NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

I said, that I know that Muons are NOT Time dilated from where they hit the upper atmosphere, and DO NOT CONSERVE THEIR ENERGY!!!!!!!

Whatever they are measuring with their 'Blips" near groud level, or in the high mountains, where I heard of one detector, is NoT muons from the upper atmosphere!!!

SO, those "Blips" must be from some non energy conserving beta decay source(s) near their measuring devices!!!

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

LOL, this is just pure sillyness.......you think that measuring (and it is not really a measurment, it is doing Maths) supposed time dilation is measuring spaceships at relavistic speeds, supposedly seeing light from their craft shinning forward, traveling at "c" even if they are going at Near "C"......

You better go talk to your 13 year old again.

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

RussT, does your whole argument really just come down to simple disbelief and denial?

All I'm seeing here is the usual "it doesn't make sense" kind of reaction to effects such as time dilaton. That's no kind of scientific discussion. This stuff has been being dealt with for about 100 years.

You need to do more than say "it doesn't make sense" to overturn that. Edit2: ...and you need to properly explain the experiments and such that show these effects.

(Edit1:

I remember my 6th form physics teacher telling me how a person running at 10 m/s on top of a train moving at 10 m/s wasn't necessarily running at 20 m/s relative to the ground (depending on the observer). I simply refused to believe that as it didn't "make sense". Now, I'm not saying I understand all of SR and GR yet - I may never do. But I know enough to know that my disbelief didn't overturn it.
)

__________________
Reality moves at the speed of light.
If the text of this post is blue, it's a "Moderator comment".
[ The RULES of the Forum ] [ Forum FAQs ] [ Conspiracy Theory advice ] [ Alternate Theory Advice ]
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team - use the /!\ icon at the top-right of the post.

Time is different everywhere and everyway we look at it.

Higher up in the mountains time is slower as the earth rotates, satelites going around the earth in 90 minutes have very short days, ETC ETC ETC......so what............time is constant at 1 second per second no matter how fast or slow you are going.

Variable time and distance which evidently Lorentz somehow saw as possible in Maxwells equations, have sent science on a Sci-fi journey of epic proportions...........BUT it is entirely possible, without all these BlacK Hole possibilities, i would never have been able to figure out that the "Real" answer is............


ALL, the baryonic matter that goes in, MUST come "Straight Through (NO SINGUALRITY) and out the other end as Non-baryonic matter.......Neutrinos........the ONLY non-baryonic Matter we know exists!!!!!!!!!!!

The imaginary spaceships and the imaginary light sources in space is what is Sci-Fi........Not the Einstein-Rosen Bridges.........without space and time being 'flipped', and no singualrity inside!!!

http://www.zamandayolculuk.com/cetin...senBridges.htm

This is the ONLY Black Hole model that is close to the correct one!!!!!!!!!!!

And don't even bother reading anything on that page,,,,,,it is all done with energy conservation and closed system maths.............it is entirely wrong

The reason mainstream cannot unify SR and GR, is simple.......they don't exist.......they are built entirely from Singularities........for SR, you have Radians expanding/contracting 0 to Infinity, and for GR you have your "Spherical Cow" expanding contracting from 0 to Infinity, with that expanding contracting Radian at the center...

And, that is not the end of the singularities......The "Mechanics of falling objects" starts with a singularity also.......objects falling straight down from distance (Which became Infinity in short order) is division by 0.

Now, Newton figured out some pretty ingenious math to get around this, and eventually developed the square root law, and either He or someone else developed a way to get "a" constant out of that, BUT those are just approximations,,,,,,,they are NOT reality.

The ONLY way to fix the SR GR singularities, is for "SPACE" (Non_Baryonic Matter) to come "Straight Through" SMBH's, and to understand everything I have shown in this thread............it IS all correct, it is just that the Universe(s) working as an "Open System" makes nearly everything "Opposite" of what you think it is....And way more than half the Stuff doesn't even exist.....so I know how tough this thirty days has been for you guys.

There are NO "Virtual particles" or "Virtual Photons"...when they got to 'virtual anything' they had to know something was up......really

There are no particles popping in and out of existence, no false vacuum, Inflation WIMPS, Dark Matter haloes etc...

The Non-Baryonic Matter (Exotic matter, which it takes to be able to have worm holes) coming into the Voids...from every side of the Universe (Solves the Horizon problem) hey, that's exactly what they are made of, since there is NO baryonic matter there, is the CMB.........the intial energy continually coming into our universe.

Those Neutrinos (Un-charged electrons/positrons) is/are the CMB, which we are currently calling light/photons, so Grav is on to something in his thread, is ALL of Space traveling in every/ all directions at "c", OR so close to it that it really doesn't matter. How fast did the Neutrinos from SN 1987A get here.....ask Trinitree88...

That Energy Field, is the answer to the rotation curves of the galaxies, as that is what makes it possible for the magnetic field of the rotating SMBH to couple with it to hold the stars in the galaxies, and for rotating Stars to hold the planets in their orbits.

That gives ALL of space, energy, traveling at ~"c", and then the Biggest Mystery in the Universe "Really" does happen......over and over and over again.....

Actually it has happened Billions and Billions of times...

Dwarf galaxies and Spiral Galaxies, about once a day, are created out of that energy, when somewhere near those Voids, and New Massive Black Hole is actually able to be witnessed/detected being born, by it's High Energy Gamma Radiation Event.

This is where those non-collisional Neutrinos DO collide, both going "c" and that High Energy Gamma radiation is the electrons/positons and Protons are created that will when cooled (fading afterglow) become the hydrogen/helium to start star formation in the nucleus/core of the galaxy.

SMBH's control how our whole Universe(s) is working, from how our 'space' gets here, to how how our galaxies are born and evolve into the Elliptical M87's and Quasars/Blasars with their Billions of Sol masses SMBH's.

SO, the Universe is NOT going to expand into nothingness, BUT instead, the Universe(s) is a Perpetual galaxy Making Machine...

This Is the solution mentioned in the OP.

I know this sounds like thousands of others out there, BUT I understand every theory our there, and fully understand why they are all fatally false

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

You do know that the speed of sound in air (basis of Mach numbers) is quite a bit less than the speed of light in vacuo (c), don't you? I don't presume anything WRT your understanding. Also the speed of sound is variable, depending on multiple factors. However, let's just take the nominal value of 330 m/s for Mach 1, shall we? That's about 760 miles per hour for the metrically challenged.

For the calculations to make sense, we will have to assume that the two jets are traveling at exactly 990 m/s relative to the ground. According to Newton -- and apparently you -- they are approaching each other at exactly 1980 m/s or Mach 6. Applying the appropriate SR transform, they are actually approaching at Mach 5.9999999999345695 plus a smidgen.

See, Newton works well enough for government work at these relatively low velocities. You however, have been presenting examples of spaceships traveling at just under c.

Blam! (What kind of answer were you expecting, I wonder.)

Yes, same transform. Very different results for the near light-speed spaceship vis a vis the F15s.

I fell into the trap of assuming we both understood what you really meant by your ambiguous example. If the distance between the ship and the ISS is 100 light seconds while they are in the same inertial frame, and then the ship suddenly accelerates towards the ISS to 0.999999999c then the distance between them according to the ship does shrink dramatically. That's length contraction. And it appeared to be that which you claimed was obviously false.

One of the postulates of SR is that all inertial observers see light at c, so it doesn't matter whether you consider yourself to be stationary, or the ISS, because you will both see light at c anyway, without contradiction.

But according to SR all inertial observers see light at C and can do the same physics equally well all assuming they are the ones who are stationary. SR does not say that someone becomes stationary as a result of seeing light at c.

Clearly. And SR, too, says that he sees light travelling at c relative to him whether he considers himself to be stationary or not. All inertial observers measure light moving at c, remember. Not just the stationary ones. There isn't even a definition of stationary ones.

Indeed. So why did you say, "that light "NEEDS" to be on to make two parts of SR work". It's as daft as saying that a baseball must be fitted with a speedometer in order for Newtonian physics to not be fatally flawed.

Ignoring all the gravitational complications of ISS versus Earth frames of reference, it might surprise you to learn that SR says that both observers can regard themselves as stationary and the other as moving without contradiction. And they both will measure the speed of light relative to themselves as c.

__________________
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand ternary, those who don't, and those waiting for a bus.
If logic doesn't work, then surely it does.

RussT
Do you really think that you can falsify a theory by simply appealing to your incredulity of its postulates? Because that's all your doing. You haven't even moved on to what SR predicts, you're stuck at the supposed contradiction between the postulates. Of course, there is no logical contradiction, they just contradict your intuition about space and time.

__________________
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand ternary, those who don't, and those waiting for a bus.
If logic doesn't work, then surely it does.

Ignoring the rest of the twaddle for the moment, you aren't quite right here. Higher in the mountain is also farther out of the earth's gravity well, and per GR your clock will be running (very slightly) faster. Depending on the mountain. Last I checked the mountains rotate at the same angular velocity as the rest of the earth.

These are traveling at very slow speeds. SR effects are not evident here. You can not make this comparison.

This is the same as for Newton's theory of gravity. It works up to a certain point as an approximation, then you must use Einstein's GR.

__________________
______________________________________________
“He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; he who does not ask a question remains a fool forever”
Chinese proverb
"All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence - and then success is sure." - Mark Twain.

Oh dear. Where to begin?

The problem is, you see RussT, we can check that they are muons, and we can check how their number decreases as we go down the atmosphere.

Your ignorance of all branches of physics is quite staggering.

This one is easy. The total velocity is given by the relativistic addition of velocities,

V_TOT = V₁+V₂/(1+V₁V₂/c²)

Come on now, surely even you knew this!

NO contradiction??????? I just showed exactly the contradiction......

I just showed thousands of observers Absolutely contradicting that the ISS was moving at Near "c" toward the incoming observer, who because he turned his light on, had to become stationary, so he could see that light at "C"!!!!!!!!!!!

All you guys keep doing is repeating nonesense back to me!!!!!!!

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

RussT, despite your refusal to answer questions, I think that you may be English.

If so, we have two very good universities here, either of which would be able to give you a very good education in physics. I know that you want to take the lazy route of sitting in your bedroom and making it up as you go along, but why don't you head off to Oxbridge, and actually do a degree in the subject?

Maybe you think that you are not intelligent enough to get in (and maybe you are right), but it's still worth a try.

Once there, you will learn many wonderful things, from many wonderful people, and will actually come out with a qualification which, as a side-benefit pretty much entitles you to never have to worry about money ever again.

No, you did not, you are asserting it, but you have done nothing to show it.

Your increasingly shrill tone and bad punctuation don't actually make your arguments any more convincing, by the way.

I'll ask you again, why don't you head off to the admissions office in Wellington Square (or wherever they do that sort of thing in Cambridge), fill in a form, and start formally learning this subject?

Good thing it doesn't matter what you think about SR because so far pretty much everything you think about SR is flawed.

Using SR I can tell you about anywhere from 1 - ∞ number of observers. When we talk about "observers" we only mean possible different inertial frames. If I'm in a ship I most certainly can determine that space-time is contracted in the direction of acceleration.

So once again you are wrong. I can observe the effects of me accelerating just fine without an external observer.

Wrong again!!! It is just easier in many situations to have a coordinate system where you are the origin.

Only in your flawed understanding of reality.

So you believe if you don't have headlights on a space ship then it doesn't actually move?

You don't get it. How about this. I'm in a ship with no lights.
You are in another ship with no lights.
I accelerate towards you at any speed.
The fact that I don't have any lights on doesn't mean I don't move.

No what we have here is your flawed ideas "Reek" of "no thought put in it"

the ship is travelling, with 2 l's, at near "c", now this is where you are confused, RELATIVE to other objects...oh wait now you are saying that the light doesn't matter. I should be used to you jumping from one statement to a contradictory statement.

Let me explain it this way to you. You are standing on a flat bed train travelling, with 2 l's, at 60mph towards a bridge. From the bridge a brick is hanging tied on a rope and is right in the path of your head. Now when that brick hits you in the face you can calculate that damage it would do just like if you where standing still and it was hurled at you at 60mph.


No one thinks it does. What we are saying is 100 light seconds or, lets not use that term because you are confusing terms enough as is, 29,979,245.8km in one frame is not 29,979,245.8km in a none accelerated frame.

Now even though you can treat the ISS as travelling, with 2 l's, towards you at the speed you accelerated to it was you that did the acceleration which is the source of the transformations.

Once again. It is just a useful way of looking at the situation. We all know we can say who did the acceleration with respect to who.

It is only you, RussT, that can't keep any of this straight in your head.

Agreed but I'll flog myself a few more times.

Evidence? He doesn't need no stinking evidence!

Exactly what kind of logic do you need? It is so blatently obvious that it should be on "Are you Smarter Than a Fifth grader".

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

I just would like it explained once without you sneakily changing the situation, leave out critical details, or use measurements from one frame of reference in another, that's all. So far, you've proven unwilling or unable to do this.

Do you honestly believe that people on here are not noticing when you do this?

Basically, you are refusing to length contract or time dilate measurements in your situations, and then pretending that the nonsensical results that you get refute relativity.

If you assert gallilean transforms in your working, then of course the results will not be in accord with relativity, but so what?

It's funny isn't it? Despite his squirming, we've pinned him down to some definitive statements and, surprise surprise, they are all at odds with observation.

You can't do the calculation RussT can you.

You don't realise that one of the beauties of SR is that at slow speeds ≈ V₁ + V₂ and at higher speeds you the velocities approach, but never get to, c.

By using the hyperbolic functions to do the transformations we can even compare more then 2 "observers" very easily too.

Ok RussT here is the formula for you. Can I assume you can use a calculator and know what a square root is?

V' = V₁ + V₂ / (1 + V₁V₂ / c²)

You'll see that this formula given V₁ = 60km/hr V₂ = 60km/hr will still result inV' ≈ 120km/hr.

You could have just said "I don't know the formula to use, can you give me it." no one would make fun of you because you don't know the formula. Your lack of any maths in this whole thread leads me to believe you don't know any of the formulas.

Read up on the history of the speed of light. It isn't just maths. It is actual measurements some that are almost over 150 years old.

Time dilation is a known effect. The GPS satellites have to factor it in to their calculations or they come up with very WRONG answers. Oh that is right you don't care for fact and evidence do you.

You are well into the trolling territory now.

I suppose any GPS system you buy will use leprechauns to figure out where you are.

His use of the TV show name "Are you smarter than a fifth grader", as opposed to "Are you smarter than a ten year old" makes me suspect that you may be right in your assumption that he is a US citizen (do you see that RussT, I altered my thoughts based on evidence. Any chance you'll one day do that?). In that case, suggesting that he travels to, and lives in the UK to learn physics at Oxford is not very sensible.

Can someone else please recommend to RussT where in the US he would be best served in terms of getting a good physics degree? Unfortunately all of my US friends did silly soft subjects in Ivy League schools, so I don't know which of your universities is best in a real subject (is my anti-arts bias showing yet?)

RussT, I think that maybe you don't realise that the use of spaceships, flashing lights, and real clocks in the SR examples is just to help schoolchildren who are not comfortable with the maths.

It is a neat little introduction to the theory, but is not actually how we measure things.

For example, me and my friends wanted to test some theories of ours which depended on SR, but we did not go to NASA and ask them to build big red rockets with nice swiss-railway style colcks and big flashes on them. Rather, we dug (well, paid someone else to dig) a 27km round tunnel under the French-Swiss border, and fired sub-atomic particles around them at each other.

These particles take the place of the spaceships that you seem to be getting yourself in such a twist over, and, despite your unwillingness to look at what happens, they confirm SR very very well.

We create particles, they travel the right amount consistent with time dilation, and then they decay. The world in your head is therefore neatly refuted by the world in my lab. I am afraid that in this case, the one in your head is rejected.

Sorry old chap, but your physics has been proven wrong.

Ah, I see that the answer to my question...

...is yes.

What do you think constitutes falsifying a theory?

Hopefully you'd agree that to falsify a theory you have to show at least one of

1) A postulate is contradicted by the weight of evidence
2) It makes predictions that are contradicted by the weight of evidence
3) The theory contradicts itself. I.e. it is internally inconsistent and therefore makes contradictory predictions.

If you do agree, under which category does your claimed falsification come?

__________________
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand ternary, those who don't, and those waiting for a bus.
If logic doesn't work, then surely it does.

Yup but with SR and GR we can figure out the differences.

No, No it isn't. Time is faster on the mountain tops because it is further out of the gravity well. The SR effect are slowing time down is smaller then the GR effect of speeding time up, or more exactly not slowing time down as much as lower altitudes.

you are trolling here and playing word games.

Tell us how atomic clocks get out of sync in your model then?

You haven't been able to figure out anything so far.

Oh really? What do you call electrons? Do you even know what "Baryonic matter" means? By your statement above you obviously don't.

RussT, go learn basic physics. I was taught enough in 9th grade to show that statement is false. You might as well that 3 is the only whole number.

You are just totally ignorant. I don't really care what the moderators say at this point. Anyone that keeps making claims like the neutrinos are "the only non-baryonic matter we know" and refuses to actually learn about the science they are criticising is either wilfully ignorant or a troll and thus it is useless to try to educate them.

I'm done responding to RussT incoherent babbling.

Berkeley, Standford and MIT have very good video pod cast physic courses that are freely available to all.

This is quite a funny pair of statements, you have just shown very clearly that you do not even understand basic terms like baryonic, but you are still happy to assert that you understand "every theory out there".

Mesons are not baryons, neither are leptons, nor bosons. This list includes electrons. D you understand this, RussT, electrons are not baryonic matter. Why are you claiming that electrons do not exist?

How can you display such ignorance about high-school physics, and yet sit there and claim that you understand all theories out there?

Given that the moderators have done a really poor job of trying to get you to adhere to the rues of the forum (Are you there mods, I've used the standard complaint channel in the face of obfuscation and refusal to answer), I'm going to add my own opinion here, to. You are either a troll, or a twelve year old, and I'm done giving you the benefit of my time.

Adios, troll, go and annoy someone else now.

Attempt at changing the subject.

Big rant, attempt at changing the subject.

Actually, after finally getting a response from RussT that his actual problem with SR is that he doesn't believe the experimental data, that says the speed of light is constant in all inertial frames, can be true because he can't believe the universe works that way, we see that this entire discussion has been a massive waste of time.

RussT isn't going to change his belief that the universe follows the rules inside his head instead of those indicated by experiment and the rest of the participants aren't going to believe in Russt's fantasy world over experimental data.

Thread closed as it has become obvious that it's been going in circles since page one.

Note that a lot of these circles would have been avoided if the rest of you had resisted RussT's subject changes from SR.

Whatever level our participation is, we'll get whines.
Sometimes the actions in the same thread triggers whines from both side telling us that we are at the same time slacking off and overmoderating.
This thread was let run as it's obvious to anyone not living in RussT's fantasy world that he didn't know what he was talking about, so the thread has been educational.

__________________
‘To those who regard “crime fiction” as some sacred icon which must follow a rigid formula, I will always be the man who writes 18-syllable haiku.’Trying to make sense of computers, The Error Log.