Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #662233 > unrolled thread

Muon paradox

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Muon paradox clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-03-31 20:40 +0000
    Re: Muon paradox clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-03-31 21:09 +0000
    Re: Muon paradox clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-03-31 21:28 +0000
      Re: Muon paradox clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-03-31 21:54 +0000
        Re: Muon paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2025-04-01 01:02 +0000
          Re: Muon paradox clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-04-01 03:08 +0000
          Re: Muon paradox clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-04-01 04:01 +0000
            Re: Muon paradox Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-04-01 07:03 +0200
              Re: Muon paradox clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-04-01 17:49 +0000
                Re: Muon paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-01 11:01 -0700
                Re: Muon paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-04-08 14:23 +0200
          Re: Muon paradox guido wugi <wugi@brol.invalid> - 2025-04-01 12:35 +0200
            Re: Muon paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2025-04-01 10:48 +0000
              Re: Muon paradox Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-04-01 13:12 +0200
              Re: Muon paradox clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-04-01 17:38 +0000
            Re: Muon paradox Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-04-01 13:11 +0200
            Re: Muon paradox clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-04-01 15:24 +0000
            Re: Muon paradox clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-04-01 15:31 +0000
            Re: Muon paradox clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-04-01 15:38 +0000
              Re: Muon paradox "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-04-01 20:26 +0200
                Re: Muon paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-01 11:41 -0700
                  Re: Muon paradox clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-04-01 19:24 +0000
                    Re: Muon paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-01 15:56 -0700
                Re: Muon paradox clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-04-01 19:12 +0000
                  Re: Muon paradox "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-04-02 09:45 +0200
                    Re: Muon paradox Rubin Yablokov <avoan@iio.ru> - 2025-04-02 09:13 +0000
                    Re: Muon paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-02 09:45 -0700
    Re: Muon paradox clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-04-01 17:42 +0000
      Re: Muon paradox "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-04-01 20:38 +0200
        Re: Muon paradox clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-04-01 19:15 +0000
        Re: Muon paradox clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-04-01 21:24 +0000
          Re: Muon paradox "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-04-02 11:45 +0200
            Re: Muon paradox Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-04-02 13:33 +0200
            Re: Muon paradox clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-04-02 17:46 +0000
              Re: Muon paradox "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-04-03 10:18 +0200
                Re: Muon paradox Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-04-03 10:39 +0200
                Re: Muon paradox clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-04-03 20:51 +0000
    Re: Muon paradox "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-04-01 19:56 +0200
      Re: Muon paradox Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-04-01 20:17 +0200
      Re: Muon paradox "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-04-01 20:44 +0200
        Re: Muon paradox Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-04-01 20:54 +0200
          Re: Muon paradox Edilberto Gayazov <eovd@gogvo.ru> - 2025-04-01 21:26 +0000
        Re: Muon paradox clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-04-01 19:19 +0000
        Re: Muon paradox clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-04-01 21:42 +0000
          Re: Muon paradox "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-04-02 10:21 +0200
            Re: Muon paradox Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-04-02 10:29 +0200
      Re: Muon paradox clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-04-01 19:06 +0000
        Re: Muon paradox "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-04-02 12:00 +0200
          Re: Muon paradox clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-04-02 17:58 +0000
            Re: Muon paradox "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-04-03 10:18 +0200
              Re: Muon paradox Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-04-03 10:40 +0200
                Re: Muon paradox Darling Vassilopulos <sng@uu.gr> - 2025-04-03 18:50 +0000
                  Re: Muon paradox Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-04-03 21:51 +0200
                    Re: Muon paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2025-04-03 22:03 +0000
                      Re: Muon paradox clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-04-03 22:58 +0000
                        Re: Muon paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2025-04-04 11:49 +0000
                          Re: Muon paradox Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-04-05 09:37 +0200
                      Re: Muon paradox Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-04-04 07:48 +0200
                        Re: Muon paradox Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-04-04 07:56 +0200
                          Re: Muon paradox Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-04-05 09:31 +0200
                        Re: Muon paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2025-04-04 12:02 +0000
                      Re: Muon paradox Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-04-04 08:07 +0200
                        Re: Muon paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2025-04-04 12:13 +0000
                          Re: Muon paradox Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-04-04 14:41 +0200
              Re: Muon paradox clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-04-03 20:54 +0000
          Re: Muon paradox Aether Regained <AetherRegaind@somewhere.in.the.aether> - 2025-04-02 19:32 +0000
            Re: Muon paradox clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-04-02 21:33 +0000
          Re: Muon paradox clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-04-02 21:33 +0000
            Re: Muon paradox "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-04-03 10:39 +0200
              Re: Muon paradox Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-04-03 10:43 +0200
              Re: Muon paradox clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-04-03 20:56 +0000
                Re: Muon paradox "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-04-04 14:55 +0200
                  Re: Muon paradox Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-04-04 15:49 +0200
                    Re: Muon paradox clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-04-04 22:11 +0000
                      Re: Muon paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2025-04-05 14:57 +0000
                  Re: Muon paradox clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-04-04 21:15 +0000
                    Re: Muon paradox "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-04-05 11:32 +0200
                      Re: Muon paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2025-04-05 12:00 +0000
                      Re: Muon paradox clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-04-05 20:53 +0000
                        Re: Muon paradox "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-04-06 22:02 +0200
                          Re: Muon paradox Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-04-06 22:09 +0200
                            Re: Muon paradox clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-04-06 23:30 +0000
                              Re: Muon paradox Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-04-07 07:10 +0200
                          Re: Muon paradox clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-04-06 22:34 +0000
                            Re: Muon paradox "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-04-07 10:49 +0200
                              Re: Muon paradox Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-04-07 11:20 +0200
                      Re: Muon paradox Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-04-06 07:03 +0200
                  Re: Muon paradox clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-04-04 21:47 +0000
                    Re: Muon paradox "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-04-05 20:57 +0200
                      Re: Muon paradox "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-04-05 21:01 +0200
                        Re: Muon paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-05 12:14 -0700
                        Re: Muon paradox clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-04-05 21:03 +0000
                        Re: Muon paradox clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-04-05 21:55 +0000
                        Re: Muon paradox clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-04-05 22:15 +0000
                        Re: Muon paradox clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-04-05 22:46 +0000
                      Re: Muon paradox clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-04-05 21:01 +0000
                        Re: Muon paradox "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-04-06 15:15 +0200
                          Re: Muon paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2025-04-06 13:51 +0000
                            Re: Muon paradox Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-04-06 19:03 +0200
                            Re: Muon paradox Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-04-07 09:02 +0200
                              Re: Muon paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2025-04-07 11:38 +0000
                          Re: Muon paradox Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-04-06 19:01 +0200
                          Re: Muon paradox "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-04-07 11:12 +0200
                      Re: Muon paradox Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-04-06 07:08 +0200
              Re: Muon paradox clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-04-03 21:37 +0000
      Re: Muon paradox clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-04-01 22:02 +0000
      Re: Muon paradox hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2025-04-09 14:07 +0000
        Re: Muon paradox "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-04-09 19:58 +0200
          Re: Muon paradox hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2025-04-09 18:28 +0000
            Re: Muon paradox Shirley Dovgusha <eedg@geiyrdy.ru> - 2025-04-10 12:23 +0000
      Re: Muon paradox Aether Regained <AetherRegaind@somewhere.in.the.aether> - 2025-04-10 20:02 +0000
        Re: Muon paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-04-10 22:30 +0200
        Re: Muon paradox clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-04-13 03:00 +0000
        Re: Muon paradox Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2025-04-14 00:15 -0500
          Re: Muon paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-04-14 09:25 +0200
          Re: Muon paradox Jared Vakulov Bian <arouj@rvove.ru> - 2025-04-14 07:43 +0000
            Re: Muon paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-04-14 21:01 +0200
              Re: Muon paradox Willilam Gutiérrez Xian <riii@mmaajlzt.es> - 2025-04-15 09:13 +0000
              Re: Muon paradox Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2025-04-15 08:41 -0500
                Re: Muon paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-04-15 18:25 +0200
                  Re: Muon paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-15 11:26 -0700
                    Re: Muon paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-04-15 21:34 +0200
                      Re: Muon paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-15 13:38 -0700
                        Re: Muon paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-04-16 11:14 +0200
                Re: Muon paradox Erick Tamás <oadte@kksit.hu> - 2025-04-16 09:53 +0000
          Re: Muon paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-14 08:31 -0700
            Re: Muon paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-14 08:59 -0700
              Re: Muon paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-14 09:18 -0700
              Re: Muon paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-14 20:17 -0700
            Re: Muon paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-04-14 21:01 +0200
              Re: Muon paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-04-14 21:59 +0200
              Re: Muon paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-14 16:01 -0700
                Re: Muon paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-14 18:15 -0700
                  Re: Muon paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-04-15 11:48 +0200
                    Re: Muon paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-15 11:06 -0700
                      Re: Muon paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-15 11:36 -0700
                      Re: Muon paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-04-15 21:34 +0200
                        Re: Muon paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-15 14:06 -0700
                          Re: Muon paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-04-16 11:14 +0200
                            Re: Muon paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-16 08:32 -0700
                              Re: Muon paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-16 09:11 -0700
                          Re: Muon paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-17 18:05 -0700
                            Re: Muon paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-04-18 10:45 +0200
                              Re: Muon paradox Cash Kalabekov Lew <baaaa@aaac.ru> - 2025-04-18 14:11 +0000
                              Re: Muon paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-20 10:45 -0700
                Re: Muon paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-04-15 11:48 +0200
                  Re: Muon paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-04-15 12:03 +0200
                  Re: Muon paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-15 11:22 -0700
                    Re: Muon paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-04-15 21:34 +0200
        Re: Muon paradox "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-04-15 22:10 +0200
          Re: Muon paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-04-15 22:33 +0200
            Re: Muon paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-04-15 23:40 +0200
            Re: Muon paradox "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-04-16 13:00 +0200
              Re: Muon paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-04-16 13:24 +0200
                Re: Muon paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-04-16 15:45 +0200
                Re: Muon paradox Terrance Bahuta Lao <aubr@eee.ru> - 2025-04-17 16:36 +0000
              Re: Muon paradox Andrij Kabuzan <rnjdd@jnua.ru> - 2025-04-17 11:04 +0000
          Re: Muon paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-04-15 23:39 +0200
          Re: Muon paradox Garth Bakshtanovski Jian <tsv@atr.ru> - 2025-04-17 11:23 +0000
      Re: Muon paradox Aether Regained <AetherRegaind@somewhere.in.the.aether> - 2025-04-10 20:07 +0000
    Re: Muon paradox Kent Bazhukov <zauako@kaoh.ru> - 2025-04-01 21:08 +0000
      Re: Muon paradox clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-04-01 21:21 +0000
        Re: Muon paradox Lane Babenkov <lkbaell@ae.ru> - 2025-04-01 22:01 +0000
    Re: Muon paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-04-08 14:30 +0200
      Re: Muon paradox Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-04-08 14:59 +0200
        Re: Muon paradox "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-04-08 20:49 +0200
          Re: Muon paradox Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-04-09 08:32 +0200
            Re: Muon paradox "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-04-09 09:27 +0200

Page 3 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9  Next page →

#662264

W dniu 01.04.2025 o 20:44, Paul.B.Andersen pisze:
> 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

No other frame involved, poor trash. Muons
have no, they're quantum particles...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662275

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

> W dniu 01.04.2025 o 20:44, Paul.B.Andersen pisze:
>>> 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
> 
> No other frame involved, poor trash. Muons have no, they're quantum
> particles...

absolutely, finally a correct observation. These 𝙧𝙪𝙡𝙚𝙨 𝙗𝙖𝙨𝙚𝙙 science guys 
should investigate what is all about the 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙗𝙖𝙗𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙮 𝙙𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙧𝙞𝙗𝙪𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣, not the 
particles. My 𝘿𝙞𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙜𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙈𝙖𝙩𝙩𝙚𝙧, through the probability distribution, is 
what's 𝙘𝙖𝙪𝙨𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙂𝙧𝙖𝙫𝙞𝙩𝙮, the Einstine had not the brain available to realize 
that.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662270

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?
>>
Can you guess which muon lifetime is closest to what is observed?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662277

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662289

Den 01.04.2025 23:42, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
> 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

Quite.
But NO prediction of SR is inconsistent with measurement
or observation.
SR is thoroughly tested and never falsified.


Above I explained why there is time dilation, and you have no comment.
You seem to be too ignorant to understand anything at all.

Why do you think you are qualified to criticise SR when you have
no clue of what it is?

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662290

W dniu 02.04.2025 o 10:21, Paul.B.Andersen pisze:

> But NO prediction of SR is inconsistent with measurement
> or observation.
> SR is thoroughly tested and never falsified.

A lie, of course.
Anyone can check GPS, the real measurement
results  are still giving t'=t, like always.
Common sense has been warning your idiot guru.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662266

On Tue, 1 Apr 2025 17:56:05 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

> 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?
It's easy to understand that the lifetime of the muons is longer and
that time dilation is an illogical fiction divorced from physics.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662294

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

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662301

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 one.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662329

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!

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.

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662332

W dniu 03.04.2025 o 10:18, Paul.B.Andersen pisze:
> 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!

No, trash, THESE ARE not. THESE ARE
interpretation of FACTS.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662341

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. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662343

W dniu 03.04.2025 o 20:50, Darling Vassilopulos pisze:
> 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.

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662353

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. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662355

On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 22:03:03 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:

> 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.
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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662373

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....

R.H. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662407

Am Freitag000004, 04.04.2025 um 13:49 schrieb Richard Hachel:
> 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....

Well, but no.

Germans are mainly nice people, but not always.

It is simply stupid to assume, that Germans would accept an invasion of 
Turks.

TH

e.g. look at this:

https://www.lyrikline.org/de/gedichte/todesfuge-66

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662364

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'.

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662366

W dniu 04.04.2025 o 07:48, Thomas Heger pisze:
> 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'.

Stop fucking, trash.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662406

Am Freitag000004, 04.04.2025 um 07:56 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
...
>>> 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.
> 


please have a look at this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Galicia%E2%80%93Volhynia

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web