Re: Muon paradox

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
You are right when you say that I haven't convinced anybody here.
All professional physicists and all reasonably knowledgeable
persons will know that what I have said is trivially true,
they don't have to be convinced.
The rest are ignoramuses like you, who doesn't understand that
experimental evidence is what matters in physics.
They will never be convinced because they understand nothing.
I don't know how intelligent they are. But will intelligent people
claim that what they don't understand must be nonsense even
if it is experimentally confirmed?
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/