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 * 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/4c010a86-487b-41d4-9fdf-a25232177d7cn%40googlegroups.com.
