On Tuesday, June 3, 2025 at 11:40:38 PM UTC-6 Brent Meeker wrote:
On 6/3/2025 9:04 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: On Tuesday, June 3, 2025 at 9:57:05 PM UTC-6 Brent Meeker wrote: On 6/3/2025 5:52 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: On Tuesday, June 3, 2025 at 6:29:49 PM UTC-6 Brent Meeker wrote: On 6/3/2025 2:05 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: On Monday, June 2, 2025 at 9:50:54 PM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote: On Monday, June 2, 2025 at 9:14:49 PM UTC-6 Brent Meeker wrote: On 6/2/2025 6:48 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: On Monday, June 2, 2025 at 7:14:47 PM UTC-6 Brent Meeker wrote: And you are too susceptible to casually assuming you understand the familiar just because it's familiar. Your alarm clock measures time by the oscillations of a wheel, which depend on the inertia of the wheel. Do you understand "the reality of that inertia"? Brent You'd be in a much better position to defend Clark if either of you could define the clock inherent in a muon, but you don't seem able to meet that challenge. AG I think John can take care of himself. If muon's don't have an inherent clock, how do they know when to decay? Brent You're assuming they have a clock, but avoid describing its form, or how it reads the time, if it reads the time. So many things assumed but no answers in sight. AG I suppose you were referring to the atmosphere producing an anti-inertial effect on the muons, but what's lacking is an explanation, or if you like MODEL, of how that effects the half-life of those particles. Do you have a model of how relativistic motion makes a wrist watch run slower? Brent In the frame wherein you allege the wrist watch is running slower, it isn't. In some other frame, moving at constant velocity wrt that wrist watch, it appears to be running slower. Which watch should we pay attention to? AG The one in the frame where the muons run slower. Brent That would have been my guess, but it makes no sense. How would a muon have contact with another frame as the observer, in which its clocks seem to tick at a lower rate? AG You seem to have lost the point. We're not discussing why time dilation occurs. *Pardon me for extending the scope of the discussion. What was it we were discussing? I can't recall. AG* It's obviously not a matter of "contact" between frames; but it's also beside the point. *I never claimed anything about "contact", except that the frame observing the decayed muons implies time dilation of those muons, and it's OK IMO to ask how that could happen. AG* The point is that whatever is responsible for muons having a particular half-life when stationary, changes with speed exactly the same way clocks change with speed. It's a point of evidence for muons having the same physical relation to time as clocks. *If you can't see there's something rather deep occurring to produce time dilation in the frame where clocks are at rest, I can't help you. In effect, you're satisfied with "shut up and calculate", and the underlying physical reality is of no interest. You were ahead of the game when you admitted you don't know why the half-life changes. 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/bdc78268-56a5-4f03-909e-516078b29d24n%40googlegroups.com.
