Greap said: You would do well to take a physics class, you are rambling nonsense.
Miles Mathis at http://milesmathis.com shows that conventional physics has been rambling nonsense for over a century. And he shows a lot of hints as to what reality is much closer to.
I just skimmed through that, and every single "problem" with physics which he offers up, is really just an example of him not even vaguely understanding physics.
For example:
We are told that atmospheric muons are experiencing time dilation in order to reach sea level detection. But special relativity tells us that all objects in relative motion experience both time dilation and length contraction. The length contraction in SR is derived from the x or distance contraction, and they are proportional. Meaning, the whole x-dimension must be contracting, not just the “length” of the muon. Which means that a time-dilated particle must seem to be going a shorter distance than expected, not a longer distance. How can current theory ignore the length contraction?
This just demonstrates total lack of comprehension. It is a "length" contraction - specifically, it occurs along the axis of travel. And it is an
apparent contraction, the same as the time dilation. This is
relativity, so the speeds involved and the time and length differences are all relative values. If I travel away from you at great speed in a rocket, and then return at great speed, I will have experienced less time than you did. But you aren't some sort of absolute reference - you exist relative to me, relative to the planet, relative to the solar system, relative to the Milky Way, etc. If I convince a friend to join me in my trip, travelling parallel to my path in his own rocket ship, we'll each have experienced less time than you did, but we'll have experienced the same amount of time as each other, because we travelled at the same speed for the same duration.
Lorentz contraction states that an object travelling at very high speeds relative to a particular observer will appear to that observer to be shorter along its axis of travel. An observer riding the object would see himself as stationary, and the first observer as moving, and would see
that observer contracted, while seeing himself normally. The contraction does not impact the muon's speed, because the muon does not "see" the contraction - from the muon's "point of view," it is perfectly normal, and the rest of the universe is distorted.
Mathis is engaging in some of the most basic failures that anyone can make when attempting to understand physics. Particularly, attempting to establish an "absolute" reference, instead of accepting that everything in the universe moves relative to everything else. His position is equivalent to those who tried to claim that the Earth was the center of the universe, because they couldn't stand the idea that they were not the center of it all.
He claims that orbital mechanics cannot work because, "...this velocity is the tangential velocity. It is not the orbital velocity..." which is a nonsensical statement - the orbital velocity of an object
is its tangential velocity. He claims that the orbital velocity is a changing vector because the orbiter moves around the object it is orbiting, as a product of the centripedal force and the gravitational force. But he has apparently never
taken that product, or he would have found out that it is always tangential to the orbit, thus rendering his "complaint" completely moot.
Or tries to claim that photons must have mass, because e=mc^2 - ignoring the fact that entire point of that equation is to define an energy-mass equivalence. If an atomic bomb goes off, some of the mass of the material is converted to energy - quite a lot of energy, since the square of the speed of light is a huge number. The mass is gone, and now there's more energy around. The photons have no mass, precisely because they are energy. If photons had mass, then Einstein's famous equation would not work, but Mathis is attempting to claim the opposite, because he is ignorant of what the equation actually means (as seen from his attempt to apply the kinetic energy equation to the same subject, as if kinetic energy and nuclear energy were the same thing).
The stuff about the moon is so ludicrous that I can't even write about it without laughing out loud. Tidal force is one of the simplest things to explain, and doesn't even require an understanding of relativity, but he manages to get completely turned around on that one.
And let's not get started on all the times he complains that "physics is wrong" about something, and cites the description of that thing on
Wikipedia as the source text that he intends to deconstruct. Wikipedia is not "physics." Wikipedia is a bunch of articles written by amateurs, where the goal is accessibility rather than accuracy.
