking joke you people are....
HahahahhHAHAHAHHHAHAHHa!

In other words, there is no twins paradox.

Except we observe that there is. What there isn't is any contradiction in
what SR claims.

Clocks are not affected by movement

Of course they're not .. SR doesn't say they are. It says that the
MEASUREMENT of a moving clock is affected by its movement.

It can say what it likes....but it will still be absolute bullshit...

and SR is crap from start to finish.

You wouldn't know .. you don't understand what SR actually says .. as
evidenced by what you say above

No .. all age at their own rest frame rates. If all aged at an absolute
universal rate, then we would not get the effects we see in "twins
paradox"-like experiments .. the results that refute your incorrect
assertions above.

hahahhahaha! What experiments? there are none.

You're a deluded liar

You are a deluded fool


Henry Wilson...

.......SR = TEL

[harald]

[..]

| Physics deals with models of reality.  Perhaps you don't deal with
physics?

That is a good one, and pertinent for this thread! For, physics as
done by Newton and Maxwell deals with models of reality, and that
necessarily includes descriptions of phenomena (the measurable
quantities); the difference between what is and what we can see is
emphasized. In contrast, modern physics as done by Einstein and
Feynman is focused on descriptions of phenomena, with no or little
concern for understanding reality ("shut up and calculate"). For
practical use the only thing that matters is that we can predict what
will happen.

Harald