Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #619168

Re: Why don't laboratory muons time dilate & travel 16,000 meters instead of 600?

Show all headers | View raw

On 2023-08-29 04:36:11 +0000, patdolan said:

> 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:> > 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" 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.
>>>>> 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 assignments.
> 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?

No context. Bill knows what he is talking about. You don't.


-- 
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Why don't laboratory muons time dilate & travel 16,000 meters instead of 600? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-26 16:34 -0700
  Re: Why don't laboratory muons time dilate & travel 16,000 meters instead of 600? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-26 16:43 -0700
  Re: Why don't laboratory muons time dilate & travel 16,000 meters instead of 600? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-26 16:47 -0700
  Re: Why don't laboratory muons time dilate & travel 16,000 meters instead of 600? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-26 20:02 -0400
    Re: Why don't laboratory muons time dilate & travel 16,000 meters instead of 600? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-26 18:00 -0700
      Re: Why don't laboratory muons time dilate & travel 16,000 meters instead of 600? "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-08-26 18:13 -0700
        Re: Why don't laboratory muons time dilate & travel 16,000 meters instead of 600? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-26 18:30 -0700
          Re: Why don't laboratory muons time dilate & travel 16,000 meters instead of 600? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-26 18:33 -0700
            Re: Why don't laboratory muons time dilate & travel 16,000 meters instead of 600? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-26 18:51 -0700
              Re: Why don't laboratory muons time dilate & travel 16,000 meters instead of 600? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-26 19:02 -0700
                Re: Why don't laboratory muons time dilate & travel 16,000 meters instead of 600? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-26 19:12 -0700
                Re: Why don't laboratory muons time dilate & travel 16,000 meters instead of 600? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-26 19:17 -0700
              Re: Why don't laboratory muons time dilate & travel 16,000 meters instead of 600? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-26 20:07 -0700
                Re: Why don't laboratory muons time dilate & travel 16,000 meters instead of 600? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-26 20:23 -0700
                Re: Why don't laboratory muons time dilate & travel 16,000 meters instead of 600? Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-27 10:25 -0700
                Re: Why don't laboratory muons time dilate & travel 16,000 meters instead of 600? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-27 15:30 -0700
                Re: Why don't laboratory muons time dilate & travel 16,000 meters instead of 600? Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-27 18:26 -0700
                Re: Why don't laboratory muons time dilate & travel 16,000 meters instead of 600? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-27 18:49 -0700
                Re: Why don't laboratory muons time dilate & travel 16,000 meters instead of 600? "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-08-27 19:01 -0700
                Re: Why don't laboratory muons time dilate & travel 16,000 meters instead of 600? Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-27 19:18 -0700
                Re: Why don't laboratory muons time dilate & travel 16,000 meters instead of 600? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-28 03:33 -0700
                Re: Why don't laboratory muons time dilate & travel 16,000 meters instead of 600? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-28 04:17 -0700
                Re: Why don't laboratory muons time dilate & travel 16,000 meters instead of 600? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-28 09:53 -0400
                Re: Why don't laboratory muons time dilate & travel 16,000 meters   instead of 600? Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-28 16:32 +0200
                Re: Why don't laboratory muons time dilate & travel 16,000 meters instead of 600? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-28 11:51 -0700
                Re: Why don't laboratory muons time dilate & travel 16,000 meters instead of 600? Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-28 12:20 -0700
                Re: Why don't laboratory muons time dilate & travel 16,000 meters instead of 600? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-28 12:30 -0700
                Re: Why don't laboratory muons time dilate & travel 16,000 meters instead of 600? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-28 13:03 -0700
                Re: Why don't laboratory muons time dilate & travel 16,000 meters instead of 600? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-28 13:06 -0700
                Re: Why don't laboratory muons time dilate & travel 16,000 meters instead of 600? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-28 14:06 -0700
                Re: Why don't laboratory muons time dilate & travel 16,000 meters instead of 600? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-28 14:42 -0700
                Re: Why don't laboratory muons time dilate & travel 16,000 meters instead of 600? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-28 23:11 -0700
                Re: Why don't laboratory muons time dilate & travel 16,000 meters instead of 600? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-28 19:02 -0700
                Re: Why don't laboratory muons time dilate & travel 16,000 meters instead of 600? Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-28 20:37 -0700
                Re: Why don't laboratory muons time dilate & travel 16,000 meters instead of 600? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-28 20:43 -0700
                Re: Why don't laboratory muons time dilate & travel 16,000 meters instead of 600? Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-28 21:12 -0700
                Re: Why don't laboratory muons time dilate & travel 16,000 meters instead of 600? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-28 21:36 -0700
                Re: Why don't laboratory muons time dilate & travel 16,000 meters instead of 600? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-29 00:52 -0400
                Re: Why don't laboratory muons time dilate & travel 16,000 meters instead of 600? Barrett Grohar <toeo@orgegrat.ha> - 2023-08-29 07:18 +0000
                Re: Why don't laboratory muons time dilate & travel 16,000 meters instead of 600? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-29 01:36 -0700
                Re: Why don't laboratory muons time dilate & travel 16,000 meters instead of 600? Doyle Leizerman <zizy@nooledee.nz> - 2023-08-29 09:15 +0000
                Re: Why don't laboratory muons time dilate & travel 16,000 meters   instead of 600? Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-29 10:43 +0200
                Re: Why don't laboratory muons time dilate & travel 16,000 meters instead of 600? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-29 10:52 -0700
                Re: Why don't laboratory muons time dilate & travel 16,000 meters instead of 600? Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-29 12:06 -0700
                Re: Why don't laboratory muons time dilate & travel 16,000 meters instead of 600? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-29 12:42 -0700
                Re: Why don't laboratory muons time dilate & travel 16,000 meters instead of 600? Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-29 17:10 -0700
                Re: Why don't laboratory muons time dilate & travel 16,000 meters instead of 600? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-29 17:51 -0700
                Re: Why don't laboratory muons time dilate & travel 16,000 meters instead of 600? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-29 18:28 -0700
                Re: Why don't laboratory muons time dilate & travel 16,000 meters instead of 600? Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-29 18:58 -0700
                Re: Why don't laboratory muons time dilate & travel 16,000 meters instead of 600? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-29 20:18 -0700
                Re: Why don't laboratory muons time dilate & travel 16,000 meters instead of 600? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2023-08-31 23:17 +0200
                Re: Why don't laboratory muons time dilate & travel 16,000 meters instead of 600? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-31 15:50 -0700
                Re: Why don't laboratory muons time dilate & travel 16,000 meters instead of 600? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-29 17:23 -0400
                Re: Why don't laboratory muons time dilate & travel 16,000 meters instead of 600? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-28 23:14 -0700
      Re: Why don't laboratory muons time dilate & travel 16,000 meters instead of 600? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-26 22:49 -0400
        Re: Why don't laboratory muons time dilate & travel 16,000 meters instead of 600? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-26 19:59 -0700
          Re: Why don't laboratory muons time dilate & travel 16,000 meters instead of 600? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-27 15:04 -0400
            Re: Why don't laboratory muons time dilate & travel 16,000 meters instead of 600? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-27 15:15 -0700
      Re: Why don't laboratory muons time dilate & travel 16,000 meters instead of 600? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-27 03:40 -0700
        Re: Why don't laboratory muons time dilate & travel 16,000 meters instead of 600? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-27 20:36 -0700
  Re: Why don't laboratory muons time dilate & travel 16,000 meters instead of 600? "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-08-26 17:13 -0700
  Re: Why don't laboratory muons time dilate & travel 16,000 meters instead of 600? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-27 09:55 +0200
  Re: Why don't laboratory muons time dilate & travel 16,000 meters instead of 600? "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-27 08:31 -0700
    Re: Why don't laboratory muons time dilate & travel 16,000 meters instead of 600? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-27 08:53 -0700
      Re: Why don't laboratory muons time dilate & travel 16,000 meters instead of 600? "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-27 08:58 -0700
        Re: Why don't laboratory muons time dilate & travel 16,000 meters instead of 600? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-27 10:19 -0700
      Re: Why don't laboratory muons time dilate & travel 16,000 meters instead of 600? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-27 20:36 -0700
    Re: Why don't laboratory muons time dilate & travel 16,000 meters instead of 600? "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-08-27 11:30 -0700
      Re: Why don't laboratory muons time dilate & travel 16,000 meters instead of 600? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-27 15:08 -0400
        Re: Why don't laboratory muons time dilate & travel 16,000 meters instead of 600? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-27 21:51 -0700
          Re: Why don't laboratory muons time dilate & travel 16,000 meters instead of 600? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-28 09:59 -0400

csiph-web