Nature, Vol 268 28 July 1977
On page 301, near the top of column 2 of the text, the equation reads " t = t0 divided by sqrt(1-v2) where t0 is the lifetime for the particle at rest."
64 ms = 2.2 ms divided by sqrt(1- 0.99942)
There can be no question about it, 2.2 ms is computed for the 'at rest' muon, and 64 ms is measured for the moving muon.
Einstein's paper reads.
/QUOTE
§ 4. Physical Meaning of the Equations Obtained in Respect to Moving Rigid Bodies and Moving Clocks
Between the quantities x, t, and t, which refer to the position of the clock, we have, evidently, x=vt and
( http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img60.gif )
Therefore,
( http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img61.gif )
whence it follows that the time marked by the clock (viewed in the stationary system) is slow by...
/UNQUOTE
There can be no question about it, the time marked by the moving muon (viewed in the stationary system) has to be less than 2.2 ms according to the theory of relativity and is computed to be 0.05 ms.
Of course, nobody measured the life of a resting muon, the only measured life is 64 ms.
Einstein's Theory: 0.05 ms
Measured actual: 64 ms
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." - Richard P. Feynman
0.05 ms doesn't agree with experiment. The very smart and beautiful theory of relativity is wrong.
"palsing" <pnalsing@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:49ab591b-cdcd-47d8-9f16-6f8f9d7aa1ec@18g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 23, 7:59 am, "Androcles"
<Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_2011march> wrote:
> "palsing" <pnals...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:b8c3aaed-f4ab-4d5f-9777-25e93486cbc8@q40g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 22, 10:58 pm, "Androcles"
<Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_2011march> wrote:
> > "palsing" <pnals...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:6582dbfe-893a-496a-aba9-bc70737c3803@a21g2000prj.googlegroups.com...
> > On Mar 22, 9:48 pm, "Androcles"
>
> > <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_2011march> wrote:
> > > "palsing" <pnals...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:5ddccc6c-b3a3-40ac-9d03-bf26cfde070c@l14g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> > > On Mar 22, 5:39 pm, "Androcles"
>
> > > <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_2011march> wrote:
> > > > "palsing" <pnals...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > >news:05e3ef13-2164-4164-b1fa-4b404ffa26ae@z3g2000prz.googlegroups.com...
> > > > On Mar 22, 3:34 pm, "Androcles"
>
> > > > <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_2011march> wrote:
> > > > > "palsing" <pnals...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > > >news:368dda29-9918-4d40-bcfb-ed725e376972@d26g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> > > > > On Mar 22, 1:26 pm, "Androcles"
>
> > > > > <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_2011march> wrote:
> > > > > > "palsing" <pnals...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > > > >news:4e96d910-5894-4a26-a6d2-8fbb5a5d6e69@f15g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
> > > > > > "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't
> > > > > > matter
> > > > > > how
> > > > > > smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong,"
> > > > > > - Richard P. Feynman
>
> > > > > > ==================================================
> > > > > > That's why relativists cook the experiments.
>
> > > > > Do you have an example of a *cooked* experiment that is otherwise
> > > > > accepted by mainstream Academia?
>
> > > > > \Paul A
> > > > > ========================================
> > > > > Yes. Would you like to see it?
>
> > > > Sure
> > > > =========================================
> > > > Ok, well, let's start with the beautiful theory:
> > > > Do you agree that this calculation is accepted by mainstream
> > > > Academia?
> > > >http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img61.gif
>
> > > > Do you further agree that
> > > > tau = 2.1948 microseconds * sqrt(1 - 0.9994) = 0.05376 microseconds
> > > > according to the equation given in img61 by Einstein?
>
> > > > If you do so agree that this calculation is acceptable to mainstream
> > > > Academia,
> > > > I'll proceed.
>
Note: I was terse but polite to palsing up to this point, then he chose to become rude and combative:
> > > Well, I've seen first-hand just how you can take Einstein's math out
> > > of context, either on purpose or because you don't understand it in
> > > the first place, so there is no sense going down that road again, I
> > > already know you won't admit it when you are wrong... Understand that
> > > I didn't ask about a theory or its math - beautiful or not - I
> > > specifically asked about a mainstream-accepted experiment in which
> > > mainstream "relativists" cooked the books... of course, if you can't
> > > do so, I'll understand...
> > > ==============================================
>
> > > I'm certainly not doing anything out of context, all I want from you
> > > is a firm yes or no on the equation and the arithmetic from it so that
> > > you can't accuse me of cooking the books, it'll be you that is cooking
> > > them.
>
> > > Do you agree with Einstein's theory, the equation he gave and the
> > > simple arithmetic, or not, you pathetically ignorant cowardly wimp?
>
> > > If you do so agree that this calculation is acceptable to mainstream
> > > Academia I'll proceed, you fuckin' academic arsehole.
>
> > I've come across decomposing bodies that are less offensive than you
> > are.
> > ==============================================
> > Your diatribe is out of context.
> > You can't even agree on what the beautiful theory is, let alone
> > look at an experiment concerning it, you fucking chicken shit.
>
> > What's up, can't you read algebra or perform simple arithmetic,
> > shit for brains?
>
> > Do you agree that this calculation is acceptable to mainstream
> > Academia or not, YES or NO, you ignorant cowardly bastard?
>
> I accept that you can't point to an experiment performed by a
> creditable scientist that has been cooked. I knew you couldn't.
> =============================================
> Oh yes I can, see Nature Vol 268.
> I'd give you a URL but you are too fucking rude to bother with,
> I accept you can't read algebra or perform simple arithmetic.
> I've come across decomposing snails that are smarter and braver
> than you are.
OK, I found and read the probable article...
http://ivanik3.narod.ru/TimeLifeMezon/301-305Nature.pdf
... and I understand most of it just fine.
So, tell us just how this experiment was cooked and is therefore
invalid.
=============================================
Look on page 301, top of column 2 of the text, the equation reads
" tau = tau0 DIVIDED BY sqrt(1-v^2)
where tau0 is the lifetime for the particle at rest."
64 usec = 2.2 usec DIVIDED BY sqrt(1- 0.9994^2)
There can be no question about it, 2.2 usec is computed for the
resting muon, and 64 usec is MEASURED for the moving muon.
Now look at Einstein's paper.
/QUOTE
§ 4. Physical Meaning of the Equations Obtained in Respect to Moving Rigid
Bodies and Moving Clocks
Between the quantities x, t, and tau, which refer to the position of the
clock, we have, evidently, x=vt and
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img60.gif
Therefore,
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img61.gif
whence it follows that the time marked by the clock (viewed in the
stationary system) is slow by...
/UNQUOTE
There can be no question about it, the time marked by the moving muon
(viewed in the stationary system)
has to be LESS THAN 2.2 usec and is computed to be 0.05 microseconds.
Of course, NOBODY measured the life of a resting muon, the only measured
life is 64 usec.
Far from proving Einstein's drivel as they wished to, your academic
shitheads got the equation inverted and DISPROVED special relativity.
That's why relativists cook the experiments.
Theory: 0.05 microseconds
Actual: 64 microseconds.
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter
how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong,"
- Richard P. Feynman
0.05 microseconds doesn't agree with experiment. Your beautiful theory is
wrong.
You and your mainstream Academia are frauds and not very smart at all.
I accept you can't read algebra or perform simple arithmetic.
I've come across decomposing snails that are smarter and braver
than you are.
Now fuck off and decompose, you rude, arrogant, ignorant bastard.
Bigot palsing has failed to respond. Perhaps he is embarrassed or perhaps his dead brain is decomposing. After all, he knew I could not cite Bailey, Borer et. al. with their proud list of universities when the document was on the screen before me. He is the ideal exemplar of an idiot.
On Apr 3, 2:31 pm, "Androcles"
> tau0 is referring to the "measured lifetime at rest", you fucking imbecile.
> Doesn't "at rest" and "stationary" mean the same thing, fuckwit?
No, it doesn't.
Stationary is an arbitrary designation. The first inertial frame
used in the analysis is stationary, regardless of how fast objects in
the frame are going. A meson that is moving at high speed in the
stationary frame is at rest in another inertial frame. "Stationary
frame" is usually used to mean the inertial frame where the
measurement instruments are at rest.
The rest frame means the inertial frame where some physical
object isn't moving. This isn't arbitrary. It is uniquely determined
by the choice of physical object. When it comes to particle, rest
frame usually means the frame where the particle is at rest.
When someone says, "lifetime at rest," he means the specifically
the inertial frame where the particle has a zero speed. When someone
says, "lifetime in the stationary frame," he is talking about the
lifetime as measured in the frame where the measuring instruments are
at rest.
Two different things. If you read Einstein's 1905 entire paper
carefully, you will see that he uses the words stationary and rest to
mean entirely different things. The equations that you wrote are based
on your hallucinations, not on anything written by Einstein.