c=c in all frames-PERIOD! -- are you sick ?
josX
>Indeed not. I offer one example out of hundreds: muon decay.
Yeah? "hundreds" ?
That muon is all you got to hold SR in the air, liar. And it's not
credible evidence at all, it's just a phenomena for which you cannot
show at all that it is such because of timedilation.
--
jos
Richard
Correct jos. The assumption is that muon decay is caused 100% by
internal mechanisms, in which case the Lorentz congregation would have a
point, but in the real world every constituent component of the muon is
in constant interaction with surrounding particles. Greater velocity wrt
the background means that the sub-particles have a greater momentum wrt
the background particles from an FOR at rest wrt the background, and
hence the velocities of the internal components wrt one another are not
interfered with as greatly by the background particles as would be the
case if the muon were at rest wrt the background environment. Are muons
composite particles? Yes, if they were not, then they would not have a
finite lifetime.
Richard
Courtney Mewton
Modern physics has quantifiable predictions given by mathematical
equations. Do you have more than mere prose?
> Are muons
> composite particles? Yes, if they were not, then they would not have a
> finite lifetime.
Muons are not composite particles. They're a heavier version of the
electron, with an even heavier sibling: the tau.
Regards,
CJM
josX
Thanks for being an honest scientist.
I agree with your argument, i would add that there is a lot we don't
know yet, so even if it were a singular particle, there isn't much we
could say about it that would be solid enough to stand the test of time.
Mutual timedilation is irrational, if people can't see that, they sure
are not capable of drawing an argument on the scale they are trying to
wrt muon and SR.
--
jos
Dirk Van de moortel
"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:aktcrt$c0g$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
> Richard wrote:
> >josX wrote:
> >>
> >> Jamieson Christie wrote:
> >> >Indeed not. I offer one example out of hundreds: muon decay.
> >>
> >> Yeah? "hundreds" ?
> >> That muon is all you got to hold SR in the air, liar. And it's not
> >> credible evidence at all, it's just a phenomena for which you cannot
> >> show at all that it is such because of timedilation.
> >> --
> >> jos
> >
> >Correct jos. The assumption is that muon decay is caused 100% by
> >internal mechanisms, in which case the Lorentz congregation would have a
> >point, but in the real world every constituent component of the muon is
> >in constant interaction with surrounding particles. Greater velocity wrt
> >the background means that the sub-particles have a greater momentum wrt
> >the background particles from an FOR at rest wrt the background, and
> >hence the velocities of the internal components wrt one another are not
> >interfered with as greatly by the background particles as would be the
> >case if the muon were at rest wrt the background environment. Are muons
> >composite particles? Yes, if they were not, then they would not have a
> >finite lifetime.
>
> Thanks for being an honest scientist.
josX in the heroic act of Gathering Momentum:
- 5 josX's
- 1 Spacegoof
- 1 Gaasenbeek
- 1 Richard (really Perry?)
That makes a total of 8.
Dirk Vdm
Andy
> have a finite lifetime.
Leptons do not have an internal structure, yet the muon can decay to a
muon neutrion, and electron and an electron antineutrino, through the
intermediate W- boson.
Ironically the proton, a bound state, is much more stable than the muon.
In fact, we haven't actually seen a proton decay, but the lower limit
on its lifetime is ~ 10^25 years.
Andy
Dirk Van de moortel
"Andy" <aosb...@REMOVENOSPAMmail.desy.de> wrote in message news:akteln$7bbuq$1...@claire.desy.de...
> > Are muons composite particles? Yes, if they were not, then they would not
> > have a finite lifetime.
>
> Leptons do not have an internal structure, yet the muon can decay to a
> muon neutrion, and electron and an electron antineutrino, through the
> intermediate W- boson.
Ha, but Richard (apparently Perry), has found the internal structure
of the muon from First Principles. Learn all about it on:
http://www.cswnet.com/~rper/
Dirk Vdm
Richard
Thank you for the spotlight Dick:-)
Suppose you teach us all about it Dick?
Explain to us your reasoning for holding that the muon is not a
composite particle. Have scattering experiments indicated this Dick?
What mechanism is it, do you suppose, that would cause a particle to
spontaneously split into two or more particles? Could it be that it
already is two or more particles Dick? Son-of-a-bitch if I get it Dick,
and I definitely have read the explanations, but son-of-a-bitch if they
are anything but ass-talking. Straight out of the ass Dick.
Richard
Richard
>
> On Sun, 1 Sep 2002, Richard wrote:
>
> > josX wrote:
> > >
> > > Jamieson Christie wrote:
> > > >Indeed not. I offer one example out of hundreds: muon decay.
> > >
> > > Yeah? "hundreds" ?
> > > That muon is all you got to hold SR in the air, liar. And it's not
> > > credible evidence at all, it's just a phenomena for which you cannot
> > > show at all that it is such because of timedilation.
> > > --
> > > jos
> >
> > Correct jos. The assumption is that muon decay is caused 100% by
> > internal mechanisms, in which case the Lorentz congregation would have a
> > point, but in the real world every constituent component of the muon is
> > in constant interaction with surrounding particles. Greater velocity wrt
> > the background means that the sub-particles have a greater momentum wrt
> > the background particles from an FOR at rest wrt the background, and
> > hence the velocities of the internal components wrt one another are not
> > interfered with as greatly by the background particles as would be the
> > case if the muon were at rest wrt the background environment.
>
> Modern physics has quantifiable predictions given by mathematical
> equations. Do you have more than mere prose?
http://www.cswnet.com/~rper
Prove that any of my equations contradict empirical fact.
Any more question smart-ass?
>
> > Are muons
> > composite particles? Yes, if they were not, then they would not have a
> > finite lifetime.
>
> Muons are not composite particles. They're a heavier version of the
> electron, with an even heavier sibling: the tau.
Says who? Did God tell you that, or are you just repeating what someone
else assumed?
This is actually a senseless debate on everyone's part, because our
perceptions of reality, our "simulation" approach, is just that. Neither
side is right or wrong, until a prediction fails to reflect the
empirical evidence. I think that SR is akin to coding a message and then
decoding it back again. No, then again, it is "exactly" that. Have you
ever stopped to think "If I perform a Lorentz transformation on Galilean
values, then in order for the outcome to be correct the input had also
to be correct." Are the Galilean values to be regarded as incorrect
then, seeing that they are in fact a premise of the Lorentz transform?
Richard
Dirk Van de moortel
"Richard" <no_mail...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:3D726B0F...@yahoo.com...
Wasn't Dick short for Richard?
http://www.physics.umd.edu/robot/feynm/millik.jpg
Dirk Vdm
Richard
My aunt was out-voted. Thank God.
Richard
Uncle Al
http://www.xs4all.nl/~marcone/josboersema.html
This URL cures josX infections.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Jan C. Bernauer
Are electrons composite particles?
----
Jan C. Bernauer
Richard
I don't know, nobody does. Scattering experiments have not yet resolved
an internal structure of the electron. And to be quite honest, there is
no logical argument that leads to continued divisibility that doesn't
also lead directly back to the quantum particle. Looks like the electron
is it, so far.
Richard
Richard
Jan C. Bernauer
But smashing electrons together give other particles. How come?
Ok, it愀 not spontaneously, but why can愒 a spontanseously split just
be mass-> energy -> mass ( in form of other particles).
----
Jan C. Bernauer
Richard
Because an em wave cannot be assembled by superposition into the shape
of the em field of a particle, unless of course you are ready to posit
that em waves "do" interact with one another directly.
Richard
Jan C. Bernauer
<no_mail...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Mass+mass -> energy -> masses ok,
but mass -> energy -> masses not ok?
----
Jan C. Bernauer
Dirk Van de moortel
"Richard" <no_mail...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:3D727F8F...@yahoo.com...
Yep, and for that to be posited, one needs Second Principles.
I think josX is currently working on those.
Dirk Vdm
Richard
Not a problem with the quantum/SR definitions of these terms, but then
these aren't mass and energy anymore by virtue of their redefinition,
because mass is m and energy is .5mv^2.
Richard
josX
>Courtney Mewton wrote:
>>On Sun, 1 Sep 2002, Richard wrote:
>>>josX wrote:
>>>>Jamieson Christie wrote:
>>>>>Indeed not. I offer one example out of hundreds: muon decay.
>>>>
>>>>Yeah? "hundreds" ?
>>>>That muon is all you got to hold SR in the air, liar. And it's not
>>>>credible evidence at all, it's just a phenomena for which you cannot
>>>>show at all that it is such because of timedilation.
>>>
They never stop to think, that's the whole problem.
> "If I perform a Lorentz transformation on Galilean
>values, then in order for the outcome to be correct the input had also
>to be correct." Are the Galilean values to be regarded as incorrect
>then, seeing that they are in fact a premise of the Lorentz transform?
Hey Richard, raise the steaks: don't only beat them theoretically (everybody
can do that), beat them so it hurts the credibility of SR seriously in
the public eye. This is no scientific debate, that was won in 1905, it's
about who controls science: lies or truth.
It's a little different take on the debate, but it's huge fun too, and
much more difficult then merely being right.
--
jos
josX
>Courtney Mewton wrote:
>>On Sun, 1 Sep 2002, Richard wrote:
>>>josX wrote:
>>>>Jamieson Christie wrote:
>>>>>Indeed not. I offer one example out of hundreds: muon decay.
>>>>
>>>>Yeah? "hundreds" ?
>>>>That muon is all you got to hold SR in the air, liar. And it's not
>>>>credible evidence at all, it's just a phenomena for which you cannot
>>>>show at all that it is such because of timedilation.
>>>
They never stop to think, that's the whole problem.
> "If I perform a Lorentz transformation on Galilean
>values, then in order for the outcome to be correct the input had also
>to be correct." Are the Galilean values to be regarded as incorrect
>then, seeing that they are in fact a premise of the Lorentz transform?
Hey Richard, raise the steaks: don't only beat them theoretically (everybody
Jamieson Christie
1. I am not sick.
2. I am not a liar.
3. "Phenomena" is plural; the word you want is "phenomenon".
These are your three least serious errors in the above.
Jamieson Christie
> josX wrote:
> >
> > Jamieson Christie wrote:
> > >Indeed not. I offer one example out of hundreds: muon decay.
> >
> > Yeah? "hundreds" ?
> > That muon is all you got to hold SR in the air, liar. And it's not
> > credible evidence at all, it's just a phenomena for which you cannot
> > show at all that it is such because of timedilation.
> > --
> > jos
>
> Correct jos.
Now there's an oxymoron for you.
> The assumption is that muon decay is caused 100% by
> internal mechanisms, in which case the Lorentz congregation would have a
> point, but in the real world every constituent component of the muon is
> in constant interaction with surrounding particles.
"constituent component of the muon"? Such as what? What are these
constituent particles' charge, mass, spin? How do they behave under
parity and charge conjugation?
The Standard Model predicts the muon to be a point particle. I
understand that the Brookhaven g-2 experiment has some new data which
might indicate muon physics beyond the Standard Model. One
possibility is that the muon may have substructure, but at the moment
it is a) speculation without supporting evidence and b) just one
possibility.
If you have better evidence let's hear it.
[snip]
Jamieson Christie
Richard
Au contrair, provide evidence that it is not. Without that its just
ass-talking.
Richard
Richard
I can't speak for jos:-) We both know that he is suffering a few
misconceptions regarding SR, but his gut intuition is at least intact.
Richard
Dirk Van de moortel
"Richard" <no_mail...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:3D7291E4...@yahoo.com...
> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> > Yep, and for that to be posited, one needs Second Principles.
> > I think josX is currently working on those.
> >
> > Dirk Vdm
>
> I can't speak for jos:-) We both know that he is suffering a few
> misconceptions regarding SR, but his gut intuition is at least intact.
Too bad the gut itself obviously is not.
Dirk Vdm
Richard
>
> "Richard" <no_mail...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:3D7291E4...@yahoo.com...
> > Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> [snip]
> > > Yep, and for that to be posited, one needs Second Principles.
> > > I think josX is currently working on those.
> > >
> > > Dirk Vdm
> >
> > I can't speak for jos:-) We both know that he is suffering a few
> > misconceptions regarding SR, but his gut intuition is at least intact.
>
> Too bad the gut itself obviously is not.
>
> Dirk Vdm
But then whatever its parts are doing, they are doing simultaneously:-)
Richard
Spaceman
>Scattering experiments have not yet resolved
>an internal structure of the electron.
Ya,
It's amazing,
they must be smashing the clock to find out "how it works" too!
<LOL>
Electrons are made of smaller parts.
Aren't they?
Or have all these "smart people" just accepted a "vanishing act"
:)
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
http://www.realspaceman.com
Richard
Let's go over the argument one more time James.
If we allow the electron the potential to be subdivided, then what
prevents those subdivisions from being further subdivided. No logic in
the world can resolve a reason for the one to be divisible and the other
to be indivisible, save for allowing one particle division somewhere in
this chain to be the ultimate division. If we allow division ad
infinitum then the constituent particles approach nonexistence in every
sense, which leads back to the original particle being a homogenous
distribution of substance, of which we know nothing more about for all
that effort. The electron is a quantum of existence, a unit of space,
and of matter, and consists of only its field, the field being in turn
for all practical purposes just an alteration to space as perceived by
other particles, i.e. as a component of macroscopic space, if you will.
Richard
Spaceman
>Let's go over the argument one more time James.
Why?
It's sad that you accept math,
yet ignore it's most basics.
NO END OF DIVISION.
sorry you refuse to go further and
not look for the smaller stuff.
It's too bad.
since
simply.
It must be there.
:)
Or..
you got "nothing doing something"
and that has a prob with all of Newtons laws.
and a bit of others too.
Courtney Mewton
You should read some real physics papers -- to learn about the concept of
an abstract. You should summarise your document in a short paragraph.
>
> >
> > > Are muons
> > > composite particles? Yes, if they were not, then they would not have a
> > > finite lifetime.
> >
> > Muons are not composite particles. They're a heavier version of the
> > electron, with an even heavier sibling: the tau.
>
> Says who? Did God tell you that, or are you just repeating what someone
> else assumed?
You seem to assume what they are. Did God tell *you* that?
[snip]
> Have you
> ever stopped to think "If I perform a Lorentz transformation on Galilean
> values, then in order for the outcome to be correct the input had also
> to be correct."
No. Galilean and Lorentz transformations use the same input.
> Are the Galilean values to be regarded as incorrect
> then, seeing that they are in fact a premise of the Lorentz transform?
Galilean transformation is not correct.
Regards,
CJM
Robert J. Kolker
Courtney Mewton wrote:
>
> You seem to assume what they are. Did God tell *you* that?
No, the guys at CERN said so. I assume they did the appropriate
measurements to come to that conclusion. From what I read from the CERN
L3 site, in the context of the Standard Model it is believed that muons
are elementary particles along with some others. Who knows what will be
found 50 years from now. Maybe they will find out what quarks are made of.
Bob Kolker
Courtney Mewton
>
>
> Courtney Mewton wrote:
>
> >
> > You seem to assume what they are. Did God tell *you* that?
>
I think you're reading the wrong thread. I made a similar post that muons
are not composite particles. The above statement I made was directed to
Richard, who claimed that they were composite particles, and accused me
of assuming, and asking me if God told me that.
Regards,
CJM
Richard
>
> >From: Richard no_mail...@yahoo.com
>
> >Let's go over the argument one more time James.
>
> Why?
>
> It's sad that you accept math,
> yet ignore it's most basics.
> NO END OF DIVISION.
> sorry you refuse to go further and
> not look for the smaller stuff.
>
> It's too bad.
> since
> simply.
> It must be there.
> :)
> Or..
> you got "nothing doing something"
> and that has a prob with all of Newtons laws.
> and a bit of others too.
The problem with your view is that if each particle is infinitely
divisible and if there are an infinite number of particles to divide,
then the total number of subdivisions of all particles would be exactly
infinity squared. I just can't imagine what the hell that means James,
can you?
Richard
Richard
I don't think Bob missed that Courtney:-) To both of you:
If, and when, anyone can derive a better reason for a particle to decay,
then I'm all ears. Until then its ass-talk. Hand-waving is not a theory,
nor is it science. If an interaction takes place, then it has a cause,
and if it has a cause then there of necessity is more than one particle
involved. Can you seriously defend your stance against this?
Richard
Stephen Speicher
>
> josX in the heroic act of Gathering Momentum:
> - 5 josX's
> - 1 Spacegoof
> - 1 Gaasenbeek
> - 1 Richard (really Perry?)
>
As someone I am very fond of likes to say, in the long run you
get the kind of friends and enemies you deserve.
--
Stephen
s...@compbio.caltech.edu
Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Richard
LOL:-) I'm still waiting Stephen. Now if you'll stick around, you'll
find that the 7 will come not to like me either, because I won't
hesitate to correct them. I resent being named to the above list, make
no mistake about it, but then you will probably resent the fact that I
have you at the top of the same list. You are all crackpots, and this is
something more than an opinion. I do have the fucking math buddy, argue
with it.
Richard
josX
>Courtney Mewton wrote:
>
>> You seem to assume what they are. Did God tell *you* that?
>
>No, the guys at CERN said so. I assume they did the appropriate
>measurements to come to that conclusion.
Did you also assume they did the appropriate measurements when you
first heard about special relativity and it's postulate-2 ?
Do you feel betrayed ?
--
jos
josX
>Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>>"Richard" <no_mail...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:3D727F8F...@yahoo.com...
>>>"Jan C. Bernauer" wrote:
>>>>On Sun, 01 Sep 2002 15:49:08 -0500, Richard
>>>><no_mail...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>"Jan C. Bernauer" wrote:
>>>>>>On Sun, 01 Sep 2002 14:31:27 -0500, Richard
>>>>>><no_mail...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>>>>>>>>"Andy" <aosb...@REMOVENOSPAMmail.desy.de> wrote in message news:akteln$7bbuq$1...@claire.desy.de...
>>>>>>>>>> Are muons composite particles? Yes, if they were not, then they would not
>>>>>>>>>> have a finite lifetime.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Leptons do not have an internal structure, yet the muon can decay to a
>>>>>>>>>muon neutrion, and electron and an electron antineutrino, through the
>>>>>>>>>intermediate W- boson.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Ha, but Richard (apparently Perry), has found the internal structure
>>>>>>>>of the muon from First Principles. Learn all about it on:
>>>>>>>> http://www.cswnet.com/~rper/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Suppose you teach us all about it Dick?
>>>>>>>Explain to us your reasoning for holding that the muon is not a
>>>>>>>composite particle. Have scattering experiments indicated this Dick?
>>>>>>>What mechanism is it, do you suppose, that would cause a particle to
>>>>>>>spontaneously split into two or more particles? Could it be that it
>>>>>>>already is two or more particles Dick? Son-of-a-bitch if I get it Dick,
>>>>>>>and I definitely have read the explanations, but son-of-a-bitch if they
>>>>>>>are anything but ass-talking. Straight out of the ass Dick.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Are electrons composite particles?
>>>>>
>>>>>I don't know, nobody does. Scattering experiments have not yet resolved
>>>>>an internal structure of the electron. And to be quite honest, there is
>>>>>no logical argument that leads to continued divisibility that doesn't
>>>>>also lead directly back to the quantum particle. Looks like the electron
>>>>>is it, so far.
>>>>
>>>>Ok, it愀 not spontaneously, but why can愒 a spontanseously split just
>>>>be mass-> energy -> mass ( in form of other particles).
>>>
>>>of the em field of a particle, unless of course you are ready to posit
>>>that em waves "do" interact with one another directly.
>>
>>Yep, and for that to be posited, one needs Second Principles.
>>I think josX is currently working on those.
>
>misconceptions regarding SR, but his gut intuition is at least intact.
Richard, i'm sad to learn you talk like this.
What misconceptions, have you not shed your entire brainwashing yet?
Aparently.
Be adviced: i will not hesitate to correct you either, and you might not
grow to like me ;). Is that suppose to impress anyone Richard? Sigh.
--
jos
josX
>Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>>"Richard" <no_mail...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:3D7291E4...@yahoo.com...
>>> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>>[snip]
>>>> Yep, and for that to be posited, one needs Second Principles.
>>>> I think josX is currently working on those.
>>>
>>>misconceptions regarding SR, but his gut intuition is at least intact.
>>
>>Too bad the gut itself obviously is not.
>
Ah <wink wink>, you think relativity of simultaneity is a real concept,
right?
I feel sorry for you, look at the derivation of Einsteins: it sucks, it's
horribly wrong. I ask tens of times for a proof of it in the SRists own
words, but none dare.
--
jos
Spaceman
>The problem with your view is that if each particle is infinitely
>divisible and if there are an infinite number of particles to divide,
>then the total number of subdivisions of all particles would be exactly
>infinity squared. I just can't imagine what the hell that means James,
>can you?
infinity^2
very easy to imagine,
that is what numbers and abstracts are for.
Tell me this,
how many time can you devide 1?
The real answer is "infinite"
so ..
the real limit, could be infinite too.
and technology is our only limit so far.
How many parts come from the elecron after smashed?
just 1?
Just because we can't see smaller stuff.
does not mean it does not exist.
and "when we "measure that stuff is missing"
A bell should go off saying the stuff is too small to see now.
Otherwise you need magical limits using "time" as a cause.
Robert J. Kolker
josX wrote:
>
> Did you also assume they did the appropriate measurements when you
> first heard about special relativity and it's postulate-2 ?
> Do you feel betrayed ?
I know they did. I looked up data on the experiments done.
In the standard model Leptons have no internal structure.
The standard model is supported by experiment.
Bob Kolker
>
josX
>josX wrote:
>>
>> Did you also assume they did the appropriate measurements when you
>> first heard about special relativity and it's postulate-2 ?
>> Do you feel betrayed ?
>
>I know they did. I looked up data on the experiments done.
They did it! Where, when!
1way-1beam-multiobserver-lightspeed-constancy-in-a-vacuum !!!
:)
>In the standard model Leptons have no internal structure.
>
>The standard model is supported by experiment.
huh?
Kolker, answering to if we already landed a man on Mars:
"I know they did, I looked up data on the experiments done."
"We have landed, it was dusty like a desert and we could see Earth."
"We were there and made photographs, and did experiments."
errr, Earth to Kolker ?? :-)
--
jos
Spaceman
>In the standard model Leptons have no internal structure.
>
So,
Leptons are Gods?
<LOL>
Jamieson Christie
> > understand that the Brookhaven g-2 experiment has some new data which
> > might indicate muon physics beyond the Standard Model. One
> > possibility is that the muon may have substructure, but at the moment
> > it is a) speculation without supporting evidence and b) just one
> > possibility.
> >
> > If you have better evidence let's hear it.
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > Jamieson Christie
>
> Au contrair, provide evidence that it is not. Without that its just
> ass-talking.
magnanimous, I provide the overwhelming experimental successes of the
Standard Model as my evidence.
Again, if you have better evidence, I'm willing to hear it.
Jamieson Christie
Courtney Mewton
> Courtney Mewton wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, Robert J. Kolker wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Courtney Mewton wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > You seem to assume what they are. Did God tell *you* that?
> > >
> >
> > I think you're reading the wrong thread. I made a similar post that muons
> > are not composite particles. The above statement I made was directed to
> > Richard, who claimed that they were composite particles, and accused me
> > of assuming, and asking me if God told me that.
>
> I don't think Bob missed that Courtney:-) To both of you:
> If, and when, anyone can derive a better reason for a particle to decay,
> then I'm all ears.
Ah, so your not interested in a correct theory, but what you see as "a
better reason".
> Until then its ass-talk. Hand-waving is not a theory,
> nor is it science.
You're hand-waving.
> If an interaction takes place, then it has a cause,
> and if it has a cause then there of necessity is more than one particle
> involved.
That is an assumption, not a fact.
> Can you seriously defend your stance against this?
Yes. Decay does not imply composite nature. Tell me something: do you
think a neutron has a proton, an electron and an antineutrino locked up
in it? I think not!
Regards,
CJM
Spaceman
>Again, if you have better evidence, I'm willing to hear it.
Are you really willing?
Here it is.
the clock malfunctioned.
That is the evidence that wipes out
SR,GR and QM about "time"
time has not changed.
the clock has malfunctioned.
Time, in science "Does not change rate"
Time as we invented for,
should not change rate or we are no longer
actually trying to count the same "timings"
The evidence is small,
but more powerful than all the crap of (time travel theories)
Any theory that states or uses "time changed rate"
Is solid bullshit.
and has lost science in the aspect of time.
Red shift and Blue shift can not happen if "all see white always".
Bilge
defends his tite once again by stating:
Re: c=c in all frames-PERIOD! -- are you sick ? to usenet:
>Jamieson Christie wrote:
>>Indeed not. I offer one example out of hundreds: muon decay.
>
>Yeah? "hundreds" ?
>That muon is all you got to hold SR in the air, liar.
ears, too. Nobody will deny that region is a vacuum.
josX
Are you saying you finally found your free-space in reality ?
"in josX's head" ?
--
jos