Path: ...!news.tomockey.net!news.samoylyk.net!news.gegeweb.eu!gegeweb.org!usenet-fr.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!cleanfeed2-b.proxad.net!nnrp5-1.free.fr!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Albert in Relativityland
From: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder)
Reply-To: jjlxa31@xs4all.nl (J. J. Lodder)
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2025 09:50:48 +0200
References: <3ce0bf632f46843f8cc0a3f45fdc0acd@www.novabbs.com> <vshcgq$3ojsg$3@dont-email.me> <795a3195162645246d7e9e786d2036ff@www.novabbs.com> <vsiuqq$1bsmo$2@dont-email.me> <d0be5ca5054bb07de26f5d86274ce629@www.novabbs.com> <vsliu4$52m4$4@dont-email.me>
Organization: De Ster
Mail-Copies-To: nobody
User-Agent: MacSOUP/2.8.5 (ea919cf118) (Mac OS 10.12.6)
Lines: 56
Message-ID: <67ef8f58$0$28076$426a74cc@news.free.fr>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 04 Apr 2025 09:50:48 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.10.137.58
X-Trace: 1743753048 news-2.free.fr 28076 213.10.137.58:53610
X-Complaints-To: abuse@proxad.net
Bytes: 2764

Paul.B.Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote:

> Den 02.04.2025 20:25, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
> > On Wed, 2 Apr 2025 9:13:22 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
> > 
> >> Den 01.04.2025 21:28, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
> >>> Relativity is so fallacious that a person with only knowledge of
> >>> elementary logic and an 85 I.Q. is qualified to refute it.
> 
> >>
> >> Is it because of your  85 I.Q. and knowledge of elementary
> >> logic that your comment to my statement:
> >>
> >> "The speed of muons is v = ~ 0.999668?c through the atmosphere
> >>   which also is within the laboratory with open roof."
> >>
> >> was:
> >>
> >>   "THEN, the time dilation must be the same." ?
> 
> How slow is it possible to be? :-D
> 
> My statement was:
> "There is but one speed v = ~ 0.999668?c"
> 
> your response was:
>   "THEN, the time dilation must be the same."
> 
> GET this: The statement:
> "When an object has a speed v, then time dilation must be the same"
> 
> is an idiotic, nonsensical, meaningless, stupid response.
> 
> 
> 
> > Paul, the math does not cause time dilation. When the speed is the same
> > in both places, what is the cause? You have no idea
> 
> And you repeat your nonsensical statement yet again!
> 
> 
> The measured mean lifetime of a stationary muon is 2.2 ?s
> The measured mean lifetime of a muon moving at 0.999668?c is 85.36 ?s.
> 
> These are measured facts, not math.
> 
> Can you give another interpretation of the facts than "time dilation"?

Indeed. The mere existence of muon storage rings
already proves time dilatatation.
The things would be practically impossible
if the relativistic circulating muons
were to decay at their rest rate,

Jan