On Tuesday, June 3, 2025 at 10:46:58 PM UTC-6 Brent Meeker wrote:
On 6/3/2025 8:53 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: On Tuesday, June 3, 2025 at 9:42:30 PM UTC-6 Brent Meeker wrote: On 6/3/2025 3:25 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: *OK, let's split hairs. If "assumed" means zero evidence for a muon's clock, then "inferred" is better IF you believe a muon has some structure for defining a clock. OTOH, if a muon has no such structure, then it's OK to "assume" the existence of the clock. * *IF* you *assume* a clock requires some internal structure. *But instead of splitting hairs, how about a description of the structure of a muon's clock? * So you want to *assume* that the muon can't keep time just by moving thru spacetime, but requires some structure. Do you have a proof or is this mere surmise? *It's a surmise, not a mere surmise, based on clocks I am familiar with. You're the relativity expert. You teach the masses. What's your concept of time keeping by a muon? AG* *And if that clock shows no time dilation within the muon's frame of reference, how would that FACT effect its half-life? AG* I guess that would show that it wasn't *the* clock that determines the muon's decay. *So what clock does it, if any? AG * *I don't know. But it must that something to do with the mass of the muon, the electron, and neutrino and the coupling of the neutrino, muon, and electron fields since a muon decays into and electron and a anti-neutrino. Brent* *I don't see how those factors would effect the muon's half-life. I appreciate your honesty. I suspect the issue I have raised is unsolved, and this is what troubles me about Relativity. AG* -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/490af4b6-e03e-4ebf-adaa-76a6991e0213n%40googlegroups.com.
