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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #618991 > unrolled thread

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

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  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

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#619171

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

>> fine fine, now change your 𝗦𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆 name and move to america. That's
>> all
> 
> Well, I guess your boss has been just murdered, who is paying you now?

go fuck the ukurina women, 𝘆𝗼𝘂_𝗳𝘂𝗰𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗦𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆 with changed name. They
lack men, 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵_𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵_𝘁𝗼_𝗳𝘂𝗰𝗸. Some of them are fuckable, but have
𝗮_𝗯𝗶𝗴_𝗺𝗼𝘂𝘁𝗵.
You don't want the leftover bitches of ukurina 𝘁𝗼_𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸.

you should rather ask who is paying the gay khazar actor of ukurina and
𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗿𝘂𝗽𝘁_𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗿_𝗴𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁. Very easy. You stinking braindead baboon.

𝗭𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆_𝗱𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗱𝘀_𝗪𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻_𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗲𝘆_𝘁𝗼_𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗱_𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀
https://r%74.com/ru%73%73ia/581960-zelensky-election-western-aid/
“I asked him: are you prepared to give me five billion?” Zelensky said,
describing his conversation with the US politician.

Ban all opposition parties and then hold elections to pretend it's a
democracy. Typical zioinst neocon nazis.

gypsy Zelensky demanding money again? He begs worse than the poorest
beggar with no shame , Ukraine's number 1 beggar.

Q: How do one know when Zelensky is asking for money (again)?
A: His lips are moving.

Didn’t Zelensky jailed all the opposition parties? So in this election,
you can vote either Zelensky or Zelensky huh? And he expects $5 billion
for that.

LOL! Another money making scheme by the little khazar gypsy goy. He never
stops looking for hand-outs.

SO now dumb Yoda is blackmailing the west?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#619168 — Re: Why don't laboratory muons time dilate & travel 16,000 meters instead of 600?

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#619182

On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 1:43:57 AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> 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
Let me rephrase my question.  I don't why I even bother consider what relativity rookie Legion may think.

Who explains the Muons of Mt. Washing better?  Frisch and Smith or me? 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#619193

On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 10:53:02 AM 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. 
> 
> 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 commence running away, as always.  Case closed.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#619195

On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 12:06:44 PM UTC-7, Bill wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 10:53:02 AM 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. 
> >
> > 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 commence running away, as always. Case closed.

Case far from closed, Legion.  Debunking the FSX has been on my to-do list for a long time now.  You will recall how I destroyed it conceptually and theoretically using your own four-event methodology.

Now it is time to destroy the empirical case for the Muons of Mt. Washington.  I have already limned out their destruction by the kind permission Laurence on this thread.  It is time to devote an entire thread to the issue.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#619201

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.

> 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 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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#619202

On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 5:10:26 PM UTC-7, Bill wrote:
> 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.

Ran away!!!  I left you so completely cornered  that you were unable to own your own sentences, your own words.  Remember?
> > 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 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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#619203

On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 5:51:35 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 5:10:26 PM UTC-7, Bill wrote: 
> > 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.
> Ran away!!! I left you so completely cornered that you were unable to own your own sentences, your own words. Remember?
> > > 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 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.
Remember how I demonstrated, using your own e0, e1, e2, e3 system that there is no logical, physical, mathematical, scientific nor philosophical reason for the Cambridge clock showing only 1.1 usec elapsed muon flight time than there is for showing 4.4 usec elapsed muon flight time?  Remember, Legion?  Remember?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#619204

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 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 to its disintegration in the lab scintillator.

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 e2 simultaneous 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 to e2.

> 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 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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#619206

On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 6:58:36 PM UTC-7, Bill wrote:
> 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 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 to its disintegration in the lab scintillator. 
> 
> 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 e2 simultaneous 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 to e2. 
> 
> > 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 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.
Thank you Legion, for re-stating your four-event muon methodology for this forum.  It's a good jumping of point for me to re-devastate it.  I note you have left my side of the discussion out of your recapitulation.  But I am delighted to dazzle the denizens of this forum yet one more time and provide it again. This will delay my FSX analysis of the empirical muon data. I may combine both the theoretical and empirical criticisms into another a multi-chapter essay.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#619295

Den 30.08.2023 03:58, skrev Bill:
> 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 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 to its disintegration in the lab scintillator.

patdolan demonstrates that he has no idea of what half-time is.
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/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#619298

On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 2:17:11 PM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 30.08.2023 03:58, skrev Bill: 
> > 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 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 to its disintegration in the lab scintillator.
> patdolan demonstrates that he has no idea of what half-time is. 
> 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/
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 damnable Don Lincoln and his linear accelerator muons.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#619198

On 8/29/2023 1:52 PM, patdolan wrote:

> Who explains the Muons of Mt. Washing better?  Frisch and Smith or me?

Frisch and Smith both can explain it better than you can, even though 
they are both dead.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#619161

On Tuesday, 29 August 2023 at 05:37:35 UTC+2, 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


Take your proper time and put it straight into your
dumb, fanatic ass. No timekeeping system is treating
it seriously and none ever will; only brainwashed
by your Shit idiots, like you, do.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#619011

On 8/26/2023 9:00 PM, patdolan wrote:
> 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

If 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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#619012

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: 
> 
> > Let's all reconvene on the subject after viewing this: 
> > 
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbzt8gDSYIM
> If 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.
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 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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#619063

On 8/26/2023 10:59 PM, patdolan wrote:
> 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:
>>
>>> Let's all reconvene on the subject after viewing this:
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbzt8gDSYIM
>> If 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.

> 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 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.

Why do you want us to watch a video which contradicts your claims? I've 
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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#619070

On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 12:04:34 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
> On 8/26/2023 10:59 PM, patdolan wrote: 
> > 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: 
> >> 
> >>> Let's all reconvene on the subject after viewing this: 
> >>> 
> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbzt8gDSYIM 
> >> If 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. 
> 
> > 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 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.
> Why do you want us to watch a video which contradicts your claims? I've 
> 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.
What did you ask me to do recently, Volney?  Tell me immediately!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#619038

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). 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 dark veil that obscured the truth, lo so many years now.

I am indebted to Dirk who brought the film to my attention many years ago.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#619090

On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 3:40:16 AM UTC-7, patdolan 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). 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 dark veil that obscured the truth, lo so many years now. 
> 
> I am indebted to Dirk who brought the film to my attention many years ago.
1963 was when the relativists and astronomers joined forces.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web