General Forum Message Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
 Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...The Space and Astronomy Agora More Comments ... Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response ToPosted by Alan on January 6, 2004 10:02:16 UTC

Hi,

continuing:

Dr. Dick wrote:

"If you understood the common uses of relativity, you would understand that, in order to make the physics independent of the frame of reference, the half life (or any other temporal phenomenona defined by the laws of physics, clocks included) will always be the same if measured in the rest frame of the thing of interest. The associated points of interest along the space-time path are obtained by integrating Einstein's invariant interval along that path. Since there is no movement of the entity in its own rest frame, the interval in this case is always imaginary: i.e., the interval is time like. As a consequence, one usually uses the variable tau (via ic tau) to represent such a variable."

I guess if you want to see how far a particle will get in x,y,z before enough t has gone by for it to decompose; if you know the amount of t needed (given by the half-life in seconds say) you know to freeze x,y,z as constant over that amount of t from your initial reading of x,y,z,t?

So you compare t-only component of x,y,z,t with t as it appears in (x,y,z,t juggled over a trial sample)? You get a t-difference. Keep trying trial samples till you get a t-difference equal to the half-life; and you get the x,y,z difference (so path-length) of the particle in x,y,z,t for its half-life?

Seems O.K. but not-so-sure....

Returning to before where I said I initially described two upquarks and a downquark as a "neutron" but changed it to fit the definition in physics: I realise that it looked like a proton (two upquarks and a downquark) because I was looking at it from the perspective of a differentiating of the background so a complexification of detail in the background.

This division in the background seems to give it two biases so make it non-neutral. But as the foreground neutralised this division bringing it together in mutual neutrality with the foreground you could say: it is a neutron in the foreground perspective but a proton in the background perspective. This would seem to fit the idea that you can rotate a neutron into a proton.

-much more to say...

-dolphin