Originally posted by buddhasystem
Originally posted by Mary Rose ...I've done multiple measurements involving muons
in the lab, using both muons produced by cosmic-rays, and at a few accelerators on two continents. I have colleagues and friends who have flown
experiments aboard high-altitude balloons and actual low orbit vehicles. There is absolutely no indication that the behavior of muons AND any particle
whatsoever diverges from what's predicted by SR.
I'm reading a .pdf right now that brought back to mind for me something Mallove said in the above series of videos. The .pdf is entitled
"Albert in Relativityland," it is published in The General Science Journal, and
the author is Raleigh Amesbury. This is one well-written and thought-provoking document.
So whoever has written the piece quoted here is an utter moron. It's up to the public to determine appropriate characteristics of people who think
that this tripe is "thought-provoking".
I have no personal experience with muons but I do find your comments about that interesting since you know more about that than I do.
However, I did notice Raleigh Amesbury has the same deficiency as Marko Rodin...neither one seems to understand the most basic mathematical
concept...the meaning of the "=" symbol.
Marko Rodin wrote that "all multiples of 9 equal 9" so 18=9, 27=9 and so on. Some apologists then tried to explain to me what he meant was not what
he said, but Rodin clearly demonstrated he doesn't know what "=" means.
Now we have Raleigh Amesbury saying that the "=" symbol in the equation E=mc² means proportional to rather than equal. From page 19 of the quoted
Certainly the most famous equation in science, E=mc², as Albert applied it to mass in
general, without experimental evidence, asserts that the energy contained in a certain unit of
matter, any mass, equals that quantity multiplied by the speed of light squared....
Equations express relationships. The = in this equation really means proportional to, for as an apple cannot equal an orange, so a gram of any mass
cannot equal an erg of any energy.
I must agree the author is pretty ignorant. The equation doesn't say a gram of mass equals an erg of any
energy. The presence of the c^2 term is what makes it an equality rather than a statement of proportionality. So when we measure energy coming from
the sun, we really are saying that the energy we measure is EQUAL to the energy contained in the mass that was lost in the nuclear fusion process. He
clearly doesn't even understand the most basic mathematical concepts.
Then he claims the E=mc² relationship has never been experimentally verified. Here is the only recording I've ever heard of Einstein, pointing out
it was experimentally verified in 1932:
E=mc²: Einstein explains his famous formula
So you don't have to know anything about muons to realize Raleigh Amesbury and Marko Rodin don't understand mathematics. They have both demonstrated
to us that they don't understand what "=" means, one of the most basic mathematical symbols of all. It's pretty sad, really. And what's even
sadder is that anybody who graduated from elementary school and should know that "18=9" is false should know better, yet they still have an interest
in this bullocks. There are some truly profound cognitive impairments at work here.