Makes me wonder if Lorentzian contracted particles can bypass 3d macro objects thru 4th dimensional displacement… slipping along the walls of our 3d ant farm. Not exactly the relativistic basketball and the eye of a needle question where you can’t get the eye to face out on the time axis but rather a question about the nature of the contraction itself where we tend to think only of the near C object as being contracted but really it is a differential relationship where the contraction would be viewable from either frame.. IMHO the fields interact and slow the relativistic particle in the first floors of the parking garage until the contraction dissipates enough for physical collisions with our plane.
Fran From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2015 10:13 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Re: The appearance of muons are explained by SPP theory. Mark, There are several ways to explain the stratification phenomenon of “lower-initial-flux followed by increasing-flux, followed by decreasing-flux.” This is a complex phenomenon which cannot be easily modeled with one curve. In statistical terms, it looks like this could be the crossing of two or three parameter curves. One curve is the absorption curve, describing depletion of muons via elastic collisions and thermalization. Another is the decay curve which is based on the 2 microsecond half-life alone. These two are intertwined, and can be averaged into a single “dissipation” curve. Nothing new so far. Then … there is the more interesting curve, which is sloping the opposite way (increasing) and appears to be anti-entropic - which is the multiplication curve. Within a spatial zone, there is an increasing flux of muons. The close analogy in nuclear physics is the well-known (n,2n) reaction which – curiously is also seen in lead. When neutrons enter lead or heavier elements, some of them are scattered or merely absorbed but others interact as if in spallation, with the result being a multiplication ratio - where the initial neutron typically knocks out an additional neutron, doubling the population. But the secondary neutrons are generally too slow to continue the multiplication, and a true chain reaction cannot be sustained. The analogy is limited since neutrons are neutral and muons are charged, but otherwise seems to explain an increase in muons. The difference of concrete vs. lead is that the later has a greater propensity to multiply muons. From: Mark Jurich Yes, it does Jones. I think what is happening, is that a substantial number of muons are starting to decay (about 5-6 GeV, 2.2 us half life, but relativistic, and Earth frame of reference), unloading/depositing the bulk of their energy in the covered levels of the Parking Garage, or after 3 blocks/plates of lead thickness or so. It’s not good to be under the first several tiers (less than about a meter or two of concrete) of a Parking Garage as far as cosmic muons, go. If you’re on top of the garage, the number of muons decaying in you (depositing damaging radiation), will be less than the impeded muons by moderate amounts of concrete ... Of course if the amount of concrete is substantial, then the brunt of muons will have decayed away. If you check out the thesis/reference I placed at the bottom, you will see in the simulations based mainly on the Bethe-Bloch Equation (for radiation stopping power of heavy particles like muons) etc., that radiation dose increases with small amounts of concrete above the human body. Another interesting factoid from the thesis: Outside, your stomach (torso) area takes the most radiation dosage from vertically-delivered cosmic muons... ugh... ... As far as densities go, the whole Earth atmosphere is about equal to 10 meters of water (Human Body?), 2 m of Rock (Concrete?) or 0.9 m of Lead. Recall that the speed of light in vacuum is about 1 foot per nanosecond. That’s about all ya need (besides the stuff mentioned above) to crunch it all out, roughly... http://scholarworks.gsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1013&context=phy_astr_diss - Mark Jurich From: Jones Beene<mailto:jone...@pacbell.net> Sent: Saturday, August 08, 2015 3:21 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> Subject: RE: [Vo]:Re: The appearance of muons are explained by SPP theory. From: Mark Jurich One of the references below, demonstrates what happens when you let some Purdue Students loose in/on a Concrete Parking Garage. Mark, this reference agrees to some extent with the earlier one (with lead plates to absorb muons, or not). Quote: “It was expected that the count rate would be highest on the rooftop when there was no obstruction between the sky and the detector; however, it was measured to be significantly lower...” Go figure…
