Re: Consistancy of the speed of light.

"Spaceman" <Realspace@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:HrqdnZYq_dfXMnrenZ2dnUVZ_tednZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Greg Neill" <gneillREM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:LPNFf.10711$1e5.248514@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

|
| No I didn't; I gave you an explanation (which you snipped)
| involving the kinetic energy.

You did no such thing.
You ruled out a factual multiple impact condition.

You have not shown that there will be multiple impacts,
nor if there are, how many. You've just waved your
hands.

I direct your attention to the known properties of
muons, namely their enormous mass compared to that
of the electron, their practically (and perhaps
actually) zero size, their very small interaction
cross section (they can travel through large amounts
of dense matter without being absorbed). To the muons,
our atmosphere is practically a vacuum.

Given the large numbers of muons that are created in
a cosmic ray event at 9,000m altitude, a healthy
fraction will arrive at ground level having suffered
no collisions at all. We can see that this is true
from the measured kinetic energies of the muons that
reach ground level.


| We don't care about the life of one. It's the halflife
| of the particle that we're interested in. Halflife
| is a statistical property that holds for collections
| of particles of a given type.

So you don't care if the "group" is actually
keeping the life longer, or shortening the life?

Yes we do. The group as a whole has its halflife
extended; If it were not so, the muons could not
reach the ground in the quantity they do because
the travel time is on the order of 30 times their
rest frame rate halflife.



| How many free electrons are you talking about?
| What's holding all these negatively charged free
| electrons around?

Earth does.
Gravitation does
Static fields do.
Do you think the Earth does not have a static field?

Gravity is no match for elctron-electron respulsive
force. Work the numbers, James. Free electrons are
not expelled in bulk from the planet because their
positively charged counterparts (the ionized atoms
they've left) holds them. This is why the atmosphere
is on average neutral. Recombination time is short.

Where you do see a significant interaction of ionization
and recombination of electrons with atoms is in the
Aurora displays; there is a continual ionization and
recombination, where the light you see is given off
by the atoms when the electrons recombine.

A static charge on the planet of any significant size
would soon be neutralized by attracting oppositely
charged particles from the solar wind, and repelling
same-charged ones.


| You need to show how a muon could get from where
| it's created to the ground in less time than the
| halflife, given that we know what the starting and
| ending velocities are, and no mechanism to increase
| its speed on the way down.

FTL, then collisions with denser electron pressure
that slow it down.
(I know. you don't like that simple explanation)
:)

It's eliminated by the known velocity they have
when created; they are moving at less than light
speed already at 9,000m.


| > You have no such physical proof.
| > All you have is abstracted bull*** proof.
|
| All you do is wave your arms and ignore the data.

I am not ignoring the data at all,
I am simply questioning it.
The data, is based upon a group,
yet such a group, could have many different
internals occuring.

You haven't given the specifics or justification for
any such "internals".

It is all questionable.
Nothing about particles we can not directly
see is absolute right?

Nothing is ever absolute, because we don't know "why".
What we have is repeatable measured characteristics.
If you ignore the data, then anything is possible.


.