Re: Consistancy of the speed of light.

"Spaceman" <Realspace@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:_OidnczpOZzEH3reRVn-uA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Greg Neill" <gneillREM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:CpAFf.7216$1e5.170391@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

|
| This is where your lack of math skills lets you down,
| otherwise you wouldn't make such a statement without
| checking first. To them the entire atmosphere is
| essentially like a hard vacuum. These things have
| no measurable size (they're just like really heavy
| electrons).

No measureable size?
so now they are like photons but 207 times the mass
of an electron?

What's the size of an electron, James?

LOL

| Since they're moving essentially straight downwards,
| any change in velocity due to gravity will be in
| that direction too.

Straight down as in GR straight?
or striaght as in 3 dimensional straight?

Straight down as in radially towards the center
of the Earth.


| Light doesn't deviate significantly from a straight
| line path in traversing a piddly field like Earth's,
| either.

Earth's field piddly?

Yup. Or does the light from your screen all drop to
the floor before it can reach you in your world?

LOL
a field that can basically contain nuclear explosions
is piddly.
a field that we have to use massive rockets to break
through is piddly.

Yup. Compare it to the electromagnetic force.
You've got no trouble lifting yourself from your
chair despite the entire mass of the Earth pulling
down on you.


| The vast majority of atmopheric molecules are neutral.

Neutral?
neutral but with mass.
so neutral does not mean ***.

You're being disengenuous again. We were refering to
electric charge.



| Any electron trying to muscle a muon is going to be
| brushed aside like it wasn't there. The muon has a
| rest mass of about 207 times that of an electron, and
| these things are coming in hot and heavy.

so what,
As I stated.
Mass only needs tiny bits of stuff being brushed against
to change it's drection.


| James, stop your handwaving and run some numbers.

Start running your own numbers.
Have you ever thought of how many free electrons
this muon supposedly must ignore to do such?
Hint: a lot more that 207.

I see that you snipped (chose to ignore) my description
of the relative kinetic energy of the muon versus
essentially stationary electrons. Not kosher, James.


| Why do you want to follow one?

Because that is the way you get physical proof
of the "ones" path and lifetime.

Who cares about "ones"? We're looking at a phenomenon
applicable to all.



| It is not abstract proof (whatever that is).

Abstract proof is like when you say
The racecar did 200 mph the whole time,
yet you only measured it passing the finish line.
It is not worth crap.

Unless you can show that the muons can arrive with
essentially the same speed as they were created with
yet vary in speed on the way down, you are justified
in taking the speed as essentially constant.


| I suppose that you discount wind tunnel experiments
| because we don't follow the trajectory of every air
| molecule? Or are you willing to concede that air has
| certain predictable qualities in bulk?

Wind tunnel experiments are used to test the
masses of winds WRT the thing they want
to but through the wind.
They are not measuring the wind itself only.
You are ignoring the "wind" in your muon thoughts.
(wind for muons = free electrons and molecules.)

Incorrect analogy. The muon flux is the wind, while
the electrons are (rather insignificant) obstacles.


|| What do you mean spin more freely?

If you can't get that.
this is a complete waste.

I'm afraid you'll have to explain anyways, given that
muons are not gooing to feel pressure from atoms.

They spin more freely in lesser density

Why? They can't feel pressure from atoms.

Using such stupid questions from a supposedly
smart man is just proof of your twisiting so you
can ignore any simple facts like such.

So you can't give a reasonable explanation because you
know you made another error. Fair enough.


.

Quantcast