Tom Roberts wrote:
While it is true that muons slow down and lose energy as they
descend through the atmosphere, measurements of energy loss of
relativistic charged particles in matter are consistent with the
interactions having no effect on the _proper_ lifetime of the particle.
This is consistent with theoretical analyses which predict no such
change in _proper_ lifetime. As the muon's velocity relative to earth
gets smaller due to energy loss in the atmosphere, its gamma also gets
smaller, with a consequential reduction in the muon lifetime as measured
on earth.

Note that whenever we say "lifetime" without qualification, we mean
_proper_ lifetime (i.e. the particle's lifetime in its rest frame).

Roberts Roberts some time ago you did not have references and were
unable to explain how the lifetime of muons at rest was measured but
references were given to you Roberts and now I see you are somewhat
more knowledgeable. Now it is time for you Roberts, being the Albert
Einstein of our generation (Hawking is no longer etc.), to explain
why, as muons undergo a terrible crash during which their speed
changes from about 300000km/s to zero, relativists say the muons are
"at rest":

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_thread/thread/5e262a4ce40ed204/0eed30f2c1173a1e#0eed30f2c1173a1e

If you continue to be silent Roberts people might start thinking that
the extremely short lifetime of muons "at rest" is due to the terrible
crash and therefore the respective "proof" of time dilation is just
one of the countless lies produced by Einstein's criminal cult.

[... the usual load of nonsense]

Pentcho Valev wrote:
[... the usual load of nonsense]

See http://pdg.lbl.gov/2006/listings/s004.pdf and references therein.

Tom Roberts wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
[... the usual load of nonsense]

Seehttp://pdg.lbl.gov/2006/listings/s004.pdfand references therein.

Roberts Roberts in the experiment allegedly supporting special
relativity and more precisely the idiocy called time dilation the
lifetime of cosmic-ray muons whose speed is about 300000km/s is
compared with the lifetime of cosmic-ray muons "at rest"; by "at rest"
Einstein criminal cult mean a crash undergone by the muon in which its
speed changes from 300000km/s to zero. And I claim that the crash is
so terrible that the muon "dies" quickly, much more quickly than muons
that have not undergone the crash. Which text in the reference you
give disproves my claim?

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev wrote:
[... the usual load of nonsense]

See
http://pdg.lbl.gov/2006/listings/s004.pdf

Tom Roberts

Pentcho Valev wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
Tom Roberts wrote:
While it is true that muons slow down and lose energy as they
descend through the atmosphere, measurements of energy loss of
relativistic charged particles in matter are consistent with the
interactions having no effect on the _proper_ lifetime of the particle.
This is consistent with theoretical analyses which predict no such
change in _proper_ lifetime. As the muon's velocity relative to earth
gets smaller due to energy loss in the atmosphere, its gamma also gets
smaller, with a consequential reduction in the muon lifetime as
measured
on earth.

Note that whenever we say "lifetime" without qualification, we mean
_proper_ lifetime (i.e. the particle's lifetime in its rest frame).

Roberts Roberts some time ago you did not have references and were
unable to explain how the lifetime of muons at rest was measured but
references were given to you Roberts and now I see you are somewhat
more knowledgeable. Now it is time for you Roberts, being the Albert
Einstein of our generation (Hawking is no longer etc.), to explain
why, as muons undergo a terrible crash during which their speed
changes from about 300000km/s to zero, relativists say the muons are
"at rest":

Tom Roberts wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
[... the usual load of nonsense]

Seehttp://pdg.lbl.gov/2006/listings/s004.pdfand references therein.

Roberts Roberts in the experiment allegedly supporting special
relativity and more precisely the idiocy called time dilation the
lifetime of cosmic-ray muons whose speed is about 300000km/s is
compared with the lifetime of cosmic-ray muons "at rest"; by "at rest"
Einstein criminal cult mean a crash undergone by the muon in which its
speed changes from 300000km/s to zero.

And I claim that the crash is
so terrible that the muon "dies" quickly, much more quickly than muons
that have not undergone the crash. Which text in the reference you
give disproves my claim?

Pentcho Valev

On Jun 2, 11:00 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
[... the usual load of nonsense]

Seehttp://pdg.lbl.gov/2006/listings/s004.pdfand references therein.

Roberts Roberts in the experiment allegedly supporting special
relativity and more precisely the idiocy called time dilation the
lifetime of cosmic-ray muons whose speed is about 300000km/s is
compared with the lifetime of cosmic-ray muons "at rest"; by "at rest"
Einstein criminal cult mean a crash undergone by the muon in which its
speed changes from 300000km/s to zero.

That's incorrect. There are many, many measurements of the muon
lifetime at rest, all of which are in agreement. It is even true that
electrons in atoms have been replaced with muons, and the muonic atoms
watched for over 2000 ns while waiting for the muon to decay. Please
catch up. Technology has moved a bit since you last looked.

Tom Roberts wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
[... the usual load of nonsense]

See http://pdg.lbl.gov/2006/listings/s004.pdf and references therein.

Roberts Roberts in the experiment allegedly supporting special
relativity and more precisely the idiocy called time dilation the
lifetime of cosmic-ray muons whose speed is about 300000km/s is
compared with the lifetime of cosmic-ray muons "at rest"; by "at rest"
Einstein criminal cult mean a crash undergone by the muon in which its
speed changes from 300000km/s to zero. And I claim that the crash is
so terrible that the muon "dies" quickly, much more quickly than muons
that have not undergone the crash. Which text in the reference you
give disproves my claim?

Pentcho Valev

PD wrote:
On Jun 2, 11:00 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
[... the usual load of nonsense]

Seehttp://pdg.lbl.gov/2006/listings/s004.pdfandreferences therein.

Roberts Roberts in the experiment allegedly supporting special
relativity and more precisely the idiocy called time dilation the
lifetime of cosmic-ray muons whose speed is about 300000km/s is
compared with the lifetime of cosmic-ray muons "at rest"; by "at rest"
Einstein criminal cult mean a crash undergone by the muon in which its
speed changes from 300000km/s to zero.

That's incorrect. There are many, many measurements of the muon
lifetime at rest, all of which are in agreement. It is even true that
electrons in atoms have been replaced with muons, and the muonic atoms
watched for over 2000 ns while waiting for the muon to decay. Please
catch up. Technology has moved a bit since you last looked.

You seem to be cleverer than Master Tom Roberts. He can only give
irrelevant references whereas you can make irrelevant comments.

At least [sic] relativity hypnotists [i.e., my contrived cover term that I railroad everything into
that I disagree with, or everything which implies anything that I disgree with, in my point of
view that my intellectual superiority is self-evident, while everyone else is either a dupe,
retard, victim, or victim of entrancement] will never again refer to the muon
The "lifetime of muons at rest" is an obvious fraud.

Pentcho Valev- Hide quoted text -

What's up with this?! How do you even find time to do anything else?
20 articles *a day* in May?!

Tom Roberts wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
[... the usual load of nonsense]

See http://pdg.lbl.gov/2006/listings/s004.pdf and references therein.

Roberts Roberts in the experiment allegedly supporting special
relativity and more precisely the idiocy called time dilation the
lifetime of cosmic-ray muons whose speed is about 300000km/s is
compared with the lifetime of cosmic-ray muons "at rest"; by "at rest"
Einstein criminal cult mean a crash undergone by the muon in which its
speed changes from 300000km/s to zero. And I claim that the crash is
so terrible that the muon "dies" quickly, much more quickly than muons
that have not undergone the crash. Which text in the reference you
give disproves my claim?

Pentcho Valev wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
[... the usual load of nonsense]

Seehttp://pdg.lbl.gov/2006/listings/s004.pdfand references therein.

Roberts Roberts in the experiment allegedly supporting special
relativity and more precisely the idiocy called time dilation the
lifetime of cosmic-ray muons whose speed is about 300000km/s is
compared with the lifetime of cosmic-ray muons "at rest"; by "at rest"
Einstein criminal cult mean a crash undergone by the muon in which its
speed changes from 300000km/s to zero. And I claim that the crash is
so terrible that the muon "dies" quickly, much more quickly than muons
that have not undergone the crash. Which text in the reference you
give disproves my claim?

Roberts Roberts you present yourself as an axpert on muons:

http://www.iit.edu/~bcps/database/search.cgi/Roberts/T/Physics/:/fron...

and yet you cannot explain, without giving irrelevant references,
whether the terrible crash muons undergo as their speed changes from
about 300000km/s to zero could be the cause of their extremely short
lifetime. Shame on you Roberts Roberts.

Pentcho Valev- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dr. Roberts is quick to point to the BNL g-2 experiment when
indeterminant muon production height invalidates the cosmic
muon experiments

but he is not so quick to explain why
the BNL web page not longer speaks of muon decay but
rather a "magic speed" to keep the particle from sprialing
into the wall.

Nothing at all like

Perhaps people at FNAL don't speak to the people at BNL.