Deutsch   English   Français   Italiano  
<4e3142f02fa0b92677e380969026cb2c@www.novabbs.com>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article

Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Muon paradox
Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2025 22:34:18 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <4e3142f02fa0b92677e380969026cb2c@www.novabbs.com>
References: <d74079263e98ec581c4ccbdab5c5fa65@www.novabbs.com> <vsh92t$3mltr$1@dont-email.me> <d6b9dd687bfe1c27ced89d9c3657a2f5@www.novabbs.com> <vsj1ic$1bsmo$4@dont-email.me> <bde61d4704e1b6144732c8f6cf68e021@www.novabbs.com> <vslh71$52m4$3@dont-email.me> <1f71496841d33e33c17081dab4e92631@www.novabbs.com> <vsokjd$3felk$1@dont-email.me> <0ffd2692c0b472758475dd0a8ba91df1@www.novabbs.com> <vsqt2b$1s7ad$1@dont-email.me> <82d34151bd36f84d89ac906714d15a7a@www.novabbs.com> <vsumc4$1qumn$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3435971"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="HcQFdl4zp4UQRQ9N18ivMn6Fl9V8n4SPkK4oZHLgYdQ";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Rslight-Posting-User: a2f761a7401f13abeefca3440f16b2f27b708180
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$zmH9s7p/Ic9yX6w4McM.5eaj5T.mtPy16PQ4ictztKl4f4/Tq.NrC
Bytes: 4756
Lines: 98

On Sun, 6 Apr 2025 20:02:45 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

> Den 05.04.2025 22:53, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
>> Your calculations do not explain the cause.
>>
>> SR cannot predict without a cause, and you haven't given the cause.
>
> Everything SR predicts is a consequence of the postulates of SR.
> What other "cause" do you want?
>
> But SR doesn't _cause_ anything. That it predicts exactly what
> is measured means that SR is not falsified by muon experiments.
> Newtonian mechanics _is_ falsified by muon experiments.
>
>>
>> Time dilation is refutable a priori by logic.
>
> If your a priori assumption is that time is absolute as in
> Newtonian mechanics, you are right.
>
> But since "time dilation" is proven to exist in the real world,
> your a priory assumption is proven wrong.
>
>>
>> Empirically determining that muons live longer does not prove time
>> dilation.
>
> Muons live longer than what?
>
>>
>> I have never said muons live longer than themselves.
>
> So what are they living longer than?
>
>>
>> The muons' time dilates ten times to move 6,000 meters instead of the
>> 600 meters they would cover, so their lives must be ten times 2.2
>> microseconds or 22 microseconds.
>
> Doesn't add up.
> If the muon moved 600 m in 2.2 μs the speed would be 0.909720⋅c
> and  γ would be 2.41, not 10.
>
> But this is nonsense, because the muon doesn't move at all
> in the frame where it's proper mean lifetime is measured to
> be 2.2 μs.
>
> The muon has but one life. It lives from creation to decay.
> The length of this single life measured in the muon's rest frame
> is called the muon's proper lifetime τ₀.
> The length of the _same_ life measured in a frame where the speed
> of the muon is v is τ₀/√(1−v²/c²).
>
> This is time dilation by definition.
>
>> Where is the formula that explains that?
>
> Several muon experiments are done. These experiments show that
> the mean lifetime of muons measured in their rest frame is
> τ₀ = 2.2 μs and that in a frame where the speed is v its
> mean lifetime is measured to be τ₀/√(1−v²/c²).
>
> These are real measurements done in the real world.
>
> Are you claiming that these measurement can't be done if
> it is no formula that explains them? :-D
>
> Mother Nature works as she does, and this is how!
> She doesn't work according to formulas.
>
> But of course, SR has the formula that explains that.
> But that formula is not the cause of the measurements.
> It is the other way around. SR is confirmed by the fact
> that it predicts what is measured.
>
> If SR didn't predict what is measured, the measurements would
> be right and SR would be falsified.
>
>> How can the acceleration caused by gravity in 600 meters cause
>> that much "time dilation?"
>
> The gravitational frequency shift of a muon at 15 km is ∆f/f = -2.95e-7
> which is neglible compared to the kinematic effect.
>
> That means that SR can be used.
>
>>
>> When will you be able to comprehend anything?
>
> Quite. Comprehension is difficult, isn't it? :-D
>
> ----------------------------------
>
> If you respond, give _one_ response, and quote what you are
> responding to.
>
>
Your whole relativistic pseudoscience is thoroughly ignorant nonsense. I
am sure you haven't convinced any intelligent readers here.