Muon’s time dilation

Before going into the story of cosmic ray muons, have a look at the following link to have a flavour of the stupidity of relativists. http://debunkingrelativity.com/2013/03/24/relativity-mania/

Cosmic ray muons or high energy muons are produced at about 16000 meters above the ground as cosmic radiation from outer space collides with the atoms of the Earth’s atmosphere. Scientists observed that significant numbers of these cosmic ray muons (produced in the upper crust of the Earth’s atmosphere) survive to reach to the ground level. In other words a significant proportion of cosmic muons are able to travel a distance of 16000 meters in their life span.

But scientists from their experiments on laboratory muons, swear that muons live for only about 2 microseconds and travel at a speed of 0.9c. So according to them, a muon can only travel about 600 meters in its life time.  Then how could the cosmic ray muons, produced in the upper crust of the earth’s atmosphere, are able to travel a distance of 16000 meters and reach the ground?

The only possible explanation for this scenario according to the weird relativists is time dilation and length contraction.

But only science maniacs and relativity extremists will swear upon the above ‘facts’ on muon’s life span and speed and propose these highly counterintuitive notions like time dilation. Scientists have only noted the life span and speed of low energy muons produced in particle accelerators. How can the same be considered true for the high energy cosmic ray muons?

In fact, in the light of the above new findings why can’t we propose that muons can travel faster or live longer than what we knew of them?

Imagine that we have seen a Caucasian boy running at 10mts/sec. Obviously he would take 10 seconds to travel 100mts. But the same may not be true for another Caucasian boy. And if we see a different Caucasian boy travelling 100mts in just 8 seconds, we wouldn’t say that the second boy has experienced time dilation and space contraction. Rather we would simply say that the second boy has run faster than the first boy. We know that a body’s speed depends upon various factors, some are known and some are unknown to us. However perfect is our knowledge about a boy and the surroundings; we can’t control all the factors that could affect his speed. Our ignorance and inability is obvious in the macro world.

Then why are we adamant that we know everything about the muon and controlled all the factors which could affect its speed and life span? Relativists propose time dilation as if our knowledge about the life span and the speed of muons is perfect and absolute. Under certain conditions (gravity, energy state, environment etc) why not a muon travel faster or live longer before it decays into the smaller particles.

Muon’s time dilation is only a calculated/predicted effect from the mathematics of relativity and hence can’t be accepted as a proof of relativity. Muon’s time dilation is what we would propose in the given scenario if the theory of relativity is correct. Relativists resort to circular logic here i.e. they believe that relativity is true, so they imagine time dilation as really happening for the muons and then they claim their imagination of time dilation as proof of relativity —- like this they keep going in circles in every scenario that they claim as proof of relativity.

Why not the muons produced in the laboratory experience the same time dilation and length contraction if their speed was same as that of the cosmic ray muons? And if they did, why haven’t we seen the laboratory muons travel the same 16000 meters as their cosmic counter parts? And if they travelled 16000 meters distance in their life span of 2 microseconds, what would be their speed?

So it is just rubbish all the way down, not even tortoises! The tortoise model of the universe is much better than relativity.

Particles travelling in Storage Ring Accelerators

Apparently when muons were made to travel at a very high speed (0.99c) in a large diameter ring accelerator at Brookhaven, they apparently experienced time dilation as exactly predicted by special relativity. And recently, scientists have apparently observed the same thing happening with lithium ions travelling in storage ring accelerators. http://www.nature.com/news/special-relativity-aces-time-trial-1.15970

But muons travelling in circular orbits are actually in accelerated motion and not in uniform motion. We know that according to the religion of relativity, SR applies to particles in uniform motion and GR for particles in accelerated motion. (Some physics ‘pastors’ use circular motion to ‘illustrate’ the effects of GR: The Elegant Universe by Brain Greene). So if the stupid theory of relativity were to be correct, the particles travelling in ring accelerators must have experienced time dilation as predicted by general relativity but not special relativity.

Go to Next Page

Go to Previous Page

Go to Main Index

Comments

  • Peter McMahon  On November 3, 2013 at 2:20 am

    I am very skeptical of time dilation theory and can show that the effect is an optical illusion, which can be demonstrated for an object travelling at right-angles to the observer using Pythagoras’s Theorem (like throwing a rock at a sign form a speeding vehicle.) If the object is travelling at .8C, & emits a burst of light as it passes, & light travels at 1C relative to it’s source, the sphere of light will expand around the object, & the light emitted at about 53 deg. to the rear will intercept the observer. The horizontal component of it’s motion (.8C) will null out the object’s motion, and the vertical component of the light motion, & the information it carries will be straight down at .6C, which agrees exactly with Einstein’s Equation.
    But you appear to have a couple of your facts wrong. From my research on the net, the distance they travel is about 6000m, not 16000, & take about 20uS, but supposedly live about 10x longer due to their speed.

    • drgsrinivas  On November 3, 2013 at 3:06 pm

      Few things are not clear in your thought experiment- for example, you mentioned that the object is travelling at 0.8C, but with reference to whom and in what direction? But anyway, if the light beam travels at 0.6C ‘vertically’, that destroys the law of constant speed of light and so the witch theory of relativity.

      About the figures, you may refer to http://www.nobelprize.org/educational/physics/relativity/transformations-4.html

      But don’t bother about the figures- the fact that cosmic ray muons reach to the ground can’t be argued as proof of time dilation.
      Time dilation is not an optical illusion but is a delusion of the scientific crowd who hold the superstitious belief of the constant speed of light.

  • d f  On February 3, 2014 at 8:09 am

    —— Muons are produced at a range of altitudes, anywhere from 10k-20k feet i think. But you miss the point of the muon experiment: far more reach the ground than they should using classical mechanics. With classical mechanics, none of them should make it to the ground. Yet, they are seen. But when you apply relativity and time dilation, then the numbers add up. And this is not the only evidence for time dilation- not by a long shot.

    ————– there has NEVER been an experiment that has measured anything travelling faster than the speed of light. NEVER.

    • drgsrinivas  On February 3, 2014 at 6:23 pm

      We don’t need your weird religion to explain the observations on cosmic ray muons.
      As already explained, that can be easily explained if we assume that the cosmic ray muons live longer or travel faster than what you know of them.

      I don’t really think we will find particles travelling faster than light but even if we find one, as is the case with cosmic ray muons, you relativists will resort to the stupid propositions of space contraction or time dilation in that scenario and manage to distort even the most obvious evidence.

      Rest of your comments are not even worth mentioning here.

  • Aaron Do  On March 6, 2014 at 12:39 pm

    Hi,

    there’s a website called alternativephysics.org where the author gives an alternative explanation for the muon time dilation issue. He basically argues that its possible that the muons traveling down to earth are actually traveling much faster than the speed of light (SOL). He was kind enough to email me an explanation.

    He also points out that the reason that experiments never seem to calculate particles moving faster than SOL is because they use the relativity equations in their calculations. Such equations start with the assumption that SOL is the maximum possible speed, and therefore its impossible to get numbers higher than SOL using those equations. Perhaps scientists have actually observed higher than SOL particles several times, but they just didn’t know it…

    • drgsrinivas  On March 9, 2014 at 10:30 pm

      That’s true. The observations on cosmic ray muons can be explained either by assuming that they live longer than what we know of them or by assuming that they travel faster than the ‘SOL’. (http://debunkingrelativity.com/2013/03/24/relativity-mania/)

      Yes, the formulae of relativity are built upon the stupid assumption that light always travels at speed ‘c’ relative to every observer (including the ‘muon observer’ irrespective of its velocity). So the question of muons travelling faster than light doesn’t make sense to the insane relativists. Their weird maths doesn’t simply allow that. But of course, the muons are given the option of experiencing time dilation and space contraction as a consolation! And these magical phenomena allow the muons travel longer distance than light in the ‘same time’. That may make you wonder what the definition of velocity is. The stupidity of relativity is so straightforward but at the same time so difficult to convey, simply because it is so vast.

      Actually I don’t believe that ‘c’ represents the velocity of photons. Basically, whether it is photons or muons or other particles, I don’t buy the idea that particles travel at specific/fixed velocities. In our everyday world, we know that the rate of motion of a particle or body depends upon the sum total of all the forces acting upon it. Depending upon its mass, the energy imparted to it and the environment (Ether/ air/ water etc), the same particle or body may travel slower or faster.
      And the same thing applies to photons and muons. A muon may travel faster than ‘c’. A photon may also travel faster than ‘c’. But if everything else remains the same, it is unlikely that a muon can travel faster than a photon for the simple reason that it is more massive than the photon. (Of course I don’t believe in the scientific superstition that photons are massless particles).

      Also I don’t believe that waves propagate at specific velocities. If you ever have closely observed the water waves or tides in a sea, you would have noticed that all of them don’t travel with the same velocity. The higher the amplitude i.e. height of the tide, the faster it will travel. So the velocity of a wave depends upon its amplitude. I know this is vastly different from what we have recited since our school days and what our great physicists have taught us for centuries. I am sure you will appreciate that once I present my work on wave mechanics. And because the amplitude of a tide decreases as it propagates or gets scattered, its velocity also decreases.

      In the photon Ether model of our universe, I said that our entire universe is permeated by a sea of photons, and there isn’t anything called absolute vacuum. Any object moving though the space must move through this sea of photons and overcome the resistance offered by the Ether medium- so a moving body/ particle is ought to slow down with time in the absence of further energy input. Can you guess the consequence of this? Another great law that we have recited for centuries i.e. the law of inertia of motion falls apart.

      I will be discussing many such issues and exposing many scientific myths in classical physics and wave mechanics in my upcoming articles.

  • 94niners  On June 20, 2014 at 1:03 pm

    There is a bunch of misunderstanding on some of the topics being discussed here. Take THIS for example:

    “But anyway, if the light beam travels at 0.6C ‘vertically’, that destroys the law of constant speed of light and so the witch theory of relativity”

    You and Peter McMahon are failing to take into account the skewing of coordinate systems. In other words, what you are doing is confusing SPACETIME with SPACE. It is a common mistake relativity noobs like yourself make, MR Srinivasa Rao Gonuguntla.

    You too, Peter McMahon. You are confusing SPACE coordinate axes with SPACETIME coordinate axes. Jesus how is it that such an ELEMENTARY mistake is being made here?

    Also, regarding the neutrino experiment that supposedly had them moving faster than light. IT WAS FLAWED, as the peer review processed revealed. They had experimental error they did not account for. Case closed. Try again. Better ruck tomorrow.

    • drgsrinivas  On June 20, 2014 at 11:01 pm

      That’s right, we are confusing the ‘glitters’ on the body of your nude Emperor as that due to the sweat droplets, while your deluded ‘intelligent’ minds are able to ‘correctly’ imagine them as glitters embedded into his invisible magical costume!

      Dear ‘wise man’, nobody here is clinging to your experimental errors or swearing by your pastors’ FTL neutrino delusion. We don’t even believe in what your pastors swear as ‘correct experiment’, why do we bother about the errors which they have committed and also confessed about the same.
      (I know why your pastors have ‘confessed’ that ‘flaw’ — if they didn’t, that would screw up their own ‘goddess’ theory)

  • Marlin Pierce  On July 15, 2014 at 3:26 am

    Regarding your comment “Basically, whether it is photons or muons or other particles, I don’t buy the idea that particles travel at specific/fixed velocities. In our everyday world, we know that the rate of motion of a particle or body depends upon the sum total of all the forces acting upon it.”

    The Michelson-Morley experiment failed to detect differences in the speed of light when they expected different forces were acting upon the light. They expected the difference to be due to Fresnel drag of luminiferous aether. However, the experiment demonstrated a constant speed of light irrespective of the different velocities of the observer.

    Einstein demonstrated through conjecture that if the speed of light is the same for all observers, and the speed of light is not additive to the velocity where the light originated, then a bunch of ridiculously unintuitive consequences follow, including time dilation, length contraction, and an increase in mass. As velocity approaches the speed of light, mass approaches infinity, and thus requires increasing amounts of force to accelerate, making it impossible to accelerate to the speed of light.

  • marlinpierce  On July 15, 2014 at 7:56 pm

    Scientists do not claim “muons live for only about 2 microseconds and travel at a speed of 0.9c”.

    Muons have a half-life of 1.5 microseconds. So out of every million muons, after 1.5 µs only half a million would remain, and after 150 µs, there might still be one muon.

    I did not find any information that muons always travel at 0.9c, only that cosmic ray muons travel about this speed (0.98c). I would not assume that laboratory muons move at close to the speed of light. Hence, the difference between laboratory and cosmic ray muons, not that they are a different type, but I would interpret the information that I have that the difference is laboratory observations were closer to rest than relativistic speed.

    This does not change your argument. Some editing to correct this information, and your argument is mostly the same.

    • drgsrinivas  On July 16, 2014 at 5:18 pm

      I agree with you, it was actually the half life of muons and not their exact life span that the scientists had measured. But to convey the gist to the ‘ordinary’ scientific minds, I have intentionally mentioned that as life span.
      As you have correctly mentioned, whether we take that as muons life span or half life, the argument remains the same. (Of course despite the simplification, many ‘scientific’ minds fail to realise the stupidity of the relativity religion and they continue to religiously swear by what their pastors preach).

  • cydonio  On September 28, 2014 at 7:58 am

    Hey Srinivasa, without maths and experiments your statements don’t prove anything

    • drgsrinivas  On September 28, 2014 at 10:02 am

      This is the usual argument posed by the educated half brains of the of relativity religion. The following should satisfy those religious half brains who don’t bother about logic but are obsessed about maths and experiments.

      Maths: 2muons + 3muons = 5muons
      Experiment: I have observed kites flying in the sky today. More over there are no dinosaurs.
      The above maths and experimental observations prove that relativity and time dilation are wrong.

      Are you satisfied now?

      The moral: If one resorts to stupid reasoning, any observation/ maths can be claimed as proof of any weird theory. That is the case with your stupid religion. What matters is not maths or experiments but how sensible one is while using the maths and how logical one is while interpreting the experimental data.

    • Galacar  On September 28, 2014 at 11:05 am

      To cydonio:

      Math? Math is no substitute for thinking! FAR from it!

      Here is what the genius Tesla had to say about that!

      Read and think!

      “Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.

      Nikola Tesla”

      Just don’t follow uncritically tne ‘crowd’ !

  • Galacar  On September 28, 2014 at 4:23 pm

    A very good example of mis-using math is the “Work Function”::

    W=F x d W=amount of Work F is Force and d=distance.

    Of course this can be used and is used to calculate the amount of Work done.

    No problem here.

    But over the years it, subtle, changed to a Work Detector!

    What is wrong with that? Well, suppose there is an object too heavy to move.

    One man could give enormous amout of work and energy so the man is

    exhausted after a feww hours. but the object hasn’t moved qn inch!

    According to the Work Function’ the amount of work would be “0”:!

    Of course that would be absurd and here we see the danger using math without

    any logical thinking or relations to the ‘real world’.

    Of course I have asked some would be scientists and guess what?

    They all agreed there was no work done!

    If that doesn’t show the stupidiy of academic science, I don’t know what does.

    • drgsrinivas  On September 29, 2014 at 6:23 pm

      The above ‘work equation’ is probably not the best of their stupidity. Many ‘scientists’ do realise that work is done in the above scenario (by deformation etc). Also they do realise that work is done when we just hold a body in the air without actually displacing it.

      In any case I don’t go with the physicists’ definition of work- http://debunkingrelativity.com/2014/03/29/force-work-and-energy/

  • Galacar  On September 29, 2014 at 6:31 pm

    drgsrinivas

    Maybe it is not the best example, but as I have stated I asked a few would be scientists and they agreed no work was done! I tried to explain but they didn’t ‘get it’!

    So, it is just an example of the many.

  • Galacar  On September 29, 2014 at 6:41 pm

    Btw my example as an example where people think that gravity doesn’t do any work as long as the distance is 0. One of the stupidest of sciences is gravity, because if it is a force then we are in a lot of trouble! So much to say about gravity, but anyway, it is in conflict with other physical laws.
    And the work functio was used to circumvent this kind of problems.
    Ah well, it shows how extremely stupid ‘modern science’ is.

  • hywel  On October 26, 2014 at 8:17 pm

    i take it you don’t believe in the theory of the invarient speed of light rel to all observers?
    neither do i.
    but, and help me out here, i thought that when muons are speeded up through particle accelerators they live longer, providing evidence of time dilation.
    is this a fact proved in an experiment?

  • Enn Norak  On October 27, 2014 at 7:10 am

    The above discussion has profound implications in cosmology. It appears that math-savvy cosmologists have hijacked the concept of infinite empty space and have endowed space with fictitious properties including the ability to expand like a balloon being inflated. Hence the currently popular theory of inflation where the universe possibly expands forever. Relativity allows us to explain illusions of observation but does not represent reality per se. Cosmologists have not reached consensus on the nature of the past, present, and future of the universe. The ultimate fate of the universe remains under investigation and I see relativity as probably hampering that investigation if we continue to treat illusions of observation as reality.

    Time dilation and length contraction appear to be nothing more than an attempt to ensure that the math of relativity agrees with the theory itself and that the results of certain experiments are consistent with theory.

    I’m not trying to revisit the “tired light” hypothesis of Fritz Zwicky way back in 1929. While Zwicky postulated that ancient photons have lost energy due to external influences such as collisions with molecules in space, or by moving thru gravitational fields during their long journey thru space, I suspect that an internal mechanism of photons is responsible for energy loss and our observation of redshift here on earth.

    Suppose there is minute hysteresis between the magnetic and electrical components of electromechanical radiation including light. Such hysteresis would result in a slow loss of photon energy in cumulative amounts that increase with distance traveled from distant stars.. Over billions of years, the cumulative redshift due to such hysteresis loss could be greater than any redshift from Doppler effects.

    If we are actually in the process of a big crunch and not in a period of cosmic expansion, we should observe a blueshift instead of a redshift. If redshift due to the above-mentioned hysteresis loss exceeds what is actually a blueshift Doppler effect, then there will be a net redshift even though we are actually approaching distant stars in our universe.

    By the way, Zwycky was correct that photons lose energy when they collide with atoms in space, at least to the extent that one photon in several million loses energy when by colliding with a hydrogen atom. Hydrogen atoms are sparse in space but, when photons travel distances measured in billions of light-years, most of them are bound to collide with a hydrogen atom just the right way at some point during their long journey.

    • drgsrinivas  On October 27, 2014 at 10:06 am

      It is not just relativity, we have to rewrite almost the entire physics from the basics- including wave motion, Newton’s laws, classical mechanics. And then we will realise why the idea of tired light isn’t weird. No wave or particle can continue to travel with the same velocity for ever.

      And contrary to what we have all religiously recited for ages, the velocity of a wave depends upon its amplitude. And the amplitude of any wave decreases as it propagates in space.

      http://debunkingrelativity.com/2014/03/22/revamping-wave-mechanics/

  • Galacar  On October 28, 2014 at 12:24 pm

    to hywel

    I even don’t trust so called ”proves’ from an experiment.
    I see it all a sheer propaganda.

    You see, there is big global conspiracy at work, no kidding!
    So much to say about that.But everything ‘official is completely wrong,
    or very very skewed.

    yes, all of it, politics, banking, physics, biology,media, medicine, and what not.
    But it is too much for here.

  • hywel  On November 3, 2014 at 8:56 pm

    drgsrinivas, re your link atomic clocks and time: i agree – environment dictates nature mass, so any clocking slowing etc is a pure mechanical process and nothing to do with time dilation.
    but my understanding of general relativity is that light and all emr is immune to gravity.
    gravity warps space and light travels through the space taking the path of least resistance.
    light propagates the way it does because because it is mass-less, therefore has no resistance to acceleration and gravity has no effect on it.
    is this how you see it?
    And, is there any evidence that light is not a constant – are their any experiments that show a variant speed of c in a vacuum?

    • drgsrinivas  On November 6, 2014 at 11:10 am

      hywel, first of all I don’t believe that light particles are massless. I have discussed about this in few places on this blog. Coming to the constancy of speed of light, it is so ridiculous an idea that even if there exists some experimental proof, we should just take that as proof of some inherent error in the experimental methodology and in the interpretation of data.

      Not only that I disagree with SOL, I don’t even believe in what our physicists preach about speed of sound. Much of the confusion actually comes from our physicists’ misunderstanding of wave motion. If you carefully observe the tides in a sea, you will note that water waves don’t travel with a fixed velocity. Waves of high amplitude travel faster and those of low amplitude travel slowly. So it is the amplitude which determines the propagation velocity of a wave. A wave’s amplitude decreases as it propagates in the medium and so is its propagation velocity. And then, a wave doesn’t propagate with the same velocity in all directions.

      Sound doesn’t actually constitute a wave but is a sensation that we perceive when our inner ear receives a specific pattern of energy stimuli via air waves, water waves, ‘bone waves’, ‘metal waves’ etc. The so called ‘sound waves’ travelling in water are nothing but water waves and those travelling in air are nothing but air waves. So there isn’t anything called a sound wave in reality. When a tuning fork vibrates in air, it produces air waves and when the same vibrates in water, it produces water waves. Both waves carry/ transmit the same patterns of energy signals and hence give the same sensation when they hit our sound sensor mechanism.

      And light is a sensation that we receive when ether waves strike our photosensitive retina. So a better way (probably the only correct way) of classifying different types of waves is by basing upon the medium: ether waves (light waves or EM waves), air waves, water waves, solid matter waves etc.

      And contrary to the traditional teaching, all waves are longitudinal waves and there aren’t really anything called transverse waves. What we see/perceive as a transverse wave (the ripple on the surface of a pond) is nothing but the surface manifestation of an underlying longitudinal wave.

      Just like water waves and air waves, ether waves (i.e. light waves) also must be ‘capable’ of travelling at different speeds i.e. as slow as 1mm/sec and as fast as ‘c’. Probably the properties of a medium decide the maximum speed limit of its waves. And ‘c’ may well represent the maximum speed limit possible in Ether medium.

      http://debunkingrelativity.com/2014/03/22/revamping-wave-mechanics/

      I believe that Logic is the most powerful tool in elucidating the mysteries of creation and understanding our universe. And Mathematics represents the ‘short hand’ of logic and should not be considered beyond logic.
      And it is the experimental observations which have to obey the logical predictions to prove that the experimental methodology is correct. If some observations seem to go against our known logic, there must either be a deeper logical explanation that connects the known logic with the weird observations or that there must have been some methodological /instrumental error. It should never be taken to indicate that our Nature is weird or to argue against logic. If Nature was illogical, then we could interpret any observation in any stupid manner and argue that as proof of any stupid notion!

  • Galacar  On November 4, 2014 at 2:26 pm

    to hywel

    If you study the works of Bruce Cathie, about an electromagnetic grid around the earth, the so-called earth grid, you can find out that there is a inverse relationship with gravity and speed of light,
    Very interesteing work AND if you read his work you will see that there is already a unifiied, albeit different then the academic one, theory and that nearly all we learn at universities, and hence at schools, is false!

    • hywel  On November 5, 2014 at 6:37 pm

      yes, I will thanks. if a clocks travels at a high speed its mass will increase; if you take it into a stronger gravitational field the clock will also slow down.
      what relativists see as time dilation could simply be explained by the effect of gravity/mass on the clock.
      not much different than throwing it the river and water have an effect on the clock.
      this could be explained to a child.

  • Galacar  On November 5, 2014 at 11:59 pm

    to hywel

    I really think the whole of REAL physics can be explained to a child!
    The work of Victor Schauberger shows this, This is what he said:

    “The majority believes that everything hard to comprehend must be very profound. This is incorrect. What is hard to understand is what is immature, unclear and often false. The highest wisdom is simple and passes through the brain directly into the heart”

    Viktor Schauberger”

    Don’t you love this quote? I am still studying his work and it is much more insightfull then the whole of academic physics! And I have studied physics, alas!
    of course he was scorned by the academic people! They couldn’t understand him!

    And you know what a very big flaw in ‘science education’ is? It is the fact that everything is isolated from everything else with as apotheosis the lonely disconnected atom.

    In the work of schauberg everything becomes connected and it gives beautufull insight
    into REAL nature.

    • drgsrinivas  On November 6, 2014 at 9:11 am

      Thanks Galacar, I really love that statement of Viktor Schauberger. Yes, real physics is never so difficult to understand and can be easily explained to children. And let me add to that, nobody can really understand a false theory unless one misunderstands it (of course one could also be pretending as in the nude Emperor’s story).

  • hywel  On November 10, 2014 at 10:57 pm

    Galacar and drgsrinivas,
    thanks, yes, i do love this quote.
    i am familiar with bruce cathie. He believes light has no speed, just acceleration and deceleration?? still scratching my head over that one.
    i am interested, drgsrinivas, why you don’t believe that light is mass-less. i always assumed photons were matter with no mass. if not it blows my theory (provisional) out of the water.

  • Galacar  On November 11, 2014 at 3:13 pm

    to hywel

    Are you familiar with the works of Bruce Cathie or have you studied it?
    As far as I know, i have studied at least all of his books, light stil has a speed, but it is
    inverse with gravity, but we are talking about harmonics here, that is
    the basics of his works.
    Everything is light because we live in a holographic universe.
    .
    The funny thing in mainstream idoctri… oeps ‘science’ is, they even don’t know what light is but they use light to read their instruments, And that one is for starters!

    Now, may I also recommend the works now of Peter Bros, Higly Recommended!

    especially these two:

    “Where Science Went Wrong: Tracking Five Centuries of Misconceptions”

    and

    “Light: Replacing Three Centuries of Misconceptions”

    Very very good works BUT you have to read them slowly because you will bump
    into your own unconscious dogma’s and assertions., I know I did and I still do.

    After reading these I am rather certain that you will never look at ‘science'; the way you do now.

    science’ is really a very very deep and dark and sinister form of mind-control!
    So, the ones who went to their science classes at university really has
    to unlearn this programming!

    Hope this helps!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 33 other followers