FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Particle
magnetic propeties from spinning electric field
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 92 [1376 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  1, 2, 3, ..., 90, 91, 92 Next
Author Message
Guy Gordon
science forum beginner


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 22

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 8:30 pm    Post subject: Re: magnetic propeties from spinning electric field Reply with quote

"Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

Quote:
Now, physicists have also hesitated to connect an electron's magnetic
field with moving charge, because the electron's spin field is too
strong for its charge to cause it relativistic/classically, unless the
electron is *either* much larger than the minimum it has been measured
to be (by scattering), or *else* is spinning much faster than c. Since
this seems a contradiction, it's simply been tabled.

What, exactly, do you mean by "spinning much faster than c"?
A rate of spin is expressed in turns per unit of time.
A speed, is expressed in length per unit of time.
They are not compatible measurements, and cannot be compared.

You must be assuming a radius for the electron.
What are you using?
Back to top
PD
science forum Guru


Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 8:30 pm    Post subject: Re: What is this "internal clock" in muon which slows down its rate of decay when they move very fast? Reply with quote

Franz Heymann wrote:
Quote:
"PD" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1107264772.924273.246750@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Franz Heymann wrote:
"Tom Capizzi" <etianshrdlu@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:RmuLd.2618$QS5.117@trndny06...

"PD" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1107190641.032907.274630@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Tom Capizzi wrote:
"PD" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:1107182546.084129.254390@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Tom Capizzi wrote:
"PD" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:1107016569.372650.160550@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

Michael Levin wrote:
Sorry if this is a stupid question - I'm a biologist
with
an
amateur
interest in physics. I was listening to an audio
lecture
by
Richard
Wolfson
and he was talking about the experiment where, due to
relativistic
effects,
the lifetime of muons is extended due to their rapid
motion
(0.9c
or
something like that) and the resulting time dilation.
He
was
making
the
point that it isn't just clocks that are affected by
time
dilation,
but
everything (time itself). I think I follow all this
stuff
so
far.
But
he
keeps talking about "the muon's internal clock". I am
sure
this
must
be a
euphemism for something, but what? What's this
internal
clock?
Does
a muon
have internal components of some sort which decide
when
it's to
decay? It
would seem that the relativistic explanation for
what's
going
on
models the
muon as a physical clock-like process (which can be
slowed).
But,
what is
the relationship between quantum mechanics' assertion
that
decay
is
in
principle unpredictable (presumably meaning, not
controlled
by
mechanistic
factors) and this effect where it would seem that some
process
counts
time
for the muon? I hope my question makes sense; I'd like
to
know
if
anything
is known about how these two theories intersect in
this
case.
Does
the muon
have internal components which decide when to decay?
If
so,
is
it
different
from "point" particles like electrons (and if yes, can
the
same
sort
of
relativistic experiment be done with them)? Any
thoughts
would
be
appreciated!

--

Mike Levin
mlevin77@comcast.net

Simply addressing the point as to whether the time
dilation
is
real
(as
viewed in a frame where the particle is moving), note
that
g-2
experiments store muons in storage rings (where they
precess).
Thus,
both the speed of the muons is known (the muon bunches
would
proceed
from station to station on the ring at a rate that is
measurable),
and
the lifetime in the laboratory is known (by the decay
rate
from
the
population dN/dt). Thus the time dilation in this case
is
NOT
simply
inferred by the distance traveled.

PD


Would you mind elaborating that last cryptic comment? And
are
you
saying time dilation is real or not?

I'm saying that time dilation cannot be accounted for by a
model
that
says that the muon lives only 2.2 microseconds in any
frame
but
goes
farther because it is traveling at superluminal speeds.
The
fact
that
the speed and/or the actual lifetime can be tracked, as
well
as
the
distance traveled, rules that out.

I'm not saying that there is something that is physically
slowing
down
the "decay clock" in the muon.

PD


Agreed, that there are no superluminal muons. I'm still
fuzzy
about
the
last comment. Are you distinguishing between the "decay
clock"
and
the time as measured in the frame of reference,

WHICH frame of reference? (They're all equivalent, after
all.)

which is dilated for all
processes in the moving frame?

I don't know what you mean here. Length is not an inherent
property of
an object, nor is lifetime an inherent property of a object.
Both
length and duration are the results of *procedures*. A
spacelike
invariant interval happens to be numerically equal to the
length
of an
object when measured in the frame in which it is at rest, and
a
timelike invariant interval happens to be numerically equal
to
the
lifetime of an object when measured in the frame in which it
is
at
rest. Nothing *happens* to the object when viewed from a
frame
in
which
it is moving.

PD


OK. When you say "Nothing *happens* to the object..." do you
mean
it
does
not contract in length and does not experience time dilation?

No, of course not. It is just sitting still minding its own
business
in the frame under discussion.
Granted, PD was very ambigouos in the way he put it, but I
assume
by
"a frame in which it is moving" he meant the rest frame of the
object.

Franz

Actually, no, I meant a frame in which the object is moving, not
the
frame in which the object is at rest. What I'm driving at is
whether
there is a physical process which is at work slowing things down
inside
the muon as soon as it starts moving, which is a common
misconception.

OK. My misunderstanding. (Nothing happens to the object in either
frame)
However, to get back into the thread:

It always amazes me that those folk keep thinking of some mechanical
stress resulting from length contravtion, and some sort of weakening
of a spring when a clock runs slow, when all that is happening is
that
the obsever looking at a moving object or clock is simply seeing the
results of different projections when the object is rotated in
space-time.

Franz

And in a sense, I can understand the confusion, which stems from a
basic intuitive misconception that length is somehow an intrinsic
property of an object. Getting oneself to abandon that is tricky.

PD
Back to top
Tom Capizzi
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 162

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 8:30 pm    Post subject: Re: What is this "internal clock" in muon which slows down its rate of decay when they move very fast? Reply with quote

"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:ctqfcu$832$8@sparta.btinternet.com...
Quote:

"Tom Capizzi" <etianshrdlu@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:mLWLd.2193$ya6.841@trndny01...

"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:ctp0j9$kih$1@hercules.btinternet.com...

"Tom Capizzi" <etianshrdlu@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:2HRLd.420$t46.371@trndny04...

"TomGee" <lvlus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107279972.314247.150990@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
To: Tom Cappizzi

Neither of the twins can see each other, and they don't, until
the
astronaut twin lands back on Earth. I did not say both of them
age
slower; SR claims the astronaut twin ages slower than his
Earthbound
twin

I know that isn't what you said. This particular claim is not the
paradox,
either. This is merely time dilation.

There is no actual time dilation; it is only an effect
resulting
from
the fact that the time rate of the spaceship slowed compared to
the
Earth's time rate each and everytime the ship's speed exceeded
the
Earth's speed. Each time the ship went faster, it aged at a
rate
slower than the Earth.

And that is time dilation. Maybe you should inform us what you
define
time dilation to be.

And what does "by the relative nature of velocity" mean?


That means that the earthbound twin observes the traveler to be
moving
away from earth in some direction, say +x, at some velocity +v.
The
traveler observes the earth moving away from him along the x axis
at -v.
Since the relativistic factor gamma depends on the square of
relative
velocity, each sees the other as time dilated by the same factor.
That is
the paradox.

No. That is not what is usually thought of as being the paradox.
The
paradox only comes to light when they get together again.

Technically, I should have written that each expects to see the
other as
time
dilated by the same factor at the end of the trip.
However, is it not also true that each would "see" clocks in the
other's
frame
of reference running slow during the trip?

They cannot make the comparison at all until they meet up again.

Agreed that they can't compare each other's clock until they meet.
But Special Relativity is not restricted to a couple of clocks in specific
locations (or paths). It is perfectly legitimate to imagine that an entire
network of clocks has been installed along the course. Einstein gives
a procedure for synchronizing all of them. Then doesn't the astronaut
observe all the stationary clocks along the way running slow?

Quote:

It says the
following:
If A was the stationary one, B is the younger one at reunion
BUT look at it from the point of view of B. He says A was in
motion
and A is therefore the younger one.
What is the right conclusion?

The solution has been put into this ng so many times that it
should be
unnecassary to do so yet again.


Is it in the FAQ?

I don't know
But it is rooted in the fact that A measures his proper time between
the departuret and reunion events by measuring it along a straight
world line and B measures his along a curved or bent world line.

Franz

Back to top
Davorak
science forum beginner


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 9

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 8:30 pm    Post subject: Re: Virtual particles Reply with quote

If particle A and B are spontaneously created out of the vacuum they
are not required to destroy each other. Lets say A is the particle and
B is the anti-particle. A and B spring into existence B could meet up
with C and those two could destroy each other. This leaves A to roam
free. C and A are the same type of particle. This still conserves
vacuum energy.

As far as I know A and B spawn almost on top of each other then destroy
each other a little ways off or at the same spot.

Again as far as I know A and B would not be created half way across the
universe from each other. While this my be possible, it would be
highly unlikely.

They usually destroy each other because one is a particle and the other
is an antiparticle. Meaning that they have equal and opposite charge.
So they attract through the electric field.
Back to top
Tom Capizzi
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 162

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 8:30 pm    Post subject: Re: What is this "internal clock" in muon which slows down its rate of decay when they move very fast? Reply with quote

Sorry if this is a duplicate. Outlook Express gets mixed up by
included formulas, and I'm not sure this post was actually sent.

"Tom Capizzi" <etianshrdlu@verizon.net> wrote in message news:...
Quote:

"TomGee" <lvlus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107313455.285745.273790@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Tom Capizzi wrote:
"TomGee" <lvlus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107300043.423636.178250@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Tom Capizzi wrote:
"TomGee" <lvlus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107279972.314247.150990@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
To: Tom Cappizzi

Neither of the twins can see each other, and they don't, until
the
astronaut twin lands back on Earth. I did not say both of them
age
slower; SR claims the astronaut twin ages slower than his
Earthbound
twin

I know that isn't what you said. This particular claim is not the
paradox,
either.


Your response indicates that you do not understand what I said, and
that you don't understand the Twin Paradox, either.

What you wrote above is not a paradox. The astronaut twin is simply
younger than his Earthbound twin. Relativity says time is dilated for
the moving frame of reference, and everything in it.


No, I say Relativity says no such thing, but all you have to do is show
a creditable reference and I'll concede the point.

Here is an excerpt from Einstein's 1905 paper "On the Electrodynamics of
Moving Bodies":

we arrive at this result: If one of two synchronous clocks at A is moved
in a closed curve with constant velocity until it returns to A, the
journey
lasting t seconds, then by the clock which has remained at rest the
travelled clock on its arrival at A will be 1/2 t v^2/c^2 second slow.



This is merely time dilation.

There is no actual time dilation; it is only an effect resulting
from
the fact that the time rate of the spaceship slowed compared to
the
Earth's time rate each and everytime the ship's speed exceeded
the
Earth's speed. Each time the ship went faster, it aged at a
rate
slower than the Earth.

And that is time dilation. Maybe you should inform us what you
define
time dilation to be.


That's precisely what I just did above!

You prefaced your remarks by saying "There is no actual time
dilation"
and then proceed to describe an effect which is time dilation.


Ok. You don't know the difference between an effect and a cause. Take
dark matter, e.g., which is invisible to us. We can know it exists
only because it causes certain effects, namely, it keeps the U. from
coming back in into itself. To say that time dilates is to say that
time at some arbitrary point during the trip

It is not some arbitrary point during the trip. It is a well defined
function
of relative velocity. If velocity is constant, the clock rate is slowed
uniformly for the duration of the trip.

accelerates simply because
nature grants a slower time rate to the astronaut twin. The question
then is, why? We can say, "because time dilates", or we can say that
what seems to be a time warp is an caused by the fact that time is a
property of mass

In the quote from Einstein above, there is no indication that any mass
is required for the time dilation to exist. The clocks are merely
indicators
of the passage of time in the frame of reference itself.

and it passes inversely proportional to a discrete
object's state of motion.

And what does "by the relative nature of velocity" mean?


That means that the earthbound twin observes the traveler to be
moving
away from earth in some direction, say +x, at some velocity +v.
The
traveler observes the earth moving away from him along the x axis
at
-v.
Since the relativistic factor gamma depends on the square of
relative
velocity, each sees the other as time dilated by the same factor.


Here I should have said, "each expects to see the other as time
dilated by
the same factor at the end of the trip", in keeping with the original

version
of the Paradox.

That is
the paradox. Common sense tells us that the spaceship is flying
away,
while the observer on earth is essentially standing still.
Relativity

asserts
this paradox, or else it would in theory be possible to figure out
which
twin was moving and which standing still, while both twins were in
inertial
frames of reference that were not stationary relative to each
other.
If that
were possible, it would also be possible to identify absolute
motion
and
an absolute frame of reference, something not allowed by Special
Relativity.


No. As I said, SR does not state anything about the twins seeing
each
other at all during the trip, nor does it have anything to do with
absolute motion or frames.

SR most certainly has something to say about frames and motion. While
the original version of the paradox may avoid the specifics of what
happens
during the trip, SR still applies if we choose to analyze in more
detail.


Well sure, you are most certainly free to choose to do that, but it
will only confuse you all the more.


That is what others have added to the SR
experiment simply because they don't understand it either. All
kinds
of mumbo jumbo has been added to the experiment and each one only
confuses people all the more. SR simply states that if one twin
were
to leave Earth for some years and then return, people could see
that
the Earthbound twin aged along with them normally while the
astronaut
twin did not. From there, we know that essentially the only
difference
between the twins during the trip was that one moved faster than
the
other during the trip in escaping from Earth's gravity and also in
catching up with Earth at the end of the trip.

SR thus infers that the difference of speed during the experiment
is
what causes the apparent time dilation, and I contend that the
reason
for the difference in aging is due to the fact that one twin went
faster than the Earth during the trip. If so, that shows that time
is
a property of matter

It is a property of the frame of reference as well as everything it
contains.


I've heard that contention before, but time cannot be a property of a
frame of reference because a frame of ref. is a set of coordinates and
not an object. For time to exist, we must have some real stuff with
mass.


and passes inversely proportional to an object's
state of motion.

Not exactly accurate. Time dilation is explicitly defined by gamma.


Well, tell us why you think so.

Read Einstein's paper:
Therefore, tau = t sqrt (1 - v^2/c^2) = t - (1 - sqrt (1 - v^2/c^2)) t

Gamma is 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2). Time in the stationary coordinate system
is t, and time in the moving coordinate system is tau.



Thus, who moved away from the other is not a relevant
issue, only who moved faster or slower.


But that IS the paradox. Each twin can claim it is the other one who
was
moving, but only one of them appears younger when it is finished.


No, that is not the paradox. The paradox is that at the end of the
experiment one twin is older than the other when they were both born on
the same date. Why do you think SR uses twins?


The paradox is that each twin can claim the other is the one that didn't
age.



The issue of relative motion is a strawman thrown in here by those
who
cannot understand the basic thought experiment.

Relative motion is the core of the paradox, not a strawman.


No, it isn't. See above.


Another confusing idea
is SR's claim that there does occur an actual time dilation, or
time
warp, or the folding of time, at some arbitrary point during the
trip,

Forget the science fiction. SR claims a real time dilation, which is
nothing
like the folding of time of the movies.


Reference, please.

Einstein's paper.



And SR also asserts that time is
slowed by relative motion.


No, it doesn't. Tell us why you think that.

See above.



which would constitute a real time dilation. But there is no time
warp
or folding of time (as shown in the movie "Dune"), there is only
what
appears to be such fictional occurrences but which can be explained
by
my idea that time rates of objects vary with their speed.

TomGee


The subject of this thread is the decay rate of muons. The number of
particles that survive is affected by the velocity of the muons. This
is
not an illusion. Depending on the velocity of the observer's frame,
it
can be attributed to time dilation, length contraction, or a
combination
of the two. The end result is a very real particle count.


And your point is...?
TomGee


Time dilation is not an illusion and is the result of relative velocity.

Back to top
TomGee
science forum Guru


Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 636

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 8:30 pm    Post subject: Re: What is this "internal clock" in muon which slows down its rate of decay when they move very fast? Reply with quote

To: Tom Capizzi
No, it is untrue that they can't compare each other's clocks during the
trip. Video communications are not impossible so long as the speed of
both observers remains below c. But what's the point? The experiment
has nothing to do with whether or not they can tell each other's passed
time during the trip. It has only to do with the fact that if they
meet up again they will see the differences in their ages.
TomGee
Back to top
TomGee
science forum Guru


Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 636

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 8:30 pm    Post subject: Re: What is this "internal clock" in muon which slows down its rate of decay when they move very fast? Reply with quote

No, Franz, it has nothing to do with that atall. A does no measuring
of his time and neither does B and since world lines are a product of
the imaginary time-space math construct, they also have nothing to do
whatsoever with the Twin Paradox experiment.
TomGee
Back to top
TomGee
science forum Guru


Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 636

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 8:30 pm    Post subject: Re: What is this "internal clock" in muon which slows down its rate of decay when they move very fast? Reply with quote

Oh, Franz, so you are "Michael Levin"? Or did you think I was talking
to you?
TomGee
Back to top
Franz Heymann
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 03 Feb 2005
Posts: 282

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 8:30 pm    Post subject: Re: What is this "internal clock" in muon which slows down its rate of decay when they move very fast? Reply with quote

"Tom Capizzi" <etianshrdlu@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:_X5Md.2995$ya6.2238@trndny01...
Quote:

"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:ctqfcu$832$8@sparta.btinternet.com...

"Tom Capizzi" <etianshrdlu@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:mLWLd.2193$ya6.841@trndny01...

"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in
message
news:ctp0j9$kih$1@hercules.btinternet.com...

"Tom Capizzi" <etianshrdlu@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:2HRLd.420$t46.371@trndny04...

"TomGee" <lvlus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107279972.314247.150990@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
To: Tom Cappizzi

Neither of the twins can see each other, and they don't,
until
the
astronaut twin lands back on Earth. I did not say both of
them
age
slower; SR claims the astronaut twin ages slower than his
Earthbound
twin

I know that isn't what you said. This particular claim is not
the
paradox,
either. This is merely time dilation.

There is no actual time dilation; it is only an effect
resulting
from
the fact that the time rate of the spaceship slowed compared
to
the
Earth's time rate each and everytime the ship's speed
exceeded
the
Earth's speed. Each time the ship went faster, it aged at a
rate
slower than the Earth.

And that is time dilation. Maybe you should inform us what you
define
time dilation to be.

And what does "by the relative nature of velocity" mean?


That means that the earthbound twin observes the traveler to
be
moving
away from earth in some direction, say +x, at some velocity
+v.
The
traveler observes the earth moving away from him along the x
axis
at -v.
Since the relativistic factor gamma depends on the square of
relative
velocity, each sees the other as time dilated by the same
factor.
That is
the paradox.

No. That is not what is usually thought of as being the
paradox.
The
paradox only comes to light when they get together again.

Technically, I should have written that each expects to see the
other as
time
dilated by the same factor at the end of the trip.
However, is it not also true that each would "see" clocks in the
other's
frame
of reference running slow during the trip?

They cannot make the comparison at all until they meet up again.

Agreed that they can't compare each other's clock until they meet.
But Special Relativity is not restricted to a couple of clocks in
specific
locations (or paths). It is perfectly legitimate to imagine that an
entire
network of clocks has been installed along the course. Einstein
gives
a procedure for synchronizing all of them. Then doesn't the
astronaut
observe all the stationary clocks along the way running slow?

Yes. I think you are right. He will see all the clocks reading low
as he passes each one.

[snip]

Franz
Back to top
FrediFizzx
science forum Guru


Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 774

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 8:30 pm    Post subject: Re: Virtual particles Reply with quote

"Davorak" <Talk2plant@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107357385.924852.156720@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
| If particle A and B are spontaneously created out of the vacuum they
| are not required to destroy each other. Lets say A is the particle
and
| B is the anti-particle. A and B spring into existence B could meet up
| with C and those two could destroy each other. This leaves A to roam
| free. C and A are the same type of particle. This still conserves
| vacuum energy.

In fact, you can apply this to real elementary fermions also. A real
electron can swap with a virtual electron. Who is going to know or be
able to tell the difference?

| As far as I know A and B spawn almost on top of each other then
destroy
| each other a little ways off or at the same spot.
|
| Again as far as I know A and B would not be created half way across
the
| universe from each other. While this my be possible, it would be
| highly unlikely.

The probability definitely approaches zero.

| They usually destroy each other because one is a particle and the
other
| is an antiparticle. Meaning that they have equal and opposite charge.
| So they attract through the electric field.

Yep. They don't get too far away from each other most of the time
unless there is some kind of external help.

FrediFizzx
Back to top
Tom Capizzi
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 162

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 8:30 pm    Post subject: Re: What is this "internal clock" in muon which slows down its rate of decay when they move very fast? Reply with quote

"TomGee" <lvlus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107371077.415025.11570@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Quote:
To: Tom Capizzi
No, it is untrue that they can't compare each other's clocks during the
trip. Video communications are not impossible so long as the speed of
both observers remains below c. But what's the point?

Comparison of each other's clock is complicated by the limitations of
light speed. It is not impossible, but it is non-trivial. As I mentioned to
Franz, I was referring to the hypothetical grid of synchronized clocks
that Special Relativity assumes. All along the way there can be clocks
which will also show the time dilation. Given that the traveler does age
less, do you suppose it happens all at once? The Paradox doesn't
spontaneously appear only at the end of the trip. During the trip,
observers stationed at the remote clocks would also swear that the
onboard clock of the traveler was running slow, even as he swears
that the remote clocks were running slow.

Quote:
The experiment
has nothing to do with whether or not they can tell each other's passed
time during the trip. It has only to do with the fact that if they
meet up again they will see the differences in their ages.
TomGee
Back to top
Franz Heymann
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 03 Feb 2005
Posts: 282

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 8:30 pm    Post subject: Re: What is this "internal clock" in muon which slows down its rate of decay when they move very fast? Reply with quote

"TomGee" <lvlus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107371288.584641.174400@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Quote:
No, Franz, it has nothing to do with that atall. A does no
measuring
of his time and neither does B and since world lines are a product
of
the imaginary time-space math construct, they also have nothing to
do
whatsoever with the Twin Paradox experiment.

If you had not removed every vestige of headers and context, I might
have considered replying to you.

Franz
Back to top
Franz Heymann
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 03 Feb 2005
Posts: 282

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 8:30 pm    Post subject: Re: What is this "internal clock" in muon which slows down its rate of decay when they move very fast? Reply with quote

"TomGee" <lvlus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107371611.807487.193480@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Quote:
Oh, Franz, so you are "Michael Levin"? Or did you think I was
talking
to you?

Restore the headers and context if you expect me to reply.

Franz
Back to top
TomGee
science forum Guru


Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 636

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 8:30 pm    Post subject: Re: What is this "internal clock" in muon which slows down its rate of decay when they move very fast? Reply with quote

Oh, Franz, did I do that?
TomGee
Back to top
Brad Guth
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 06 Jun 2005
Posts: 106

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 8:30 pm    Post subject: Re: ISS as well as shuttle coffins, 100 g/cm2 as radiation shields Reply with quote

I have no falts with "NASA assertions", or even the assertions of
others.

How much of those NASA/Apollo missions were "assertions", and how much
was hard science? Are we talking 25%, 50%, 75% or perhaps 90%
"assertions"?

I've never had problems with all the terrific images of our moon
obtained from orbit, not from anything Apollo while in orbit, via Hubble
or even the likes of KECK, as they each managed to depict a mostly
basalt dark moon as it should be, in places as little as 3%(coal like)
reflective, at best 25% reflecting within only an extremely few maximum
lunar white-out zones. However, I still have some questions as to the
surface conditions that seem to defy all sorts of physics as recorded by
the unfiltered Kodak eye.

However, once supposedly situated upon the lunar surface, why was there
so much of that basalt lunar terrain that was 55+% reflective?

How is it that selective portions of this already oddly bright
reflective lunar terrain (hardly a basalt rock nor meteorite shard in
sight), that there were so many of those intensive retro-reflective
zones surrounding a given atronaut?

Why was there's never an indication of having darker substances of raw
basalt exposed under and/or all about those undocumented fly-by-rocket
landers, as depicted from images obtained from orbit that clearly
indicated as 5% or less reflective index wherever NASA/Apollo pointed
out as being their official landing sites?

Why wasn't it much hotter than reported while supposedly walking upon
the actual dark basalt lunar surface?

At 1.4 kw/m2 worth of continual and unobstructed influx, and therefore
doesn't any portion of IR energy reflect and thereby contribute?

Isn't the radiant influx along with the added portion of radiated IR
energy coming off the lunar surface technically far worse off than
conductive forms of heat that can be easily insulated against?

Why was the Kodak eye (unfiltered except for a full spectrum band-pass
polarised filter that should have made the lunar surface record as
darker, certainly not lighter) so unable to record the 256 fold increase
in near-UV and UV/a energy?

Since there's no atmosphere for diffusing raw sunlight, shouldn't those
polarise filtered images have become recorded as extremely polarised?

Where the heck was the likes of the Sirius star system all of this time?

Shouldn't the tremendus intensity of such a near-UV and UV/a spectrum of
Sirius have burned into a few of those Kodak moments?

Where was good old blazing (80+% reflective) Venus all of this time?

Shouldn't Venus upon at least two of thse missions have been photo
recorded as nearly as bright as per those 85% reflective moonsuits?

Why was the film exposure to the 'blue' spectrum of our American flag so
unusually subdued?

How in the freaking heck did the raw solar spectrum become so nicely
xenon like?

Why was the 3.1 g/cm lunar basalt and other supposedly heavier
substances so none-reactive?

Where did all the meteorites and their impact strewn shards go?

Why was there never so much as a dust-bunny impacting at 30 km/s or even
3 km/s?

Why is there still absolutely nothing of interactive of scientific
instrumentation deployed upon the moon?

Isn't there any functioning and thereby R&D documented AI/robotic lander
that'll at least manage a one-way lunar deployment, and if so, where's
the documentation?

What's the secondary TBI X-Ray dosage difference between the fully
illuminated side of the moon as compared to the nighttime side and/or
earthshine environment, or didn't our command modules (on 8+ Apollo
occasions) and numerous other robotic missions before and after ever
once bother as to recording squat, as to obtaining such raw surface
emissions of thermal and radiation levels that should have been rather
easily obtaining such important data upon these sorts of differentials,
especially from such a relatively low (100+km) orbits?

In a little further research retrospective;
Exactly how long does it require for ice to vaporise in space?

The same goes for dry-ice(frozen CO2), how much time per ccm or per m3
into becoming vapor?

So as it stands, there's still no consensus nor any apparent method of
pulling one together for that of establishing space radiation data, we
still don't know squat about plain old ice or even dry-ice in space, we
don't have a freaking clue as to the surface IR nor TBI differences
between lunar day/night, we have no apparent science upon a purely
zero-orbit gravity drop and subsequent lunar impact data as to the final
velocity, thereby we still have zlich upon the available kinetic energy
release as per cratering the moon, and we still don't have a single
interactive surface instrument telling us squat about the moon (not even
the LUNAR-A form of impact intended probes), nor have we anything from
the perspective of the moon as to improving whatever Earth science
(unless you've got something better than a .05 milliradian blue laser
cannon, and one hell of a nifty tracking capability, those supposed
retro-reflectors are a physics joke, as damn near a RadioShack
photo-strobe transponder would have been doable at 1% the weight,
probably 0.1% the cost, offering a 1 beam of at least a million times
more detectable photons).

In spite of all the orchestrated flak imposed against my suggestions on
behalf of seriously accomplishing good and honorable intentions on
behalf of ISS, I also managed to create a few other related topics,
several of which are not specifically about our moon or Titan, though in
more than a few ways offering just about everything under the sun on
behalf of improving future space exploration and just plain old space
travel bang for the buck/euro that's at least indirectly related to
folks utilizing our moon as a rather necessary gravitational booster
shot. Of such missions passing as close to the moon as possible hasn't
even been such a new idea, it just so happens to coincide with the even
better physics and science logic and numerous other values of what the
LSE-CM/ISS is good for.

"Terraforming the moon, before doing Mars or Venus"
"The Moon, LSE-CM/ISS, Venus and beyond, with He3 to burn"
"Lunar/Moon Space Elevator, plus another ISS within the CM"
"Space Policy Sucks, while there's Life on Venus"
"Ice Ages directly regulated by Sirius"
"SETI/GUTH Venus, no kidding"
"Terraforming the moon"
"Relocate ISS to ME-L1"

Relocation of ISS to ME-L1 is certainly a task that's much easier said
than done, but at least it's something that's been doable. For the
benefit of salvaging our environment, extracting and exporting
helium-3(He3/3He) to Earth is just offering a little beneficial fusion
icing on the cake.

I'll offer another topic of "TRACE-->TRACE-II-->VL2" as having
absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with our moon, of which this will
only further prove my point that these forums summarily suck.

I really don't know for absolute certainty that my highly subjective
interpretations of the published information about our moon, that I find
oddly missing certain details or at least representing incomplete
science, are any different than of my highly subjective interpretations
of those images obtained by the Magellan mission, as persay representing
the one and only last word. As unlike our resident warlord, I could be
wrong, but at least my mistakes are not as such involving war crimes
against humanity.

Deductive reasoning has generally functioned just fine and dandy getting
myself this far in life without too much trouble, nor have I been
getting someone other killed in the process. Whereas I'm still not at
all convinced that our perpetrated cold-war administrations, and of all
those supporting such actions, can say the same.

Regards, Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 92 [1376 Posts] Goto page:  1, 2, 3, ..., 90, 91, 92 Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Sat Jun 24, 2017 10:21 pm | All times are GMT
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Particle
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts Units for electric field strength Gavin Electromagnetics 0 Thu Aug 24, 2006 3:00 pm
No new posts Infinitesimal generator of a vector field Julien Santini Math 0 Fri Jul 21, 2006 8:01 am
No new posts Behaviour of a Ball (Bouncing and Spinning) Jonas Huckestein Physics 0 Thu Jul 20, 2006 2:38 pm
No new posts Vector field flow problem - help? Daniel Nierro Math 1 Wed Jul 19, 2006 10:28 am
No new posts Geomagnetic field reason h_v_ansari@yahoo.com Electromagnetics 2 Tue Jul 18, 2006 3:34 pm

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: Electronics forum |  Medicine forum |  Unix/Linux blog |  Unix/Linux documentation |  Unix/Linux forums  |  send newsletters
 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.0433s ][ Queries: 16 (0.0067s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]