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?
*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.
Brent
--
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 [email protected].
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/365657c3-e7fe-42d2-a1b4-c74c44cbe4d3%40gmail.com.
