According to Dewey Larson's Reciprocal System of physics, the muon is "cosmic argon", that is argon with time and space interchanged (hence the name "reciprocal system"). All of the 117 possible elements have cosmic equivalents, for some of which conventional physics has exotic particle names. By geometry, it is not possible to have an atomic number greater than 117.
Cosmic argon is an inert gas in the time domain, so can not form cosmic compounds, however, it has cosmic mass, so gravitates into time domain aggregates. It can take a charge ( a rotational vibration ) and have isotopes (captured neutrinos). All atoms are composed of photons rotating into three scalar dimensions (rotating onto themselves). The photon frequency is related to the Rydberg frequency. For every atom, there is a cosmic (inverse) equivalent. P.S. Larson's Reciprocal system accounts for all observed particles, however it also postulates a particle we call the (1,1,1) particle that has not been observed. It is related to hydrogen. Perhaps it is the BlackLightPower Hydrino. Hypothetical cosmic (inverse) humans would observe muons as argon. The cosmic humans would have a lifetime (to us) of ~6 nanoseconds and extend ~70 light years in height ( we see such things as individual cosmic rays, as they are aggregated in time, not space and are randomly dispersed in space). Hoyt Stearns Scottsdale, Arizona http://members.cox.net/hoyt-stearns see http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/isus/rec/reciprocity_11.htm http://www.rstheory.com/ -----Original Message----- From: Mark Goldes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, April 16, 2006 10:24 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Muonium Jones, This makes my day. Wonderful! May it prove accurate... Mark >From: "Jones Beene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [email protected] >To: "vortex" <[email protected]> >Subject: Muonium Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 08:57:21 -0700 > >Here is your decorated egg-du-jour, and don't passover it without an >open-minded look... as it could be a Faberge-in-the-rough. > >There has been a flurry of recent glossy fringe-journalism last week >(tending more towards SciFi then real Sci) and going well beyond the >credibility level of even LENR, which is focused on the so-called "Joe >Cell" and its active agent "orgone." > >Unfortunately, this online effort is almost completely devoid of scientific >factuality - but instead - overloaded with anecdote. Some of it is >intriguing. Nevertheless, despite enormous and inevitable skepticism even >from normally open-minded observers due to the subject matter, there could >yet be some small grain of truth to it - a microgram of sodium-chloride, >shall we say. > >Let me say first, that for having the courage to voice these ideas, >Sterling Allan should be applauded, even if 99% of them turn out to be >stinkers (how does orgone smell, anyway?). Onwards and upwards, plus-ultra. > >Here is the Wiki site for the muon. >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon > >If you were educated in physics several generations ago, you may have >trouble dropping the old name: mu meson, as the muon is not classified as a >meson anymore. Unlike the electron, the muon anti-particle (+charge) is as >likely to turn up in 3-space as the negative variety. The best feature of >the +muon is it can pick up an electron and form an atom - which is know as >"muonium." That part is fact. > >Some of the following speculation is loosely based on other factual details >- together with speculation about the possible misidentification of many >unknown "agents" which can turn up in energy anomalies, even >"below-ground-state" hydrogen - but most likely, the putative "orgone". >Neither the putative hydrino nor the putative orgone have been ruled out as >being basically: a longer-lived form of muonium. > >Muons have a mass of 105.6 MeV/c2, which is 207 times the electron mass and >have a lifetime in our 3-space of several microseconds (normally). Despite >their short lifetime, we are surrounded by them, as they are constantly >formed in large quantities by cosmic rays and get to the surface fast. >Since - on decay - the associated neutrino ends up carrying away most of >the excess energy, they are NOT a factor in "normal" accounting of energy - >although it was noted as far back as 1989-90 that the fact that SLC Utah >gets much more muon flux than does Boston <g> due to the elevation and thin >air - could be relevant to success in "certain" experiments. > >Since the interaction of the negative muon is similar to the electron, the >muon can be thought of as an extremely heavy electron, however the (+)muon >is more like a light proton. > >The muon atom, muonium, consisting of a +muon and a normal electron will be >almost the identical size as monatomic hydrogen, but about 9 times less >massive. These are normally short-lived but there is the possibility that >if two of them are formed together simultaneously, so that a molecule is >formed, then the lifetime will be extended - or that the QM waveform will >be localized to such a degree that they can be appear "serially" in a >succession of short lifetimes and appear as longer lived. > >So far - no evidence has been discovered in high energy experiments - where >the lifetime of muonium is greatly extended. As for lower energy >experiments - all one can say now is this: if the "Joe cell" proponents can >"stand up and deliver" on some level of scientific validation, instead of >the enormous level of hot air - then the best candidate material - which >comes to mind at this writing- for the identity of the active modality of >that cell (i.e. the "orgone" whatever that is) is known to physics today as >an extension or a longer-lived version of molecular-muonium. > >In the mid 1970s, experimental physicists devised experiments to probe the >weak interaction, and they expected the collision of neutrinos and protons >to turn the neutrino into a muon, and the proton into debris. > >They were surprised to discover that two muons, one negatively and one >positively charged, result from such collision. This generated a good deal >of theoretical discussion, until a consensus emerged on how that positive >muon comes about. The neutrino/proton collision produces not only proton >debris (pions) and a negative muon, but a charm quark, and that quark soon >decays into a strange quark, a muon neutrino, and a positive muon. Quite a >large and strange quark, n'est pas? > >IF ... and let me warn that this is about the biggest IF ever put into >circulation on any other date than April 1 <g> ... OK, if any low energy >device capable of "flipping" a large percentage of the normal neutrino flux >on earth's surface - from the "massless" into the "massive" variety can be >built (even with a great deal of luck) and if the device has a lot of >available protons in it (i.e. H2O) then yes you will have some increased >likelihood of neutrino-proton collisions, and the result could be a >population of thermalized positive muons available in a compact space - >small enough to form molecular-muonium and IF (multilayered big "ifs") that >molecular-muonium agent had a life time in the millisecond range and >increase the QM probability of secondary formation of same - then, yes, it >could possibly be used as a power source. > >What would be the main characteristic of this power source? Well that is >the interesting part, and were it not for that particular detail, then I >would not have wasted my time with all of the above. > >The main characteristic of this putative power source ( derived from a >neutrino "flipper" and molecular-muonium maker) - would be an ultimate >"implosion" together with an electric charge - as the rather voluminous >molecular-muonium decayed into neutrinos and electrons... This will not >mean much to you until you explore the reports of the Joe Cell on an >anecdotal level - but it is close to what happens and there is no reason to >report it this odd way if it were not true. > >... not that the anecdotal reports are "even" to the level of >fringe-reliability (that of a good SciFi story) yet. > >But they are very... shall we say, Jules-Vernesque... in implications. > >Jones >
