🚀 go-pugleaf

"Danny Milano" <milanodanny@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e50595a9-9df3-4c14-a2ec-681a8783ed59@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 11, 8:50 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Baird and Androcles both say that it is possible the muons are
> superluminal and we would have no way of knowing. This is an
> unfortunate example of experimental ignorance.
>
> Muon counters are not in fact just arrival indicators. In fact, most
> such experiments involve a tower of scintillator hodoscopes, with
> layers displaced vertically by several feet, if not tens of feet.
> Thus, when a muon passes through, it creates a signal in the topmost
> layer, then in the next layer down, then in the next layer down, and
> so on. Because the speed of light is roughly a ns per foot, we can
> then simply watch the timing of the signals from the layers as the
> muon passes through them, just like a double-gate speed trap on the
> highway.
>
> [In desperation, Androcles has suggested that the hodoscopes are gated
> so that ONLY signals that are around c are accepted. This is not the
> case. He then suggested in even further desperation that the first
> layer slows the muon from well above c to just under c, and the muon
> then proceeds with the same speed through the other layers. However,
> the energy deposited in the top layer is identical with the energy
> deposited in subsequent layers, which would be a neat trick if the
> layers did to the muon what he suggests. In final desperation,
> Androcles says that mysterious things happen and that it's much easier
> to believe in that weirdness than in the weirdness of time dilation.]
>
> Moreover, Baird again focuses on one seminal experiment and completely
> fails to look at follow-up experiments that confirm the effect in a
> completely different context. Physicists *create* beams of muons and
> send them either down straight beamlines (the muon beamline at
> Fermilab, for example) or around storage rings (the g-2 experiment,
> for example). In this case, we know clearly both the creation point
> and the decay point, and in fact we can directly time the ...
>
> read more �- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The geometric aspect of spacetime gives an intuitive explanation
of time dilation, length contruction in a minkowski sense. This
means that should newtonian interpretation were one day
proven to be true. It's like nature works like epicycles where
newtonian mechanics would have a unique personalized
plan for reality yet it can be described easily by minkowski
math. It's as if someone is playing trick on us by altering
newtonian mechanics to make the 4D math tallies with reality.

This may seem odd. But when we design robots, we make
it conform to human reality. This means that it is possible
that newtonian mechanics were modified to conform to
SR math. Meaning it may appear that time dilation, length
contraction is real yet it is a purely a newtonian trick.

But what you seem to be saying above is that experimental
setup can now be done to distinguish between pure time
dilation, length contraction where time and length can
indeed distort in different inertial frames versus it being
just an equipment output in an ad hoc newtonian mechanics?

But you said earlier that there is no way to know whether time,
length distort or it is just some misunderstood additional
newtonian parameters which made it that way. What is
really the case?

Danny

=======================================
In desperation Phuckwit Duck invents data as all Einstein
dingleberries do. He's lying through his dentures.
 The math is really easy, in a fair race between a photon
and a muon, same racetrack, same clock, the muon wins.
All that bullshit about a stack of hodometers is mixed well
with road apples so that Phuckwit Duck can say they are
different. It's still shit. After all, if a bullet hits a target it slows
down, even a kid can figure that out. Let Phuckwit Duck try
a photon through his muon detector. I plonked the lying
bastard, he's a cretin.
   http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/dingleberry.htm


Why did Einstein say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?
as shown in this inequality with the mistyped equal sign:

  http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Rocket/eq22.A.GIF

The lying prat doesn't even know what a half is, that's how stupid

he can be.