On Oct 29, 3:17 am, Larry Stones <larry...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 22:29:09 +0100, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>> "Larry Stones" <larry...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:k6k7ja$qdq$1@speranza.aioe.org
>>> On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 13:42:14 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:
>>>> On 10/28/12 10/28/12 7:47 AM, Larry Stones wrote:

>>>>>>> Moreover, each and every muon comes equipped with its own clock:
>>>>>>> muons decay with a lifetime of 2.2 microseconds.

>>>>> Wow, thank you helping me out, i take the distance they travel and
>>>>> divide by their clock readings, less than 2.2us at the time of
>>>>> detection this gives a speed of muon faster than speed of light
>>>>> 100km / 2.2us >= 45.5E9 > 3E8
> 
>>>> This is a very basic error on your part -- you took measurements from
>>>> two different frames and combined them to obtain nonsense.
> 
>>>> To obtain the speed of the muon, you MUST measure the distance it
>>>> travels and the time it took IN THE SAME FRAME.
> 
>>> Exactly what I do, I use the only empirical measurement data available
>>> for the muon, 2.2us and atmosphere thickness, say 100km,
>>> and I do not jump away from my frame !
> 
>> Muons circling at speed v in particle accelerators seem to live longer,
>> on the average by an amount of a factor 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
>> times their average lifetime of 2.2 us when at rest.
>> But you already know that, as this was explained to the other instances
>> of yourself in the past.
> 
>> Dirk Vdm
> 
> Then we are back to the beginning, how do you know that the muon live
> longer and not that it travels faster or close to the speed of light
> 
> Same question, no need accelerators to tell the same story, how do you
> discriminate between a life extension and a faster speed than the speed of
> light

My delayed reading is the reason for this delayed response. There is a
fundamental flaw in your reasoning. If muons travel FTL then SR goes
to the dust bin. If light is ballistic then SR adds to the garbage
heap. You forget that if mysticism is removed then how shall
spiritualists survive?
Ask Tom, muon’s time dilation assumption is correct only if distance
contraction is correct. Here we are not talking about senseless
projections in space time diagram. We are dealing with the reality of
the experiment. Unless, for muons, distance doesn’t really contract,
there is no way muons can last longer than expected. Distances cannot
adjust at the varying speed of zillions of particles falling on earth
from all sides. MEASURMENT BY MUON OF THE DISTANC IT HAS TO TRAVEL IS
APPARENT AND SO MEANINGLESS. For both the stationary observer and for
the muon, they must travel the uncontracted distance of the stationary
frame; simply because that space is owned by the stationary observer
and not by the muons. If at all, according to muon this distance is
contracted then this measurement is apparent and so it is wrong.
SR conclusions are based on comparison between yardstick A’ and clock
C’ in the moving frame, with yardstick A and clock C in the stationary
frame. Here A’ is missing. SR conclusions are not falsifiable. They
are imposed on non standard, non applicable experimental set up.
You are right. It is your distance, it is your clock and muon’s frame
is irrelevant for the measurement of the speed of muon.