From: eric gisse on
...@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:

> On Mon, 24 May 2010 20:24:59 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
> <someone(a)somewhere.no> wrote:
>
>>On 24.05.2010 00:08, Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
>>> On Sat, 22 May 2010 23:54:20 +0200, "Paul B.
>>> Andersen"<someone(a)somewhere.no> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> On May 20, 6:31 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>>
>>>>>> The pions had stopped in the berylium block before they decayed.
>>
>>>> You can't stop a pion - it will decay - quickly.
>>>> A pion doesn't 'stop' before it decays.
>>>> The very idea is ridiculous.
>>>> Where would the kinetic energy go?
>>
>>So that argument went down the drain.
>
> It should be obvious to any real physicist where the energy goes.

If you are a real physicist, you should be able to explain it then.

>
>>Doesn't matter.
>>Physics is a matter of faith, isn't it?
>>So Henry Wilson choses not
>>to believe anything which falsifies the theory in which
>>he has blind faith.
>>
>>> As I have stated many times, there is not one believable experiment that
>>> claims support for Einstein. This one is typical.
>>
>>.. as he willingly and repeatedly admits. :-)
>
> There has never been an experiment that convincingly supports Einstein's
> silly theory.

Ah, there we go: "convincingly".

Do you require yourself to be convinced of everything, or is that a
requirement unique to relativity?

Has anyone convinced you that quantum mechanics is essential to the function
of semiconductor technology? No? Well then I guess it isn't, by your logic.

> His second postulate requires an aetherlike spatial reference frame,
> anyway.

Is that an argument for or against relativity? You have also argued many
times for the existence of the aether and you have even _named_ it after
yourself (h-aether!).

>
> Henry Wilson...
>
> .......A relativist's IQ = his snipping ability.

From: Henry Wilson DSc on
On Mon, 24 May 2010 15:36:26 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>On May 24, 5:13�pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>> On Mon, 24 May 2010 15:54:21 +0900, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> >> On 22.05.2010 06:51, Darwin123 wrote:
>> >>> On May 20, 6:31 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>> >>>> The pions had stopped in the berylium block before they decayed.
>> >>> � � � The pions were outside the beryllium when they decayed.
>>
>> >> Hardly.
>> >> The neutral pion has a mean lifetime of 8.4E-17 s, which
>> >> means that even if its speed is close to the speed of light,
>> >> it will travel only in the order of 25 nm before it decays.
>> >> But gamma rays are very penetrating, so the probability for
>> >> for the gammas to interact with electrons in the 5um thick
>> >> target is very small. So there are gammas that are coming out
>> >> of the target, not pions.
>> >> A gamma burst was produced every time a proton bunch passed
>> >> through the target.
>>
>> >Yes, the pi0 decays well inside the target. But pi0 is also "very penetrating"
>> >on the scale of its path length -- an atom is mostly empty space, and the pi0
>> >does not interact with electrons other than via elastic scattering (which does
>> >no affect the pi0 or its lifetime). A small fraction of the pi0s created will
>> >interact with nearby nuclei; the vast majority decay with speed close to c.
>>
>> >Note also that the measurements of the gammas are consistent with the SR
>> >kinematics of the pi0 decay.
>>
>> Hahahha! ...and how were the OW speeds of the gammas actually measured?
>
>With photon counters and time gates. Why?

:)
not very accurate, eh?

>> >To attempt to model this with any sort of ballistic
>> >theory is EXTREMELY difficult, as the angle between the gammas (in the lab)
>> >varies strongly with the speed of the pi0 as it decays -- Galilean kinematics
>> >simply does not work.
>>
>> If a golf ball breaks in half when in flight, what would you say about the
>> speeds of the two halves.
>
>They are different, in the ground frame.
>And this is quite measurable, as the arrival times at planes
>equidistant from the golf ball at break-up are very different.
>Compare this with the contrary result with gammas from the pion.

There's probably some kind of 'explosion' as well.

>> Tom, it is now obvious that Einstein's silly theory has to rely on fringe
>> experiments like this just to maintain its existence in an increasingly
>> skeptical scientific world.
>
>I love this: "fringe experiments". As in, "Any experiment that is
>specifically aimed to test a prediction of relativity and in fact
>shows support for relativity should be discredited as 'fringe'
>because... well, just because."

'Fringe' means 'right on the edge of credibility'.


Henry Wilson...

........A relativist's IQ = his snipping ability.
From: Henry Wilson DSc on
On Mon, 24 May 2010 16:08:04 -0700, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com>
wrote:

>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 22 May 2010 16:05:47 -0700, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 22 May 2010 01:56:31 -0700 (PDT), Jerry
>>>> <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On May 21, 11:51 pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The pions were outside the beryllium when they decayed.
>>>>>
>>>>>No.
>>>>>
>>>>>Jerry
>>>>
>>>> kook fight
>>>
>>>You were the one who said it, dipshit.
>>
>> No I wasn't, idiot...
>
>Hah, you are right. Sorry.

Hooray! You finally said something intelligent.

Henry Wilson...

........A relativist's IQ = his snipping ability.
From: eric gisse on
...@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:

[...]

>>>
>>> Hahahha! ...and how were the OW speeds of the gammas actually measured?
>>
>>With photon counters and time gates. Why?
>
> :)
> not very accurate, eh?

Why would you make the claim that they 'aren't very accurate' if you've
never worked with them?

>
>>> >To attempt to model this with any sort of ballistic
>>> >theory is EXTREMELY difficult, as the angle between the gammas (in the
>>> >lab) varies strongly with the speed of the pi0 as it decays -- Galilean
>>> >kinematics simply does not work.
>>>
>>> If a golf ball breaks in half when in flight, what would you say about
>>> the speeds of the two halves.
>>
>>They are different, in the ground frame.
>>And this is quite measurable, as the arrival times at planes
>>equidistant from the golf ball at break-up are very different.
>>Compare this with the contrary result with gammas from the pion.
>
> There's probably some kind of 'explosion' as well.
>
>>> Tom, it is now obvious that Einstein's silly theory has to rely on
>>> fringe experiments like this just to maintain its existence in an
>>> increasingly skeptical scientific world.
>>
>>I love this: "fringe experiments". As in, "Any experiment that is
>>specifically aimed to test a prediction of relativity and in fact
>>shows support for relativity should be discredited as 'fringe'
>>because... well, just because."
>
> 'Fringe' means 'right on the edge of credibility'.

And why is it that people who know relativity is wrong are the only people
who find evidence for relativity to be 'fringe' ?


>
>
> Henry Wilson...
>
> .......A relativist's IQ = his snipping ability.

From: PD on
On May 24, 6:53 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
> On Mon, 24 May 2010 15:36:26 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >On May 24, 5:13 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
> >> On Mon, 24 May 2010 15:54:21 +0900, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >> >> On 22.05.2010 06:51, Darwin123 wrote:
> >> >>> On May 20, 6:31 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
> >> >>>> The pions had stopped in the berylium block before they decayed.
> >> >>>       The pions were outside the beryllium when they decayed..
>
> >> >> Hardly.
> >> >> The neutral pion has a mean lifetime of 8.4E-17 s, which
> >> >> means that even if its speed is close to the speed of light,
> >> >> it will travel only in the order of 25 nm before it decays.
> >> >> But gamma rays are very penetrating, so the probability for
> >> >> for the gammas to interact with electrons in the 5um thick
> >> >> target is very small. So there are gammas that are coming out
> >> >> of the target, not pions.
> >> >> A gamma burst was produced every time a proton bunch passed
> >> >> through the target.
>
> >> >Yes, the pi0 decays well inside the target. But pi0 is also "very penetrating"
> >> >on the scale of its path length -- an atom is mostly empty space, and the pi0
> >> >does not interact with electrons other than via elastic scattering (which does
> >> >no affect the pi0 or its lifetime). A small fraction of the pi0s created will
> >> >interact with nearby nuclei; the vast majority decay with speed close to c.
>
> >> >Note also that the measurements of the gammas are consistent with the SR
> >> >kinematics of the pi0 decay.
>
> >> Hahahha! ...and how were the OW speeds of the gammas actually measured?
>
> >With photon counters and time gates. Why?
>
> :)
> not very accurate, eh?

Actually, quite accurate. The precision, and how that is determined,
is described in the paper. You should read it sometime, rather than
just making stuff up about it without reading it.

>
> >> >To attempt to model this with any sort of ballistic
> >> >theory is EXTREMELY difficult, as the angle between the gammas (in the lab)
> >> >varies strongly with the speed of the pi0 as it decays -- Galilean kinematics
> >> >simply does not work.
>
> >> If a golf ball breaks in half when in flight, what would you say about the
> >> speeds of the two halves.
>
> >They are different, in the ground frame.
> >And this is quite measurable, as the arrival times at planes
> >equidistant from the golf ball at break-up are very different.
> >Compare this with the contrary result with gammas from the pion.
>
> There's probably some kind of 'explosion' as well.

Which makes absolutely no difference whatsoever. That's the whole
point of conservation of momentum, that the quantity is conserved in a
closed system REGARDLESS of the nature of the interactions within the
system. Thus momentum would be conserved for the two halves of the
golf ball, whether they separated by explosion or by a gentle push-
off.

This wouldn't at all change the results that the arrival times in the
case of the golf ball are observably different, and the arrival times
in the case of pi0->2gamma are identical.

>
> >> Tom, it is now obvious that Einstein's silly theory has to rely on fringe
> >> experiments like this just to maintain its existence in an increasingly
> >> skeptical scientific world.
>
> >I love this: "fringe experiments". As in, "Any experiment that is
> >specifically aimed to test a prediction of relativity and in fact
> >shows support for relativity should be discredited as 'fringe'
> >because... well, just because."
>
> 'Fringe' means 'right on the edge of credibility'.

Alrighty then, as in "Any experiment that is specifically aimed to
test a prediction of relativity and in fact shows support for
relativity should be discredited as 'right on the edge of credibility'
because... well, just because."

>
> Henry Wilson...
>
> .......A relativist's IQ = his snipping ability.