Relativity can be so easy to refute only because it has not been subject
to open critical review. It is facile nonsense.
Le 31/03/2025 à 23:54, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écritThe scientific consensus often involves the need to market their product
:
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.
Le 31/03/2025 à 23:54, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écritHow can the muons prove time dilation when high speed is the cause and
:
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.
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 >> :How can the muons prove time dilation when high speed is the cause and
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.
they move the same speed as in the laboratory?
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.
Relativity, the Special one at least, is logical and accessible enough,
and yet it keeps deluding or bewildering smart but narrow minds.
Op 1/04/2025 om 3:02 schreef Richard Hachel:
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.
Relativity, the Special one at least, is logical and accessible enough,
and yet it keeps deluding or bewildering smart but narrow minds.
Le 01/04/2025 à 12:35, guido wugi a écrit :
Relativity, the Special one at least, is logical and accessible
enough, and yet it keeps deluding or bewildering smart but narrow minds.
What you're saying isn't entirely correct.
There are several theories of relativity, each with a few variations, sometimes colossal ones.
Basically, the theory of relativity is a correct theory and has been extensively proven experimentally (we don't need to prove it anymore).
Op 1/04/2025 om 3:02 schreef Richard Hachel:It is special relativity time dilation that is being questioned here.
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.
Relativity, the Special one at least, is logical and accessible enough,
and yet it keeps deluding or bewildering smart but narrow minds.
Op 1/04/2025 om 3:02 schreef Richard Hachel:I mean, it can't be gravitational time dilation, because gravity would
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.
Relativity, the Special one at least, is logical and accessible enough,
and yet it keeps deluding or bewildering smart but narrow minds.
Op 1/04/2025 om 3:02 schreef Richard Hachel:I mean, "Yes, muons have mass, and their mass is approximately 207 times
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.
Relativity, the Special one at least, is logical and accessible enough,
and yet it keeps deluding or bewildering smart but narrow minds.
Le 01/04/2025 à 12:35, guido wugi a écrit :If none of you can explain what would cause the muons to time dilate in
Relativity, the Special one at least, is logical and accessible enough,
and yet it keeps deluding or bewildering smart but narrow minds.
What you're saying isn't entirely correct.
There are several theories of relativity, each with a few variations, sometimes colossal ones.
Basically, the theory of relativity is a correct theory and has been extensively proven experimentally (we don't need to prove it anymore).
But how poorly it is explained!!!
How poorly it is understood and taught!!!
It sounds like a Biden speech where those speaking don't even understand
what they're saying anymore.
The only one who's clear on this, apparently in the entire world, is Dr. Richard Hachel. No one has ever been so clear, so simple, so precise,
and
without any paradoxes.
The level of the concepts is high, but the mathematics used is simple
and
at the level of a simple high school student.
The problem then becomes human: filled with hatred and jealousy, even psychiatric madness, they spit in his face.
It's as simple as that.
R.H.
Do muons move at a different velocity in the laboratory than in the atmosphere?This argument proves that muons do not time dilate in the atmosphere
"No, muons generally do not move at a different velocity in a laboratory setting compared to their velocity in the atmosphere; they both travel
at speeds very close to the speed of light, typically around 99.8% of
the speed of light" - Google search AI.
Then why would they "time dilate" in the atmosphere?
Do muons move at a different velocity in the laboratory than in the atmosphere?
"No, muons generally do not move at a different velocity in a laboratory setting compared to their velocity in the atmosphere; they both travel
at speeds very close to the speed of light, typically around 99.8% of
the speed of light" - Google search AI.
Then why would they "time dilate" in the atmosphere?
W dniu 01.04.2025 o 06:01, LaurenceClarkCrossen pisze:The difficulty we are confronted with is due to the fact that Einstein
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 >>> :How can the muons prove time dilation when high speed is the cause and
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.
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.
Den 31.03.2025 22:40, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
Do muons move at a different velocity in the laboratory than in the
atmosphere?
"No, muons generally do not move at a different velocity in a laboratory
setting compared to their velocity in the atmosphere; they both travel
at speeds very close to the speed of light, typically around 99.8% of
the speed of light" - Google search AI.
Then why would they "time dilate" in the atmosphere?
The speed of muons is v = ~ 0.999668⋅c through the atmosphere
which also is within the laboratory with open roof.
γ = 38.8.
The mean proper lifetime of a muon is t₀ = 2.2 μs.
Since muons are created at a height ~15 km, and the time for
a muon to reach the earth is t = 15e3/v = 5.005 s,
then the part of the muon flux that will reach the Earth is
N/N₀ = exp(-t/tₑ) = 0.556, so 55.6% of the muons would reach the Earth.
If the lifetime of the muons had been 2.2 μs, then the part of
the muon flux that will reach the Earth would be:
I mean, "Yes, muons have mass, and their mass is approximately 207 times
that of an electron, with a value of about 105.7 MeV/c², according to Britannica [10, 17] and other sources [1, 3, 6, 7]." -Google AI
So they must move faster in the atmosphere.
On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 20:40:23 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
Do muons move at a different velocity in the laboratory than in the
atmosphere?
"No, muons generally do not move at a different velocity in a laboratory
setting compared to their velocity in the atmosphere; they both travel
at speeds very close to the speed of light, typically around 99.8% of
the speed of light" - Google search AI.
Then why would they "time dilate" in the atmosphere?
This argument proves that muons do not time dilate in the atmosphere
because the alleged cause is absent.
Den 31.03.2025 22:40, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
Do muons move at a different velocity in the laboratory than in the
atmosphere?
"No, muons generally do not move at a different velocity in a laboratory
setting compared to their velocity in the atmosphere; they both travel
at speeds very close to the speed of light, typically around 99.8% of
the speed of light" - Google search AI.
Then why would they "time dilate" in the atmosphere?
The speed of muons is v = ~ 0.999668⋅c through the atmosphere
which also is within the laboratory with open roof.
γ = 38.8.
The mean proper lifetime of a muon is t₀ = 2.2 μs.
But measured in the Earth's rest frame the lifetime of the muon
is tₑ = 2.2e-6⋅γ s = 85.36 μs (time dilation!).
Since muons are created at a height ~15 km, and the time for
a muon to reach the earth is t = 15e3/v = 5.005 s,
then the part of the muon flux that will reach the Earth is
N/N₀ = exp(-t/tₑ) = 0.556, so 55.6% of the muons would reach the Earth.
If the lifetime of the muons had been 2.2 μs,
then the part of
the muon flux that will reach the Earth would be:
N/N₀ = exp(-t/t₀) = 1.32e-10.
So only 0.0000000132% of the muons would reach the Earth.
Can toy guess which of them is closest to what is observed?
Den 01.04.2025 19:56, skrev Paul.B.Andersen:
Den 31.03.2025 22:40, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
Do muons move at a different velocity in the laboratory than in the
atmosphere?
"No, muons generally do not move at a different velocity in a laboratory >>> setting compared to their velocity in the atmosphere; they both travel
at speeds very close to the speed of light, typically around 99.8% of
the speed of light" - Google search AI.
Then why would they "time dilate" in the atmosphere?
The speed of muons is v = ~ 0.999668⋅c through the atmosphere
which also is within the laboratory with open roof.
γ = 38.8.
The mean proper lifetime of a muon is t₀ = 2.2 μs.
But measured in the Earth's rest frame the lifetime of the muon
is tₑ = 2.2e-6⋅γ s = 85.36 μs (time dilation!).
Since muons are created at a height ~15 km, and the time for
a muon to reach the earth is t = 15e3/v = 5.005 s,
then the part of the muon flux that will reach the Earth is
N/N₀ = exp(-t/tₑ) = 0.556, so 55.6% of the muons would reach the Earth.
If the lifetime of the muons had been 2.2 μs,
If the lifetime of the muons had been 2.2 μs in the Earth frame
It seems hard to get around the evidence that the muon lifetime isThen why would they "time dilate" in the atmosphere?
excellent question. My hunch is that the stupid 𝙧𝙪𝙡𝙚𝙨 𝙗𝙖𝙨𝙚𝙙 science
discretize things in 𝙥𝙖𝙧𝙩𝙞𝙘𝙡𝙚𝙨. It's rather 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙗𝙖𝙗𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙮 𝙙𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙧𝙞𝙗𝙪𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙨,
according to my theory of "𝙊𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝘿𝙞𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙜𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙈𝙖𝙩𝙩𝙚𝙧 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙈𝙤𝙫𝙞𝙣𝙜
𝙊𝙗𝙟𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙨 𝙈𝙤𝙙𝙚𝙡".
And they should investigate WHAT is causing that.
ie in quantum mechanics the probaility 1+1=2 MACRO scale logic is
infinitesimal small close to zero.
longer outside of the laboratory.
On Tue, 1 Apr 2025 18:26:22 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 01.04.2025 17:38, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
I mean, "Yes, muons have mass, and their mass is approximately 207 times >>> that of an electron, with a value of about 105.7 MeV/c², according to
Britannica [10, 17] and other sources [1, 3, 6, 7]." -Google AI
So they must move faster in the atmosphere.
So since the mass of a muon is 207 times the mass of an electron
it must fall 207 times faster than an electron? :-D
If you listened with any intelligence or weren't willfully
misconstruing, the obvious meaning is that having any mass, gravity accelerates them. That would not be enough to account for the ten times longer distance they travel so they must live longer.
On Tue, 1 Apr 2025 18:44:39 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 01.04.2025 19:56, skrev Paul.B.Andersen:
Den 31.03.2025 22:40, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
Do muons move at a different velocity in the laboratory than in the
atmosphere?
"No, muons generally do not move at a different velocity in a
laboratory
setting compared to their velocity in the atmosphere; they both travel >>>> at speeds very close to the speed of light, typically around 99.8% of
the speed of light" - Google search AI.
Then why would they "time dilate" in the atmosphere?
The speed of muons is v = ~ 0.999668⋅c through the atmosphere
which also is within the laboratory with open roof.
γ = 38.8.
The mean proper lifetime of a muon is t₀ = 2.2 μs.
But measured in the Earth's rest frame the lifetime of the muon
is tₑ = 2.2e-6⋅γ s = 85.36 μs (time dilation!).
Since muons are created at a height ~15 km, and the time for
a muon to reach the earth is t = 15e3/v = 5.005 s,
then the part of the muon flux that will reach the Earth is
N/N₀ = exp(-t/tₑ) = 0.556, so 55.6% of the muons would reach the >>> Earth.
If the lifetime of the muons had been 2.2 μs,
If the lifetime of the muons had been 2.2 μs in the Earth frame
then the part of
the muon flux that will reach the Earth would be:
N/N₀ = exp(-t/t₀) = 1.32e-10.
So only 0.0000000132% of the muons would reach the Earth.
Can toy guess which of them is closest to what is observed?
Can you guess which of them is closest to what is observed?
"Mathematically and logically, the notion that a theory that has made
many correct predictions must necessarily be true is untenable.
Scientific models can produce arbitrarily many, arbitrarily good
predictions and still be flawed, as the historical example of the
Ptolemaic (geocentric) model of the solar system shows. It does not
matter how many observations are consistent with a theory if there is
only one observation that is not." - "The Suppression of Inconvenient
Facts in Physics" by Rochus Boerner
Den 01.04.2025 21:12, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
If you listened with any intelligence or weren't willfully
misconstruing, the obvious meaning is that having any mass, gravity
accelerates them. That would not be enough to account for the ten times
longer distance they travel so they must live longer.
The noble art of missing the point. :-D
"Yes, muons have mass, and their mass is approximately 207 times
that of an electron, ... So they must move faster in the atmosphere."
Ever heard about Galileo Galilei and the leaning tower in Pisa?
-- Paul https://paulba.no/
On Tue, 1 Apr 2025 18:38:32 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 01.04.2025 19:42, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 20:40:23 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
Do muons move at a different velocity in the laboratory than in the
atmosphere?
"No, muons generally do not move at a different velocity in a
laboratory
setting compared to their velocity in the atmosphere; they both travel >>>> at speeds very close to the speed of light, typically around 99.8% of
the speed of light" - Google search AI.
Then why would they "time dilate" in the atmosphere?
This argument proves that muons do not time dilate in the atmosphere
because the alleged cause is absent.
Your logical analyses are mind blowing!
Congratulation! :-D
It's mind-blowing that you're dodging the question! According to
relativity, what allegedly causes the time dilation of the muons? If the speed is the same, what is the cause?
It's easy to understand that the lifetime of the muons is longer and
that time dilation is an illogical fiction divorced from physics.
Den 01.04.2025 23:24, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
On Tue, 1 Apr 2025 18:38:32 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 01.04.2025 19:42, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 20:40:23 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
Do muons move at a different velocity in the laboratory than in the
atmosphere?
"No, muons generally do not move at a different velocity in a
laboratory
setting compared to their velocity in the atmosphere; they both travel >>>>> at speeds very close to the speed of light, typically around 99.8% of >>>>> the speed of light" - Google search AI.
Then why would they "time dilate" in the atmosphere?
This argument proves that muons do not time dilate in the atmosphere
because the alleged cause is absent.
Your logical analyses are mind blowing!
Congratulation! :-D
It's mind-blowing that you're dodging the question! According to
relativity, what allegedly causes the time dilation of the muons? If the
speed is the same, what is the cause?
Your "question" is so nonsensical that the all that can be understood
is that you have no clue.
Here is the very short explanation of what the "time dilation" is.
The measured mean lifetime of a stationary muon is 2.2 μs
The measured mean lifetime of a muon moving at 0.999668⋅c is 85.36 μs.
This is time dilation.
It is a measured FACT.
Den 01.04.2025 21:06, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
It's easy to understand that the lifetime of the muons is longer and
that time dilation is an illogical fiction divorced from physics.
The measured mean lifetime of a stationary muon is 2.2 μs
The measured mean lifetime of a muon moving at 0.999668⋅c is 85.36 μs.
These are measured facts!
You claim this is easy to understand without using SR,
so please explain why muons live longer when they are moving.
But NO prediction of SR is inconsistent with measurement
or observation.
SR is thoroughly tested and never falsified.
On Wed, 2 Apr 2025 10:00:04 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 01.04.2025 21:06, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
It's easy to understand that the lifetime of the muons is longer and
that time dilation is an illogical fiction divorced from physics.
The measured mean lifetime of a stationary muon is 2.2 μs
The measured mean lifetime of a muon moving at 0.999668⋅c is 85.36 μs.
These are measured facts!
You claim this is easy to understand without using SR,
so please explain why muons live longer when they are moving.
Interpretations are not facts. Time dilation is an interpretation. An illogical and pseudo-scientific
Den 02.04.2025 19:46, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
On Wed, 2 Apr 2025 9:45:51 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
The measured mean lifetime of a stationary muon is 2.2 μs
The measured mean lifetime of a muon moving at 0.999668⋅c is 85.36 μs. >>>
This is time dilation.
It is a measured FACT.
Do you claim otherwise?
Paul, all you can do is recite the math like a zombie.
A very interesting statement.
When you see math, you assume it must be written by a zombie
since you don't understand it.
The zombie is the one who doesn't understand the math.
The whole point
of this thread was to see if any relativist could explain the cause of
time dilation when the speed is the same. No one has even tried because
they can't.
This statement shows that you don't know what "time dilation" is,
so I am telling you:
The measured mean lifetime of a stationary muon is 2.2 μs
The measured mean lifetime of a muon moving at 0.999668⋅c is 85.36 μs.
These are measured facts!
This is time dilation.
-----------------------
If you claim otherwise, then you better give another
explanation of why the mean lifetime of a muon can be measured
to have two different values when it is measured in two different
frames of reference.
On Wed, 2 Apr 2025 10:00:04 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 01.04.2025 21:06, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
It's easy to understand that the lifetime of the muons is longer and
that time dilation is an illogical fiction divorced from physics.
The measured mean lifetime of a stationary muon is 2.2 μs
The measured mean lifetime of a muon moving at 0.999668⋅c is 85.36 μs.
These are measured facts!
You claim this is easy to understand without using SR,
so please explain why muons live longer when they are moving.
Paul, I do not know why they live longer. I know time dilation is
fiction. Surely, they can't go faster than light. Heaven forbid!
Den 02.04.2025 19:58, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
On Wed, 2 Apr 2025 10:00:04 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 01.04.2025 21:06, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
It's easy to understand that the lifetime of the muons is longer and
that time dilation is an illogical fiction divorced from physics.
The measured mean lifetime of a stationary muon is 2.2 μs
The measured mean lifetime of a muon moving at 0.999668⋅c is 85.36 μs. >>>
These are measured facts!
You claim this is easy to understand without using SR,
so please explain why muons live longer when they are moving.
Interpretations are not facts. Time dilation is an interpretation. An
illogical and pseudo-scientific
You can't interpret facts to be not facts,
but you can interpret facts.
The measured facts are:
The measured mean lifetime of a stationary muon is 2.2 μs
The measured mean lifetime of a muon moving at 0.999668⋅c is 85.36 μs.
THESE ARE FACTS, not interpretations of FACTS!
Den 02.04.2025 23:33, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
On Wed, 2 Apr 2025 10:00:04 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 01.04.2025 21:06, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
It's easy to understand that the lifetime of the muons is longer and
that time dilation is an illogical fiction divorced from physics.
The measured mean lifetime of a stationary muon is 2.2 μs
The measured mean lifetime of a muon moving at 0.999668⋅c is 85.36 μs. >>>
These are measured facts!
You claim this is easy to understand without using SR,
so please explain why muons live longer when they are moving.
Paul, I do not know why they live longer. I know time dilation is
fiction. Surely, they can't go faster than light. Heaven forbid!
The measured FACTS are:
The measured mean lifetime of a stationary muon is 2.2 μs
The measured mean lifetime of a muon moving at 0.999668⋅c is 85.36 μs.
Do you really not understand how ridiculous it is to claim
that these facts do not exist because you "know" they can't exist?
You don't know the difference between science and religion.
You _believe_ SR is nonsense, and ignore facts to keep your faith.
W dniu 03.04.2025 o 10:18, Paul.B.Andersen pisze:
The measured facts are:
The measured mean lifetime of a stationary muon is 2.2 μs The measured
mean lifetime of a muon moving at 0.999668⋅c is 85.36 μs.
THESE ARE FACTS, not interpretations of FACTS!
No, trash, THESE ARE not. THESE ARE interpretation of FACTS.
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 03.04.2025 o 10:18, Paul.B.Andersen pisze:
The measured facts are:
The measured mean lifetime of a stationary muon is 2.2 μs The measured
mean lifetime of a muon moving at 0.999668⋅c is 85.36 μs.
THESE ARE FACTS, not interpretations of FACTS!
No, trash, THESE ARE not. THESE ARE interpretation of FACTS.
what are the facts then; the ukurina said they bomb all their nuclear
power plants and those in polakia, if they are about to lose the war.
Den 02.04.2025 19:58, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:I already answered the question. They live longer. They don't time
On Wed, 2 Apr 2025 10:00:04 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 01.04.2025 21:06, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
It's easy to understand that the lifetime of the muons is longer and
that time dilation is an illogical fiction divorced from physics.
The measured mean lifetime of a stationary muon is 2.2 μs
The measured mean lifetime of a muon moving at 0.999668⋅c is 85.36 μs. >>>
These are measured facts!
You claim this is easy to understand without using SR,
so please explain why muons live longer when they are moving.
Interpretations are not facts. Time dilation is an interpretation. An
illogical and pseudo-scientific
You can't interpret facts to be not facts,
but you can interpret facts.
The measured facts are:
The measured mean lifetime of a stationary muon is 2.2 μs
The measured mean lifetime of a muon moving at 0.999668⋅c is 85.36 μs.
THESE ARE FACTS, not interpretations of FACTS!
I am asking YOU to interpret these FACTS.
The SR interpretation is that it is "time dilation".
You claim that it is easy to explain these FACTS without
using an illogical fiction divorced from physics.
What is your logical explanation ?
If you flee the question yet again, I will ask you yet again.
Den 02.04.2025 23:33, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
On Wed, 2 Apr 2025 10:00:04 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 01.04.2025 21:06, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
It's easy to understand that the lifetime of the muons is longer and
that time dilation is an illogical fiction divorced from physics.
The measured mean lifetime of a stationary muon is 2.2 μs
The measured mean lifetime of a muon moving at 0.999668⋅c is 85.36 μs. >>>
These are measured facts!
You claim this is easy to understand without using SR,
so please explain why muons live longer when they are moving.
Paul, I do not know why they live longer. I know time dilation is
fiction. Surely, they can't go faster than light. Heaven forbid!
The measured FACTS are:
The measured mean lifetime of a stationary muon is 2.2 μs
The measured mean lifetime of a muon moving at 0.999668⋅c is 85.36 μs.
Do you really not understand how ridiculous it is to claim
that these facts do not exist because you "know" they can't exist?
You don't know the difference between science and religion.
You _believe_ SR is nonsense, and ignore facts to keep your faith.
Den 02.04.2025 19:46, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
On Wed, 2 Apr 2025 9:45:51 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
The measured mean lifetime of a stationary muon is 2.2 μs
The measured mean lifetime of a muon moving at 0.999668⋅c is 85.36 μs. >>>
This is time dilation.
It is a measured FACT.
Do you claim otherwise?
Paul, all you can do is recite the math like a zombie.
A very interesting statement.
When you see math, you assume it must be written by a zombie
since you don't understand it.
The zombie is the one who doesn't understand the math.
The whole point
of this thread was to see if any relativist could explain the cause of
time dilation when the speed is the same. No one has even tried because
they can't.
This statement shows that you don't know what "time dilation" is,
so I am telling you:
The measured mean lifetime of a stationary muon is 2.2 μs
The measured mean lifetime of a muon moving at 0.999668⋅c is 85.36 μs.
These are measured facts!
This is time dilation.
-----------------------
If you claim otherwise, then you better give another
explanation of why the mean lifetime of a muon can be measured
to have two different values when it is measured in two different
frames of reference.
If you flee the question yet again, I will ask you yet again.
Den 02.04.2025 23:33, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
On Wed, 2 Apr 2025 10:00:04 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 01.04.2025 21:06, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
It's easy to understand that the lifetime of the muons is longer and
that time dilation is an illogical fiction divorced from physics.
The measured mean lifetime of a stationary muon is 2.2 μs
The measured mean lifetime of a muon moving at 0.999668⋅c is 85.36 μs. >>>
These are measured facts!
You claim this is easy to understand without using SR,
so please explain why muons live longer when they are moving.
Paul, I do not know why they live longer. I know time dilation is
fiction. Surely, they can't go faster than light. Heaven forbid!
The measured FACTS are:
The measured mean lifetime of a stationary muon is 2.2 μs
The measured mean lifetime of a muon moving at 0.999668⋅c is 85.36 μs.
Do you really not understand how ridiculous it is to claim
that these facts do not exist because you "know" they can't exist?
You don't know the difference between science and religion.
You _believe_ SR is nonsense, and ignore facts to keep your faith.
what are the facts then; the ukurina said they bomb all their nuclear
power plants and those in polakia, if they are about to lose the war.
It's actually that piece of shit which
is paying you who is always threatening
with nuclear bombing.
And we have no nuclear plants in Poland.
Le 03/04/2025 à 21:51, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :The war in Ukraine resulted from the Thucydides Trap between China's and America's allies. Some very positive results are that the Russians can
what are the facts then; the ukurina said they bomb all their nuclear
power plants and those in polakia, if they are about to lose the war.
It's actually that piece of shit which
is paying you who is always threatening
with nuclear bombing.
And we have no nuclear plants in Poland.
The Poles were manipulated by American Democrats (Biden, Obama) into war against the Russians.
The Poles will be massacred for nothing by believing the Americans as
the
Ukrainians did.
We must stop this stupid war wanted by the fanatical French Democrats (Macron), and the English, Germans, and American Democrats.
R.H.
Le 03/04/2025 à 21:51, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
what are the facts then; the ukurina said they bomb all their nuclear
power plants and those in polakia, if they are about to lose the war.
It's actually that piece of shit which
is paying you who is always threatening
with nuclear bombing.
And we have no nuclear plants in Poland.
The Poles were manipulated by American Democrats (Biden, Obama) into war against the Russians.
The Poles will be massacred for nothing by believing the Americans as
the Ukrainians did.
We must stop this stupid war wanted by the fanatical French Democrats (Macron), and the English, Germans, and American Democrats.
R.H.
Am Freitag000004, 04.04.2025 um 00:03 schrieb Richard Hachel:
Le 03/04/2025 à 21:51, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
what are the facts then; the ukurina said they bomb all their nuclear
power plants and those in polakia, if they are about to lose the war.
It's actually that piece of shit which
is paying you who is always threatening
with nuclear bombing.
And we have no nuclear plants in Poland.
The Poles were manipulated by American Democrats (Biden, Obama) into
war against the Russians.
The Poles will be massacred for nothing by believing the Americans as
the Ukrainians did.
We must stop this stupid war wanted by the fanatical French Democrats
(Macron), and the English, Germans, and American Democrats.
R.H.
Actually the Germans don't want that war neither.
But Poland had own interests in the Ukraine, because the western part of Ukraine once belonged to Poland and even earlier to the Kuk empire of Austria.
The west of Ukraine ist therefore much more oriented towards the west
than the eastern regions, where mostly Russians live.
That's why Poland would like a split of the Ukraine and 'reunification'
with 'Galicien'.
Le 03/04/2025 à 21:51, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
what are the facts then; the ukurina said they bomb all their nuclear
power plants and those in polakia, if they are about to lose the war.
It's actually that piece of shit which
is paying you who is always threatening
with nuclear bombing.
And we have no nuclear plants in Poland.
The Poles were manipulated by American Democrats (Biden, Obama) into war against the Russians.
The Poles will be massacred for nothing by believing the Americans as
the Ukrainians did.
The war in Ukraine resulted from the Thucydides Trap between China's and America's allies. Some very positive results are that the Russians can
now not make significant aggression again for another 30 years demographically, NATO has expanded, and Ukraine is an ally of the West. Russia has also been driven out of Syria.
Actually the Germans don't want that war neither.
But Poland had own interests in the Ukraine, because the western part of Ukraine once belonged to Poland and even earlier to the Kuk empire of Austria.
The west of Ukraine ist therefore much more oriented towards the west
than the eastern regions, where mostly Russians live.
That's why Poland would like a split of the Ukraine and 'reunification'
with 'Galicien'.
What the USA would like to do with Ukraine is hard to say, because
Ukraine isn't really within the usual realm of interest of the Americans.
Mostly they want natural resources.
BUT: Ukraine is in direct reach of Russian military and all American exploitation efforts would be easy to reach for Russian tanks, rockets, soldiers and spies.
So, I had actually doubts, the western companies would have great fun there.
TH
We're not in a war against the Russians.
And if we will be massacred in some
near future - it will be the senile madness
of that piece of shit from Moscow responsible.
Not Biden, not Obama.
On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 8:39:24 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
The measured FACTS are:
The measured mean lifetime of a stationary muon is 2.2 μs
The measured mean lifetime of a muon moving at 0.999668⋅c is 85.36 μs.
Do you really not understand how ridiculous it is to claim
that these facts do not exist because you "know" they can't exist?
You don't know the difference between science and religion.
You _believe_ SR is nonsense, and ignore facts to keep your faith.
Time dilation is an illogical interpretation.
That they live longer is an interpretation that is scientific.
Le 04/04/2025 à 08:07, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
We're not in a war against the Russians.
And if we will be massacred in some
near future - it will be the senile madness
of that piece of shit from Moscow responsible.
Not Biden, not Obama.
You're talking nonsense.
If one day the Poles are massacred like the Ukrainians, it will be their
own fault.
Look at what de Gaulle did in France. He drove out the Americans (1966)
and decreed that France was sovereign, so we had 50 years of peace in
Europe and good relations with the Russians (détente policy).
The last French presidents, against the will of the people (the French
voted overwhelmingly against the creation of a European unity despite incredible media hype, but the pro-European elites did it anyway),
brought back the Americans and reinstated NATO command (High Treason).
Wars in Europe immediately started again with the bombing of Serbia,
then the destabilization of Ukraine.
You should learn the history of your country...
R.H.
Den 03.04.2025 22:56, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 8:39:24 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
The measured FACTS are:
The measured mean lifetime of a stationary muon is 2.2 μs
The measured mean lifetime of a muon moving at 0.999668⋅c is 85.36 μs. >>>
Do you really not understand how ridiculous it is to claim
that these facts do not exist because you "know" they can't exist?
You don't know the difference between science and religion.
You _believe_ SR is nonsense, and ignore facts to keep your faith.
Time dilation is an illogical interpretation.
You mean a counter intuitive interpretation according to YOUR intuition.
"Time dilation" is a real phenomenon, just like gravitation.
But that's how Mother Nature works.
Den 03.04.2025 22:56, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:The muons move ten times further down in Earth's atmosphere than they
On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 8:39:24 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
The measured FACTS are:
The measured mean lifetime of a stationary muon is 2.2 μs
The measured mean lifetime of a muon moving at 0.999668⋅c is 85.36 μs. >>>
Do you really not understand how ridiculous it is to claim
that these facts do not exist because you "know" they can't exist?
You don't know the difference between science and religion.
You _believe_ SR is nonsense, and ignore facts to keep your faith.
Time dilation is an illogical interpretation.
You mean a counter intuitive interpretation according to YOUR intuition.
"Time dilation" is a real phenomenon, just like gravitation.
Neither can be logically deduced from first principles,
so to say it is illogical is a meaningless statement.
("Time dilation" can be logically deduced from the postulates of SR.
But that is not "first principles" in philosophical sense.)
That they live longer is an interpretation that is scientific.
Yet another demonstration of your ignorance of what "time dilation" is.
It is meaningless to say that muons live longer than themself.
A muon has a mean lifetime = 2.2 μs in its rest frame.
The same muon, at the same time, has a mean lifetime 85.36 μs
in the Earth-frame.
Time dilation is the phenomenon that the measured time
between two events on an object's world-line depend
on the frame of reference in which it is measured.
The 2.2 μs and 85.36 μs are two different times between
the same two events on the same muon.
The difference is that the two times are measured in two
different frames of reference.
Counter intuitive? Sure!
But that's how Mother Nature works.
She doesn't care about what you find intuitive.
-------------------
Your intuition is shaped by your experiences. What you never
have experienced will be counter intuitive to you.
It is a strange phenomenon that some people thinks
that their intuition trumps experimental evidence.
What do you think?
Den 03.04.2025 22:56, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:"AI Overview
On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 8:39:24 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
The measured FACTS are:
The measured mean lifetime of a stationary muon is 2.2 μs
The measured mean lifetime of a muon moving at 0.999668⋅c is 85.36 μs. >>>
Do you really not understand how ridiculous it is to claim
that these facts do not exist because you "know" they can't exist?
You don't know the difference between science and religion.
You _believe_ SR is nonsense, and ignore facts to keep your faith.
Time dilation is an illogical interpretation.
You mean a counter intuitive interpretation according to YOUR intuition.
"Time dilation" is a real phenomenon, just like gravitation.
Neither can be logically deduced from first principles,
so to say it is illogical is a meaningless statement.
("Time dilation" can be logically deduced from the postulates of SR.
But that is not "first principles" in philosophical sense.)
That they live longer is an interpretation that is scientific.
Yet another demonstration of your ignorance of what "time dilation" is.
It is meaningless to say that muons live longer than themself.
A muon has a mean lifetime = 2.2 μs in its rest frame.
The same muon, at the same time, has a mean lifetime 85.36 μs
in the Earth-frame.
Time dilation is the phenomenon that the measured time
between two events on an object's world-line depend
on the frame of reference in which it is measured.
The 2.2 μs and 85.36 μs are two different times between
the same two events on the same muon.
The difference is that the two times are measured in two
different frames of reference.
Counter intuitive? Sure!
But that's how Mother Nature works.
She doesn't care about what you find intuitive.
-------------------
Your intuition is shaped by your experiences. What you never
have experienced will be counter intuitive to you.
It is a strange phenomenon that some people thinks
that their intuition trumps experimental evidence.
What do you think?
W dniu 04.04.2025 o 14:55, Paul.B.Andersen pisze:
Den 03.04.2025 22:56, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 8:39:24 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
The measured FACTS are:
The measured mean lifetime of a stationary muon is 2.2 μs
The measured mean lifetime of a muon moving at 0.999668⋅c is 85.36 μs. >>>>
Do you really not understand how ridiculous it is to claim
that these facts do not exist because you "know" they can't exist?
You don't know the difference between science and religion.
You _believe_ SR is nonsense, and ignore facts to keep your faith.
Time dilation is an illogical interpretation.
You mean a counter intuitive interpretation according to YOUR intuition.
"Time dilation" is a real phenomenon, just like gravitation.
No, it's a religious delusion of a mumbling
inconsistently mystician.
If these relativists had any interest in defending relativity they would understand the criticisms. Instead, they willfully misunderstand themBut that's how Mother Nature works.
Time is what CLOCKS indicate, mother nature
has nothing to do with clocks at all (they're
relatively advanced human made devices). It's just
that religious maniacs are always trying to
excuse their madness with some sort of Higher
Force.
The Poles were manipulated by American Democrats (Biden, Obama) into
war against the Russians.
The Poles will be massacred for nothing by believing the Americans as
the Ukrainians did.
We must stop this stupid war wanted by the fanatical French Democrats
(Macron), and the English, Germans, and American Democrats.
R.H.
Actually the Germans don't want that war neither.
But Poland had own interests in the Ukraine, because the western part
of Ukraine once belonged to Poland and even earlier to the Kuk empire
of Austria.
The west of Ukraine ist therefore much more oriented towards the west
than the eastern regions, where mostly Russians live.
That's why Poland would like a split of the Ukraine and
'reunification' with 'Galicien'.
Stop fucking, trash.
Le 04/04/2025 à 00:58, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit :
The war in Ukraine resulted from the Thucydides Trap between China's and
America's allies. Some very positive results are that the Russians can
now not make significant aggression again for another 30 years
demographically, NATO has expanded, and Ukraine is an ally of the West.
Russia has also been driven out of Syria.
But why do you want Russia to commit significant aggression? The largest empire in the world today is the Euro-Atlantic empire. Why would you
want the Russians, great chessboard strategists, to attack nuclear
powers? It's absurd. It shows the stupidity of European and American citizens, who believe everything.
When I was a soldier in Germany, we were made to believe that the
Russians were going to attack and that the tanks would roll in. Then it
was declassified; the Russians were essentially defensive and terrified
of a nuclear war against three other nuclear powers. But everyone in the
West believed that we were in Germany to protect ourselves from the
Russians. That's false; we were there to occupy Germany. On the other
hand, the poor Germans were better off when we occupied them. When the
French left, they were occupied by the Turks.... LOL....
On Fri, 4 Apr 2025 12:55:38 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
A muon has a mean lifetime = 2.2 μs in its rest frame.
The same muon, at the same time, has a mean lifetime 85.36 μs
in the Earth-frame.
Time dilation is the phenomenon that the measured time
between two events on an object's world-line depend
on the frame of reference in which it is measured.
The 2.2 μs and 85.36 μs are two different times between
the same two events on the same muon.
The difference is that the two times are measured in two
different frames of reference.
The muons move ten times further down in Earth's atmosphere than they
are expected to from measurements in the laboratory of their lifetimes
and speeds. This is not a matter of perspective or reference frames.
You have proven unable to even attempt to explain the cause of the time dilation of the muons coming from high in Earth's atmosphere according
to relativity.
Time dilation is not a phenomenon.
You conflate longer lifetimes with time dilation.
Den 04.04.2025 23:15, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
Time dilation is not a phenomenon.
"Time dilation" as predicted by SR is _proven_ to exist.
GR says acceleration causes time dilation.
Muons are created by collisions between cosmic rays at ~15 km,
and will after the creation have an initial energy ~ 6 GeV
which is equivalent to a speed ~ 0.999845g1 ⋅c.
"AI Overview
While muons, formed at high altitudes from cosmic ray interactions, are subject to Earth's gravity, their incredibly high speeds and short
lifespans, coupled with relativistic effects, mean that gravity's
influence on their trajectories is negligible." -Google AI
Considering that time dilation is allegedly caused by acceleration in
GR, how can this negligible amount of acceleration cause the amount of
time dilation of the muons?
Den 04.04.2025 23:15, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
On Fri, 4 Apr 2025 12:55:38 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
A muon has a mean lifetime = 2.2 μs in its rest frame.
The same muon, at the same time, has a mean lifetime 85.36 μs
in the Earth-frame.
Time dilation is the phenomenon that the measured time
between two events on an object's world-line depend
on the frame of reference in which it is measured.
The 2.2 μs and 85.36 μs are two different times between
the same two events on the same muon.
The difference is that the two times are measured in two
different frames of reference.
The muons move ten times further down in Earth's atmosphere than they
are expected to from measurements in the laboratory of their lifetimes
and speeds. This is not a matter of perspective or reference frames.
The "time dilation" is exactly as expected and predicted by SR.
You have proven unable to even attempt to explain the cause of the time
dilation of the muons coming from high in Earth's atmosphere according
to relativity.
Didn't you read the above?
So read it now:
A muon has a mean lifetime = 2.2 μs in its rest frame.
The same muon, at the same time, has a mean lifetime 85.36 μs
in the Earth-frame.
Time dilation is the phenomenon that the measured time
between two events on an object's world-line depend
on the frame of reference in which it is measured.
The 2.2 μs and 85.36 μs are two different times between
the same two events on the same muon.
The difference is that the two times are measured in two
different frames of reference.
Your calculations do not explain the cause.
Time dilation is not a phenomenon.
Call it whatever you want.
"Time dilation" as predicted by SR is _proven_ to exist.
You conflate longer lifetimes with time dilation.
It is still meaningless to say that muons live longer than themself.
REPEAT:
The muon has but one life. It is this one life that
is 2.2 μs when measured in the rest frame of the muon,
and 85.36 μs when measured in Earth-frame.
You seem to have a serious reading comprehension problem.
So I will repeat it again if you still haven't got it.
Den 04.04.2025 23:47, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
"AI Overview
While muons, formed at high altitudes from cosmic ray interactions, are
subject to Earth's gravity, their incredibly high speeds and short
lifespans, coupled with relativistic effects, mean that gravity's
influence on their trajectories is negligible." -Google AI
Of course the effect of gravitation is negligible.
Muons are created by collisions between cosmic rays at ~15 km,
and will after the creation have an initial energy ~ 6 GeV
which is equivalent to a speed ~ 0.999845g1 ⋅c.
Since the muon is moving at high speed through air, it will loose
energy and have an energy ~ 4 GeV when it reaches the ground.
This is equivalent to a speed ~ 0.999651⋅c.
The average energy is ~ 5 GeV equivalent to a speed ~ 0.999776⋅c
Considering that time dilation is allegedly caused by acceleration in
GR, how can this negligible amount of acceleration cause the amount of
time dilation of the muons?
Since gravitation is negligible there is no reason to invoke GR.
"Time dilation" is predicted by SR.
Let's see how:
As you know, a muon may decay at any time. (it's radioactive decay)
The proper mean lifetime is 2.2 μs. This means that if we know
the muon exists, then the probability that it still will exist
after 1 μs is exp(-1e-6/2.2e-6) = 0.63. That means that the probability
that the muon will decay after less than 1 μs is 0.27.
We will define that the muon we are going to analyse decays exactly
τ₀ = 1 μs after its creation, measured in the muon's rest frame.
The speed of the muon in the Earth frame is v = 0.999776⋅c, γ = 47.3
We will use two frames of references:
The muon frame K(x,t) and the Earth-frame K'(x',c').
The muon frame is moving at the speed v relative to the Earth-frame.
The muon is created 15 km above ground, we will set this event to
have the coordinates in K': x₀'= 0, t₀'= 0
and the coordinates in K: x₀ = 0, t₀ = 0
The muon is stationary at x₀ = 0
event creation: t₀'= 0, t₀ = 0
K':------|--------------------------------|----> x'
x₀'= 0 15 km (ground)
K: ------M------------------------------------> x v->
x₀ = 0
================================
event decay:
K':------|-------------------------|------|----> x'
x₀'= 0 x₁'= L 15 km (ground)
K: --------------------------------M-----------> x v->
x₁ = 0
When the muon decays, the coordinates are
In K: x₁ = 0, t₁ = τ₀
In K':
L = x₁'= γ(x₁ + v⋅t₁) = γ⋅v⋅τ₀
t₁'= γ(t₁ + v⋅x₁/c²) = γ⋅τ₀
Putting in numbers:
L = γ⋅v⋅τ₀ = 14.178 km (the muon will decay before it hits the ground)
t₁'= γ⋅τ₀ = 47.3 μs
t₁ = τ₀ = 1 μs
Conclusion:
In this scenario, there is but one single muon with one single life.
The muon lives from its creation to its decay.
This single life is measured to last 1 μs in the muon frame K,
and is measured to last 47.3 μs in the Earth-frame K'.
Time dilation is the phenomenon that the measured time
between two events on an object's world-line depend
on the frame of reference in which it is measured.
So this is "time dilation" by definition.
And as you know, the phenomenon "time dilation"
is thoroughly proven to exist in the real world.
It simply is how Mother Nature works.
Den 05.04.2025 20:57, skrev Paul.B.Andersen:Then you have the muons slowing down.
Muons are created by collisions between cosmic rays at ~15 km,
and will after the creation have an initial energy ~ 6 GeV
which is equivalent to a speed ~ 0.999845g1 ⋅c.
which is equivalent to a speed ~ 0.999845⋅c
Den 05.04.2025 20:57, skrev Paul.B.Andersen:At 299792 km/sec 6000 meters is covered in 2.00139 ^-5 seconds =
Muons are created by collisions between cosmic rays at ~15 km,
and will after the creation have an initial energy ~ 6 GeV
which is equivalent to a speed ~ 0.999845g1 ⋅c.
which is equivalent to a speed ~ 0.999845⋅c
Den 05.04.2025 20:57, skrev Paul.B.Andersen:To sum up, it is futile to take recourse to a mathematician to explain
Muons are created by collisions between cosmic rays at ~15 km,
and will after the creation have an initial energy ~ 6 GeV
which is equivalent to a speed ~ 0.999845g1 ⋅c.
which is equivalent to a speed ~ 0.999845⋅c
Den 05.04.2025 20:57, skrev Paul.B.Andersen:The muons had to exist for 20 microseconds to cover 6000 meters so that
Muons are created by collisions between cosmic rays at ~15 km,
and will after the creation have an initial energy ~ 6 GeV
which is equivalent to a speed ~ 0.999845g1 ⋅c.
which is equivalent to a speed ~ 0.999845⋅c
As you know, a muon may decay at any time. (it's radioactive decay)
The proper mean lifetime is 2.2 μs. This means that if we know
the muon exists, then the probability that it still will exist
after 1 μs is exp(-1e-6/2.2e-6) = 0.63. That means that the probability
that the muon will decay after less than 1 μs is 0.27.
Den 04.04.2025 23:15, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
On Fri, 4 Apr 2025 12:55:38 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
A muon has a mean lifetime = 2.2 μs in its rest frame.
The same muon, at the same time, has a mean lifetime 85.36 μs
in the Earth-frame.
Time dilation is the phenomenon that the measured time
between two events on an object's world-line depend
on the frame of reference in which it is measured.
The 2.2 μs and 85.36 μs are two different times between
the same two events on the same muon.
The difference is that the two times are measured in two
different frames of reference.
The muons move ten times further down in Earth's atmosphere than they
are expected to from measurements in the laboratory of their lifetimes
and speeds. This is not a matter of perspective or reference frames.
The "time dilation" is exactly as expected and predicted by SR.
You have proven unable to even attempt to explain the cause of the time
dilation of the muons coming from high in Earth's atmosphere according
to relativity.
Didn't you read the above?
So read it now:
A muon has a mean lifetime = 2.2 μs in its rest frame.
The same muon, at the same time, has a mean lifetime 85.36 μs
in the Earth-frame.
Time dilation is the phenomenon that the measured time
between two events on an object's world-line depend
on the frame of reference in which it is measured.
The 2.2 μs and 85.36 μs are two different times between
the same two events on the same muon.
The difference is that the two times are measured in two
different frames of reference.
Time dilation is not a phenomenon.
Call it whatever you want.
"Time dilation" as predicted by SR is _proven_ to exist.
The muon has but one life. It is this one life that
is 2.2 μs when measured in the rest frame of the muon,
On Sat, 5 Apr 2025 18:57:33 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
L = γ⋅v⋅τ₀ = 14.178 km (the muon will decay before it hits the ground)
Conclusion:
In this scenario, there is but one single muon with one single life.
The muon lives from its creation to its decay.
This single life is measured to last 1 μs in the muon frame K,
and is measured to last 47.3 μs in the Earth-frame K'.
Time dilation is the phenomenon that the measured time
between two events on an object's world-line depend
on the frame of reference in which it is measured.
So this is "time dilation" by definition.
And as you know, the phenomenon "time dilation"
is thoroughly proven to exist in the real world.
It simply is how Mother Nature works.
For the muon to travel 6,000 meters, its lifetime must be 22
microseconds.
To assert otherwise is irrational.
This is natural science.
Conclusion:
In this scenario, there is but one single muon with one single life.
The muon lives from its creation to its decay.
This single life is measured to last 1 μs in the muon frame K,
and is measured to last 47.3 μs in the Earth-frame K'.
Time dilation is the phenomenon that the measured time
between two events on an object's world-line depend
on the frame of reference in which it is measured.
So this is "time dilation" by definition.
And as you know, the phenomenon "time dilation"
is thoroughly proven to exist in the real world.
It simply is how Mother Nature works.
Le 06/04/2025 à 15:10, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
Conclusion:
In this scenario, there is but one single muon with one single life.
The muon lives from its creation to its decay.
This single life is measured to last 1 μs in the muon frame K,
and is measured to last 47.3 μs in the Earth-frame K'.
Time dilation is the phenomenon that the measured time
between two events on an object's world-line depend
on the frame of reference in which it is measured.
So this is "time dilation" by definition.
And as you know, the phenomenon "time dilation"
is thoroughly proven to exist in the real world.
It simply is how Mother Nature works.
The hardest thing for the novice to understand is that this phenomenon
is reciprocal.
For the muon, a phenomenon that occurs in the laboratory for 1 µs would
last for him...
Den 05.04.2025 23:01, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
On Sat, 5 Apr 2025 18:57:33 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
L = γ⋅v⋅τ₀ = 14.178 km (the muon will decay before it hits the ground)
Conclusion:
In this scenario, there is but one single muon with one single life.
The muon lives from its creation to its decay.
This single life is measured to last 1 μs in the muon frame K,
and is measured to last 47.3 μs in the Earth-frame K'.
Time dilation is the phenomenon that the measured time
between two events on an object's world-line depend
on the frame of reference in which it is measured.
So this is "time dilation" by definition.
And as you know, the phenomenon "time dilation"
is thoroughly proven to exist in the real world.
It simply is how Mother Nature works.
You have obviously not read my post since you can make idiotic
remarks like below.
For the muon to travel 6,000 meters, its lifetime must be 22
microseconds.
To assert otherwise is irrational.
This is natural science.
Right above I wrote:
"This single life is measured to last 1 μs in the muon frame K,
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.
Your calculations do not explain the cause.
SR cannot predict without a cause, and you haven't given the cause.
Time dilation is refutable a priori by logic.
Empirically determining that muons live longer does not prove time
dilation.
I have never said muons live longer than themselves.
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.
Where is the formula that explains that?
How can the acceleration caused by gravity in 600 meters cause
that much "time dilation?"
When will you be able to comprehend anything?
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.
W dniu 06.04.2025 o 22:02, Paul.B.Andersen pisze:I must say I find the whole matter quite perplexing.
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.
Too bad it's only measured in some sick
imagination of a brainwashed idiot.
On Sun, 6 Apr 2025 20:09:28 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 06.04.2025 o 22:02, Paul.B.Andersen pisze:I must say I find the whole matter quite perplexing.
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.
Too bad it's only measured in some sick
imagination of a brainwashed idiot.
I thought time dilation was an effect not a cause.
I am told a muon in its own frame lasts one microsecond yet covers the distance requiring 22.
Le 06/04/2025 à 15:10, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
Conclusion:
In this scenario, there is but one single muon with one single life.
The muon lives from its creation to its decay.
This single life is measured to last 1 μs in the muon frame K,
and is measured to last 47.3 μs in the Earth-frame K'.
Time dilation is the phenomenon that the measured time
between two events on an object's world-line depend
on the frame of reference in which it is measured.
So this is "time dilation" by definition.
And as you know, the phenomenon "time dilation"
is thoroughly proven to exist in the real world.
It simply is how Mother Nature works.
The hardest thing for the novice to understand is that this phenomenon
is reciprocal.
For the muon, a phenomenon that occurs in the laboratory for 1 µs would
last for him...
This confuses the novice.
He doesn't understand how this can work.
But we can't blame them; the bigwigs are just as lost when Doctor Hachel starts talking about modern relativity theory. They can't understand
that when Stella makes her U-turn, over there, at 12 ly, and returns to
Earth at 0.8c (the Langevin traveler), she is stationary in her frame of reference but sees the Earth coming back towards her, with an apparent
speed of 4c, for 9 years (so far, so good). And THEREFORE, she sees the
Earth coming back towards her over a distance of 36 light-years (inverse distance contraction).
This drives them all crazy.
----------------------------
I will post it again. Please read it this time.
And make one reply, where you quote what you respond to.
If you think something is wrong specify exactly what, and quote
what you think is wrong.
| "Time dilation" is predicted by SR.
|
| Let's see how:
|
| As you know, a muon may decay at any time. (it's radioactive decay)
| The proper mean lifetime is 2.2 μs. This means that if we know
| the muon exists, then the probability that it still will exist
| after 1 μs is exp(-1e-6/2.2e-6) = 0.63. That means that the probability
| that the muon will decay after less than 1 μs is 0.27.
|
| We will define that the muon we are going to analyse decays exactly
| τ₀ = 1 μs after its creation, measured in the muon's rest frame.
| The speed of the muon in the Earth frame is v = 0.999776⋅c, γ = 47.3
A comment:
A vast number of muons are created every second,
so there will always be some muons which have
a proper lifetime close to 1 μs.
|
| We will use two frames of references:
| The muon frame K(x,t) and the Earth-frame K'(x',c').
| The muon frame is moving at the speed v relative to the Earth-frame.
| The muon is created 15 km above ground, we will set this event to
| have the coordinates in K': x₀'= 0, t₀'= 0
| and the coordinates in K: x₀ = 0, t₀ = 0
| The muon is stationary at x₀ = 0
|
| event creation: t₀'= 0, t₀ = 0
|
| K':------|--------------------------------|----> x'
| x₀'= 0 15 km (ground)
|
| K: ------M------------------------------------> x v->
| x₀ = 0
|
| ================================
|
| event decay:
|
| K':------|-------------------------|------|----> x'
| x₀'= 0 x₁'= L 15 km (ground)
|
| K: --------------------------------M-----------> x v-> | x₁ = 0
|
| When the muon decays, the coordinates are
| In K: x₁ = 0, t₁ = τ₀
| In K':
| L = x₁'= γ(x₁ + v⋅t₁) = γ⋅v⋅τ₀
| t₁'= γ(t₁ + v⋅x₁/c²) = γ⋅τ₀
|
| Putting in numbers:
| L = γ⋅v⋅τ₀ = 14.177 km (the muon will decay before it hits the ground)
| t₁'= γ⋅τ₀ = 47.3 μs
| t₁ = τ₀ = 1 μs
|
| Conclusion:
| In this scenario, there is but one single muon with one single life.
| The muon lives from its creation to its decay.
| This single life is measured to last 1 μs in the muon frame K,
| and is measured to last 47.3 μs in the Earth-frame K'.
|
| Time dilation is the phenomenon that the measured time
| between two events on an object's world-line depend
| on the frame of reference in which it is measured.
|
| So this is "time dilation" by definition.
|
| And as you know, the phenomenon "time dilation"
| is thoroughly proven to exist in the real world.
|
| It simply is how Mother Nature works.
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 negligible 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.
Den 07.04.2025 00:34, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
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 negligible 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.
You do not even try to give a rational response.
Your capitulation is noted.
Your whole relativistic pseudoscience is thoroughly ignorant nonsense. I
am sure you haven't convinced any intelligent readers here.
I will tell you some facts:
It is 120 years since Einstein introduced SR, and 110 years since
he introduced GR.
During more than a century innumerable experiment testing SR and GR
are made, and every one of them have confirmed SR/GR.
SR and GR are never falsified.
Here is some of the experiments:
https://paulba.no/paper/index.html
Am Sonntag000006, 06.04.2025 um 15:51 schrieb Richard Hachel:
Le 06/04/2025 à 15:10, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
Well, we know from experience, that isolated metal plates become
charged, if we shine light upon them.
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.
Do muons move at a different velocity in the laboratory than in the atmosphere?
"No, muons generally do not move at a different velocity in a laboratory setting compared to their velocity in the atmosphere; they both travel
at speeds very close to the speed of light, typically around 99.8% of
the speed of light" - Google search AI.
Then why would they "time dilate" in the atmosphere?
Den 31.03.2025 22:40, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
Do muons move at a different velocity in the laboratory than in the
atmosphere?
"No, muons generally do not move at a different velocity in a laboratory
setting compared to their velocity in the atmosphere; they both travel
at speeds very close to the speed of light, typically around 99.8% of
the speed of light" - Google search AI.
Then why would they "time dilate" in the atmosphere?
Why do muons in a storage ring "time dilate" in the atmosphere?
W dniu 08.04.2025 o 14:30, Paul B. Andersen pisze:
Den 31.03.2025 22:40, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
Do muons move at a different velocity in the laboratory than in the
atmosphere?
"No, muons generally do not move at a different velocity in a laboratory >>> setting compared to their velocity in the atmosphere; they both travel
at speeds very close to the speed of light, typically around 99.8% of
the speed of light" - Google search AI.
Then why would they "time dilate" in the atmosphere?
Why do muons in a storage ring "time dilate" in the atmosphere?
They don't. You've bought it as a "fact"
because you're an idiot lacking any
logic. They may live longer, why not.
Den 08.04.2025 14:59, skrev Maciej Wozniak:
W dniu 08.04.2025 o 14:30, Paul B. Andersen pisze:
Den 31.03.2025 22:40, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
Do muons move at a different velocity in the laboratory than in the
atmosphere?
"No, muons generally do not move at a different velocity in a
laboratory
setting compared to their velocity in the atmosphere; they both travel >>>> at speeds very close to the speed of light, typically around 99.8% of
the speed of light" - Google search AI.
Then why would they "time dilate" in the atmosphere?
Why do muons in a storage ring "time dilate" in the atmosphere?
They don't. You've bought it as a "fact"
because you're an idiot lacking any
logic. They may live longer, why not.
The noble art of missing the point. :-D
You thought that my answer to the nonsensical question:
"do muons in a storage ring "time dilate" in the atmosphere?"
would be affirmative, didn't you?
I won't have explain why I find your comment hilarious.
W dniu 08.04.2025 o 20:49, Paul.B.Andersen pisze:
Den 08.04.2025 14:59, skrev Maciej Wozniak:
W dniu 08.04.2025 o 14:30, Paul B. Andersen pisze:
Why do muons in a storage ring "time dilate" in the atmosphere?
They don't. You've bought it as a "fact"
because you're an idiot lacking any
logic. They may live longer, why not.
The noble art of missing the point. :-D
You thought that my answer to the nonsensical question:
"do muons in a storage ring "time dilate" in the atmosphere?"
would be affirmative, didn't you?
Would never expect anything affirnative from
a relativistic idiot - expect of course things
like "The Shit of Einstein is absolutely ingenious
and whoever doesn't believe is a stupid crank!!!"
I won't have explain why I find your comment hilarious.
Sure.
Den 31.03.2025 22:40, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
Do muons move at a different velocity in the laboratory than in the atmosphere?
"No, muons generally do not move at a different velocity in alaboratory
setting compared to their velocity in the atmosphere; they both travel
at speeds very close to the speed of light, typically around 99.8% of
the speed of light" - Google search AI.
Then why would they "time dilate" in the atmosphere?
The speed of muons is v = ~ 0.999668⋅c through the atmosphere
which also is within the laboratory with open roof.
γ = 38.8.
The mean proper lifetime of a muon is t₀ = 2.2 μs.
But measured in the Earth's rest frame the lifetime of the muon
is tₑ = 2.2e-6⋅γ s = 85.36 μs (time dilation!).
Since muons are created at a height ~15 km, and the time for
a muon to reach the earth is t = 15e3/v = 5.005 s,
then the part of the muon flux that will reach the Earth is
N/N₀ = exp(-t/tₑ) = 0.556, so 55.6% of the muons would reach the
Earth.
If the lifetime of the muons had been 2.2 μs, then the part of
the muon flux that will reach the Earth would be:
N/N₀ = exp(-t/t₀) = 1.32e-10.
So only 0.0000000132% of the muons would reach the Earth.
Can toy guess which of them is closest to what is observed?
On Tue, 1 Apr 2025 17:56:05 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 31.03.2025 22:40, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
laboratory
Do muons move at a different velocity in the laboratory than in the
atmosphere?
"No, muons generally do not move at a different velocity in a
setting compared to their velocity in the atmosphere; they both travel
at speeds very close to the speed of light, typically around 99.8% of
the speed of light" - Google search AI.
Then why would they "time dilate" in the atmosphere?
The speed of muons is v = ~ 0.999668⋅c through the atmosphere
which also is within the laboratory with open roof.
γ = 38.8.
The mean proper lifetime of a muon is t₀ = 2.2 μs.
But measured in the Earth's rest frame the lifetime of the muon
is tₑ = 2.2e-6⋅γ s = 85.36 μs (time dilation!).
Since muons are created at a height ~15 km, and the time for
a muon to reach the earth is t = 15e3/v = 5.005 s,
then the part of the muon flux that will reach the Earth is
N/N₀ = exp(-t/tₑ) = 0.556, so 55.6% of the muons would reach the
Earth.
If the lifetime of the muons had been 2.2 μs, then the part of
the muon flux that will reach the Earth would be:
N/N₀ = exp(-t/t₀) = 1.32e-10.
So only 0.0000000132% of the muons would reach the Earth.
Can toy guess which of them is closest to what is observed?
The problem with AI apps that Crossen used is that it's not accurate.
Crossen finds one source that agrees with his bias and stops looking,
then makes post after post after post believing he has discovered the ultimate truth!
Well, he has merely scratched the surface and his AI app is wrong
about muon lifetime in the laboratory. Muon-electron "atoms" are
not formed by muons travelling at relativistic speeds and the
lifetime of the muon is 2.2 usec:
https://www.quirkyscience.com/muonium/
Den 09.04.2025 16:07, skrev gharnagel:
The problem with AI apps that Crossen used is that it's not accurate. Crossen finds one source that agrees with his bias and stops looking,
then makes post after post after post believing he has discovered the ultimate truth!
The muons in the laboratory which the AI-app said travel at speeds
very close to the speed of light was probably muons in a storage ring.
I chose the "laboratory" to be the lab where the atmospheric muons
were counted. So the muons don't only have the same speed, they are
the same muons.
What kind of reasoning is behind Laurence's question:
"Then why would they "time dilate" in the atmosphere?"
beats me.
Well, he has merely scratched the surface and his AI app is wrong
about muon lifetime in the laboratory. Muon-electron "atoms" are
not formed by muons travelling at relativistic speeds and the
lifetime of the muon is 2.2 usec:
https://www.quirkyscience.com/muonium/
On Wed, 9 Apr 2025 17:58:59 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
The muons in the laboratory which the AI-app said travel at speeds very
close to the speed of light was probably muons in a storage ring.
I chose the "laboratory" to be the lab where the atmospheric muons were
counted. So the muons don't only have the same speed, they are the same
muons.
And I chose the laboratory to mean when the muon lost energy as it was
slowed down by matter and came to rest:
Den 31.03.2025 22:40, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
Do muons move at a different velocity in the laboratory than in the
atmosphere?
"No, muons generally do not move at a different velocity in a laboratory
setting compared to their velocity in the atmosphere; they both travel
at speeds very close to the speed of light, typically around 99.8% of
the speed of light" - Google search AI.
Then why would they "time dilate" in the atmosphere?
The speed of muons is v = ~ 0.999668⋅c through the atmosphere
which also is within the laboratory with open roof.
γ = 38.8.
The mean proper lifetime of a muon is t₀ = 2.2 μs.
But measured in the Earth's rest frame the lifetime of the muon
is tₑ = 2.2e-6⋅γ s = 85.36 μs (time dilation!).
Since muons are created at a height ~15 km, and the time for
a muon to reach the earth is t = 15e3/v = 5.005 s,
then the part of the muon flux that will reach the Earth is
N/N₀ = exp(-t/tₑ) = 0.556, so 55.6% of the muons would reach the Earth.
If the lifetime of the muons had been 2.2 μs, then the part of
the muon flux that will reach the Earth would be:
N/N₀ = exp(-t/t₀) = 1.32e-10.
So only 0.0000000132% of the muons would reach the Earth.
Can toy guess which of them is closest to what is observed?
Paul.B.Andersen:
Den 31.03.2025 22:40, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
Do muons move at a different velocity in the laboratory than in the
atmosphere?
"No, muons generally do not move at a different velocity in a laboratory >> setting compared to their velocity in the atmosphere; they both travel
at speeds very close to the speed of light, typically around 99.8% of
the speed of light" - Google search AI.
Then why would they "time dilate" in the atmosphere?
The speed of muons is v = ~ 0.999668?c through the atmosphere
which also is within the laboratory with open roof.
? = 38.8.
The mean proper lifetime of a muon is t? = 2.2 ?s.
But measured in the Earth's rest frame the lifetime of the muon
is t? = 2.2e-6?? s = 85.36 ?s (time dilation!).
Since muons are created at a height ~15 km, and the time for
a muon to reach the earth is t = 15e3/v = 5.005 s,
then the part of the muon flux that will reach the Earth is
N/N? = exp(-t/t?) = 0.556, so 55.6% of the muons would reach the Earth.
If the lifetime of the muons had been 2.2 ?s, then the part of
the muon flux that will reach the Earth would be:
N/N? = exp(-t/t?) = 1.32e-10.
So only 0.0000000132% of the muons would reach the Earth.
Can toy guess which of them is closest to what is observed?
@PaulBAndersen
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.
Paul.B.Andersen:Time dilation is an absurdly illogical interpretation that cannot be
Den 31.03.2025 22:40, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
Do muons move at a different velocity in the laboratory than in the
atmosphere?
"No, muons generally do not move at a different velocity in a laboratory >>> setting compared to their velocity in the atmosphere; they both travel
at speeds very close to the speed of light, typically around 99.8% of
the speed of light" - Google search AI.
Then why would they "time dilate" in the atmosphere?
The speed of muons is v = ~ 0.999668⋅c through the atmosphere
which also is within the laboratory with open roof.
γ = 38.8.
The mean proper lifetime of a muon is t₀ = 2.2 μs.
But measured in the Earth's rest frame the lifetime of the muon
is tₑ = 2.2e-6⋅γ s = 85.36 μs (time dilation!).
Since muons are created at a height ~15 km, and the time for
a muon to reach the earth is t = 15e3/v = 5.005 s,
then the part of the muon flux that will reach the Earth is
N/N₀ = exp(-t/tₑ) = 0.556, so 55.6% of the muons would reach the Earth.
If the lifetime of the muons had been 2.2 μs, then the part of
the muon flux that will reach the Earth would be:
N/N₀ = exp(-t/t₀) = 1.32e-10.
So only 0.0000000132% of the muons would reach the Earth.
Can toy guess which of them is closest to what is observed?
@PaulBAndersen
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 t₀ = 2.2 μs.
2. muons are created at a height ~15 km
3. The speed of the muons is ~c, so travel time is ~50.05 μs
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/N₀ = exp(-t/t₀) = 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/N₀ = exp(-t/γt₀) = .556 => γ = 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.
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 t₀ = 2.2 μs.
2. muons are created at a height ~15 km
3. The speed of the muons is ~c, so travel time is ~50.05 μs
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/N₀ = exp(-t/t₀) = 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/N₀ = exp(-t/γt₀) = .556 => γ = 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
On 4/10/25 3:02 PM, Aether Regained wrote:mean). In particular, Bailey et al. They put muons into a storage ring
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 t₀ = 2.2 μs.
2. muons are created at a height ~15 km
3. The speed of the muons is ~c, so travel time is ~50.05 μs
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/N₀ = exp(-t/t₀) = 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/N₀ = exp(-t/γt₀) = .556 => γ = 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
There are literally hundreds of other experiments that confirm thevalidity of SR. Some measure "time dilation"
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.
Tom Roberts wrote:
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
this is blatantly incorrectuous. They never know how many muons are there, due quantum probability distribution. So your assumed energy makes no
sense. Not even for detection.
You are talking complete nonsense here.
Natural units are just another well-defined unit system,
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?
There is only one c. It is a property of the space-time we find
ourselves in.
It may reappear in physical theories like electromagnetism,
but this is not necessary in principle.
(photons could have a finite rest mass, for example)
Jared Vakulov Bian <arouj@rvove.ru> wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote:
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
this is blatantly incorrectuous. They never know how many muons are there, >> due quantum probability distribution. So your assumed energy makes no
sense. Not even for detection.
Au contraire, it is you who are 'blatantly incorrectuous', [sic]
and you obviously have no idea of what you are talking about.
It is easy to measure how many muons there are
in the storage ring at any given moment,
by picking up their electromagnetic fields,
On 4/14/25 2:01 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Jared Vakulov Bian <arouj@rvove.ru> wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote:
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
this is blatantly incorrectuous. They never know how many muons are there, >> due quantum probability distribution. So your assumed energy makes no
sense. Not even for detection.
Au contraire, it is you who are 'blatantly incorrectuous', [sic]
and you obviously have no idea of what you are talking about.
It is easy to measure how many muons there are
in the storage ring at any given moment,
by picking up their electromagnetic fields,
Yes.
Moreover, to measure the RATE of decay, one need not know the number of
muons circulating, one merely needs to measure the number of decays as a function of time. Bailey et al naturally do that, as part of their measurement of g-2.
On 04/15/2025 09:25 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 4/14/25 2:01 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Jared Vakulov Bian <arouj@rvove.ru> wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote:
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
this is blatantly incorrectuous. They never know how many muons are
there, due quantum probability distribution. So your assumed energy
makes no sense. Not even for detection.
Au contraire, it is you who are 'blatantly incorrectuous', [sic]
and you obviously have no idea of what you are talking about.
It is easy to measure how many muons there are
in the storage ring at any given moment,
by picking up their electromagnetic fields,
Yes.
Moreover, to measure the RATE of decay, one need not know the number of
muons circulating, one merely needs to measure the number of decays as a >> function of time. Bailey et al naturally do that, as part of their
measurement of g-2.
Yes, but them you have to assume/ignore that there are no other loss mechaninsms,
Jan
It's a retro-grade process, you're looking at it from the wrong end.
Log-normaling the g-2 as after the Hamilton-Jacobi is that it
was already Jacobi-Hamilton and it results "tunes to anything".
And cancels out what would be the explanatory, since the
linear accelerator has a plain Galilean interpretation.
Paul.B.Andersen:
The speed of muons is v = ~ 0.999668⋅c through the atmosphere
which also is within the laboratory with open roof.
γ = 38.8.
The mean proper lifetime of a muon is t₀ = 2.2 μs.
But measured in the Earth's rest frame the lifetime of the muon
is tₑ = 2.2e-6⋅γ s = 85.36 μs (time dilation!).
Since muons are created at a height ~15 km, and the time for
a muon to reach the earth is t = 15e3/v = 5.005 s,
then the part of the muon flux that will reach the Earth is
N/N₀ = exp(-t/tₑ) = 0.556, so 55.6% of the muons would reach the Earth.
If the lifetime of the muons had been 2.2 μs, then the part of
the muon flux that will reach the Earth would be:
N/N₀ = exp(-t/t₀) = 1.32e-10.
So only 0.0000000132% of the muons would reach the Earth.
Can you guess which of them is closest to what is observed?
@PaulBAndersen
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 t₀ = 2.2 μs.
2. muons are created at a height ~15 km
3. The speed of the muons is ~c, so travel time is ~50.05 μs
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/N₀ = exp(-t/t₀) = 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/N₀ = exp(-t/γt₀) = .556 => γ = 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.
Den 10.04.2025 22:02, skrev Aether Regained:
Paul.B.Andersen:
The speed of muons is v = ~ 0.999668?c through the atmosphere
which also is within the laboratory with open roof.
? = 38.8.
The mean proper lifetime of a muon is t? = 2.2 ?s.
But measured in the Earth's rest frame the lifetime of the muon
is t? = 2.2e-6?? s = 85.36 ?s (time dilation!).
Since muons are created at a height ~15 km, and the time for
a muon to reach the earth is t = 15e3/v = 5.005 s,
then the part of the muon flux that will reach the Earth is
N/N? = exp(-t/t?) = 0.556, so 55.6% of the muons would reach the Earth. >>
If the lifetime of the muons had been 2.2 ?s, then the part of
the muon flux that will reach the Earth would be:
N/N? = exp(-t/t?) = 1.32e-10.
So only 0.0000000132% of the muons would reach the Earth.
Can you guess which of them is closest to what is observed?
@PaulBAndersen
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.
Nothing but the mean lifetime is really measured in my scenario above.
What I described above is no doable experiment, it was just to
point out the basic principle for how the mean lifetime is used
to calculate the reduction of the flux with time.
In a real experiment a lot of parameters must be measured.
See:
https://paulba.no/paper/Frisch_Smith.pdf
Paul.B.Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote:
Den 10.04.2025 22:02, skrev Aether Regained:
Paul.B.Andersen:
The speed of muons is v = ~ 0.999668?c through the atmosphere
which also is within the laboratory with open roof.
? = 38.8.
The mean proper lifetime of a muon is t? = 2.2 ?s.
But measured in the Earth's rest frame the lifetime of the muon
is t? = 2.2e-6?? s = 85.36 ?s (time dilation!).
Since muons are created at a height ~15 km, and the time for
a muon to reach the earth is t = 15e3/v = 5.005 s,
then the part of the muon flux that will reach the Earth is
N/N? = exp(-t/t?) = 0.556, so 55.6% of the muons would reach the Earth. >>>>
If the lifetime of the muons had been 2.2 ?s, then the part of
the muon flux that will reach the Earth would be:
N/N? = exp(-t/t?) = 1.32e-10.
So only 0.0000000132% of the muons would reach the Earth.
Can you guess which of them is closest to what is observed?
@PaulBAndersen
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.
Nothing but the mean lifetime is really measured in my scenario above.
What I described above is no doable experiment, it was just to
point out the basic principle for how the mean lifetime is used
to calculate the reduction of the flux with time.
In a real experiment a lot of parameters must be measured.
See:
https://paulba.no/paper/Frisch_Smith.pdf
Of course it is doable, and done routinely, at CERN for example.
They detect the decays of highly relativistic muons to time the creation
of the neutrinos, in the neutrino speed experiment for example.
That's why the muon drift tube has to be as long as it is.
That time dilatation costs a lot of real money,
Den 10.04.2025 22:02, skrev Aether Regained:
Paul.B.Andersen:
The speed of muons is v = ~ 0.999668⋅c through the atmosphere
which also is within the laboratory with open roof.
γ = 38.8.
The mean proper lifetime of a muon is t₀ = 2.2 μs.
But measured in the Earth's rest frame the lifetime of the muon
is tₑ = 2.2e-6⋅γ s = 85.36 μs (time dilation!).
Since muons are created at a height ~15 km, and the time for
a muon to reach the earth is t = 15e3/v = 5.005 s,
then the part of the muon flux that will reach the Earth is
N/N₀ = exp(-t/tₑ) = 0.556, so 55.6% of the muons would reach the >>> Earth.
If the lifetime of the muons had been 2.2 μs, then the part of
the muon flux that will reach the Earth would be:
N/N₀ = exp(-t/t₀) = 1.32e-10.
So only 0.0000000132% of the muons would reach the Earth.
Can you guess which of them is closest to what is observed?
@PaulBAndersen
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 t₀ = 2.2 μs.
2. muons are created at a height ~15 km
3. The speed of the muons is ~c, so travel time is ~50.05 μs
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/N₀ = exp(-t/t₀) = 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/N₀ = exp(-t/γt₀) = .556 => γ = 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.
Nothing but the mean lifetime is really measured in my scenario above.
On 04/15/2025 12:34 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
On 04/15/2025 02:48 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
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 isSo 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
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. >>>>>>>>
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?
The system of all units of all physical quantities
must be a finite-dimensional algebra,
no matter what your unit system may be,
and how you choose to define relations between units,
Jan
I read that as "finite-dimensional spaces and infinite-dimensional
vector spaces are two different things".
Your reading is irrelevant, and does not relate to what I wrote.
There's no arbitrary highest order of acceleration, i.e.,
any highest order derivative of position with respect to time,
it's at least "unbounded", and greater than any "finite",
and not less than "infinite".
Has it really escaped your notice that finite dimensional algebras
have infinitely many elemens?
Jan
[snip irrelevancies]
Not at all, neither that the classical units have infinitely-many
higher orders, of "the" their dimension, thusly infinite-dimensionally.
Paul.B.Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote:
Den 10.04.2025 22:02, skrev Aether Regained:
Paul.B.Andersen:
The speed of muons is v = ~ 0.999668?c through the atmosphere
which also is within the laboratory with open roof.
? = 38.8.
The mean proper lifetime of a muon is t? = 2.2 ?s.
But measured in the Earth's rest frame the lifetime of the muon
is t? = 2.2e-6?? s = 85.36 ?s (time dilation!).
Since muons are created at a height ~15 km, and the time for
a muon to reach the earth is t = 15e3/v = 5.005 s,
then the part of the muon flux that will reach the Earth is
N/N? = exp(-t/t?) = 0.556, so 55.6% of the muons would reach the Earth. >>>>
If the lifetime of the muons had been 2.2 ?s, then the part of
the muon flux that will reach the Earth would be:
N/N? = exp(-t/t?) = 1.32e-10.
So only 0.0000000132% of the muons would reach the Earth.
Can you guess which of them is closest to what is observed?
@PaulBAndersen
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.
Nothing but the mean lifetime is really measured in my scenario above.
What I described above is no doable experiment, it was just to
point out the basic principle for how the mean lifetime is used
to calculate the reduction of the flux with time.
In a real experiment a lot of parameters must be measured.
See:
https://paulba.no/paper/Frisch_Smith.pdf
Of course it is doable, and done routinely, at CERN for example.
They detect the decays of highly relativistic muons to time the creation
of the neutrinos, in the neutrino speed experiment for example.
That's why the muon drift tube has to be as long as it is.
That time dilatation costs a lot of real money,
Jan
Den 15.04.2025 22:33, skrev J. J. Lodder:
Paul.B.Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote:
Den 10.04.2025 22:02, skrev Aether Regained:
Paul.B.Andersen:
The speed of muons is v = ~ 0.999668?c through the atmosphere
which also is within the laboratory with open roof.
? = 38.8.
The mean proper lifetime of a muon is t? = 2.2 ?s.
But measured in the Earth's rest frame the lifetime of the muon
is t? = 2.2e-6?? s = 85.36 ?s (time dilation!).
Since muons are created at a height ~15 km, and the time for
a muon to reach the earth is t = 15e3/v = 5.005 s,
then the part of the muon flux that will reach the Earth is
N/N? = exp(-t/t?) = 0.556, so 55.6% of the muons would reach the >>>>Earth.
If the lifetime of the muons had been 2.2 ?s, then the part of
the muon flux that will reach the Earth would be:
N/N? = exp(-t/t?) = 1.32e-10.
So only 0.0000000132% of the muons would reach the Earth.
Can you guess which of them is closest to what is observed?
@PaulBAndersen
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.
Nothing but the mean lifetime is really measured in my scenario above.
What I described above is no doable experiment, it was just to
point out the basic principle for how the mean lifetime is used
to calculate the reduction of the flux with time.
In a real experiment a lot of parameters must be measured.
See:
https://paulba.no/paper/Frisch_Smith.pdf
Of course it is doable, and done routinely, at CERN for example.
They detect the decays of highly relativistic muons to time the creation
of the neutrinos, in the neutrino speed experiment for example.
That's why the muon drift tube has to be as long as it is.
That time dilatation costs a lot of real money,
Jan
I don't think you read my post properly.
What I described is not an experiment at all.
While impractical in the atmosphere it is quite doable,
and routinely done, at CERN,
where they have relativistic muon (and neutrino) beams,
Jan
Nothing but the mean lifetime is really measured in my scenario above.
What I described above is no doable experiment, it was just to point out
the basic principle for how the mean lifetime is used to calculate the reduction of the flux with time.
In a real experiment a lot of parameters must be measured.
See: https://paulba.no/paper/Frisch_Smith.pdf
On 04/15/2025 02:06 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 04/15/2025 12:34 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
On 04/15/2025 02:48 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
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?
The system of all units of all physical quantities
must be a finite-dimensional algebra,
no matter what your unit system may be,
and how you choose to define relations between units,
Jan
I read that as "finite-dimensional spaces and infinite-dimensional
vector spaces are two different things".
Your reading is irrelevant, and does not relate to what I wrote.
There's no arbitrary highest order of acceleration, i.e.,
any highest order derivative of position with respect to time,
it's at least "unbounded", and greater than any "finite",
and not less than "infinite".
Has it really escaped your notice that finite dimensional algebras
have infinitely many elemens?
Jan
[snip irrelevancies]
Not at all, neither that the classical units have infinitely-many
higher orders, of "the" their dimension, thusly infinite-dimensionally.
Consider for explain flipping a coin, or tiddly-winks if that's still
a word, at once arbitrarily unobservable, yet ultimately deterministic, where the heuristic no longer applies, yet must be there is one.
No one denies that the heuristic as it were of classical mechanics
is simple and so, yet it results merely a heuristic, then that
the introduction of any dynamics results breaking the classical
heuristic, there must be some super-classical heuristic as what
explains there are no fictitious or virtual, yet real, forces in
the result.
Then, it is not so that "physics the open system" is merely finite-dimensional, any more so than to say that the universe
is closed, or that's like AP's big dot theory, and other
severe, to the point of insensate, reductions.
Classical mechanics is great and a great heuristic,
yet while it's simple that the kinetic adds up,
it is not so that the kinematic breaks down,
and this can be read off from mass-energy equivalency
in at least two ways: first that the term in energy
of the usual _derivation_, and not definition like some
SR'ian's make instead the _derivation_, is merely the
first term in the Taylor series and all the following
terms have higher order, to infinity, units. Then,
another way is about Einstein's "second mass-energy
equivalency" formulation that results the nominally
and formally, "un-linear", i.e. rotational. This
gives two different bases for the linear and rotational,
and furthermore has infinitely-many nominally non-zero
and yet higher-order terms from the heuristic of
the character of the first term, or the heuristic
of assuming a perfect balance, in these at least
two different examples, from very fundamental theorems.
So, if you've, for example, defined instead of derived
K.E. then what results all derived the rest of mechanics,
it's underdefined there are nominally (and formally)
non-zero other terms, and similarly, the linear and
kinetic and rotational and kinematic are _not_ the same.
Then, force "as a function of time", as it were,
reflects these what must be deterministic inputs
and as are nominally non-zero and what via mathematics
are actually in the mathematics, infinite-dimensional,
makes for "Zeno's new arguments", then besides of course
that formal mathematics _owes_ physics more and better.
Muons are arbitrarily extended bodies, and then
things like SR's relativity of simultaneity,
has that they're non-local, or as Einstein put
it in "Out of My Later Years", in paraphrase, say,
"relativity of simultaneity is non-local".
Here though there are greater issues in the
actual assumptions and heuristics of classical
mechanics, evident in a few orders of magnitude
in dynamics, that don't require a billion dollar
super-collider, yet do require super-classical
and infinitary reasoning, to arrive at reasons
for what result the heuristics.
Physicsts care where their derivations come from,m
and fundamental physicists don't allow much in the
way of definition.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 163:54:41 |
| Calls: | 10,385 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 14,057 |
| Messages: | 6,416,513 |