Here is a good review of some critiques of relativity.
"A critical introduction to “Einstein‟s theory of relativity”
"written by a non-scientist for other non-scientists who have some intellectual curiosity about this famous theory, with pictures in it and
140 references and citations to authority. 30 pages."
by Raleigh Amesbury
"“Einstein‟s theory of relativity” is substantially science fiction, fantasy or philosophy, and represents the worst of science: how science
can become political, how political factors can affect funding, how
funding can affect scientists‟ jobs and careers, how experimental data
can be manipulated to serve as propaganda, and how theory can be
presented as fact.
Scientific theories come and go. It is about time “Einstein‟s theory of relativity” went.
.. The day will come when nobody even mentions either of them anymore. Physicists need only scrap the erroneous hypotheses of length
contraction, time dilation, mass distortion, the c speed limit,
space-time and curved space, and science will be reasonable and back on
track again."
Den 31.03.2025 22:44, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
Here is a good review of some critiques of relativity.
"A critical introduction to “Einstein‟s theory of relativity”
"written by a non-scientist for other non-scientists who have some
intellectual curiosity about this famous theory, with pictures in it and
140 references and citations to authority. 30 pages."
by Raleigh Amesbury
Written for non scientist who understand nothing of any theory
of physics, and thus believe they are qualified to make
the following sharp analysis of SR and GR.
Relativity is so fallacious that a person with only knowledge of
elementary logic and an 85 I.Q. is qualified to refute it.
On Wed, 2 Apr 2025 9:13:22 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 01.04.2025 21:28, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
Relativity is so fallacious that a person with only knowledge of
elementary logic and an 85 I.Q. is qualified to refute it.
Is it because of your 85 I.Q. and knowledge of elementary
logic that your comment to my statement:
"The speed of muons is v = ~ 0.999668⋅c through the atmosphere
which also is within the laboratory with open roof."
was:
"THEN, the time dilation must be the same." ?
Paul, the math does not cause time dilation. When the speed is the same
in both places, what is the cause? You have no idea
Den 02.04.2025 20:25, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
On Wed, 2 Apr 2025 9:13:22 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 01.04.2025 21:28, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
Relativity is so fallacious that a person with only knowledge of
elementary logic and an 85 I.Q. is qualified to refute it.
Is it because of your 85 I.Q. and knowledge of elementary
logic that your comment to my statement:
"The speed of muons is v = ~ 0.999668⋅c through the atmosphere
which also is within the laboratory with open roof."
was:
"THEN, the time dilation must be the same." ?
How slow is it possible to be? :-D
My statement was:
"There is but one speed v = ~ 0.999668⋅c"
your response was:
"THEN, the time dilation must be the same."
GET this: The statement:
"When an object has a speed v, then time dilation must be the same"
is an idiotic, nonsensical, meaningless, stupid response.
Paul, the math does not cause time dilation. When the speed is the same
in both places, what is the cause? You have no idea
And you repeat your nonsensical statement yet again!
The measured mean lifetime of a stationary muon is 2.2 μs
The measured mean lifetime of a muon moving at 0.999668⋅c is 85.36 μs.
These are measured facts, not math.
Can you give another interpretation of the facts than "time dilation"?
Den 02.04.2025 20:25, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
Can you give another interpretation of the facts than "time dilation"?
Le 03/04/2025 à 11:04, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
Den 02.04.2025 20:25, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
Can you give another interpretation of the facts than "time dilation"?
The problem of time dilation will remain a real problem of understanding
as long as theoretical physics remains a fog of words and abstract or misunderstood concepts.
Den 02.04.2025 20:25, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
On Wed, 2 Apr 2025 9:13:22 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 01.04.2025 21:28, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
Relativity is so fallacious that a person with only knowledge of
elementary logic and an 85 I.Q. is qualified to refute it.
Is it because of your 85 I.Q. and knowledge of elementary
logic that your comment to my statement:
"The speed of muons is v = ~ 0.999668⋅c through the atmosphere
which also is within the laboratory with open roof."
was:
"THEN, the time dilation must be the same." ?
How slow is it possible to be? :-D
My statement was:
"There is but one speed v = ~ 0.999668⋅c"
your response was:
"THEN, the time dilation must be the same."
GET this: The statement:
"When an object has a speed v, then time dilation must be the same"
is an idiotic, nonsensical, meaningless, stupid response.
Paul, the math does not cause time dilation. When the speed is the same
in both places, what is the cause? You have no idea
And you repeat your nonsensical statement yet again!
The measured mean lifetime of a stationary muon is 2.2 μs
The measured mean lifetime of a muon moving at 0.999668⋅c is 85.36 μs.
These are measured facts, not math.
Can you give another interpretation of the facts than "time dilation"?
Indeed. The mere existence of muon storage rings
already proves time dilatatation.
Den 02.04.2025 20:25, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
On Wed, 2 Apr 2025 9:13:22 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 01.04.2025 21:28, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
Relativity is so fallacious that a person with only knowledge of
elementary logic and an 85 I.Q. is qualified to refute it.
Is it because of your 85 I.Q. and knowledge of elementary
logic that your comment to my statement:
"The speed of muons is v = ~ 0.999668?c through the atmosphere
which also is within the laboratory with open roof."
was:
"THEN, the time dilation must be the same." ?
How slow is it possible to be? :-D
My statement was:
"There is but one speed v = ~ 0.999668?c"
your response was:
"THEN, the time dilation must be the same."
GET this: The statement:
"When an object has a speed v, then time dilation must be the same"
is an idiotic, nonsensical, meaningless, stupid response.
Paul, the math does not cause time dilation. When the speed is the same
in both places, what is the cause? You have no idea
And you repeat your nonsensical statement yet again!
The measured mean lifetime of a stationary muon is 2.2 ?s
The measured mean lifetime of a muon moving at 0.999668?c is 85.36 ?s.
These are measured facts, not math.
Can you give another interpretation of the facts than "time dilation"?
Den 03.04.2025 23:06, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 9:08:46 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
The measured mean lifetime of a stationary muon is 2.2 μs
The measured mean lifetime of a muon moving at 0.999668⋅c is 85.36 μs. >>>
These are measured facts, not math.
Can you give another interpretation of the facts than "time dilation"?
I did not say the time dilation must be the same for the same speed.
I asked why relativity says it's different.
What is the alleged cause?
When are you going to try to understand?
Your confused nonsense can't be understood.
Time dilation is not a difference in lifetime.
I never denied the measured lifetimes.
I only disagreed with your interpretation that it is time dilation.
They just live longer. But why?
Everything you say shows that you have no idea of
what time dilation is.
So let's take it from the beginning.
Time dilation is the phenomenon that the measured time
between two events on an objects world-line depend
on the frame of reference in which it is measured.
In the following example there is but one muon with one life.
Let the two events on the muon's world-line be its creation and decay.
If this life is measured to last 2.2 μs in the muon's rest frame
On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 9:08:46 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
The measured mean lifetime of a stationary muon is 2.2 μs
The measured mean lifetime of a muon moving at 0.999668⋅c is 85.36 μs.
These are measured facts, not math.
Can you give another interpretation of the facts than "time dilation"?
I did not say the time dilation must be the same for the same speed.
I asked why relativity says it's different.
What is the alleged cause?
When are you going to try to understand?
Time dilation is not a difference in lifetime.
I never denied the measured lifetimes.
I only disagreed with your interpretation that it is time dilation.
They just live longer. But why?
W dniu 04.04.2025 o 09:50, J. J. Lodder pisze:
Indeed. The mere existence of muon storage rings already proves time
dilatatation.
Sure, and it proves the advantage of communism over rotten capitalism as well; in the meantime in the real world, however - forbidden by your
absurd church "improper" clocks keep measuring "improper" t'=t in
"improper" seconds.
Paul.B.Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote:Thank you for acknowledging they decay at a different rate as that is a different lifetime and not time dilation. That is extraordinarily
Den 02.04.2025 20:25, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
On Wed, 2 Apr 2025 9:13:22 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 01.04.2025 21:28, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
Relativity is so fallacious that a person with only knowledge of
elementary logic and an 85 I.Q. is qualified to refute it.
Is it because of your 85 I.Q. and knowledge of elementary
logic that your comment to my statement:
"The speed of muons is v = ~ 0.999668?c through the atmosphere
which also is within the laboratory with open roof."
was:
"THEN, the time dilation must be the same." ?
How slow is it possible to be? :-D
My statement was:
"There is but one speed v = ~ 0.999668?c"
your response was:
"THEN, the time dilation must be the same."
GET this: The statement:
"When an object has a speed v, then time dilation must be the same"
is an idiotic, nonsensical, meaningless, stupid response.
Paul, the math does not cause time dilation. When the speed is the same
in both places, what is the cause? You have no idea
And you repeat your nonsensical statement yet again!
The measured mean lifetime of a stationary muon is 2.2 ?s
The measured mean lifetime of a muon moving at 0.999668?c is 85.36 ?s.
These are measured facts, not math.
Can you give another interpretation of the facts than "time dilation"?
Indeed. The mere existence of muon storage rings
already proves time dilatatation.
The things would be practically impossible
if the relativistic circulating muons
were to decay at their rest rate,
Jan
Den 03.04.2025 23:06, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 9:08:46 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
The measured mean lifetime of a stationary muon is 2.2 μs
The measured mean lifetime of a muon moving at 0.999668⋅c is 85.36 μs. >>>
These are measured facts, not math.
Can you give another interpretation of the facts than "time dilation"?
I did not say the time dilation must be the same for the same speed.
I asked why relativity says it's different.
What is the alleged cause?
When are you going to try to understand?
Your confused nonsense can't be understood.
Time dilation is not a difference in lifetime.
I never denied the measured lifetimes.
I only disagreed with your interpretation that it is time dilation.
They just live longer. But why?
Everything you say shows that you have no idea of
what time dilation is.
So let's take it from the beginning.
Time dilation is the phenomenon that the measured time
between two events on an objects world-line depend
on the frame of reference in which it is measured.
In the following example there is but one muon with one life.
Let the two events on the muon's world-line be its creation and decay.
If this life is measured to last 2.2 μs in the muon's rest frame,
then _the same life_ would be measured to last 85.36 μs in
a frame of reference where the speed of the muon is 0.999668⋅c.
But we can only measure times in the lab-frame (or Earth-frame).
So it is impossible to measure the lifetime of the same muon
in two different frames, so we must measure the lifetime
of a stationary muon, and we know that the proper mean lifetime
of the moving muon is the same, 2.2 μs.
(Proper lifetime is the lifetime measured in the rest frame
of the muon.)
----------
That the proper mean lifetime of a muon is τ = 2.2 μs
doesn't mean that all stationary muons will live 2.2 μs.
If a muon is known to exist, then the probability that it still
exists a time t later is exp(-t/τ).
Now you can read my original post in this thread:
| The speed of muons is v = ~ 0.999668⋅c through the atmosphere
| which also is within the laboratory.
| γ = 38.8.
|
| The mean proper lifetime of a muon is t₀ = 2.2 μs.
| But measured in the Earth's rest frame the mean lifetime of the muon
| is tₑ = 2.2e-6⋅γ s = 85.36 μs (time dilation!).
|
| Since muons are created at a height ~15 km, and the time for
| a muon to reach the earth is t = 15e3/v = 5.005 s,
| then the part of the muon flux that reach the Earth is
| N/N₀ = exp(-t/tₑ) = 0.556, so 55.6% of the muons would reach the Earth.
|
| If the lifetime of the muons had been 2.2 μs measured in the Earth
frame,
| then the part of the muon flux that reach the Earth would be:
| N/N₀ = exp(-t/t₀) = 1.32e-10.
| So only 0.0000000132% of the muons would reach the Earth.
|
| Can you guess which of them is closest to what is observed?
Since it is impossible to measure the muon flux at 15 km,
the experiment would have to be modified to be done in the real world.
Here is how:
https://paulba.no/paper/Frisch_Smith.pdf
On Fri, 4 Apr 2025 7:50:48 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
The mere existence of muon storage rings
already proves time dilatation.
Jan
Thank you for acknowledging they decay at a different rate as that is a different lifetime and not time dilation.
On Fri, 4 Apr 2025 7:50:48 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Paul.B.Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote:
Den 02.04.2025 20:25, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
On Wed, 2 Apr 2025 9:13:22 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 01.04.2025 21:28, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
Relativity is so fallacious that a person with only knowledge of
elementary logic and an 85 I.Q. is qualified to refute it.
Is it because of your 85 I.Q. and knowledge of elementary
logic that your comment to my statement:
"The speed of muons is v = ~ 0.999668?c through the atmosphere
which also is within the laboratory with open roof."
was:
"THEN, the time dilation must be the same." ?
How slow is it possible to be? :-D
My statement was:
"There is but one speed v = ~ 0.999668?c"
your response was:
"THEN, the time dilation must be the same."
GET this: The statement:
"When an object has a speed v, then time dilation must be the same"
is an idiotic, nonsensical, meaningless, stupid response.
Paul, the math does not cause time dilation. When the speed is the same >>> in both places, what is the cause? You have no idea
And you repeat your nonsensical statement yet again!
The measured mean lifetime of a stationary muon is 2.2 ?s
The measured mean lifetime of a muon moving at 0.999668?c is 85.36 ?s.
These are measured facts, not math.
Can you give another interpretation of the facts than "time dilation"?
Indeed. The mere existence of muon storage rings
already proves time dilatatation.
The things would be practically impossible
if the relativistic circulating muons
were to decay at their rest rate,
JanThank you for acknowledging they decay at a different rate as that is a different lifetime and not time dilation.
That is extraordinarily reasonable of you!
What causes this different rate according to relativity?
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 04.04.2025 o 09:50, J. J. Lodder pisze:
Indeed. The mere existence of muon storage rings already proves time
dilatatation.
Sure, and it proves the advantage of communism over rotten capitalism as
well; in the meantime in the real world, however - forbidden by your
absurd church "improper" clocks keep measuring "improper" t'=t in
"improper" seconds.
you are an IT-supporter, honestly.. A Cesium defined second is also valid
at the edge of the universe. Please think.
LaurenceClarkCrossen <clzb93ynxj@att.net> wrote:
On Fri, 4 Apr 2025 7:50:48 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Paul.B.Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote:Thank you for acknowledging they decay at a different rate as that is a
Den 02.04.2025 20:25, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
On Wed, 2 Apr 2025 9:13:22 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 01.04.2025 21:28, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
Relativity is so fallacious that a person with only knowledge of >>>>>>> elementary logic and an 85 I.Q. is qualified to refute it.
Is it because of your 85 I.Q. and knowledge of elementary
logic that your comment to my statement:
"The speed of muons is v = ~ 0.999668?c through the atmosphere
which also is within the laboratory with open roof."
was:
"THEN, the time dilation must be the same." ?
How slow is it possible to be? :-D
My statement was:
"There is but one speed v = ~ 0.999668?c"
your response was:
"THEN, the time dilation must be the same."
GET this: The statement:
"When an object has a speed v, then time dilation must be the same"
is an idiotic, nonsensical, meaningless, stupid response.
Paul, the math does not cause time dilation. When the speed is the same >>>>> in both places, what is the cause? You have no idea
And you repeat your nonsensical statement yet again!
The measured mean lifetime of a stationary muon is 2.2 ?s
The measured mean lifetime of a muon moving at 0.999668?c is 85.36 ?s. >>>>
These are measured facts, not math.
Can you give another interpretation of the facts than "time dilation"?
Indeed. The mere existence of muon storage rings
already proves time dilatatation.
The things would be practically impossible
if the relativistic circulating muons
were to decay at their rest rate,
Jan
different lifetime and not time dilation.
Eh? This -is- time dilatation in action.
That is extraordinarily reasonable of you!
Nothing out of the ordinary here.
(in a relative way)
What causes this different rate according to relativity?
Time dilatatation of course.
For the kiddies: (you are probably a hopeles case)
Over the years, from the first experiment in1959 at CERN,
to the present experiment at Fermilab,
there have been a number of muon g-2 experiments
using muon storage rings, at increasing energies.
(up to about 3 GeV at Fermilab, so at E/m ~ 30)
The observed muon lifetimes in all those rings
are fully in agreement with the time dilatatation
predicted by special relativity.
W dniu 04.04.2025 o 21:18, Schaun Takenouchi pisze:
Sure, and it proves the advantage of communism over rotten capitalism
as well; in the meantime in the real world, however - forbidden by
your absurd church "improper" clocks keep measuring "improper" t'=t in
"improper" seconds.
you are an IT-supporter, honestly.. A Cesium defined second is also
valid at the edge of the universe. Please think.
It's not even valid at a GPS satellite. Please think.
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 04.04.2025 o 21:18, Schaun Takenouchi pisze:
Sure, and it proves the advantage of communism over rotten capitalism
as well; in the meantime in the real world, however - forbidden by
your absurd church "improper" clocks keep measuring "improper" t'=t in >>> "improper" seconds.
you are an IT-supporter, honestly.. A Cesium defined second is also
valid at the edge of the universe. Please think.
It's not even valid at a GPS satellite. Please think.
how come 'not valid' once GPS works?? Are we talking discussions here or
it's something else..
how come 'not valid' once GPS works??
GPS works thanks to another second; GPS second has 9 192 631 770 local periods of Cs on Earth and 9 192 631 774 local periods of Cs on a
satellite. That makes it a variant of good, old, Earth rotation based
second. Common sense has been warning the idiot and his bunch.
you are an IT-supporter, honestly.. A Cesium defined second is also
valid at the edge of the universe. Please think.
It's not even valid at a GPS satellite. Please think.
how come 'not valid' once GPS works??
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
how come 'not valid' once GPS works??
GPS works thanks to another second; GPS second has 9 192 631 770 local
periods of Cs on Earth and 9 192 631 774 local periods of Cs on a
satellite. That makes it a variant of good, old, Earth rotation based
second. Common sense has been warning the idiot and his bunch.
I'm not sure. How many different seconds are you working with, there on
your table??
Here is a good review of some critiques of relativity.
"A critical introduction to “Einstein‟s theory of relativity”
"written by a non-scientist for other non-scientists who have some intellectual curiosity about this famous theory, with pictures in it and
140 references and citations to authority. 30 pages."
by Raleigh Amesbury
"“Einstein‟s theory of relativity” is substantially science fiction, fantasy or philosophy, and represents the worst of science: how science
can become political, how political factors can affect funding, how
funding can affect scientists‟ jobs and careers, how experimental data
can be manipulated to serve as propaganda, and how theory can be
presented as fact.
Scientific theories come and go. It is about time “Einstein‟s theory of relativity” went.
... The day will come when nobody even mentions either of them anymore.
Physicists need only scrap the erroneous hypotheses of length
contraction, time dilation, mass distortion, the c speed limit,
space-time and curved space, and science will be reasonable and back on
track again."
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 475 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 41:14:05 |
| Calls: | 9,490 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 13,620 |
| Messages: | 6,122,660 |