about Bob's article on absolute or relative time

Stripe said:

I still cannot find an answer to my question. How do you know that the muon can only survive a given distance?

Click to expand...

Have you bothered reading what Memento Mori has posted for your benefit?

Read his posts from toady. They explain that Muons have a short lifetime. He gave sources for that lifetime, including experiments that were done. He has calculated, for your benefit, how far a muon could travel in that lifetime using classical mechanics.

Have you read and understood any of that?

chair said:

Have you bothered reading what Memento Mori has posted for your benefit?

Read his posts from toady. They explain that Muons have a short lifetime. He gave sources for that lifetime, including experiments that were done. He has calculated, for your benefit, how far a muon could travel in that lifetime using classical mechanics.

Have you read and understood any of that?

Click to expand...

You cannot reason with unreasonable people. He has absolutely no impact on the scientific community, or with the upcoming revolutions in understandings in modern science. His kind will soon either become extinct, or they will start up their own little colony's where they sit around and pat each other on the back reminiscing on how many times they each said "it's just a theory".

Memento, nice job with the Lorentz transformation, though I suspect it will be lost on someone who still needs the concept of decay explained in 5 letter words or less.

Decay? What's decay? Is that like dissipating?

chair said:

Have you bothered reading what Memento Mori has posted for your benefit?

Read his posts from toady. They explain that Muons have a short lifetime. He gave sources for that lifetime, including experiments that were done. He has calculated, for your benefit, how far a muon could travel in that lifetime using classical mechanics.

Have you read and understood any of that?

Click to expand...

The only observation I've been able to find that gives the distance a muon can travel is the observation that they are visible on the Earth's surface. Is that how he knows how far they can travel?

Is that how he knows how far they can travel?

Click to expand...

No. He knows how long they live. He knows how fast they travel. Using mysterious mathematics not yet known to mortals, he then solves for distance traveled during lifetime.

Of course, they mysteriously live longer than they should. Einstein already told us why. They're traveling at high speeds, thus relative to us their clocks are slow. Therefore, they live longer, and thus they can travel farther. In fact, their lifespan is precisely predicted by Einstein's equations.

Here you go, Stripe.

How does he know the half life?

Can you put muons in a jar and time how long it takes them to decay?

Stripe said:

How does he know the half life?

Can you put muons in a jar and time how long it takes them to decay?

Click to expand...

Right here.

More specifically, right here. Found that with the magic of the internet.

The mean life of the positive muon has been measured to a precision of 11 ppm using a low-energy, pulsed muon beam stopped in a ferromagnetic target, which was surrounded by a scintillator detector array. The result, 2.197 013(24) [microseconds], excellent agreement with the previous world average.

So yea, you put them in a jar and measure them.

Always glad to do your homework for you, you lazy schmuck.

Johnny said:

Right here.

More specifically, right here. Found that with the magic of the internet.

The mean life of the positive muon has been measured to a precision of 11 ppm using a low-energy, pulsed muon beam stopped in a ferromagnetic target, which was surrounded by a scintillator detector array. The result, 2.197 013(24) [microseconds], excellent agreement with the previous world average.

So yea, you put them in a jar and measure them.

Always glad to do your homework for you, you lazy schmuck.

Click to expand...

Let's see now...you haven't defined "mean". Or "precision", or "ppm" or "ferromagnetic" or "Scintillator" or...

How do you measure "schmuck"?

Stripe said:

How does he know the half life?

Can you put muons in a jar and time how long it takes them to decay?

Click to expand...

This is just... pathetic...If only he understood just how embarrassing he is.

So have fast could we get 2 spaceships to travel toward each other? Anywhere near the speeds required to measure a difference in metabolism rates?

Yorzhik said:

So have fast could we get 2 spaceships to travel toward each other? Anywhere near the speeds required to measure a difference in metabolism rates?

Click to expand...

I doubt that it is doable. Picking "metabolism rates" as a thing to measure is also a lousy choice, since there is a lot of variation among people or animals.

The experiments that have been done are more appropriate, doable, and demonstrate the point quite well. Why bother with metabolism rates?

Johnny said:

Memento, nice job with the Lorentz transformation, though I suspect it will be lost on someone who still needs the concept of decay explained in 5 letter words or less.

Click to expand...

Thank you. It took me a while to write that up and do the calculations (along with checking and changing my answers).

For some reason I feel it was under appreciated. So for my sake, I'm going to repost it because I worked so hard! (Someone print this and put it on your fridge!)

Memento Mori said:

Well here's the equation for time dilation: Delta-t' = Delta-t ( 1 / sqrt[1 - v^2/c^2]). If we put in 99%c (the average speed of a muon particle [that I could find on short notice]) for v and 2 microseconds in for Delta-t. Then, Delta-t' becomes 15.6 microseconds (this is to us). However, this many microseconds still isn't enough for the muon to reach earth: 5940m (as opposed to our previously stated 9000m). This is where length contraction comes into play. The equation for length contraction is
L = Lo sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) (where Lo is the "proper length" [so called by physicists] and L is the contracted length). So put in 9000m and 99%c and you should come up with about 1260 meters which is more than enough of a contraction for a muon to make it. This is why we find so many muons at earths surface and can be found quite deep in the earth too

*I'm pretty sure about the calculations but I really hate this stupid computer calculator and I don't have a functioning scientific one. I need some new batteries . If not Johnny or someone can call me on it. It has been over a year since I've learned this.

Click to expand...

Johnny said:

Memento, nice job with the Lorentz transformation ...

Click to expand...

Trivia - If Einstein came up with the set of equations known as the "Lorentz Transformation", why isn't it called the "Einstein Transformation"?

Johnny said:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=measurement+of+muon+lifetimeThe mean life of the positive muon has been measured to a precision of 11 ppm using a low-energy, pulsed muon beam stopped in a ferromagnetic target, which was surrounded by a scintillator detector array. The result, 2.197 013(24) [microseconds], excellent agreement with the previous world average.

Click to expand...

Thanks, Johnny.

ThePhy said:

Trivia - If Einstein came up with the set of equations known as the "Lorentz Transformation", why isn't it called the "Einstein Transformation"?

Click to expand...

Any response to this post, Phy?

chair said:

I doubt that it is doable. Picking "metabolism rates" as a thing to measure is also a lousy choice, since there is a lot of variation among people or animals.

The experiments that have been done are more appropriate, doable, and demonstrate the point quite well. Why bother with metabolism rates?

Click to expand...

Metabolism rates are a great measure. They just need to be relatively so different that even within their ranges we can see an obvious difference. And there are so many other things we could discover about what happens to life at different time rates. And we could get the perspective from within the differing time frames if we had people in them. First hand witnesses are a great idea.

So... how fast can we go?

Yorzhik said:

Metabolism rates are a great measure. They just need to be relatively so different that even within their ranges we can see an obvious difference. And there are so many other things we could discover about what happens to life at different time rates. And we could get the perspective from within the differing time frames if we had people in them. First hand witnesses are a great idea.

So... how fast can we go?

Click to expand...

Let's think this through.

From what I understand, you are talking specifically about human metabolic rates. So even considering relatively small light humans, this is in the range of say 50kg.

Now metabolic rates vary widely between individuals, and even for the same individual at different times or different circumstances. So you would need a huge difference in metabolic rates to be sure that any difference you saw was due to relativistic effects. Say a 50% change in metabolic rate.

So, if one of the handy physicists here will do the math, we can see how much energy it would take to reach a speed where we could see this. Bear in mind that it has to be handled within one human lifetime, which limits our acceleration rate. I suspect that this is essentially undoable- the amount of energy involved would be absurd.

But hang on! What do you mean by "metabolic rate"? And how do you measure it? Where do you measure it? - that is in which frame of reference? Or perhaps you just want to see if one of the subjects actually ages faster than the other?

Can you define your experiment more clearly?

relevant links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox

chair said:

Let's think this through.

From what I understand, you are talking specifically about human metabolic rates. So even considering relatively small light humans, this is in the range of say 50kg.

Now metabolic rates vary widely between individuals, and even for the same individual at different times or different circumstances. So you would need a huge difference in metabolic rates to be sure that any difference you saw was due to relativistic effects. Say a 50% change in metabolic rate.

So, if one of the handy physicists here will do the math, we can see how much energy it would take to reach a speed where we could see this. Bear in mind that it has to be handled within one human lifetime, which limits our acceleration rate. I suspect that this is essentially undoable- the amount of energy involved would be absurd.

But hang on! What do you mean by "metabolic rate"? And how do you measure it? Where do you measure it? - that is in which frame of reference? Or perhaps you just want to see if one of the subjects actually ages faster than the other?

Can you define your experiment more clearly?

relevant links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox

Click to expand...

Why don't we just use two synchronized watches? It'd be a lot easier than finding two metabolic rates that are even and work in the same way.

hmm... well let's say we want 1.5 times dilation. delta-t' = delta-t (1/sqrt [1 - v²/c²]). 1.5=1(1/sqrt [1 - v²/c²])... calculating... It looks like you would have to travel about 75%c (.74535599c)...

As for the energy requirements, I can't tell you. I don't have the proper equations plus all the extra stuff you would need to know like initial mass, acceleration, etc. Plus, as you approach the speed of light you gain inertia (mass) which would ruin any Newtonian equation where mass is assumed to be constant.

Sorry to revive this but I'm really bored.

pozzolane said:

:nono:

Just when I thought there was a spark of hope for you Lighthouse...You aren't even worthy of ridicule in the hopes that it inclines you to correct yourself. You are simply a bigoted and arrogant fool.

But of course evidence does lend ideas as credit worthy. Only a fool such as you will choose to ignore evidence.

Click to expand...

When the evidence can be can be interpreted in another way, why accept it as what some claim it to be? If gravity has an effect on light, which, according to science, has no mass, then why wouldn't it affect cesium atoms?

No, you object because you are an arrogant fool who ignores evidence for personal reasons, but claims higher intellectual authority.

Click to expand...

I'm not the one who claimed my intellect was so high. That was the people who administered the tests.

Your objection is hardly worthy of a laugh. It is to be pitied since it's been answered and you still won't accept that your objection is so weak. However, I too will give you an answer. The difference wouldn't be enough to measure with cell phones. But you could measure it assuming you did have an accurate enough device. The difference would only be trillionths of a second, or less.

Click to expand...

And you're still a complete and utter moron!

Not because I don't accept the answer I was given. But because I knew that this was all you people would have after the first time I received that answer. So I decided to let that line of reasoning drop. And also because I moved on to another question that had nothing to do with cell phones. And you're too stupid to recognize that when the new question, about a different subject, was actually located within my post.

You arrogant miserable fool. It could have been falsified many times by now with previously run experiments. I will not waste my time listing them because they have been listed already in this thread. Taking a page from your book, I will not waste pearls on swine.

Click to expand...

Then don't get upset that I just assume you can't.

You lazy half wit fool. Just because something doesn't explain it all, doesn't mean it is all wrong.

Click to expand...

I never said it did. In fact I said the complete opposite. Try to pay attention.

And your point? Other than to stroke your own wretched fool-hearted ego? If Einstein stood on the shoulders of giants, you are a hapless worm in the mud at their feet.

Click to expand...

Excuse me for not completely trusting a man who spent his later years wearing his socks on his hands.

No, because you have nothing to critique with. Your objections are foolish and pitiable.

Click to expand...

:baby:

Memento Mori said:

I'm sorry but you're mistaken. The theory says that lengths are not absolute but contract as you approach the speed of light. Wiki. Lengths do change with velocity. The greater the velocity, the shorter the distance.

Click to expand...

:rotfl:

I must now retract my previous statement. There are two things in the theory of relativity that I don't believe.

Stripe said:

:rotfl:

Click to expand...

I'm glad you liked it.

chair said:

Let's think this through.

From what I understand, you are talking specifically about human metabolic rates. So even considering relatively small light humans, this is in the range of say 50kg.

Now metabolic rates vary widely between individuals, and even for the same individual at different times or different circumstances. So you would need a huge difference in metabolic rates to be sure that any difference you saw was due to relativistic effects. Say a 50% change in metabolic rate.

So, if one of the handy physicists here will do the math, we can see how much energy it would take to reach a speed where we could see this. Bear in mind that it has to be handled within one human lifetime, which limits our acceleration rate. I suspect that this is essentially undoable- the amount of energy involved would be absurd.

But hang on! What do you mean by "metabolic rate"? And how do you measure it? Where do you measure it? - that is in which frame of reference? Or perhaps you just want to see if one of the subjects actually ages faster than the other?

Can you define your experiment more clearly?

relevant links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox

Click to expand...

That wasn't much thinking through. The experiment is defined quite well.

Memento Mori said:

Why don't we just use two synchronized watches? It'd be a lot easier than finding two metabolic rates that are even and work in the same way.

Click to expand...

The goal is to show relativity deniers that relativity affects everything to the same degree. Johnny referred to this on page 2.

Johnny said:

What I said was correct because I added the qualifier "in its own inertial frame". In other words, someone watching the clock wouldn't notice the difference. That's because, as we discussed before, brainwaves and heartbeats, thoughts and emotions, would all be equally affected. You can take any time dependent process (which is, in fact, nearly everything in the universe) and it will experience the same time dilation as the atomic clock. This can be shown both mathematically and by experiment.

Click to expand...

The problem is we are never going to achieve anything by looking at heartbeats and emotions ( :chuckle: ).