Absolute Velocity?

[Thabiguy]

GMB,

I created a special thread dedicated to your claims.

If you want to continue discussing your claims that there is no such thing as time dilation, that relativity of simultaneity is rubbish, that frames of reference are spoon-bender distractions, or other claims about the special theory of relativity being wrong, falsified, unfalsifiable and/or pseudoscientific, please do it in that thread.

Thank you.

 

[GMB]

No you go right ahead. It would just be better if there was a little bit of skepticism and science in this discussion. I don't think its up to you which threads I speak on. You would seem to be getting above your station in life.

Now we had the Dingle refutation. We had the answer to it. But it failed because all believers came up with a different solution. Not realizing that the twins refutation was the self-same thing.

So we can see here that the refutation stands. Where too from here for the religiously inclined?

 

[sol invictus]

"Except that it's been experimentally observed. Small fly in your ointment there, pal."

No it hasn't. There is no such thing as time dilation.

The only reason any of us is responding to you is for our own entertainment. But if you just ignore the facts and keep repeating falsehoods, we're going to get really bored. You'll have to do better.

Why don't you explain to us why a 20GeV muon lasts about 200 times as long before decaying as a muon at rest?

 

[GMB]

Well I can tell you that its nothing to do with velocity. Have you experimentally eliminated for acceleration? How statistically good is this? Given that these matters work on half-lives it would be hard to get statistical significance on such a thing.

You didn't think to eliminate for acceleration did you? Not smart.

Its pretty much scraping the bottom of the barrel to have to drag subatomic particles into this. Particularly when everything we know about the subatomic stuff tends to be so indirect and speculative. Pretty much a confession of lack of other evidence to be dragging such small critters into it. Got anything, lets say, larger than a water molecule? Got anything larger than a grain of sand to back this self-contradictory theory up? I don't THINK!!!!so.

Two clocks refutation. The response to it. Lets talk about highly theoretical critters we have indirect knowledge of. Yeah thats proof right there. Sure THATS proof.

 

[sol invictus]

Well I can tell you that its nothing to do with velocity. Have you experimentally eliminated for acceleration? How statistically good is this? Given that these matters work on half-lives it would be hard to get statistical significance on such a thing.

You didn't think to eliminate for acceleration did you? No smart.

Why in the world would accelerating something make it last longer? What an odd thing to say... unless you believe in relativity, that is.

But regardless, it's incredibly easy to do an experiment on the muon lifetime that uses muons that undergo no acceleration. Just put a detector anywhere on earth. As for statistics, the lifetime is known to 6 significant figures, which means about a trillion data points for that experiment alone.

 

[Thabiguy]

I don't think its up to you which threads I speak on.

It is up to you where you speak, and up to you to ensure that your posts are on topic, as the Membership agreement requires. I created a thread where your claims are always on topic, and I politely asked that you discuss your stuff in a thread where it is on topic, as a basic courtesy to other forum members. That is all.

If you prefer to ignore people who want to debate with you in the thread that is exclusively dedicated to your claims (there have been a few), that's your call.

 

[GMB]

"Why in the world would accelerating something make it last longer??

WELL ITS NOT VELOCITY. Of that we can be sure. So if the taxeaters haven't allowed for any other factor they are wasting money. So you haven't allowed for acceleration right? And how do you detect Muons at rest? Where are they when they are resting? Again. This is scraping the absolute bottom of the barrel if you need to go to theoretical subatomic particles for your alleged evidence.

"What an odd thing to say... unless you believe in relativity, that is."

Actually not at all. Given the structure of atoms you would expect acceleration to have all kinds of effects. But thats not the real deal here. You think you have evidence. But it doesn't mean squat if you haven't ruled out as many other possibilities as you possibly can.

"But regardless, it's incredibly easy to do an experiment on the muon lifetime that uses muons that undergo no acceleration. Just put a detector anywhere on earth. As for statistics, the lifetime is known to 6 significant figures, which means about a trillion data points for that experiment alone."

Now hang on a minute. You are saying this doesn't even have the sort of control you would get in an accelerator?

This is speculation built on winging it built on conjecture. But the fact is if special relativity was for real you would have some more tangible evidence than that.

Muons hey? You tell me how you detect muons and I'll bet we are looking at something pretty indirect.

"It is up to you where you speak..." I'm glad we finally have that sorted. How is that? I never would have known it.

 

[sol invictus]

WELL ITS NOT VELOCITY. Of that we can be sure.

Really? So what about the flux of muons from cosmic rays? What about muons produced at rest? What about muoniom (a muon bound to an electron)? What about hundreds of other experiments I could mention?

So if the taxeaters haven't allowed for any other factor they are wasting money. So you haven't allowed for acceleration right?

Don't be stupid. Of course acceleration is taken into account - that's what theories are good for, rather than the random nonsense you're spouting.

And how do you detect Muons at rest? Where are they when they are resting?

In a detector. It's done literally billions of times per second in facilities across the world.

Again. This is scraping the absolute bottom of the barrel if you need to go to theoretical subatomic particles for your alleged evidence.

Another proof you have no idea what you're talking about. Muons are about as far from theoretical as you can get, and we understand their properties extraordinarily well (for example we can predict their behavior FAR better than we can that of macroscopic clocks).

More relevantly, subatomic particles are very light, which means it's common for them to move at relativistic speeds where these effects are most clear.

Actually not at all. Given the structure of atoms

Muons aren't atoms. Fail.

you would expect acceleration to have all kinds of effects.

They are elementary particles (not that that matters). Fail.

But thats not the real deal here. You think you have evidence. But it doesn't mean squat if you haven't ruled out as many other possibilities as you possibly can.

Nonsense. Science proceeds by building theories which explain the data. If, or when, someone comes along with a better one, the older one gets replaced. No one ever has, but the floor is open - go ahead.

Now hang on a minute. You are saying this doesn't even have the sort of control you would get in an accelerator?

You have cosmic ray muons, muons from reactors, muons from accelerators. Not to mention all the other unstable particles whose lifetimes have been measured. Literally trillions of experimental data points, all perfectly consistent with relativity, and repeatedly tested every day under extreme circumstances where you get time-dilation factors of 1000s and more.

So, are you going to answer my question? Why do 20GeV muons live 200 times as long as muons at rest?

 

[GMB]

We hear always that the quantum world is different. That the rules don't apply. That quantum physics was invented to apply to matters in the subatomic sphere.

Then when asked to find some evidence about 2 clocks we get Sol Invictus retreating to this otherworldly tinyness to effect this alleged evidence that he reckons he has.

But everyone knows that anything we know about these tiny things is highly theoretical and speculative.

Where is your evidence about the two clocks? And where is your evidence elmininating for acceleration? And if you have evidence for the two clocks business why did you say that they both run slower IN ABSOLUTE DEFIANCE OF YOUR CLAIM TO DO WITH MUONS.

Afterall we had different answers to the Dingle refutation. And with your muon alleged evidence you've rather changed sides on this matter.

"Literally trillions of experimental data points" What a load of rubbish. Thats like claiming you have some oddball theory about light and that this theory is confirmed billions of times on the ground that it is confirmed each time someone turns on a light anywhere in the world.

We see a very different idea of what constitutes evidence from your crowd. Trillions of data points indeed.

Now your muon evidence goes against your own two clocks story. Get yourself some evidence that works in your favour. And how about a bit of evidence from things that are on the spectrum larger than a grain of sand.

"Nonsense. Science proceeds by building theories which explain the data. If, or when, someone comes along with a better one, the older one gets replaced. No one ever has, but the floor is open - go ahead."

Thats a total failure of epistemological understanding since it obvious here that you are prejudicing the status quo.

"Muons aren't atoms. Fail." I didn't claim they were. The failure is all your own. I'm unconvinced that you have allowed for acceleration. And why did you go against your own interpretation of the two clocks refutation? That was just about the most bizzare thing you could do. No-one demanded you go for your own particular interpretation. You could have said that the one that was slower lived less long. But that would have been illogical since velocity is relative.

Again. This is scraping the absolute bottom of the barrel if you need to go to theoretical subatomic particles for your alleged evidence. Get some live-sized evidence. Some grown-up-sized gear that doesn't directly contradict what you claimed earlier.

 

[sol invictus]

We hear always that the quantum world is different. That the rules don't apply.

Quantum field theory is Lorentz invariant - precisely the same relativistic rules apply to it.

Why are you posting with such arrogance on a topic you obviously don't know even the first thing about?

Where is your evidence about the two clocks? And where is your evidence elmininating for acceleration?

This thing about acceleration is incomprehensible. If you agree acceleration can cause time dilation you've contradicted yourself, since earlier you tried to claim simultaneity was absolute. If accelerated clocks run slow, that's impossible.

And if you have evidence for the two clocks business why did you say that they both run slower IN ABSOLUTE DEFIANCE OF YOUR CLAIM TO DO WITH MUONS.

Nope - it's perfectly consistent. In our reference frame the muons "clock" runs slowly, so they last longer. If you were flying along with the muon, you'd see the earth's clocks running slowly by the same factor.

Afterall we had different answers to the Dingle refutation.

No we didn't, not that it matters.

And with your muon alleged evidence you've rather changed sides on this matter.

No, you're just not bright enough to understand the answers.

"Literally trillions of experimental data points" What a load of rubbish. Thats like claiming you have some oddball theory about light and that this theory is confirmed billions of times on the ground that it is confirmed each time someone turns on a light anywhere in the world.

Good example... if my oddball theory could explain the characteristics of all those lights to 12 significant figures, I'd have a Nobel and you'd still be an anonymous troll.

We see a very different idea of what constitutes evidence from your crowd. Trillions of data points indeed.

Yep and "my crowd" is everyone else in the world. Yours is one anonymous, ignorant, arrogant, and loud-mouthed internet troll.

I'm unconvinced that you have allowed for acceleration.

I couldn't possibly care less, and neither could anyone else. Enough of this stupidity.

 

[GMB]

Obviously you have to be able to allow for all factors including acceleration. Because velocity isn't going to do the job. Now you are being totally unconvincing in the idea that you have allowed for acceleration or all other factors that could be causing the phenomenon that you are bearing witness to. You cannot be charging along assuming it is an effect of velocity which it cannot be because velocity is a relative concept.

Now you claim that the quantum world is Lorentz invariant. You make a lot of wild claims. No doubt it is. But the quantum world is something known to us speculatively.

Get yourself some grown-up-size evidence champ. And lets have this evidence that the factor of acceleration has been ruled out in repeated attempts to falsify this theory.

Again. Why did you choose evidence that went against your own two-clocks interpretation?

You don't have literally trillions of data points. This is a foolish idea as to what constitutes evidence. AGAIN. This is akin to having an oddball theory of light and claiming trillions of data-points on the grounds that your oddball theory is confirmed each time a light anywhere in the world is turned off and on. Your snappy comeback in no way eliminated the same observation I made the first time around.

Grown up size evidence. Eliminate all other possibilities. GO!!!!!

 

[sol invictus]

Again. Why did you choose evidence that went against your own two-clocks interpretation?

Translation: "I am incapable of understanding even the most basic concepts in the theory I'm claiming is obviously wrong."

 

[GMB]

Lets see the evidence. I am totally unconvinced that you have eliminated for acceleration. Let alone anything else. Get some life-sized evidence. Something never so speculative as what you believe about sub-atomic particles which contradict your own two-clocks interpretation.

That you claimed trillions of data-points shows you have a hard time understanding what constitutes evidence in any shape or form. It really must be an incestuous priesthood this Rainman church of yours.

Your Muon assertions stand in direct contradiction to your own two-clocks interpretation but not in contradiction to different assertions based on twins. Which is really the same example. That your assertions to do with Muons contradict your two-clocks interpretation is obvious and not something you can slide away from.

But all these interpretations so far are wrong, even as they contradict eachother. And they are wrong because velocity is relative. So they quite literally CANNOT be right. They all couldn't be right for starters. Since they were contradictory to eachother. But as it turns out one of them wasn't right and the others wrong. Rather all of them were wrong. Since velocity is a relative concept.

The only thing we have evidence for here is that we have really lowered the evidence bar for these maths-boy 101 types. Trillions of data points. What a joke.

 

[sol invictus]

Lets see the evidence. I am totally unconvinced that you have eliminated for acceleration. Let alone anything else. Get some life-sized evidence. Something never so speculative as what you believe about sub-atomic particles which contradict your own two-clocks interpretation.

That you claimed trillions of data-points shows you have a hard time understanding what constitutes evidence in any shape or form. It really must be an incestuous priesthood this Rainman church of yours.

Translation: "I don't understand the theory I'm attacking or the evidence for it, so I'm going to ignore it all and keep spewing BS in hopes someone will pay attention to me. Pay attention to me!!!"

 

[Reality Check]

"Why in the world would accelerating something make it last longer??

WELL ITS NOT VELOCITY. Of that we can be sure. So if the taxeaters haven't allowed for any other factor they are wasting money. So you haven't allowed for acceleration right? And how do you detect Muons at rest? Where are they when they are resting? Again. This is scraping the absolute bottom of the barrel if you need to go to theoretical subatomic particles for your alleged evidence.
...snip...

Could you cite your evidence that I am sure that "WELL ITS NOT VELOCITY"?
Remember "we" includes you and me.

 

[nathan]

I wonder if Mercury is lifesized enough? Or Earth for that matter ...

 

[GMB]

Mercury doesn't prove a thing at all. Newtons system could have easily been modified to accommodate mercury. And any number of other theories of gravity could also accommodate Mercury. Einstein worked backwards from what he knew about Mercury. The orbit of Mercury is absolutely no evidence for Special Relativity whatsoever. But do try and press Sol Invictus on getting some actual evidence if you can. He's a bit of a joker. Its all roll up roll up roll up for the best evidence that ever lived. Yet when he comes out with it its all really underwhelming.

 

[GMB]

Could you cite your evidence that I am sure that "WELL ITS NOT VELOCITY"?
Remember "we" includes you and me.

Obviously its not velocity since velocity is a relative concept. So you have to test any such effect on the basis that it must be due to some other factor. Failing to do so is not science but toadying to the status quo.

 

[nathan]

I predict GMB will be suspended within 24 hours and then banned for abusing the Mods.

 

[GMB]

We want to stay focused here. We want to stay away from soothsaying and spoon-bending and either be finding evidence that overturns the Dingle refutation, which heretofore has proved total, or alternatively you could just admit that special relativity is total nonsense.

Then I guess matters would fall back to the Lorentz inner core. Which seems to be pretty good stuff.

By the way Nathan? What was your interpretation? Which clock runs slower? And what is your evidence for that interpretation? You have been holding out on us.