Speed of light...instantatious Travel??

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: GAHD

Pardon me, I tend to take things litereally as written.

No apology needed. I appreciate your correcting us.

You know I'd do the same given the chance! l0l

[Bo]

Gahd wrote:

without a percentile graph of observed muon decay while at rest the example means nothing because the math cannot be shown.

well the math is quite clear i think see for example http://www.prestoncoll.ac.uk/cosmic/muoncalctext.htm Also at the site of SLAC there is a comparison with experimental data: http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/co...tourstop4.html

There are other mitigating circumstances that would come into play if and when muons interact with the atmosphere(ie refraction) to scatter them, but these only occur if and when the muons interact with the molecules of the atmosphere; not too likely given the density....
B) kinetic energy simply tends to hold an object together, rather than dilating it's time.

Well you can easely asume there is hardly any interaction wetween the muons and the atmosphere. for example: muons can travel through about .5 meters of solid lead and are still good visible (and as said before: similar experiments are done in vacuum at CERN or other excellarators). Point B i find quite strange. If kinetic energy holds a particle stable, then why can it be that particles with no kinetic energy can still be stable? Visualise for example a thin line on which our particle is situated. If we give it a small push (for the decay these are quantum fluctuations), our particle decays. Now suppose that our particle has some kinetic energy, so it;s moving along the line. The push we have to give our particle to fall of the line is still the same, and also (this you can show, but i wont do it, because of the mathematics) the movement along the line has no influence on the quantum uncertaintys in the direction perpendicular to the line.

C) Gravity causes muon decay(again we haven't done the experiments in space, not just detailing vacuum, but SPACE; away from significantly sized astral body, beyond the Magellan cloud, away from earth.)

Point C also seems strange to me, Gravity is (on particle scales) a tremendously small force compared to the other three forces and once again: the experiments at CERN are at constant height, so there is no change in the gravitational potential (and only a change in potential causes something to happen).

you want to 'convert' me on this; give me proof not some second hand info from a half-assed experiment that 'meets predictions' and then expect me to beleive the rest of the hogwash associated with it.

Well i'm very sorry, but that's the best i can do... There is SO MUCH we don't know. For example: 70% of the stuff this universe is made of is unknown, we have no clue what time or space is. We have no clue how some 20 paramaters that shape this universe or so are formed. We have no idea if mathematics is the right language to use, we have no idea if the assumption of causality is correct, etc. The only thing we can do is: do an experiment and try to explain the results with a theory. SR and QFT are the best theorys these days to describe the experiments, but that doesn't mean they're the ultimate truth (we have no idea also what truth is...). As to your points on the simplest answer. It is indeed often true that theories need to be refined, but it is in general true (i wouldnt know an exception) that with our current knowledge the simplest theory is the best. Also when better measurements are done, the theory needs to be refined, but in the limit of our previous experiment, we get the same answer as the 'simple' model gave. For example: SR is a refinement of Newtonian mechanics. But in the limit of lightspeed->infinity we get n

[Uncle Martin]

Bo,

Please don't let some people dissuade you, I, (and many others I'm sure) are very appreciative to have an actual physicist to correct the erroneous assumptions and corroborate the occasional lucky guess.

Thanks for the effort, I find it very educational.

[GAHD]

Originally posted by: Freethinker
OK, so I have given a specific example of OR working. (as well as clarifying HOW it is to be applied). Now it is your turn, show us an actual example, properly structured, where it does NOT work.

I don't know enough about it to disproove it, and it's time dialation that's on trial here, not OR. I could give two shakes of a pig's tail weather or not science chooses the simplist answer, I just think think that "simplest" just means that you're 'playing with half your cards'. given the idea that you only care about the percentage of getting getting (10,20,30,40,50, or 60) from rolling ten six sided dice and rounding the total up(akin to doing anything from average), you might as well just roll a single six sided die and multiply the result by 10; gives the same answers, but you're missing some other variables you just don't care about. Given that definition Autodynamics and NWT both make the same predictions as SR without a lot of the extra stuff associated with SR, so OR actually supports them. GREAT!

Originally posted by: Freethinker

Guns work bettter?

Canada. We have nasty gun-controll laws so electronics are your best bet; cellphones, loud sirens, tazers (under 2000v i think), etc...
also any knife (under 6" to be legal) works. And you technically can't walk in groups over 6 people (municipal law, can be searched/dispersed without question for 'gang activity'), as well as a bunch of other paranoid stuf. great place for alarm companies.

Now I'm too tired to post a lengtly reply(mainly to the tune of "neither site has the decay data, just mean average; pull out the full data then we can play with some numbers for this stuff..." as well as 'time isn't a real dimension', and 'energy and mass are interchangeable but they have distinct properties'.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Uncle Martin
Bo,

Please don't let some people dissuade you, I, (and many others I'm sure) are very appreciative to have an actual physicist to correct the erroneous assumptions and corroborate the occasional lucky guess.

Thanks for the effort, I find it very educational.

I "second that emotion". (Old song, Smokey Robinson and the Miracles, now it'll be playing in my head for days...). I notice a very definate strain of postmoderism from some. Outright rejection of science by claiming it is all faith based regardless. Occasional promotion of "wierd science" and rejection of well established scientific process while refusing to stand behind it when challenged.

Yes Bo, keep up the good work here. Those of us rooted in solid science instead of new age postmoderism do appreciate it.

[GAHD]

Originally posted by: Freethinker
I notice a very definate strain of postmoderism from some. Outright rejection of science by claiming it is all faith based regardless. Occasional promotion of "wierd science" and rejection of well established scientific process while refusing to stand behind it when challenged.....Those of us rooted in solid science instead of new age postmoderism do appreciate it.

If "postmoderism from some" refers to me I'd thank you not to label.

"Outright rejection of science by claiming it is all faith based regardless." again, assuming this is directed at me; I only claim Time dilation is faith based, no first hand experiences of it, just observed and theorised data. It's compelling, but not definitive.

"Occasional promotion of "wierd science" and rejection of well established scientific process..." Aren't these the bringers of progress?

"Those of us rooted in solid science instead of new age postmoderism do appreciate it."

You have PERFECT KNOWLEDGE and you KNOW your TD happens? I'm open to discussing the reasons and theories(PLURAL), I'd hope you didn't have to resort to name-calling because you can't stand up to a harsh critic.