|
|
| Author |
Message |
PD
science forum Guru
Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 3:01 pm Post subject:
Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did.
|
|
|
kenseto wrote:
| Quote: | "Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1152719474.154681.89080@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1152714628.812917.98040@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Second, when you are measuring a velocity of something,
you measure the time and distance separately.
Exactly. But c is not based such a procedure.
No? Please describe any measurement of c prior to 1983
and show me how it doesn't use independent measurements
of time and distance to determine c.
How is the speed of light measured?
http://hermes.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/mea
sure_c.html
None of the procedures described in this link uses the method of
measuring
the time and distance (using a measuring tape) separately.
First, you are incorrect. The Fizeau and Foucault measurements
in the 19th century are done that way.
And their results show that the speed of light is not constant.
|
No they don't. Where do you get that?
Please note that every experimental result is a combination of TWO
numbers: a central value and an uncertainty.
This may come as a shock to you, Ken, but if you refer to Figure 6 in
the following link
(http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/lightandcolor/speedoflight.html), a
physicist will tell you that those measurements are all consistent with
the *same* value. Let me repeat that: the *same* value of c. There is
not a lick of evidence from those experiments that the speed of light
is not constant.
The fact that you cannot read a table of experimental measurements
properly is not anyone's problem but yours.
| Quote: |
Second, to measure the speed of light to 8 or 9 significant digits,
you need to be able to measure time of flight and distance
to 8 or 9 significant digits.
You don't need to measure light speed to 8 or 9 significant digits. You need
to perform experiments that give consistent results. As far as I can see
these older experiments using the direct method as specified by Einstein did
not give consistent results. So the claim of constancy of the speed of light
using the direct method has not been confirmed.
|
You are mistaken about their consistency. Simply mistaken, Ken. They
are completely consistent. See figure 6 in
http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/lightandcolor/speedoflight.html.
PD |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
kenseto
science forum Guru
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 2151
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 8:44 pm Post subject:
Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did.
|
|
|
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1152796859.581774.220600@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
kenseto wrote:
You don't need to measure light speed to 8 or 9 significant digits. You
need
to perform experiments that give consistent results. As far as I can see
these older experiments using the direct method as specified by Einstein
did
not give consistent results.
Which results do you claim are not consistent?
|
Consistent result means reproducible result. Those experiments that used the
d/t method gave values for light speed all over the map. One can't tell if
these results represent the detection of variation of the speed of light or
represent the errors in the different procedure used.
| Quote: |
You really don't understand the concept of measurement
precision, do you? You think if I eyeball a distance as half
a mile and measure it to be 0.4 mile, that those are inconsistent
results?
|
Eyeballing is not a good method to measure light speed.
Ken Seto |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PD
science forum Guru
Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 9:51 pm Post subject:
Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did.
|
|
|
kenseto wrote:
| Quote: | Consistent result means reproducible result. Those experiments that used the
d/t method gave values for light speed all over the map. One can't tell if
these results represent the detection of variation of the speed of light or
represent the errors in the different procedure used.
|
OK, Ken, quick lesson on reporting of experimental results. Look at
Figure 6 in the reference that has been given to you:
http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/lightandcolor/speedoflight.html
There you will see a bunch of data points that are represented by red
dots in the center of vertical bars. The red dots represent the central
values that are listed in Table 1 above the figure. The grey bars
represent experimental uncertainties estimated at the time of the
measurement by the experimenters familiar with their apparatus and data
analysis. Note that each experimenter evaluates their experimental
error independently, without regard to other experimenter's
measurements. In fact, in designing the experiment, the experimenters
can estimate the length of this bar even before taking data. Roughly
speaking, the experimenters when they report a value and an uncertainty
are claiming that the true value lies somewhere within the range
represented by the gray bar to a 63% certainty. (If the bars are
doubled in length, then the certainty goes up to 95%.) These
uncertainties shown in the figure are not listed in Table 1.
Therefore, even if you take only the first five measurements between
1878 and 1910, which had relatively large uncertainties compared to
later improvements, you will see that the bars overlap or touch. To
experimental physicists, who understand the meaning of uncertainty
bars, this indicates that these measurements *agree* with each other.
They are not in fact "all over the map". They are only all over the map
if you make the mistake of not considering experimental uncertainties.
This is apparently the mistake you are making, possibly because you
were never trained to estimate experimental uncertainties and to
compare two numbers with uncertainties.
Furthermore, by looking at the figure you can determine that every
single one of the data points agree with the final, established value
for c that now serves as the definition of the meter (and note this
redefinition was done in 1983, several years *after* the last data
point in this plot), with the possible exception of the first
measurement in 1878, which is about two sigma away from the final
value, and a data point about 1950.
Hopefully this will help clear up your confusion about experimental
values. I would point out, however, that in your experimental proposal
you have failed to conduct the exercise of estimating the experimental
uncertainty achievable with your apparatus. Since doing this is a
crucial part of justifying the experiment as proposed, it's not
surprising that your proposal was rejected.
PD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sorcerer
science forum Guru
Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 10:43 pm Post subject:
Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did.
|
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152827501.879267.254580@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
|
| kenseto wrote:
|
| > Consistent result means reproducible result. Those experiments that used
the
| > d/t method gave values for light speed all over the map. One can't tell
if
| > these results represent the detection of variation of the speed of light
or
| > represent the errors in the different procedure used.
| > >
|
| OK, Ken, quick lesson on reporting of experimental results. Look at
| Figure 6 in the reference that has been given to you:
| http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/lightandcolor/speedoflight.html
|
| There you will see a bunch of data points that are represented by red
| dots in the center of vertical bars. The red dots represent the central
| values that are listed in Table 1 above the figure. The grey bars
| represent experimental uncertainties estimated at the time of the
| measurement by the experimenters familiar with their apparatus and data
| analysis. Note that each experimenter evaluates their experimental
| error independently, without regard to other experimenter's
| measurements. In fact, in designing the experiment, the experimenters
| can estimate the length of this bar even before taking data. Roughly
| speaking, the experimenters when they report a value and an uncertainty
| are claiming that the true value lies somewhere within the range
| represented by the gray bar to a 63% certainty. (If the bars are
| doubled in length, then the certainty goes up to 95%.) These
| uncertainties shown in the figure are not listed in Table 1.
|
| Therefore, even if you take only the first five measurements between
| 1878 and 1910, which had relatively large uncertainties compared to
| later improvements, you will see that the bars overlap or touch. To
| experimental physicists, who understand the meaning of uncertainty
| bars, this indicates that these measurements *agree* with each other.
| They are not in fact "all over the map". They are only all over the map
| if you make the mistake of not considering experimental uncertainties.
| This is apparently the mistake you are making, possibly because you
| were never trained to estimate experimental uncertainties and to
| compare two numbers with uncertainties.
|
| Furthermore, by looking at the figure you can determine that every
| single one of the data points agree with the final, established value
| for c that now serves as the definition of the meter (and note this
| redefinition was done in 1983, several years *after* the last data
| point in this plot), with the possible exception of the first
| measurement in 1878, which is about two sigma away from the final
| value, and a data point about 1950.
|
| Hopefully this will help clear up your confusion about experimental
| values. I would point out, however, that in your experimental proposal
| you have failed to conduct the exercise of estimating the experimental
| uncertainty achievable with your apparatus. Since doing this is a
| crucial part of justifying the experiment as proposed, it's not
| surprising that your proposal was rejected.
|
| PD
What is the uncertainty of a cosmic muon's velocity when a gamma
of 10 and a gamma of 100,000 are calculated?
There are lies, damned lies and statistics. You are a master of all
three, Phuckwit Duck. Henri Wilson was wrong, you degree isn't in
basket weaving, it is in accomplished lying.
Androcles. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PD
science forum Guru
Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 4:31 am Post subject:
Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did.
|
|
|
Sorcerer wrote:
| Quote: | What is the uncertainty of a cosmic muon's velocity when a gamma
of 10 and a gamma of 100,000 are calculated?
There are lies, damned lies and statistics. You are a master of all
three, Phuckwit Duck. Henri Wilson was wrong, you degree isn't in
basket weaving, it is in accomplished lying.
Androcles.
|
Calculated?
Don't you mean *measured*?
Now if you have a 4 mile ring, and particles are flying around at
roughly 50,000 Hz, and you can tell after 50,000 revolutions what time
they passed a certain point to within 1.5 ns, then perhaps you can
estimate the uncertainty in the speed that results from that
measurement.
PD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Henri Wilson
science forum Guru
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 7:30 am Post subject:
Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did.
|
|
|
On 13 Jul 2006 21:31:26 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Sorcerer wrote:
What is the uncertainty of a cosmic muon's velocity when a gamma
of 10 and a gamma of 100,000 are calculated?
There are lies, damned lies and statistics. You are a master of all
three, Phuckwit Duck. Henri Wilson was wrong, you degree isn't in
basket weaving, it is in accomplished lying.
Androcles.
Calculated?
Don't you mean *measured*?
Now if you have a 4 mile ring, and particles are flying around at
roughly 50,000 Hz, and you can tell after 50,000 revolutions what time
they passed a certain point to within 1.5 ns, then perhaps you can
estimate the uncertainty in the speed that results from that
measurement.
|
So what does that tell you?
You can time a racing car around a circuit like that too.
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sorcerer
science forum Guru
Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 9:28 am Post subject:
Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did.
|
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152851486.577046.220050@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > What is the uncertainty of a cosmic muon's velocity when a gamma
| > of 10 and a gamma of 100,000 are calculated?
| > There are lies, damned lies and statistics. You are a master of all
| > three, Phuckwit Duck. Henri Wilson was wrong, you degree isn't in
| > basket weaving, it is in accomplished lying.
| > Androcles.
|
| Calculated?
Yes, calculated.
| Don't you mean *measured*?
No, I mean calculated, it is important to be precise.
Distance is measured, time is measured, velocity is calculated, one
has to perform a division on some numbers and that is calculation.
Gamma is clearly calculated, unless you've invented the gammometer
recently. The uncertainty in the speed of photons is 1.1 m/s.
http://oisc.net/Speed_of_Light.htm
| Now if you have a 4 mile ring,
Shithead, I said cosmic muons, not ring muons.
Kinda like space shuttles, not Indy cars. Space shuttles are way
faster than Indy cars, they break up entering thin atmosphere, which
Indy cars do not. Indy cars break up on bends they cannot negotiate.
I'm not asking about a 4 mile ring, I'm asking about a 62 mile long
dragstrip from the top of the atmosphere to seal level and race between
a cosmic muon and a photon.
The world speed record for a slot car is a scaled 932.7 mph.
The scale is 1:32, so the actual speed of the slot car is 30 mph +/- 5mph
which is pretty good for a slot car.
On doesn't race slot cars with Indy cars or Indy cars with space shuttles,
that's not fair, but you always want to race against photons.
Space shuttles are bigger and heavier than Indy cars, they can't make it
around a 4 mile ring like an Indy car can, so we need a drag strip.
It's my muon against your photon in a fair race.
You gave us a long diatribe on uncertainty which you've mercifully
and voluntarily snipped, so now use this fantastic knowledge of yours
and tell us:
What is the uncertainty of a cosmic muon's velocity when a gamma
of 10 and a gamma of 100,000 are calculated?
Androcles.
| and particles are flying around at
| roughly 50,000 Hz, and you can tell after 50,000 revolutions what time
| they passed a certain point to within 1.5 ns, then perhaps you can
| estimate the uncertainty in the speed that results from that
| measurement.
PD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sorcerer
science forum Guru
Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 10:18 am Post subject:
Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did.
|
|
|
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:bjheb25vjrseqsfd2gdm42v6faoeeeh1dh@4ax.com...
| On 13 Jul 2006 21:31:26 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:
|
| >
| >Sorcerer wrote:
| >> What is the uncertainty of a cosmic muon's velocity when a gamma
| >> of 10 and a gamma of 100,000 are calculated?
| >> There are lies, damned lies and statistics. You are a master of all
| >> three, Phuckwit Duck. Henri Wilson was wrong, you degree isn't in
| >> basket weaving, it is in accomplished lying.
| >> Androcles.
| >
| >Calculated?
| >Don't you mean *measured*?
| >
| >Now if you have a 4 mile ring, and particles are flying around at
| >roughly 50,000 Hz, and you can tell after 50,000 revolutions what time
| >they passed a certain point to within 1.5 ns, then perhaps you can
| >estimate the uncertainty in the speed that results from that
| >measurement.
|
| So what does that tell you?
| You can time a racing car around a circuit like that too.
Yeah, but you can't time a space shuttle around a 4 mile ring,
or a lunar excursion module / command module /golf ball combination,
that'll hit 25,000 mph. Phuckwit Duck wants a different race, but I'm
using a 62 mile drag strip, top of the atmosphere to sea level in 2.2 usec
for a muon, 333 usec for a photon.
A command module/lem can't make it around the bend of the Earth,
they fly off and hit the outer space, so Phuckwit Duck doesn't have a big
enough ring to race even a golf ball that made it to the moon with an
old-fashioned '60s vintage Saturn number 5 driver. He's a cheat. He always
claims his photon wins but he doesn't race fair and wants to handicap
my muon with a ring race track because it has more mass than his photon.
I want a drag strip and a fair race. Anyway, who ever heard of a photon
making it around a 4-mile ring without hitting the walls where the mirrors
are,
or racing a Saturn V around Indianapolis? Heck, you can't even race
a WWII V-2 at Indy, Wernher von Braun's top fuel dragster of it's day.
http://www.v2rocket.com/
These young punks don't have a clue when it comes to real physics
and Phuckwit Duck has to be the worst teacher of the lot.
4-mile ring indeed. Way too puny for a real race. Mybe he thinks that's
big in his small mind, which relatively I suppose it is.
You were wrong about Phuckwit Duck's degree, H. It isn't basket
weaving, it is ineffective lying. He's really good at that. I'm no good at
it, but then I don't want to be. He's not even embarrassed by his
stupidity.
Androcles. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PD
science forum Guru
Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 2:38 pm Post subject:
Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did.
|
|
|
Henri Wilson wrote:
| Quote: | On 13 Jul 2006 21:31:26 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:
Sorcerer wrote:
What is the uncertainty of a cosmic muon's velocity when a gamma
of 10 and a gamma of 100,000 are calculated?
There are lies, damned lies and statistics. You are a master of all
three, Phuckwit Duck. Henri Wilson was wrong, you degree isn't in
basket weaving, it is in accomplished lying.
Androcles.
Calculated?
Don't you mean *measured*?
Now if you have a 4 mile ring, and particles are flying around at
roughly 50,000 Hz, and you can tell after 50,000 revolutions what time
they passed a certain point to within 1.5 ns, then perhaps you can
estimate the uncertainty in the speed that results from that
measurement.
So what does that tell you?
You can time a racing car around a circuit like that too.
|
Precisely. And if you do it, you find that a particle with a gamma of
10 (that is, its energy is 10 times its mass) has a speed of 0.995 and
a particle with a gamma of 100,000 has a speed of 0.99999999995 (all in
natural units with c = 1). If your measurement uncertainty is 2 parts
in a billion, the first will be distinguishable from 1 and the latter
will be indistinguishable from 1. However, you will certainly know that
the speed of the particle with a gamma of 10 is not 4.24, and that the
speed of the particle with gamma of 100,000 is not 447, which is what
the Newtonian prediction would be.
Androcles is incredulous that anyone can claim to measure a speed of
0.99999999995 which is what a gamma of 100,000 would imply, because
that's a number that differs from 1 only in the eleventh digit. But the
point is that it's extremely straightforward to distinguish a speed of
0.99999999995 from a speed of 447 even with a crude speed measurement.
PD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sorcerer
science forum Guru
Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 3:35 pm Post subject:
Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did.
|
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152887917.234948.325830@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
|
| Henri Wilson wrote:
| > On 13 Jul 2006 21:31:26 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:
| >
| > >
| > >Sorcerer wrote:
| > >> What is the uncertainty of a cosmic muon's velocity when a gamma
| > >> of 10 and a gamma of 100,000 are calculated?
| > >> There are lies, damned lies and statistics. You are a master of all
| > >> three, Phuckwit Duck. Henri Wilson was wrong, you degree isn't in
| > >> basket weaving, it is in accomplished lying.
| > >> Androcles.
| > >
| > >Calculated?
| > >Don't you mean *measured*?
| > >
| > >Now if you have a 4 mile ring, and particles are flying around at
| > >roughly 50,000 Hz, and you can tell after 50,000 revolutions what time
| > >they passed a certain point to within 1.5 ns, then perhaps you can
| > >estimate the uncertainty in the speed that results from that
| > >measurement.
| >
| > So what does that tell you?
| > You can time a racing car around a circuit like that too.
|
| Precisely. And if you do it,
But you can't measure the speed of a space shuttle around a 4-mile
track, stupid moron, so the 'if' doesn't apply in this analogy. Wild muons
are 150 times faster than feral photons, whereas space shuttles are only
100 times faster than Indy cars and heavier too. f*** off, I'm talking
to H about you, not to you here. Answer me directly, you cunt.
Androcles. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PD
science forum Guru
Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 4:35 pm Post subject:
Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did.
|
|
|
Sorcerer wrote:
| Quote: | "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152887917.234948.325830@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
|
| Henri Wilson wrote:
| > On 13 Jul 2006 21:31:26 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:
|
| > >Now if you have a 4 mile ring, and particles are flying around at
| > >roughly 50,000 Hz, and you can tell after 50,000 revolutions what time
| > >they passed a certain point to within 1.5 ns, then perhaps you can
| > >estimate the uncertainty in the speed that results from that
| > >measurement.
|
| > So what does that tell you?
| > You can time a racing car around a circuit like that too.
|
| Precisely. And if you do it,
But you can't measure the speed of a space shuttle around a 4-mile
track, stupid moron, so the 'if' doesn't apply in this analogy. Wild muons
are 150 times faster than feral photons,
|
Wild ones are faster than feral ones? Why? They both have the same
energy.
| Quote: | whereas space shuttles are only
100 times faster than Indy cars and heavier too. f*** off, I'm talking
to H about you, not to you here. Answer me directly, you cunt.
|
I am answering you directly, you idiot, this is a public group. If you
want a private communication, then use a 1-to-1 vehicle, not a bulletin
board.
PD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PD
science forum Guru
Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 5:52 pm Post subject:
Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did.
|
|
|
Sorcerer wrote:
| Quote: | "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152851486.577046.220050@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > What is the uncertainty of a cosmic muon's velocity when a gamma
| > of 10 and a gamma of 100,000 are calculated?
| > There are lies, damned lies and statistics. You are a master of all
| > three, Phuckwit Duck. Henri Wilson was wrong, you degree isn't in
| > basket weaving, it is in accomplished lying.
| > Androcles.
|
| Calculated?
Yes, calculated.
| Don't you mean *measured*?
No, I mean calculated, it is important to be precise.
Distance is measured, time is measured, velocity is calculated, one
has to perform a division on some numbers and that is calculation.
|
Ah, so what your car's speedometer reports is not a measured speed but
a *calculated* speed. It measures the distance and it measures the
time, and it calculates the speed. Oh, wait, it doesn't. It
accomplishes that with a *calibration*.
So what your bathroom scale reports is not a measured weight but a
*calculated* weight. It measures the distance of compression, and it
measures the spring constant in the scale and calculates your weight.
Oh, wait, it doesn't. It accomplishes that with a *calibration*.
So what the double-arm balance at the produce section of the
supermarket reports is not a measured weight of your melon but a
*calculated* weight. It measures the sliding weight, and it measures
the length the weight is displaced from the pivot, and it calculates
the weight of your melon. Oh, wait, it doesn't. It accomplishes that
with a *calibration*.
| Quote: |
| Now if you have a 4 mile ring,
Shithead, I said cosmic muons, not ring muons.
I'm not asking about a 4 mile ring, I'm asking about a 62 mile long
dragstrip from the top of the atmosphere to seal level and race between
a cosmic muon and a photon.
|
Gee, you'll have to inform me of the difference in the physical
properties between cosmic muons and ring muons, and from whence this
difference arises. Unless you want to say what you've said before --
something to the effect of "How the hell do I know what makes them
different? They just ARE different, and that's the boondoggle that
folks should be working hard to figure out, rather than wasting their
time on this relativity crap." Maybe at the same time, they'll figure
out how cosmic muons with a gamma of 5 or 500 can leave the same energy
deposit in a piece of scintillator and yet both be slowed to just under
c by the same piece of scintillator, right?
PD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sorcerer
science forum Guru
Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 6:02 pm Post subject:
Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did.
|
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152894947.232113.119380@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:1152887917.234948.325830@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
| > |
| > | Henri Wilson wrote:
| > | > On 13 Jul 2006 21:31:26 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com>
wrote:
| > | >
| > | > >Now if you have a 4 mile ring, and particles are flying around at
| > | > >roughly 50,000 Hz, and you can tell after 50,000 revolutions what
time
| > | > >they passed a certain point to within 1.5 ns, then perhaps you can
| > | > >estimate the uncertainty in the speed that results from that
| > | > >measurement.
| > | >
| > | > So what does that tell you?
| > | > You can time a racing car around a circuit like that too.
| > |
| > | Precisely. And if you do it,
| >
| > But you can't measure the speed of a space shuttle around a 4-mile
| > track, stupid moron, so the 'if' doesn't apply in this analogy. Wild
muons
| > are 150 times faster than feral photons,
|
| Wild ones are faster than feral ones? Why? They both have the same
| energy.
Wrong. No feral photon has as much energy as this wild particle:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/ohmygodpart.html
You are lying again, Phuckwit Duck, and definitely confusing
speed with energy. Wild muons are faster than feral photons
because feral photons takes 333 usec to travel 62 miles, whereas
the life of a wild muon is 2.2 usec and it covers the same distance
in that time. Wild muons don't live any longer than domesticated
muons. You thought they did, but you were frame jumping. It
is true that the Earth doesn't decay in 2.2 usec, probably because
it is time dilated in the muon's frame of reference.
|
| > whereas space shuttles are only
| > 100 times faster than Indy cars and heavier too. f*** off, I'm talking
| > to H about you, not to you here. Answer me directly, you cunt.
|
| I am answering you directly, you idiot, this is a public group. If you
| want a private communication, then use a 1-to-1 vehicle, not a bulletin
| board.
Comparing photons to muons is imprecisely comparing Indy cars to space
shuttles, moron. You are like a little schoolboy, "my photon is faster
than your muon, so there".
Androcles. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PD
science forum Guru
Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 6:13 pm Post subject:
Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did.
|
|
|
Sorcerer wrote:
| Quote: | |
| > But you can't measure the speed of a space shuttle around a 4-mile
| > track, stupid moron, so the 'if' doesn't apply in this analogy. Wild
muons
| > are 150 times faster than feral photons,
|
| Wild ones are faster than feral ones? Why? They both have the same
| energy.
Wrong. No feral photon has as much energy as this wild particle:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/ohmygodpart.html
|
That's a proton, not a muon. And that one was also going slower than a
feral photon, according to your own reference. So you seem to be lying
again, Androcles.
| Quote: | You are lying again, Phuckwit Duck, and definitely confusing
speed with energy. Wild muons are faster than feral photons
because feral photons takes 333 usec to travel 62 miles, whereas
the life of a wild muon is 2.2 usec
|
No it doesn't. If you think it does, provide the measurement of the
lifetime of the feral muon, not a domesticated muon.
| Quote: | and it covers the same distance
in that time. Wild muons don't live any longer than domesticated
muons.
|
Precisely, and the domesticated ring muons live longer than 2.2 usec.
Measured. In the same reference frame that the wild cosmic muons are
observed.
| Quote: | You thought they did, but you were frame jumping. It
is true that the Earth doesn't decay in 2.2 usec, probably because
it is time dilated in the muon's frame of reference.
|
PD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kenseto
science forum Guru
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 2151
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 8:26 pm Post subject:
Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did.
|
|
|
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1152796128.748335.155640@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
kenseto wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1152719783.086592.56610@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
but then you said that the you used the scope to measure the flight time
Yes, I used an instrument to measure (tA'-tA).
Then I used an independent measurement of 2AB.
and you admitted that your procedure is not very accurate.
Of course not. But others, including Michelson, have done the
experiment much more accurately. There are now ample
references to such experiments in this thread.
|
But none of those references ( including yours) that used the d/t procedure
gave a constant value for light speed.
| Quote: |
But I still did the procedure you claim has never been done.
|
Never been done that give a constant value for light speed. If you said
that's because different experiuments have different errorbars then what
theory and assumptions that they used to calculate the errorbars?
| Quote: |
Here's the procedure again, Ken. Tell me which step I didn't
do. Tell me which step Fizeau and Michelson failed to do.
(1) Measure 2AB
(2) Measure tA'-tA
|
You used a scope to measure time and the flight time is by eyeballing. Also
the calibration of the grid on the scope is not known and the error of the
error calculation is not known.
| Quote: | (3) Divide 2AB by (tA'-tA).
|
That's why you didn't get consistent result for light speed.
Ken seto |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Google
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
The time now is Sat Jan 10, 2009 4:00 am | All times are GMT
|
|
Loans | Bankruptcy | Loans | Debt Consolidation | WesternUnion
|
|
Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
|
|
Other DeniX Solutions sites:
Electronics forum |
Medicine forum |
Unix/Linux blog |
Unix/Linux documentation |
Unix/Linux forums
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Forum index
»
Science and Technology
»
Physics
»
Relativity
