Arthur Dent wrote:

But from *inside* a spaceship travelling at c an observer will measure
c as
being c ?

Yes, light a candle inside the ship and the speed of the light it emits
inside will be c.
To someone outside and ahead of the ship it will be c+v, BLUE shifted.

The frequency gets higher, the wavelength gets smaller by the same amount.
They cancel each other out when multiplied together to get the speed of light:

c = length(wave) /time (frequency)

You will see a blue shift, but the speed of light will still be c.

If idiots like sal think that time would slow down on the ship,
stopping altogether when the ship travels at c, the candle would stop
burning!

Time Dilation for Particles at the Stanford Linear Accelerator:
http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/th...elativity.html

Note the siimilar equation used:

v = distance / time

Now you can decide for yourself whether this means time dilation
has actually slowed down the internal clocks of the Tau particles,
or, that fast Tau motion just red-shifted its spectrum of decay times
leaving its proper time constant.

"Obtuse" wrote in message
...
|
|
| Arthur Dent wrote:
|
| But from *inside* a spaceship travelling at c an observer will measure
| c as
| being c ?
|
| Yes, light a candle inside the ship and the speed of the light it emits
| inside will be c.
| To someone outside and ahead of the ship it will be c+v, BLUE shifted.
|
| The frequency gets higher, the wavelength gets smaller by the same amount.
| They cancel each other out when multiplied together to get the speed of
light:
|
| c = length(wave) /time (frequency)
|
| You will see a blue shift, but the speed of light will still be c.
|
| If idiots like sal think that time would slow down on the ship,
| stopping altogether when the ship travels at c, the candle would stop
| burning!
|
| Time Dilation for Particles at the Stanford Linear Accelerator:
| http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/th...elativity.html
|
snip

Liked your link but would add a little addition in that as c it transferred
from frame to frame so must its zero base be, this to keep c constant across
frames and maintain mathematical coherence. Also is there not a small
problem with gamma as it appears not to be able to cope with v = c ? If we
accelerated tau by accelerating the accelerator to 0.5 c in the direction we
are accelerating tau in then if all other statements in this document are
complied with then from the original frame the accelerator was at rest in
tau would have a life time of infinity? *if* gamma was a valid and complete
equation and could cope with the reality of v = c ?
--
Significant Zero E-field = Electric field, M-field =Magnetic field, two
unbound field effects
http://home.freeuk.com/paulps/
Maybe updates. The spuds, beans and onions are coming up nicely. Ooh
ah.{:-)

"Obtuse" wrote in message ...


Arthur Dent wrote:

But from *inside* a spaceship travelling at c an observer will measure
c as
being c ?

Yes, light a candle inside the ship and the speed of the light it emits
inside will be c.
To someone outside and ahead of the ship it will be c+v, BLUE shifted.

The frequency gets higher, the wavelength gets smaller by the same amount.
They cancel each other out when multiplied together to get the speed of light:

c = length(wave) /time (frequency)

You will see a blue shift, but the speed of light will still be c.

If idiots like sal think that time would slow down on the ship,
stopping altogether when the ship travels at c, the candle would stop
burning!

Time Dilation for Particles at the Stanford Linear Accelerator:
http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/th...elativity.html

That web page has always been a burr in my saddle for it's
inconsistancies and omissions.
Specifically we are given no clue what kind of Gnome winds
the muons internal clock.... then on another page (from the same site)
we are given reason to suspect that it isn't internal at all but rather directly
related to the particle's motion.
Any decay that can happen, will happen.
Decay rates depend on the type of interaction and on the
amount of energy "released," that is, energy converted from
mass energy to kinetic energy.
Decays can happen only if all conservation laws can be
obeyed. For example:
http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/decays.html

Decays can happen only if all conservation laws can be
obeyed. For example:
http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/decays.html

Few would question that matter zipping past a muon has
all the couplings to affect the particles life-time....
But this is far from any proof of an internal clock that
*goes* as it is *judged* over a non-zero length path.

Relativity The Special and General Theory
The Behaviour of Measuring-Rods and Clocks in Motion
http://www.bartleby.com/173/12.html

Kind regards,
Sue...
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...lativity?hl=en


cc: Helen Quinn
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/owner/quinn





Note the siimilar equation used:

v = distance / time

Now you can decide for yourself whether this means time dilation
has actually slowed down the internal clocks of the Tau particles,
or, that fast Tau motion just red-shifted its spectrum of decay times
leaving its proper time constant.

sue jahn wrote:

"Obtuse" wrote in message ...

Arthur Dent wrote:

But from *inside* a spaceship travelling at c an observer will measure
c as
being c ?

Yes, light a candle inside the ship and the speed of the light it emits
inside will be c.
To someone outside and ahead of the ship it will be c+v, BLUE shifted.

The frequency gets higher, the wavelength gets smaller by the same amount.
They cancel each other out when multiplied together to get the speed of light:

c = length(wave) /time (frequency)

You will see a blue shift, but the speed of light will still be c.

If idiots like sal think that time would slow down on the ship,
stopping altogether when the ship travels at c, the candle would stop
burning!

Time Dilation for Particles at the Stanford Linear Accelerator:
http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/th...elativity.html

That web page has always been a burr in my saddle for it's
inconsistancies and omissions.
Specifically we are given no clue what kind of Gnome winds
the muons internal clock.... then on another page (from the same site)
we are given reason to suspect that it isn't internal at all but rather directly
related to the particle's motion.

Any decay that can happen, will happen.
Decay rates depend on the type of interaction and on the
amount of energy "released," that is, energy converted from
mass energy to kinetic energy.
Decays can happen only if all conservation laws can be
obeyed. For example:
http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/decays.html

Decays can happen only if all conservation laws can be
obeyed. For example:
http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/decays.html

Few would question that matter zipping past a muon has
all the couplings to affect the particles life-time....
But this is far from any proof of an internal clock that
*goes* as it is *judged* over a non-zero length path.

You could sum that all up and say that: anything *statistical*
like decay times in a Special Relativity proof clouds the
issue of time dilation and is not the kind of SR proof
that we would prefer. I agree with you there.

So now my question is this:
Is the proper time of a Tau particle considered the same as
a mode of a distribution of Tau particle decay times ?

Even though some particles survive longer than their expected
(statistical) decay lifetimes, can we say that this is happening
for all of the particles equally, or is it happening for just some
particles in a particular mode of their distribution of decay times ?

The Slac website says:
"(Of course, we actually observe a spread of decay times
according to the exponential decay law and a corresponding
spread of distances. In fact, we use the measured distribution
of distances to find the tau half-life.)"
So it is not clear to me if they are presenting a tautology here.

One should be clear what a mode, a mean and a median are.
A simple "average" for instance, can be interpreted
(and misrepresented) in many ways:
http://www.andrews.edu/~calkins/math...xts/stat04.htm
I'm also very surprised they didn't present a nice before-and-after
chart showing the shift of the distribution of Tau decay times.

But as I mentioned earlier it does seem to shed
some light on just what the time dilation is.
It is affecting a distribution, the distribution of decay times.

We see similar things happening elsewhere. A red-shift is
a spectral shift. The spectral distribution of a star is
shifted towards the red end, and (phenomenalogically at least)
we can say that could be because it is moving away from us.
We don't say that the relative motion of the star is actually
shifting it's spectrum in the Star's own rest frame.
Spectral shifts are therefore velocity dependent (speed + direction)
because we'd expect a blue shift if the stars were moving towards us.

The Tau decay times are also a distribution and it shifts
according to their speed, except that it always shifts
in the same direction regardless of the direction of the
particles. That is, the decay times always increase,
they never get shorter. So we can tentatively say that the
time dilation of Tau decay time distribution is speed dependent,
but not velocity dependent.

If we could make their decay times shorter, then we would
have solved the problem of nuclear waste disposal,
and wine aging.

Just my opinion as it stands at this particular moment.
Terms and agreements are subject to change without notice.


Relativity The Special and General Theory
The Behaviour of Measuring-Rods and Clocks in Motion
http://www.bartleby.com/173/12.html

Kind regards,
Sue...
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...lativity?hl=en


cc: Helen Quinn
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/owner/quinn



Note the siimilar equation used:

v = distance / time

Now you can decide for yourself whether this means time dilation
has actually slowed down the internal clocks of the Tau particles,
or, that fast Tau motion just red-shifted its spectrum of decay times
leaving its proper time constant.

"Obtuse" wrote in message ...
sue jahn wrote:

"Obtuse" wrote in message ...

Arthur Dent wrote:

But from *inside* a spaceship travelling at c an observer will measure
c as
being c ?

Yes, light a candle inside the ship and the speed of the light it emits
inside will be c.
To someone outside and ahead of the ship it will be c+v, BLUE shifted.

The frequency gets higher, the wavelength gets smaller by the same amount.
They cancel each other out when multiplied together to get the speed of light:

c = length(wave) /time (frequency)

You will see a blue shift, but the speed of light will still be c.

If idiots like sal think that time would slow down on the ship,
stopping altogether when the ship travels at c, the candle would stop
burning!

Time Dilation for Particles at the Stanford Linear Accelerator:
http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/th...elativity.html

That web page has always been a burr in my saddle for it's
inconsistancies and omissions.
Specifically we are given no clue what kind of Gnome winds
the muons internal clock.... then on another page (from the same site)
we are given reason to suspect that it isn't internal at all but rather directly
related to the particle's motion.

Any decay that can happen, will happen.
Decay rates depend on the type of interaction and on the
amount of energy "released," that is, energy converted from
mass energy to kinetic energy.
Decays can happen only if all conservation laws can be
obeyed. For example:
http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/decays.html

Decays can happen only if all conservation laws can be
obeyed. For example:
http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/decays.html

Few would question that matter zipping past a muon has
all the couplings to affect the particles life-time....
But this is far from any proof of an internal clock that
*goes* as it is *judged* over a non-zero length path.

You could sum that all up and say that: anything *statistical*
like decay times in a Special Relativity proof clouds the
issue of time dilation and is not the kind of SR proof
that we would prefer. I agree with you there.

So now my question is this:
Is the proper time of a Tau particle considered the same as
a mode of a distribution of Tau particle decay times ?

Even though some particles survive longer than their expected
(statistical) decay lifetimes, can we say that this is happening
for all of the particles equally, or is it happening for just some
particles in a particular mode of their distribution of decay times ?

The Slac website says:
"(Of course, we actually observe a spread of decay times
according to the exponential decay law and a corresponding
spread of distances. In fact, we use the measured distribution
of distances to find the tau half-life.)"
So it is not clear to me if they are presenting a tautology here.

One should be clear what a mode, a mean and a median are.
A simple "average" for instance, can be interpreted
(and misrepresented) in many ways:
http://www.andrews.edu/~calkins/math...xts/stat04.htm
I'm also very surprised they didn't present a nice before-and-after
chart showing the shift of the distribution of Tau decay times.

But as I mentioned earlier it does seem to shed
some light on just what the time dilation is.
It is affecting a distribution, the distribution of decay times.

How could it? *Time dialtion* has no basis except as
a metaphysical construction where clocks may go as
they are judged over a non-zero length path. Only the
space between the ears and Never-land permits such
constructions.


We see similar things happening elsewhere. A red-shift is
a spectral shift. The spectral distribution of a star is
shifted towards the red end, and (phenomenalogically at least)
we can say that could be because it is moving away from us.
We don't say that the relative motion of the star is actually
shifting it's spectrum in the Star's own rest frame.

Whaddya mean *WE* Kemosabe. There is relative motion
between the star and the matter in the extinction distance.

Spectral shifts are therefore velocity dependent (speed + direction)
because we'd expect a blue shift if the stars were moving towards us.

I don't think the stars or their local dielectric know very much
about us or what we expect to see.


The Tau decay times are also a distribution and it shifts
according to their speed, except that it always shifts
in the same direction regardless of the direction of the
particles. That is, the decay times always increase,
they never get shorter. So we can tentatively say that the
time dilation of Tau decay time distribution is speed dependent,
but not velocity dependent.

But unless all particles exhibit the same curve, we can
infer nothining about the common denominator, time.
I have never seen a table of particles that decay in a
resonable observation time whose life time is extended
by the Lorentz gamma factor.


If we could make their decay times shorter, then we would
have solved the problem of nuclear waste disposal,
and wine aging.

I have already solved the problem of wine aging.
Vigilent consumption is the best way to prevent it. ;-)


Just my opinion as it stands at this particular moment.
Terms and agreements are subject to change without notice.

Good comments. Many thanks for the input.

Sue...



Relativity The Special and General Theory
The Behaviour of Measuring-Rods and Clocks in Motion
http://www.bartleby.com/173/12.html

Kind regards,
Sue...
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...lativity?hl=en


cc: Helen Quinn
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/owner/quinn



Note the siimilar equation used:

v = distance / time

Now you can decide for yourself whether this means time dilation
has actually slowed down the internal clocks of the Tau particles,
or, that fast Tau motion just red-shifted its spectrum of decay times
leaving its proper time constant.

http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/*vvc/t...elativity.html

Einstein's theory of special relativity results from two statements --
the two basic postulates of special relativity:

1. The speed of light is the same for all observers, no matter what
their relative speeds.


This is abject nonsense.
Nowhere in "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" does Einstein
state that as a postulate. What he actually says is
"also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently
irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated
in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the
state of motion of the emitting body. These two postulates suffice for
the attainment of a simple and consistent theory".

Then Einstein DEFINES time as "we establish by definition that the
``time'' required by light to travel from A to B equals the ``time'' it
requires to travel from B to A. "

Reference:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www

Therefore the Stanford author of that page doesn't have a clue what
he's talking about and is making it up.
As for your v = distance/time, consider a wave moving at 1 meter/second
past you.
You are standing at x = 0, t = 0, where there is a crest.
There is another crest at x = 1, t =0, another at x = 2, t = 0, x= 3, t
= 0 and so on.
During one second, the crest at x = 1 travels toward you and arrives at
x = 0, t = 1.
Now suppose you move toward the source at 1 meter/second.
That means that the speed of the wave, relative to you, is 2
meters/second, right?
A surf rider that started at x = 2 just below the crest would be 2
meters closer to you in that one second.
Yet when you arrive at x = 1, t = 1 you find a crest. One wavelength
has passed you
in one meter and took one second to do so. So the speed of the wave,
relative to you,
is 1 meter/second by the equation speed = wavelength/ time in
contradiction to it being 2 meters/second for the surf rider.
What's gone wrong?
Simple: the crest at x = 2, t = 0 met you at x = 1, t = 1, and you
counted the wrong crest.
We have to use the source frequency, not the observed frequency, and
when we do that,
low and behold the speed of the wave is c+v.
So when we observe doppler shift, we have proved that the speed of
light is source dependent and is c+v for the observer.
The surf rider experiences zero frequency, since the height of the
wave he is on never changes, so the speed of the wave, relative to him,
is zero = wavelength * frequency and his frequency is zero.

So yes, I can decide for myself that there is no such thing as time
dilation and Einstein's
definition of time is nonsensical. I'm certainly not interested in some
web page that misquotes Einstein and makes up their own version of SR,
calling it Einstein's.



AD.

Are you preaching to the choir?

The author is Helen Quinn
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/o*wner/quinn


)
Sue...

.... and while you are on a roll maybe you can get BNL to
fix some similar sins on their g-2 anomaly pages.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...on&btnG=Search


I would tend to this myself but must be off to the department store
to what is the latest fashion in sackcloth and ashes for abusers
of the terms loop and node. ;-)

Sue...

"not the kind of SR proof
that we would prefer. "

What kind would you prefer?
Something that made logical sense, perhaps?
Or a disproof?
If you want logic, begin with Einstein's "definition" that it takes
the same amount of time fro light to travel from B to A as it does from
A to B.
He uses x' as the distance AB, then calculates in the stationary frame
x'/ (c+v) and x'/(c-v), adds these together, creates a function
tau(t) and says
1/2 of tau [ x'/(c+v) + x'/(c-v) ] = tau [ x'/(c-v) ]

From that he derives his "lorentz transforms" and the quantity you call
gamma.

He doesn't bother with the other half,

1/2 of tau [ x'/(c+v) + x'/(c-v) ] = tau [ x'/(c+v) ]

since that wouldn't agree with Lorentz and would show that
tau[x'/(c+v)] = tau[x'/(c-v)]
or v = 0.

What he prefers to confuse you with is "the velocity of light in our
theory plays the part, physically, of an infinitely great velocity."
-reference http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www
Division by an infinitely great velocity makes x' /(c+v) "play the part
of, physically" an infinitessimally small time.


AD.

"sue jahn" wrote in message
...

Snip
| But unless all particles exhibit the same curve, we can
| infer nothining about the common denominator, time.
| I have never seen a table of particles that decay in a
| resonable observation time whose life time is extended
| by the Lorentz gamma factor.

If you take half a dozen old guys of varying ages and time dilate them they
wont all keel over on the same day, there will be a spread so the undertaker
don't have to put all the bodies in the domestic freezer with the frozen
chips. What sort of army training have you had to expect us all to die off
at the same moment hower much we have been dilated by the gin {:-)
--
Significant Zero E-field = Electric field, M-field =Magnetic field, two
unbound field effects
http://home.freeuk.com/paulps/
Maybe updates. The spuds, beans and onions are coming up nicely. Ooh
ah.{:-)