<html dir="ltr">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<style>
<!--
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica}
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas}
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline}
pre
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";
color:black}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{font-family:Consolas;
color:black}
span.EmailStyle19
{font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D}
span.BalloonTextChar
{font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";
color:black}
.MsoChpDefault
{font-size:10.0pt}
@page WordSection1
{margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt}
-->
</style><style id="owaParaStyle" type="text/css">
<!--
p
{margin-top:0;
margin-bottom:0}
-->
P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}</style>
</head>
<body ocsi="0" fpstyle="1" bgcolor="white" lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color: #000000;font-size: 10pt;"><style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"ＭＳ 明朝";
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;
mso-font-charset:128;
mso-generic-font-family:roman;
mso-font-format:other;
mso-font-pitch:fixed;
mso-font-signature:1 134676480 16 0 131072 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-1593833729 1073750107 16 0 415 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1107305727 0 0 415 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Cambria;
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1073743103 0 0 415 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-520082689 -1073717157 41 0 66047 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:STIXGeneral-Italic;
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:STIXVariants-Bold;
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"ＭＳ 明朝";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-ansi-language:EN-US;}
span.mi
{mso-style-name:mi;
mso-style-unhide:no;}
span.mo
{mso-style-name:mo;
mso-style-unhide:no;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-default-props:yes;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"ＭＳ 明朝";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-ansi-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:595.0pt 842.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;
mso-header-margin:35.4pt;
mso-footer-margin:35.4pt;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
-->
</style>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;
background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">This is a reply to another thread - but have started a new one
because its is also relevant to another. It is a reply to Al - on relativity and particle decays.<br>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;
background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><br>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;
background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">From John W: …
</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:blue;background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Hi Al, I am quite sure we actually agree in almost every respect. It is only, really, the reality of relative
time as measured in clock experiments and in particle lifetimes – or am I wrong? I have put my contributions this time round in dark blue – my older comments in light blue. I am very interested on ideas of “absolute time” as well – do not get me wrong. I would
also be very interested if any lifetime experiments for certain particles varied by a factor of 2 (if anyone knows anything about these). Sorry the reply has taken a long time – am just ridiculously busy with the day job (which has turned into a bit of a night
and weekend job too). The paper I’ve attached is on perspective in relativity and also has a bit on Wolf’s light-in-the-bottle from the lit at the end. Enjoy.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;
background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><br>
</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";color:#3366FF;background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Al, Albrecht is right. There is no contradiction - just something you need to understand about the symmetry.
You seem to see a contradiction where there is none present. You make some statements as though they are fact which are not fact.<br>
For example you say >>></span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:
Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:#3366FF;background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;
background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">AK: Albrecht is at least ambigious if he doesn't make the distinction
between appearances via projection and ontological modifications via mysterious consequences for "molecular force" and the like. His e-mail, as are mine and everybody else often, was written on the fly. Incomplete. </span><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:#3366FF;
background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">True.</span><span style="font-size:
9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman";background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><br>
<br>
<span style="color:black">"Two entities cannot at once be both be dialted in the other's view and not their own."</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman";color:black;background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">AK: Take note here that I
said "be", not "appear." (Even Einstein always said "appear"!)<br>
<br>
<br>
</span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:#3366FF;
background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Yes they can. Yes they must, it has to be symmetric! Saying something
does not make it true, however sensible it may seem to the sayer. There is no actual dilation. The existence of another entity somewhere has no bearing on the local properties elsewhere. All is as viewed, all is perspective (good word). If this is what you
are on about then we agree.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman";background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">AK: Evidently, we agree (to some extent).
I hold the view (not mine by orignation) that the perspective view-point is self consistent, but that the ontological-modification view-point leads to contradictions
<span style="color:#3366FF">(Agreed). </span>An entity in its own frame cannot BE both long and short. As I recall this is what the logicians call the "Principle of Excluded Middle."</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman";background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman";color:blue;background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Of course not. Just who is
saying it is?</span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman";background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><br>
<br>
</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";color:#3366FF;background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">It seems to me though that is not all those textbook writers that are missing something but you. Both
observers DO see each other clocks running slow.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;
background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman";background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman";background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">AK: No. they see each other's VIRTUAL
image of the other's clock running slow. That makes sense.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman";background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman";color:blue;background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Nope, to say this better imagine
two blind observers: they observe (by listening to the robot voice readout from both clocks) that the clock that has accelerated rapidly moved away for some time, then accelerated and come back, then accelerated to stop and rejoin the first clock has run slow
in the meantime. This is just exactly where Dingle (and Selleri) did not get it. Blinded by logic! Indeed.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman";background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:#3366FF;
background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">The Muon in the muon decay sees the earth as approaching it at
near lightspeed -in its primary stillness and pure stationary state. The Earth it observes is still round - but as round as a pancake. The muon decays in 2.2 microseconds, in its frame, as usual. This layers multiple kilometres into the earth in the earth
frame though. This is because the muon thinks the earth is as flat as a pancake. No contradiction - no problem. If it were two earths colliding, with muons in them, each muon in each earth would see the other earth as flat. Perfectly symmetrically. Both sets
of observers (as their last act in this case) would observe muons to live longer when moving fast in their frame.</span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:#3366FF;background:white;
mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman";background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;
background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">AK: Your assertions, made, as you claim mine are, "ex cathdra,"
are in crass conflict with Terrell analysis of what a relativistic traveler sees. His analysis is nowadays generally accepted by the so-called main-stream even. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;
background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:blue;
background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Glad we are on the same page with Terrel.
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:blue;
background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:blue;
background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Here is his abstract for "Invisibility of the Lorentz contraction"
with red emphasis from me: ...<br>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;
background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"" lang="EN-US">It is shown that, if the apparent directions of objects are plotted as points on a sphere surrounding
the observer, the Lorentz transformation corresponds to a conformal transformation on the surface of this sphere. Thus, for sufficiently small subtended solid angle, an object will
<span style="color:red">appear—optically</span>—the same shape to all observers. A sphere will photograph with precisely the same circular outline whether stationary or in motion with respect to the camera. An object of less symmetry than a sphere, such as
a meter stick, will <span style="color:red">appear</span>, when in rapid motion with respect to an observer, to have
<span style="color:red">undergone rotation, not contraction</span>. The extent of this rotation is given by the aberration angle (</span><span class="mi"><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:STIXGeneral-Italic;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"" lang="EN-US">θ</span></i></span><span class="mo"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:STIXGeneral-Italic;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"" lang="EN-US">−</span></span><span class="mi"><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:STIXGeneral-Italic;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"" lang="EN-US">θ</span></i></span><span class="mo"><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:STIXVariants-Bold;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"" lang="EN-US">′</span></span><span style="mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman"" lang="EN-US">),
in which </span><span class="mi"><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:STIXGeneral-Italic;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"" lang="EN-US">θ</span></i></span><span style="mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman"" lang="EN-US">
is the angle at which the object is seen by the observer and </span><span class="mi"><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:STIXGeneral-Italic;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"" lang="EN-US">θ</span></i></span><span class="mo"><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:STIXVariants-Bold;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"" lang="EN-US">′</span></span><span style="mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman"" lang="EN-US">
is the angle at which the object would be seen by another observer at the same point stationary with respect to the object. Observers photographing the meter stick simultaneously from the same position will obtain precisely the same picture,
<span style="color:red">except for a change in scale given by the Doppler shift ratio</span>, irrespective of their velocity relative to the meter stick. Even if methods of measuring distance, such as stereoscopic photography, are used, the Lorentz contraction
will not be visible, <span style="color:red">although correction for the finite velocity of light will reveal it to be presen</span><span style="color:blue">t</span>.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;
background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:blue;
background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">I have attached the paper. Terrel is, indeed, talking about what
one literally “sees”. As in with vision. Not about what actually happens in the variation of time and space in SR. The last paragraph in the paper (attached) says this explicitly. What he says is that SIZES will not appear Lorentz contracted. They will (appear)
(visually) contracted (or expanded) – but only by a DOPPLER SHIFT. Exactly as I said in the previous emails and in the papers.
<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Also this Doppler shift – as I explain in my papers – is at the root of the reason WHY muons live so long in storage rings. Because everything is made of light-like stuff it is all different sizes in different frames (but
always the same size in its own frame). This is NOT a contradiction – it is just the simple maths of the Doppler shift. Likewise clocks coming towards you will not appear to vibrate slow – but fast. Going away they will look (visually) slow. I know there is
a lot said online in Wikipedia and in textbooks that betrays a lack of understanding of the author as to what is going on. This is perfectly normal. No one understands everything! What is shocking is that it took more than fifty years (and smart people like
Terrel and Penrose) to get this stuff into print explicitly.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:blue;
background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:blue;
background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">The reason one “sees” – (by which I do not mean “look at” I mean
measure or observe) time going slow IS<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>perfectly well understood in standard relativity. I still do not get why anyone has a problem with this (who understands relativity). It is BOTH simply understood in relativity AND
is what you actually measure. The reason is that light in free space travels in straight lines at lightspeed (neglecting gravity) in ALL possible frames. This means anything rod shaped in one frame appears (visually) rod shaped in every frame – by simple projection.
All one sees with eye or photo is a ROTATION. Just as Terrel argues. Martin mentioned this earlier in the “seeing the gunman round the corner” reference. Actually one sees nothing – because humans take a tenth of a second or so to process anything visual so
all one actually “sees” is a rapidly expanding and receding rather small and insignificant planet.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:blue;
background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;
background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;
background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">So, I'd say it pays not to dictate what a muon sees. He doesn't
see a damn thing (or least makes no use of it in the analysis of the decay. </span>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;
background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:blue;
background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">True: poor muon is not one of the most gifted visual entities! This
shows why and how we have been talking at cross-purposes. To see or not to see, anyone? Anyway – everyone knows that muons are she’s –its gotta be anti-muons that are the boys.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;
background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;
background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> And, if he did "see" the Earth approaching, it would have to be
(as we just agreed) a virtual image.) </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;
background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:blue;
background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">No: this is merely vision, not the underlying reality.
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;
background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;
background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> I argue that the analysis of the muon story is a "dog's breakfast"
of both some valid and mostly rejected (as being not from perspective-viewpoint) SR folklore notions. A direct out from this situation would be to show that the ensemble of muon generation events is actually distributed down stream from the presumed (never
observed) source location.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;
background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:blue;
background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">This out is (kind of) available for atmospheric muon experiments,
but not for lab-created or other particles where both creation and decay ARE observed. The simple fact is that the slightly straighter paths (fractionally closer to lightspeed) do go tens or hundred of times further. There is no out. However much you may want
it. It is not a conspiracy of silence on these experiments. I know. I have done them myself. Thousands and thousands of them. I analysed the biggest dataset in the world at the time on the worlds most powerful (then) computer. Short-lived hadronic particles
do go for metres when they usually decay in nanoseconds. They just do.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>Even light only goes a foot in a nanosecond – so how do they do that then? Relativity of time and space does explain this. If there is another theory which does I am happy to talk about it – but whatever it is it has to deal with what is observed in
experiment.<br>
</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";color:black;background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><br>
</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";color:#3366FF;background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">This is all symmetric. The base reason (for space and time contraction) is explained in the first of my
two papers to SPIE (where gamma is derived from photon energy transformations E=H nu) , and arises, simply, from the linearity and conservation of energy. It is just derivative of the Doppler shift of photons. Dead simple. Do the maths! You can discard SR
if you like, but you must also lose energy conservation and the relation E=h nu if you do. SR is that relation which maintains energy linearity and conservation of energy for light. Chandra is right: there are some things that are simply more fundamental
than other things. Energy (and hence frequency) is, apparently, more fundamental than space and time scales. You need to get this! Read my paper!</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:#3366FF;
background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:blue;
background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Sorry Al – I was not referring to you in those comments – but to
others in the same thread who appeared to be<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>
wishing SR away.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman";background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman";background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">AK: These comments show that you are
not taking on board what I have actually said.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman";background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman";color:blue;background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">This is certainly true – when
you talked about things actually stretching and contracting I should have realised it was joke.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman";background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman";background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span> I
have never rejected SR. That complex afflicts others, not me. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman";background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman";color:blue;background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Good!</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman";background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman";background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> SR as 4-D space-time projection o 3/2
D is fine, as an agent of the modification of time (which I tend to see as absolute, contrary to clocks) is wild sci-fi!
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman";background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman";color:blue;background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">No. The slowing of clocks
and the long life of short-lived particles is real. It is measured. If you want to say it is sci-fi YOU, have to say why and explain the clock-slowing experiments in an equally convincing way. Sorry, this is the scientific method and it is brutal!</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman";background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman";background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> Symmetry is also to be called upon carefully.
John Bell's string will not break becasue some cosmic ray passes the rocket ship complex with v ~ c. Or, at least, the premise to his story would have to be rejected becasue the string could never be tied, given the profusion of cosmic rays, in the first
place!</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman";background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman";background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">BTW, maths per se cannot confirm some
assertion, just negate it. Can be that the maths coincide for wildly different entities or processes. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman";background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman";color:blue;background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Could indeed be so (and probably
is!).</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman";background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman";background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">ciao, Al</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman";background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman";color:blue;background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Cheers, John W.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>