Re: Consistancy of the speed of light.

"Spaceman" <Realspace@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:qb2dnchlGqnem3XeRVn-gg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Greg Neill" <gneillREM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:zoSFf.12084$1e5.291197@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| The life of a single particle is meaningless if
| decay is a random event. Half life is a group
| characteristic.

Ok fine,
half life is not physically proven by the one ever.
that is great..
lol

| I see you're in "ignore the facts" mode again. I've
| told you on several occasions now that the relativistic
| mass of the moving muon will be some 4600 times its
| rest mass.

who cares.
still about a million more electrons than that.

And you'll be happy to provide empirical data or
a theoretical derivation for that number of electron,
I'm sure. Okay, I'm waiting...Let's see ...

.... what, not done yet? What's taking so long?
Batteries in your calculator on the fritz? Got a
slide rule?

James. Please provide your evidence that there
are "a million times more electrons than that".
And while you're at it, please define "than that",
as I can't seem to find a translation into numerals.

No matter how you sing and dance about the relative
density of pixies versus faeries, there is a
significant fraction of the muons created at
altitude that make it to ground level, and said
fraction is higher than their rest-frame halflife
would allow by strict Newtonian physics.

too bad you have no clue about how such muons
could be created to begin with.
Without such amount of free electrons.
you would not be finding "groups" of muons at all.
lol

Note to auditors: James is responding before reading
the message he's responding to. He ignores the description
of muon generation in the post he's replying to!


| You haven't made a case for your free electrons. No cites.
| no math. Just hot air.

LOL
you don't get that..
lol
you made a funny!
lol

| Sure, for the observer on the ground. You, travelling
| with the muons would not notice any change in your
| rate of time passage.


I note here that James has begun to snip portions of
replies. The above sequence makes no sence because
he's trimmed out the context. This is either to render
the resulting thread incoherent, or simply to bury the
parts he can't recover from.

Here's the next paragraph of his reply, quoted in full.
Notice how he just drifts off into a practically
indecipherable nether world..

Nope,
no time dilation proof.
unless movement of humans to keep them alive
longer is a time dilation effect.
such as movement of a whale is also a time dilation
effect. (it lives longer when it is moving)
funny..
not really.
It is basic real life countering your bull***.

What the heck was that about? Yes, that was a contiguous
quote; no editing. Are we getting close to New Suit time?
You know, the suit with arms that tie in the back?



| And you should get your facts straight before you
| type. Muons are created in the upper atmosphere
| as a result of a cosmic ray particle (typically
| a highly relativistic proton) hitting the nucleus
| of an atom, creating a shower of particles
| including pions which very rapidly decay into
| muons. No electrons need apply.

free protons all over the place but no free electrons
anywhere huh?

James is apparently an advocate for equal rights for
electrons.

Hey James! Ever check out the relative energies of
protons versus electrons as cosmic ray particles?
Protons are some 1836 times as massive as electrons.
They carry a bigger punch at similar velocities.
Just the sort of things you want around when you
need to knock together a few pions.

Auditors: Note how James has attempted to make it
sound like because there happen to be protons in
cosmic rays that his contention that there is a sea
of ionized atoms and free electrons in the atmosphere
is somehow more plausible. This is a grade school
debating technique. It is also unadulterated garbage.

lol
you truly are brainwashed
Can't


James, I'm not psychic. I'll need more than a single
word of a sentence to fathom your meaning.

So Greg, what makes the muon die?
natural decay right?
what natural decay?
little electrons bugs?

Ah. James is relinquishing his ground and shifting
to a discussion of particle decay. No doubt
hoping for better luck in those fishing grounds.

Okay James, here it is. No one knows what makes
particles die. They just do. And for whatever
reason, as yet unexplained, they do so with
incredible regularity; While it is impossible to
predict when any one given particle of a given type
will decay, there is a very well defined probability
that it will do so in any given time interval.
This gives rise to the concept of halflife, which
characterizes the longevity of aggregations of
paticles very nicely.

No doubt you've got some 16th century (or earlier)
wisdon to bestow upon us about this topic, too.


.

Quantcast