Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - pricelesspearl

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9  Next >
1
If you predict how long it would take you to overtake the cars without taking acceleration into account and that prediction turned out to be right…then yes, it would be a reasonable assumption.

If muons accelerate, the time dilation calculations that assume they don’t accelerate, wouldn’t be able to accurately predict how many survive to reach Earth’s surface.  But the calculations do accurately predict, indicating muons do not accelerate.

I notice you completely avoided answering the question. Well done.

I didn’t avoid.  I answered that under certain circumstances it would be reasonable to assume your hypothetical car was maintained a constant speed.

2
Quote
No it does not.

Suppose you are driving your car on a road. In front of you is a blue car travelling at 70 km/h, and in front of that one is a red car travelling at 90 km/h. You overtake the blue car at 80 km/h, and relative to you, it is moving backwards at 10 km/h. You then accelerate to 100 km/h and pass the red car, which is now moving backwards at 10 km/h relative to you.

Is it reasonable to assume that you were actually moving at the same speed the whole time just because you passed two other cars at the same relative speed?

If you predict how long it would take you to overtake the cars without taking acceleration into account and that prediction turned out to be right…then yes, it would be a reasonable assumption.

If muons accelerate, the time dilation calculations that assume they don’t accelerate, wouldn’t be able to accurately predict how many survive to reach Earth’s surface.  But the calculations do accurately predict, indicating muons do not accelerate.

Quote
What is the 9.8 acceleration relative to?

Oy...here we go again.   ::)

Acceleration is not relative.  As an FE proponent...how do you know that the earth is accelerating?  and how do you know how fast it is accelerating?

3
Quote
I'm not talking about anything. I am just asking you to identify for me what those two objects are. Your first attempt at responding to this involved identifying the Earth and "muons", plural. More than one muon plus the Earth is at least three objects.

I did identify them. RV between the earth and muons that are cascading at time X (plural because there are millions cascading any given moment) at time x, and the earth and the muons that are cascading at time Y.

The RV between the earth and "the cascade of muons" at time X and the "cascade of muons" of muons at time "Y", if that makes it easier for you.  But it doesn't really matter...the RV between the earth and one single muon at time X and one single muon at time Y, the same principle applies.  If the RV between doesn't change between time X and Y...proper velocities haven't changed, therefore the earth isn't accelerating.

You seem to think that the RV between muons has some bearing on this. I don't believe it does, can you explain why you think otherwise"

4
Quote
Nope, you've identified more than two objects there. That's not what I asked for.

Please either identify two specific objects whose relative velocities change, or concede that we are talking about more than two objects.

I am talking about the relative velocity between two objects at two separate times. I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.


5
Quote
Why don't we try this instead. Please identify, specifically, the two objects that you claim change relative velocity over the course of, say, a week, as it applies to the muon experiment.

The relative velocity between the earth and muons cascading at time "X" and the relative velocity between the earth and the muons cascading at time "Y". 

The relative velocity between muons and the earth is always .98c range, as evidenced by how many muons survive. It doesn't change between time "X" and time "Y". Basic logic tells us that if relative velocity doesn't change, then the proper velocities have not changed.   What does that tell you about earth's velocity?

[/quote]It is very difficult to understand when you don't explain yourself.
Quote

I did explain myself.  The calculations on that page clearly show that as the relative velocity between the earth and muons increase, the number of muons surviving to reach earth increases.  We don't see this.  From this we can conclude that the relative velocity between the earth and muons is not increasing and if that is the case, the proper velocities of the earth and muons are not changing. If the proper velocity of earth is not changing, its not accelerating.   




6


Quote

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

No it contradicts UA.  If the earth was accelerating it wouldn’t be consistent.

Quote

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.

You may understand how it works but you don’t understand the significance of the results



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

And yet again I have to explain because that is how relative velocities work.  Logic doesn’t need to be justified. If the proper velocities of moving objects change, then so do their relative velocities.  That’s either a valid conclusion or it’s not.  Perhaps you can explain why you think it is not a valid conclusion.

Quote
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.

No assumptions necessary because the velocity of muons has been directly measured and it is consistently measured at .98c.  If the earth were accelerating that wouldn’t be the case.

Why do you think otherwise?

7
Quote

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.

8
Quote

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

9
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.

10
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.

11
If an apple with mass 0.1 kg falls from a tree, what is the acceleration of the Earth towards the apple?

Technically none.  Acceleration is caused by net force. I think it’s more accurate to say that the earth’s acceleration of the Apple is reduced by the amount of gravitational force of the Apple on the earth.

Just because a force is directed toward something doesn’t mean it accelerates it.

12
Quote
What part of the ground is undergoing the acceleration? If the whole Earth was, then it would effectively be weightless and wouldn't stick together once you dug into it. You could pick up a rock and it would float there if it was being accelerated.

So there has to be a layer underground that is being accelerated, and pushing the rest of the Earth (dirt, rock, mountains, water) upwards.

Any idea how far down it is, and what it's made of?

I think you might misunderstand me.  I wasn't arguing for UA.  I was just making the point that the "acceleration" caused by the normal force isn't the same thing as "the earth accelerates" in UA.

13
Quote
There is an equal and opposite force from the Earth, but the acceleration would be %5Cfrac%7BF%7D%7Bm%7D  where m is the mass of the Earth, so the acceleration very, very small.

Can't believe I've just said the Earth is accelerating upwards  ;)

The "earth" isn't accelerating.  The ground directly beneath you is accelerating you.  That's an important distinction. The acceleration is caused by the normal force, so if there is nothing in contact with the ground...there is no acceleration. 


14
Quote
Sorry, what? You don't "take" a frame of reference to be inertial, it either is inertial or it isn't.

So are you suggesting that proper acceleration is not relative? 

15
Quote
You are currently traveling at 0 m/s relative to the couch you are sitting upon. And simultaneously, you are traveling at .996c relative to a really energetic cosmic ray flying in your direction. Both of those frames are equally valid. If you were on a rocket, hurtling directly toward that cosmic ray at, let's say for fun, .5c relative to your couch that you were on moments ago. What do you think your perception is regarding how fast that cosmic ray is now flying at you? And what do you think the cosmic ray, if it had eyes, would perceive your velocity to be? If your answer to both is less than c, I really don't know why you are still posting in this thread. And if your answer is greater than c, then I think you'll understand before you even reply that you need to read some things.

The discussion wasn't about relative velocity...it was about "relative" vs. "proper" acceleration.  Those are two different things. if I am accelerating at a constant 9.8 m/s2 and I am holding an accelerometer...that's what it will read no matter how fast anything is hurtling towards me.
 

16
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are plane tickets real?
« on: April 28, 2020, 10:12:22 PM »
Quote
in base 10:
.1 + .1 = .2


Now try this: https://jsfiddle.net/jbcq3x95/.  0.1 + 0.1. You get:

0.1 + 0.1 = 0.2000000000000000111022302462515654042363

in binary
x + x <> 2x

.1 in base 10 has a different value than .1 in binary so of course .1+.1 in base 10 will not equal .1 + .1 in binary.


17
Quote
I can't help you with this. Taking your misconceptions and trying to shield yourself with big names who didn't say what you think they said is a common strategy or yours, but it just doesn't work.

So are you suggesting that the quote does not say that you can determine your state of motion objectively? If so, what does it mean? What you call "shielding" myself, most others call providing support for your position.  Your objection is disingenuous considering your claim that my position does not "exist in physics".  When I provide support that it does...just responding "that's not what it means" is not very persuasive or intellectually honest.

Quote
The Earth is not a frame of reference. It is a body.


Fair enough...let me rephrase...does earth exist in a certain region of space and time when throughout that region of spacetime-and within some specified accuracy-every free test particle initially at rest with respect to that  frame remains at rest, and every free test particle initially in motion with respect to that frame continues it motion  without change in speed or direction?

18
Quote
The very core of relativity is that there is no objective frame of reference. It's not that FET can't determine these things objectively - it's that your idea of being "objective" doesn't exist in physics.

If you have a problem with the idea of being able to determine your state of motion objectively, you can take it up with Edwin Taylor and John Archibald Wheeler .  They are both on Wikipedia if you doubt credentials. 


Page 31 Spacetime Physics @ http://www.eftaylor.com/spacetimephysics/

Quote
A reference frame is said to an “inertial’ or “free-float” or “Lorentz” reference frame in a certain region of space and time when throughout that region of spacetime-and within some specified accuracy-every free test particle initially at rest with respect to that  frame remains at rest, and every free test particle initially in motion with respect to that frame continues it motion  without change in speed or direction.

Wonder of wonders! This test can be carried out entirely within the free-float frame.  The observer need not look out of the room or refer to any measurements made external to the room. A free-float- frame is “local” in the sense that it is limited in space and time-and also “local in the sense that its free-float character can be determined from within, locally.

Does the FET earth meet the definition in the first paragraph?


Quote
The core point here is that a frame of reference in which the Earth exceeds the speed of light cannot be defined

The core point is why it can't be defined. 



19
Quote
This directly contradicts your prior statement, in which there is one inertial FoR in which that applies for a given moment. This is the usual problem with your claims - you keep disagreeing with yourself.

No, it doesn’t contradict.  What I said that for any given moment, for any infinitesimal duration, the “relative” acceleration would be 9.81 m/s2.   That means it is always 9.81 m/s2.  Pick whatever moment you want in any inertial frame you want…its always going to be 9.81 m/s2.   One inertial frame may apply for that moment, but in the next moment, in the next inertial frame and in every moment and ever inertial frame after that it will 9.81 m/s2.

Quote
You are once again (pretending to be) hopelessly confused. The Earth's acceleration cannot be "considered to be proper acceleration" or not. It can be expressed as one or the other.

It isn’t an either/or proposition.  Proper acceleration can be expressed as relative…but doing that doesn’t change proper acceleration into relative acceleration or mean that proper acceleration no longer applies.

Proper acceleration by definition cannot be relative.  It is “the physical acceleration experienced by an object”.  Relative means “considered in relation or in proportion to something else”.  What is being physically experienced isn’t considered in relation to something else, whether its acceleration or pain. You don’t have to ask anybody else if you have a toothache. It doesn't matter if someone else doesn't believe your tooth is hurting. You know “objectively” if your tooth hurts or not.  There is nothing subjective about it.

If you are accelerating in a car at 100mph, you will experience physical effects from that.  You will feel it. Without ever looking outside,  you can “objectively” know you are accelerating. It doesn’t matter if your “relative” acceleration is 5mph to the guy on the sidewalk.  If you hit a brick wall you will still die. His perception of how fast you were going doesn’t mean squat.  Do you deny that is true? Do you not understand that what is physically perceived from one frame doesn't effect what is physically occurring in another?

You can’t have it both ways.  Either the earth is constantly, physically accelerating at 9.81 m/s2 or not.  For the sake of argument, imagine someone else in an inertial frame in a galaxy far far away perceives earth’s “relative” acceleration as 7.2 m/s2.  Does that mean “gravity” is weaker on earth? What if someone else in another inertial frame perceives it at 12 m/s2? Is" gravity" stronger?

If there is an infinite number of inertial frames and the earth’s proper acceleration can be perceived at an infinite number of different rates…how can FET say it is accelerating at any specific one if it can't be objectively determined?  For that matter, how can FET even say that it is accelerating at all, if you can’t determine it objectively?  Has any flat earther ever observed the earth from an external inertial frame?

20
Quote
You can consider any situation from any FoR.

That’s true, but from whatever inertial frame of reference you perceive the earth, its relative acceleration will always be 9.81 m/s2  .  The earth’s acceleration will always be 9.81 m/s2, from its own FoR.  Acceleration in any inertial frame will always be zero from it’s own FoR.  From any inertial frame, earth will always be accelerating at 9.81 m/s2  .  And from earth, an inertial frame will always be accelerating at zero.

Quote
A friendly reminder that no part of the Wiki refers to proper acceleration.

If FET did not consider earth’s acceleration to be proper acceleration, there could not be any “gravity” caused by UA. Proper acceleration is the “physical acceleration (i.e., measurable acceleration as by an accelerometer) experienced by an object.”   If the earth wasn’t physically experiencing proper acceleration of 9.81 m/s2  , there  could not the physical effect of “gravity” caused by the acceleration. 

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9  Next >