Muons are formed from cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere, decaying over time as they pass into the lower atmosphere, hence detection rates are higher at higher altitudes. There is an attempt to explain this phenomenon using SR, the supposed proof merely being the observed decrease flux of V-particles, secondary cosmic ray particles such as muons, at lower altitudes.

According to mathematical physicists, the lower detection rates of cosmic ray particles at lower altitudes are the result of the time dilation of the faster more energetic muons – a claim that also presumes that the earth, unlike the secondary cosmic rays, is moving slowly relative to absolute rest or itself constitutes absolute rest - and/or that the particles are moving fast relative to human observers! The lower detection rate at lower altitudes is because only the longer-lived particles, living longer because they move faster, are more likely to reach lower altitudes. This simplistic claim ignores the experimental procedure in favor of a quick and dirty ‘absolute’ proof for SR (and the implicit absolute motion).

The reasons for particle decay are twofold.

First, the short-lived particles are inherently decay-prone, decaying of themselves according to the half-life principle also found with radioactive isotopes; each type of particle decaying with its own distinctive half-life, muons for example being much more stable than pions, in turn more stable than most other particles.

Second, these particles interact with the media through which they travel – the atmosphere in this case. We know this to be true because such particle-medium interactions are so commonly observed in particle detectors, i.e. cloud chambers, spark chambers and bubble chambers.

Given these two considerations, time dilation would then be a postulatedthirdfactor. Since the decay rates of particles are dependent on the type of particle, the inherent decay-proneness of these particles is unquestionably true. Yet the mathematical physicists believe that they can reveal the third factor by correcting MERELY for the second, i.e. particle interaction with the atmosphere. The second factor has to be corrected for since it is natural to think that a slow-moving particle would be more likely to interact with the atmospheric medium than a faster moving one. It is natural to think this because there is so much physical evidence for this phenomenon e.g. slower moving electrons are more easily deflected by electric and magnetic fields in a cathode-ray tube.

The mathematical physicists ‘prove’ their case by referring to an experimental comparison of high-altitude and low-altitude particle detection; such separation being achievable due to the ready availability of high mountains in which to place detectors! A common altitude differential is about two kilometers. In order to correct for the mass of the atmosphere that lies between the two altitudes, the high-altitude experiments were carried out under a suitable thickness of iron plates or equivalent mass-thickness of water. This material comprises a 'substitute' for the matter comprising the atmosphere. In one case this ‘atmosphere substitute material’ separates the detector from the atmosphere by a few centimeters, by less than a meter of water in another case. The theory here is that the equivalent mass of iron plates or water will induce particle decay immediately above the high-altitude detector to the same degree as that caused by the intervening atmosphere for the low-altitude detector – an assumption readily questionable but we will assume its essential correctness here as the mathematical physicists do.

When such an experiment is carried out,; therefore, trumpets the mathematical physicist, we have proven that the particle-medium interaction does not explain the lower detection rate at lower altitude, thus the difference must be due to time dilation since this is the only other possible explanation!the high-altitude detector still detects a higher particle rate than the detector at low altitude

This claim however is false as it introduces a crude bias into the experimental interpretation – its crudeness ignored only because the mathematical physicists are so obsessed with their narrow agenda.

The crude bias consists in the fact that the high-altitude detector has a path usually two kilometers shorter than that of the low-altitude detector. In other words, the first factor, the particles’ spontaneous tendency to decay, has more time to occur with the low-altitude detector than with the high-altitude detector – and this extra time and extra path-length is decisive since the particles themselves are formed by cosmic rays striking the earth’s atmosphere only a few kilometers further up! Hence the experimental procedure of counteracting the effect of the atmosphere actually biases the testing in favor of claiming ‘a time dilation effect’. Hence the difference between the high-altitude and low-altitude detectors is explainedby ignoring the length of the detection path, and in consequence the first factor viz. the spontaneous tendency of these particles to decay AND the time available in which to decayby time dilation but by the first factor – the longer path for the low-altitude detector allows more time for the particles to decay.not

That is, the mathematical physicists’ great performance over demonstrating the negation thesecondfactor is merely is to hide the bias introduced concerning thefirstfactor!

Indeed, for an unbiased experiment, the ‘high-altitude’ detectors should not only be covered by material equal in mass to that of the atmosphere between high-altitude and low-altitude detectors,That is, the two detectors should be at equal altitudes in order to allow for spontaneous particle decay. This means that the ‘high altitude’ detector should be placed at low altitude, separated from the iron plates or water by roughly two kilometers of vacuum – i.e. the detector at the bottom of a suitably long vacuum path within a hollowed-out mountain! Such large vacuums havebut should also be separated from this material by a vacuum as high as the original altitude between the detectors so that the effect of the first factor is ruled out.been created beneath mountains – hence an unbiased experiment compensating for both the first and second factors so as to demonstrate adequately the third has not been performed. With this realization though, the first two factors account quite satisfactorily for the observed particle decay pattern. The invocation of time dilation & thus SR is at best an unnecessary and superfluous complication.not

Clear too is the fact that the differential decay of fast and slow-moving subatomic particles no more demonstrates time dilation than the longer survival time of faster-running rabbits in a fox-infested field demonstrates time dilation in rabbits!

TFOLZO