[pricelesspearl]

The results for the muon decay experiment are always the same over time. So i would like to know how the UA model could possibly fit into it?

And I would like to know why you assert that it wouldn't. Your claim is that UA predicts something that conflicts with observations. I want to know what your basis is for making this prediction, given that observations contradict it. That is, you are not basing your prediction on observations, but on something else.

He is basing it on simple logic.  The “life expectancy” of the muons is dependent upon the relative velocity of the muons and earth.  If the earth is accelerating the relative velocity would change over time and the “life expectancy” of the muons would change accordingly. But that is not what we see.  The “life expectancy” of the muons stays consistent.

[xasop]

If the earth is accelerating the relative velocity would change over time

You're the third person to say this without providing any justification whatsoever. We clearly observe that it does not change over time, so why do you say that it would?

[pricelesspearl]

If the earth is accelerating the relative velocity would change over time

You're the third person to say this without providing any justification whatsoever. We clearly observe that it does not change over time, so why do you say that it would?

That’s the way relative velocities work.  If the velocity of two objects, as measured within their own frame, changes, their relative velocity changes. 

If A is moving 100 mph and B is moving 25 mph..what is their relative velocity?

If A accelerates to 110 mph and B remains at 25...what is their relative velocity now?

It’s pretty basic stuff.

[Groit]

The results for the muon decay experiment are always the same over time. So i would like to know how the UA model could possibly fit into it?

And I would like to know why you assert that it wouldn't. Your claim is that UA predicts something that conflicts with observations. I want to know what your basis is for making this prediction, given that observations contradict it. That is, you are not basing your prediction on observations, but on something else.

All I'm saying is that if their relative velocity increased over time, then more muons would be observed reaching the surface of the Earth over time, do you agree?

Obviously this is NOT whats being observed, so i would like to know how UA works?  how does an object accelerate in one direction and yet its velocity does NOT increase in the same direction over time?

[xasop]

That’s the way relative velocities work.  If the velocity of two objects, as measured within their own frame, changes, their relative velocity changes.

But we're not talking about two objects. We're talking about three (or more) objects—the Earth and at least two different muons, measured at different times. You are making an assertion about how the velocities of those two muons are related with no justification, and which contradicts observation. That justification is what I am asking for.

All I'm saying is that if their relative velocity increased over time, then more muons would be observed reaching the surface of the Earth over time, do you agree?

What do you mean by "their relative velocity"? The velocity of what relative to what?

Obviously this is NOT whats being observed, so i would like to know how UA works?  how does an object accelerate in one direction and yet its velocity does NOT increase in the same direction over time?

Nobody has made that claim. UA is explained quite well on the wiki.

[pricelesspearl]

But we're not talking about two objects. We're talking about three (or more) objects—the Earth and at least two different muons, measured at different times. You are making an assertion about how the velocities of those two muons are related with no justification, and which contradicts observation. That justification is what I am asking for.

The velocity of muons relative to one another has nothing to do with it.  It is the relative velocity of the earth and the muons that determines the amount of time dilation and how many muons are observed reaching the earth.

Go the link below.  Somewhere on that page is an option to “vary parameters” and you can enter whatever speed (as a % of c) that you want.  Try different speeds and see happens. Note that the speed of the muons is relative to the ground.

I’d show you what happens myself but I’m on my phone and it would be a little difficult.


http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/muon.html

[xasop]

The velocity of muons relative to one another has nothing to do with it.

Are you forgetting your own argument? You have been talking this whole time about what happens over the course of weeks as the Earth accelerates. The same muon does not last for weeks, so you must be talking about two different muons.

Observations show that those two different muons have roughly the same speed relative to the Earth. You claim it would be otherwise under UA. As we can calculate the Earth's change in velocity over a given time, this means that you are making a claim about the velocity of two muons relative to one another.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, why?

[BRrollin]

I don’t see any use in talking about relative muon velocity either.

From what I gather, it seems like entire RE argument boils down to this:

1. Muons are made by cosmic ray interactions in the atmosphere. The reaction that makes them results in a tight muon energy distribution and so predictable muon speed.

2. In standard (non circular) UA, our speed on the surface increases as Earth undergoes constant acceleration.

3. Muon #1 has some proper speed, add that to ours and that is the relative speed we measure in our rest frame.

4. Muon #2 (a week later) has some similar proper speed, and that to our much faster speed than last week: change of speed would be 9.8*(86400*7) m/s.

So we would measure an increasing speed of incoming muons by about 864000 m/s each consecutive day.

5. We don’t measure that - muons have similar speeds.

[pricelesspearl]

Observations show that those two different muons have roughly the same speed relative to the Earth. You claim it would be otherwise under UA. As we can calculate the Earth's change in velocity over a given time, this means that you are making a claim about the velocity of two muons relative to one another.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, why?

I’m not making any claim about muons relative to one another.  That has nothing to do with how many muons are observed to survive.  Only the relative velocity between the earth and muons is what matters.

You obviously didn’t go to site I suggested so I’ll tell what you would have found if you did so.

Out of 1 million muons:

7661 survive at .95c
49,312 survive at .98c
121,006 survive at .99c

More muons survive as the velocity increases.  But we don’t see an increase in the number of muons surviving over the many years this experiment has been done.  Consistently around 49k is what is observed. 

Therefore, the relative velocities between the earth and muons is not changing, as you would expect to see if the earth is accelerating and it’s velocity increasing.

If, over some period of time, the earth’s velocity went from .98c to .99c we would observe 121k muons surviving instead of 49k.

That’s as clear as I know how to make it.

[xasop]

I’m not making any claim about muons relative to one another.  That has nothing to do with how many muons are observed to survive.  Only the relative velocity between the earth and muons is what matters.

And that's observed to be constant. So we're all agreed that there is no problem with UA, then?

You obviously didn’t go to site I suggested so I’ll tell what you would have found if you did so.

Out of 1 million muons:

7661 survive at .95c
49,312 survive at .98c
121,006 survive at .99c

More muons survive as the velocity increases.  But we don’t see an increase in the number of muons surviving over the many years this experiment has been done.  Consistently around 49k is what is observed.

Why are you explaining this? Nobody asked for an explanation of how the experiment works. Indeed, I would hope that all involved understand it by this point.

Therefore, the relative velocities between the earth and muons is not changing, as you would expect to see if the earth is accelerating and it’s velocity increasing.

Yet again you are making this claim with zero justification. How many times do I need to ask why?

If, over some period of time, the earth’s velocity went from .98c to .99c we would observe 121k muons surviving instead of 49k.

Only if you make an assumption about the relative velocity of the muons today and the muons a week from now. You keep insisting that you are making no such assumption, and therefore UA does not present a problem for this experiment.

[JSS]

If, over some period of time, the earth’s velocity went from .98c to .99c we would observe 121k muons surviving instead of 49k.

Only if you make an assumption about the relative velocity of the muons today and the muons a week from now. You keep insisting that you are making no such assumption, and therefore UA does not present a problem for this experiment.

I am having trouble following both sides of the discussion as I have a number of assumptions I'm guessing at. May I list what I understand so far?

1. Under UA the Earth is constantly accelerating upwards at 9.8m/s

2. Cosmic rays are coming from somewhere outside Earth, and impacting the atmosphere.

3. The energy of the muon that we observe should be related the cosmic rays incoming velocity, plus the upward velocity of the Earth.

4. Since the Earth is constantly going faster, after a year we should see more energetic muons due to the higher collision speed.

I'm assuming that under UA, one or more of these is wrong? Could you tell me where I am diverging from UA theory and explain what is happening instead? Thanks.

[xasop]

4. Since the Earth is constantly going faster, after a year we should see more energetic muons due to the higher collision speed.

This is yet another instance of the claim that is being repeatedly made with no justification.

Why do ye say that there should be a higher collision speed under UA? Every response to this question seems to involve a re-explanation of how the muon experiment works followed by a re-assertion of the claim without explanation. Could someone please actually answer the question?

[JSS]

4. Since the Earth is constantly going faster, after a year we should see more energetic muons due to the higher collision speed.

This is yet another instance of the claim that is being repeatedly made with no justification.

Why do ye say that there should be a higher collision speed under UA? Every response to this question seems to involve a re-explanation of how the muon experiment works followed by a re-assertion of the claim without explanation. Could someone please actually answer the question?

I'm trying to break things out and be as precise as possible, sorry I'm not succeeding. Let me try and leave out all the extraneous detail.

1. Under UA the Earth is constantly accelerating upward.

2. Objects are colliding with the Earth/atmosphere from above.

3. Objects over time should be hitting faster and harder as the Earth's speed increases.

This is what I would expect with a body accelerating through space. UA clearly diverges from some of the rules of physics, but can't find what those are, so I am asking for clarification.

[BRrollin]

4. Since the Earth is constantly going faster, after a year we should see more energetic muons due to the higher collision speed.

This is yet another instance of the claim that is being repeatedly made with no justification.

Why do ye say that there should be a higher collision speed under UA? Every response to this question seems to involve a re-explanation of how the muon experiment works followed by a re-assertion of the claim without explanation. Could someone please actually answer the question?

I'm trying to break things out and be as precise as possible, sorry I'm not succeeding. Let me try and leave out all the extraneous detail.

1. Under UA the Earth is constantly accelerating upward.

2. Objects are colliding with the Earth/atmosphere from above.

3. Objects over time should be hitting faster and harder as the Earth's speed increases.

This is what I would expect with a body accelerating through space. UA clearly diverges from some of the rules of physics, but can't find what those are, so I am asking for clarification.

To simplify it further:

I am running at you at 10 m/s, and you throw a ball at me at 5 m/s. I see the ball come at me at 15 m/s from my rest frame.

If run at you faster, at say 20 m/s instead, then I see the ball come at me at 25 m/s.

In this analogy, I am the earth, and the ball is the muon. My speed is the instantaneous speed the earth has when the muon hits it.

So the muon’s speed relative to us should change if our speed keeps changing.

[xasop]

3. Objects over time should be hitting faster and harder as the Earth's speed increases.

This is, once again, an assumption. "Over time", we are talking about more than one different object. You are making an assumption about their velocity relative to each other by asserting this.

This is what I would expect with a body accelerating through space. UA clearly diverges from some of the rules of physics, but can't find what those are, so I am asking for clarification.

UA does not "diverge" from any established laws of physics. You are simply refusing to state your assumptions.

[JSS]

3. Objects over time should be hitting faster and harder as the Earth's speed increases.

This is, once again, an assumption. "Over time", we are talking about more than one different object. You are making an assumption about their velocity relative to each other by asserting this.

This is what I would expect with a body accelerating through space. UA clearly diverges from some of the rules of physics, but can't find what those are, so I am asking for clarification.

UA does not "diverge" from any established laws of physics. You are simply refusing to state your assumptions.

Ok, let me try this from a different angle to try and understand.  In current physics what is accepted is...

1. The Earth, Sun and stars of the milky way are all moving at approximately the same speed relative to each other, a very small fraction of the speed of light, about 0.001c.

2. Cosmic rays are protons that are moving at a very high rate of speed, about 0.98c.

3. So when a cosmic ray hits the earth, it's speed is largely determined by it's speed, the Earth is nearly a stationary target.

So here is my trying to understand UA.

So in UA, the Earth is accelerating forward at 9.8m/s.  It will fairly quickly approach and exceed the speed of the incoming cosmic rays as it moves through the galaxy.

My assumption is that under UA Earth is accelerating through space, and encountering objects, and these encounters would be more energetic as it continues to accelerate.

I am trying to understand which of my assumptions are wrong, and what the correct way is for UA. I know the way I explained it is not correct, but I don't have enough knowledge of the theory to be able to model it, and need some help.

[xasop]

So in UA, the Earth is accelerating forward at 9.8m/s.  It will fairly quickly approach and exceed the speed of the incoming cosmic rays as it moves through the galaxy.

The assumption that we are even located within a galaxy is unjustified in FET. That conclusion is based upon astronomical evidence coupled with the assumption that the Earth is round and orbits the Sun. Interpreting those same observations in the context of FET, the stars are instead located just a few thousand kilometres above the Earth.

This has nothing to do with UA specifically, this is just Flat Earth Theory, under which UA is one possibility. Of course, in the UA model, the stars accelerate along with the Earth.

[JSS]

So in UA, the Earth is accelerating forward at 9.8m/s.  It will fairly quickly approach and exceed the speed of the incoming cosmic rays as it moves through the galaxy.

The assumption that we are even located within a galaxy is unjustified in FET. That conclusion is based upon astronomical evidence coupled with the assumption that the Earth is round and orbits the Sun. Interpreting those same observations in the context of FET, the stars are instead located just a few thousand kilometres above the Earth.

This has nothing to do with UA specifically, this is just Flat Earth Theory, under which UA is one possibility. Of course, in the UA model, the stars accelerate along with the Earth.

Good to know, the stars accelerating along with the Earth is not in the Wiki anywhere I could find. Those are the kinds of details I meant when I was asking what about UA diverges from the standard model. It's hard to understand UA not knowing the context it's supposed to exist in, the Wiki is very brief on the subject.

Question, is there anything outside the Earth and a few thousand km above it? Is the rest of the universe an empty void?

I think what makes it hard to discuss the UA hypothesis is that it throws out everything currently accepted about the Earth and the universe, but doesn't give a definitive answer about what replaces it.

The question the recent discussion has been asking should have been "What are cosmic rays and where do they come from under UA" because until that is answered, we can't very well know what their behavior should be. If UA doesn't address that, then it's not a surprise the discussion has been going in circles for weeks. How can we explain how somethign should behave, if that something is undefined?

[xasop]

Good to know, the stars accelerating along with the Earth is not in the Wiki anywhere I could find. Those are the kinds of details I meant when I was asking what about UA diverges from the standard model. It's hard to understand UA not knowing the context it's supposed to exist in, the Wiki is very brief on the subject.

It is stated on the wiki (emphasis mine):

Objects on the earth's surface have weight because all sufficiently massive celestial bodies are accelerating upward at the rate of 9.8 m/s^2 relative to a local observer immediately above said body.

Question, is there anything outside the Earth and a few thousand km above it? Is the rest of the universe an empty void?

This is an unsettled question in FET.

The question the recent discussion has been asking should have been "What are cosmic rays and where do they come from under UA" because until that is answered, we can't very well know what their behavior should be. If UA doesn't address that, then it's not a surprise the discussion has been going in circles for weeks. How can we explain how somethign should behave, if that something is undefined?

By starting with what we know from observations and developing a model based on that. This is why I have been asking why people have been making predictions based on assumptions which contradict observations, rather than starting with the observations and making predictions about unknowns.

[JSS]

Good to know, the stars accelerating along with the Earth is not in the Wiki anywhere I could find. Those are the kinds of details I meant when I was asking what about UA diverges from the standard model. It's hard to understand UA not knowing the context it's supposed to exist in, the Wiki is very brief on the subject.

It is stated on the wiki (emphasis mine):

Objects on the earth's surface have weight because all sufficiently massive celestial bodies are accelerating upward at the rate of 9.8 m/s^2 relative to a local observer immediately above said body.

Ah thanks, I missed the significance of that. Is it known what 'sufficently massive' means or what the limits are?

I assume that there must be some kind of 'pusher layer' down below that the UA force acts on, and the rest of the Earth rides atop of.

But this wouldn't be the case for other planets as it would squash them flat as well, so other objects must be fully accelerated, including any atmosphere?

The question the recent discussion has been asking should have been "What are cosmic rays and where do they come from under UA" because until that is answered, we can't very well know what their behavior should be. If UA doesn't address that, then it's not a surprise the discussion has been going in circles for weeks. How can we explain how somethign should behave, if that something is undefined?

By starting with what we know from observations and developing a model based on that. This is why I have been asking why people have been making predictions based on assumptions which contradict observations, rather than starting with the observations and making predictions about unknowns.

Is there any hypothesis on what cosmic rays are under FET and where they come from?

Lastly, would it be appropriate for me to start a new thread with these questions, as the OP subject has been answered. (Yes, an object can accelerate forever and never go past c)