"Why not the muons produced in the laboratory experience the same time dilation and length contraction if their speed was same as that of the cosmic"Particles travelling in Storage Ring Accelerators
ray muons? And if they did, why haven’t we seen the laboratory muons travel
the same 16000 meters as their cosmic counter parts? And if they travelled 16000 meters distance in their life span of 2 microseconds, what would be their speed?
So it is just rubbish all the way down, not even tortoises! The tortoise model of the
universe is much better than relativity." - "Muon’s time dilation | Science versus Truth"
ARE MUONS FROM SPACE HIGHER ENERGY?
"Why not the muons produced in the laboratory experience the same time dilation and length contraction if their speed was same as that of the cosmicNotice to relativistic mathematicians: +.1c would result in + 60 meters.
ray muons? And if they did, why haven’t we seen the laboratory muons travel
the same 16000 meters as their cosmic counter parts? And if they travelled 16000 meters distance in their life span of 2 microseconds, what would be their speed?
So it is just rubbish all the way down, not even tortoises! The tortoise model of the
universe is much better than relativity." - "Muon’s time dilation | Science versus Truth"
ARE MUONS FROM SPACE HIGHER ENERGY?
ARE MUONS FROM SPACE HIGHER ENERGY?
"Why not the muons produced in the laboratory experience the same time dilation and length contraction if their speed was same as that of the cosmic
ray muons? And if they did, why haven’t we seen the laboratory muons travel
the same 16000 meters as their cosmic counter parts? And if they travelled 16000 meters distance in their life span of 2 microseconds, what would be their speed?
So it is just rubbish all the way down, not even tortoises! The tortoise model of the
universe is much better than relativity." - "Muon’s time dilation | Science versus Truth"
ARE MUONS FROM SPACE HIGHER ENERGY?
On 8/26/2023 7:34 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Let's all reconvene on the subject after viewing this:ARE MUONS FROM SPACE HIGHER ENERGY?Wait a minute. You are trying to argue against relativity but you don't
even understand the basics of the cosmic muons? Are you that clueless?
The muons from space are of a higher speed (gamma=10 if I recall). The
lab muons are near stationary.
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 5:02:48 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 8/26/2023 7:34 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
ARE MUONS FROM SPACE HIGHER ENERGY?Wait a minute. You are trying to argue against relativity but you don't even understand the basics of the cosmic muons? Are you that clueless?
The muons from space are of a higher speed (gamma=10 if I recall). TheLet's all reconvene on the subject after viewing this:
lab muons are near stationary.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbzt8gDSYIM
You too Legion.
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 6:13:32 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 6:00:31 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 5:02:48 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 8/26/2023 7:34 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
The best part of the story in my opinion is the costume change when our two heroes descend like Moses from atop Mt. Washington to take up the second half of the video in Cambridge.ARE MUONS FROM SPACE HIGHER ENERGY?Wait a minute. You are trying to argue against relativity but you don't
even understand the basics of the cosmic muons? Are you that clueless?
The muons from space are of a higher speed (gamma=10 if I recall). The lab muons are near stationary.Let's all reconvene on the subject after viewing this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbzt8gDSYIM
Mitch, you replied before finishing the video. I can tell. Because I've been watching it. To be a master scientist you have to be a master story teller. Frisch and Smith are just that. Now finish the video Mitch.You too Legion.Cosmic muons get accelerated to near light speed by what?
and what would give them a preferred direction?
Why do solar prominences fall back?
The muon would slow down by leaving its star gravity.
Mouns are subject to high gravity strength star escape velocity.
If they move near the speed of light they would get
decelerated by leaving a star's high gravity.
Gravity is escape velocity. Gravity leads to a slower
cosmic wind.
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 6:51:53 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 6:33:36 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 6:30:36 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 6:13:32 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 6:00:31 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 5:02:48 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 8/26/2023 7:34 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
goatee who reassembles the iron mass in Cambridge. Richard Hertz may want to look into the possibility that this graduate student had to spent some time on the producer's couch to get that part...just wondering.ARE MUONS FROM SPACE HIGHER ENERGY?Wait a minute. You are trying to argue against relativity but you don't
even understand the basics of the cosmic muons? Are you that clueless?
The muons from space are of a higher speed (gamma=10 if I recall). TheLet's all reconvene on the subject after viewing this:
lab muons are near stationary.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbzt8gDSYIM
My two favorite parts of the relativity classic movie are right at the beginning with the dubbed howling wind on top of Mt. Washington; then the move down the mountain to Cambridge at 25:20. Supporting actors are good too--the graduate student with theThe great fallacy of the video and the entire Frisch-Smith experiment is enunciated at 24:00 of the video.The best part of the story in my opinion is the costume change when our two heroes descend like Moses from atop Mt. Washington to take up the second half of the video in Cambridge.Mitch, you replied before finishing the video. I can tell. Because I've been watching it. To be a master scientist you have to be a master story teller. Frisch and Smith are just that. Now finish the video Mitch.You too Legion.Cosmic muons get accelerated to near light speed by what?
and what would give them a preferred direction?
Why do solar prominences fall back?
The muon would slow down by leaving its star gravity.
Mouns are subject to high gravity strength star escape velocity.
If they move near the speed of light they would get
decelerated by leaving a star's high gravity.
Gravity is escape velocity. Gravity leads to a slower
cosmic wind.
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 6:33:36 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 6:30:36 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 6:13:32 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 6:00:31 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 5:02:48 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 8/26/2023 7:34 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
ARE MUONS FROM SPACE HIGHER ENERGY?Wait a minute. You are trying to argue against relativity but you don't
even understand the basics of the cosmic muons? Are you that clueless?
The muons from space are of a higher speed (gamma=10 if I recall). TheLet's all reconvene on the subject after viewing this:
lab muons are near stationary.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbzt8gDSYIM
The great fallacy of the video and the entire Frisch-Smith experiment is enunciated at 24:00 of the video.The best part of the story in my opinion is the costume change when our two heroes descend like Moses from atop Mt. Washington to take up the second half of the video in Cambridge.Mitch, you replied before finishing the video. I can tell. Because I've been watching it. To be a master scientist you have to be a master story teller. Frisch and Smith are just that. Now finish the video Mitch.You too Legion.Cosmic muons get accelerated to near light speed by what?
and what would give them a preferred direction?
Why do solar prominences fall back?
The muon would slow down by leaving its star gravity.
Mouns are subject to high gravity strength star escape velocity.
If they move near the speed of light they would get
decelerated by leaving a star's high gravity.
Gravity is escape velocity. Gravity leads to a slower
cosmic wind.
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 6:30:36 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 6:13:32 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 6:00:31 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 5:02:48 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 8/26/2023 7:34 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
The great fallacy of the video and the entire Frisch-Smith experiment is enunciated at 24:00 of the video.ARE MUONS FROM SPACE HIGHER ENERGY?Wait a minute. You are trying to argue against relativity but you don't
even understand the basics of the cosmic muons? Are you that clueless?
The muons from space are of a higher speed (gamma=10 if I recall). TheLet's all reconvene on the subject after viewing this:
lab muons are near stationary.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbzt8gDSYIM
The best part of the story in my opinion is the costume change when our two heroes descend like Moses from atop Mt. Washington to take up the second half of the video in Cambridge.Mitch, you replied before finishing the video. I can tell. Because I've been watching it. To be a master scientist you have to be a master story teller. Frisch and Smith are just that. Now finish the video Mitch.You too Legion.Cosmic muons get accelerated to near light speed by what?
and what would give them a preferred direction?
Why do solar prominences fall back?
The muon would slow down by leaving its star gravity.
Mouns are subject to high gravity strength star escape velocity.
If they move near the speed of light they would get
decelerated by leaving a star's high gravity.
Gravity is escape velocity. Gravity leads to a slower
cosmic wind.
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 6:00:31 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 5:02:48 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 8/26/2023 7:34 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Mitch, you replied before finishing the video. I can tell. Because I've been watching it. To be a master scientist you have to be a master story teller. Frisch and Smith are just that. Now finish the video Mitch.ARE MUONS FROM SPACE HIGHER ENERGY?Wait a minute. You are trying to argue against relativity but you don't even understand the basics of the cosmic muons? Are you that clueless?
The muons from space are of a higher speed (gamma=10 if I recall). The lab muons are near stationary.Let's all reconvene on the subject after viewing this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbzt8gDSYIM
You too Legion.Cosmic muons get accelerated to near light speed by what?
and what would give them a preferred direction?
Why do solar prominences fall back?
The muon would slow down by leaving its star gravity.
Mouns are subject to high gravity strength star escape velocity.
If they move near the speed of light they would get
decelerated by leaving a star's high gravity.
Gravity is escape velocity. Gravity leads to a slower
cosmic wind.
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 5:02:48 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
Let's all reconvene on the subject after viewing this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbzt8gDSYIM
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 7:02:02 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 6:51:53 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 6:33:36 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 6:30:36 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 6:13:32 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 6:00:31 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 5:02:48 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 8/26/2023 7:34 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
the goatee who reassembles the iron mass in Cambridge. Richard Hertz may want to look into the possibility that this graduate student had to spent some time on the producer's couch to get that part...just wondering.ARE MUONS FROM SPACE HIGHER ENERGY?Wait a minute. You are trying to argue against relativity but you don't
even understand the basics of the cosmic muons? Are you that clueless?
The muons from space are of a higher speed (gamma=10 if I recall). TheLet's all reconvene on the subject after viewing this:
lab muons are near stationary.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbzt8gDSYIM
My two favorite parts of the relativity classic movie are right at the beginning with the dubbed howling wind on top of Mt. Washington; then the move down the mountain to Cambridge at 25:20. Supporting actors are good too--the graduate student withThe great fallacy of the video and the entire Frisch-Smith experiment is enunciated at 24:00 of the video.The best part of the story in my opinion is the costume change when our two heroes descend like Moses from atop Mt. Washington to take up the second half of the video in Cambridge.Mitch, you replied before finishing the video. I can tell. Because I've been watching it. To be a master scientist you have to be a master story teller. Frisch and Smith are just that. Now finish the video Mitch.You too Legion.Cosmic muons get accelerated to near light speed by what?
and what would give them a preferred direction?
Why do solar prominences fall back?
The muon would slow down by leaving its star gravity.
Mouns are subject to high gravity strength star escape velocity. If they move near the speed of light they would get
decelerated by leaving a star's high gravity.
Gravity is escape velocity. Gravity leads to a slower
cosmic wind.
Another fallacious ingredient to the Frisch-Smith recipe is added to the mix at 28:00 of the video.Smith's bowtie is a clip-on. I had one just like it when I was 6. My parents got if for me for either a wedding or for Easter mass; I can't remember which.
On 8/26/2023 9:00 PM, patdolan wrote:Volney you foolish fool. My link is to none other than the kings of the muons of Mt. Washington: Frisch and Smith! You have heard of them, right? That's YOUR TEAM in action. Dirk first brought my attention to this classic of classic relativity films
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 5:02:48 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
Let's all reconvene on the subject after viewing this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbzt8gDSYIMIf you want us to watch a kookvid, you should at least explain why we
should watch your kookvid, how it supports your claims or at least what
it is about. I can guess from the thread it's in that it likely has something to do with muons, and if you push your kookvid as being useful
it is almost certainly wrong, or, more likely, not even wrong.
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 6:33:36 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 6:30:36 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 6:13:32 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 6:00:31 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 5:02:48 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 8/26/2023 7:34 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Yes, the assumption that laboratory muons would behave like cosmic ones.ARE MUONS FROM SPACE HIGHER ENERGY?Wait a minute. You are trying to argue against relativity but you don't
even understand the basics of the cosmic muons? Are you that clueless?
The muons from space are of a higher speed (gamma=10 if I recall). TheLet's all reconvene on the subject after viewing this:
lab muons are near stationary.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbzt8gDSYIM
The great fallacy of the video and the entire Frisch-Smith experiment is enunciated at 24:00 of the video.The best part of the story in my opinion is the costume change when our two heroes descend like Moses from atop Mt. Washington to take up the second half of the video in Cambridge.Mitch, you replied before finishing the video. I can tell. Because I've been watching it. To be a master scientist you have to be a master story teller. Frisch and Smith are just that. Now finish the video Mitch.You too Legion.Cosmic muons get accelerated to near light speed by what?
and what would give them a preferred direction?
Why do solar prominences fall back?
The muon would slow down by leaving its star gravity.
Mouns are subject to high gravity strength star escape velocity.
If they move near the speed of light they would get
decelerated by leaving a star's high gravity.
Gravity is escape velocity. Gravity leads to a slower
cosmic wind.
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 6:51:53 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 6:33:36 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 6:30:36 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 6:13:32 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 6:00:31 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 5:02:48 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 8/26/2023 7:34 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Not quite, Laurence. But you are on the right track.ARE MUONS FROM SPACE HIGHER ENERGY?Wait a minute. You are trying to argue against relativity but you don't
even understand the basics of the cosmic muons? Are you that clueless?
The muons from space are of a higher speed (gamma=10 if I recall). TheLet's all reconvene on the subject after viewing this:
lab muons are near stationary.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbzt8gDSYIM
Yes, the assumption that laboratory muons would behave like cosmic ones.The great fallacy of the video and the entire Frisch-Smith experiment is enunciated at 24:00 of the video.The best part of the story in my opinion is the costume change when our two heroes descend like Moses from atop Mt. Washington to take up the second half of the video in Cambridge.Mitch, you replied before finishing the video. I can tell. Because I've been watching it. To be a master scientist you have to be a master story teller. Frisch and Smith are just that. Now finish the video Mitch.You too Legion.Cosmic muons get accelerated to near light speed by what?
and what would give them a preferred direction?
Why do solar prominences fall back?
The muon would slow down by leaving its star gravity.
Mouns are subject to high gravity strength star escape velocity.
If they move near the speed of light they would get
decelerated by leaving a star's high gravity.
Gravity is escape velocity. Gravity leads to a slower
cosmic wind.
"Why not the muons produced in the laboratory experience the same time dilation and length contraction if their speed was same as that of the cosmic ray muons?
And if they did, why haven't we seen the laboratory muons travel
the same 16000 meters as their cosmic counter parts? And if they travelled 16000 meters distance in their life span of 2 microseconds, what would be their speed?
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 5:02:48 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 8/26/2023 7:34 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Frisch (apparently no relation to Otto) got his first taste of glory, albeit reflected glory, whilst working on the Manhattan Project at Los Alamos. Frisch learned the lesson that scientific glory in the mid 20th century lie on the path of Relativity.ARE MUONS FROM SPACE HIGHER ENERGY?Wait a minute. You are trying to argue against relativity but you don't even understand the basics of the cosmic muons? Are you that clueless?
The muons from space are of a higher speed (gamma=10 if I recall). TheLet's all reconvene on the subject after viewing this:
lab muons are near stationary.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbzt8gDSYIM
You too Legion.
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 4:34:22 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
"Why not the muons produced in the laboratory experience the same time dilation and length contraction if their speed was same as that of the cosmic
ray muons? And if they did, why haven’t we seen the laboratory muons travel
the same 16000 meters as their cosmic counter parts? And if they travelled 16000 meters distance in their life span of 2 microseconds, what would be their speed?
So it is just rubbish all the way down, not even tortoises! The tortoise model of the
universe is much better than relativity." - "Muon’s time dilation | Science versus Truth"
ARE MUONS FROM SPACE HIGHER ENERGY?Muons IN the lab are AT REST wrt the lab. Dumbfuck.
"Why not the muons produced in the laboratory experience the same time dilation and length contraction if their speed was same as that of the cosmic
ray muons? And if they did, why haven’t we seen the laboratory muons travel
the same 16000 meters as their cosmic counter parts? And if they travelled 16000 meters distance in their life span of 2 microseconds, what would be their speed?
So it is just rubbish all the way down, not even tortoises! The tortoise model of the
universe is much better than relativity." - "Muon’s time dilation | Science versus Truth"
ARE MUONS FROM SPACE HIGHER ENERGY?
On Sunday, 27 August 2023 at 17:32:01 UTC+2, Dono. wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 4:34:22 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
"Why not the muons produced in the laboratory experience the same time dilation and length contraction if their speed was same as that of the cosmic
ray muons? And if they did, why haven’t we seen the laboratory muons travel
the same 16000 meters as their cosmic counter parts? And if they travelled
16000 meters distance in their life span of 2 microseconds, what would be
their speed?
So it is just rubbish all the way down, not even tortoises! The tortoise model of the
universe is much better than relativity." - "Muon’s time dilation | Science versus Truth"
They can't be ATARE MUONS FROM SPACE HIGHER ENERGY?Muons IN the lab are AT REST wrt the lab. Dumbfuck.
REST wrt anything.
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 8:53:06 AM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
On Sunday, 27 August 2023 at 17:32:01 UTC+2, Dono. wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 4:34:22 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
"Why not the muons produced in the laboratory experience the same time dilation and length contraction if their speed was same as that of the cosmic
ray muons? And if they did, why haven’t we seen the laboratory muons travel
the same 16000 meters as their cosmic counter parts? And if they travelled
16000 meters distance in their life span of 2 microseconds, what would be
their speed?
So it is just rubbish all the way down, not even tortoises! The tortoise model of the
universe is much better than relativity." - "Muon’s time dilation | Science versus Truth"
Yet, they are.They can't be ATARE MUONS FROM SPACE HIGHER ENERGY?Muons IN the lab are AT REST wrt the lab. Dumbfuck.
REST wrt anything.
You are supposed to CLEAN the latrines, yet you keep EATING out of them.
They fallaciously assume that ALL muon production occurs at in on band
of atmosphere 12,000 ft above sea level.
It is those muons, created perhaps just above the summit and therefore
too energetic to be stopped...
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 4:34:22 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
"Why not the muons produced in the laboratory experience the same time dilation and length contraction if their speed was same as that of the cosmic
ray muons? And if they did, why haven’t we seen the laboratory muons travel
the same 16000 meters as their cosmic counter parts? And if they travelled 16000 meters distance in their life span of 2 microseconds, what would be their speed?
So it is just rubbish all the way down, not even tortoises! The tortoise model of the
universe is much better than relativity." - "Muon’s time dilation | Science versus Truth"
ARE MUONS FROM SPACE HIGHER ENERGY?Muons IN the lab are AT REST wrt the lab. Dumbfuck.
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 7:49:09 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:films from 1960. Now do as you are told and watch that damned video. Then prepared to defend your two mountain gods and their tablets of stone.
On 8/26/2023 9:00 PM, patdolan wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 5:02:48 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:If you want us to watch a kookvid, you should at least explain why we
Let's all reconvene on the subject after viewing this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbzt8gDSYIM
should watch your kookvid, how it supports your claims or at least what
it is about. I can guess from the thread it's in that it likely has
something to do with muons, and if you push your kookvid as being useful
it is almost certainly wrong, or, more likely, not even wrong.
Volney you foolish fool. My link is to none other than the kings of the muons of Mt. Washington: Frisch and Smith! You have heard of them, right? That's YOUR TEAM in action. Dirk first brought my attention to this classic of classic relativity
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 8:32:01 AM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 4:34:22 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
"Why not the muons produced in the laboratory experience the same timeMuons IN the lab are AT REST wrt the lab. Dumbfuck.
dilation and length contraction if their speed was same as that of the cosmic
ray muons? And if they did, why haven’t we seen the laboratory muons travel
the same 16000 meters as their cosmic counter parts? And if they travelled >>> 16000 meters distance in their life span of 2 microseconds, what would be >>> their speed?
So it is just rubbish all the way down, not even tortoises! The tortoise model of the
universe is much better than relativity." - "Muon’s time dilation | Science versus Truth"
ARE MUONS FROM SPACE HIGHER ENERGY?
But the lab isn't at rest. If the Earth rotates.
Muons can't be stationary.
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 8:23:08 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:level. So, the rate of muon production below 6000 feet is negligible for purposes of this analysis.
They fallaciously assume that ALL muon production occurs at in on bandThe flux of primary cosmic rays (that produce the muons) isn't assumed, it is measured to be about 13 uSv/hr at 60,000 ft, and about 5 uSv/hr at 35,000 ft, and only 0.2 uSv/hr at 12000 ft, and about 0.08 uSv/hr at 6000 ft, and about 0.03 uSv/hr at sea
of atmosphere 12,000 ft above sea level.
they are missing an opportunity.)It is those muons, created perhaps just above the summit and therefore
too energetic to be stopped...
The energy of a muon doesn't depend on how close to the detector it was created. (Cognitive psychologists have lamented the fact that they can't interview a Neanderthal to see if his mental functioning differs from that of modern humans, but I think
On 8/26/2023 10:59 PM, patdolan wrote:from 1960. Now do as you are told and watch that damned video. Then prepared to defend your two mountain gods and their tablets of stone.
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 7:49:09 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 8/26/2023 9:00 PM, patdolan wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 5:02:48 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:If you want us to watch a kookvid, you should at least explain why we
Let's all reconvene on the subject after viewing this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbzt8gDSYIM
should watch your kookvid, how it supports your claims or at least what >> it is about. I can guess from the thread it's in that it likely has
something to do with muons, and if you push your kookvid as being useful >> it is almost certainly wrong, or, more likely, not even wrong.
Volney you foolish fool. My link is to none other than the kings of the muons of Mt. Washington: Frisch and Smith! You have heard of them, right? That's YOUR TEAM in action. Dirk first brought my attention to this classic of classic relativity films
Why do you want us to watch a video which contradicts your claims? I'veWhat did you ask me to do recently, Volney? Tell me immediately!
seen that video before, it's just good science. It's too bad you simply can't understand it. And don't tell me what to do, especially when you explicitly refused to do something I ASKED you to do (even using the
word 'please') recently.
Frisch and Smith state that the muons are traveling one thousand feet per usec.
at between .990c and .995c.
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 3:30:18 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: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
Frisch and Smith state that the muons are traveling one thousand feet per usec.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
at between .990c and .995c.
Again, the flux of primary cosmic rays (that produce the muons) is about 13 uSv/hr at 60,000 ft and 5 uSv/hr at 35000 ft, but only about 0.08 uSv/hr at 6000 ft, and about 0.03 uSv/hr at sea level, so the rate of muon production below 6000 feet isnegligible.
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 6:26:40 PM UTC-7, Bill wrote: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
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 3:30:18 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
Frisch and Smith state that the muons are traveling one thousand feet per usec.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
at between .990c and .995c.
negligible.Again, the flux of primary cosmic rays (that produce the muons) is about 13 uSv/hr at 60,000 ft and 5 uSv/hr at 35000 ft, but only about 0.08 uSv/hr at 6000 ft, and about 0.03 uSv/hr at sea level, so the rate of muon production below 6000 feet is
Legion, you are forgetting all the muons with velocities greater than .995c that pass through the scintillator and don't get caught there. Those were the single blips with no secondary "disintegration" blip within the 9 usec. o-scope scan window. Smithdialed those blips off to the left of the o-scope screen, remember? It is those pass throughs--hundreds of times more of them than the catches--that show up at sea level in Cambridge.
An honest experimenter would have had Goatee continue to stack iron until there were no more pass-throughs. Only catches. Smith and Frisch are too dead to respond to my charge. So you do it, Legion. You have done physical experiments, used an o-scope,etc. haven't you?
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 outFrisch 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
You are forgetting all the muons with velocities greater than .995c that pass
through the scintillator and don't get caught there.
On Sunday, 27 August 2023 at 17:32:01 UTC+2, Dono. wrote:The quote has the muons moving 600 feet in the accelerator.
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 4:34:22 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
"Why not the muons produced in the laboratory experience the same time dilation and length contraction if their speed was same as that of the cosmic
ray muons? And if they did, why haven’t we seen the laboratory muons travel
the same 16000 meters as their cosmic counter parts? And if they travelled
16000 meters distance in their life span of 2 microseconds, what would be
their speed?
So it is just rubbish all the way down, not even tortoises! The tortoise model of the
universe is much better than relativity." - "Muon’s time dilation | Science versus Truth"
They are quantum particles, dumbfuck. They can't be ATARE MUONS FROM SPACE HIGHER ENERGY?Muons IN the lab are AT REST wrt the lab. Dumbfuck.
REST wrt anything.
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 6:00:31 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 5:02:48 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 8/26/2023 7:34 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
dark veil that obscured the truth, lo so many years now.ARE MUONS FROM SPACE HIGHER ENERGY?Wait a minute. You are trying to argue against relativity but you don't even understand the basics of the cosmic muons? Are you that clueless?
The muons from space are of a higher speed (gamma=10 if I recall). The lab muons are near stationary.Let's all reconvene on the subject after viewing this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbzt8gDSYIM
You too Legion.Frisch (apparently no relation to Otto) got his first taste of glory, albeit reflected glory, whilst working on the Manhattan Project at Los Alamos. Frisch learned the lesson that scientific glory in the mid 20th century lie on the path of Relativity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_H._Frisch
Frisch immediately set out to fight his way to the top of the relativistic rat pack. He found the acme of his glory in the 35 minute 1963 relativity thriller "The Muons of Mt. Washington"
Frisch's co-star, the bowtie-wearing Prof. James H. Smith, didn't even rate a wiki page. Here's his 2008 obit in which he is still wearing that damned clip-on bowtie
https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/news-gazette/name/james-smith-obituary?id=29108291
I wonder if these two tricksters ever scrupled at the millions of young men like Dono, Dirk and the others in this forum whom they condemned to a lifetime of relativistic darkness with their fabricated chicanery. I at least, was able to penetrate their
I am indebted to Dirk who brought the film to my attention many years ago.1963 was when the relativists and astronomers joined forces.
On 8/27/2023 2:30 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 8:32:01 AM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 4:34:22 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
"Why not the muons produced in the laboratory experience the same time >>> dilation and length contraction if their speed was same as that of the cosmicMuons IN the lab are AT REST wrt the lab. Dumbfuck.
ray muons? And if they did, why haven’t we seen the laboratory muons travel
the same 16000 meters as their cosmic counter parts? And if they travelled
16000 meters distance in their life span of 2 microseconds, what would be
their speed?
So it is just rubbish all the way down, not even tortoises! The tortoise model of the
universe is much better than relativity." - "Muon’s time dilation | Science versus Truth"
ARE MUONS FROM SPACE HIGHER ENERGY?
But the lab isn't at rest. If the Earth rotates.You and the toilet licker just don't get it, Roy. As Tom R. has pointed
Muons can't be stationary.
out several times, minor effects like from the earth's rotation, gravity
and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle are so small that the muons are
at rest to less than other uncertainties.
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 6:49:30 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: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
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
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.You are forgetting all the muons with velocities greater than .995c that passNo, 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
through the scintillator and don't get caught there.
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 7:18:20 PM UTC-7, Bill wrote: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
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 6:49:30 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
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.You are forgetting all the muons with velocities greater than .995c that passNo, 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
through the scintillator and don't get caught there.
The iron depth recalibration for sea level is obviously wrong. We know this because of the 400+ counts at sea level for which no control is designed into the experiment. The obvious choice by honest experimentalists would be to add iron on top of Mt.Washington to where there are no more "got-aways". Then recalibrate the aforementioned iron pile to the anticipated sea level conditions. If it is found that there are got-aways at sea level then there is something wrong in their experimental assumptions.
Instead, these two confirmation-biased-mad, fame-thirsty tricksters probably tinkered with the iron pile for months trying to get their numbers right in anticipation of becoming movie stars. Don't believe me? Then read the last para of their paper:From a forensic standpoint, the key to sussing out the grift in this meretricious experiment lies in the iron pile depth and the multi-layer cake scintillator depth. Viewers will recall that Smith and his menacing vial of optical oil begin the film
https://d1b10bmlvqabco.cloudfront.net/attach/j6wg9vo05d118z/hjzs14rvhz419k/j7jdyxbbpuwu/AJPpaperMuMesons.pdf
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.
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 7:18:20 PM UTC-7, Bill wrote: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
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 6:49:30 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
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.
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
The iron depth recalibration for sea level is obviously wrong.
We know this because of the 400+ counts at sea level for which no control is designed into the experiment.
The obvious
choice by honest experimentalists would be to add iron on top of Mt. Washington to where there are no more "got-aways".
Then recalibrate the aforementioned iron pile to the anticipated sea level conditions.
If it is found that there are got-aways at sea level then there is something wrong in their experimental assumptions.
Instead, these two confirmation-biased-mad, fame-thirsty tricksters probably tinkered with the iron pile for months trying to get their numbers right in anticipation of becoming movie stars.
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.
On Sunday, 27 August 2023 at 21:08:23 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
On 8/27/2023 2:30 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 8:32:01 AM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:You and the toilet licker just don't get it, Roy. As Tom R. has pointed
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 4:34:22 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
"Why not the muons produced in the laboratory experience the same time >>>>> dilation and length contraction if their speed was same as that of the cosmicMuons IN the lab are AT REST wrt the lab. Dumbfuck.
ray muons? And if they did, why haven’t we seen the laboratory muons travel
the same 16000 meters as their cosmic counter parts? And if they travelled
16000 meters distance in their life span of 2 microseconds, what would be >>>>> their speed?
So it is just rubbish all the way down, not even tortoises! The tortoise model of the
universe is much better than relativity." - "Muon’s time dilation | Science versus Truth"
ARE MUONS FROM SPACE HIGHER ENERGY?
But the lab isn't at rest. If the Earth rotates.
Muons can't be stationary.
out several times, minor effects like from the earth's rotation, gravity
and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle are so small that the muons are
at rest to less than other uncertainties.
While it's obvious that "laws of nature" invented
by an idiot physicist only apply when it's comfortable
On 8/28/2023 6:33 AM, patdolan wrote:
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 7:18:20 PM UTC-7, Bill wrote:
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 6:49:30 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.
The word "obviously" doesn't belong in physics.
We know this because of the 400+ counts at sea level for which no
control is designed into the experiment.
The "control" is the counts w/iron at the top of Mt. Washington.
The obvious
There's that word again!
choice by honest experimentalists would be to add iron on top of Mt.
Washington to where there are no more "got-aways".
That's not the purpose of the iron. The purpose is to filter for muons
of a specific energy, corresponding to speeds of between .990c and
.995c. That was explained at the beginning if I recall.
Then recalibrate the aforementioned iron pile to the anticipated sea
level conditions.
The amount of iron *is* already calibrated to make the mountaintop and
sea level conditions equivalent.
If it is found that there are got-aways at sea level then there is
something wrong in their experimental assumptions.
No, there isn't, since that's not the purpose. They did not want the
muons with more than .995c energy equivalent. You missed something.
Instead, these two confirmation-biased-mad, fame-thirsty tricksters
probably tinkered with the iron pile for months trying to get their
numbers right in anticipation of becoming movie stars.
The word "probably" should 'probably' :-) be included along with 'obviously'.
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.
What do you mean? They do things like that all the time. They use iron
block filters in muon generators to create muons of specific energies.
On 8/28/2023 6:33 AM, patdolan wrote: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
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 7:18:20 PM UTC-7, Bill wrote:
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 6:49:30 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
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.
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
The iron depth recalibration for sea level is obviously wrong.The word "obviously" doesn't belong in physics.
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 outFrisch 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
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.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
The iron depth recalibration for sea level is obviously wrong.
honest experimentalists would add iron on top of Mt. Washington to
where there are no more "got-aways".
[The experimenters] probably tinkered with the iron pile for months trying to get
their numbers right...
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.
On Monday, 28 August 2023 at 21:20:39 UTC+2, Bill wrote:for the slowing of the air mass, i.e., it requires us not to be ignorant of this aspect of particle behavior.
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
Bullshit. Your idiot guru has defined time asI think this comment is precisely to the point because if it was not photons that were claimed to time dilate but time itself. If photons dilated, they would arrive late, just as the astronaut twin arrived only after the Earth twin had grown old.
"what clocks indicate", and his description of
his "time dilation" idiocy had nothing to do
with any particles.
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 compensatingfor the slowing of the air mass, i.e., it requires us not to be ignorant of this aspect of particle behavior.
On Monday, 28 August 2023 at 21:20:39 UTC+2, Bill wrote:for the slowing of the air mass, i.e., it requires us not to be ignorant of this aspect of particle behavior.
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
Bullshit. Your idiot guru has defined time asRelativity needs time itself to dilate, not just muons, lithium ions, or photons. So you are exactly right.
"what clocks indicate", and his description of
his "time dilation" idiocy had nothing to do
with any particles.
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 12:30:27 PM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote:compensating for the slowing of the air mass, i.e., it requires us not to be ignorant of this aspect of particle behavior.
On Monday, 28 August 2023 at 21:20:39 UTC+2, Bill wrote:
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
Bullshit. Your idiot guru has defined time asRelativity needs time itself to dilate, not just muons, lithium ions, or photons. So you are exactly right.
"what clocks indicate", and his description of
his "time dilation" idiocy had nothing to do
with any particles.
On Monday, 28 August 2023 at 22:06:37 UTC+2, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:compensating for the slowing of the air mass, i.e., it requires us not to be ignorant of this aspect of particle behavior.
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 12:30:27 PM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
On Monday, 28 August 2023 at 21:20:39 UTC+2, Bill wrote:
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
They need time dilation to keep light speed allegedly at c but they can't prove time dilation.Relativity needs us ("we're FORCED!!!! The BEST WAY!!!")Bullshit. Your idiot guru has defined time asRelativity needs time itself to dilate, not just muons, lithium ions, or photons. So you are exactly right.
"what clocks indicate", and his description of
his "time dilation" idiocy had nothing to do
with any particles.
to stop synchronizing our clocks - for the sake of
a mad vision of some idiots believing that it's
somehow "proper".
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 3:33:22 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: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
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
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.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
for the slowing of the air mass, i.e., it requires us not to be ignorant of this aspect of particle behavior.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 toHuh? 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
where there are no more "got-aways".
daylight for any knowledgeable person to check. My goodness, you objection comes down to "the bastards probably falsified the results".[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
And as is the case with Eddington an his bent starlight, so too with the FSX: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.
no one has ever been able to duplicate their results.
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 pointFrisch 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
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.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
for the slowing of the air mass, i.e., it requires us not to be ignorant of this aspect of particle behavior.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
daylight for any knowledgeable person to check. My goodness, you objection comes down to "the bastards probably falsified the results".[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
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.
the average height above the summit of Mt. WA at which these muons
were born was no more than 2,200 ft.
Most first time readers of the FSX are overwhelmed by the huge number
of moving parts of this experiment.
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 7:02:43 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: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
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
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.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
compensating for the slowing of the air mass, i.e., it requires us not to be ignorant of this aspect of particle behavior.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
daylight for any knowledgeable person to check. My goodness, you objection comes down to "the bastards probably falsified the results".[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
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. TheAnd 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 outHuh? 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
of 568 muons disintegrated in less than the published 2.2 usecs. muon half-life.
Dolan rebuttal #1: You blindly and unknowingly assume the conclusion here.the average height above the summit of Mt. WA at which these muonsNope, almost all were created much higher.
were born was no more than 2,200 ft.
Dolan rebuttal #2: see Dolan rebuttal #1Most first time readers of the FSX are overwhelmed by the huge numberHuh? This is an extremely simple demonstration, performed with very simple equipment.
of moving parts of this experiment.
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 8:37:35 PM UTC-7, Bill wrote: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
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 7:02:43 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"
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.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
compensating for the slowing of the air mass, i.e., it requires us not to be ignorant of this aspect of particle behavior.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
plain daylight for any knowledgeable person to check. My goodness, you objection comes down to "the bastards probably falsified the results".[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
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. TheAnd 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
the average height above the summit of Mt. WA at which these muons
were born was no more than 2,200 ft.
Nope, almost all were created much higher.
You assume the conclusion here.
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.
See [unrelated specious reasoning] above.
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 8:43:03 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: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
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 8:37:35 PM UTC-7, Bill wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 7:02:43 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"
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.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
compensating for the slowing of the air mass, i.e., it requires us not to be ignorant of this aspect of particle behavior.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
plain daylight for any knowledgeable person to check. My goodness, you objection comes down to "the bastards probably falsified the results".[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
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. TheAnd 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
created at higher altitudes. Again, the precise altitude of creation doesn't matter, since the only thing that must be taking into account for this experiment is the creation rate below the mountain top, which happens to be very low. Nothing about thesethe average height above the summit of Mt. WA at which these muons were born was no more than 2,200 ft.
Nope, almost all were created much higher.
You assume the conclusion here.
Not at all. First, the precise altitude of creation is not relevant to the demonstration, and second, for your information, the density of cosmic rays is a measured fact, from which it follows that the great majority of muons (of all energies) are
assignments.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.
See [unrelated specious reasoning] above.
Your specious reasoning above has nothing to do with your silly claim that this is a complex experiment with highly complicated apparatus. Again, it is an extremely simple demonstration with very simple equipment. This is even done as undergraduate lab
I can of course go into finer detail; perhaps even extract a perfect Gaussian half-life curve which is already adumbrated by FSX data set. But I will pause at this point to ask the jury who has the better and more reasonable explanation for the Muonsof Mt. Washington. Myself? Or Legion?
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 2:06:36 PM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote:compensating for the slowing of the air mass, i.e., it requires us not to be ignorant of this aspect of particle behavior.
On Monday, 28 August 2023 at 22:06:37 UTC+2, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 12:30:27 PM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
On Monday, 28 August 2023 at 21:20:39 UTC+2, Bill wrote:
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
They need time dilation to keep light speed allegedly at c but they can't prove time dilation.Relativity needs us ("we're FORCED!!!! The BEST WAY!!!")Bullshit. Your idiot guru has defined time asRelativity needs time itself to dilate, not just muons, lithium ions, or photons. So you are exactly right.
"what clocks indicate", and his description of
his "time dilation" idiocy had nothing to do
with any particles.
to stop synchronizing our clocks - for the sake of
a mad vision of some idiots believing that it's
somehow "proper".
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 7:02:43 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: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
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
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.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
compensating for the slowing of the air mass, i.e., it requires us not to be ignorant of this aspect of particle behavior.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
daylight for any knowledgeable person to check. My goodness, you objection comes down to "the bastards probably falsified the results".[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
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 outHuh? What's shown on the right side of that figure is the expected number of surviving muons after a noted amount of proper time
of 568 muons disintegrated in less than the published 2.2 usecs. muon half-life.
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 9:12:51 PM UTC-7, Bill wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 8:43:03 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:> > OnI can of course go into finer detail; perhaps even extract a perfect
Monday, August 28, 2023 at 8:37:35 PM UTC-7, Bill wrote:> > > On
Monday, August 28, 2023 at 7:02:43 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:> > > > > >
thousand feet per usec.> > > > > > > > > > at between .990c and .995c.>Frisch and Smith state that the muons are traveling one
scintillator are the ones that were moving that fast when they enteredRight, the ones that decay in the
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.> > > > > > > >>
than .995c that pass> > > > > > > > through the scintillator and don'tYou are forgetting all the muons with velocities greater
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:> > > >
duplicating the Frisch ex is a undergraduate lab exercise. Basing yourno one has ever been able to duplicate their results.> > > > >> > >
Both of those assertions are blatantly false. In particular,
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. 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.> > >>
Nope, almost all were created much higher.> >You assume the conclusion here.>> Not at all. First, the precise
altitude of creation is not relevant to the demonstration, and second,
for your information, the density of cosmic rays is a measured fact,
from which it follows that the great majority of muons (of all
energies) are created at higher altitudes. Again, the precise altitude
of creation doesn't matter, since the only thing that must be taking
into account for this experiment is the creation rate below the
mountain top, which happens to be very low. Nothing about these
measured facts is "assuming the conclusion". Sheesh. Again, 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.
above has nothing to do with your silly claim that this is a complexMost 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.> > >>> See [unrelated specious reasoning] above.>> Your specious reasoning
experiment with highly complicated apparatus. Again, it is an extremely
simple demonstration with very simple equipment. This is even done as
undergraduate lab assignments.
Gaussian half-life curve which is already adumbrated by FSX data set.
But I will pause at this point to ask the jury who has the better and
more reasonable explanation for the Muons of Mt. Washington. Myself?
Or Legion?
Volney wrote:
On 8/29/2023 12:36 AM, patdolan wrote:
I can of course go into finer detail; perhaps even extract a perfect
Gaussian half-life curve which is already adumbrated by FSX data set.
But I will pause at this point to ask the jury who has the better and
more reasonable explanation for the Muons of Mt. Washington. Myself?
Or Legion?
Bill has, of course. You barely have a grasp on what they were doing and why.fine fine, now change your 𝗦𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆 name and move to america. That's all
On 2023-08-29 04:36:11 +0000, patdolan said:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 9:12:51 PM UTC-7, Bill wrote:No context. Bill knows what he is talking about. You don't.
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 8:43:03 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:> > On >> Monday, August 28, 2023 at 8:37:35 PM UTC-7, Bill wrote:> > > OnI can of course go into finer detail; perhaps even extract a perfect Gaussian half-life curve which is already adumbrated by FSX data set.
Monday, August 28, 2023 at 7:02:43 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:> > > >
duplicating the Frisch ex is a undergraduate lab exercise. Basing yourno one has ever been able to duplicate their results.> > > > >> > > >> > > Both of those assertions are blatantly false. In particular,
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. 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.> > >>
Nope, almost all were created much higher.> >You assume the conclusion here.>> Not at all. First, the precise
altitude of creation is not relevant to the demonstration, and second, >>> for your information, the density of cosmic rays is a measured fact,
from which it follows that the great majority of muons (of all
energies) are created at higher altitudes. Again, the precise altitude >>> of creation doesn't matter, since the only thing that must be taking
into account for this experiment is the creation rate below the
mountain top, which happens to be very low. Nothing about these
measured facts is "assuming the conclusion". Sheesh. Again, 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.
See [unrelated specious reasoning] above.>> Your specious reasoningMost 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.> >
above has nothing to do with your silly claim that this is a complex
experiment with highly complicated apparatus. Again, it is an extremely >>> simple demonstration with very simple equipment. This is even done as >>> undergraduate lab assignments.
But I will pause at this point to ask the jury who has the better and
more reasonable explanation for the Muons of Mt. Washington. Myself?
Or Legion?
--Let me rephrase my question. I don't why I even bother consider what relativity rookie Legion may think.
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots
thousand feet per usec.> > > > > > > > > > at between .990c and .995c.> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Right, the ones that decay in theFrisch and Smith state that the muons are traveling one
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. 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.> > >> >> > > Nope, almost all were created much higher.> >
You assume the conclusion here.>> Not at all. First, the precise
altitude of creation is not relevant to the demonstration, and second, >>> for your information, the density of cosmic rays is a measured fact, >>> from which it follows that the great majority of muons (of all
energies) are created at higher altitudes. Again, the precise altitude >>> of creation doesn't matter, since the only thing that must be taking >>> into account for this experiment is the creation rate below the
mountain top, which happens to be very low. Nothing about these
measured facts is "assuming the conclusion". Sheesh. Again, 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.
See [unrelated specious reasoning] above.>> Your specious reasoning >>> above has nothing to do with your silly claim that this is a complex >>> experiment with highly complicated apparatus. Again, it is an extremelyMost 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.> >
simple demonstration with very simple equipment. This is even done as >>> undergraduate lab assignments.
Who explains the Muons of Mt. Washing better? Frisch and Smith or me?
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 10:53:02 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:commence running away, as always. Case closed.
thousand feet per usec.> > > > > > > > > > at between .990c and .995c.>Frisch and Smith state that the muons are traveling one
scintillator are the ones that were moving that fast when they enteredRight, the ones that decay in the
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.> > > > > > > >>
than .995c that pass> > > > > > > > through the scintillator and don'tYou are forgetting all the muons with velocities greater
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:> > > >
duplicating the Frisch ex is a undergraduate lab exercise. Basing yourno one has ever been able to duplicate their results.> > > > >> > >
Both of those assertions are blatantly false. In particular,
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. 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.> > >>
Nope, almost all were created much higher.> >You assume the conclusion here.>> Not at all. First, the precise
altitude of creation is not relevant to the demonstration, and second,
for your information, the density of cosmic rays is a measured fact, >>> from which it follows that the great majority of muons (of all
energies) are created at higher altitudes. Again, the precise altitude
of creation doesn't matter, since the only thing that must be taking >>> into account for this experiment is the creation rate below the
mountain top, which happens to be very low. Nothing about these
measured facts is "assuming the conclusion". Sheesh. Again, 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.
See [unrelated specious reasoning] above.>> Your specious reasoning >>> above has nothing to do with your silly claim that this is a complex >>> experiment with highly complicated apparatus. Again, it is an extremelyMost first time readers of the FSX are overwhelmed by the huge number>
extremely simple demonstration, performed with very simple equipment.> >of moving parts of this experiment.> > >> > > Huh? This is an
simple demonstration with very simple equipment. This is even done as
undergraduate lab assignments.
Who explains the Muons of Mt. Washing better? Frisch and Smith or me?The exposition of Frisch and Smith is fine. You haven't provided an explanation, you've just typed some juvenile self-indulgent nonsense that has been thoroughly debunked and corrected. And now you abandon all pretense to rational discussion, and
Who explains the Muons of Mt. Washing better? Frisch and Smith or me?
Debunking the FSX has been on my to-do list for a long time now.
I destroyed it conceptually and theoretically using your own four-event methodology.
It is time to devote an entire thread to the issue.
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 12:42:03 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
Debunking the FSX has been on my to-do list for a long time now.Well, procrastination paid off, because now that your misconceptions have been exposed, and you realize that you simply misunderstood the simple and clear experiment, you wont have to waste any more of your time trying to debunk it. You're welcome.
I destroyed it conceptually and theoretically using your own four-event methodology.Your memory is faulty. A quick check of the archived messages shows that the elementary conceptual basis was clearly explained to you, along with diagnosing all your numerous misconceptions (you're welcome), and you ran away.
destruction of their foolish beliefs and the retributions that you will rain down upon them, to the applause of the admiring world... and then.... crickets. Now matter how many times we see this re-played, it's still amusing. LOL.It is time to devote an entire thread to the issue.Right, each time your hat is handed to you, you make a grand announcement of your impending demolition of modern science, which you are going to deliver within the next 24 to 48 hours, leaving the world's scientists to tremble and weep at the
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 5:10:26 PM UTC-7, Bill wrote:destruction of their foolish beliefs and the retributions that you will rain down upon them, to the applause of the admiring world... and then.... crickets. Now matter how many times we see this re-played, it's still amusing. LOL.
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 12:42:03 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:Ran away!!! I left you so completely cornered that you were unable to own your own sentences, your own words. Remember?
Debunking the FSX has been on my to-do list for a long time now.Well, procrastination paid off, because now that your misconceptions have been exposed, and you realize that you simply misunderstood the simple and clear experiment, you wont have to waste any more of your time trying to debunk it. You're welcome.
I destroyed it conceptually and theoretically using your own four-event methodology.Your memory is faulty. A quick check of the archived messages shows that the elementary conceptual basis was clearly explained to you, along with diagnosing all your numerous misconceptions (you're welcome), and you ran away.
It is time to devote an entire thread to the issue.Right, each time your hat is handed to you, you make a grand announcement of your impending demolition of modern science, which you are going to deliver within the next 24 to 48 hours, leaving the world's scientists to tremble and weep at the
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'svelocity 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
1) What did the muon calculate its proper altitude above the earth to be at the spacetime event corresponding to its creation?
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?
3) What did the lab scientist read on the scintillator lab's clock at the spacetime event corresponding to the muon's creation?
On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 8:14:04 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: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
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
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 e2simultaneous 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
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.1) What did the muon calculate its proper altitude above the earth to be at the spacetime event corresponding to its creation?
Muon's do not 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 microseconds.
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. Of course, 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 you don't understand what is the proper half-life of an existing muon that was created, say, 5 usec ago. This is probably why you are confused
On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 8:14:04 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: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
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
Den 30.08.2023 03:58, skrev Bill: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
On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 8:14:04 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
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
patdolan demonstrates that he has no idea of what half-time is.patdolan admits he has improperly mixed his nomenclature and will remedy it in his Muon University series. But the basic thrust of patdolan's ideas dismantling the FSX are unassailable. The reader will be absolutely thrilled when patdolan takes on
And I am NOT referring to the fact that the mean lifetime is 2.2 μs
while the half-time is 1.52 μs.
If a muon is stopped in the scintillator, then it is
50% probable that it will not have decayed 1.52 μs after
it was stopped, and 36.8% probable that it will not have
decayed 2.2 μs after it was stopped.
The time between the muon's creation and the stop event is
unknown and impossible to measure.
If "A muon simultaneously comes to rest and disintegrates
in a laboratory scintillator"
.. then its life time (decay time) is measured to be zero.
(which is not impossible but has zero probability).
patdolan has also demonstrated that he haven't understood
why Frisch and Smith measured the muon flux at two different
altitudes.
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 339 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 03:02:13 |
| Calls: | 7,467 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 12,691 |
| Messages: | 5,628,080 |