Path: ...!local-1.nntp.ord.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-4.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2025 18:01:50 +0000
Subject: Re: Muon paradox
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
References: <d74079263e98ec581c4ccbdab5c5fa65@www.novabbs.com>
 <69a411f78f0258b39bc5cfad5d0a82a2@www.novabbs.com>
 <5eeed9d7dcd249453d28b665513d9ede@www.novabbs.com>
 <dfZOTD7gWFQtbW5-AX25hmrFeIQ@jntp>
 <9a1dcd3d3964df057d6a82d9ee20b996@www.novabbs.com>
 <1832194fdccf2038$1447517$1481196$c2565adb@news.newsdemon.com>
 <570d3cf2cdfe6fe3e3ba17299d83c149@www.novabbs.com>
From: Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2025 11:01:19 -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: <570d3cf2cdfe6fe3e3ba17299d83c149@www.novabbs.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <WDqdnQ1i566Tt3H6nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 91
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-HVNj1TS8xFXdNW8oHbPd53cnYZnNgjYyYFIyW+GlwYIp7Uc5LBFuXmfV2V6i5QsHRhxoyXs8kJEIw9D!6q/Et3bIqaCfxYknmJXQbZM6lL5SuQXPr+4XkLznWVWUppz11GyTlDZ8ncUA6a7B+/eVsMXb4uo=
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: 5132

On 04/01/2025 10:49 AM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Apr 2025 5:03:57 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>
>> W dniu 01.04.2025 o 06:01, LaurenceClarkCrossen pisze:
>>> On Tue, 1 Apr 2025 1:02:00 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:
>>>
>>>> Le 31/03/2025 à 23:54, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a
>>>> écrit
>>>> :
>>>>> Relativity can be so easy to refute only because it has not been
>>>>> subject
>>>>> to open critical review. It is facile nonsense.
>>>>
>>>> It's true.
>>>>
>>>> Scientific structures, like political structures, are strange and
>>>> opaque.
>>>>
>>>> If someone tries to offer an interesting approach, or prove through
>>>> calculations and reflection that there are biases and paradoxes, or
>>>> even
>>>> contradictions, they are blacklisted for decades.
>>>>
>>>> I think we'll have to wait until artificial intelligence is truly
>>>> intelligent, and above all memorizing, for it to be able to say things
>>>> for
>>>> itself: "I detected in a participant a theory that far surpasses in
>>>> quality, elegance, and experimental approach anything that has been
>>>> said
>>>> so far."
>>>>
>>>> For the moment, this hasn't happened because there is a huge human bias
>>>> that consists of saying: "It is impossible for there to exist a
>>>> human on
>>>> earth capable of producing a theory superior to the one proposed by Mr.
>>>> Einstein."
>>>>
>>>> Even if sometimes the denials turn into absurdity, even human madness.
>>>>
>>>> R.H.
>>> How can the muons prove time dilation when high speed is the cause and
>>> they move the same speed as in the laboratory?
>>
>>  From the point of view of muons...
>> If the muons have mouths - they would scream
>> that our Giant Guru was right and sing
>> a hymn to his incredible wisdom!!!
>> They would, for sure!!
>> And muons can never be mistaken. Have
>> you ever heard of a mistaken muon?
>>
>> That's the proof.
> The difficulty we are confronted with is due to the fact that Einstein
> did not realize that Newton's particle theory had been disproven and the
> wave theory had been proven.

Well there's wave theory and then there's both particle theory
and also resonance theory.

Sometimes called "structural chemistry" or "molecular chemistry",
say, also with regards to "nuclear magnetic resonance", that
there's a lot after the ultraviolet catastrophe what begat the
electron physics, then with regards to everything being a particle
then instead the field theory, about why usual classical linear
accounts are a local half-account, with regards to a sum-of-potentials
theory where they're instead a more realized potential.

A wave theory with both particle/wave and wave/resonance can make
for that action is waves about the energy content and entelechy
connectedness, about a sum-of-potentials theory where the fields
of potential are the actual real fields, helping make for the
un-linear and worlds turn, which is always so, disambiguating
the linear and rotational, about a geometry of points and spaces.

If you'd read Einstein he arrives at definitely looking at
a field theory, and where there's a continuous manifold of space-time.

Then these have all their ways of looking at them,
partial half-accounts or the usual "forward" in perspective.


It's so that electron physics, these days often hadron physics,
then also muon physics, and neutrino physics, reflect on the
"tetrad of supersymmetries" about the tetrad of quantities
and for a tetrad of forces some tetrad of particles.


It needn't be that complicated if it's not kept too simple.