Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-3.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2025 01:15:10 +0000
Subject: Re: Muon paradox
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
References: <d74079263e98ec581c4ccbdab5c5fa65@www.novabbs.com>
 <vsh92t$3mltr$1@dont-email.me> <vt97l2$3n9l0$1@tor.dont-email.me>
 <9sWdnW3IQO1JBGH6nZ2dnZfqlJydnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <NkGdnT39Jsn2t2D6nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <1rasspr.1a2oxj41rctw3bN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl>
 <jx-dnTdhirpDDmD6nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2025 18:15:06 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <jx-dnTdhirpDDmD6nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <UFidnZ9t3fGDLmD6nZ2dnZfqn_GdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 135
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-O2jA6s8HzQU2Mckp+p2B0G0vgSYoBTYSU9ppSh1YViwLbjosrfOp02RbX4wxPjOYG5Rm3qcbMUtfDVp!UfbsqEtYxj54rT+rtsks5Crbj1ybuzUOtdoYGV601l7UEMEqVRE378e/SoXiIxRHdkJjGKR/PyE=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Bytes: 7333

On 04/14/2025 04:01 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 04/14/2025 12:01 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 04/13/2025 10:15 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
>>>> On 4/10/25 3:02 PM, Aether Regained wrote:
>>>>> There is one flaw I find in the SR explanation, can you confirm if
>>>>> it is
>>>>> true:
>>>>> What is really measured are these (the facts):
>>>>> 1. The mean proper lifetime of a muon is t? = 2.2 ?s.
>>>>> 2. muons are created at a height ~15 km
>>>>> 3. The speed of the muons is ~c, so travel time is ~50.05 ?s
>>>>> 4. muon flux measured on the Earth's surface is about 55.6% of what it
>>>>> is at 15km.
>>>>>   From 1, 2 and 3, the expected muon flux on the Earth's surface is:
>>>>> N/N? = exp(-t/t?) = exp(-50.05/2.2) = 1.32e-10 = 0.0000000132%
>>>>> The important point (the flaw) is that the speed of the muon has not
>>>>> actually been measured to be 0.999668?c, but instead is computed.
>>>>> N/N? = exp(-t/?t?) = .556 => ? = 38.8 => v = 0.999668?c
>>>>> The SR explanation would have been more convincing, if the speed had
>>>>> actually been measured to that many significant figures.
>>>>
>>>> So consider other experiments that ARE "convincing" (in the sense you
>>>> mean). In particular, Bailey et al. They put muons into a storage ring
>>>> with a kinetic energy of 3.1 GeV. They measured the muons' kinetic
>>>> energy, their momentum, their speed around the ring, and their rate of
>>>> decay. All measurements are fully consistent with the predictions of
>>>> SR.
>>>> (They also measured the muon g-2, which was the primary purpose of the
>>>> experiment; confirming SR was just a side issue.)
>>>>
>>>>       Bailey et al, Phys. Lett. B 55 (1975) 420-424
>>>>
>>>> There are literally hundreds of other experiments that confirm the
>>>> validity of SR. Some measure "time dilation", and some measure other
>>>> predictions of SR. To date, there is not a single reproducible
>>>> experiment within SR's domain that is not consistent with the
>>>> predictions of SR. There are so many such experiments that SR is one of
>>>> the most solidly confirmed theories/models that we have today.
>>>>
>>>> BTW there are over 30,000 particle accelerators operating in the world
>>>> today. SR was essential in the design of each of them, and they simply
>>>> would not work if SR were not valid.
>>>>
>>>> If you truly want to "regain aether" you will have to come up with an
>>>> aether theory that is indistinguishable from SR for EACH of those
>>>> experiments. And be sure to make it consistent with the quantum nature
>>>> of the universe we inhabit. To date, nobody has done so. AFAIK nobody
>>>> even has an inkling how to start....
>>>>
>>>> Tom Roberts
>>>
>>> It seems that the "convolutive" gets involved, which usually is with
>>> regards to lower-bound and upper-bound, except as with regards to
>>> that the lower-bound is zero and the upper-bound is infinity,
>>> about where the "natural unit" is an upper-bound, instead of
>>> being the usual multiplicative and divisive identity.
>>>
>>> The natural units have overloaded their roles, with regards to their
>>> products, and their differences.
>>
>> You are talking complete nonsense here.
>> Natural units are just another well-defined unit system,
>>
>> Jan
>>
>>
>>
>
> Au contraire, classical velocities near zero are related
> approximately linearly to light's speed c, yet those near
> c have approximately infinite resistance to acceleration,
> thus that in otherwise simple translations where acceleration's
> drawn out an invariant, what "running constants" vanish or
> diverge, obliterate the arithmetic and analytic character
> of the expression of the quantity or its implicit placeholder
> in the algebraic manipulations and derivations.
>
> Natural units for the normalizing and standardizing don't
> have this feature, as it were, according to algebra,
> the arithmetic and analysis.
>
> You can leave it in and observe this, since otherwise
> there's a neat simple reasoning why mass-energy equivalency
> makes as much a block to any change at all as Zeno,
> having the features of both "1" and "infinity".
>
>
>
> Do you even acknowledge that there are three ways to
> arrive at "c" vis-a-vis the electrodynamics, electromagnetism
> and the statics, and as with light's velocity, as for example
> O.W. Richardson demonstrates in his 1916 'The Electron Theory
> of Matter'?
>
>
> A unit as "natural", i.e., to be replaceable with "1" its value,
> can only be treated as a coefficient or a divisor.
>
>
> What now you don't allow comprehension of algebra either?
>
>

It's in a, "system of units", see, all the units.


How about all the infinitely-many higher orders of acceleration,
and their units, how and where do they go?

You know, 0 meters/second is infinity seconds/meter, ....


I guess I have to agree that setting c = 1 is _calling_ it
a natural unit, yet that in the wider surrounds of the units
and the conditions it _behaves_ as infinity and not unity,
sees that reason can arrive at that furthermore the wider
system of units that sees _derived_ "the three c's",
and all the series that converge to them variously,
in their units, and that after the _derivation_ of
mass-energy equivalency the initial-term-of-the-series
way that _all the following terms after the initial
term have their own, less compatible units_,
has that as a contrivance in the hyper-geometric,
whose regular singular points are 0, 1, and infinity,
that it's more of a, "hyper-unit".


So, you keep lazy-minding your units in your theory away,
all sorts practical and empirically evident fields keep
their own, and may look askance at calling c "a natural
unit", when it's a natural bound, as the bit naive.