Length Contraction in the Muon Experiment

Sorry, superluminal, perhaps you need to read some of the links. Gravity behaving differently on extremely large or small scales may explain DARK ENERGY, but not
the many different observations of DARK MATTER effects.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

2inq, I've read plenty on dark matter without any links, thanks.

Source:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/cosmic_darkmatt_02010
8-1.html

Ever hear of MOND?

http://ca.geocities.com/mercy@rogers.com/

I know it's fringe stuff, but it works so well for galaxy rotation curves that many scientists lose sleep over it...

So all I said was:

Ok? Maybe you need to read some different links.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Your 'space.com' link doesn't work. Yes, I have written of MOND several times in the past. MOND has been eliminated from contention by WMAP results published 1 1/2 (2 1/2?) years ago. MOND did not fit the profile ascertained by the Wilkinson Microwave
Anisotropy Probe conclusions. I keep telling ya, dark matter has much more evidence than just galaxy rotation curves. Some of it has nothing to do with gravity, such as
the gamma-ray emissions, predicted from Quantum Chromodynamics and observed to
originate from regions of the vacuum where nothing is detected to exist.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Okey Dokey.

 

Aer: reciprocity would have to be true IF SR WERE AN ACCURATE THEORY.

 

^genius^

 

Evidence for some form of ether is even more real than evidence for a conglomerate time-space and the falicies of SRT.

 

Also ratinal people should keep it in mind that the only way spatial contraction occurs is if you disregard the fact (emperically demonstrated) that a clock in motion has a dilated tick rate.

That is distance is only shorter because you time the trip using a slow clock.

Also it is important to note that from the perspective of the pilot in a moving spaceship where his clock has become dilated and he traverses space from point A to B, you have shown nothing which precludes him from concluding that his velocity is faster if distance did not change.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

MacM, the existence of length contraction in a given intertial frame follows directly from the laws of electrodynamics and the dynamics of particles moving close to the speed of light. One does not need to invoke any other reference frame or the notion of time dilation to discover the effect.

 

Your continued avoidance of the physical fact that the clock in motion is ticking slower renders this statement as rhetoric and incorrect.

Accounting for the dilated rate of the clock accounts fully for the timne required to travel the distance, hence spatial contraction is not a physical reality. It does not matter what theory or principle states otherwise. They are false.

Further you ignored the fact that the moving jobserver would see the same distance and would not notice any change in veloicty due to passing mile markers but would note only that his calculated velocity is faster.

Now I suggest you deal in physical facts and forget fiat and rhetoric.

 

MacM, you seem confused by some simple facts so I will try to help you. As I indicated, one need make no reference to how a rod appears in any other frame to discover length contraction. If you take any physical rod and gently accelerate it to some final velocity, the rod will slowly contract to exactly the value obtained by in special relativity. This is a physical dynamical effect contained in Maxwell's equations.

 

Well for your information you only think you know what I know. The fact is my own theory also shows length contraction of a rod, etc. However, we were not discussing that. We were discussing spatial contraction. Space does not contract contrary to your faithful belief in the bastardized physics of SRT.

The rod contraction in my own theory does not involve timing with a slow clock either.

 

What is "spatial contraction?" We're not doing gravity here, and space doesn't "contract" unless gravity is present.

 

Does time dilate when gravity is not present?

 

If by time dilation you mean moving clocks run slower with respect to non-moving clocks then yes, time dilates.

 

But according to you, space does not contract?

 

If by "spatial contraction" you mean what is usually called "length contraction", then yes, physical rods moving with respect to otherwise identical rods are contracted.

 

Must we be limited to comparing rods? How about two spheres that exist at the end of the rods and there is space between. Does the space between the spheres contract in the same manner?

 

Spatial contraction is i.e - the distance from here to the moon. The distance you want to claim is only half as far if traveling at 0.866c. Of course to make that claim you had to disregard that the clock you used to time the trip to make that false claim was ticking at only half its standard rest rate.

If it were actually half as far and the clock ticked at half its rate then you would conclude it was only 1/4 the distance.

Hence the d = vt is not a valid distance in the real world. One would get the same results if his batteries in his timex were low.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Define moving. In who's view. And of course you understand this raises the issue of reciprocity inherent in SRT. You have just caused each clock to tick slower than the other. A physical impossiblility and one that has not once been demonstrated in 100 years of relativity.


This is where we part paths. I define moving as the clock that accelerated to some velocity. It will be that clock that ticks slower than the one that remained stationary. That is what data supports not SRT's version where relative velocity dictates which clock dilates.