Muon contradiction

 wikipedia wrote:

As with other leptons, the muon is not thought to be composed of any simpler particles.
wikipedia wrote:Muon decay almost always produces at least three particles, which must include an electron of the same charge as the muon and two types of neutrinos.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon

How is the muon not composed of any simpler particles, if on the same page they say it decays into three other particles ?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

An introduction to Refractional Redshift, and how it was confused with gravitational redshift (updated)

Image
  AN INTRODUCTION TO REFRACTIONAL REDSHIFT, AND HOW IT WAS CONFUSED WITH GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT. GENERAL RELATIVITY DEBUNKED. Marius L. Vasile @Vasile Effect   In this paper I will prove that refraction causes a redshift, which I cleverly named Refractional redshift, and that this redshift was not so cleverly confused with gravitational redshift by the world's finest scientists- we're talking Harvard, Nobel prize level here- which were either ignorant of refraction, or doctors in doctoring experiments with it. Refractional redshift is by far the most common and yet unknown type of redshift- certainly for astronomers, who have no ideea that it exists. It is caused due to the fact that during refraction the speed of light changes, but the frequency remains constant. Since f=v/lambda, where lambda is the wavelength, it immediately follows that the wavelength changes too in order to preserve the frequency. This results in an increase of wavelength or a redshift when the s
Read more

Refractional redshift completely disproves General Relativity & Big Bang theory

Image
  An introduction to Refractional redshift, and how it was confused with gravitational redshift Marius L. Vasile - absolute skeptic    ' Astronomers know of three sources of redshift/blueshift: Doppler shifts; gravitational redshifts (due to light exiting a gravitational field); and cosmological expansion (where space itself stretches)' -Wikipedia ' Astronomers don't know anything '- Vasilepedia In this paper I will prove that refraction  causes a redshift, which I cleverly named Refractional redshift, and that this redshift was not so cleverly confused with gravitational redshift by the world's finest scientists- we're talking Harvard, Nobel prize level here- which were either ignorant of refraction, or doctors in doctoring experiments with it. Refractional redshift is by far the most common and yet unknown type of redshift- certainly for astronomers, who have no ideea that it exists. It is caused due to the fact that during refraction the speed of lig
Read more

Refraction causes redshift, gravity does not. General relativity is wrong.

Image
The theory of general relativity (which is the basis of the big-bang theory) is wrong, and I say this because, besides the fact that Einstein abberates that gravity is not a force, but a curvature of space and time, which is an absolute non-sense, not relative, and attributes geodesics to space and time, which is absolutely illogical because space does not have a surface (a geodesic is by definition related to a surface), and time does not have a surface either (the 'surface of time' is an aberration, as well as the 'surface of space', respectively the 'surface of space-time'), the experiments that have allegedly confirmed it are extremely illogical, if not downright stupid. There are three main tests of general relativity, and all of them disprove general relativity if they are interpreted correctly. I will first reffer to the one in which the Nobel laureates, scientists Pound and Rebka, used a Helium bag and air to demonstrate that gravity produces the change
Read more