"Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?

[aetherist]

Muons were mentioned by TimFox in #1386. And by penfold in #1310.

Yes - and you have no explanation for them.

The muon is wonderful. It is another fine example where Einsteinist's shoot themselves in the foot.
That’s the beautiful thing about Einsteinist's when they proudly crow about another proof of Einsteinian stuff. They love to assert that the new experiment proves or confirms STR or GTR to well within the margin for error. Not realizing that when aetherists show that the experiment has an error then that same experiment has to then be seen to be a disproof of STR or GTR.
The muon experiment is one such disproof, within the margin for error.

I'm not wasting my time parsing for errors in a crank paper published on a crank website like 'General Science Journal' though I did derive no small amusement from perusing a few of the submissions there.

Rather, I'm going to focus on something else stupid that you're asserting here - that the experiments on muon decay were done once in the 1960s and that's it! I don't care about the 1960s experiment (other than for historical reasons) - because other people did the experiment and the measurements of muon decay and the relativistic calculations associated with it are something so trivial that physics undergraduate students do this experiment ALL THE TIME:
https://scholarworks.smith.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1041&context=phy_facpubs

https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0502103.pdf

https://www.physlab.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Muon_cali.pdf

https://www2.ph.ed.ac.uk/~muheim/teaching/projects/muon-lifetime.pdf

https://www.ictp-saifr.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Lab_MuonLifetime_2018.pdf

http://www.princeton.edu/~romalis/PHYS312/Muon_lifetime.pdf

The list goes on.

Let me repeat. This experiment is so trivial that undergraduate physics students do it all the time in universities all over the world. 

I don’t understand the undergraduate muon Xs. But it appears to me that all of them (most of them) involve measurement of the lifetime of muons, the Xs do not involve the more complicated confirmation of time dilation.
I think that i am ok with the existence of muons (massive electrons), & (perhaps) with the measurement of their lifetimes (i think that their lifetimes depend on where they come to rest)(are some orbiting a nucleus?). But i am not ok with the standard Einsteinian time dilation explanation for the overly high number of muons hitting Earth.

Here is how neoLorentz Relativity (my preferred theory)(very nearly) sees ticking dilation & length contraction for muons hitting Earth.

LENGTH CONTRACTION.  Firstly we have a muon looking at the distance to Earth.
Einsteinian Relativity says that if the muon is falling at 0.99c then the distance to Earth appears to the muon to be D/9 approx. Hence the muon has a greater chance of reaching Earth before decaying (half life is 2.2 microsec)(time to reach Earth from 10 km or 33,000 ft is 33,000 ns which is 33 microsec).
neoLorentz Relativity says that the muon is length contracted, ie its length is L/9, in which case the distance to Earth which is D appears to the (contracted) muon to be 9D (if using measuring rods carried by the muon)(ie the measuring rods are contracted by L/9). This is 81 times the Einsteinian D/9.
Hence neoLorentz Relativity length contraction can't explain why so many muons reach Earth. In fact neoLorentz Relativity apparent length contraction makes the probability almost zero. So, this kind of apparent length contraction cant be involved -- it is irrelevant.

TICKING DILATION.    Secondly we have an observer on Earth looking at a falling muon.
Einsteinian Relativity says that if a stationary observer sees that the muon is falling at 0.99c then the observer sees that the muon's time is passing at T/9 relative to the observer. Hence the muon has a greater chance of reaching Earth before decaying.
neoLorentz Relativity possibly says the same. neoLorentz Relativity ticking dilation probably has a different value of ticking dilation for each kind of clock, ie for each kind of atomic or subatomic particle, ie for each kind of subatomic or atomic process. Some processes might have a ticking dilation that is equal to or very nearly the Einsteinian time dilation.
So, what is the neoLorentz Relativity value for the ticking dilation of the decay lifetime of a muon?
As i said, if that value is equal to the Einsteinian value then every experiment that validates Einsteinian time dilation also validates neoLorentz ticking dilation.
And it validates every such theory that has that value, every such theory that has already been invented, & every future theory that has not yet been invented, ie an infinite number of such theories.
But, to Einsteinists, the muon decay lifetime experiment proves Einsteinian time dilation, the whole of Einsteinian time dilation, & nothing but Einsteinian time dilation.

Einsteinian time dilation says that time is dilated. In which case every clock, every process, is dilated, equally.
neoLorentz ticking dilation says that the ticking of every process is affected in a different way, & to a different degree. At the subatomic & atomic level the ticking is affected by length contraction, in every case, the length contraction affecting the strength & speed of every em radiation field & force.
Not only that, but length contraction in neoLorentz relativity is due to the speed through the aether, in other words it is due to the aetherwind. Whereas in Einsteinian Relativity length contraction is due to relative velocity & time dilation is due to relative speed.
Not only that, but the stationary observer that i mentioned earlier is almost irrelevant in neoLorentz Relativity. In neoLorentz Relativity the observer has to be stationary in the (absolute) aether frame, ie where the aetherwind is zero km/s (ie the absolute reference frame)(the ARF). The background aetherwind near Earth blows at 500 km/s (c/600) south to north about 20 deg off Earth's axis. Hence in some experiments the exact aetherwind is critical, in some it aint. A muon falling to Earth near the north pole might have an aetherwind of 0.99c plus c/600, & a muon falling to Earth near the south pole might have an aetherwind of 0.99c minus c/600. Or, do they have the same aetherwind? Its tricky.

[penfold]

[...]
But, to Einsteinists, the muon decay lifetime experiment proves Einsteinian time dilation, the whole of Einsteinian time dilation, & nothing but Einsteinian time dilation.
[...]

Then your beef is with the Einsteinists in that case. To everybody else, it provides validation that the model (incorporating effects described by STR) agrees with measured observations. The proof is gradually produced through repeat measurements and different experiments that gradually build up a case with decreasing doubt that there are other factors involved. No single experiment alone can prove or disprove, but the proof can be gradually formed through observation and well-formed mathematical models. A disproof takes a similar amount of effort in that the disproving experiment must also be able to prove itself through repeatability, demonstration of the well-formedness of the maths, etc.

Further on the proof or disproof. It isn't perfect, but if I type "1+4=" into my calculator 1000 times and get mostly 5s, some 8s, a 6, a few 4s, and one 0.998: can I use that as evidence that 1+4=8? does it prove that 1+4=5.005? If many people get similar results and we can rule out calculator mal-function, do we then change the definition of 1+4? or do we do further experiments to produce a model of finger slips on calculator keys? How do I rule out the effects of your-aether? In this case, we can actually invalidate the experiment quite quickly because I clearly made up the results and botched the statistics on purpose.

[HuronKing]

I don’t understand the undergraduate muon Xs.

Color me shocked. 

But it appears to me that all of them (most of them) involve measurement of the lifetime of muons, the Xs do not involve the more complicated confirmation of time dilation.

Can you read?

https://www.ictp-saifr.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Lab_MuonLifetime_2018.pdf

Let us solve a quick exercise to understand how the cosmic muons created high in the atmosphere could reach the Earth's surface, given their lifetime is so short. Consider a muon of 2 GeV, which is a typical energy, produced at an altitude of 15 km above the sea level. How far will it travel before decaying? Consider first a non-relativistic muon, and compare it to the relativistic case.

http://www.princeton.edu/~romalis/PHYS312/Muon_lifetime.pdf

Questions to ponder
• What are cosmic rays primarily composed of? How are muons formed in the earth’s atmosphere?
Given the short muon decay time, why do so many make it to the earth’s surface?

https://www2.ph.ed.ac.uk/~muheim/teaching/projects/muon-lifetime.pdf

The muon has a lifetime of τµ = 2.197 µs. According to classical
physics, what is the distance that a muon would travel at the speed
of light during its lifetime? Why do muons produced in the upper
atmosphere, say at 10 km, reach the sea level before they decay? What
is the speed β = v/c of a muon with an energy of 2 GeV? How far will
the muon travel before disintegrating?

These are classroom exercises for the students to explain why way more muons can hit the Earth's surface than would be expected under classical physics. That's how trivial this is and how ridiculous it is you and the other cranks waste time going after one experiment from the 1960s. This experiment is repeated every semester by juniors in classrooms all over the world.

I think that i am ok with the existence of muons (massive electrons), & (perhaps) with the measurement of their lifetimes (i think that their lifetimes depend on where they come to rest)(are some orbiting a nucleus?). But i am not ok with the standard Einsteinian time dilation explanation for the overly high number of muons hitting Earth.

Stay far away from a junior undergraduate physics laboratory then.

[TimFox]

Ignoring ignorance about time dilation and muons, the muon itself is a good historical example of how real science progresses.
In 1935, the future Nobel laureate Hideki Yukawa published his theory that the "strong force" holding nuclei together (against electrostatic repulsion of the positive protons) was mediated by a massive particle (hence its short range), and estimated its mass as approximately 200 times the electron mass.  Hence the term "meson" for a particle of mass intermediate between lepton (e.g., electron) and baryon (e.g, proton).
In 1936, Anderson and Neddermayer found a particle in cosmic rays whose trajectory in a cloud chamber (in a magnetic field) indicated a mass close to that value and named it the "mu meson", where mu was the term for the mass in Yukawa's theory.
Subsequently, this particle (and its positive-charge antiparticle) were determined to be something else, and are now grouped with the other leptons.  In grad school, we learned "the mu meson is not a meson", but the particle had been re-named the "muon".  (Recently, there have been reports of discrepancies (excruciatingly small) between the magnetic moment of the muon and theoretical calculations, but the jury is still out.)
Then a few things happened in world history, but in 1947 Powell, Rochester, and Butler discovered the "pi meson", or "pion" in nuclear emulsions (special photographic emulsions), again in cosmic rays.  Pions (+, -, and neutral charge) have mass roughly 270 times the electron mass.  In further work, for which I refer the interested reader to a voluminous literature in particle physics,  pions were not the end of the problem, but led to the development of quark theory.

[aetherist]

[...]But, to Einsteinists, the muon decay lifetime experiment proves Einsteinian time dilation, the whole of Einsteinian time dilation, & nothing but Einsteinian time dilation.[...]

Then your beef is with the Einsteinists in that case. To everybody else, it provides validation that the model (incorporating effects described by STR) agrees with measured observations. The proof is gradually produced through repeat measurements and different experiments that gradually build up a case with decreasing doubt that there are other factors involved. No single experiment alone can prove or disprove, but the proof can be gradually formed through observation and well-formed mathematical models. A disproof takes a similar amount of effort in that the disproving experiment must also be able to prove itself through repeatability, demonstration of the well-formedness of the maths, etc.

Further on the proof or disproof. It isn't perfect, but if I type "1+4=" into my calculator 1000 times and get mostly 5s, some 8s, a 6, a few 4s, and one 0.998: can I use that as evidence that 1+4=8? does it prove that 1+4=5.005? If many people get similar results and we can rule out calculator mal-function, do we then change the definition of 1+4? or do we do further experiments to produce a model of finger slips on calculator keys? How do I rule out the effects of your-aether? In this case, we can actually invalidate the experiment quite quickly because I clearly made up the results and botched the statistics on purpose.

Yes but the point that i was making was that an experiment confirms every theory that would give that result. And there are an infinite number of such theories, some not yet written.
In the case of the muon time dilation experiments, all of them also confirm neoLorentz Relativity (which is an aether theory).
But Einsteinists seem to think that Einsteinian time dilation is the only ticking dilation in town.

[HuronKing]

Yes but the point that i was making was that an experiment confirms every theory that would give that result. And there are an infinite number of such theories, some not yet written.
In the case of the muon time dilation experiments, all of them also confirm neoLorentz Relativity (which is an aether theory).
But Einsteinists seem to think that Einsteinian time dilation is the only ticking dilation in town.

Krapp. That is not the point you're making. You wrote this,

That’s the beautiful thing about Einsteinist's when they proudly crow about another proof of Einsteinian stuff. They love to assert that the new experiment proves or confirms STR or GTR to well within the margin for error. Not realizing that when aetherists show that the experiment has an error then that same experiment has to then be seen to be a disproof of STR or GTR.
The muon experiment is one such disproof, within the margin for error.

So, when shown that the experiments are not only valid, but done EVERY SINGLE DAY all over the world (and you still have a self-admitted ignorance of how they're performed), and are in accordance with the predictions of STR, you are now switching to claiming they verify your pet theory you're making up from one post to the next... when mere hours ago you were CERTAIN the experiments were all bunk.

Again, "krapp."

[aetherist]

I don’t understand the undergraduate muon Xs.

Color me shocked. 

But it appears to me that all of them (most of them) involve measurement of the lifetime of muons, the Xs do not involve the more complicated confirmation of time dilation.

Can you read?

https://www.ictp-saifr.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Lab_MuonLifetime_2018.pdf

Let us solve a quick exercise to understand how the cosmic muons created high in the atmosphere could reach the Earth's surface, given their lifetime is so short. Consider a muon of 2 GeV, which is a typical energy, produced at an altitude of 15 km above the sea level. How far will it travel before decaying? Consider first a non-relativistic muon, and compare it to the relativistic case.

http://www.princeton.edu/~romalis/PHYS312/Muon_lifetime.pdf

Questions to ponder
• What are cosmic rays primarily composed of? How are muons formed in the earth’s atmosphere?
Given the short muon decay time, why do so many make it to the earth’s surface?

https://www2.ph.ed.ac.uk/~muheim/teaching/projects/muon-lifetime.pdf

The muon has a lifetime of τµ = 2.197 µs. According to classical physics, what is the distance that a muon would travel at the speed of light during its lifetime? Why do muons produced in the upper atmosphere, say at 10 km, reach the sea level before they decay? What is the speed β = v/c of a muon with an energy of 2 GeV? How far will the muon travel before disintegrating?

These are classroom exercises for the students to explain why way more muons can hit the Earth's surface than would be expected under classical physics. That's how trivial this is and how ridiculous it is you and the other cranks waste time going after one experiment from the 1960s. This experiment is repeated every semester by juniors in classrooms all over the world.

I think that i am ok with the existence of muons (massive electrons), & (perhaps) with the measurement of their lifetimes (i think that their lifetimes depend on where they come to rest)(are some orbiting a nucleus?). But i am not ok with the standard Einsteinian time dilation explanation for the overly high number of muons hitting Earth.

Stay far away from a junior undergraduate physics laboratory then.

The 1962 experiment was (as i said) fortunate that they used 6" less Fe cover than they should have (the Fe is meant to compensate for the mass of the atmosphere tween the 2 levels for the 2 tests). This was a peer review (i showed a link), albeit only a few years ago. It was possibly the only peer review that the 1962 X ever got. Anyhow the missing 6" of Fe resulted in Einsteinian time dilation being confirmed to within the margin for error. Funny that. Whereas with the 6" of Fe being properly in place the peer review said that the Einsteinian time dilation would have given an error of (i think) 50%.

Aetherists i think are happy with ticking dilation explaining the longer lifetime of muons. But aetherists (or at least me myself) do not insist that the standard gamma equation applies exactly (Einsteinist's insist that it duz apply exactly). And aetherists of course insist that V is the aetherwind (Einsteinist's insist that V is the STR  relative velocity). So, there are at least 2 differences tween an aetherist's explanation of the muon X & an Einsteinist explanation, one is minor (possibly involving up to c/600 difference in the V), & one might be minor or major (re the exact form of the equation for gamma).

So, i like the muon X (if it includes a true allowance for the mass of the atmosphere), but i don’t like the adoration of the silly Einsteinian dogma.

[aetherist]

Yes but the point that i was making was that an experiment confirms every theory that would give that result. And there are an infinite number of such theories, some not yet written.
In the case of the muon time dilation experiments, all of them also confirm neoLorentz Relativity (which is an aether theory).
But Einsteinists seem to think that Einsteinian time dilation is the only ticking dilation in town.

Krapp. That is not the point you're making. You wrote this,

That’s the beautiful thing about Einsteinist's when they proudly crow about another proof of Einsteinian stuff. They love to assert that the new experiment proves or confirms STR or GTR to well within the margin for error. Not realizing that when aetherists show that the experiment has an error then that same experiment has to then be seen to be a disproof of STR or GTR.
The muon experiment is one such disproof, within the margin for error.

So, when shown that the experiments are not only valid, but done EVERY SINGLE DAY all over the world (and you still have a self-admitted ignorance of how they're performed), and are in accordance with the predictions of STR, you are now switching to claiming they verify your pet theory you're making up from one post to the next... when mere hours ago you were CERTAIN the experiments were all bunk. 
Again, "krapp."

I said that the muon X disproved Einstein's STR. Meaning that it disproved Einstein's equation for his gamma.
The 1962 muon X confirmed that Einstein's gamma was ok within the margin for error. But had they used the proper extra 6" of Fe cover then Einstein's gamma would have been 50% out.
And the Lorentz gamma would have been 50% out.
And the neoLorentz gamma would have been 50% out.
Me myself i have my own version of neoLorentz Relativity. I doubt that the standard gamma applies to every subatomic or atomic process (especially re decay & lifetime). Hence i would firstly believe the muon X results, & i would then modify the gamma to suit the results, & i would write a paper, & i might get a Nobel.
But Einsteinist's will do their usual – fudge push cherry-pick bluff lie cheat bully censor deny.

Re the muon X (time dilation) being done every day, & re me being ignorant ovem, i thort that any such experiment had to be done in 2 parts, one at high altitude, & one at low altitude. Do undergrads ever take their equipment to the top of a hill?

[TimFox]

And no one ever, after 1962, repeated the muon lifetime experiment?
Many early experiments for any theory needed improvement after criticism from other scientists, but no one thought to repeat this one?

[aetherist]

And no one ever, after 1962, repeated the muon lifetime experiment?
Many early experiments for any theory needed improvement after criticism from other scientists, but no one thought to repeat this one?

The modern peer review of the 1962 muon X criticized the calculation of the effect of the slowing & loss of energy of muons arising from the mass of the atmosphere tween the altitudes of the 2 tests (1 on Mt Washington)(one near sea level), the density was i think underestimated, plus the gradation of the change of density with altitude was underestimated, resulting in an (accidental) shortfall of 6" of Fe being used to cover the detector.
I dont know whether the modern muon Xs use the same faulty calc/allowance. Or perhaps they use a different method entirely.
And i might find some other (aetheric) criticisms of muon Xs. 

[TimFox]

Since then, the muon measurements to demonstrate time dilation have become so common that they are assigned as advanced undergraduate lab experiments.
Here is an example from 1990, 28 years after the experiment you are criticizing.  This paper is a detailed practical guide to performing the experiment during a day trip to a nearby mountain.
https://scholarworks.smith.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1041&context=phy_facpubs
Apparently, the authors of this 1990 paper (in V. Conclusion)  anticipated your reaction:
"The concept of relativistic time dilation is both exciting and difficult for a student in the first modern physics course and this experiment helps to convert skeptics to believers."

[HuronKing]

Re the muon X (time dilation) being done every day, & re me being ignorant ovem, i thort that any such experiment had to be done in 2 parts, one at high altitude, & one at low altitude. Do undergrads ever take their equipment to the top of a hill?

Uhh... yes? Like I said... THEY DO THIS EXPERIMENT ALL THE TIME. 

https://scholarworks.smith.edu/phy_facpubs/41/

The measured muon flux on a mountain relative to that measured at sea level can be compared to predictions from calculations that take into account the relativistic time dilation in the muon frame. Situations under which such an experiment can be successfully performed are explored with a day-long field trip to a nearby mountain. This experiment has been developed at Smith College as a module in the Five College cooperative undergraduate advanced laboratory course (other participating institutions are Amherst College, Mount Holyoke College, and the University of Massachusetts).

https://gustavus.edu/physics/concertFiles/media/Cosmic_Ray_Muon_Detection_Thesis.pdf

To make the experiment more portable, a compact muon detector consisting of a slab of plastic scintillator with a silicon photomultiplier was constructed and placed in a high-altitude balloon.

But no, you're stuck in 1962, or 1905, or whatever. You think that my pointing out how utterly clueless you are is 'bullying' but the fact is that you have no idea what happens in a basic 3rd year physics education (even as I and others are spoonfeeding it to you) and you have no intellectual curiosity to even find out on your own. This is pathetic and sad. I'm not against ignorance in general, we all have things to learn all the time - but I am against cranks trolling threads with constant and persistently incoherent nonsense.

PS
Looks like TimFox already found some of the same links I've found.

[aetherist]

Since then, the muon measurements to demonstrate time dilation have become so common that they are assigned as advanced undergraduate lab experiments.
Here is an example from 1990, 28 years after the experiment you are criticizing.  This paper is a detailed practical guide to performing the experiment during a day trip to a nearby mountain.
https://scholarworks.smith.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1041&context=phy_facpubs
Apparently, the authors of this 1990 paper (in V. Conclusion)  anticipated your reaction:
"The concept of relativistic time dilation is both exciting and difficult for a student in the first modern physics course and this experiment helps to convert skeptics to believers."

I do not believe in time dilation. I do not believe in spacetime.
I believe in ticking dilation.
How exactly duz this muon X rule out ticking dilation?
How duz it rule out an aether?

I am glad to see that advanced muon lab experiments are now common.
But it’s a pity that sense aint.

[TimFox]

Spoken like a true believer.  Anything you find "icky" must be wrong, regardless of the experimental data.

By the way, an efficient old-fashioned way to look for later experiments is to start with the original 1942 publication (before the 1962 experiment that became a film):  B Rossi and D B Hall, Phys. Rev. 61 675-679.
Then enter it into a citation index, such as  https://scholarworks.smith.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1041&context=phy_facpubs 
From there, you will get a list of later papers that cited the one you started with.

[aetherist]

Spoken like a true believer.  Anything you find "icky" must be wrong, regardless of the experimental data.

By the way, an efficient old-fashioned way to look for later experiments is to start with the original 1942 publication (before the 1962 experiment that became a film):  B Rossi and D B Hall, Phys. Rev. 61 675-679.
Then enter it into a citation index, such as  https://scholarworks.smith.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1041&context=phy_facpubs 
From there, you will get a list of later papers that cited the one you started with.

How do muon (time dilation) Xs rule out neoLorentz ticking dilation?
How do they rule out an aether?

[TimFox]

The observed decay rate of high-speed (relativistic) muons agrees with special-relativity time dilation, using the equations in Einstein's seminal paper  "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies" (1905). 
A modern English translation can be found at http://hermes.ffn.ub.es/luisnavarro/nuevo_maletin/Einstein_1905_relativity.pdf 
(On the first page, Einstein noted that at the time of writing the paper, he had not yet learned of Lorentz' paper.)
Aether is not required.  In Einstein's words,
"The introduction of a “luminiferous ether” will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not
require an “absolutely stationary space” provided with special properties".

[aetherist]

Re the muon X (time dilation) being done every day, & re me being ignorant ovem, i thort that any such experiment had to be done in 2 parts, one at high altitude, & one at low altitude. Do undergrads ever take their equipment to the top of a hill?

Uhh... yes? Like I said... THEY DO THIS EXPERIMENT ALL THE TIME. 

https://scholarworks.smith.edu/phy_facpubs/41/

The measured muon flux on a mountain relative to that measured at sea level can be compared to predictions from calculations that take into account the relativistic time dilation in the muon frame. Situations under which such an experiment can be successfully performed are explored with a day-long field trip to a nearby mountain. This experiment has been developed at Smith College as a module in the Five College cooperative undergraduate advanced laboratory course (other participating institutions are Amherst College, Mount Holyoke College, and the University of Massachusetts).

https://gustavus.edu/physics/concertFiles/media/Cosmic_Ray_Muon_Detection_Thesis.pdf

To make the experiment more portable, a compact muon detector consisting of a slab of plastic scintillator with a silicon photomultiplier was constructed and placed in a high-altitude balloon.

But no, you're stuck in 1962, or 1905, or whatever. You think that my pointing out how utterly clueless you are is 'bullying' but the fact is that you have no idea what happens in a basic 3rd year physics education (even as I and others are spoonfeeding it to you) and you have no intellectual curiosity to even find out on your own. This is pathetic and sad. I'm not against ignorance in general, we all have things to learn all the time - but I am against cranks trolling threads with constant and persistently incoherent nonsense.
PS  Looks like TimFox already found some of the same links I've found.

How exactly do muon (time dilation) Xs rule out ticking dilation?
How do they rule out an aether?

[aetherist]

The observed decay rate of high-speed (relativistic) muons agrees with special-relativity time dilation.
Aether is not required.

The observed decay rate of high-speed (relativistic) muons agrees with neoLorentz ticking dilation.
Spacetime is not required.

[penfold]

[...]
Yes but the point that i was making was that an experiment confirms every theory that would give that result. And there are an infinite number of such theories, some not yet written.
In the case of the muon time dilation experiments, all of them also confirm neoLorentz Relativity (which is an aether theory).
But Einsteinists seem to think that Einsteinian time dilation is the only ticking dilation in town.

Ok, you're still choosing to ignore the rational basis of science. Great, neo-Lorentz is the new ticking dilation in town... unfortunately the townspeople are in an uproar because they can't get consistent enough results to design anything with it... how do you intend to address that problem?

[aetherist]

[...]Yes but the point that i was making was that an experiment confirms every theory that would give that result. And there are an infinite number of such theories, some not yet written.
In the case of the muon time dilation experiments, all of them also confirm neoLorentz Relativity (which is an aether theory).
But Einsteinists seem to think that Einsteinian time dilation is the only ticking dilation in town.

Ok, you're still choosing to ignore the rational basis of science. Great, neo-Lorentz is the new ticking dilation in town... unfortunately the townspeople are in an uproar because they can't get consistent enough results to design anything with it... how do you intend to address that problem?

I don’t know of any designs based on Einsteinian STR time dilation (or Einsteinian STR length contraction), nor based on neoLorentz (aetherwind) ticking dilation (nor neoLorentz (aetherwind) length contraction).

Nor do i know of any designs based on Einsteinian GTR time dilation (or Einsteinian GTR length contraction). GTR says that light is slowed by the nearness of mass. Einsteinist's say that this slowing affects time dilation. But i think that they fail to see that it must also affect length contraction (what i call GTR length contraction)(which i invented)(a different animal to STR length contraction).

neoLorentz Relativity duznt recognise the GTR slowing of light near mass, hence neoLorentz Relativity duznt recognise GTR ticking dilation or GTR length contraction (hence neoLorentz Relativity is wrong here).
Einsteinists too don’t usually recognise any GTR time dilation, & they never recognise any GTR length contraction (i invented GTR length contraction)(a few minutes ago)(so Einsteinist's & neoLorentz Relativists are both wrong here).

Wait a mo. I am wrong. Einsteinian Relativity has been used to design all kinds of subatomic particles. Probly mainly koz they used (miss-used) E=mcc.
neoLorentz Relativity has no equivalent of E=mcc. But i think that neoLorentz Relativity duz recognise that massive things can have an apparent mass in addition to having a true mass. The apparent mass is due to the aetherwind affecting the lengths of rods & the ticking of clocks. True mass is in the absolute reference frame, where the aetherwind is zero km/s.

[PlainName]

OK, you got me.

Is the misspelling just an affectation or is there some genuine reason for it? Normally one would use correct spelling and punctuation so that readers aren't confused about what's being said, and also because first impressions count for a lot, so giving the appearance of an uneducated yob doesn't exactly promote the idea that here is an intelligent and knowledgeable person.

You seem to be perfectly capable of using quite large words (albeit a fair number of those are apparently cut'n'pasted), so how come you feel the need to mangle even simple words?

[penfold]

[...]
Wait a mo. I am wrong. Einsteinian Relativity has been used to design all kinds of subatomic particles. Probly mainly koz they used (miss-used) E=mcc.
[...]

So... what's the point? The now newly renamed town, 'New Lorententzburg' formerly 'Einstein Mafisoaville' has not only had to change all of its welcome signs and road names, (much to the townspeople's distress), and have had to learn a new set of rules to give directions, only to find that that they end up in the same place and everything looks the same. One clever townsperson invented a pair of glasses the locals could wear, that that automatically translated all the new names... and life went on as normal. The town will always look the same,

[aetherist]

OK, you got me.

Is the misspelling just an affectation or is there some genuine reason for it? Normally one would use correct spelling and punctuation so that readers aren't confused about what's being said, and also because first impressions count for a lot, so giving the appearance of an uneducated yob doesn't exactly promote the idea that here is an intelligent and knowledgeable person.

You seem to be perfectly capable of using quite large words (albeit a fair number of those are apparently cut'n'pasted), so how come you feel the need to mangle even simple words?

It would be good if English spelling changed quickly to simplify spelling etc.
It would be good if spelling changed to accord with modern pronunciation. 
It would be good if large words were shortened.
I am surprised that u have complained re my punctuation.
I wonder whether the www google era will hasten such changes to English or slow them.
In the meantime for sure i am waging a little war on English, but of course i dont want to overdo it, i suppose that koz & woz & probly etc might confuse readers from non-English speaking countries.
Would u like to return to the year 1600?

[penfold]

In the meantime for sure i am waging a little war on English, but of course i dont want to overdo it, i suppose that koz & woz & probly etc might confuse readers from non-English speaking countries.
Would u like to return to the year 1600?

The townspeople of New Lorentzburg have also raised concerns over the new language, there's a running conspiracy theory that you are trying to prevent them from being able to read literature, learn for themselves, and that it makes it easier for you to censor their concerns.
The angst is growing as they are still waiting for the electricity system to be upgraded for 'new electrons'.

[aetherist]

[...]Wait a mo. I am wrong. Einsteinian Relativity has been used to design all kinds of subatomic particles. Probly mainly koz they used (miss-used) E=mcc.[...]

So... what's the point? The now newly renamed town, 'New Lorententzburg' formerly 'Einstein Mafisoaville' has not only had to change all of its welcome signs and road names, (much to the townspeople's distress), and have had to learn a new set of rules to give directions, only to find that that they end up in the same place and everything looks the same. One clever townsperson invented a pair of glasses the locals could wear, that that automatically translated all the new names... and life went on as normal. The town will always look the same,

If it were not for the scientific godma of the Roman Catholic Church humans might have stood on the Moon in July 969, instead of July 1969.
Einsteinian dogma might have a similar effect (but hopefully not 1000 years).
Old (electron) electricity dogma might have a similar effect.
Aether theory & new (electon) electricity theory might give us fusion power at an early date (i think never). Who knows.