Re: Albert in Relativityland

On Fri, 4 Apr 2025 7:50:48 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:

Paul.B.Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote:
>

Den 02.04.2025 20:25, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:

On Wed, 2 Apr 2025 9:13:22 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>

Den 01.04.2025 21:28, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:

Relativity is so fallacious that a person with only knowledge of
elementary logic and an 85 I.Q. is qualified to refute it.

>

>
Is it because of your  85 I.Q. and knowledge of elementary
logic that your comment to my statement:
>
"The speed of muons is v = ~ 0.999668?c through the atmosphere
  which also is within the laboratory with open roof."
>
was:
>
  "THEN, the time dilation must be the same." ?

>
How slow is it possible to be? :-D
>
My statement was:
"There is but one speed v = ~ 0.999668?c"
>
your response was:
  "THEN, the time dilation must be the same."
>
GET this: The statement:
"When an object has a speed v, then time dilation must be the same"
>
is an idiotic, nonsensical, meaningless, stupid response.
>
>
>

Paul, the math does not cause time dilation. When the speed is the same
in both places, what is the cause? You have no idea

>
And you repeat your nonsensical statement yet again!
>
>
The measured mean lifetime of a stationary muon is 2.2 ?s
The measured mean lifetime of a muon moving at 0.999668?c is 85.36 ?s.
>
These are measured facts, not math.
>
Can you give another interpretation of the facts than "time dilation"?

>
Indeed. The mere existence of muon storage rings
already proves time dilatatation.
The things would be practically impossible
if the relativistic circulating muons
were to decay at their rest rate,
>
Jan

Thank you for acknowledging they decay at a different rate as that is a
different lifetime and not time dilation. That is extraordinarily
reasonable of you! What causes this different rate according to
relativity?