Einstein quote, emphasis added

[John Clark]

On Wed, Jun 4, 2025 at 2:40 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote

> Why should I be troubled by inertia? It's easily understood.

On Wednesday, June 4, 2025 at 12:17:40 AM UTC-6 Brent Meeker wrote:

> Then perhaps you can explain why a muon has about 200x the inertia of an electron?  And why inertia and gravity are always proportional? Brent

 

> It's caused by its larger mass, about 200x, compared to the electron.

But WHY is the muon identical with the electron except that it's 207 times as massive and has a half-life of 2.2*10-6 seconds, which is very very long by particle physics standards.  

> The statement of Inertia, what it is, is easy to grasp.

The only reason you don't find inertia to be mysterious is because you're accustomed to it, you have experienced it every moment of your waking life since you were born, so it has become humdrum, hardly worth talking about. But if you had never encountered it before you would find it deeply weird. It's easy to grasp what inertia does, but if you can really grasp why inertia must be the way it is and not some other way then you should stop blabbing on the Everything List and start writing your Nobel prize acceptance speech.  

Read my post about what Richard Feynman's father told his eight-year-old son about inertia, the man wasn't a scientist but he demonstrated deep wisdom. And it's ridiculously easy to come up with unanswered propositions in science, all you need to do is start asking an iterated sequence of why or how questions and very soon you'll hit one. 

John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

df3

[Alan Grayson]

On Wednesday, June 4, 2025 at 5:07:05 AM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:

On Wed, Jun 4, 2025 at 2:40 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote

> Why should I be troubled by inertia? It's easily understood.

On Wednesday, June 4, 2025 at 12:17:40 AM UTC-6 Brent Meeker wrote:

> Then perhaps you can explain why a muon has about 200x the inertia of an electron?  And why inertia and gravity are always proportional? Brent

 

> It's caused by its larger mass, about 200x, compared to the electron.

But WHY is the muon identical with the electron except that it's 207 times as massive and has a half-life of 2.2*10-6 seconds, which is very very long by particle physics standards.  

> The statement of Inertia, what it is, is easy to grasp.

The only reason you don't find inertia to be mysterious is because you're accustomed to it, you have experienced it every moment of your waking life since you were born, so it has become humdrum, hardly worth talking about.

 

No. I never heard about it until I was in college studying physics. Neither is it "humdrum". But it's not a very hard concept to grasp. AG

 

But if you had never encountered it before you would find it deeply weird. It's easy to grasp what inertia does, but if you can really grasp why inertia must be the way it is and not some other way then you should stop blabbing on the Everything List and start writing your Nobel prize acceptance speech.  

You post like an abusive fool. You demanded I tell you if I know what Inertia is, and I did, implicitly. This, of course, doesn't mean I can explain the long half-life of muons. But my question about Relativity is valid, even if you can't understand it, or refuse to do so. The Earth-bound observer calculates the time dilation of moving clocks using the LT, but obviously the muons have no information of that. And yet, their clocks appear to fall in line with that time dilation prediction, resulting in a change in their half-lives. Logically, this is required in order for the speed of light to be invariant. But how and why this occurs physically is a mystery IMO. Same with the muon clock, the existence of which you are sure of, but can't define their physical structure.You can deny these mysteries, and remain a fool. The choice is wholly yours. AG 

[John Clark]

On Wed, Jun 4, 2025 at 10:41 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> You post like an abusive fool. You demanded I tell you if I know what Inertia is, and I did, implicitly.

You can say what inertia does but you can't say why inertia does that and not some other thing.  As I said before, it only takes a few how or why questions before you reach a fundamental mystery. And every correct answer generates a new question. 

 

> This, of course, doesn't mean I can explain the long half-life of muons.

You can't explain how your wristwatch can tell time either, nevertheless you know that it can.  

 

> But my question about Relativity is valid, even if you can't understand it, or refuse to do so. The Earth-bound observer calculates the time dilation of moving clocks using the LT, but obviously the muons have no information of that.

And Newton used equations to calculate how an apple will fall from a tree, but obviously the apple had no information about equations, but the fruit seemed to follow them anyway. The muon is mysterious, but no more so than the apple.  

 

> And yet, their clocks appear to fall in line with that time dilation prediction, resulting in a change in their half-lives.

If a muon was a conscious observer (which I'm almost sure it isn't even though I'll never be able to prove it) the particle would observe no change in its half life. That's because the rate of "proper time", the time an observer sees on his wristwatch, never changes regardless of how fast or slow he's going, or how strong or weak a gravitational field he's in. The observer always sees his wristwatch ticking at one second per second.

> Logically, this is required in order for the speed of light to be invariant. But how and why this occurs physically is a mystery IMO. Same with the muon clock,

Same with your wristwatch. I can't explain how a muon without an internal structure can keep time, and you can't explain why inertia works the way it does and not some other way.   

> the existence of which you are sure of, but can't define their physical structure.You can deny these mysteries, and remain a fool. The choice is wholly yours. AG 

Deny these mysteries?! I've said over and over again that it's ridiculously easy to get to a fundamental mystery because it is an undeniable fact that every iterated sequence of how or why questions either goes on forever or terminates with a brute fact. And it's also a fact that you would be unhappy with either outcome, therefore I fear you are destined to be unhappy.

Wisdom is realizing that some mysteries are more important than others. 

John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

hd'

[Alan Grayson]

On Thursday, June 5, 2025 at 4:56:16 AM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:

On Wed, Jun 4, 2025 at 10:41 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> You post like an abusive fool. You demanded I tell you if I know what Inertia is, and I did, implicitly.

You can say what inertia does but you can't say why inertia does that and not some other thing.  

I can. See comments near or at bottom. AG

 

As I said before, it only takes a few how or why questions before you reach a fundamental mystery. And every correct answer generates a new question. 

 

> This, of course, doesn't mean I can explain the long half-life of muons.

You can't explain how your wristwatch can tell time either, nevertheless you know that it can.  

I do know how it measures time. Not exactly, since I'm not a watchmaker, but generally. AG 

 

> But my question about Relativity is valid, even if you can't understand it, or refuse to do so. The Earth-bound observer calculates the time dilation of moving clocks using the LT, but obviously the muons have no information of that.

And Newton used equations to calculate how an apple will fall from a tree, but obviously the apple had no information about equations, but the fruit seemed to follow them anyway. The muon is mysterious, but no more so than the apple.  

Newton did some curve fitting. Not related to the LT implying the retardation of moving clocks. Do you have a clue which clocks the LT is referring to? AG 

 

> And yet, their clocks appear to fall in line with that time dilation prediction, resulting in a change in their half-lives.

If a muon was a conscious observer (which I'm almost sure it isn't even though I'll never be able to prove it) the particle would observe no change in its half life. That's because the rate of "proper time", the time an observer sees on his wristwatch, never changes regardless of how fast or slow he's going, or how strong or weak a gravitational field he's in. The observer always sees his wristwatch ticking at one second per second.

> Logically, this is required in order for the speed of light to be invariant. But how and why this occurs physically is a mystery IMO. Same with the muon clock,

Same with your wristwatch. I can't explain how a muon without an internal structure can keep time, and you can't explain why inertia works the way it does and not some other way.   

Inertia works the way it does because its negation is caused by external forces such as friction. Once this confusion is overcome, the reason inertia works as it does, is obvious. This doesn't mean I understand everything about inertia other than the basics. For example, I don't know why gravitational and inertial mass are identical..AG 

> the existence of which you are sure of, but can't define their physical structure.You can deny these mysteries, and remain a fool. The choice is wholly yours. AG 

Deny these mysteries?! I've said over and over again that it's ridiculously easy to get to a fundamental mystery because it is an undeniable fact that every iterated sequence of how or why questions either goes on forever or terminates with a brute fact. And it's also a fact that you would be unhappy with either outcome, therefore I fear you are destined to be unhappy.

Your reliance on "brute fact" is just a way to say our theories are complete and no further progress is possible. Why don't you try to explain time dilation? Which clock's time is being dilated? The imaginary clock unseen by an observer? AG