It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by buddhasystem
And yes, I spent too much time looking at muons, and when and if someone tells me what I measured was a figment of imagination, you know what my reaction might be.
Muons were first discovered in 1936 by Carl Anderson at Cal Tech, among others, forty-three years after Joseph Larmor first proposed his time-dilation idea. Muons were then called mesons or mesotrons.20
A muon is a charged particle, similar to but about 200 times larger than an electron. Muons are naturally formed in the upper atmosphere as a result of collisions between solar particles and upper atmosphere molecules, such as of oxygen or helium. Upon creation some muons are highly energized and travel at velocities beginning at almost c, but the density of the atmosphere gradually slows them down a little. They scatter in every direction before disintegrating into an electron and two neutrinos. Since 1948, physicists have been able to create muons in laboratory cyclotrons, that are often connected to a particle accelerator, where they can increase or decrease muon velocity.
In a 1941 paper, Bruno Rossi trumpeted muon decay as evidence of relativistic time dilation.21 He claimed that the average lifetime of a muon was 2.4 microseconds, and that any longer life was due to relativistic time dilation. That is to say, he expected people to believe that a muon that travels at almost c and exists for possibly a few thousand microseconds really only exists for about 2.4 microseconds because at a velocity near c time slows down for it! Later that year, Italian physicist Franco Rasetti estimated that the average life of a muon, at least from the time of detection in a laboratory cloud chamber to the time of decay, was 1.5 microseconds.22
Both Rossi and Rasetti seemed to think that they could calculate the average life of atmospheric muons from their momentum (mass x velocity) at sea level. However, this writer would submit that this is not possible as a particle‟s momentum only does not reveal the time and place of its creation. There is a difference between average particle lifetime and average particle decay time from capture within the capturing device (called a scintillator, essentially a block of plastic) on the ground, to decay into electrons and neutrinos.
It is possible today to load atmospheric muon detector equipment onto an aircraft to detect falling muons per square foot per hour at varying altitudes, such as at 10,000 feet, 20,000 feet, 30,000 feet, etc. From such data it should be possible to accurately estimate the average altitude of muon creation. This figure could then be used to calculate average muon lifetime in such experiments as Rossi‟s and Rasetti‟s. However, to this writer‟s knowledge, no such atmospheric muon origin collection project has ever been undertaken. If such a project has been undertaken its results may not have been published because they conflicted with the hypothesis of time dilation.
Although lab muons may not be comparable to atmospheric muons because their respective environments are so different, if particle physicists today can speed up and slow down muons in particle accellerators, then they can keep a group of muons moving at 0.990c for the duration of their lifetime. Then they can keep a group of muons at 0.991c for their lifetime. Then another group at 0.992c, 0.993c, etc. through 0.999c, then plot the average lifetimes of each group with each group‟s velocity. If relativistic time dilation is for real the resulting graph should conform to the gamma curve. But to this writer‟s knowledge, no team of particle physicists has ever done this, although they have had over sixty years to do so.
In 1962, David Frisch and James Smith, professors at MIT and U. Illinois, Urbana, respectively, conducted an experiment similar to Rossi‟s in 1941. They measured muon decay rates on top of Mt. Washington in New Hampshire, and then again at near sea level in Cambridge, Massachusetts. They claimed that the average lifetime for a muon was 2.2 microseconds and that their results supported the hypothesis of time dilation.23
However, in a disciplined paper published in the General Science Journal, Alan Newman knowledgably and meticulously criticizes the Frisch and Smith experiment to the effect that at sea level they reduced the amount of iron above the scintillator by too much. Correcting this error nullifies their results. Thus, unless errors can be found in his calculations, Newman‟s paper invalidates the result of the Frisch and Smith experiment. And inasmuch as Frisch and Smith relied on and followed the procedures of Rossi, Newman‟s paper also discredits Rossi‟s findings and conclusions. Frisch and Smith may have made this error intentionally to obtain the desired outcome to impress someone in Washington, DC who oversees science research grants, as Rossi may have done, also. Newman concludes, “Muon detection [at Earth‟s surface] is easy to explain without „time dilation‟, provided you know how to apply the ordinary gravitational field equations. In short, relativist scientists are seeing "time dilation‟ where there is none, and where there are more reasonable alternative explanations.” 24
This writer would agree with Newman that Frisch and Smith could have adjusted the thickness of the stack of iron over the scintillator so that experimental results would agree with the time dilation hypothesis. Furthermore, if they did not know the altitude of muon creation, then they could not accurately estimate atmospheric density from that altitude to the scintillator. At this point their whole experimental design falls apart. To their credit Frisch and Smith made a film of their experiment, which is on line at www.scivee.tv/node/2415, so the interested reader can watch them confuse average particle lifetime with average particle decay time within the scintillator. This is like trying to figure out how a stage magician appears to take an egg or quarter out of someone‟s ear.
Wherefore, certainly a 2.2 or so average muon life-time cannot be considered a scientific fact, and hence it cannot be evidence for relativistic time dilation. 2.2 microseconds may represent the average time between detection in the scintillator and a muon‟s decay into an electron and two neutrinos, among muons that decay in the scintillator, and depending on the type of scintillator. However, there is a big difference between this figure and the probable lifetime of an atmospheric muon from creation to decay, which is not possible to measure as the time of creation is not known, and it is not known when the muon would have naturally decayed had it not been intercepted by the scintillator. Furthermore, as Frisch and Smith admit, the large majority of muons that enter the scintillator pass right through it without decaying.
However, for decades, ever since the Frisch and Smith experiment, a 2.2 or so microsecond average muon life-time has been dogma, a law of physics, not to be challenged or disputed. It is found today in textbook after textbook, on website after website, on the subject as dogma, a law of physics. This is not science.
In recent years muons have been created in laboratory particle accelerators to study their lifetime, among other characteristics. It should come as no surprise that every test of muon time dilation since 1963 that this writer has been able to uncover has concluded that the average lifetime of a muon is about 2.2 microseconds, even if by means of fudged data, circular logic and mathemagic. The particle physicists who have conducted such experiments were just pledging allegiance to relativity theory for career advancement purposes.25
Originally posted by Mary Rose
Gaede is an original thinker with good ideas and has a reason for his approach.
Originally posted by sinohptik
I fail to see how that doesnt make it incomplete? In fact, it seems to support the idea.
Originally posted by sinohptik
Perhaps its would be wise to ignore the differences in labels altogether until we have a better understanding of the equations themselves.
Science writer Powell casts science as the new religion, with Einstein as god. Sci/religion, as he calls it, offers a positive and immensely appealing alternative way to look at the world, a religion of rational hope.
Originally posted by fulllotusqigong
Living in a Quantum World: Quantum mechanics is not just about teeny particles Sci Am pdf
. . . Until the past decade, experimentalists had not confirmed that quantum behavior persists on a macroscopic scale. Today, however, they routinely do. These effects are more pervasive than anyone ever suspected. They may operate in the cells of our body.
Even those of us who make a career of studying these effects have yet to assimilate what they are telling us about the workings of nature. . . .
The Ehrenfest paradox may be the most basic phenomenon in relativity that has a long history marked by controversy and which still gets different interpretations published in peer-reviewed journals (ie. it is still unresolved).
The idea was then to explore the possibility of repulsive matterantimatter gravity, but within the old quantum field theories there was no room for such a possibility. The main arguments, reviewed in [3], were of various kinds including violation of energy conservation and disagreement with experiments of the E¨otv¨os type due to the effects of antigravity on the vacuum polarization diagrams of atoms. More recently however, within the context of modern quantum field theories, it was proven that those arguments were no longer sufficient to exclude repulsive effects and the interest in antigravity increased again.
However there exist (see section 2 and 3) physically meaningful solutions [5, 6, 7, 8] of Einstein equations which are not Fourier expandable and nevertheless whose associated energy is finite. For some of these solutions the standard analysis shows that spin-1 components cannot be killed [9, 10]; this implies that repulsive aspects of gravity are possible within pure General Relativity, i.e. without involving spurious modifications. In previous works it was shown that light is among possible sources of such spin-1 waves [8, 9, 10, 11, 12].
Originally posted by Mary Rose
What about Tesla's longitudinal standing waves?
When I asked Karl about the fundamental principles behind the electrical work Tesla did in the latter half of his life, I was expecting a long and complex answer. But for Karl, it boils down to "asymmetric field of circuits" and a term Tesla coined: "longitudinal wave". "Single-event resonance" is also key.
The analogy Karl used to describe the longitudinal wave was a tsunami, whose waves can travel across the ocean at speeds exceeding 600 mph -- the speed of a jumbo jet flying over the ocean. Normal ocean waves propagate slow enough that a person can run along side one on a dock. Those are very different processes, with very different causes and results.
Tsunamis are usually triggered by massive land movements within the water, such as from a large earthquake or meteorite. The large displacement then propagates horizontally away, barely displacing the surface elevation until it reaches shore, where it crests and rushes inland.
Another example Karl cited was in sound production. It takes maybe 50 Watts equivalent of power for a person to blow a trumpet, but it takes maybe a kilowatt of power for a speaker system to reproduce the same decibel level of sound, because the speaker system uses transverse waves to manufacture the longitudinal waves. There is a longitudinal component that the speaker system doesn't directly produce, so it has to make up for it in power. This should be a clue to people in the sound reproduction industry about possible new designs that could reproduce the sound using little power.
Much of Tesla's latter work involved means of creating electrical longitudinal waves, through fast, abrupt change; such as through rapid spark gap discharges, or through shorting the circuit; characterizing their function, and putting them to practical use. "One of the biggest things that Tesla did was create local changes, such as a 'microbubble', or 'microvoid', which nature fills in." Tesla also played with various shapes to stimulate these effects.
In the case of electricity, some funky things happen in the process of creating the longitudinal wave. Energy shows up that was not fed into the system by the operator. Tesla called this "radiant energy".
Karl said that Tesla used asymmetric circuits that involved abrupt changes of voltage or current or both. "The first half of circuit did not match second half of circuit. For example, the first half might have a low resistance, while the second half had a high resistance." The asymmetry could also be in the number of wires, or in shape. High voltage versus high current.
To put it simply: you create asymmetry, and nature steps in to restore the symmetry. The objective is that the amount of energy required to establish the asymmetry is less than the amount of energy that nature provides when restoring the symmetry. A very simple example is a dam. The amount of energy required to put the dam in place, creating an asymmetry, is returned many-fold. We should remember that Tesla was the first to build a hydro-electric dam, at Niagara Falls.
Tesla stated: "To understand radiant energy, you should avoid electrons at all costs", and "Radiant energy circuits are void of electrons."
Originally posted by HODOSKE
reply to post by pianopraze
If you are interested in emf waves and the effects on the mind and the body, read some of Robert O Becker books. He is a Doctor, and a scientist and his research shows even low emf waves can effect the body and brain negatively. Some of his research showed more of an impact on a the human body with lower frequencies. It changes the cells in or bodies and there is research out there but it gets suppressed. We are bombarded by it everyday with cell phones, laptops, and all the other frequecies running through the air and it gets worse and worse every year with al lthe wireless technologies.
Dirty Electricity
Date: 12-08-10
Host: George Noory
Guests: Dr. Samuel Milham
Specialist in occupational epidemiology, Dr. Samuel Milham outlined the frightening link between exposure to electromagnetic fields & pollution and human disease. He cited "dirty electricity," brought about when electrical fields have an arc or interruption in current flow, as being particularly detrimental to health when it occurs at high levels. He listed cancer, diabetes, ADHD, depression, and sleep disorders as among the many problems associated with exposure to dirty electricity.
Dr. Milham was critical of cell phones, comparing their usage to putting one's head into a microwave oven. We're starting to see brain cancers on the same side of the head where people hold their phone, he noted. He also warned that the new DECT cordless phones were dangerous because their base units continually send out radiation which can alter a person's heart rate.
Originally posted by Mary Rose
Originally posted by buddhasystem
"Einstein and his idiots"
Gaede is an original thinker with good ideas and has a reason for his approach.
Originally posted by buddhasystem
express disdain for science because supposedly it's all s sham
I have pointed out valid problems with mainstream science. You have a blind eye to them. You're part of the problem.
Originally posted by buddhasystem
vibrational orgone-based donuts like Rodin's.
Alternative science is where progress will eventually be made, despite the sometimes brutal suppression by the powers that be behind mainstream science.edit on 06/25/12 by Mary Rose because: Clarify