Re: Muon paradox

On 04/01/2025 10:49 AM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:

On Tue, 1 Apr 2025 5:03:57 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>

W dniu 01.04.2025 o 06:01, LaurenceClarkCrossen pisze:

On Tue, 1 Apr 2025 1:02:00 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:
>

Le 31/03/2025 à 23:54, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a
écrit
:

Relativity can be so easy to refute only because it has not been
subject
to open critical review. It is facile nonsense.

>
It's true.
>
Scientific structures, like political structures, are strange and
opaque.
>
If someone tries to offer an interesting approach, or prove through
calculations and reflection that there are biases and paradoxes, or
even
contradictions, they are blacklisted for decades.
>
I think we'll have to wait until artificial intelligence is truly
intelligent, and above all memorizing, for it to be able to say things
for
itself: "I detected in a participant a theory that far surpasses in
quality, elegance, and experimental approach anything that has been
said
so far."
>
For the moment, this hasn't happened because there is a huge human bias
that consists of saying: "It is impossible for there to exist a
human on
earth capable of producing a theory superior to the one proposed by Mr.
Einstein."
>
Even if sometimes the denials turn into absurdity, even human madness.
>
R.H.

How can the muons prove time dilation when high speed is the cause and
they move the same speed as in the laboratory?

>
 From the point of view of muons...
If the muons have mouths - they would scream
that our Giant Guru was right and sing
a hymn to his incredible wisdom!!!
They would, for sure!!
And muons can never be mistaken. Have
you ever heard of a mistaken muon?
>
That's the proof.

The difficulty we are confronted with is due to the fact that Einstein
did not realize that Newton's particle theory had been disproven and the
wave theory had been proven.

Well there's wave theory and then there's both particle theory
and also resonance theory.
Sometimes called "structural chemistry" or "molecular chemistry",
say, also with regards to "nuclear magnetic resonance", that
there's a lot after the ultraviolet catastrophe what begat the
electron physics, then with regards to everything being a particle
then instead the field theory, about why usual classical linear
accounts are a local half-account, with regards to a sum-of-potentials
theory where they're instead a more realized potential.
A wave theory with both particle/wave and wave/resonance can make
for that action is waves about the energy content and entelechy
connectedness, about a sum-of-potentials theory where the fields
of potential are the actual real fields, helping make for the
un-linear and worlds turn, which is always so, disambiguating
the linear and rotational, about a geometry of points and spaces.
If you'd read Einstein he arrives at definitely looking at
a field theory, and where there's a continuous manifold of space-time.
Then these have all their ways of looking at them,
partial half-accounts or the usual "forward" in perspective.
It's so that electron physics, these days often hadron physics,
then also muon physics, and neutrino physics, reflect on the
"tetrad of supersymmetries" about the tetrad of quantities
and for a tetrad of forces some tetrad of particles.
It needn't be that complicated if it's not kept too simple.