Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

It does add up if you take into account I have more things to do than this forum.

Anyway search the light clock yourself. I've basically given the derivation but in words rather than equations, so just point out the flaw in the argument from that if you want. It's extremely simple which is what makes it so beautiful. And if you search time dilation there's no way you won't find mention of muon lifetimes. This is all very basic and famous stuff.

 

Re the Muons. Muon decay time is slower, time dilation attributed to their high speed relative to the experimenters I am reading here.

So Muons travelling fast increase in mass and take longer to decay compared to muons at sea level. How is this different to the atomic clock atoms increasing in mass that alters not decay but redaitive cycles.

Sorry lad, am still reading up, but puh-lease, I read as I post stuff, I never profess that it is all my own own knowledge. Only a tard would claim that.

I've seen your level of "interest" in this thread, I welcome your new approach to the old one of saying #meltdown every two sentences but the more you gob off about this is all from your head the bigger fool you look, those three questions should have been the first thing you asked, if you actually "had this all in your head".

Such an obvious lie and you compound it by going on. I've read enough discussion on this to know that people who know wtf they are talking about ask the right questions pretty dark quickly.

 

The difference is that you just vaguely saying the increase in mass explains everything without time dilation doesn't
1. give a specific numerical prediction that can be tested
2. explain why the time dilation explanation does give a specific numerical prediction which is confirmed by experments

You're tyring to got OT and make accusations against me that don't even make sense or are relevant. If you want to continue arguing that this isn't basic and famous stuff then yes you are in #meltdown

I've explained how the light clock derives the existence of time dilation and because it's based on light there is no increase in mass effect for you to use. So if you want to continue denying it explain what is wrong with the derivation.

 

I've not read up on the light clock stuff yet.

On Muons
Essentially moving unstable muons last longer than rest muons, this is eactly in line with what I have said re atomic clock function

Time dilation is "interpreted" as seen in muon longer lifespan of faster moving muons.


Fast moving muons have increased mass, more than a rest muon, which slows their decay time, just as increased mass in atomic clocks slows radiative cycles.

Unless I have got the Muon interpretation of time dilation wrong?

 

The Muon experiment proved one thing, muons that have gained more mass from travelling fast, take longer to decay than resting muons, this does not prove time dilation at all.

 

BTW heavier particles are less stable than lighter ones so it's actually the opposite of what you predict, but anyway I want you to focus on the light clock time dilation effect because that destroys your argument

 

@astroturfnaut

What are your thoughts? Seeing as this is all straight off the top of your head like.

As far as I know, having briefly looked intot his as you mentioned it, I have seen that these are cosmic muons that can't travel 600 meters before decaying yet the study claims that they are dectable for this experiment at sea level, none of the muons that enter the atmoshere survive long enough to reach sea level, it is several muon half lifes distance.

Scientists have only noted the life span and speed of low energy muons produced in particle accelerators to date, so, really this muon relativity seems ot be bunk

 

As I said above your explanation fails because it predicts they would decay even faster, but the time dilation and length contraction of special relativity explain perfectly what is observed

And I still want you to explain why the time dilations should NOT be present given that it is such a simple idea

(Hint: your only explanation is probably that the speed of light in a vacuum is not constant, which goes against centuries of observation i.e. Michelson–Morley)

 

You see anyone that talks like that in a discussion on science, is not interested in the subject, it is usually when you start this that I completely disregard everything you post thereafter.

No lets look at Muons, you asked the question, you thought you had something but you didn't know what you were asking did you, and now you want to run to the clock thing I have not even read up yet.

Not so fast read my reply above, when I look at the clock I'll talk about it and see if you "destroy" anything, such a man child attitude, all about competition isn't it where others may just be interested in the sibject.

 

OK so you give a calculation of what your mass effect predicts the lifetime of a muon should be and why. Except I know you're not going to do that so it's a dead end. So that's why I want you to explain your argument for why time dilation should not exist because it only requires Pythagoras to understand and is very easy to understand.

 

I see you avoided the salient point, that muons do not survive long enough to reach sea level so the study is bunk. It could not possibly prove dilation at all

 

So the observation are all just faked? Another massive conspiracy?

 

Now if you dont mind now that the muon offering has been discredited, I am going to read up on your light clock.

 

You've discredited nothing. So I'll make it simple:

Show me your calculation for the lifetime of a muon travelling at 99.5% of the speed of light or your theory is garbage.

 

No physical fact, Muons cannot survive long enough to make even a fraction of the journey so to claim that they are reading decay of muons that entered atmoshpere, at sea level is impossible, according to physics, not me, the study even notes this fact


oh and you are the one that constantly brings that "conspiracy theory" claim on to this thread mate. That and calling scientific research "meltdowns".

the more you cant make me believe your badly put nonsense the more erratic you get, and start talking like ^^ that

 

UNLESS you take special relativity into account in which case it is explained perfectly

 

Now you are just having a laugh here
Even with time dilation which would be less than microseconds...
Muons have an average lifespan of 2.2 microseconds. but, on average, most would never reach the mountain top in the study. Never mind sea level.

You really do not know wtf you are talking about, and I only just looked up muons between making the kids dinner and bathing them.

 

I'm begining to become convinced your entire problem in this thread is mainly not your ignorance of physics but you don't understand the relationship between logic and language

Scientist: We observe muons at sea level. From what we understand about muon decay without special relativity this makes no sense. But taking into account special relativity we observe exactly what we expect.

What Sisu hears: Muons are not observed, it's all a lie because muons cannot be observed without special relativity, but special relativity is a lie because it predicts muons would be observed, and they are observed but those observations are a lie.

 

Oh okay so in between the kids dinner and bath you double checked the calculations and found an answer different to what scientists do? Cool result, write it up and you'll get a Nobel for it

 

"Understanding of physics" is it now.

So a muon doesn't last for 2.2 micro seconds on average?
The average muon travels 1km? no?


Now you are playing the sisu in the third person reference to an imagined audience as if that gives weight to your argument?


This is what happens when someone who'd obviously has been through college, thinks they are superior in all matters because of said education.

Unfortunately it's not so lad. You are an educated idiot