• #### Muon University, Freshman Orientation

From patdolan@21:1/5 to All on Tue Aug 29 21:44:37 2023
In the early 1960s two academics threw caution of confirmation bias to the wind then painstakingly put together and experimental narrative that supposedly confirmed for the first time the relativistic time dilation of Albert Einstein. Professors Frisch
and Smith joined forces with a movie producer on a 36 min empirical "demonstration" of time dilation in which the pi meson (nee) now the muon, is the hero of the story:

This "demonstration" is considered so fundamental to the cause of special relativity that a commemorative plaque was placed on the site of the Frisch Smith Experiment in 2014.

https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/201412/muon.cfm

Below is a link to the companion paper to the 36 minute move

https://d1b10bmlvqabco.cloudfront.net/attach/j6wg9vo05d118z/hjzs14rvhz419k/j7jdyxbbpuwu/AJPpaperMuMesons.pdf

We now ask what best explains the data generated by the Rube Goldberg contraption Frisch and Smith used as their experimental apparatus? Are complex mathematical equations of special relativity, and all they imply, responsible for the data? Or can the
principle of Occam's razor be applied to arrive at a much simpler and convincing explanation.

Homework: View the 36 min film from 1963 and read the companion paper. Then complete the problem set to check your understanding. Show your work.

Problem Set #1

1.1 What is the proper time half-life of a muon?
1.2 According to Frisch and Smith, how far will the average muon travel before disintegrating, assuming relativity is false?
1.3 According to Frisch and Smith, how far will the average muon travel, assuming relativity is true?
1.4 Why did most muons pass through the scintillator, instead of being trapped by it?
1.5 What are Legion's values for cosmic ray flux at
a) sea-level?
b) 2,200 feet?
c) 8,489 feet?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Ross Finlayson@21:1/5 to patdolan on Tue Aug 29 23:07:33 2023
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 9:44:40 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
In the early 1960s two academics threw caution of confirmation bias to the wind then painstakingly put together and experimental narrative that supposedly confirmed for the first time the relativistic time dilation of Albert Einstein. Professors Frisch
and Smith joined forces with a movie producer on a 36 min empirical "demonstration" of time dilation in which the pi meson (nee) now the muon, is the hero of the story:

This "demonstration" is considered so fundamental to the cause of special relativity that a commemorative plaque was placed on the site of the Frisch Smith Experiment in 2014.

https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/201412/muon.cfm

Below is a link to the companion paper to the 36 minute move

https://d1b10bmlvqabco.cloudfront.net/attach/j6wg9vo05d118z/hjzs14rvhz419k/j7jdyxbbpuwu/AJPpaperMuMesons.pdf

We now ask what best explains the data generated by the Rube Goldberg contraption Frisch and Smith used as their experimental apparatus? Are complex mathematical equations of special relativity, and all they imply, responsible for the data? Or can the
principle of Occam's razor be applied to arrive at a much simpler and convincing explanation.

Homework: View the 36 min film from 1963 and read the companion paper. Then complete the problem set to check your understanding. Show your work.

Problem Set #1

1.1 What is the proper time half-life of a muon?
1.2 According to Frisch and Smith, how far will the average muon travel before disintegrating, assuming relativity is false?
1.3 According to Frisch and Smith, how far will the average muon travel, assuming relativity is true?
1.4 Why did most muons pass through the scintillator, instead of being trapped by it?
1.5 What are Legion's values for cosmic ray flux at
a) sea-level?
b) 2,200 feet?
c) 8,489 feet?

34:30, "This is an example of the Lorentz Fitzgerald contraction, ...."

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to patdolan on Tue Aug 29 23:42:51 2023
On Wednesday, 30 August 2023 at 06:44:40 UTC+2, patdolan wrote:
In the early 1960s two academics threw caution of confirmation bias to the wind then painstakingly put together and experimental narrative that supposedly confirmed for the first time the relativistic time dilation of Albert Einstein. Professors Frisch
and Smith joined forces with a movie producer on a 36 min empirical "demonstration" of time dilation in which the pi meson (nee) now the muon, is the hero of the story:

This "demonstration" is considered so fundamental to the cause of special relativity that a commemorative plaque was placed on the site of the Frisch Smith Experiment in 2014.

https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/201412/muon.cfm

Below is a link to the companion paper to the 36 minute move

https://d1b10bmlvqabco.cloudfront.net/attach/j6wg9vo05d118z/hjzs14rvhz419k/j7jdyxbbpuwu/AJPpaperMuMesons.pdf

We now ask what best explains the data generated by the Rube Goldberg contraption Frisch and Smith used as their experimental apparatus? Are complex mathematical equations of special relativity, and all they imply, responsible for the data? Or can the
principle of Occam's razor be applied to arrive at a much simpler and convincing explanation.

Homework: View the 36 min film from 1963 and read the companion paper. Then complete the problem set to check your understanding. Show your work.

Problem Set #1

1.1 What is the proper time half-life of a muon?

How do you think someone is determining what is proper
and what is not?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Wed Aug 30 02:02:44 2023
On Wednesday, 30 August 2023 at 10:30:19 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:

In the early 1960s two academics threw caution of confirmation bias to the wind then painstakingly put together and experimental narrative that supposedly confirmed for the first time the relativistic time dilation of Albert Einstein. Professors Frisch and Smith joined forces with a movie producer on a 36 min empirical "demonstration" of time dilation in which the pi meson (nee) now the muon, is the hero of the story:

This "demonstration" is considered so fundamental to the cause of special relativity that a commemorative plaque was placed on the site of the
Frisch Smith Experiment in 2014.

https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/201412/muon.cfm
And typical crackpot behaviour is to go on and on
arguing about demonstrations from long ago,
as if these are still of more than historical importance.

It's a bit like Flat Earthers still arguing
about sails disappearing over the horizon,

For innocend kiddies: a typical example of indoctrinating
rhetoric, intended to make impression that The Shit is as
obvious as round Earth.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to patdolan on Wed Aug 30 10:30:15 2023
patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:

In the early 1960s two academics threw caution of confirmation bias to the wind then painstakingly put together and experimental narrative that supposedly confirmed for the first time the relativistic time dilation of Albert Einstein. Professors Frisch and Smith joined forces with a movie producer on a 36 min empirical "demonstration" of time dilation in which
the pi meson (nee) now the muon, is the hero of the story:

This "demonstration" is considered so fundamental to the cause of special relativity that a commemorative plaque was placed on the site of the
Frisch Smith Experiment in 2014.

https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/201412/muon.cfm

And typical crackpot behaviour is to go on and on
arguing about demonstrations from long ago,
as if these are still of more than historical importance.

It's a bit like Flat Earthers still arguing
about sails disappearing over the horizon,

Jan

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Volney@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Wed Aug 30 08:35:28 2023
On 8/30/2023 4:30 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:

In the early 1960s two academics threw caution of confirmation bias to the >> wind then painstakingly put together and experimental narrative that
supposedly confirmed for the first time the relativistic time dilation of
Albert Einstein. Professors Frisch and Smith joined forces with a movie
producer on a 36 min empirical "demonstration" of time dilation in which
the pi meson (nee) now the muon, is the hero of the story:

This "demonstration" is considered so fundamental to the cause of special
relativity that a commemorative plaque was placed on the site of the
Frisch Smith Experiment in 2014.

https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/201412/muon.cfm

And typical crackpot behaviour is to go on and on
arguing about demonstrations from long ago,
as if these are still of more than historical importance.

Part of that is that kooks think if they disprove the breakthrough
experiment they've disproved relativity/round earth/whatever. Dolan
thinks that breaking Frisch-Smith will somehow disprove muons, yet the experiment is repeated in an undergrad course. Disprove the 1919
Eddington data and disprove gravitational bending despite the fact there
have been many eclipses since then and satellites don't even need
eclipses these days.

It's a bit like Flat Earthers still arguing
about sails disappearing over the horizon,

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Volney on Wed Aug 30 06:19:36 2023
On Wednesday, 30 August 2023 at 14:35:32 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
On 8/30/2023 4:30 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:

In the early 1960s two academics threw caution of confirmation bias to the >> wind then painstakingly put together and experimental narrative that
supposedly confirmed for the first time the relativistic time dilation of >> Albert Einstein. Professors Frisch and Smith joined forces with a movie
producer on a 36 min empirical "demonstration" of time dilation in which >> the pi meson (nee) now the muon, is the hero of the story:

This "demonstration" is considered so fundamental to the cause of special >> relativity that a commemorative plaque was placed on the site of the
Frisch Smith Experiment in 2014.

https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/201412/muon.cfm

And typical crackpot behaviour is to go on and on
arguing about demonstrations from long ago,
as if these are still of more than historical importance.

Part of that is that kooks think if they disprove the breakthrough
experiment they've disproved relativity/round earth/whatever.

Stupid Mike, poor idiot, The Shit of your idiot guru
was not even consistent - as proven; and your
moronic screams of "Newton mode" are typical
"logic" of your church. So are JJ's screams of
flath earthers.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Bill@21:1/5 to patdolan on Wed Aug 30 06:59:37 2023
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 9:44:40 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
Frisch and Smith state that the muons are traveling one thousand feet per usec.
at between .990c and .995c.

Right, the ones that decay in the scintillator are the ones that were moving that fast when they entered the calibrated stack of iron, and got slowed down to zero speed when reaching the scintillator. You were suggesting the "extra" mesons at
sea level were just produced by cosmic rays between the mountain top and sea level, or else just above the mountain top with a higher speed that made them undetected, but both of those suggestions are utterly braindead, because (1) they explicitly point
out that they accounted for the (very small) number of muons created betqween mountain top and sea level, which turns out to be negligibly small, and (2) the whole point is to filter out mesons outside that speed range.

You are forgetting all the muons with velocities greater than .995c that pass
through the scintillator and don't get caught there.

No, those are not "forgotten". Sheesh. The depth of iron bars was re-calibrated at sea level to account for the effect of the atmosphere down to sea level, so that the mesons being slowed to zero at sea level are the same slice of the population
that were at 0.995c and slowed to zero at the mountain top. In other words, the mesons that were filtered out at the mountain top were also filtered out at sea level. They were not "forgotten". I say again: Sheesh.

The iron depth recalibration for sea level is obviously wrong.

No, that's based on knowledge of how passage through iron and air affects the energy of the particles. If you're interested in that aspect of the phenomena, go ahead and study it.

honest experimentalists would add iron on top of Mt. Washington to
where there are no more "got-aways".

Huh? That makes no sense at all. The objective is to examine time dilation, which depends on velocity, so we need to select particles with a particular velocity (energy), and then examine this same population at sea level, which requires compensating
for the slowing of the air mass, i.e., it requires us not to be ignorant of this aspect of particle behavior.

[The experimenters] probably tinkered with the iron pile for months trying to get
their numbers right...

That's doesn't make any sense. They state specifically how much they change the iron layers to compensate for the 6000 ft of air, based on knowledge of how passage through iron and air affect the energies of those particles. This presented in plain
daylight for any knowledgeable person to check. My goodness, you objection comes down to "the bastards probably falsified the results".

And as is the case with Eddington an his bent starlight, so too with the FSX:
no one has ever been able to duplicate their results.

Both of those assertions are blatantly false. In particular, duplicating the Frisch ex is a undergraduate lab exercise. Basing your belief system on lies is not a good idea.

On the right side of Figure 6a of the Frisch-Smith paper we find that 350 out of 568 muons disintegrated in less than the published 2.2 usecs. muon half-life.

Huh? What is shown on the right side of that figure is the expected number of surviving muons after a noted amount of proper time, given that they have a proper half-life of 2.2 usecs. The elapsed coordinate time is 6.4 usecs, so if that was also the
elapsed proper time the expected number of survivors would be about 27, whereas if the proper time of the muons at that speed is 0.7 usecs (which is the predicted relativistic proper time at that speed) the expected number would be about 412. The
measured number is 412. Now do you understand?

the average height above the summit of Mt. WA at which these muons
were born was no more than 2,200 ft.

No, almost all were created much higher. The density of muons in the narry speed/energy range around 0.995 (before entering the iron layers) at the mountain top is what's measured at the mountain top, with that specific depth of iron. As always, your
attempted "reasoning" is completely specious.

Most first time readers of the FSX are overwhelmed by the huge number
of moving parts of this experiment.

Huh? This is an extremely simple demonstration... performed with very simple equipment.

A muon simultaneously [sic] comes to rest [sic] and disintegrates in a laboratory scintillator on the surface of the earth just as the laboratory clock strikes 0.000 hours. The muon's trajectory was normal to the surface of the earth. The muon's
velocity relative to the earth [sic] was measured to be [v=]0.867c which results in g = 2. The muon's clock showed an elapsed proper time of 2.2 microseconds between the spacetime event corresponding to its creation and the spacetime event corresponding
to its disintegration in the lab scintillator.

Let S and S' denote standard inertial coordinate systems in which the lab and the muon in flight are at rest, respectively. Four relevant events -- among infinitely many -- that you might be interested in are the muon's creation event e1, the lab event
e2 simultaneous with e1 in terms of S, the lab event e3 simultaneous with e1 in terms of S', and the collision event e4. In terms of S the height of the muon at creation is D = (2.2)(vg) where g = 1/sqrt(1-v^2). This is the magnitude of the interval from
e1 to e2.

1) What did the muon calculate its proper altitude above the earth to be at the spacetime event corresponding to its creation?

Muon's don't calculate things, and even if they did, it would be irrelevant. In terms of S', the spatial distance between the muon and the lab at the time of the muon's creation is D/g. This is the magnitude of the interval from e1 to e3.

2) What did the scientists in the scintillator lab calculate the muon's altitude to be at the spacetime event corresponding to the muon's creation?

As noted above, in terms of S, the altitude of the muon's creation event is D, which, in your example is 2.2(vg) light micro-seconds.

3) What did the lab scientist read on the scintillator lab's clock at the spacetime event corresponding to the muon's creation?

In terms of S, the lab clock read -D/v at event e2, and it reads -D/(vg^2) at event e3. The elapsed proper time in the lab between e2 and e3 is Dv.

By the way, based on your confusion over the Frisch experiment, I suspect one of your underlying problems is that you don't understand the proper half-life of an existing muon that was created, say, 5 usec ago. This is probably why you are confused about
when the muons "must have been created" in the Frisch experiment. It's amazing the number of ways a newbie can misunderstand things, things that rational educated adults take for granted. I blame our education system.

how far will the average muon travel before disintegrating?

Ah, here you confirm my diagnosis of the source of your confusion. The question for you is, for an existing muon that was created 5 usec ago, what is its expected time (from now) to decay? And how does the answer explode your beliefs?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From patdolan@21:1/5 to Ross Finlayson on Wed Aug 30 10:09:00 2023
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 11:07:36 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 9:44:40 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
In the early 1960s two academics threw caution of confirmation bias to the wind then painstakingly put together and experimental narrative that supposedly confirmed for the first time the relativistic time dilation of Albert Einstein. Professors
Frisch and Smith joined forces with a movie producer on a 36 min empirical "demonstration" of time dilation in which the pi meson (nee) now the muon, is the hero of the story:

This "demonstration" is considered so fundamental to the cause of special relativity that a commemorative plaque was placed on the site of the Frisch Smith Experiment in 2014.

https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/201412/muon.cfm

Below is a link to the companion paper to the 36 minute move

https://d1b10bmlvqabco.cloudfront.net/attach/j6wg9vo05d118z/hjzs14rvhz419k/j7jdyxbbpuwu/AJPpaperMuMesons.pdf

We now ask what best explains the data generated by the Rube Goldberg contraption Frisch and Smith used as their experimental apparatus? Are complex mathematical equations of special relativity, and all they imply, responsible for the data? Or can
the principle of Occam's razor be applied to arrive at a much simpler and convincing explanation.

Homework: View the 36 min film from 1963 and read the companion paper. Then complete the problem set to check your understanding. Show your work.

Problem Set #1

1.1 What is the proper time half-life of a muon?
1.2 According to Frisch and Smith, how far will the average muon travel before disintegrating, assuming relativity is false?
1.3 According to Frisch and Smith, how far will the average muon travel, assuming relativity is true?
1.4 Why did most muons pass through the scintillator, instead of being trapped by it?
1.5 What are Legion's values for cosmic ray flux at
a) sea-level?
b) 2,200 feet?
c) 8,489 feet?
34:30, "This is an example of the Lorentz Fitzgerald contraction, ...."
Ross, you homework has been give two points of extra credit.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From patdolan@21:1/5 to patdolan on Wed Aug 30 10:20:56 2023
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 9:44:40 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
In the early 1960s two academics threw caution of confirmation bias to the wind then painstakingly put together and experimental narrative that supposedly confirmed for the first time the relativistic time dilation of Albert Einstein. Professors Frisch
and Smith joined forces with a movie producer on a 36 min empirical "demonstration" of time dilation in which the pi meson (nee) now the muon, is the hero of the story:

This "demonstration" is considered so fundamental to the cause of special relativity that a commemorative plaque was placed on the site of the Frisch Smith Experiment in 2014.

https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/201412/muon.cfm

Below is a link to the companion paper to the 36 minute move

https://d1b10bmlvqabco.cloudfront.net/attach/j6wg9vo05d118z/hjzs14rvhz419k/j7jdyxbbpuwu/AJPpaperMuMesons.pdf

We now ask what best explains the data generated by the Rube Goldberg contraption Frisch and Smith used as their experimental apparatus? Are complex mathematical equations of special relativity, and all they imply, responsible for the data? Or can the
principle of Occam's razor be applied to arrive at a much simpler and convincing explanation.

Homework: View the 36 min film from 1963 and read the companion paper. Then complete the problem set to check your understanding. Show your work.

Problem Set #1

Homework answers for Problem Set #1

1.1 What is the proper time half-life of a muon?
2.2 micro-seconds (give yourself 5 points)
2.2 micro-seconds proper time (give yourself 3 points)

1.2 According to Frisch and Smith, how far will the average muon travel before disintegrating, assuming relativity is false?

1.3 According to Frisch and Smith, how far will the average muon travel, assuming relativity is true?
9 times farther than question 1.2

1.4 Why did most muons pass through the scintillator, instead of being trapped by it?
The pass-through muons had velocities in excess of .955c
extra-credit question: list 3 reasons why most muons will still have velocities in excess of .995c after passing through the iron pile?

1.5 What are Legion's values for cosmic ray flux at
a) sea-level?
0.03 uSv/hr
b) 2,200 feet?
see next chapter
c) 8,489 feet?
see next chapter

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Ross Finlayson@21:1/5 to patdolan on Wed Aug 30 21:09:09 2023
On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 10:09:02 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 11:07:36 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 9:44:40 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
In the early 1960s two academics threw caution of confirmation bias to the wind then painstakingly put together and experimental narrative that supposedly confirmed for the first time the relativistic time dilation of Albert Einstein. Professors
Frisch and Smith joined forces with a movie producer on a 36 min empirical "demonstration" of time dilation in which the pi meson (nee) now the muon, is the hero of the story:

This "demonstration" is considered so fundamental to the cause of special relativity that a commemorative plaque was placed on the site of the Frisch Smith Experiment in 2014.

https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/201412/muon.cfm

Below is a link to the companion paper to the 36 minute move

https://d1b10bmlvqabco.cloudfront.net/attach/j6wg9vo05d118z/hjzs14rvhz419k/j7jdyxbbpuwu/AJPpaperMuMesons.pdf

We now ask what best explains the data generated by the Rube Goldberg contraption Frisch and Smith used as their experimental apparatus? Are complex mathematical equations of special relativity, and all they imply, responsible for the data? Or can
the principle of Occam's razor be applied to arrive at a much simpler and convincing explanation.

Homework: View the 36 min film from 1963 and read the companion paper. Then complete the problem set to check your understanding. Show your work.

Problem Set #1

1.1 What is the proper time half-life of a muon?
1.2 According to Frisch and Smith, how far will the average muon travel before disintegrating, assuming relativity is false?
1.3 According to Frisch and Smith, how far will the average muon travel, assuming relativity is true?
1.4 Why did most muons pass through the scintillator, instead of being trapped by it?
1.5 What are Legion's values for cosmic ray flux at
a) sea-level?
b) 2,200 feet?
c) 8,489 feet?
34:30, "This is an example of the Lorentz Fitzgerald contraction, ...."
Ross, you homework has been give two points of extra credit.

That's funny, I was going to shred it and make the dog eat it.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Ross Finlayson@21:1/5 to Ross Finlayson on Wed Aug 30 21:48:36 2023
On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 9:09:11 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 10:09:02 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 11:07:36 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 9:44:40 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
In the early 1960s two academics threw caution of confirmation bias to the wind then painstakingly put together and experimental narrative that supposedly confirmed for the first time the relativistic time dilation of Albert Einstein. Professors
Frisch and Smith joined forces with a movie producer on a 36 min empirical "demonstration" of time dilation in which the pi meson (nee) now the muon, is the hero of the story:

This "demonstration" is considered so fundamental to the cause of special relativity that a commemorative plaque was placed on the site of the Frisch Smith Experiment in 2014.

https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/201412/muon.cfm

Below is a link to the companion paper to the 36 minute move

https://d1b10bmlvqabco.cloudfront.net/attach/j6wg9vo05d118z/hjzs14rvhz419k/j7jdyxbbpuwu/AJPpaperMuMesons.pdf

We now ask what best explains the data generated by the Rube Goldberg contraption Frisch and Smith used as their experimental apparatus? Are complex mathematical equations of special relativity, and all they imply, responsible for the data? Or
can the principle of Occam's razor be applied to arrive at a much simpler and convincing explanation.

Homework: View the 36 min film from 1963 and read the companion paper. Then complete the problem set to check your understanding. Show your work.

Problem Set #1

1.1 What is the proper time half-life of a muon?
1.2 According to Frisch and Smith, how far will the average muon travel before disintegrating, assuming relativity is false?
1.3 According to Frisch and Smith, how far will the average muon travel, assuming relativity is true?
1.4 Why did most muons pass through the scintillator, instead of being trapped by it?
1.5 What are Legion's values for cosmic ray flux at
a) sea-level?
b) 2,200 feet?
c) 8,489 feet?
34:30, "This is an example of the Lorentz Fitzgerald contraction, ...."
Ross, you homework has been give two points of extra credit.
That's funny, I was going to shred it and make the dog eat it.

Now, the reason why I commented, was, that, when they mentioned "Lorentz _Fitzgerald_ contraction",
I immediately related that to the notion that _Fitzgerald_ contraction is _space_ contraction which always combines length contraction and time dilation, and Patty as you know: I _demand_ space contraction.

Then I have a very strong admiration for a very correct opinion and a very sound intuition and a quite comprehensive foundation.

And not much for less.

Mathematics _owes_ physics more and better mathematics of infinity and the continuum, and immediately
in the foundations instead of contradictarily at the other end, and gravity deserves its place _right in the middle_. (Of GR and QM.)

... Which makes for real space contraction and a fall gravity.

... All quite consistently with Einstein's final theory of course, and in line with his goals of a total field theory,
and with regards to his deconstructive account of classical motion.

It's a continuum mechanics, ....

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Volney on Thu Aug 31 11:23:50 2023
Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 8/30/2023 4:30 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:

In the early 1960s two academics threw caution of confirmation bias to the >> wind then painstakingly put together and experimental narrative that
supposedly confirmed for the first time the relativistic time dilation of >> Albert Einstein. Professors Frisch and Smith joined forces with a movie >> producer on a 36 min empirical "demonstration" of time dilation in which >> the pi meson (nee) now the muon, is the hero of the story:

This "demonstration" is considered so fundamental to the cause of special >> relativity that a commemorative plaque was placed on the site of the
Frisch Smith Experiment in 2014.

https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/201412/muon.cfm

And typical crackpot behaviour is to go on and on
arguing about demonstrations from long ago,
as if these are still of more than historical importance.

Part of that is that kooks think if they disprove the breakthrough
experiment they've disproved relativity/round earth/whatever. Dolan
thinks that breaking Frisch-Smith will somehow disprove muons, yet the experiment is repeated in an undergrad course. Disprove the 1919
Eddington data and disprove gravitational bending despite the fact there
have been many eclipses since then and satellites don't even need
eclipses these days.

It's a bit like Flat Earthers still arguing
about sails disappearing over the horizon,

Yes, and even Flat Earthers will believe in their GPS device,
when they want to go somewhere,

Jan

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Thu Aug 31 02:59:44 2023
On Thursday, 31 August 2023 at 11:23:54 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Volney <vol...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 8/30/2023 4:30 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:

In the early 1960s two academics threw caution of confirmation bias to the
wind then painstakingly put together and experimental narrative that
supposedly confirmed for the first time the relativistic time dilation of
Albert Einstein. Professors Frisch and Smith joined forces with a movie >> producer on a 36 min empirical "demonstration" of time dilation in which >> the pi meson (nee) now the muon, is the hero of the story:

This "demonstration" is considered so fundamental to the cause of special
relativity that a commemorative plaque was placed on the site of the
Frisch Smith Experiment in 2014.

https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/201412/muon.cfm

And typical crackpot behaviour is to go on and on
arguing about demonstrations from long ago,
as if these are still of more than historical importance.

Part of that is that kooks think if they disprove the breakthrough experiment they've disproved relativity/round earth/whatever. Dolan
thinks that breaking Frisch-Smith will somehow disprove muons, yet the experiment is repeated in an undergrad course. Disprove the 1919
Eddington data and disprove gravitational bending despite the fact there have been many eclipses since then and satellites don't even need
eclipses these days.

It's a bit like Flat Earthers still arguing
about sails disappearing over the horizon,
Yes, and even Flat Earthers will believe in their GPS device,

Only relativistic idiots insist it is improper and
broken.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Volney@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Thu Aug 31 12:34:42 2023
On 8/31/2023 5:59 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
On Thursday, 31 August 2023 at 11:23:54 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Volney <vol...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 8/30/2023 4:30 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:

It's a bit like Flat Earthers still arguing
about sails disappearing over the horizon,

Yes, and even Flat Earthers will believe in their GPS device,

Only relativistic idiots insist it is improper and
broken.

And speaking of flat-earthers believing in GPS devices, along comes our janitor, so similar, claiming GPS works despite also claiming (without evidence, of course) to have disproven relativity.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Volney on Thu Aug 31 10:18:59 2023
On Thursday, 31 August 2023 at 18:34:47 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
On 8/31/2023 5:59 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
On Thursday, 31 August 2023 at 11:23:54 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Volney <vol...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 8/30/2023 4:30 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:

It's a bit like Flat Earthers still arguing
about sails disappearing over the horizon,

Yes, and even Flat Earthers will believe in their GPS device,

Only relativistic idiots insist it is improper and
broken.
And speaking of flat-earthers believing in GPS devices, along comes our janitor, so similar, claiming GPS works despite also claiming (without evidence, of course) to have disproven relativity.

Do you have any evidence, BTW, that your
9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy is some "Newton mode"?

See, stupid Mike - GPS works because it has
whole bunch of your idiot gurus screaming that w're
FORCED to their BEST WAY.

And as for evidence that the mumble of your idiot guru
was not even consistent - I've pointed directly two
denying each other claims derivable in it, QED.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From patdolan@21:1/5 to Ross Finlayson on Thu Aug 31 15:40:35 2023
On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 9:48:38 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 9:09:11 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 10:09:02 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 11:07:36 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 9:44:40 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
In the early 1960s two academics threw caution of confirmation bias to the wind then painstakingly put together and experimental narrative that supposedly confirmed for the first time the relativistic time dilation of Albert Einstein.
Professors Frisch and Smith joined forces with a movie producer on a 36 min empirical "demonstration" of time dilation in which the pi meson (nee) now the muon, is the hero of the story:

This "demonstration" is considered so fundamental to the cause of special relativity that a commemorative plaque was placed on the site of the Frisch Smith Experiment in 2014.

https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/201412/muon.cfm

Below is a link to the companion paper to the 36 minute move

https://d1b10bmlvqabco.cloudfront.net/attach/j6wg9vo05d118z/hjzs14rvhz419k/j7jdyxbbpuwu/AJPpaperMuMesons.pdf

We now ask what best explains the data generated by the Rube Goldberg contraption Frisch and Smith used as their experimental apparatus? Are complex mathematical equations of special relativity, and all they imply, responsible for the data? Or
can the principle of Occam's razor be applied to arrive at a much simpler and convincing explanation.

Homework: View the 36 min film from 1963 and read the companion paper. Then complete the problem set to check your understanding. Show your work.

Problem Set #1

1.1 What is the proper time half-life of a muon?
1.2 According to Frisch and Smith, how far will the average muon travel before disintegrating, assuming relativity is false?
1.3 According to Frisch and Smith, how far will the average muon travel, assuming relativity is true?
1.4 Why did most muons pass through the scintillator, instead of being trapped by it?
1.5 What are Legion's values for cosmic ray flux at
a) sea-level?
b) 2,200 feet?
c) 8,489 feet?
34:30, "This is an example of the Lorentz Fitzgerald contraction, ...."
Ross, you homework has been give two points of extra credit.
That's funny, I was going to shred it and make the dog eat it.
Now, the reason why I commented, was, that, when they mentioned "Lorentz _Fitzgerald_ contraction",
I immediately related that to the notion that _Fitzgerald_ contraction is _space_ contraction which always combines length contraction and time dilation, and Patty as you know: I _demand_ space contraction.

No Ross, I did not know about your strong feelings for space contraction. Then you must be a fan of my Lorentz contraction velocity formula.

Then I have a very strong admiration for a very correct opinion and a very sound intuition and a quite comprehensive foundation.

And not much for less.

Mathematics _owes_ physics more and better mathematics of infinity and the continuum, and immediately
in the foundations instead of contradictarily at the other end, and gravity deserves its place _right in the middle_. (Of GR and QM.)

... Which makes for real space contraction and a fall gravity.

... All quite consistently with Einstein's final theory of course, and in line with his goals of a total field theory,
and with regards to his deconstructive account of classical motion.

It's a continuum mechanics, ....

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From RichD@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Fri Sep 1 12:55:23 2023
On August 30, J. J. Lodder wrote:
It's a bit like Flat Earthers still arguing
about sails disappearing over the horizon,

haha, we've advanced a long way since then -

--
Rich

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Ross Finlayson@21:1/5 to patdolan on Fri Sep 1 18:13:07 2023
On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 3:40:37 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 9:48:38 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 9:09:11 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 10:09:02 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 11:07:36 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 9:44:40 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
In the early 1960s two academics threw caution of confirmation bias to the wind then painstakingly put together and experimental narrative that supposedly confirmed for the first time the relativistic time dilation of Albert Einstein.
Professors Frisch and Smith joined forces with a movie producer on a 36 min empirical "demonstration" of time dilation in which the pi meson (nee) now the muon, is the hero of the story:

This "demonstration" is considered so fundamental to the cause of special relativity that a commemorative plaque was placed on the site of the Frisch Smith Experiment in 2014.

https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/201412/muon.cfm

Below is a link to the companion paper to the 36 minute move

https://d1b10bmlvqabco.cloudfront.net/attach/j6wg9vo05d118z/hjzs14rvhz419k/j7jdyxbbpuwu/AJPpaperMuMesons.pdf

We now ask what best explains the data generated by the Rube Goldberg contraption Frisch and Smith used as their experimental apparatus? Are complex mathematical equations of special relativity, and all they imply, responsible for the data?
Or can the principle of Occam's razor be applied to arrive at a much simpler and convincing explanation.

Homework: View the 36 min film from 1963 and read the companion paper. Then complete the problem set to check your understanding. Show your work.

Problem Set #1

1.1 What is the proper time half-life of a muon?
1.2 According to Frisch and Smith, how far will the average muon travel before disintegrating, assuming relativity is false?
1.3 According to Frisch and Smith, how far will the average muon travel, assuming relativity is true?
1.4 Why did most muons pass through the scintillator, instead of being trapped by it?
1.5 What are Legion's values for cosmic ray flux at
a) sea-level?
b) 2,200 feet?
c) 8,489 feet?
34:30, "This is an example of the Lorentz Fitzgerald contraction, ...."
Ross, you homework has been give two points of extra credit.
That's funny, I was going to shred it and make the dog eat it.
Now, the reason why I commented, was, that, when they mentioned "Lorentz _Fitzgerald_ contraction",
I immediately related that to the notion that _Fitzgerald_ contraction is _space_ contraction which always combines length contraction and time dilation, and Patty as you know: I _demand_ space contraction.
No Ross, I did not know about your strong feelings for space contraction. Then you must be a fan of my Lorentz contraction velocity formula.

Then I have a very strong admiration for a very correct opinion and a very sound intuition and a quite comprehensive foundation.

And not much for less.

Mathematics _owes_ physics more and better mathematics of infinity and the continuum, and immediately
in the foundations instead of contradictarily at the other end, and gravity deserves its place _right in the middle_. (Of GR and QM.)

... Which makes for real space contraction and a fall gravity.

... All quite consistently with Einstein's final theory of course, and in line with his goals of a total field theory,
and with regards to his deconstructive account of classical motion.

It's a continuum mechanics, ....

No, I don't think so, because you have a privileged frame that isn't the moving frame.

I figured you'd be familiar with my opinion about length contraction and time dilation
and they're only together and space contraction, from the "Open Letter to..." me
and when you challenged me to stand up about dogma and of course there was the "I demand space contraction" bit which rhymes with "I demand retraction" and
I demand satisfaction", then the "my study is mathematical foundations, with physics second".

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From patdolan@21:1/5 to Ross Finlayson on Fri Sep 1 18:30:59 2023
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 6:13:10 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 3:40:37 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 9:48:38 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 9:09:11 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 10:09:02 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 11:07:36 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 9:44:40 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
In the early 1960s two academics threw caution of confirmation bias to the wind then painstakingly put together and experimental narrative that supposedly confirmed for the first time the relativistic time dilation of Albert Einstein.
Professors Frisch and Smith joined forces with a movie producer on a 36 min empirical "demonstration" of time dilation in which the pi meson (nee) now the muon, is the hero of the story:

This "demonstration" is considered so fundamental to the cause of special relativity that a commemorative plaque was placed on the site of the Frisch Smith Experiment in 2014.

https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/201412/muon.cfm

Below is a link to the companion paper to the 36 minute move

https://d1b10bmlvqabco.cloudfront.net/attach/j6wg9vo05d118z/hjzs14rvhz419k/j7jdyxbbpuwu/AJPpaperMuMesons.pdf

We now ask what best explains the data generated by the Rube Goldberg contraption Frisch and Smith used as their experimental apparatus? Are complex mathematical equations of special relativity, and all they imply, responsible for the data?
Or can the principle of Occam's razor be applied to arrive at a much simpler and convincing explanation.

Homework: View the 36 min film from 1963 and read the companion paper. Then complete the problem set to check your understanding. Show your work.

Problem Set #1

1.1 What is the proper time half-life of a muon?
1.2 According to Frisch and Smith, how far will the average muon travel before disintegrating, assuming relativity is false?
1.3 According to Frisch and Smith, how far will the average muon travel, assuming relativity is true?
1.4 Why did most muons pass through the scintillator, instead of being trapped by it?
1.5 What are Legion's values for cosmic ray flux at
a) sea-level?
b) 2,200 feet?
c) 8,489 feet?
34:30, "This is an example of the Lorentz Fitzgerald contraction, ...."
Ross, you homework has been give two points of extra credit.
That's funny, I was going to shred it and make the dog eat it.
Now, the reason why I commented, was, that, when they mentioned "Lorentz _Fitzgerald_ contraction",
I immediately related that to the notion that _Fitzgerald_ contraction is _space_ contraction which always combines length contraction and time dilation, and Patty as you know: I _demand_ space contraction.
No Ross, I did not know about your strong feelings for space contraction. Then you must be a fan of my Lorentz contraction velocity formula.

Then I have a very strong admiration for a very correct opinion and a very sound intuition and a quite comprehensive foundation.

And not much for less.

Mathematics _owes_ physics more and better mathematics of infinity and the continuum, and immediately
in the foundations instead of contradictarily at the other end, and gravity deserves its place _right in the middle_. (Of GR and QM.)

... Which makes for real space contraction and a fall gravity.

... All quite consistently with Einstein's final theory of course, and in line with his goals of a total field theory,
and with regards to his deconstructive account of classical motion.

It's a continuum mechanics, ....
No, I don't think so, because you have a privileged frame that isn't the moving frame.

I figured you'd be familiar with my opinion about length contraction and time dilation
and they're only together and space contraction, from the "Open Letter to..." me
and when you challenged me to stand up about dogma and of course there was the
"I demand space contraction" bit which rhymes with "I demand retraction" and I demand satisfaction", then the "my study is mathematical foundations, with physics second".
I remember challenging you to the duel. But I no longer recall the issue(s) between us. It was a duel to be fought at dawn the following day. And it was to be fought online. Did we ever decide what our weapons were to be?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From mitchrae3323@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Ross Finlayson on Fri Sep 1 18:41:36 2023
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 6:13:10 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 3:40:37 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 9:48:38 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 9:09:11 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 10:09:02 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 11:07:36 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 9:44:40 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
In the early 1960s two academics threw caution of confirmation bias to the wind then painstakingly put together and experimental narrative that supposedly confirmed for the first time the relativistic time dilation of Albert Einstein.
Professors Frisch and Smith joined forces with a movie producer on a 36 min empirical "demonstration" of time dilation in which the pi meson (nee) now the muon, is the hero of the story:

This "demonstration" is considered so fundamental to the cause of special relativity that a commemorative plaque was placed on the site of the Frisch Smith Experiment in 2014.

https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/201412/muon.cfm

Below is a link to the companion paper to the 36 minute move

https://d1b10bmlvqabco.cloudfront.net/attach/j6wg9vo05d118z/hjzs14rvhz419k/j7jdyxbbpuwu/AJPpaperMuMesons.pdf

We now ask what best explains the data generated by the Rube Goldberg contraption Frisch and Smith used as their experimental apparatus? Are complex mathematical equations of special relativity, and all they imply, responsible for the data?
Or can the principle of Occam's razor be applied to arrive at a much simpler and convincing explanation.

Homework: View the 36 min film from 1963 and read the companion paper. Then complete the problem set to check your understanding. Show your work.

Problem Set #1

1.1 What is the proper time half-life of a muon?
1.2 According to Frisch and Smith, how far will the average muon travel before disintegrating, assuming relativity is false?
1.3 According to Frisch and Smith, how far will the average muon travel, assuming relativity is true?
1.4 Why did most muons pass through the scintillator, instead of being trapped by it?
1.5 What are Legion's values for cosmic ray flux at
a) sea-level?
b) 2,200 feet?
c) 8,489 feet?
34:30, "This is an example of the Lorentz Fitzgerald contraction, ...."
Ross, you homework has been give two points of extra credit.
That's funny, I was going to shred it and make the dog eat it.
Now, the reason why I commented, was, that, when they mentioned "Lorentz _Fitzgerald_ contraction",
I immediately related that to the notion that _Fitzgerald_ contraction is _space_ contraction which always combines length contraction and time dilation, and Patty as you know: I _demand_ space contraction.
No Ross, I did not know about your strong feelings for space contraction. Then you must be a fan of my Lorentz contraction velocity formula.

Then I have a very strong admiration for a very correct opinion and a very sound intuition and a quite comprehensive foundation.

And not much for less.

Mathematics _owes_ physics more and better mathematics of infinity and the continuum, and immediately
in the foundations instead of contradictarily at the other end, and gravity deserves its place _right in the middle_. (Of GR and QM.)

... Which makes for real space contraction and a fall gravity.

... All quite consistently with Einstein's final theory of course, and in line with his goals of a total field theory,
and with regards to his deconstructive account of classical motion.

It's a continuum mechanics, ....
No, I don't think so, because you have a privileged frame that isn't the moving frame.

All frames are moving. Even still in gravity on Earth shares the Earth rotation.
Are you arguing against no absolute rest?
The universe is filled with frames to compare. So how
is relativity going to be accurate?

I figured you'd be familiar with my opinion about length contraction and time dilation
and they're only together and space contraction, from the "Open Letter to..." me
and when you challenged me to stand up about dogma and of course there was the
"I demand space contraction" bit which rhymes with "I demand retraction" and I demand satisfaction", then the "my study is mathematical foundations, with physics second".

If time slows down it can speed back up. It happens in space travel.

Mitchell Raemsch

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Ross Finlayson@21:1/5 to mitchr...@gmail.com on Fri Sep 1 19:40:13 2023
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 6:41:39 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 6:13:10 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 3:40:37 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 9:48:38 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 9:09:11 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 10:09:02 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 11:07:36 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 9:44:40 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
In the early 1960s two academics threw caution of confirmation bias to the wind then painstakingly put together and experimental narrative that supposedly confirmed for the first time the relativistic time dilation of Albert Einstein.
Professors Frisch and Smith joined forces with a movie producer on a 36 min empirical "demonstration" of time dilation in which the pi meson (nee) now the muon, is the hero of the story:

This "demonstration" is considered so fundamental to the cause of special relativity that a commemorative plaque was placed on the site of the Frisch Smith Experiment in 2014.

https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/201412/muon.cfm

Below is a link to the companion paper to the 36 minute move

https://d1b10bmlvqabco.cloudfront.net/attach/j6wg9vo05d118z/hjzs14rvhz419k/j7jdyxbbpuwu/AJPpaperMuMesons.pdf

We now ask what best explains the data generated by the Rube Goldberg contraption Frisch and Smith used as their experimental apparatus? Are complex mathematical equations of special relativity, and all they imply, responsible for the
data? Or can the principle of Occam's razor be applied to arrive at a much simpler and convincing explanation.

Homework: View the 36 min film from 1963 and read the companion paper. Then complete the problem set to check your understanding. Show your work.

Problem Set #1

1.1 What is the proper time half-life of a muon?
1.2 According to Frisch and Smith, how far will the average muon travel before disintegrating, assuming relativity is false?
1.3 According to Frisch and Smith, how far will the average muon travel, assuming relativity is true?
1.4 Why did most muons pass through the scintillator, instead of being trapped by it?
1.5 What are Legion's values for cosmic ray flux at
a) sea-level?
b) 2,200 feet?
c) 8,489 feet?
34:30, "This is an example of the Lorentz Fitzgerald contraction, ...."
Ross, you homework has been give two points of extra credit.
That's funny, I was going to shred it and make the dog eat it.
Now, the reason why I commented, was, that, when they mentioned "Lorentz _Fitzgerald_ contraction",
I immediately related that to the notion that _Fitzgerald_ contraction is _space_ contraction which always combines length contraction and time dilation, and Patty as you know: I _demand_ space contraction.
No Ross, I did not know about your strong feelings for space contraction. Then you must be a fan of my Lorentz contraction velocity formula.

Then I have a very strong admiration for a very correct opinion and a very sound intuition and a quite comprehensive foundation.

And not much for less.

Mathematics _owes_ physics more and better mathematics of infinity and the continuum, and immediately
in the foundations instead of contradictarily at the other end, and gravity deserves its place _right in the middle_. (Of GR and QM.)

... Which makes for real space contraction and a fall gravity.

... All quite consistently with Einstein's final theory of course, and in line with his goals of a total field theory,
and with regards to his deconstructive account of classical motion.

It's a continuum mechanics, ....
No, I don't think so, because you have a privileged frame that isn't the moving frame.
All frames are moving. Even still in gravity on Earth shares the Earth rotation.
Are you arguing against no absolute rest?
The universe is filled with frames to compare. So how
is relativity going to be accurate?

I figured you'd be familiar with my opinion about length contraction and time dilation
and they're only together and space contraction, from the "Open Letter to..." me
and when you challenged me to stand up about dogma and of course there was the
"I demand space contraction" bit which rhymes with "I demand retraction" and
I demand satisfaction", then the "my study is mathematical foundations, with physics second".
If time slows down it can speed back up. It happens in space travel.

Mitchell Raemsch

"Time only slows", is the catch-phrase with respect to this notion in the many hundreds

State and change are complements. "Complementary duals".

I really like to read so I wrote about ten thousand posts to print out.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From patdolan@21:1/5 to Ross Finlayson on Fri Sep 1 19:54:06 2023
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 7:40:16 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 6:41:39 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 6:13:10 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 3:40:37 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 9:48:38 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 9:09:11 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 10:09:02 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 11:07:36 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 9:44:40 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
In the early 1960s two academics threw caution of confirmation bias to the wind then painstakingly put together and experimental narrative that supposedly confirmed for the first time the relativistic time dilation of Albert Einstein.
Professors Frisch and Smith joined forces with a movie producer on a 36 min empirical "demonstration" of time dilation in which the pi meson (nee) now the muon, is the hero of the story:

This "demonstration" is considered so fundamental to the cause of special relativity that a commemorative plaque was placed on the site of the Frisch Smith Experiment in 2014.

https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/201412/muon.cfm

Below is a link to the companion paper to the 36 minute move

https://d1b10bmlvqabco.cloudfront.net/attach/j6wg9vo05d118z/hjzs14rvhz419k/j7jdyxbbpuwu/AJPpaperMuMesons.pdf

We now ask what best explains the data generated by the Rube Goldberg contraption Frisch and Smith used as their experimental apparatus? Are complex mathematical equations of special relativity, and all they imply, responsible for the
data? Or can the principle of Occam's razor be applied to arrive at a much simpler and convincing explanation.

Homework: View the 36 min film from 1963 and read the companion paper. Then complete the problem set to check your understanding. Show your work.

Problem Set #1

1.1 What is the proper time half-life of a muon?
1.2 According to Frisch and Smith, how far will the average muon travel before disintegrating, assuming relativity is false?
1.3 According to Frisch and Smith, how far will the average muon travel, assuming relativity is true?
1.4 Why did most muons pass through the scintillator, instead of being trapped by it?
1.5 What are Legion's values for cosmic ray flux at
a) sea-level?
b) 2,200 feet?
c) 8,489 feet?
34:30, "This is an example of the Lorentz Fitzgerald contraction, ...."
Ross, you homework has been give two points of extra credit.
That's funny, I was going to shred it and make the dog eat it.
Now, the reason why I commented, was, that, when they mentioned "Lorentz _Fitzgerald_ contraction",
I immediately related that to the notion that _Fitzgerald_ contraction is _space_ contraction which always combines length contraction and time dilation, and Patty as you know: I _demand_ space contraction.
No Ross, I did not know about your strong feelings for space contraction. Then you must be a fan of my Lorentz contraction velocity formula.

Then I have a very strong admiration for a very correct opinion and a very sound intuition and a quite comprehensive foundation.

And not much for less.

Mathematics _owes_ physics more and better mathematics of infinity and the continuum, and immediately
in the foundations instead of contradictarily at the other end, and gravity deserves its place _right in the middle_. (Of GR and QM.)

... Which makes for real space contraction and a fall gravity.

... All quite consistently with Einstein's final theory of course, and in line with his goals of a total field theory,
and with regards to his deconstructive account of classical motion.

It's a continuum mechanics, ....
No, I don't think so, because you have a privileged frame that isn't the moving frame.
All frames are moving. Even still in gravity on Earth shares the Earth rotation.
Are you arguing against no absolute rest?
The universe is filled with frames to compare. So how
is relativity going to be accurate?

I figured you'd be familiar with my opinion about length contraction and time dilation
and they're only together and space contraction, from the "Open Letter to..." me
and when you challenged me to stand up about dogma and of course there was the
"I demand space contraction" bit which rhymes with "I demand retraction" and
I demand satisfaction", then the "my study is mathematical foundations, with physics second".
If time slows down it can speed back up. It happens in space travel.

Mitchell Raemsch
"Time only slows", is the catch-phrase with respect to this notion in the many hundreds

State and change are complements. "Complementary duals".

I really like to read so I wrote about ten thousand posts to print out.
Time only slows and length only shortens--under the effects of increasing relative velocity and increasing gravity. This leads directly to another Einstein-esque mathematical inference

v = const x mass
m/s = const x mass
t = length/(mass x cost)

Eureka! I have answered the ancient question: what is time?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Ross Finlayson@21:1/5 to patdolan on Fri Sep 1 20:28:51 2023
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 7:54:08 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 7:40:16 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 6:41:39 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 6:13:10 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 3:40:37 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 9:48:38 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 9:09:11 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 10:09:02 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 11:07:36 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 9:44:40 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
In the early 1960s two academics threw caution of confirmation bias to the wind then painstakingly put together and experimental narrative that supposedly confirmed for the first time the relativistic time dilation of Albert Einstein.
Professors Frisch and Smith joined forces with a movie producer on a 36 min empirical "demonstration" of time dilation in which the pi meson (nee) now the muon, is the hero of the story:

This "demonstration" is considered so fundamental to the cause of special relativity that a commemorative plaque was placed on the site of the Frisch Smith Experiment in 2014.

https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/201412/muon.cfm

Below is a link to the companion paper to the 36 minute move

https://d1b10bmlvqabco.cloudfront.net/attach/j6wg9vo05d118z/hjzs14rvhz419k/j7jdyxbbpuwu/AJPpaperMuMesons.pdf

We now ask what best explains the data generated by the Rube Goldberg contraption Frisch and Smith used as their experimental apparatus? Are complex mathematical equations of special relativity, and all they imply, responsible for the
data? Or can the principle of Occam's razor be applied to arrive at a much simpler and convincing explanation.

Homework: View the 36 min film from 1963 and read the companion paper. Then complete the problem set to check your understanding. Show your work.

Problem Set #1

1.1 What is the proper time half-life of a muon?
1.2 According to Frisch and Smith, how far will the average muon travel before disintegrating, assuming relativity is false?
1.3 According to Frisch and Smith, how far will the average muon travel, assuming relativity is true?
1.4 Why did most muons pass through the scintillator, instead of being trapped by it?
1.5 What are Legion's values for cosmic ray flux at
a) sea-level?
b) 2,200 feet?
c) 8,489 feet?
34:30, "This is an example of the Lorentz Fitzgerald contraction, ...."
Ross, you homework has been give two points of extra credit.
That's funny, I was going to shred it and make the dog eat it.
Now, the reason why I commented, was, that, when they mentioned "Lorentz _Fitzgerald_ contraction",
I immediately related that to the notion that _Fitzgerald_ contraction is _space_ contraction which always combines length contraction and time dilation, and Patty as you know: I _demand_ space contraction.
No Ross, I did not know about your strong feelings for space contraction. Then you must be a fan of my Lorentz contraction velocity formula.

Then I have a very strong admiration for a very correct opinion and a very sound intuition and a quite comprehensive foundation.

And not much for less.

Mathematics _owes_ physics more and better mathematics of infinity and the continuum, and immediately
in the foundations instead of contradictarily at the other end, and gravity deserves its place _right in the middle_. (Of GR and QM.)

... Which makes for real space contraction and a fall gravity.

... All quite consistently with Einstein's final theory of course, and in line with his goals of a total field theory,
and with regards to his deconstructive account of classical motion.

It's a continuum mechanics, ....
No, I don't think so, because you have a privileged frame that isn't the moving frame.
All frames are moving. Even still in gravity on Earth shares the Earth rotation.
Are you arguing against no absolute rest?
The universe is filled with frames to compare. So how
is relativity going to be accurate?

I figured you'd be familiar with my opinion about length contraction and time dilation
and they're only together and space contraction, from the "Open Letter to..." me
and when you challenged me to stand up about dogma and of course there was the
"I demand space contraction" bit which rhymes with "I demand retraction" and
I demand satisfaction", then the "my study is mathematical foundations, with physics second".
If time slows down it can speed back up. It happens in space travel.

Mitchell Raemsch
"Time only slows", is the catch-phrase with respect to this notion in the many hundreds

State and change are complements. "Complementary duals".

I really like to read so I wrote about ten thousand posts to print out.
Time only slows and length only shortens--under the effects of increasing relative velocity and increasing gravity. This leads directly to another Einstein-esque mathematical inference

v = const x mass
m/s = const x mass
t = length/(mass x cost)

Eureka! I have answered the ancient question: what is time?

Hm. Here you go, then, imagine there's only one number. Imagine there's only one number,
and it might be a very large number, in fact you might imagine it's as large as numbers are.

So, given a place in time, you might imagine there are three space dimensions and one time
dimension, but knowing time has never gone backward, maybe three space dimensions
and one time direction, or a ray of time.

Now, this all has to fit in one number, as sort of like, of a continuum of numbers, that all
this higher order geometry and all the dimensions of theories of physics fit in less and one.

Then it might seem reasonable to imagine that half the number is space and the other time,
then for how might it be that the three dimensions of space are in a continuum in a continuum
while the ray of time is in a continuum there. The the three space dimensions you might imagine
could be 1/3 in the infinitesimal numbers and 1/3 in the middle numbers and 1/3 in the infinite numbers,
where this continuum is non-Archimedean, which also means Archimedean if you knew that calling
infinite numbers Archimedean was actually a development of concepts making it like so. Then,
the ray of time, sort of has infalling all the chances.

Then, if time has gone on forever, and space goes on forever, you might sort of imagine either
the one way or the other, the space and the time being one large number or an infinite line or
a continuum or a multi-dimensional continuum, indeed because _it's what fits into a continuum
and that's why there are three space dimensions for one ray of time_.

Now, physics has lots of state in the space time so sometimes it's called Space-Time and includes
the space and the time and everything in it. Then this is variously called Minkowski space-time
and Kaluza-Klein and "10 or 11 dimensions for superstring theory" where they give each the space
dimensions their 1/3's to rotate around, or 3+1, 3+1+1, and 3*3 +1 and +1, that these are the reasons
_why_ there are in these theories these many dimensions which in this theory there is one.

In this way you might be closer to imagining a "mathematical universe hypothesis", where the
very facts of the numbers, being one large number, explain the configuration of space-time,
itself.

These notions are complementary and called "matters of projection and perspective in higher-order
dimensions" and "the hologram" where the holonomic and hologrammatic results a system of
equations of a continuum parameterized by a clock hypothesis' universal _time_.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Bill@21:1/5 to patdolan on Fri Sep 1 22:16:47 2023
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 7:54:08 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
Frisch and Smith state that the muons are traveling one thousand feet per usec.
at between .990c and .995c.

Right, the ones that decay in the scintillator are the ones that were moving that fast when they entered the calibrated stack of iron, and got slowed down to zero speed when reaching the scintillator. You were suggesting the "extra" mesons at
sea level were just produced by cosmic rays between the mountain top and sea level, or else just above the mountain top with a higher speed that made them undetected, but both of those suggestions are utterly braindead, because (1) they explicitly point
out that they accounted for the (very small) number of muons created betqween mountain top and sea level, which turns out to be negligibly small, and (2) the whole point is to filter out mesons outside that speed range.

You are forgetting all the muons with velocities greater than .995c that pass
through the scintillator and don't get caught there.

No, those are not "forgotten". Sheesh. The depth of iron bars was re-calibrated at sea level to account for the effect of the atmosphere down to sea level, so that the mesons being slowed to zero at sea level are the same slice of the population
that were at 0.995c and slowed to zero at the mountain top. In other words, the mesons that were filtered out at the mountain top were also filtered out at sea level. They were not "forgotten". I say again: Sheesh.

The iron depth recalibration for sea level is obviously wrong.

No, that's based on knowledge of how passage through iron and air affects the energy of the particles. If you're interested in that aspect of the phenomena, go ahead and study it.

honest experimentalists would add iron on top of Mt. Washington to
where there are no more "got-aways".

Huh? That makes no sense at all. The objective is to examine time dilation, which depends on velocity, so we need to select particles with a particular velocity (energy), and then examine this same population at sea level, which requires compensating
for the slowing of the air mass, i.e., it requires us not to be ignorant of this aspect of particle behavior.

[The experimenters] probably tinkered with the iron pile for months trying to get
their numbers right...

That's doesn't make any sense. They state specifically how much they change the iron layers to compensate for the 6000 ft of air, based on knowledge of how passage through iron and air affect the energies of those particles. This presented in plain
daylight for any knowledgeable person to check. My goodness, you objection comes down to "the bastards probably falsified the results".

And as is the case with Eddington an his bent starlight, so too with the FSX:
no one has ever been able to duplicate their results.

Both of those assertions are blatantly false. In particular, duplicating the Frisch ex is a undergraduate lab exercise. Basing your belief system on lies is not a good idea.

On the right side of Figure 6a of the Frisch-Smith paper we find that 350 out of 568 muons disintegrated in less than the published 2.2 usecs. muon half-life.

Huh? What's shown on the right side of that figure is the expected number of surviving muons after a noted amount of proper time, given that they have a proper half-life of 2.2 usecs. The elapsed coordinate time is 6.4 usecs, so if that was also the
elapsed proper time the expected number of survivors would be about 27, whereas if the proper time of the muons at that speed is 0.7 usecs (which is the predicted relativistic proper time at that speed) the expected number would be about 412. The
measured number is 412.

the average height above the summit of Mt. WA at which these muons
were born was no more than 2,200 ft.

No, almost all were created much higher, but the height at which they were created is fairly irrelevant. The density of muons in the narrow speed/energy range around 0.995 (before entering the iron layers) at the mountain top is what's measured at the
mountain top, with that specific depth of iron.

Most first time readers of the FSX are overwhelmed by the huge number
of moving parts of this experiment.

Huh? This is an extremely simple demonstration, performed with very simple equipment.

A muon simultaneously [sic] comes to rest [sic] and disintegrates in a laboratory scintillator on the surface of the earth just as the laboratory clock strikes 0.000 hours. The muon's trajectory was normal to the surface of the earth. The muon's
velocity relative to the earth [sic] was measured to be [v=]0.867c which results in g = 2. The muon's clock showed an elapsed proper time of 2.2 microseconds between the spacetime event corresponding to its creation and the spacetime event corresponding
to its disintegration in the lab scintillator.

Let S and S' denote standard inertial coordinate systems in which the lab and the muon in flight are at rest, respectively. Four relevant events - among infinitely many - that you might be interested in are the muon's creation event e1, the lab event e2
simultaneous with e1 in terms of S, the lab event e3 simultaneous with e1 in terms of S', and the collision event e4. In terms of S the height of the muon at creation is D = (2.2)(vg) where g = 1/sqrt(1-v^2). This is the magnitude of the interval from e1
to e2.

1) What did the muon calculate its proper altitude above the earth to be at the spacetime event corresponding to its creation?

Again, muon's don't calculate things, and even if they did, it would be irrelevant. In terms of S', the spatial distance between the muon and the lab at the time of the muon's creation is D/g. This is the magnitude of the interval from e1 to e3.

2) What did the scientists in the scintillator lab calculate the muon's altitude to be at the spacetime event corresponding to the muon's creation?

As noted above, in terms of S, the altitude of the muon's creation event is D, which in your example is 2.2(vg) light micro-seconds.

3) What did the lab scientist read on the scintillator lab's clock at the spacetime event corresponding to the muon's creation?

In terms of S, the lab clock read -D/v at event e2, and it reads -D/(vg^2) at event e3. The elapsed proper time in the lab between e2 and e3 is Dv. Do you understand these things?

By the way, based on your confusion over the Frisch experiment, I suspect one of your underlying problems is that you don't understand the proper half-life of an existing muon that was created, say, 5 usec ago. This is probably why you are confused about
when the muons "must have been created" in the Frisch experiment.

how far will the average muon travel before disintegrating?

Ah, here you confirm my diagnosis of the source of your confusion. The question for you is, for an existing muon that was created 5 proper usec ago, what is its expected proper time (from now) to decay?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From patdolan@21:1/5 to Bill on Fri Sep 1 22:47:22 2023
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 10:16:50 PM UTC-7, Bill wrote:
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 7:54:08 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
Frisch and Smith state that the muons are traveling one thousand feet per usec.
at between .990c and .995c.

Right, the ones that decay in the scintillator are the ones that were moving that fast when they entered the calibrated stack of iron, and got slowed down to zero speed when reaching the scintillator. You were suggesting the "extra" mesons
at sea level were just produced by cosmic rays between the mountain top and sea level, or else just above the mountain top with a higher speed that made them undetected, but both of those suggestions are utterly braindead, because (1) they explicitly
point out that they accounted for the (very small) number of muons created betqween mountain top and sea level, which turns out to be negligibly small, and (2) the whole point is to filter out mesons outside that speed range.

You are forgetting all the muons with velocities greater than .995c that pass
through the scintillator and don't get caught there.

No, those are not "forgotten". Sheesh. The depth of iron bars was re-calibrated at sea level to account for the effect of the atmosphere down to sea level, so that the mesons being slowed to zero at sea level are the same slice of the
population that were at 0.995c and slowed to zero at the mountain top. In other words, the mesons that were filtered out at the mountain top were also filtered out at sea level. They were not "forgotten". I say again: Sheesh.

The iron depth recalibration for sea level is obviously wrong.

No, that's based on knowledge of how passage through iron and air affects the energy of the particles. If you're interested in that aspect of the phenomena, go ahead and study it.

honest experimentalists would add iron on top of Mt. Washington to where there are no more "got-aways".

Huh? That makes no sense at all. The objective is to examine time dilation, which depends on velocity, so we need to select particles with a particular velocity (energy), and then examine this same population at sea level, which requires
compensating for the slowing of the air mass, i.e., it requires us not to be ignorant of this aspect of particle behavior.

[The experimenters] probably tinkered with the iron pile for months trying to get
their numbers right...

That's doesn't make any sense. They state specifically how much they change the iron layers to compensate for the 6000 ft of air, based on knowledge of how passage through iron and air affect the energies of those particles. This presented in plain
daylight for any knowledgeable person to check. My goodness, you objection comes down to "the bastards probably falsified the results".

And as is the case with Eddington an his bent starlight, so too with the FSX:
no one has ever been able to duplicate their results.

Both of those assertions are blatantly false. In particular, duplicating the Frisch ex is a undergraduate lab exercise. Basing your belief system on lies is not a good idea.

On the right side of Figure 6a of the Frisch-Smith paper we find that 350 out
of 568 muons disintegrated in less than the published 2.2 usecs. muon half-life.
Huh? What's shown on the right side of that figure is the expected number of surviving muons after a noted amount of proper time, given that they have a proper half-life of 2.2 usecs. The elapsed coordinate time is 6.4 usecs, so if that was also the
elapsed proper time the expected number of survivors would be about 27, whereas if the proper time of the muons at that speed is 0.7 usecs (which is the predicted relativistic proper time at that speed) the expected number would be about 412. The
measured number is 412.
the average height above the summit of Mt. WA at which these muons
were born was no more than 2,200 ft.
No, almost all were created much higher, but the height at which they were created is fairly irrelevant. The density of muons in the narrow speed/energy range around 0.995 (before entering the iron layers) at the mountain top is what's measured at the
mountain top, with that specific depth of iron.
Most first time readers of the FSX are overwhelmed by the huge number
of moving parts of this experiment.
Huh? This is an extremely simple demonstration, performed with very simple equipment.
A muon simultaneously [sic] comes to rest [sic] and disintegrates in a laboratory scintillator on the surface of the earth just as the laboratory clock strikes 0.000 hours. The muon's trajectory was normal to the surface of the earth. The muon's
velocity relative to the earth [sic] was measured to be [v=]0.867c which results in g = 2. The muon's clock showed an elapsed proper time of 2.2 microseconds between the spacetime event corresponding to its creation and the spacetime event corresponding
to its disintegration in the lab scintillator.
Legion, below is your best relativity work product ever...for anyone who wants an airtight defeater for SR.

Let S and S' denote standard inertial coordinate systems in which the lab and the muon in flight are at rest, respectively. Four relevant events - among infinitely many - that you might be interested in are the muon's creation event e1, the lab event
e2 simultaneous with e1 in terms of S, the lab event e3 simultaneous with e1 in terms of S', and the collision event e4. In terms of S the height of the muon at creation is D = (2.2)(vg) where g = 1/sqrt(1-v^2). This is the magnitude of the interval from
e1 to e2.

Don't worry. We will get to your ingenious 4-event spacetime scenario in due course. But over on the Pion thread. That's the thread where SR "supposedly" still has a fighting chance. Have you watched Double-Talk Don Lincoln's Fermilab video as
instructed? We will fight this battle on his pion hole in the ground. Forget about the Frisch and Smith's Muons of Mt. Washington. They are as lost to your cause as my Lorentz contraction velocity article is to Wikipedia. Let dispense with them one
last time. It will only take one Proustian sentence:

Thanks to your cosmic ray flux vs. altitude figures, we conclude that the iconic Frisch-Smith muon data is easily explained as the simple ratio of the muon production within an atmospheric layer beginning at sea level and extending 2,200 feet (or 2.2
usecs. ) above Cambridge Massachusetts, to the muon production within a 2,200 foot high atmospheric layer beginning at the summit of Mt. Washington.

1) What did the muon calculate its proper altitude above the earth to be at the spacetime event corresponding to its creation?
Again, muon's don't calculate things, and even if they did, it would be irrelevant. In terms of S', the spatial distance between the muon and the lab at the time of the muon's creation is D/g. This is the magnitude of the interval from e1 to e3.
2) What did the scientists in the scintillator lab calculate the muon's altitude to be at the spacetime event corresponding to the muon's creation?
As noted above, in terms of S, the altitude of the muon's creation event is D, which in your example is 2.2(vg) light micro-seconds.
3) What did the lab scientist read on the scintillator lab's clock at the spacetime event corresponding to the muon's creation?
In terms of S, the lab clock read -D/v at event e2, and it reads -D/(vg^2) at event e3. The elapsed proper time in the lab between e2 and e3 is Dv. Do you understand these things?
By the way, based on your confusion over the Frisch experiment, I suspect one of your underlying problems is that you don't understand the proper half-life of an existing muon that was created, say, 5 usec ago. This is probably why you are confused
about when the muons "must have been created" in the Frisch experiment.
how far will the average muon travel before disintegrating?
Ah, here you confirm my diagnosis of the source of your confusion. The question for you is, for an existing muon that was created 5 proper usec ago, what is its expected proper time (from now) to decay?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Bill@21:1/5 to patdolan on Sat Sep 2 00:57:06 2023
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 10:47:24 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
Let S and S' denote standard inertial coordinate systems in which the lab and the muon in flight are at rest, respectively. Four relevant events - among infinitely many - that you might be interested in are the muon's creation event e1, the lab event
e2 simultaneous with e1 in terms of S, the lab event e3 simultaneous with e1 in terms of S', and the collision event e4. In terms of S the height of the muon at creation is D = (2.2)(vg) where g = 1/sqrt(1-v^2). This is the magnitude of the interval from
e1 to e2.

1) What did the muon calculate its proper altitude above the earth to be at the spacetime event corresponding to its creation?
Again, muon's don't calculate things, and even if they did, it would be irrelevant. In terms of S', the spatial distance between the muon and the lab at the time of the muon's creation is D/g. This is the magnitude of the interval from e1 to e3.
2) What did the scientists in the scintillator lab calculate the muon's altitude to be at the spacetime event corresponding to the muon's creation?
As noted above, in terms of S, the altitude of the muon's creation event is D, which in your example is 2.2(vg) light micro-seconds.
3) What did the lab scientist read on the scintillator lab's clock at the spacetime event corresponding to the muon's creation?
In terms of S, the lab clock read -D/v at event e2, and it reads -D/(vg^2) at event e3. The elapsed proper time in the lab between e2 and e3 is Dv. Do you understand these things?

We will get to your ingenious 4-event spacetime scenario in due course.

LOL. Running away as always.

The Frisch-Smith muon data is easily explained...

No, you misunderstand, and the string of words you typed is wrong for the reasons patiently explained to you several times. Again, you won't be able to understand until you can answer this very simple question: For an existing muon that was created 5
proper usec ago, what is its expected proper time (from now) to decay?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From patdolan@21:1/5 to Bill on Sat Sep 2 07:43:12 2023
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 12:57:08 AM UTC-7, Bill wrote:
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 10:47:24 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
Let S and S' denote standard inertial coordinate systems in which the lab and the muon in flight are at rest, respectively. Four relevant events - among infinitely many - that you might be interested in are the muon's creation event e1, the lab
event e2 simultaneous with e1 in terms of S, the lab event e3 simultaneous with e1 in terms of S', and the collision event e4. In terms of S the height of the muon at creation is D = (2.2)(vg) where g = 1/sqrt(1-v^2). This is the magnitude of the
interval from e1 to e2.

1) What did the muon calculate its proper altitude above the earth to be at the spacetime event corresponding to its creation?
Again, muon's don't calculate things, and even if they did, it would be irrelevant. In terms of S', the spatial distance between the muon and the lab at the time of the muon's creation is D/g. This is the magnitude of the interval from e1 to e3.
2) What did the scientists in the scintillator lab calculate the muon's altitude to be at the spacetime event corresponding to the muon's creation?
As noted above, in terms of S, the altitude of the muon's creation event is D, which in your example is 2.2(vg) light micro-seconds.
3) What did the lab scientist read on the scintillator lab's clock at the spacetime event corresponding to the muon's creation?
In terms of S, the lab clock read -D/v at event e2, and it reads -D/(vg^2) at event e3. The elapsed proper time in the lab between e2 and e3 is Dv. Do you understand these things?

We will get to your ingenious 4-event spacetime scenario in due course.
LOL. Running away as always.

The Frisch-Smith muon data is easily explained...

No, you misunderstand, and the string of words you typed is wrong for the reasons patiently explained to you several times. Again, you won't be able to understand until you can answer this very simple question: For an existing muon that was created 5
proper usec ago, what is its expected proper time (from now) to decay?
Legion, you logical fool. It is YOU who does not understand that concealed in that question is the assumption that SR is the correct interpretation of the experimental results.

Here is my answer. Just like a very old German Shepherd of 20 years, a muon that has reached the venerable old age of 5 usec has done so by stochastic chance.

The majority of the FSX muon disintegration blips (350 out of 568) occurs between a fraction of a usec and 2 usecs. This is consistent with those muons being created within atmospheric layer that lies between the summit of Mt. Washington and 2,200 feet
above the summit. The other 200 disintegration blips are long-lived stochastic outliers also created in said layer. When you protest "That's a lot of outliers" I retort that just as many short-lived outliers were created in said layer. But they did
not live long enough to make it down to the summit. Now do you understand?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From patdolan@21:1/5 to patdolan on Sat Sep 2 07:47:52 2023
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 7:43:15 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 12:57:08 AM UTC-7, Bill wrote:
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 10:47:24 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
Let S and S' denote standard inertial coordinate systems in which the lab and the muon in flight are at rest, respectively. Four relevant events - among infinitely many - that you might be interested in are the muon's creation event e1, the lab
event e2 simultaneous with e1 in terms of S, the lab event e3 simultaneous with e1 in terms of S', and the collision event e4. In terms of S the height of the muon at creation is D = (2.2)(vg) where g = 1/sqrt(1-v^2). This is the magnitude of the
interval from e1 to e2.

1) What did the muon calculate its proper altitude above the earth to be at the spacetime event corresponding to its creation?
Again, muon's don't calculate things, and even if they did, it would be irrelevant. In terms of S', the spatial distance between the muon and the lab at the time of the muon's creation is D/g. This is the magnitude of the interval from e1 to e3.
2) What did the scientists in the scintillator lab calculate the muon's altitude to be at the spacetime event corresponding to the muon's creation?
As noted above, in terms of S, the altitude of the muon's creation event is D, which in your example is 2.2(vg) light micro-seconds.
3) What did the lab scientist read on the scintillator lab's clock at the spacetime event corresponding to the muon's creation?
In terms of S, the lab clock read -D/v at event e2, and it reads -D/(vg^2) at event e3. The elapsed proper time in the lab between e2 and e3 is Dv. Do you understand these things?

We will get to your ingenious 4-event spacetime scenario in due course.
LOL. Running away as always.

The Frisch-Smith muon data is easily explained...

No, you misunderstand, and the string of words you typed is wrong for the reasons patiently explained to you several times. Again, you won't be able to understand until you can answer this very simple question: For an existing muon that was created 5
proper usec ago, what is its expected proper time (from now) to decay?
Legion, you logical fool. It is YOU who does not understand that concealed in that question is the assumption that SR is the correct interpretation of the experimental results.

Here is my answer. Just like a very old German Shepherd of 20 years, a muon that has reached the venerable old age of 5 usec has done so by stochastic chance.

The majority of the FSX muon disintegration blips (350 out of 568) occurs between a fraction of a usec and 2 usecs. This is consistent with those muons being created within atmospheric layer that lies between the summit of Mt. Washington and 2,200 feet
above the summit. The other 200 disintegration blips are long-lived stochastic outliers also created in said layer. When you protest "That's a lot of outliers" I retort that just as many short-lived outliers were created in said layer. But they did not
live long enough to make it down to the summit. Now do you understand?
Or they were blocked by the iron pile. The Gaussian for muons is quite broad.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From patdolan@21:1/5 to patdolan on Sat Sep 2 07:49:53 2023
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 7:43:15 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 12:57:08 AM UTC-7, Bill wrote:
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 10:47:24 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
Let S and S' denote standard inertial coordinate systems in which the lab and the muon in flight are at rest, respectively. Four relevant events - among infinitely many - that you might be interested in are the muon's creation event e1, the lab
event e2 simultaneous with e1 in terms of S, the lab event e3 simultaneous with e1 in terms of S', and the collision event e4. In terms of S the height of the muon at creation is D = (2.2)(vg) where g = 1/sqrt(1-v^2). This is the magnitude of the
interval from e1 to e2.

1) What did the muon calculate its proper altitude above the earth to be at the spacetime event corresponding to its creation?
Again, muon's don't calculate things, and even if they did, it would be irrelevant. In terms of S', the spatial distance between the muon and the lab at the time of the muon's creation is D/g. This is the magnitude of the interval from e1 to e3.
2) What did the scientists in the scintillator lab calculate the muon's altitude to be at the spacetime event corresponding to the muon's creation?
As noted above, in terms of S, the altitude of the muon's creation event is D, which in your example is 2.2(vg) light micro-seconds.
3) What did the lab scientist read on the scintillator lab's clock at the spacetime event corresponding to the muon's creation?
In terms of S, the lab clock read -D/v at event e2, and it reads -D/(vg^2) at event e3. The elapsed proper time in the lab between e2 and e3 is Dv. Do you understand these things?

We will get to your ingenious 4-event spacetime scenario in due course.
LOL. Running away as always.

The Frisch-Smith muon data is easily explained...

No, you misunderstand, and the string of words you typed is wrong for the reasons patiently explained to you several times. Again, you won't be able to understand until you can answer this very simple question: For an existing muon that was created 5
proper usec ago, what is its expected proper time (from now) to decay?
Legion, you logical fool. It is YOU who does not understand that concealed in that question is the assumption that SR is the correct interpretation of the experimental results.

Here is my answer. Just like a very old German Shepherd of 20 years, a muon that has reached the venerable old age of 5 usec has done so by stochastic chance.

The majority of the FSX muon disintegration blips (350 out of 568) occurs between a fraction of a usec and 2 usecs. This is consistent with those muons being created within atmospheric layer that lies between the summit of Mt. Washington and 2,200 feet
above the summit. The other 200 disintegration blips are long-lived stochastic outliers also created in said layer. When you protest "That's a lot of outliers" I retort that just as many short-lived outliers were created in said layer. But they did not
live long enough to make it down to the summit. Now do you understand?
Or the short-lived outliers were blocked by the iron pile before making it to the iron pile. The Gaussian for muons is quite broad.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From patdolan@21:1/5 to patdolan on Sat Sep 2 07:52:39 2023
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 7:43:15 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 12:57:08 AM UTC-7, Bill wrote:
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 10:47:24 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
Let S and S' denote standard inertial coordinate systems in which the lab and the muon in flight are at rest, respectively. Four relevant events - among infinitely many - that you might be interested in are the muon's creation event e1, the lab
event e2 simultaneous with e1 in terms of S, the lab event e3 simultaneous with e1 in terms of S', and the collision event e4. In terms of S the height of the muon at creation is D = (2.2)(vg) where g = 1/sqrt(1-v^2). This is the magnitude of the
interval from e1 to e2.

1) What did the muon calculate its proper altitude above the earth to be at the spacetime event corresponding to its creation?
Again, muon's don't calculate things, and even if they did, it would be irrelevant. In terms of S', the spatial distance between the muon and the lab at the time of the muon's creation is D/g. This is the magnitude of the interval from e1 to e3.
2) What did the scientists in the scintillator lab calculate the muon's altitude to be at the spacetime event corresponding to the muon's creation?
As noted above, in terms of S, the altitude of the muon's creation event is D, which in your example is 2.2(vg) light micro-seconds.
3) What did the lab scientist read on the scintillator lab's clock at the spacetime event corresponding to the muon's creation?
In terms of S, the lab clock read -D/v at event e2, and it reads -D/(vg^2) at event e3. The elapsed proper time in the lab between e2 and e3 is Dv. Do you understand these things?

We will get to your ingenious 4-event spacetime scenario in due course.
LOL. Running away as always.

The Frisch-Smith muon data is easily explained...

No, you misunderstand, and the string of words you typed is wrong for the reasons patiently explained to you several times. Again, you won't be able to understand until you can answer this very simple question: For an existing muon that was created 5
proper usec ago, what is its expected proper time (from now) to decay?
Legion, you logical fool. It is YOU who does not understand that concealed in that question is the assumption that SR is the correct interpretation of the experimental results.

Here is my answer. Just like a very old German Shepherd of 20 years, a muon that has reached the venerable old age of 5 usec has done so by stochastic chance.

The majority of the FSX muon disintegration blips (350 out of 568) occurs between a fraction of a usec and 2 usecs. This is consistent with those muons being created within atmospheric layer that lies between the summit of Mt. Washington and 2,200 feet
above the summit. The other 200 disintegration blips are long-lived stochastic outliers also created in said layer. When you protest "That's a lot of outliers" I retort that just as many short-lived outliers were created in said layer. But they did not
live long enough to make it down to the summit. Now do you understand?

Or the short-lived outliers were blocked by the iron pile before making it to the scintillator. The Gaussian for muons is quite broad.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From patdolan@21:1/5 to patdolan on Sat Sep 2 08:28:29 2023
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 7:52:42 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 7:43:15 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 12:57:08 AM UTC-7, Bill wrote:
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 10:47:24 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
Let S and S' denote standard inertial coordinate systems in which the lab and the muon in flight are at rest, respectively. Four relevant events - among infinitely many - that you might be interested in are the muon's creation event e1, the lab
event e2 simultaneous with e1 in terms of S, the lab event e3 simultaneous with e1 in terms of S', and the collision event e4. In terms of S the height of the muon at creation is D = (2.2)(vg) where g = 1/sqrt(1-v^2). This is the magnitude of the
interval from e1 to e2.

1) What did the muon calculate its proper altitude above the earth to be at the spacetime event corresponding to its creation?
Again, muon's don't calculate things, and even if they did, it would be irrelevant. In terms of S', the spatial distance between the muon and the lab at the time of the muon's creation is D/g. This is the magnitude of the interval from e1 to e3.

2) What did the scientists in the scintillator lab calculate the muon's altitude to be at the spacetime event corresponding to the muon's creation?
As noted above, in terms of S, the altitude of the muon's creation event is D, which in your example is 2.2(vg) light micro-seconds.
3) What did the lab scientist read on the scintillator lab's clock at the spacetime event corresponding to the muon's creation?
In terms of S, the lab clock read -D/v at event e2, and it reads -D/(vg^2) at event e3. The elapsed proper time in the lab between e2 and e3 is Dv. Do you understand these things?

We will get to your ingenious 4-event spacetime scenario in due course.
LOL. Running away as always.

The Frisch-Smith muon data is easily explained...

No, you misunderstand, and the string of words you typed is wrong for the reasons patiently explained to you several times. Again, you won't be able to understand until you can answer this very simple question: For an existing muon that was created
5 proper usec ago, what is its expected proper time (from now) to decay?
Legion, you logical fool. It is YOU who does not understand that concealed in that question is the assumption that SR is the correct interpretation of the experimental results.

Here is my answer. Just like a very old German Shepherd of 20 years, a muon that has reached the venerable old age of 5 usec has done so by stochastic chance.

The majority of the FSX muon disintegration blips (350 out of 568) occurs between a fraction of a usec and 2 usecs. This is consistent with those muons being created within atmospheric layer that lies between the summit of Mt. Washington and 2,200
feet above the summit. The other 200 disintegration blips are long-lived stochastic outliers also created in said layer. When you protest "That's a lot of outliers" I retort that just as many short-lived outliers were created in said layer. But they did
not live long enough to make it down to the summit. Now do you understand?
Or the short-lived outliers were blocked by the iron pile before making it to the scintillator. The Gaussian for muons is quite broad.
I move that this forum vote yet again on the whose muon narrative, Legion's or mine, is more believe...wait!...I change the question on which to vote...

I rise to request that this forum vote on the following question: whose muon narrative, Frisch-Smith's or mine, requires the fewest assumptions about the FSX data?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Bill@21:1/5 to patdolan on Sat Sep 2 08:38:44 2023
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 7:43:15 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
Let S and S' denote standard inertial coordinate systems in which the lab and the muon in flight are at rest, respectively. Four relevant events - among infinitely many - that you might be interested in are the muon's creation event e1, the lab
event e2 simultaneous with e1 in terms of S, the lab event e3 simultaneous with e1 in terms of S', and the collision event e4. In terms of S the height of the muon at creation is D = (2.2)(vg) where g = 1/sqrt(1-v^2). This is the magnitude of the
interval from e1 to e2.

1) What did the muon calculate its proper altitude above the earth to be at the spacetime event corresponding to its creation?
Again, muon's don't calculate things, and even if they did, it would be irrelevant. In terms of S', the spatial distance between the muon and the lab at the time of the muon's creation is D/g. This is the magnitude of the interval from e1 to e3.
2) What did the scientists in the scintillator lab calculate the muon's altitude to be at the spacetime event corresponding to the muon's creation?
As noted above, in terms of S, the altitude of the muon's creation event is D, which in your example is 2.2(vg) light micro-seconds.
3) What did the lab scientist read on the scintillator lab's clock at the spacetime event corresponding to the muon's creation?
In terms of S, the lab clock read -D/v at event e2, and it reads -D/(vg^2) at event e3. The elapsed proper time in the lab between e2 and e3 is Dv. Do you understand these things?

We will get to your ingenious 4-event spacetime scenario in due course.
LOL. Running away as always.

Still running.

On May 13 , patdolan wrote:
I'll respond later. I am dead tired after a day of razor clamming on the coast.

That was May 13, which was 110 days ago. Here we are on Day 111 of your recuperation from the clamming, and still no answer.

For an existing muon (say, at rest in a given frame) that was created 5 usec
ago, what is its expected time (from now) to decay?

Just like a very old German Shepherd of 20 years, a muon that has reached the
venerable old age of 5 usec has done so by stochastic chance.

So, the answer to the question would be.... ? (Day 3 for this one.)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From patdolan@21:1/5 to Bill on Sat Sep 2 08:54:17 2023
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 8:38:47 AM UTC-7, Bill wrote:
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 7:43:15 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
Let S and S' denote standard inertial coordinate systems in which the lab and the muon in flight are at rest, respectively. Four relevant events - among infinitely many - that you might be interested in are the muon's creation event e1, the lab
event e2 simultaneous with e1 in terms of S, the lab event e3 simultaneous with e1 in terms of S', and the collision event e4. In terms of S the height of the muon at creation is D = (2.2)(vg) where g = 1/sqrt(1-v^2). This is the magnitude of the
interval from e1 to e2.

1) What did the muon calculate its proper altitude above the earth to be at the spacetime event corresponding to its creation?
Again, muon's don't calculate things, and even if they did, it would be irrelevant. In terms of S', the spatial distance between the muon and the lab at the time of the muon's creation is D/g. This is the magnitude of the interval from e1 to e3.

2) What did the scientists in the scintillator lab calculate the muon's altitude to be at the spacetime event corresponding to the muon's creation?
As noted above, in terms of S, the altitude of the muon's creation event is D, which in your example is 2.2(vg) light micro-seconds.
3) What did the lab scientist read on the scintillator lab's clock at the spacetime event corresponding to the muon's creation?
In terms of S, the lab clock read -D/v at event e2, and it reads -D/(vg^2) at event e3. The elapsed proper time in the lab between e2 and e3 is Dv. Do you understand these things?

We will get to your ingenious 4-event spacetime scenario in due course.
LOL. Running away as always.
Still running.

On May 13 , patdolan wrote:
I'll respond later. I am dead tired after a day of razor clamming on the coast.

That was May 13, which was 110 days ago. Here we are on Day 111 of your recuperation from the clamming, and still no answer.

For an existing muon (say, at rest in a given frame) that was created 5 usec
ago, what is its expected time (from now) to decay?

Just like a very old German Shepherd of 20 years, a muon that has reached the
venerable old age of 5 usec has done so by stochastic chance.
So, the answer to the question would be.... ? (Day 3 for this one.)
Ah! then you refuse to even consider, much less respond to my brilliant answer?

Legion, you have found a way to run away in place.

Clamming season is over until fall. But you knew that, being a local.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Bill@21:1/5 to patdolan on Sat Sep 2 09:28:10 2023
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 8:54:20 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
Let S and S' denote standard inertial coordinate systems in which the lab and the muon in flight are at rest, respectively. Four relevant events - among infinitely many - that you might be interested in are the muon's creation event e1, the
lab event e2 simultaneous with e1 in terms of S, the lab event e3 simultaneous with e1 in terms of S', and the collision event e4. In terms of S the height of the muon at creation is D = (2.2)(vg) where g = 1/sqrt(1-v^2). This is the magnitude of the
interval from e1 to e2.

1) What did the muon calculate its proper altitude above the earth to be at the spacetime event corresponding to its creation?
Again, muon's don't calculate things, and even if they did, it would be irrelevant. In terms of S', the spatial distance between the muon and the lab at the time of the muon's creation is D/g. This is the magnitude of the interval from e1 to
e3.
2) What did the scientists in the scintillator lab calculate the muon's altitude to be at the spacetime event corresponding to the muon's creation?
As noted above, in terms of S, the altitude of the muon's creation event is D, which in your example is 2.2(vg) light micro-seconds.
3) What did the lab scientist read on the scintillator lab's clock at the spacetime event corresponding to the muon's creation?
In terms of S, the lab clock read -D/v at event e2, and it reads -D/(vg^2) at event e3. The elapsed proper time in the lab between e2 and e3 is Dv. Do you understand these things?

We will get to your ingenious 4-event spacetime scenario in due course.
LOL. Running away as always.
Still running.

On May 13 , patdolan wrote:
I'll respond later. I am dead tired after a day of razor clamming on the coast.

That was May 13, which was 110 days ago. Here we are on Day 111 of your recuperation from the clamming, and still no answer.

Still running.

For an existing muon (say, at rest in a given frame) that was created 5 usec
ago, what is its expected time (from now) to decay?

Just like a very old German Shepherd of 20 years, a muon that has reached the
venerable old age of 5 usec has done so by stochastic chance.

So, the answer to the question would be.... ? (Day 3 for this one.)

Ah! then you refuse to even consider, much less respond to my brilliant answer?

You provided no answer. Again, for an existing muon (say, at rest in a given frame) that was created 5 usec ago, what is its expected time (from now) to decay?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From patdolan@21:1/5 to Bill on Sat Sep 2 09:35:38 2023
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 9:28:13 AM UTC-7, Bill wrote:
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 8:54:20 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
Let S and S' denote standard inertial coordinate systems in which the lab and the muon in flight are at rest, respectively. Four relevant events - among infinitely many - that you might be interested in are the muon's creation event e1, the
lab event e2 simultaneous with e1 in terms of S, the lab event e3 simultaneous with e1 in terms of S', and the collision event e4. In terms of S the height of the muon at creation is D = (2.2)(vg) where g = 1/sqrt(1-v^2). This is the magnitude of the
interval from e1 to e2.

1) What did the muon calculate its proper altitude above the earth to be at the spacetime event corresponding to its creation?
Again, muon's don't calculate things, and even if they did, it would be irrelevant. In terms of S', the spatial distance between the muon and the lab at the time of the muon's creation is D/g. This is the magnitude of the interval from e1
to e3.
2) What did the scientists in the scintillator lab calculate the muon's altitude to be at the spacetime event corresponding to the muon's creation?
As noted above, in terms of S, the altitude of the muon's creation event is D, which in your example is 2.2(vg) light micro-seconds.
3) What did the lab scientist read on the scintillator lab's clock at the spacetime event corresponding to the muon's creation?
In terms of S, the lab clock read -D/v at event e2, and it reads -D/(vg^2) at event e3. The elapsed proper time in the lab between e2 and e3 is Dv. Do you understand these things?

We will get to your ingenious 4-event spacetime scenario in due course.
LOL. Running away as always.
Still running.

On May 13 , patdolan wrote:
I'll respond later. I am dead tired after a day of razor clamming on the coast.

That was May 13, which was 110 days ago. Here we are on Day 111 of your recuperation from the clamming, and still no answer.
Still running.
For an existing muon (say, at rest in a given frame) that was created 5 usec
ago, what is its expected time (from now) to decay?

Just like a very old German Shepherd of 20 years, a muon that has reached the
venerable old age of 5 usec has done so by stochastic chance.

So, the answer to the question would be.... ? (Day 3 for this one.)

Ah! then you refuse to even consider, much less respond to my brilliant answer?
You provided no answer. Again, for an existing muon (say, at rest in a given frame) that was created 5 usec ago, what is its expected time (from now) to decay?
Okay, I'll play.

-2.8 usecs. Or 2.8 usecs ago.

And may I request and answer from you? How much lifetime is left for an average man born in the USA 93 years ago?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Bill@21:1/5 to patdolan on Sat Sep 2 10:14:24 2023
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 9:35:40 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
For an existing muon (say, at rest in a given frame) that was created
5 usec ago, what is its expected time (from now) to decay?

-2.8 usecs. Or 2.8 usecs ago.

Huh? The question is, if the muon sitting next to you was created 5 usec ago, and you start your timer right now, what is the expected reading on your timer for the muon to decay? The answer is a positive number (unless you think your timer will be
going backwards).

How much lifetime is left for an average man born in the USA 93 years ago?

Life expectancy is 2.96 years.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to patdolan on Sat Sep 2 11:16:51 2023
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 9:35:40 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 9:28:13 AM UTC-7, Bill wrote:
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 8:54:20 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
Let S and S' denote standard inertial coordinate systems in which the lab and the muon in flight are at rest, respectively. Four relevant events - among infinitely many - that you might be interested in are the muon's creation event e1,
the lab event e2 simultaneous with e1 in terms of S, the lab event e3 simultaneous with e1 in terms of S', and the collision event e4. In terms of S the height of the muon at creation is D = (2.2)(vg) where g = 1/sqrt(1-v^2). This is the magnitude of the
interval from e1 to e2.

1) What did the muon calculate its proper altitude above the earth to be at the spacetime event corresponding to its creation?
Again, muon's don't calculate things, and even if they did, it would be irrelevant. In terms of S', the spatial distance between the muon and the lab at the time of the muon's creation is D/g. This is the magnitude of the interval from e1
to e3.
2) What did the scientists in the scintillator lab calculate the muon's altitude to be at the spacetime event corresponding to the muon's creation?
As noted above, in terms of S, the altitude of the muon's creation event is D, which in your example is 2.2(vg) light micro-seconds.
3) What did the lab scientist read on the scintillator lab's clock at the spacetime event corresponding to the muon's creation?
In terms of S, the lab clock read -D/v at event e2, and it reads -D/(vg^2) at event e3. The elapsed proper time in the lab between e2 and e3 is Dv. Do you understand these things?

We will get to your ingenious 4-event spacetime scenario in due course.
LOL. Running away as always.
Still running.

On May 13 , patdolan wrote:
I'll respond later. I am dead tired after a day of razor clamming on the coast.

That was May 13, which was 110 days ago. Here we are on Day 111 of your recuperation from the clamming, and still no answer.
Still running.
For an existing muon (say, at rest in a given frame) that was created 5 usec
ago, what is its expected time (from now) to decay?

Just like a very old German Shepherd of 20 years, a muon that has reached the
venerable old age of 5 usec has done so by stochastic chance.

So, the answer to the question would be.... ? (Day 3 for this one.)

Ah! then you refuse to even consider, much less respond to my brilliant answer?
You provided no answer. Again, for an existing muon (say, at rest in a given frame) that was created 5 usec ago, what is its expected time (from now) to decay?
Okay, I'll play.

-2.8 usecs. Or 2.8 usecs ago.

And may I request and answer from you? How much lifetime is left for an average man born in the USA 93 years ago?
At least 20 more years if he does planks and/or other exercises targeting core strength. I've been doing planks for four months now and they work wonders.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From mitchrae3323@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sat Sep 2 11:25:44 2023
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 11:16:54 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 9:35:40 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 9:28:13 AM UTC-7, Bill wrote:
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 8:54:20 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
Let S and S' denote standard inertial coordinate systems in which the lab and the muon in flight are at rest, respectively. Four relevant events - among infinitely many - that you might be interested in are the muon's creation event e1,
the lab event e2 simultaneous with e1 in terms of S, the lab event e3 simultaneous with e1 in terms of S', and the collision event e4. In terms of S the height of the muon at creation is D = (2.2)(vg) where g = 1/sqrt(1-v^2). This is the magnitude of the
interval from e1 to e2.

1) What did the muon calculate its proper altitude above the earth to be at the spacetime event corresponding to its creation?
Again, muon's don't calculate things, and even if they did, it would be irrelevant. In terms of S', the spatial distance between the muon and the lab at the time of the muon's creation is D/g. This is the magnitude of the interval from
e1 to e3.
2) What did the scientists in the scintillator lab calculate the muon's altitude to be at the spacetime event corresponding to the muon's creation?
As noted above, in terms of S, the altitude of the muon's creation event is D, which in your example is 2.2(vg) light micro-seconds.
3) What did the lab scientist read on the scintillator lab's clock at the spacetime event corresponding to the muon's creation?
In terms of S, the lab clock read -D/v at event e2, and it reads -D/(vg^2) at event e3. The elapsed proper time in the lab between e2 and e3 is Dv. Do you understand these things?

We will get to your ingenious 4-event spacetime scenario in due course.
LOL. Running away as always.
Still running.

On May 13 , patdolan wrote:
I'll respond later. I am dead tired after a day of razor clamming on the coast.

That was May 13, which was 110 days ago. Here we are on Day 111 of your recuperation from the clamming, and still no answer.
Still running.
For an existing muon (say, at rest in a given frame) that was created 5 usec
ago, what is its expected time (from now) to decay?

Just like a very old German Shepherd of 20 years, a muon that has reached the
venerable old age of 5 usec has done so by stochastic chance.

So, the answer to the question would be.... ? (Day 3 for this one.)

Ah! then you refuse to even consider, much less respond to my brilliant answer?
You provided no answer. Again, for an existing muon (say, at rest in a given frame) that was created 5 usec ago, what is its expected time (from now) to decay?
Okay, I'll play.

-2.8 usecs. Or 2.8 usecs ago.

And may I request and answer from you? How much lifetime is left for an average man born in the USA 93 years ago?
At least 20 more years if he does planks and/or other exercises targeting core strength. I've been doing planks for four months now and they work wonders.

A high kinetic energy is the same particle.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)