Re: Muon Decay Experiments

On Jan 27, 9:37 am, "Strich.9" <strich.9...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 27, 10:08 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Jan 27, 8:53 am, "Strich.9" <strich.9...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 26, 6:23 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 26, 2:20 pm, "Strich.9" <strich.9...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 26, 2:36 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 26, 1:30 pm, "Strich.9" <strich.9...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 26, 2:26 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

What mathematical absurdity? You still haven't cited any mathematical
absurdity in relativity.

Bozo, it is: "A<B AND B<A"

Where in relativity does it say "A<B AND B<A"?

Bozo,

A=twin A clock rate
B=twin B clock rate

let there be relative velocity v

then A<B and B<A.

Really? Where in relativity does it say that? Please cite a reference.

now, are you just gonna keep hemming or hawing or will you prove that
"A<B and B<A" is mathematically tenable?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

This is Double Schizo.  He really wants it spelled out.  He denies
time dilation when the schizoid reality sets in...

A =twin A clock rate
B =twin B clock rate
v =relative velocity v

By relativity: A<B and B<A

Why?

B says A clock is slower than his (A<B)
A says B clock is slower than his (B<A)

Actually relativity doesn't say anything so general. Wherever are you
picking up this cartoonish nonsense?

Watch.  He'll contradict his own rebuttal below.



What are the two events the clocks are measuring the time between?

Do you need a reference to see what relativity REALLY says, or are you
just going to continue making up stuff?

Technical note: as we switch frames, no physical effect occurs on
either clock.

What do you mean by "no physical effect"? Please define your terms.

Actual physical change, Schizo.

As determined by what, exactly?

 The one you actually perceive, not
the one that is in your head, Schizo.  See below.



[Illustration: look at your watch now.  It is being measured by
multiple frames at different speeds.

Yes, that's right. And it has multiple rates, a different one by each
frame.

Infinite actually.

Yes, indeed.


 There is a fast muon zipping by,
there is the sun, the moon, the Audi S5 by the window.  Do you see
your watch changing rate?  NO.  It does not matter how many other
frames measure your clock.  Your clock rate stays invariant.]

Of course, my clock rate remains the same. I'm viewing it from ONE
frame. So I'll see the ONE rate appropriate from that ONE frame. Why
on earth would you thing that if I looked at my watch, I'd see all
rates as seen from all frames?

Then you agree that your clock is NOT affected by readings from other
frames.  

I certainly agree that the reading in one frame does not change the
reading in other frames. Relativity doesn't say that it will.

Your clock remains invariant.  Readings from other frames do
NOT effect an ACTUAL physical change.

Sorry, why is a change in MY frame required for there to be an ACTUAL
physical change?

The velocity of my watch is also different in other frames. This does
not change the fact that the velocity of my watch is unchanged. Are
the velocities in other frames not real, and the one in my frame real?
Why?


Are you slow?

Not as slow as you, Schizo.  Look at your stupidities above.

.

Quantcast