### 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 - Пардисфла

Pages: < Back  1 [2] 3 4 ... 98  Next >
21
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Math for universal Acceleration IS INCORRECT
« on: May 11, 2020, 03:10:44 PM »
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.

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?

22
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Math for universal Acceleration IS INCORRECT
« on: May 11, 2020, 01:38:38 PM »
I am talking about the relative velocity between two objects at two separate times. I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.

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.

23
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Math for universal Acceleration IS INCORRECT
« on: May 11, 2020, 09:55:34 AM »
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".

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.

24
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Math for universal Acceleration IS INCORRECT
« on: May 10, 2020, 10:15:55 PM »
No it contradicts UA.  If the earth was accelerating it wouldn’t be consistent.

I am just going to start typing "why?" every time you say this. It's going to save me some RSI.

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

It is very difficult to understand when you don't explain yourself.

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.

No, that's a diversion because that is not our point of contention. The point of contention is whether this scenario is applicable to the muon experiment.

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.

No assumptions necessary because the velocity of muons has been directly measured and it is consistently measured at .98c.

I agree. Indeed, this is my entire position.

If the earth were accelerating that wouldn’t be the case.

Why do you think otherwise?

Because we observe otherwise. My conclusion is based directly on scientific observations, while yours is based on something that you are refusing to state for some reason.

25
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Math for universal Acceleration IS INCORRECT
« on: May 10, 2020, 08:17:56 PM »
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.

26
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Math for universal Acceleration IS INCORRECT
« on: May 10, 2020, 07:20:06 PM »
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.

27
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Math for universal Acceleration IS INCORRECT
« on: May 10, 2020, 05:49:53 PM »
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.

28
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Math for universal Acceleration IS INCORRECT
« on: May 10, 2020, 04:12:19 PM »
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?

29
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Math for universal Acceleration IS INCORRECT
« on: May 10, 2020, 01:06:30 PM »
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.

30
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Math for universal Acceleration IS INCORRECT
« on: May 09, 2020, 11:49:20 PM »
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?

31
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Math for universal Acceleration IS INCORRECT
« on: May 09, 2020, 06:41:38 PM »
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.

32
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Math for universal Acceleration IS INCORRECT
« on: May 09, 2020, 05:09:22 PM »
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?

33
##### Arts & Entertainment / Re: Parsifal reviews Dutch Zappa concerts
« on: May 09, 2020, 04:52:24 PM »
Sunday, 29 September, 1974
Ancienne Belgique, Brussel, België (Belgium)

Band

Frank Zappa (guitar, vocals)
Napoleon Murphy Brock (tenor sax, vocals)
George Duke (keyboards, vocals)
Ruth Underwood (percussion)
Tom Fowler (bass)
Chester Thompson (drums)

Set lists

Tush Tush Tush
Stinkfoot
Cosmik Debris
Approximate
Penguin In Bondage
T'Mershi Duween
Dog Meat
Building A Girl
Montana
George Duke improvisation
Florentine Pogen
Oh No (incl. Son Of Orange County)
Trouble Every Day

Pygmy Twylyte
Room Service
Tush Tush Tush

Review

Three years after the loss of Flo & Eddie, Zappa has finally found a replacement lead vocalist, and an equally iconic one for this era as Flo & Eddie were for 1971. Napoleon Murphy Brock was discovered entirely by accident in a nightclub while Frank was on vacation in Hawaii, and his addition to an already musically very strong group created what is widely considered to be Zappa's best touring band of all time. What we have here is a show from a week after the famous Helsinki concert(s), as heard in glorious clarity on You Can't Do That On Stage Anymore, vol. 2 thanks to some solid recording engineering from one Jukka Teittinen. Because so much of the material here is the same as that found on the Stage release, with the remainder mostly being represented on Roxy, I will focus in this review on what makes this show different from the (very good, for once) official catalogue.

The show opens, as always for this tour, with Tush Tush Tush, which begins Frank's long tradition of greeting the audience over backing music. Aside from the entirely improvised vocal interactions between Napoleon and George, this sounds much like the version on Stage, which is to say, a nice laid back intro. Just as on the album, this leads us into Stinkfoot, where Frank's solo is a fiesty beast. Nothing out of the ordinary just yet, though.

Inca Roads is, well... Inca Roads. Gorgeous, majestic, breathtaking. This song consistently bore witness to some of Frank's best guitar work throughout his career, and tonight is no exception. For my money, this solo is even better than the Helsinki version, which Frank liked enough to release twice (on One Size Fits All and Stage). This one is far more experimental, with Frank playing around with loads of different themes. Of course, this unbelievable band follows his twists and turns flawlessly.

George's solo is another solid effort, sounding very unmistakeably George, and even outdoing Frank's effort to this listener's ears. I have yet to hear a bad solo from George in this song (or any other, for that matter). All things considered, this version of Inca Roads alone makes this tape worth a listen.

One "on Ruth" later, and Cosmik Debris rears its head. (Sadly, we do not get a RDNZL as on Stage.) This is the tour responsible for Bathtub Man on One Shot Deal, which is an excerpt from the Cosmik Debris solo section from Paris a few days ago, and should give you some idea of what you're in for in this 10-minute rendition. We segue masterfully from "look here Chester" into some of Napoleon's doots, with him starting his solo even as the preceding verse is still ending. What follows is a demonstration of why Frank was impressed enough to ask the guy to join the band—he really goes for it. It's a very different style from what Ian used to do, but still terrific.

George goes next, and this avalanche of blues couldn't contrast more stunningly with the weird noises he was making in Inca. Finally, Frank picks up the guitar and continues to show us how the blues is supposed to sound. Possibly the best Cosmik Debris I've ever heard, rounding off with "you could make your money begging in San Francisco, so don't you waste your time on Ralph". An allusion to wherever his last drummer went, perhaps?

"The name of this song is Approximate, after which Ruth will show us her tits." This is the way Frank introduces the next song tonight. From here, the song proceeds much as on Stage, with the band first playing it, then singing it, and then dancing it. Then Frank makes some more unnecessary comments about Ruth's tits, and by way of apology delivers us the full version of Approximate, complete with solos that are every bit as enjoyable as the ones on Stage.

Approximate segues into Penguin In Bondage here, which—unlike last year's rendition—has survived on this tape. The performance is essentially the same as on Roxy, complete with a nice long solo from Frank. Then we have the T'Mershi/Dog Meat/Girl medley as found on Stage, incorporating a tasty little drum solo from Chester in T'Mershi Duween. This is otherwise familiar (but excellent) material.

Sadly, unlike in Helsinki, there is no shout of "Whipping Post" to prompt Frank to transform Montana into the monster on Stage, and we get a garden variety Montana instead, excepting a change of lyrics to "pluck the floss and whip it around". It is equally sad that we don't get the extended solo section from last year, but just a Frank solo as on Over-Nite Sensation. The good news is that Frank makes up for all this by delivering the goods in his solo, just as we've come to expect for this evening.

Halfway through his solo, Frank steps up to the mic and says "forget about 4/4 for a while", and what results is some incredible rhythmic—or perhaps arhythmic—interplay between Frank and his backing band. Unfortunately, this only lasts for a minute or so until Frank says "and now 4/4 again" and the solo finishes on the merely good level of performance that is the standard for this show. Frank spices up the final verse with some more lyrical variations, including "ride like a piano player" and chanting "Idaho" over the closing "moving to Montana soon".

Next up is the same kind of improvisation from George as on Dupree's Paradise on Stage, but without actually leading into Dupree's Paradise. Frank begins directing George on a finger cymbal, and tonight he's told to "hurt Ruth for a while" after hurting himself. After the customary booger bear mumblings, we get into the meat of the performance, another splendiferous keyboard solo over the "go to the shelter" vamp from Cheepnis. As a fully improvised piece among other material that is very well represented on the official catalogue, this is a retrospective highlight for this show.

It's always difficult to understand the dialogue in these improvisations between George, Napoleon and Frank, but I can make out that Frank leads this nicely into Florentine Pogen by steering the discussion from booger bears to Chester's gorilla. Florentine Pogen, unsurprisingly by now, is much like the version on One Size Fits All, except that it includes the guitar solo section excised from that album. Tonight's solo, you will be thrilled to learn, is a good one. Beats the pants off any '88 solo in this tune, that's for sure.

Oh No is the only song in this entire show not well represented in the official catalogue, this version having waited until 2013 to see the light of day on A Token Of His Extreme. I can't imagine why, since this showcases the amazing potential of Napoleon and George as a vocal duo, and is much more relaxed than the Weasels Ripped My Flesh version.

The second half of Oh No is, of course, Son Of Orange County from Roxy, complete with guitar solo and segue into (More) Trouble Every Day. I'm running out of adjectives here, but I love this Oh No/Trouble Every Day coupling, and this version is a most excellent one, even blowing the Roxy rendition out of the water in my book. This Son Of Orange County solo must be heard to be believed, and the Trouble Every Day effort is short but a fantastic way to round off the main set.

The encore is the Pygmy Twylyte/Room Service coupling as found, once again, on Stage vol. 2. I'm not even sure if I need to tell you by this point that the guitar solo is exceptional, but there it is anyway. Room Service is the mixed bag it always is, and I can't say this one is any funnier than any other, but if you go for this kind of humour you might like it. The show ends with the lead-in to The Idiot Bastard Son, but stops short of actually going into that song, instead closing with a repeat of the Tush Tush Tush vamp. An underwhelming end to what is otherwise a spectacular concert.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but as tremendous as this show is, the excellent official releases from this tour make it not especially worthwhile to hear. The highlights are the heavily improvisational numbers—Inca Roads, Cosmik Debris, George's improv spot and Son Of Orange County, in particular—and the rest is good, but not significantly different from numerous official albums. Anyway, the day before this show, the band played at The Ahoy in Rotterdam, of which there are no tapes available, but this will be the last show in this thread that doesn't take place in the Netherlands. There is no European tour for 1975, but starting from 1976 every Dutch concert is available for listening, so I'll be back for '76 in a bit.

34
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Math for universal Acceleration IS INCORRECT
« on: May 09, 2020, 04:21:12 PM »
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.

35
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Math for universal Acceleration IS INCORRECT
« on: May 09, 2020, 08:22:54 AM »
Nope.

There is....

Look, are you here to have a conversation or not? We have been talking more recently than the post you just responded to:

However, one week later the scientist carry out the same experiment again, and bear in mind that for the past week the Earth has been accelerating so its velocity has increased by
They now find that more muons are reaching the surface of the Earth and thus their relative velocity and time dilation has increased. A week later and they do another test, again different results... and so on.

We don't observe this. What are you basing this claim on?

You never responded to this question. I'm not going to waste my time engaging you if you're going to ignore my responses and instead dig up more posts from a week ago to make "witty" remarks on.

And incidentally, responding to a post talking about general relativity with an analysis based on Newtonian gravitation is neither relevant nor constructive.

36
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Math for universal Acceleration IS INCORRECT
« on: May 06, 2020, 04:39:41 AM »
Not according to the definition of acceleration. An object that changes its direction of motion accelerates. An object starting on the Earth in UA is already accelerating. As it moves up, it must accelerate even more in order to do so. It then must decelerate to stop, and the Earth to catch up.

No. This is basic high school Newtonian mechanics. If object A moves with a constant velocity, and object B accelerates in the direction of motion of A, then B will eventually overtake A.

I'm not even going to bother demonstrating this because you've been talking down to me this whole time, claiming (or at least implying) that your understanding of relativity surpasses mine. You have just proven beyond any doubt that you are either lying or trolling, so engaging you further is pointless.

37
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Math for universal Acceleration IS INCORRECT
« on: May 05, 2020, 12:37:18 PM »
Absolutely disagree. The launched clock is not in an inertial frame, because it must accelerate to change from going up to going down.

This just shows that you don't even understand the basic principle of UA, let alone being able to discredit it. Under UA, the Earth only accelerates up. Free-falling projectiles do not accelerate down. A projectile that goes up and then down again to an observer on Earth is not accelerating, it is the observer on Earth who accelerates.

38
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Math for universal Acceleration IS INCORRECT
« on: May 05, 2020, 07:37:02 AM »
1. In UA, we are in a noninertial frame. Agree?

Agree.

2. In RET, we are in an inertial frame. Agree?

Disagree, as I have stated previously. But even if we cannot come to an agreement on this point...

3. If agree to 1 above then SR is invalid to use. Agree?

Disagree, because for the purposes of the muon experiment, the difference in observation from an inertial frame of reference is negligible.

Let's try a thought experiment. Suppose we hollow out the Burj Khalifa into a vertical hyperloop. We can now send objects through it that can take measurements as inertial observers, unaffected by the Earth's acceleration.

Now, launch a clock upwards into the Burj Khalifa, which will rise to the top and then fall back down. As it is not being accelerated by UA, it is an inertial observer which can be analysed using SR.

My assertion is that the difference between the muon decay time measured by a clock on the surface of the Earth, and that measured by our Burj hyperloop clock, will be so tiny as to be immeasurable, and in any case insignificant for the purposes of the muon experiment. Agree?

39
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Math for universal Acceleration IS INCORRECT
« on: May 04, 2020, 11:25:09 PM »
Precisely, this change in the muon spectrum is NOT observed - but should be in UA.

You didn't answer my question. Why do you claim that it should be in UA?

40
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Math for universal Acceleration IS INCORRECT
« on: May 04, 2020, 01:41:23 PM »
However, one week later the scientist carry out the same experiment again, and bear in mind that for the past week the Earth has been accelerating so its velocity has increased by
They now find that more muons are reaching the surface of the Earth and thus their relative velocity and time dilation has increased. A week later and they do another test, again different results... and so on.

We don't observe this. What are you basing this claim on?

Pages: < Back  1 [2] 3 4 ... 98  Next >