On Friday, 7 January 2022 at 05:46:26 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:

> portion of the time difference (-7 uS) of the GPS satellites compared to
> the ground? That exists.

No, stupid Mike, that doesn't exist. Time (as defined by your
idiot guru himself - what clocks indicate) of a satellite
matches time of the ground with the precision of an
acceptable error, and you're enchanting the reality,
together with your idiot gurus.

On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 3:46:26 PM UTC+11, Michael Moroney wrote:

> > IN that scenario, the author of the paradox was only returning the travelling twin to emphasise the dilemma.
> > But its not an essential component is it?

Michael> It definitely is! Due to the relativity of simultaneity, the separated
> twins cannot agree on their ages within a certain amount. Each twin sees
> the past of the other twin when separated.....
> They cannot agree on this until they reunite.....

Ok,
The fact that each twin assuming they never were reunited, and were seperated by say one light year at the end of the experiment, you claim are "seeing each other in the past", as if that would somehow muck up the claim that one is younger than the other. They can still figure out that one has not aged like the other IF Einstein is correct.

No need to return at all. Both know that it is going to take one year for the information to reach them , and that's not the issue here. So they most certainty agree on their ages whilst separated, but they just have to wait for the messages to travel across that one light year.

> Muons in a storage ring compared to stationary muons?
> Physicists don't use actual brothers but particles like muons, or
> satellites.
> >
Here's the thing with Muons. Its claimed that they only have a minuscule lifetime. And how did they figure out that when they only have a tiny fraction of a second to do their observations of one single Muon? Well they don't do it that way. What they did do is akin to this illustration:

Assume that a fish has a lifetime of only a minute, on the basis that when you took him from the water and placed him on you lab bench, he died a minuter later.

Muons are supposed to be travelling almost the speed of light. You almost stopped them in a block of plastic then observed them briefly creating a short trace in a cloud chamber. I submit that you already were observing almost dead Muon's and the lifetime you believe a Muon has is already mostly used up. Its like observing a 98 yo man and saying that men only live 6 months. You don't KNOW for sure that Muon's are only "created" up in the upper atmosphere, they also could be created down at sea level but just not as many. There are lots of possibilities that are not taken into consideration, even the outlandish ideas might be true. Hell, take a look at the magical un-intuitive claims made for QM. Much of modern Physics and Science is based on someone claiming that "We KNOW that such and such" when really there is much that is speculation at best, and a deal of biased beliefs.

So you are wrong to say that its critical that the twins reunite in order to demonstrate some form of paradoxical aspect of Relativity.
and now that we have those twins not reunited, and yet still a paradox, its up to you to try to solve it. And now you cant claim that its an asymmetry caused by acceleration.

everything isalllies <itsalllieseverything@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 9:47:22 AM UTC+11, Paparios wrote:
>
>>>
>> That is not the twin paradox. Twins are not observing anything. They
>> both carry clocks and when they reunite, they compare the elapsed time
>> measured by each clock.
>>> 2. STR claims that "the moving twin" will age slower because his time is dilated.
>>>
>> That is also nonsense. The explanation of the difference in the elapsed
>> times is equivalent to the fact that identical odometers in two cars
>> measure different distances between Chicago and New York, since they
>> followed different highways (different space paths).
>> The twin clocks, similarly follow different paths through spacetime.
>
> Wrong Paparios:
> I am allowed to submit a variation of the twin paradox just like others
> submit their version on how to solve it.
> This is the twin paradox mark 2.

OK, so you have a completely different scenario, where there is no
asymmetry, where there is no return.

You seem to be concerned about something here, but I’m not sure what you’re
concerned about. Where do you think there is a contradiction?

> It reveals the very same problem that the original paradox highlighted,
> but sans the unnecessary parts.
> the twin does not have to "return" for Time dilation to work, read the
> theory of SR sometime.
> "We" are observing the twins, in every thought experiment it's WE who are
> the only observers, imagining whats happening from two different
> perspectives. (obs 1 and Obs2 or the two twins) Try to think like a
> person who understand something about Physics please. (or even just
> imagination and rational thought)
> You can't plot any paths on your moronic chart that pretends that such a
> thing as "spacetime" exists, UNLESS you first claim that you KNOW which
> twin is absolutely the stationary one.

What are you TALKING about? Why do you think one twin has to be identified
as absolutely stationary to draw a line on a space vs time graph? Do you
not think this is possible in Galilean relativity, where it’s ALSO not
known which one is absolutely stationary?

>and that's impossible here and forbidden in STR anyway.
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

everything isalllies <itsalllieseverything@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 3:46:26 PM UTC+11, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
>>> IN that scenario, the author of the paradox was only returning the
>>> travelling twin to emphasise the dilemma.
>>> But its not an essential component is it?
>
> Michael> It definitely is! Due to the relativity of simultaneity, the separated
>> twins cannot agree on their ages within a certain amount. Each twin sees
>> the past of the other twin when separated.....
>> They cannot agree on this until they reunite.....
>
> Ok,
> The fact that each twin assuming they never were reunited, and were
> seperated by say one light year at the end of the experiment, you claim
> are "seeing each other in the past", as if that would somehow muck up
> the claim that one is younger than the other. They can still figure out
> that one has not aged like the other IF Einstein is correct.
>
> No need to return at all. Both know that it is going to take one year for
> the information to reach them , and that's not the issue here. So they
> most certainty agree on their ages whilst separated, but they just have
> to wait for the messages to travel across that one light year.

This has nothing to do with the twin puzzle.

>
>
>> Muons in a storage ring compared to stationary muons?
>> Physicists don't use actual brothers but particles like muons, or
>> satellites.
>>>
> Here's the thing with Muons. Its claimed that they only have a minuscule
> lifetime. And how did they figure out that when they only have a tiny
> fraction of a second to do their observations of one single Muon? Well
> they don't do it that way. What they did do is akin to this illustration:
>
> Assume that a fish has a lifetime of only a minute, on the basis that
> when you took him from the water and placed him on you lab bench, he died a minuter later.

Well, no, it’s not like that at all. It’s a little more like measuring the
half-life of U-238 without having to follow a uranium atom for 4.5 billion
years.

Do you know how such a half-life is measured?

>
> Muons are supposed to be travelling almost the speed of light. You
> almost stopped them in a block of plastic then observed them briefly
> creating a short trace in a cloud chamber. I submit that you already were
> observing almost dead Muon's and the lifetime you believe a Muon has is
> already mostly used up. Its like observing a 98 yo man and saying that
> men only live 6 months. You don't KNOW for sure that Muon's are only
> "created" up in the upper atmosphere, they also could be created down at
> sea level but just not as many. There are lots of possibilities that are
> not taken into consideration, even the outlandish ideas might be true.
> Hell, take a look at the magical un-intuitive claims made for QM. Much of
> modern Physics and Science is based on someone claiming that "We KNOW
> that such and such" when really there is much that is speculation at
> best, and a deal of biased beliefs.

In the case of muons, the best measurements of their lifetime is when their
entire lifetime is measured, because the point of creation is very well
known, and the point of decay is very well known. They are made in the lab
and kept in storage rings.

>
> So you are wrong to say that its critical that the twins reunite in order
> to demonstrate some form of paradoxical aspect of Relativity.

You may have some other concern about relativity that doesn’t involve a
return trip, but that doesn’t have to do with the scenario of the twin
puzzle where there IS an asymmetry. You are concerned about something in
the symmetric case, but it’s not clear what you’re actually concerned
about.

> and now that we have those twins not reunited, and yet still a paradox,
> its up to you to try to solve it. And now you cant claim that its an
> asymmetry caused by acceleration.
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

everything isalllies <itsalllieseverything@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 9:45:42 AM UTC+11, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
>> That's not the twin paradox. That is an example of ordinary time dilation.
>>
>> In this case, each twin sees the other's clock AT A DISTANCE running
>> slow. They will see each other's clock running slow by the same amount.
>> The twins never meet again so cannot do a side-by-side comparison.
>>
>> In the traveling twin paradox, one of the twins turns around and
>> returns, and meets the first twin in person and do a side-by-side
>> comparison. It is NOT symmetrical.
>>>
>
> This is the work of someone who can't think clearly.
> The Twin paradox is all about the silly contradictions that can arise due
> to the concept of Time Dilation.
> IN that scenario, the author of the paradox was only returning the
> travelling twin to emphasise the dilemma.

No, that’s not at all true. You have missed the whole point of the twin
puzzle.

Now, it’s clear that YOU personally are stuck on something earlier and more
simple-minded than what’s explored in the twin puzzle. So you can’t even
GET to the point of the twin puzzle.

But again, you seem to be stuck on the simpler symmetric case where the
twins just recede from each other, but you can’t seem to articulate clearly
what you think the contradiction is in terms of ACTUAL OBSERVATIONS.

> But its not an essential component is it?
> Because he is not going to age as fast as the stationary twin
> irrespective of whether he decided to return home or not.
> And because this is a thought experiment, the actual twins don't exist,
> you know that right? So its only US, the readers of the paradox that get
> to IMAGINE what might occur, should Einsteins claims be correct.
> So it not like we are privy to the experience of the travelling twin when
> he get home and see his aged brother.
> You totally miss the whole point and value of the thought experiment when
> you get so anally retentive.
>
> If you believe that asymmetry is the solution for the paradox, then
> simply remove that asymmetry from the scenario, and run the thought
> experiment again, time dilation still occurs, BUT the actual problem is still there!
> The paradoxical aspect is that the claimed lack of ageing can be equally
> claimed by either twin.

And verified how? With what measurement? What do you think the claimed
measurement result would be? Not speculation about the other twin,
MEASUREMENTS about the other twin.

> Now in the real world, if i aged slower than you but you also have
> claimed that it was you who aged slower than I, then we both aged slower
> than the each other.... and you think that this is not a problem of rational thought?
>
>
>
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 07/01/2022 à 01:46, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn a écrit :
>> For once you are correct. I do not know what Langevin’s argument was, but
>> this sentence is the wrong explanation, and it should be removed from that
>> article. Acceleration has nothing to do with it; the change of frame of
>> reference is the reason instead.
>>
>> See also the video “Twin paradox: the correct explanation (no math)” that
>> I referred to yesterday.
>
> Yes, I am obviously right.
> When you don't understand something, you have to start over on a simple
> basis.

No, Richard, that’s YOUR approach.

YOUR approach when you don’t understand something being explained by
someone else, is that you retreat from what others say and invent your own
idea about what’s going on.

That’s not a good idea.

What NORMAL people do, Richard, when they don’t understand something that
someone else is saying, is to get better materials to study.

> What must be understood is that the first physicists of the time of
> Poincaré or Einstein were not morons or terrorists of thought. They saw
> very well that this story was wrong somewhere and many were those who
> precisely posed what is still called Langevin's paradox today.
> There is bound to be an absurdity in saying that two watches move on each
> other. It's so obvious that you don't even have to discuss it to be
> convinced.
> It is absurd in fact.
> Yet increasingly precise experiments have shown that the theory is valid.
> The question today is therefore: how can an absurd fact come out of a
> theory that is nevertheless valid. I worked on it for a long time
> (decades) and I found where the theoretical problem came from.
> I'll tell you one thing: often, when you don't understand a problem, it's
> because the question is poorly asked. In this story, I see with perfect
> evidence that it is the confusion that men make between the proper time of
> the two twins and the chronotropy of the two frames of reference. It's not
> the same thing. The proper time of the star twin will ultimately be
> smaller than the proper time of the twin on earth. That is to say what is
> written on the watches.
> But what is written on the watches, even if it is PARTLY dependent on
> chronotropy, symmetrical constant effect of type sqrt (1-v² / c²),
> is not all of the time matches or mismatches. Anisotropy also plays a
> role.
>
> I put back to understand, the following small diagram.
> Note for example that t = To = t'= To' = 0 when all the watches are
> triggered.
> We see that the watch O notes t = 0 for the event E, and that the watch To
> (which represents the local time marks -15 for E). In the other frame of
> reference R 'things are roughly the same type. The watch O 'marks t' = 0
> for E, and the local time watch marks To '= - 41 for E.
> But that's not all. Imagine that a second event takes place at the same
> place in R six nanoseconds, or six seconds, or six light years later
> (depending on what time we took initially). We will then note for E in R:
> (x, t, z, To, t) or
> for this second event (12.9.0, -9.6) instead of (12.9.0, -15.0). And in R
> 'we will denote (32,9,0, -31, 2.24154) instead of (40,9,0, -41,0).
> This means that if in R To and t remain identical (the time t of the watch
> placed in O and To the local time), it is no longer the same thing in R
> 'because, there, the event E2 n' will no longer take place at the same
> time for t '(in O') and O ".
> We will have t'2 = 2.24154 and To'2 = 10.
> However, the two watches are in the same inertial frame of reference R
> 'and it is clear that they therefore have the same chronotropy.
> What causes the two watches to not note the same time? Because in R', E
> and E2 do not take place at the same place. The anisotropy plays fully on
> the proper times of the watches, even if the chronotropy of these same
> watches is identical.
> It's clear?
>
> R.H.
>
>
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Odd Bodkin wrote:

>> Yes, I am obviously right.
>> When you don't understand something, you have to start over on a simple
>> basis.
>
> No, Richard, that’s YOUR approach.
> YOUR approach when you don’t understand something being explained by
> someone else, is that you retreat from what others say and invent your
> own idea about what’s going on. That’s not a good idea.
> What NORMAL people do, Richard, when they don’t understand something
> that someone else is saying, is to get better materials to study.

not true. He is consistent. All big problems are about a single small
problem. Understand the small problem and you undrestand the big problem.

On 1/7/2022 6:45 AM, everything isalllies wrote:
> On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 3:46:26 PM UTC+11, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
>>> IN that scenario, the author of the paradox was only returning the travelling twin to emphasise the dilemma.
>>> But its not an essential component is it?
>
> Michael> It definitely is! Due to the relativity of simultaneity, the separated
>> twins cannot agree on their ages within a certain amount. Each twin sees
>> the past of the other twin when separated.....
>> They cannot agree on this until they reunite.....
>
> Ok,
> The fact that each twin assuming they never were reunited, and were seperated by say one light year at the end of the experiment, you claim are "seeing each other in the past", as if that would somehow muck up the claim that one is younger than the other. They can still figure out that one has not aged like the other IF Einstein is correct.

They could say "If you turn around and return to me, our ages will be..."
or they could say "If I turn around and return to you, our ages will be..."
or they could say "If we both turn around and meet in the middle, our
ages will be..."

>> Muons in a storage ring compared to stationary muons?
>> Physicists don't use actual brothers but particles like muons, or
>> satellites.
>>>
> Here's the thing with Muons. Its claimed that they only have a minuscule lifetime. And how did they figure out that when they only have a tiny fraction of a second to do their observations of one single Muon?

Bubble chambers have been around since what, the 1940s? 1930s? You can
see the track of a muon or other particle from when it forms to when it
decays, and from the path length, know how long it lasted. Do that for
lots of muons to get a half-life.

> Muons are supposed to be travelling almost the speed of light. You almost stopped them in a block of plastic then observed them briefly creating a short trace in a cloud chamber.

If you know of cloud chambers why did you ask how did they observe a
single muon?

> I submit that you already were observing almost dead Muon's and the lifetime you believe a Muon has is already mostly used up. Its like observing a 98 yo man and saying that men only live 6 months.

Muons don't age. No such thing as an almost dead muon. If you know a
muon has a half life of 2.2 uS, and you know a muon has already existed
for 2.0 uS, you don't have any reason to expect the chances it will
decay during the next 0.2 uS are any higher than before.

It's an exponential decay curve, not anything like the life expectancy
of a person.

You don't KNOW for sure that Muon's are only "created" up in the upper
atmosphere, they also could be created down at sea level but just not as
many. There are lots of possibilities that are not taken into
consideration, even the outlandish ideas might be true.

I was talking about the lifetimes of muons in a storage ring vs. near
stationary muons in a lab.

> Hell, take a look at the magical un-intuitive claims made for QM. Much of modern Physics and Science is based on someone claiming that "We KNOW that such and such" when really there is much that is speculation at best, and a deal of biased beliefs.

What they know and publish is based on evidence, not speculation.
>
> So you are wrong to say that its critical that the twins reunite in order to demonstrate some form of paradoxical aspect of Relativity.

It's still necessary.

> and now that we have those twins not reunited, and yet still a paradox, its up to you to try to solve it.

Relativity of simultaneity for separated twins. Solved.

> And now you cant claim that its an asymmetry caused by acceleration.
>
Caused by the turnaround, whether physical acceleration or virtual
(third "twin" passing traveler and returning to the first).

On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 10:36:47 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote:
> On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 8:40:33 PM UTC-5, itsalllies...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 11:27:23 AM UTC+11, rotchm wrote:

> > It does not exist, its not to be included in a Universe where there are only two objects.
> But YOU implicitly said that there are also reference frames. And I quote:
>
> "...the twins, observe each other and note that the distance between them is growing..."

No rebuttal?
So you agree, and you agree that you contradicted yourself in your sentence!?
Is this how you discuss it intelligently by running away when you're cornered?

> If they can note distances, then they have coordinated their space. They have given a coordinate system or a reference frame.
> That is what it means to "note the distance". In other words, they have a certain scheme, a procedure, to detect distances or changes
> thereof. This is what your words meant.

No rebuttal?
Is that a sign that you are angry or that you have been cornered and are too afraid to admit it?

Seriously, you are acting more and more like a crank.
As in one of my original post to you, you failed a simple math problem. The shows that you will fail at mostly everything else. And this is what is happening post after post after post that you post...!

If you keep on insulting and being a coward, I will have to start to remove your posts.

On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 9:15:12 AM UTC+11, Michael Moroney wrote:

> Bubble chambers have been around since what, the 1940s? 1930s? You can
> see the track of a muon or other particle from when it forms to when it
> decays, and from the path length, know how long it lasted. Do that for
> lots of muons to get a half-life.

This Muon conservation is not necessary to discuss STR, Einstein never used Muons in his hypothesis yet claimed to have a solid hypothesis. That's what I want to focus on.

Anyway, in the cloud chamber, I watched them for hours, fascinating.
But the CLAIMED cause for those traces does not match their Physics.
You say we can observe the moment of creation of the Muon, and then its extinction. But that is only one interpretation of what we see. You cant prove that this interpretation is correct or that its the only possibility, that's exactly why its impossible to PROVE a theory from experiments.

So the Muon is created, and the Muon has Mass... it is supposed to accelerate to near light speed instantly? No acceleration period? That would require the application of an infinite amount of FORCE from somewhere, to accelerate ANY object that has Mass, to near light speed in ZERO time. (actually impossible) Plus once that object that has Mass (even a tiny bit) but its moving at almost light speed, then according to the equations, it would possess almost infinite MOMENTUM. Almost infinite energy would be released when that Muon collides with any solid matter...

err ... but I never saw that in the cloud chamber....
The energy required to accelerate an object to light speed is infinite, and therefore impossible, so at just a shade under Light speed, even that low Mas Muon would still need enormous application of force, requiring enormous amounts of Energy..... but I don't see that in the cloud chamber....

On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 11:12:37 AM UTC+11, rotchm wrote:

> > But YOU implicitly said that there are also reference frames. And I quote:
> >
> > "...the twins, observe each other and note that the distance between them is growing..."
> No rebuttal?
> So you agree, and you agree that you contradicted yourself in your sentence!?

> > If they can note distances, then they have coordinated their space. They have given a coordinate system or a reference frame.
> > That is what it means to "note the distance". In other words, they have a certain scheme, a procedure, to detect distances or changes
<<>
You are creating a strawman here.
Claiming things I never said or meant.
You whole argument here is that I said two observers are the only objects in the universe, and they observer a growing distance between them.

Now you seem to think that this necessitated the existence of OTHER things in space or in my thought experiment.
You think that there additionally MUST exist two frames of reference because that's the only way the two observers can observe any change in distance.

But this is only because you don't understand Physics.
A frame of reference is not an object of Physics. Its not PART of any Physics hypothesis.
Only the two observers are in this experiment. All Physics processes can only happen to these two objects.

The frames are ABSTRACT devices used to allow consistent observation. They cant affect the experiment in any way.

On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 4:53:25 PM UTC-8, itsalllies...@gmail.com wrote:

> So the Muon is created, and the Muon has Mass... it is supposed to accelerate to near light speed instantly? No acceleration period?

Sure there is an acceleration period, imbecile. But the energies involved in creating the muons are very high (high energy cosmic rays). Just fuck off and go crack open a physics book.

On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 8:03:47 PM UTC-5, itsalllies...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 11:12:37 AM UTC+11, rotchm wrote:

> > > If they can note distances, then they have coordinated their space. They have given a coordinate system or a reference frame.
> > > That is what it means to "note the distance". In other words, they have a certain scheme, a procedure, to detect distances or changes

> You are creating a strawman here.
> Claiming things I never said or meant.

EXACTLY !!
The point is, the words you use MEANS what I have told you. If you want to discuss physics, you must use its language.
The words and sentences you've been using, are to be taken as per the physics meaning. And the meaning is what I told you above.

Perhaps that is not what you meant but that is what your words meant here in physics.
If you want to be understood, use the appropriate language.

> You whole argument here is that I said two observers are the only objects in the universe,
> and they observer a growing distance between them.

Yes, that is what you said.

> Now you seem to think that this necessitated the existence of OTHER things in space

Yes. How else will they know that the distance between them is changing?
Do tell me this... it is a very important point... You posited that **The Observers notice** a change of position.
How can they noticed this?

> You think that there additionally MUST exist two frames of reference because that's the only
> way the two observers can observe any change in distance.

Correct. That is the **meaning** of Observers.
'Observers' is synonym to 'coordinate system', synonym to 'reference frame', synonym to 'SpaceTime coordinates', synonym to (x,t).

I agree in the Common Street language these are not synonyms.
But in physics, in particular in special relativity, they are (well there are slight different
connotations but they basically mean the same thing and Beyond the scope of our discussion here).

So again, learn the appropriate language else you will not be understood.
Again, I suggest you read the section of servers in the book I referenced you above.
Then there is a similar section in 'spacetime physics' by Taylor/Wheeler. And read up some more to get a proper understanding of the concept of Observers (and inertial frames, etc).

> A frame of reference is not an object of Physics.

It's not an object of physics. It's an object used by physics if we want to do experiments, If we want to log the *results* of experiments.

> Its not PART of any Physics hypothesis.

Yes in that sense. The laws of physics are independent of reference frames.
However, to observe, to log events, we have reference frames.

> Only the two observers are in this experiment. All Physics processes can only happen to these two objects.

So, light signals between them cannot happen?
And how can they know that the other person is changing positions?

> The frames are ABSTRACT devices used to allow consistent observation.

Let's forget about the word abstract or real, for it does not change what your are peddling...

> They cant affect the experiment in any way.

True. We are concerned with what will the measuring device display.
So you are saying in reference frame one, Obs2 is changing positions.
In reference Frame 2, Obs1 is changing positions.

Here, 'ObsX' refers to *persons*m or *objects*, or more accurately, a set of spacetime coordinates.
For instance, in frame 1 (F1), we may have the set of coordinates (x=1,t=1), (2,2), (3,3) etc. These coordinates are "changing".
They may represent the coordinates of Obs2, say.

Is this is what you have been meaning all along?

On 1/7/2022 7:53 PM, everything isalllies wrote:
> On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 9:15:12 AM UTC+11, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
>> Bubble chambers have been around since what, the 1940s? 1930s? You can
>> see the track of a muon or other particle from when it forms to when it
>> decays, and from the path length, know how long it lasted. Do that for
>> lots of muons to get a half-life.
>
> This Muon conservation is not necessary to discuss STR, Einstein never used Muons in his hypothesis yet claimed to have a solid hypothesis. That's what I want to focus on.
>
> Anyway, in the cloud chamber, I watched them for hours, fascinating.
> But the CLAIMED cause for those traces does not match their Physics.
> You say we can observe the moment of creation of the Muon, and then its extinction. But that is only one interpretation of what we see. You cant prove that this interpretation is correct or that its the only possibility, that's exactly why its impossible to PROVE a theory from experiments.

By applying a known magnetic field and measurement, they can determine
the charges and mass of the particles. A large number have a mass of
106 MeV. Physicists started calling them muons.
>
> So the Muon is created, and the Muon has Mass... it is supposed to accelerate to near light speed instantly? No acceleration period? That would require the application of an infinite amount of FORCE from somewhere, to accelerate ANY object that has Mass, to near light speed in ZERO time. (actually impossible)

Yet they exist. So you need to reexamine your thought processes. I
simply considered that all particles just get created with their speeds,
kinetic energy and momentum. Imagining near-infinite forces
accelerating the muon from rest (with respect to what?) seems too
classical to make sense.

> Plus once that object that has Mass (even a tiny bit) but its moving at almost light speed, then according to the equations, it would possess almost infinite MOMENTUM.

Nope. Its momentum and energy are predetermined by the decay energy and
the momentum/energy of the particle before decay. Both are conserved.

> Almost infinite energy would be released when that Muon collides with any solid matter...

Nope. Energy predetermined as I just stated. I do believe that cosmic
ray muons typically have a gamma of 10-20.
>
> err ... but I never saw that in the cloud chamber....

How many muons did you observe decay in flight? Don't worry if none,
googling images for "bubble chamber muon decay" will probably find a lot
of them.

I think you don't understand the physics behind all of this. You should
crack a book.

On Friday, 7 January 2022 at 21:16:36 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> everything isalllies <itsalllies...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 9:47:22 AM UTC+11, Paparios wrote:
> >
> >>>
> >> That is not the twin paradox. Twins are not observing anything. They
> >> both carry clocks and when they reunite, they compare the elapsed time
> >> measured by each clock.
> >>> 2. STR claims that "the moving twin" will age slower because his time is dilated.
> >>>
> >> That is also nonsense. The explanation of the difference in the elapsed
> >> times is equivalent to the fact that identical odometers in two cars
> >> measure different distances between Chicago and New York, since they
> >> followed different highways (different space paths).
> >> The twin clocks, similarly follow different paths through spacetime.
> >
> > Wrong Paparios:
> > I am allowed to submit a variation of the twin paradox just like others
> > submit their version on how to solve it.
> > This is the twin paradox mark 2.
> OK, so you have a completely different scenario, where there is no
> asymmetry, where there is no return.
>
> You seem to be concerned about something here, but I’m not sure what you’re
> concerned about. Where do you think there is a contradiction?

In the standard of time unit valid also in your moronic physics
in the time when your idiot guru lived and mumbled.

On Saturday, 8 January 2022 at 03:11:47 UTC+1, rotchm wrote:
> On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 8:03:47 PM UTC-5, itsalllies...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 11:12:37 AM UTC+11, rotchm wrote:
>
> > > > If they can note distances, then they have coordinated their space. They have given a coordinate system or a reference frame.
> > > > That is what it means to "note the distance". In other words, they have a certain scheme, a procedure, to detect distances or changes
>
> > You are creating a strawman here.
> > Claiming things I never said or meant.
> EXACTLY !!
> The point is, the words you use MEANS what I have told you. If you want to discuss physics, you must use its language.
> The words and sentences you've been using, are to be taken as per the physics meaning. And the meaning is what I told you above.
>
> Perhaps that is not what you meant but that is what your words meant here in physics.

In the marxism-leninism "the best political system" means communism.
Who cares?

> 'Observers' is synonym to 'coordinate system', synonym to 'reference frame', synonym to 'SpaceTime coordinates', synonym to (x,t).
> I agree in the Common Street language these are not synonyms.

And that makes "confirmed by observations" a synonym of -
"derived from some moronic postulates of an insane guru"
But in common language they are not synonyms.

On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 4:45:26 AM UTC, Michael Moroney wrote:

> > So the Muon is created, and the Muon has Mass... it is supposed to accelerate to near light speed instantly? No acceleration period? That would require the application of an infinite amount of FORCE from somewhere, to accelerate ANY object that has Mass, to near light speed in ZERO time. (actually impossible)
> Yet they exist. So you need to reexamine your thought processes. I
> simply considered that all particles just get created with their speeds,
> kinetic energy and momentum. Imagining near-infinite forces
> accelerating the muon from rest (with respect to what?) seems too
> classical to make sense.....

Yep, you have no idea what Muons are about, but you are ok with simply claiming that they simply exist, even though it goes against the your common sense.
It was Einsteins I believe who said that ANY particle ( eve one with practically no Mass) if accelerated to near Light Speed, would gain almost infinite Mass which is why nothing that has Mas can reach Light speed. Yet the Muon can, while NOT gaining Mass to the value near infinity, and doing it with out much applied Energy either! No detectable force of the Einsteins required magnitude is to be found.. yet Muons are still doing it and our beliefs about Muons is still true.

You should not be referring to Muons in a argument about Einsteins theories, because thay do not do what Einsteins claimed they should!

Einstein: Any mass no mater how small, will increase in Mass towards infinity whilst consuming all the energy in the universe if it were to attain near Light speed.

Now what are you claiming about Muons? We know it all? Its all been measured?

El sábado, 8 de enero de 2022 a las 5:20:10 UTC-3, itsalllies...@gmail..com escribió:
> On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 4:45:26 AM UTC, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> > > So the Muon is created, and the Muon has Mass... it is supposed to accelerate to near light speed instantly? No acceleration period? That would require the application of an infinite amount of FORCE from somewhere, to accelerate ANY object that has Mass, to near light speed in ZERO time. (actually impossible)
> > Yet they exist. So you need to reexamine your thought processes. I
> > simply considered that all particles just get created with their speeds,
> > kinetic energy and momentum. Imagining near-infinite forces
> > accelerating the muon from rest (with respect to what?) seems too
> > classical to make sense.....
>
> Yep, you have no idea what Muons are about, but you are ok with simply claiming that they simply exist, even though it goes against the your common sense.
> It was Einsteins I believe who said that ANY particle ( eve one with practically no Mass) if accelerated to near Light Speed, would gain almost infinite Mass which is why nothing that has Mas can reach Light speed. Yet the Muon can, while NOT gaining Mass to the value near infinity, and doing it with out much applied Energy either! No detectable force of the Einsteins required magnitude is to be found.. yet Muons are still doing it and our beliefs about Muons is still true.
>
> You should not be referring to Muons in a argument about Einsteins theories, because thay do not do what Einsteins claimed they should!
>
> Einstein: Any mass no mater how small, will increase in Mass towards infinity whilst consuming all the energy in the universe if it were to attain near Light speed.
>

That is clearly nonsense. You are confusing what it is called "relativistic mass" with mass.
The word mass has two meanings in special relativity: invariant mass (also called rest mass) is an invariant quantity which is the same for all observers in all reference frames, while the relativistic mass is dependent on the velocity of the observer. According to the concept of mass–energy equivalence, invariant mass is equivalent to rest energy, while relativistic mass is equivalent to relativistic energy (also called total energy).

The term "relativistic mass" tends not to be used in particle and nuclear physics and is often avoided by writers on special relativity, in favor of referring to the body's relativistic energy. In contrast, "invariant mass" is usually preferred over rest energy. The measurable inertia and the warping of spacetime by a body in a given frame of reference is determined by its relativistic mass, not merely its invariant mass. For example, photons have zero rest mass but contribute to the inertia (and weight in a gravitational field) of any system containing them.

> Now what are you claiming about Muons? We know it all? Its all been measured?

On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 1:29:52 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hachel <r.ha...@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> > Le 06/01/2022 à 15:05, Gary Harnagel a écrit :
> >
> > Thank you for your reply.
> >
> >> Wongo, Richard. Langevin himself "solved" it.
> >>
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox
> >>
> >> "The asymmetry that occurred because only the traveler underwent acceleration
> >> is used to explain why there is any difference at all,"
> >
> > This sentence does not mean anything. It absolutely does not explain the
> > phenomenon. When I read this, I find it sad to cry, not that a scientist
> > could have written such bullshit, but that other men reprized this silly
> > sentence as if a genius had spoken.
> > It is as if he was saying: "a dog is a dog because a dog is a dog".
> > I have said over and over again (but nobody seems to care) that it was not
> > the accelerations that explained the phenomenon, and that almost all of
> > the differences were made during the purely Galilean phases. We also said
> > bullshit of the type "the twin jumps of reference" or "the needles panic
> > during the U-turn". This is all sad.
> > We drown the fish with words. Nothing really obvious or understandable is
> > explained. In short, as I have always said: "The theory of relativity is
> > right, beautiful, and experimentally obvious. But when a man is asked to
> > explain it, he does not know how to do it. Everything turns to dust. under
> > the rug because we don't know how to say things ".
> > The accelerations? LOL.
> > And why not the papal balls?
> >
> > R.H.
> >
> Richard, break the problem down. There are TWO questions involved in this
> puzzle.
>
> 1. Why is it not a paradox?

But it is a paradox.

> 2. What is the explanation for why one twin comes back younger

The traveling twin doesn’t come back younger. His clock second contain a larger amount of TIME than the stay at home clock second.....that means that clocks in different frames accumulate clock seconds at different rates and thus when they meet again they show different number of clock seconds. This does not mean that the traveling clock is younger. It means that the traveling clock accumulated Tt seconds contains the same amount of TIME as the stay at home clock accumulated Ts seconds. IOW, a clock second on any clock does not represent the same amount of TIME in different frame and that’s why when the twin meet again they show different accumulated clock seconds but these different accumulated clock seconds contain the same amount of TIME.
>
> The answer to the first question is defusing the mistake that generates the
> apparent paradox. The mistake is specifically this: “But snce motion is
> relative, it is a completely symmetric scenario. The traveling twin can
> think of himself as moving and the earth twin as moving away and then
> moving back.” The mistake is — specifically — thinking that it is a
> symmetric situation when it is not. Remove the symmetry and the apparent
> paradox dissolves, because if it is NOT symmetric, then you cannot make the
> claim that you can just reflect the situation as the earth twin moving away
> and coming back toward the traveling twin.
>
> Resolving the paradox does not answer question 2, but it does answer
> question 1.
>
> If you need further response about why it is not symmetric, that can be
> described in multiple ways. The symmetry of the situation would require
> both observers to be in inertial motion, when ONE is clearly not. Describe
> that as “one twin feels acceleration and the other not” or equivalently
> “one is at rest in a single inertial reference frame, while the other is
> not” or “the worldline of one twin is straight while the other is bent”.
> These all MEAN the same thing, using different words. If you don’t
> understand how they can mean the same thing, that’s because you do not
> understand connections like experienced acceleration and bends in a
> worldline. And that you could only fix by READING.
>
> This still doesn’t answer question 2 for you, which comes from
> straightforward calculation with Lorentz transforms. But first you have to
> understand the answer to question 1.
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 5:15:52 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> everything isalllies <itsalllies...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 7:29:22 AM UTC+11, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >
> >> Wrong. By 'several variants' some have the traveling twin travel to Tau
> >> Ceti, others to Alpha Centauri, others to an unspecified location.
> >>
> >> Some have the twin take time to turn around, others the turnaround is
> >> instantaneous, others there is a frame jump where the twin meets a third
> >> traveler and gives the time interval to him instead.
> >>
> >> They may have different answers but all use the same math, so all are
> >> correct.
> >
> > No, you are all believing in pseudo science. As far as I can tell, you are all stupid.
> >
> > Here is the real twin paradox, with unnecessary complications stripped
> > out exactly in the tradition of Einsteins thought experiments where he
> > ignores everything he "thinks" is not important.
> >
> > 1. Two twins in a universe devoid of everything except the twins,
> > observe each other and note that the distance between them is growing at a constant rate.
> >
> > 2. STR claims that "the moving twin" will age slower because his time is dilated.
> >
> > The Paradox is that neither twin can claim to be the "non moving twin"
> > and also neither twin can be assigned as the one who is doing the moving.
> > Each can be stationary or moving but none can prove it either way, so
> > therefore none can be experiencing any time dilation and the other not.
> > If the both experience time dilation, then that requires the existence of
> > a Absolute Time to which the Twins times can be dilating in reference to.
> >
> > So therefore no time dilation is possible, and thus Einstein's claim of
> > Time dilation is irrational nonsense.
> >
> >
> >
> Nope, not at all.
>
> You see? You’ve boiled down the twin paradox to precisely one step too far,
> where the misconception of the beginning student kicks in.
>
> You have claimed symmetry between the twins, where in fact there IS no
> symmetry. That is precisely the mistake the puzzle was designed to caution
> against.

There is symmetry if you claimed that a clock second is an absolute interval of TIME.....It is not. A clock second in different frame contains a different amount of TIME.
>
> All you are doing at this point is saying, “Well, I don’t want to be told
> about my mistake. I’m sticking to my guns. I’ve made no mistake. I
> acknowledge no mistake. This is YOUR fault.”
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Saturday, 8 January 2022 at 14:06:18 UTC+1, Paparios wrote:
> El sábado, 8 de enero de 2022 a las 5:20:10 UTC-3, itsalllies...@gmail.com escribió:
> > On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 4:45:26 AM UTC, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >
> > > > So the Muon is created, and the Muon has Mass... it is supposed to accelerate to near light speed instantly? No acceleration period? That would require the application of an infinite amount of FORCE from somewhere, to accelerate ANY object that has Mass, to near light speed in ZERO time. (actually impossible)
> > > Yet they exist. So you need to reexamine your thought processes. I
> > > simply considered that all particles just get created with their speeds,
> > > kinetic energy and momentum. Imagining near-infinite forces
> > > accelerating the muon from rest (with respect to what?) seems too
> > > classical to make sense.....
> >
> > Yep, you have no idea what Muons are about, but you are ok with simply claiming that they simply exist, even though it goes against the your common sense.
> > It was Einsteins I believe who said that ANY particle ( eve one with practically no Mass) if accelerated to near Light Speed, would gain almost infinite Mass which is why nothing that has Mas can reach Light speed. Yet the Muon can, while NOT gaining Mass to the value near infinity, and doing it with out much applied Energy either! No detectable force of the Einsteins required magnitude is to be found.. yet Muons are still doing it and our beliefs about Muons is still true.
> >
> > You should not be referring to Muons in a argument about Einsteins theories, because thay do not do what Einsteins claimed they should!
> >
> > Einstein: Any mass no mater how small, will increase in Mass towards infinity whilst consuming all the energy in the universe if it were to attain near Light speed.
> >
> That is clearly nonsense. You are confusing what it is called "relativistic mass" with mass.

So did Feynman...

Ken Seto wrote:

> On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 5:15:52 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>> Nope, not at all.
>> You see? You’ve boiled down the twin paradox to precisely one step too
>> far, where the misconception of the beginning student kicks in.
>> You have claimed symmetry between the twins, where in fact there IS no
>> symmetry. That is precisely the mistake the puzzle was designed to
>> caution against.
>
> There is symmetry if you claimed that a clock second is an absolute
> interval of TIME.....It is not. A clock second in different frame
> contains a different amount of TIME.

stop stealing tensors, imbecile.

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 1:29:52 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Richard Hachel <r.ha...@tiscali.fr> wrote:
>>> Le 06/01/2022 à 15:05, Gary Harnagel a écrit :
>>>
>>> Thank you for your reply.
>>>
>>>> Wongo, Richard. Langevin himself "solved" it.
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox
>>>>
>>>> "The asymmetry that occurred because only the traveler underwent acceleration
>>>> is used to explain why there is any difference at all,"
>>>
>>> This sentence does not mean anything. It absolutely does not explain the
>>> phenomenon. When I read this, I find it sad to cry, not that a scientist
>>> could have written such bullshit, but that other men reprized this silly
>>> sentence as if a genius had spoken.
>>> It is as if he was saying: "a dog is a dog because a dog is a dog".
>>> I have said over and over again (but nobody seems to care) that it was not
>>> the accelerations that explained the phenomenon, and that almost all of
>>> the differences were made during the purely Galilean phases. We also said
>>> bullshit of the type "the twin jumps of reference" or "the needles panic
>>> during the U-turn". This is all sad.
>>> We drown the fish with words. Nothing really obvious or understandable is
>>> explained. In short, as I have always said: "The theory of relativity is
>>> right, beautiful, and experimentally obvious. But when a man is asked to
>>> explain it, he does not know how to do it. Everything turns to dust. under
>>> the rug because we don't know how to say things ".
>>> The accelerations? LOL.
>>> And why not the papal balls?
>>>
>>> R.H.
>>>
>> Richard, break the problem down. There are TWO questions involved in this
>> puzzle.
>>
>> 1. Why is it not a paradox?
>
> But it is a paradox.

No, it’s not.

>
>> 2. What is the explanation for why one twin comes back younger
>
> The traveling twin doesn’t come back younger.

Well, if that were true, then you wouldn’t have a paradox to complain
about.

> His clock second contain a larger amount of TIME than the stay at home
> clock second.....that means that clocks in different frames accumulate
> clock seconds at different rates and thus when they meet again they show
> different number of clock seconds. This does not mean that the traveling
> clock is younger. It means that the traveling clock accumulated Tt
> seconds contains the same amount of TIME as the stay at home clock
> accumulated Ts seconds. IOW, a clock second on any clock does not
> represent the same amount of TIME in different frame and that’s why when
> the twin meet again they show different accumulated clock seconds but
> these different accumulated clock seconds contain the same amount of TIME.
>>
>> The answer to the first question is defusing the mistake that generates the
>> apparent paradox. The mistake is specifically this: “But snce motion is
>> relative, it is a completely symmetric scenario. The traveling twin can
>> think of himself as moving and the earth twin as moving away and then
>> moving back.” The mistake is — specifically — thinking that it is a
>> symmetric situation when it is not. Remove the symmetry and the apparent
>> paradox dissolves, because if it is NOT symmetric, then you cannot make the
>> claim that you can just reflect the situation as the earth twin moving away
>> and coming back toward the traveling twin.
>>
>> Resolving the paradox does not answer question 2, but it does answer
>> question 1.
>>
>> If you need further response about why it is not symmetric, that can be
>> described in multiple ways. The symmetry of the situation would require
>> both observers to be in inertial motion, when ONE is clearly not. Describe
>> that as “one twin feels acceleration and the other not” or equivalently
>> “one is at rest in a single inertial reference frame, while the other is
>> not” or “the worldline of one twin is straight while the other is bent”.
>> These all MEAN the same thing, using different words. If you don’t
>> understand how they can mean the same thing, that’s because you do not
>> understand connections like experienced acceleration and bends in a
>> worldline. And that you could only fix by READING.
>>
>> This still doesn’t answer question 2 for you, which comes from
>> straightforward calculation with Lorentz transforms. But first you have to
>> understand the answer to question 1.
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

everything isalllies <itsalllieseverything@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 9:15:12 AM UTC+11, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
>> Bubble chambers have been around since what, the 1940s? 1930s? You can
>> see the track of a muon or other particle from when it forms to when it
>> decays, and from the path length, know how long it lasted. Do that for
>> lots of muons to get a half-life.
>
> This Muon conservation is not necessary to discuss STR, Einstein never
> used Muons in his hypothesis yet claimed to have a solid hypothesis.
> That's what I want to focus on.
>
> Anyway, in the cloud chamber, I watched them for hours, fascinating.
> But the CLAIMED cause for those traces does not match their Physics.
> You say we can observe the moment of creation of the Muon, and then its
> extinction. But that is only one interpretation of what we see. You cant
> prove that this interpretation is correct or that its the only
> possibility, that's exactly why its impossible to PROVE a theory from experiments.

Oh, but it IS possible. The identity of a particle is DEFINED by its
properties. That is, if a particle has a rest mass of 511 keV, is
electrically charged and negative, has quantum spin 1/2, and a few other
things, this is what we call an “electron”. It’s noted also that some
processes always produce electrons as daughter products (e.g. beta-decay),
and that if a particle of any kind is produced in certain processes, it
will be an electron.

Likewise, if we produce a population of particles in a certain process, and
it’s been identified that all of the particles have negative charge, baryon
number zero, mass 105 MeV, and so on, then we know that this process always
produces what are called muons.

>
> So the Muon is created, and the Muon has Mass... it is supposed to
> accelerate to near light speed instantly? No acceleration period?

Well, it’s more like what happens with an exploding firework, but yes,
kinetic energy is imparted to the muon.

I see that you have some difficulty with the world of subatomic particles
in general, how they’re cataloged, how we know what they are and what their
properties are. Have you considered reading a book about that? I could
recommend a couple good ones.

Muons, by the way, do not travel at light speed.

And they’re very light, so it doesn’t take much energy to get them going
pretty dang fast.

For that matter, if you scuff your feet on a rug and generate a spark on a
door knob, did you know that the electrons in that spark have been sped up
to about half the speed of light? Does this shock you?

> That would require the application of an infinite amount of FORCE from
> somewhere, to accelerate ANY object that has Mass, to near light speed in
> ZERO time. (actually impossible) Plus once that object that has Mass
> (even a tiny bit) but its moving at almost light speed, then according to
> the equations, it would possess almost infinite MOMENTUM. Almost
> infinite energy would be released when that Muon collides with any solid matter...
>
> err ... but I never saw that in the cloud chamber....
> The energy required to accelerate an object to light speed is infinite,
> and therefore impossible, so at just a shade under Light speed, even that
> low Mas Muon would still need enormous application of force, requiring
> enormous amounts of Energy..... but I don't see that in the cloud chamber....
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

everything isalllies <itsalllieseverything@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 11:12:37 AM UTC+11, rotchm wrote:
>
>>> But YOU implicitly said that there are also reference frames. And I quote:
>>>
>>> "...the twins, observe each other and note that the distance between them is growing..."
>> No rebuttal?
>> So you agree, and you agree that you contradicted yourself in your sentence!?
>
>>> If they can note distances, then they have coordinated their space.
>>> They have given a coordinate system or a reference frame.
>>> That is what it means to "note the distance". In other words, they have
>>> a certain scheme, a procedure, to detect distances or changes
> <<>
> You are creating a strawman here.
> Claiming things I never said or meant.
> You whole argument here is that I said two observers are the only objects
> in the universe, and they observer a growing distance between them.
>
> Now you seem to think that this necessitated the existence of OTHER
> things in space or in my thought experiment.
> You think that there additionally MUST exist two frames of reference
> because that's the only way the two observers can observe any change in distance.
>
> But this is only because you don't understand Physics.
> A frame of reference is not an object of Physics. Its not PART of any Physics hypothesis.

No, sorry, you’re wrong, as I’ve indicated elsewhere. Conservation of
energy is an example of a physics hypothesis — a law in fact. Kinetic
energy is a key part of that law. Kinetic energy cannot be defined without
a reference frame. Try it.

> Only the two observers are in this experiment. All Physics processes can
> only happen to these two objects.
>
> The frames are ABSTRACT devices used to allow consistent observation.
> They cant affect the experiment in any way.
>
>
>
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables