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.