Relativity Geometry
Relativity - Affine Geometry ?
Einstein's special theory of relativity is about measurements between frames
of reference in a state of non acceleration. It is an observation that the
velocity of light is independent of the relative velocity between observer
and the source. From this Lorenz postulated a length contraction to allow
for this. Einstein derived the same equation from the observations.
If you look at this equation there is no special frame so any frame may be
taken as the reference frame.
Let us consider the passage of mesons from the origin in the upper
atmosphere to their arrival at a counter on the earth's surface. The
observer "sees" the origin from his frame and since he is "looking" at the
meson then this point is only a few feet above the laboratory roof because
of the Lorenz contraction. Thus accounting for the short passage time. The
"meson" "sees" the path it travels from the upper atmosphere to the surface
as the same few feet as it is "looking" at the observer's reference frame.
The Lorenz transformation

It is just a simultaneous equation.

The invariance of the velocity of light is an experimental result. It means
that when you measure the velocity of light some how the result is
independent of the velocity of the source, like a star or a lamp on a moving
bench.

If you can work out the time an aeroplane takes for a return journey west to
east with a constant east wind then you are well on the way to calculating
the Lorenz transform.

Suppose the aircraft does v knots through the air and the wind is u knots
over land then going from west to east d nautical miles the velocity is v-u
and it takes d/(v-u) hours to get there going back it takes d/(v+u) hours.
so the average is (d(1/v+u)+d(1/v-u))/2 =
d((v-u)+(v+u))/v+u)(v-u)/2
= d(v)/v^2-u^2)=d/v(1-(u/v)^2)

With the Lorenz transform c is constant so if the velocity of the source is
v then to make the velocity c in both frames the distance the light travels
must be contracted to make the time d/v once again. So the rest distance is
d, if d* is the contracted distance then d*/c=d/c+v and the same for the
source with a velocity -v so d*/c=d/c-v so (d*/c)^2=d^2/(c+v)(c-v) so,
d*=d(sqr((c^2/(c^2-v^2)))=d/(sqr(1-(v/c)^2).

This contraction is not real it is an effect like perspective because we use
light to measure the distance, it has no physical meaning.

Quite simple really, it is an example of a geometric mean and is called a
metric as in differential geometry where you look at a hill, going over the
hill is further than along the ground and if you are unaware of the slope
the longer distance would be the only way you could know of the hump.
Relativity is like that, we cannot see the real path of the light it is
distorted by the space distortion caused by the movement of the source or
observer. Except that in relativity the path over the hump is shorter that
the path along the flat path. Think of a space time diagram the path is a ^
but the path over the ^ is shorter at high velocities than the path and
very slow velocities.
A six inch bar is still a 6 inch bar there is no contraction whatsoever. It
is demonstrated each time you use an electric motor or switch on an electric
lamp. The electrons move the positive charges do not, this means that the
electronic length is shorter than the bar of metal they are moving in but no
positive charge occurs at the end so there is no contraction at all.



There is no contraction really and no upper limit on velocity. If you work
out the momentum it Mv/(sqr(1-(v/c)^2) but when you separate it for
integration you go M (v/(sqr(1-(v/c)^2) the mass does not increase only the
number v/(sqr(1-(v/c)^2) and this is the real velocity V.

Much more fun you can get velocities higher than light with a rocket or
accelerators where the phase velocity of the travelling wave (as in a
rhombadron) is higher than light. Remember group velocityXphase velocity is
c for light in a waveguide and the same is true of matter waves so a
stationary electrons phase wave occupies the whole universe and the energy
quanta of a free electron is influenced by the size of the universe and all
the matter in it.
The increments of energy that an electron is given as it accelerates is in
reality determined by the size of the universe. This is because an electron
is a group of waves of infinite velocity that extend around the 4-sphere
universe. When the group changes its velocity the change is reflected by an
alteration in the diffraction pattern as in a boxed particle and a quanta of
radiation is emitted that has a frequency determined by the difference in
frequency between the frequency of the initial step and the frequency of the
final state.
This energy comes from the electric field that pushes it and since this push
is by a virtual photon the emitted photon is the realised virtual photon of
the electric field brought into existence by the movement of the electron.
When the universe was very small the steps were very large and so the
universe was actually very cold at it conception as the quanta were too
large for anything to move.
It seems to me that there is no real contraction, only an effect similar to
perspective as a result of the way light travels and is only an appearance.
Relativity is 4-space perspective.
This would mean that a journey in a very fast space craft to a nearby solar
system (say 10 light years) would take a time given after the length
contraction and time contraction had been allowed for. (This is called the
4-velocity) I suggest that the 4-velocity is the "real" velocity and what we
see is the result of 4-space perspective.
It would therefore be possible for deep space journeys with a fast
spacecraft in normal time spans. (By fast I mean velocities close to that of
light - say closer than 99%c).
It also strikes me that since all frames are equivalent the "Twin Paradox"
does not occur, the two brothers will agree both about the time and distance
travelled.
Since perspective is the projection of 3-space to 2-space then relativity is
the projection of 4-space to 3-space.
I made a mistake when I changed the co-ordinates from linear to exponential
to look inside a black hole. You see the scale is similar to the Kelvin
scale. By using a linear scale we can see 0 but it cannot be reached. We
should really be using a log scale so 0 is - infinity so cannot be reached.
The theory of the black hole is wrong in the same way.
To understand it you need the theory of metric spaces and the Einstein's
concept of sitting at the foot of a cliff. Now light is falling down towards
you and it gains energy as it falls but since it cannot go any faster (or
slower) it increases in frequency, so shortening the wavelength. This
wavelength can be thought of as the shape factor of space at that point and
the frequency as the local shape factor of time.
Going up the same thing applies.
So space is smaller as you go towards a massive object (like your left index
finger). Now as a small object goes near a big object the space gets changed
in length, (it is not real, it is 4-perspective), so like a beam of light
passes through a change in refractive index it is bend towards the region of
space is shorter. It is as if light moves more slowly.
if now is 15,000 km from earth's centre, and soon is 14,991 from the earths
centre then a potential energy change takes place of Gm/15000-Gm/14991 G is
the universal constant of gravity (measurable) and mass is the mass + energy
within the point.
So the metric means that as we do the translation the space shape factor
changes
Now the shape factor of space is = Gm/r as far as I understand it.

so far away the factor is 0

The light here is of frequency f and wavelength L=cf

at a distance r the shape factor is Gm/r so the energy of light will be
higher. The energy of light is hf in flat space but as it goes closer to a
mass + energy it is of higher energy, Gm/r the light gains potential energy
(Gm/big to GM/less big)=hf to hf + small bit

so Gm/r2-Gm/r1=hf1-hf2 to put that into the differential form for
integration is not needed if we use the metric tensor. the shape has changed
from (Gm/r2)/h to (Gm/r1/h) to get the length we have to use the wavelength
this is fL=c so L=c/f

So the length of space has changed from c/(Gm/r1/h) to c/(Gm/r2/h). So space
can be mapped in shape according to the location relative to massive objects
or areas of energy, includes light energy.

Relativistic momentum is m (v/(sqr(1-(v/c)^2). The mass is invariant.

Rocket Equation:
The mass ratio for the photon rocket is = exp (1/c( integral
(v/c)/sqr(1-(v/c)^2))dv) This comes to 3.56 for v=0.999c
I used this because it makes the sum dimensionally correct. It is to do
with the integration.
V=v/(sqr(1-(v/c)^2)) DV/dv has a c in it.

I am confused.

"Abonito" wrote in message k...
Relativity Geometry
Relativity - Affine Geometry ?
Einstein's special theory of relativity is about measurements between frames
of reference in a state of non acceleration.

Not really. Special relativity can work with accelerated
objects and frames, but never mind.

It is an observation that the
velocity of light is independent of the relative velocity between observer
and the source. From this Lorenz postulated a length contraction to allow
for this. Einstein derived the same equation from the observations.
If you look at this equation there is no special frame so any frame may be
taken as the reference frame.
Let us consider the passage of mesons from the origin in the upper
atmosphere to their arrival at a counter on the earth's surface. The
observer "sees" the origin from his frame and since he is "looking" at the
meson then this point is only a few feet above the laboratory roof because
of the Lorenz contraction.

No, not at all.
The observer on the ground knows that and where in the upper
atmosphere muons (and other stuff) are created. Also knowing
how short muons live on the average, he calculates that there
are much more muons reaching the ground than expected.
It turns out that if the "internal muon lifetime clocks" are slowed
down by the precisely the amount described by the equations,
the number that reaches the ground fits the expected value.
This is "time dilation" in action.

Thus accounting for the short passage time. The
"meson" "sees" the path it travels from the upper atmosphere to the surface
as the same few feet as it is "looking" at the observer's reference frame.

From the point of view of the muon, its lifetime is perfectly
normal, but the distance to the ground that it "sees", is
shortened - This is "length contraction" in action.

The Lorenz transformation

It is just a simultaneous equation.

With 3 spatial dimensions it is 4 simultaneous equations.
With 1 spatial dimension it is 2 simultaneous equations.


The invariance of the velocity of light is an experimental result. It means
that when you measure the velocity of light some how the result is
independent of the velocity of the source, like a star or a lamp on a moving
bench.

If you can work out the time an aeroplane takes for a return journey west to
east with a constant east wind then you are well on the way to calculating
the Lorenz transform.

Not at all.


Suppose the aircraft does v knots through the air and the wind is u knots
over land then going from west to east d nautical miles the velocity is v-u
and it takes d/(v-u) hours to get there going back it takes d/(v+u) hours.
so the average is (d(1/v+u)+d(1/v-u))/2 =
d((v-u)+(v+u))/v+u)(v-u)/2
= d(v)/v^2-u^2)=d/v(1-(u/v)^2)

With the Lorenz transform c is constant so if the velocity of the source is
v then to make the velocity c in both frames the distance the light travels
must be contracted to make the time d/v once again.

No, this is wrong, as explained above.
You might review the remainder with this in mind.

Dirk Vdm

Abonito wrote:

Relativity Geometry
Relativity - Affine Geometry ?
Einstein's special theory of relativity is about measurements between frames
of reference in a state of non acceleration. It is an observation that the
velocity of light is independent of the relative velocity between observer
and the source. From this Lorenz postulated a length contraction to allow
for this. Einstein derived the same equation from the observations.
If you look at this equation there is no special frame so any frame may be
taken as the reference frame.

Try to use "speed" instead of "velocity" unless you are talking about
some specific direction.

Let us consider the passage of mesons from the origin in the upper
atmosphere to their arrival at a counter on the earth's surface. The
observer "sees" the origin from his frame and since he is "looking" at the
meson then this point is only a few feet above the laboratory roof because
of the Lorenz contraction. Thus accounting for the short passage time. The
"meson" "sees" the path it travels from the upper atmosphere to the surface
as the same few feet as it is "looking" at the observer's reference frame.
The Lorenz transformation

It is just a simultaneous equation.

The meson frame "sees" a contracted distance,
the lab frame "sees" a longer meson time-of-flight than expected.


The invariance of the velocity of light is an experimental result. It means
that when you measure the velocity of light some how the result is
independent of the velocity of the source, like a star or a lamp on a moving
bench.

If you can work out the time an aeroplane takes for a return journey west to
east with a constant east wind then you are well on the way to calculating
the Lorenz transform.

Suppose the aircraft does v knots through the air and the wind is u knots
over land then going from west to east d nautical miles the velocity is v-u
and it takes d/(v-u) hours to get there going back it takes d/(v+u) hours.
so the average is (d(1/v+u)+d(1/v-u))/2 =
d((v-u)+(v+u))/v+u)(v-u)/2
= d(v)/v^2-u^2)=d/v(1-(u/v)^2)

With the Lorenz transform c is constant so if the velocity of the source is
v then to make the velocity c in both frames the distance the light travels
must be contracted to make the time d/v once again. So the rest distance is
d, if d* is the contracted distance then d*/c=d/c+v and the same for the
source with a velocity -v so d*/c=d/c-v so (d*/c)^2=d^2/(c+v)(c-v) so,
d*=d(sqr((c^2/(c^2-v^2)))=d/(sqr(1-(v/c)^2).

This contraction is not real it is an effect like perspective because we use
light to measure the distance, it has no physical meaning.

The speed of light plays the role of infinity.
Most of the time it can be rounded off, sometimes it can't.


Quite simple really, it is an example of a geometric mean and is called a
metric as in differential geometry where you look at a hill, going over the
hill is further than along the ground and if you are unaware of the slope
the longer distance would be the only way you could know of the hump.
Relativity is like that, we cannot see the real path of the light it is
distorted by the space distortion caused by the movement of the source or
observer. Except that in relativity the path over the hump is shorter that
the path along the flat path. Think of a space time diagram the path is a ^
but the path over the ^ is shorter at high velocities than the path and
very slow velocities.

A six inch bar is still a 6 inch bar there is no contraction whatsoever. It
is demonstrated each time you use an electric motor or switch on an electric
lamp. The electrons move the positive charges do not, this means that the
electronic length is shorter than the bar of metal they are moving in but no
positive charge occurs at the end so there is no contraction at all.

Antennas very often have to be tuned in order to get their electronic lengths
to match their physical lengths.


There is no contraction really and no upper limit on velocity. If you work
out the momentum it Mv/(sqr(1-(v/c)^2) but when you separate it for
integration you go M (v/(sqr(1-(v/c)^2) the mass does not increase only the
number v/(sqr(1-(v/c)^2) and this is the real velocity V.

Mass is/was the only SI unit not based on reproducible
physical phenomena rather than an arbitrary physical object prototype.

Much more fun you can get velocities higher than light with a rocket or
accelerators where the phase velocity of the travelling wave (as in a
rhombadron) is higher than light. Remember group velocityXphase velocity is
c for light in a waveguide and the same is true of matter waves so a
stationary electrons phase wave occupies the whole universe and the energy
quanta of a free electron is influenced by the size of the universe and all
the matter in it.

There are some theories that believe the universe has a back-effect
on all things, but they don't scale-down very well.

The increments of energy that an electron is given as it accelerates is in
reality determined by the size of the universe. This is because an electron
is a group of waves of infinite velocity that extend around the 4-sphere
universe. When the group changes its velocity the change is reflected by an
alteration in the diffraction pattern as in a boxed particle and a quanta of
radiation is emitted that has a frequency determined by the difference in
frequency between the frequency of the initial step and the frequency of the
final state.
This energy comes from the electric field that pushes it and since this push
is by a virtual photon the emitted photon is the realised virtual photon of
the electric field brought into existence by the movement of the electron.
When the universe was very small the steps were very large and so the
universe was actually very cold at it conception as the quanta were too
large for anything to move.
It seems to me that there is no real contraction, only an effect similar to
perspective as a result of the way light travels and is only an appearance.
Relativity is 4-space perspective.
This would mean that a journey in a very fast space craft to a nearby solar
system (say 10 light years) would take a time given after the length
contraction and time contraction had been allowed for. (This is called the
4-velocity) I suggest that the 4-velocity is the "real" velocity and what we
see is the result of 4-space perspective.
It would therefore be possible for deep space journeys with a fast
spacecraft in normal time spans. (By fast I mean velocities close to that of
light - say closer than 99%c).
It also strikes me that since all frames are equivalent the "Twin Paradox"
does not occur, the two brothers will agree both about the time and distance
travelled.
Since perspective is the projection of 3-space to 2-space then relativity is
the projection of 4-space to 3-space.
I made a mistake when I changed the co-ordinates from linear to exponential
to look inside a black hole. You see the scale is similar to the Kelvin
scale. By using a linear scale we can see 0 but it cannot be reached. We
should really be using a log scale so 0 is - infinity so cannot be reached.
The theory of the black hole is wrong in the same way.
To understand it you need the theory of metric spaces and the Einstein's
concept of sitting at the foot of a cliff. Now light is falling down towards
you and it gains energy as it falls but since it cannot go any faster (or
slower) it increases in frequency, so shortening the wavelength. This
wavelength can be thought of as the shape factor of space at that point and
the frequency as the local shape factor of time.
Going up the same thing applies.
So space is smaller as you go towards a massive object (like your left index
finger). Now as a small object goes near a big object the space gets changed
in length, (it is not real, it is 4-perspective), so like a beam of light
passes through a change in refractive index it is bend towards the region of
space is shorter. It is as if light moves more slowly.
if now is 15,000 km from earth's centre, and soon is 14,991 from the earths
centre then a potential energy change takes place of Gm/15000-Gm/14991 G is
the universal constant of gravity (measurable) and mass is the mass + energy
within the point.
So the metric means that as we do the translation the space shape factor
changes
Now the shape factor of space is = Gm/r as far as I understand it.

so far away the factor is 0

The light here is of frequency f and wavelength L=cf

at a distance r the shape factor is Gm/r so the energy of light will be
higher. The energy of light is hf in flat space but as it goes closer to a
mass + energy it is of higher energy, Gm/r the light gains potential energy
(Gm/big to GM/less big)=hf to hf + small bit

so Gm/r2-Gm/r1=hf1-hf2 to put that into the differential form for
integration is not needed if we use the metric tensor. the shape has changed
from (Gm/r2)/h to (Gm/r1/h) to get the length we have to use the wavelength
this is fL=c so L=c/f

So the length of space has changed from c/(Gm/r1/h) to c/(Gm/r2/h). So space
can be mapped in shape according to the location relative to massive objects
or areas of energy, includes light energy.

Relativistic momentum is m (v/(sqr(1-(v/c)^2). The mass is invariant.

Rocket Equation:
The mass ratio for the photon rocket is = exp (1/c( integral
(v/c)/sqr(1-(v/c)^2))dv) This comes to 3.56 for v=0.999c
I used this because it makes the sum dimensionally correct. It is to do
with the integration.
V=v/(sqr(1-(v/c)^2)) DV/dv has a c in it.

I am confused.


Einstein's theory deserves more respect than a "black box" model;
but I don't care how fast it's moving, you just can't fit an elephant in a nutshell.

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote
in message ...

"Abonito" wrote in message
k...
Relativity Geometry
Relativity - Affine Geometry ?
Einstein's special theory of relativity is about measurements between
frames of reference in a state of non acceleration.

Not really. Special relativity can work with accelerated
objects and frames, but never mind.

The term "special relativity" was defined by Einstein to refer to the laws
of physics as they pertain to inertial systems, i.e. Principle of
Relativity: The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of
reference." This is the same way that Schutz defines the term. However you
can choose to use it as you see fit but its best to explain it as Einstein
did and why you disagree with Einstein. I understand that many people have
various reasons such as "We can always jump from one inertial frame to
another and use sr in each inertial frame" but that doesn't give you the
form the laws take in the frame you've chosen. A continuous jumping of
frames doesn't seem to me to be a frame itself. In particular, if one did
see this as a frame of reference then the frame is not homogeneous nor is it
isotropic as each inertial frame is. For this reasin this "jumping" of
frames does not appear to have the same properties as a uniformly
acceleration of frames. Einstein did use this notion in one derivation of
the formula for gravitational redshift. But I assume Einstein had his
reasons for defining SR as he did.

Pete

Pmb wrote:
"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote
in message ...
Special relativity can work with accelerated
objects and frames, but never mind.

The term "special relativity" was defined by Einstein to refer to the laws
of physics as they pertain to inertial systems, i.e. Principle of
Relativity: The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of
reference."

Yes. But that does not mean that SR cannot handle accelerated objects or
accelerated coordinates. Indeed, the basic rules of calculus can be used
to extend the laws known in an inertial frame to laws applicable in a
specific accelerated coordinate system. Such laws will, of course, be
different in each different type of accelerated coordinates, and their
form will be different from the form of the laws in an inertial frame.

To escape the tyranny of inertial frames one needs both the mathematical
machinery of GR (i.e. tensor analysis) and the physical laws of GR.


However you
can choose to use it as you see fit but its best to explain it as Einstein
did and why you disagree with Einstein.

Disagreement with Einstein is not important today -- he died over 50
years ago and is not the standard by which modern physics is performed.

We know now that SR's domain of applicability includes all aspects of
Minkowski spacetime, and doesn't include any other base manifold. Of
course SR is the local limit of GR in any manifold, but that is only
approximate.


Tom Roberts

On Dec 24, 2:52 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
"Abonito" wrote:
Relativity Geometry
Relativity - Affine Geometry ?
Einstein's special theory of relativity is about measurements between frames
of reference in a state of non acceleration.

Not really. Special relativity can work with accelerated
objects and frames, but never mind.

It is an observation that the
velocity of light is independent of the relative velocity between observer
and the source. From this Lorenz postulated a length contraction to allow
for this. Einstein derived the same equation from the observations.
If you look at this equation there is no special frame so any frame may be
taken as the reference frame.
Let us consider the passage of mesons from the origin in the upper
atmosphere to their arrival at a counter on the earth's surface. The
observer "sees" the origin from his frame and since he is "looking" at the
meson then this point is only a few feet above the laboratory roof because
of the Lorenz contraction.

No, not at all.
The observer on the ground knows that and where in the upper
atmosphere muons (and other stuff) are created. Also knowing
how short muons live on the average, he calculates that there
are much more muons reaching the ground than expected.
It turns out that if the "internal muon lifetime clocks" are slowed
down by the precisely the amount described by the equations,
the number that reaches the ground fits the expected value.
This is "time dilation" in action.

Moortel Moortel what you call "how short muons live on average" your
masters used to call "muon lifetime at rest". But they don't even
mention it anymore. Why? Because people now know that this "muon
lifetime at rest" is one of the greatest frauds ever devised by
Einstein criminal cult:

http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.ph...d1af61851c041?

When the lifetime "at rest" is measured, by "at rest" Einstein
criminal cult mean a crash undergone by the muon in which its speed
changes from about 300000km/s to zero. That crash is so terrible that
the muon "dies" quickly, much more quickly than muons that have not
undergone the crash:

http://web.mit.edu/c_hill/www/muons_paper.pdf
"In this experiment, we measure two of the basic properties of the
muon, namely, its mean lifetime and mass in its rest frame. We measure
the decay curve of cosmic-ray muons that have come to rest in a
plastic scintillator by looking for electrons produced in their
decay."

Pentcho Valev

"Pmb" wrote in message . ..

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote
in message ...

"Abonito" wrote in message
k...
Relativity Geometry
Relativity - Affine Geometry ?
Einstein's special theory of relativity is about measurements between
frames of reference in a state of non acceleration.

Not really. Special relativity can work with accelerated
objects and frames, but never mind.

The term "special relativity" was defined by Einstein to refer to the laws
of physics as they pertain to inertial systems,

Sure, but nothing, except perhaps some calculus related
complications, stops us from working with "instantaneously
comoving inertial frames".

i.e. Principle of
Relativity: The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of
reference." This is the same way that Schutz defines the term. However you
can choose to use it as you see fit but its best to explain it as Einstein
did and why you disagree with Einstein.

I don't think that applying the original principles to ICIF's
implies any kind of disagreement.

I understand that many people have
various reasons such as "We can always jump from one inertial frame to
another and use sr in each inertial frame" but that doesn't give you the
form the laws take in the frame you've chosen. A continuous jumping of
frames doesn't seem to me to be a frame itself.

If you like, this is where you can (together with Einstein
in his original article!) stop thinking in terms of "frames"
and work with coodinates and "coordinate systems".

In particular, if one did
see this as a frame of reference then the frame is not homogeneous nor is it
isotropic as each inertial frame is. For this reasin this "jumping" of
frames does not appear to have the same properties as a uniformly
acceleration of frames. Einstein did use this notion in one derivation of
the formula for gravitational redshift. But I assume Einstein had his
reasons for defining SR as he did.

See also Tom's reply.


Pete

Merry christmas!

Dirk Vdm

I don't think he was wrong, just misunderstood and I don't understand it
either.

The lorenz transform is symmentrical so mesons see the atmosphere contracted
and the earth based observer sees the point where the mesons are coming from
contracted too.

Emperiment to test what I say:
If you put coincident counters up in such a way as to track the path of the
mesons and it wax possible to find where a particular shower originated from
the measurement would find the spallation point just above the lab not 100
miles away. Measurement is by triangulation.

So a pile of counters in a cube could find the direction of the particles
and thus where coincident particles originated from.

Merry Christmas


"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
...
On Dec 24, 2:52 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
"Abonito" wrote:
Relativity Geometry
Relativity - Affine Geometry ?
Einstein's special theory of relativity is about measurements between
frames
of reference in a state of non acceleration.

Not really. Special relativity can work with accelerated
objects and frames, but never mind.

It is an observation that the
velocity of light is independent of the relative velocity between
observer
and the source. From this Lorenz postulated a length contraction to
allow
for this. Einstein derived the same equation from the observations.
If you look at this equation there is no special frame so any frame may
be
taken as the reference frame.
Let us consider the passage of mesons from the origin in the upper
atmosphere to their arrival at a counter on the earth's surface. The
observer "sees" the origin from his frame and since he is "looking" at
the
meson then this point is only a few feet above the laboratory roof
because
of the Lorenz contraction.

No, not at all.
The observer on the ground knows that and where in the upper
atmosphere muons (and other stuff) are created. Also knowing
how short muons live on the average, he calculates that there
are much more muons reaching the ground than expected.
It turns out that if the "internal muon lifetime clocks" are slowed
down by the precisely the amount described by the equations,
the number that reaches the ground fits the expected value.
This is "time dilation" in action.

Moortel Moortel what you call "how short muons live on average" your
masters used to call "muon lifetime at rest". But they don't even
mention it anymore. Why? Because people now know that this "muon
lifetime at rest" is one of the greatest frauds ever devised by
Einstein criminal cult:

http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.ph...d1af61851c041?

When the lifetime "at rest" is measured, by "at rest" Einstein
criminal cult mean a crash undergone by the muon in which its speed
changes from about 300000km/s to zero. That crash is so terrible that
the muon "dies" quickly, much more quickly than muons that have not
undergone the crash:

http://web.mit.edu/c_hill/www/muons_paper.pdf
"In this experiment, we measure two of the basic properties of the
muon, namely, its mean lifetime and mass in its rest frame. We measure
the decay curve of cosmic-ray muons that have come to rest in a
plastic scintillator by looking for electrons produced in their
decay."

Pentcho Valev

This would mean that the twin paradox does not occur.

--
Chris (=Abonito)
http://www.myphilosophy.eu
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
...
On Dec 24, 2:52 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
"Abonito" wrote:
Relativity Geometry
Relativity - Affine Geometry ?
Einstein's special theory of relativity is about measurements between
frames
of reference in a state of non acceleration.

Not really. Special relativity can work with accelerated
objects and frames, but never mind.

It is an observation that the
velocity of light is independent of the relative velocity between
observer
and the source. From this Lorenz postulated a length contraction to
allow
for this. Einstein derived the same equation from the observations.
If you look at this equation there is no special frame so any frame may
be
taken as the reference frame.
Let us consider the passage of mesons from the origin in the upper
atmosphere to their arrival at a counter on the earth's surface. The
observer "sees" the origin from his frame and since he is "looking" at
the
meson then this point is only a few feet above the laboratory roof
because
of the Lorenz contraction.

No, not at all.
The observer on the ground knows that and where in the upper
atmosphere muons (and other stuff) are created. Also knowing
how short muons live on the average, he calculates that there
are much more muons reaching the ground than expected.
It turns out that if the "internal muon lifetime clocks" are slowed
down by the precisely the amount described by the equations,
the number that reaches the ground fits the expected value.
This is "time dilation" in action.

Moortel Moortel what you call "how short muons live on average" your
masters used to call "muon lifetime at rest". But they don't even
mention it anymore. Why? Because people now know that this "muon
lifetime at rest" is one of the greatest frauds ever devised by
Einstein criminal cult:

http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.ph...d1af61851c041?

When the lifetime "at rest" is measured, by "at rest" Einstein
criminal cult mean a crash undergone by the muon in which its speed
changes from about 300000km/s to zero. That crash is so terrible that
the muon "dies" quickly, much more quickly than muons that have not
undergone the crash:

http://web.mit.edu/c_hill/www/muons_paper.pdf
"In this experiment, we measure two of the basic properties of the
muon, namely, its mean lifetime and mass in its rest frame. We measure
the decay curve of cosmic-ray muons that have come to rest in a
plastic scintillator by looking for electrons produced in their
decay."

Pentcho Valev

"Chris" wrote in message . uk...
I don't think he was wrong, just misunderstood and I don't understand it
either.

The lorenz transform is symmentrical so mesons see the atmosphere contracted
and the earth based observer sees the point where the mesons are coming from
contracted too.

No, as I explained to you when you were signing as "Abonito",
that's completely wrong.
1) That "point" does not move.
2) "points" cannot contract since they have no length.
Before you try to understand the transformation, you should
first understand what the variables in the equations stand for.
Can you try to explain what you think the variables mean?

Dirk Vdm