On Friday, June 13, 2025 at 4:54:35 PM UTC-6 Brent Meeker wrote:
On 6/12/2025 11:33 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: On Thursday, June 12, 2025 at 7:17:31 AM UTC-6 John Clark wrote: On Thu, Jun 12, 2025 at 8:10 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote: *> So if we have two labs, one atop a mountain and another on the Earth's surface, will they measure different half-lifes? AG * *Of course they will! One will detect muons that were produced when cosmic ray protons hit air molecules in Earth's upper atmosphere and are moving at near the speed of light; if it wasn't for time dilation caused by their very high speed no muons would be detected by that guy on the mountain at all because the muons would've all decayed before they reached him. But the guy in the lab is measuring the half-life of muons that he had just made that were not moving, or were moving very slowly, relative to him. * *OK. I was unaware of the scenario you were imagining. If the lab on the mountain was also creating muons, the half-lives would be the same as the Earth bound lab. I was imagining a case where both labs create muons, or both observe them falling. Nonetheless, I remain puzzled about the claim that muons have clocks, and that the LT somehow distinguishes between dilation in relative motion of clocks NOT being directly observed, just calculated, and rest clocks in the muon's frame of reference. I don't think you can deny there's an unsolved mystery in this dichotomy. AG * The time dilation of the fast moving muons created in the upper atmosphere is inferred from the fact that they still exist at the lower altitude. Why don't you read what I posted with the diagram. *I know that story, so it wasn't necessary to read it, though I eventually did. Was I supposed to assume your scenario and Clark's were identical? Now see if you can answer my questions, which you've conveniently ignored. What do you know about muon clocks? Anything? AG* It has a plot of the number to have not decayed under a Newtonian model and one with Einstein's time dilation as a function of altitude. Brent *>> A good theory should be as simple as possible, but not simpler. Newton couldn't explain or predict that starlight passing near the sun will be bent by 1.75 arcseconds or that Mercury's orbit would precess by 43 arcseconds per century or that gravity could produce a redshift. But Einstein could. * *>What do you think you've established? That GR is superior to NM? We already knew that! But what we don't understand about gravity is truly mind boggling, but only for those with imagination. AG* *So I'm supposed to believe that your confusion is the result of your vast intelligence? * *John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>* -- 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/ff43d81e-519d-413d-9874-62d0b035929fn%40googlegroups.com.
