REFUTATE THIS

  • 85 Replies
  • 18881 Views
REFUTATE THIS
« on: March 04, 2010, 04:17:19 AM »
Hi. I'm a physics student, and last summer I had the chance of working with CSIC, a spanish organization about science and particulary with IFIC, the "institute of corpuscular physics" for two months. It was a practice-like job. Well, one of my jobs was to analyze and process the data from ANTARES, a neutrino detector that lies at the bottom of the mediterranean sea. Neutrino are particles that travels without interacting with mater, almost. And are produced greatly by the sun. They don't reflect, they don't bend and usual matter is transparent to them.

Well, we detected, as we were hoping to find out, a massive source of neutrino from the sun. I saw the data. What is amazing about it is that, even at night, when te sun is "under the earth", we still detect neutrino from it, that came trough the entire earth to our detector. SO WE DETECTED THAT THE SUN WAS UNDER OURSELVES (f.e. over China), AND THATS ONLY POSSIBLE WITH RE THEORY. In your FE theory the sun is ALWAYS over our heads and that's INCOMPATIBLE with our experiment. So, what do you say?

Whoever wants to know more about neutrino, ANTARES, and stuff like that, there is plenty of information at wikipedia.

Also, how do you explain wind and cloud movement across the earth? It's all due to coriolis effect, a thing that only happens in a rotating sphere. That causes hurricans, sea flows, etc etc.

PD: sorry about my english, i'm spanish.

Re: REFUTATE THIS
« Reply #1 on: March 04, 2010, 05:33:21 AM »
There are already a few good busy threads on here about Neutrino experiments and the Coriolis effect. ERTW is a neutrino physicist if I'm not mistaken and his thread on the matter pretty much stumped the FE'rs if I recall correctly. As for the Coriolis effect, Tom Bishop posted some piss poor explanation involving wind gears.
My city was betrayed by the weak..

?

ERTW

  • 611
  • Always fall back to common sense
Re: REFUTATE THIS
« Reply #2 on: March 04, 2010, 10:10:28 AM »
Neutrinos have been discussed in the following places.

The sun at midnight (Super K):
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=5844.0

Solar neutrinos (SNO, Super K):
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=21793.0

Beam Neutrinos (T2K, K2K, MINOS):
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=27426.0

Neutrino detection hardware and software (to counter claims of conspiracy):
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=34703.0

It would be great if you posted your experience at ANTARES in a new thread, or add it to the other two solar neutrino threads. Both threads have been inactive for a while due to claims that neutrinos are either too difficult to detector or the data is made up. I countered these arguments by creating the Neutrino Detection Hardware (and software) thread.

The Beam Neutrinos thread is somewhat active since it indirectly examines the shape of the Earth instead of the composition of the Sun.

Welcome to the FES!

PS: I am an engineering student, not a physicist. I just happened to get an awesome Co-op job.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2010, 10:12:36 AM by ERTW »
Don't diss physics until you try it!

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: REFUTATE THIS
« Reply #3 on: March 04, 2010, 10:44:25 AM »
Both neutrinos and light bend within FET. Neutrinos, unlike photons, interact negligibly with ordinary matter. This renders the whole Earth as basically transparent to neutrinos. A sketch of the idea is the following:


?

ERTW

  • 611
  • Always fall back to common sense
Re: REFUTATE THIS
« Reply #4 on: March 04, 2010, 10:47:28 AM »
Both neutrinos and light bend within FET. Neutrinos, unlike photons, interact negligibly with ordinary matter. This renders the whole Earth as basically transparent to neutrinos. A sketch of the idea is the following:
Glad to see you have some time to look at the neutrino problem again Parsec. I will see you in the Beam Neutrino thread.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2010, 10:49:09 AM by ERTW »
Don't diss physics until you try it!

*

SupahLovah

  • 5164
  • Santasaurus Rex!
Re: REFUTATE THIS
« Reply #5 on: March 04, 2010, 10:48:12 AM »
Both neutrinos and light bend within FET. Neutrinos, unlike photons, interact negligibly with ordinary matter. This renders the whole Earth as basically transparent to neutrinos. A sketch of the idea is the following:

Why would the same thing that effects light effect neutrinos? They're not similar.
"Study Gravitation; It's a field with a lot of potential!"

?

ERTW

  • 611
  • Always fall back to common sense
Re: REFUTATE THIS
« Reply #6 on: March 04, 2010, 10:49:41 AM »
Also Parsec, this has nothing to do with the OP, since his post was about solar neutrinos not beam neutrinos.
Don't diss physics until you try it!

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: REFUTATE THIS
« Reply #7 on: March 04, 2010, 10:50:15 AM »
Both neutrinos and light bend within FET. Neutrinos, unlike photons, interact negligibly with ordinary matter. This renders the whole Earth as basically transparent to neutrinos. A sketch of the idea is the following:

Why would the same thing that effects light effect neutrinos? They're not similar.
I don't know. My guess is it has something to do with how the "UA" works and it is not a result of some interaction with the surrounding matter.

*

SupahLovah

  • 5164
  • Santasaurus Rex!
Re: REFUTATE THIS
« Reply #8 on: March 04, 2010, 10:50:52 AM »
UA has nothing to do with light bending, either.
"Study Gravitation; It's a field with a lot of potential!"

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: REFUTATE THIS
« Reply #9 on: March 04, 2010, 10:51:10 AM »
Also Parsec, this has nothing to do with the OP, since his post was about solar neutrinos not beam neutrinos.
It has everything to do with the OP, since the yellow circle is the Sun and the green square is the terrestrial detector.

EDIT:
UA has nothing to do with light bending, either.
So certain you are.

?

ERTW

  • 611
  • Always fall back to common sense
Re: REFUTATE THIS
« Reply #10 on: March 04, 2010, 10:54:16 AM »
Also Parsec, this has nothing to do with the OP, since his post was about solar neutrinos not beam neutrinos.
It has everything to do with the OP, since the yellow circle is the Sun and the green square is the terrestrial detector.
If you are claiming bendy neutrinos as an answer to solar neutrino observations you should start a new thread. I can see several ways that bendy-ness to achieve solar observations conflicts with bendy-ness to achieve beam observations.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2010, 11:03:34 AM by ERTW »
Don't diss physics until you try it!

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: REFUTATE THIS
« Reply #11 on: March 04, 2010, 10:57:12 AM »
Also Parsec, this has nothing to do with the OP, since his post was about solar neutrinos not beam neutrinos.
It has everything to do with the OP, since the yellow circle is the Sun and the green square is the terrestrial detector.
If you are claiming bendy neutrinos as an answer to solar neutrino observations you should start a new thread. I can see several ways that bendy-ness to achieve solar observations conflicts with bendy-ness to achieve beam observations.
Why should I start a different thread? I was addressing his challenge to refute his argument. Also, until you post a particular example, I find your claim to be mere boasting.

*

SupahLovah

  • 5164
  • Santasaurus Rex!
Re: REFUTATE THIS
« Reply #12 on: March 04, 2010, 10:59:36 AM »
-IF- you can explain why UA would be able to pick and choose what it accelerates more or less than other things, have a go.

Otherwise you can recall that bendy light is formally "Electromagnetic Acceleration Theory".
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=21912.0

Also Parsec, this has nothing to do with the OP, since his post was about solar neutrinos not beam neutrinos.
It has everything to do with the OP, since the yellow circle is the Sun and the green square is the terrestrial detector.
If you are claiming bendy neutrinos as an answer to solar neutrino observations you should start a new thread. I can see several ways that bendy-ness to achieve solar observations conflicts with bendy-ness to achieve beam observations.
Why should I start a different thread? I was addressing his challenge to refute his argument. Also, until you post a particular example, I find your claim to be mere boasting.
He actually said Refutate, which I assume he meant "refutiate", a 'word' John McCain used. Next he'll be telling us his strategery.
"Study Gravitation; It's a field with a lot of potential!"

?

ERTW

  • 611
  • Always fall back to common sense
Re: REFUTATE THIS
« Reply #13 on: March 04, 2010, 11:03:47 AM »
Also Parsec, this has nothing to do with the OP, since his post was about solar neutrinos not beam neutrinos.
It has everything to do with the OP, since the yellow circle is the Sun and the green square is the terrestrial detector.
If you are claiming bendy neutrinos as an answer to solar neutrino observations you should start a new thread. I can see several ways that bendy-ness to achieve solar observations conflicts with bendy-ness to achieve beam observations.
Why should I start a different thread? I was addressing his challenge to refute his argument. Also, until you post a particular example, I find your claim to be mere boasting.
As for the UA, it has everything to do with bending, since it is an acceleration. However, this acceleration can only bend things in a parabolic path, which will fail to fit the circular curvature of the Earth and fail to describe beam neutrinos. Also, since the UA is modeled as a constant acceleration and the speed of neutrinos is measured to be near the speed of light, an acceleration of 9.8m/s^2 cannot make the observed trajectories required for solar neutrino observations.

You are trying to merge the ideas of EA with UA, but it is going to be very tricky. EA currently has no model or mechanism, since it has to bend light without 'acceleration' to produce non-parabolic trajectories. UA acceleration rates work for macro massive objects, but will fail for tiny neutrinos. To be fair the interaction between GR and QED/QCD has the same problem, but at least both theories extensive models, predictions, and experimental evidence for their validity within their region of interest.
Don't diss physics until you try it!

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6454
Re: REFUTATE THIS
« Reply #14 on: March 04, 2010, 11:13:17 AM »
Neutrinos? Are you sure that you know what those "particles" really are? Think again.

THE ELUSIVE NEUTRINO: In my opinion the neutrino concept is the work of a relativistic accountant who tries to balance his books by making a fictitious entry. He does not recognize the existence of the aether and so, when accounting for something where an energy transaction involves an energy transfer to or from the aether, he incorporates an entry under the heading 'neutrinos'.

Neutrinos can be explained as aether rays in motion.

The neutrino was first postulated in 1930 when it was found that, from the standpoint of relativity theory, beta decay (the decay of a neutron into a proton and an electron) seemed to violate the conservation of energy. Wolfgang Pauli saved the day by inventing the neutrino, a particle that would be emitted along with every electron and carry away energy and momentum (the emitted particle is nowadays said to be an antineutrino). W.A. Scott Murray described this as an implausible ad hoc suggestion designed to make the experimental facts agree with the theory and not far removed from a confidence trick.  Aspden calls the neutrino a figment of the imagination invented in order to make the books balance and says that it simply denotes the capacity of the aether to absorb energy and momentum.


My spanish physics student friend, you are lucky indeed for having found this site, this is where you will learn the facts about the real shape of the atom, you can bet your last neutrino on that:

Here is the best work which does show the catastrophic mistakes committed by both Michelson and Morley in their disastrous experiment of 1877:

http://spinbitz.net/anpheon.org/html/AnpheonIntro2003.htm

And now the final proof that the Rutherford-Bohr atom model is JUST A HOAX:

http://www.romunpress.co.nz/romunnose/?p=13 (read this carefully, the photographs taken with the electronic scanner of the atoms, shows that there are no orbiting electrons around a nucleus)

See here also:

http://divinecosmos.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=96&Itemid=36

http://www.blazelabs.com/f-p-flaw.asp (photographs of the atom)

CASE AGAINST THE NUCLEAR ATOM, BY DR. DEWEY LARSON:

http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/cana/index.htm

See, you have a lot of homework to do...what you learn there is equal to ZERO my friend...

The aether radiation called neutrinos can have many other sources, not just the Sun...


« Last Edit: March 04, 2010, 11:15:40 AM by levee »

?

ERTW

  • 611
  • Always fall back to common sense
Re: REFUTATE THIS
« Reply #15 on: March 04, 2010, 11:31:00 AM »
Neutrinos? Are you sure that you know what those "particles" really are? Think again.

THE ELUSIVE NEUTRINO: In my opinion the neutrino concept is the work of a relativistic accountant who tries to balance his books by making a fictitious entry. He does not recognize the existence of the aether and so, when accounting for something where an energy transaction involves an energy transfer to or from the aether, he incorporates an entry under the heading 'neutrinos'.

Neutrinos can be explained as aether rays in motion.
...
My spanish physics student friend, you are lucky indeed for having found this site, this is where you will learn the facts about the real shape of the atom, you can bet your last neutrino on that:
...
And now the final proof that the Rutherford-Bohr atom model is JUST A HOAX:

http://www.romunpress.co.nz/romunnose/?p=13 (read this carefully, the photographs taken with the electronic scanner of the atoms, shows that there are no orbiting electrons around a nucleus)
...

See, you have a lot of homework to do...what you learn there is equal to ZERO my friend...

The aether radiation called neutrinos can have many other sources, not just the Sun...

While your links to various sources of information on the composition of atoms is interesting, it is irrelevant to current nuclear models. Attempting to refute Bohr's nuclear model in no way refutes QED/QCD or the CKM matrix, which are the modern theories that describe neutrino behavior.

Your links to 'pictures' of the atom to prove the absence of electron orbits is hilarious. Do you know that those pictures are generated using electron currents through the quantum tunneling effect? The absence of a visual image of electrons in orbit from an STM as disproof of the standard model is a straw man at best. The author of the STM article you linked to lacks formal physics training, and as stated in his bio he conducted a "wide ranging study of the historical development of the theories of atomic structure of matter over a period of ten years,which involved searching for out of print publications".

And yes, neutrinos have been observed from many sources, including nuclear reactors and particle accelerators. Regardless of what you want to call them, neutrinos have been observed in dozens of experiments under controlled conditions with statistical significance. Their behavior is under close scrutiny by thousands of scientists around the world. You should read through the Solar Neutrino or Beam Neutrino threads if you want to join the discussion on neutrinos. It is you who has to do some homework.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2010, 11:33:11 AM by ERTW »
Don't diss physics until you try it!

Re: REFUTATE THIS
« Reply #16 on: March 04, 2010, 11:40:11 AM »
Quote
The author of the STM article you linked to lacks formal physics training, and as stated in his bio he conducted a "wide ranging study of the historical development of the theories of atomic structure of matter over a period of ten years,which involved searching for out of print publications".

Ha ha, win.
My city was betrayed by the weak..

?

ERTW

  • 611
  • Always fall back to common sense
Re: REFUTATE THIS
« Reply #17 on: March 04, 2010, 11:47:37 AM »
As for your link to Dr Dewey Larson:

On his website you fill find a vast array of technical papers on many physical phenomenon. It is easy for him to question the accuracy of observations used decades ago since we can now observe much more accurately. And it is also true that some people misuse scientific theories or misunderstand them, even college professors. However, your attempt to use his refutation of the Bohr model of the atom is still irrelevant to the assertions of modern physics.

http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/cana/cana06.htm
'How can there be “much physical and chemical evidence” of the correctness of a theory that is admittedly wrong?" (Larson)

This is similar to the situation with Newtonian gravity. Every engineer uses Newtonian gravity for calculations and predictions. Bridges and buildings have to be designed, and nobody is going to use tensors and GR to design support columns. An enormous amount of evidence exists to support the Newtonian gravity description of nature, which is accurate because nature around us is generally at non-relativistic speeds. It is only when searching in the cosmos that we find the orbit of Mercury and other stellar phenomenon that we need a more general theory. GR describes these relativistic situations, and in non-relativistic situations can be approximated by Newtonian gravity.

In the same way the Bohr model is useful for understanding chemical reactions, since they occur at non-nuclear energies, where the Bohr model breaks down and QCD/QED can more accurately describe events. In the same way the Bohr model can be considered a useful approximation in its region of interest.
Don't diss physics until you try it!

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Administrator
  • 12106
Re: REFUTATE THIS
« Reply #18 on: March 04, 2010, 12:14:39 PM »
Refutate isn't a word. LOL ur dum.


Please keep low-content posts out of the upper boards.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

*

Xerox

  • 151
Re: REFUTATE THIS
« Reply #19 on: March 04, 2010, 02:43:45 PM »
Anyone who has read Clarke's "Songs from Distant Earth" knows that the sun is running out of neutrino generating power and our solar system is doomed.

Re: REFUTATE THIS
« Reply #20 on: March 04, 2010, 02:49:02 PM »
Neutrinos certainly can't be accelerated electromagnetically. Also they would bend the other way to light as I understand it. As to what they have to do with the Bohr model of the atom I have no idea. This is a rather incoherent thread its rather hard to debate.

Re: REFUTATE THIS
« Reply #21 on: March 04, 2010, 03:48:06 PM »
Levee has his own theories.


But I don't see how the same force that bends photons bends neutrinos. The only reason provided is from Parsec and that is because the earth is flat so it has to bend.

It is pretty silly to assume something and make an assumption based on the original assumption that makes that original assumption correct.

Neutrino's seem to damn FET.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 40126
Re: REFUTATE THIS
« Reply #22 on: March 04, 2010, 06:07:01 PM »
Anyone who has read Clarke's "Songs from Distant Earth" knows that the sun is running out of neutrino generating power and our solar system is doomed.

Yes, in about 4-5 billion years the sun will go nova and none of this will matter anymore.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6454
Re: REFUTATE THIS
« Reply #23 on: March 05, 2010, 04:13:57 AM »
ertw...I have dealt many times with the likes of people like you...look at your own messages, perhaps you know, at this point in time, about 5% of what you should know in order to debate here...

No atoms had even remotely been seen visually until 1985, when IBM Research Almaden Labs was the first to use an electron tunneling microscope to actually photograph the organization of molecules of germanium in an ink-blot. Here what we see from this experiment are indistinct, fuzzy spherical objects that appear to have some non-spherical geometric qualities to their shape and are in an extremely geometric pattern of organization, which was definitely a surprise for conventional science. How could the random nature of atoms described by the Heisenberg principle, ever result in such an ordered pattern? Perhaps the probability distributions are not 'distributions' at all.



Furthermore, when quantum physicists have studied the electrons of the atom, they have observed that they are not actually points at all, not particulate in nature, but rather form smooth, teardrop-shaped clouds where the narrowest ends of the drops converge upon a very tiny point in the center.

There are no Electron Orbits! Bohr's model, which started the notion of electrons traveling around the nucleus like planets has misled a lot of people and scientists. If you have learned such an idea, forget about it immediately. Instead, all calculations and all experiments show that no satellite-like orbital motion exists in the normal atom. Instead, there are standing wave patterns, very similar indeed to the polar plots of antenna radiation patterns. For example, see the case M=0 and L=0, where the standing wave pattern is entirely spherical, this being equivalent to a pure isotropic antenna radiation plot. Similarly for M=1, L=1, the pattern is exactly the same as that of a half wave dipole, and so on. No one ever asks or requires for an antenna's radiation pattern to be formed of orbiting electrons, and yet we know that the standing wave generated from a typical radio antenna, posseses inertia, and can act upon external matter by means of radiation pressure. The electron path is NOT around and far off the nucleus, nor is the atom made up of 99.999% empty space!. Instead, the center of the electron pattern is also the center of the proton pattern. This is the normal situation of the H atoms in the universe; they have spherical symmetry, not orbits. You see, particulate matter is not requirement to generate the effects known to define matter.

Did you read as I have asked, this http://www.romunpress.co.nz/romunnose/?p=13 ? Certainly the arguments you will find there will lead to the right path, there are no electrons orbiting a nucleus, the first postulate of Bohr does not specify the energy required to accomplish such a task. You have no idea what neutrinos are, or how they would originate from the sun at all, I advise you to read up my take on the solar neutrinos, you might learn something.

Please refrain in the future form making coments without having read the links or having understood what is going on here.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2010, 04:15:44 AM by levee »

Re: REFUTATE THIS
« Reply #24 on: March 05, 2010, 05:55:20 AM »
It is a little bit unfair to say Bohr was misleading. He realised that there was quantisation in the atom but he only quantised angular momentum. At the time he published his idea (1913? ish maybe) quantum theory was still in infancy neither the Heisenberg or Schrodinger formulations of quantum mechanics had been developed so the probablisitc nature of quantum mechanics was not clear. In the 1920s when Heisenberg developed the matrix forumulation and Schrodinger the wave formulation then things fell into place quite quickly. Actually the energy levels Bohr dervied are suprisingly accurate given the approximations he unknowingly made. For the purposes of biology and much of physics and chemistry the Bohr model is the tradeoff between simplicity and accuracy that is still used today.

It still isn't clear to me what any of this has to do with neutrinos. The neutrino was hypothesised to explain nuclear beta decay. Anyone here who has done physics beyond high school will be well aware that the energy distribution from beta decay is continuous revealing that it must be a three body decay. The exact electron momentum spectrum is;
X(p) = Bp2(Q-Te2)F(Z, p)|M|2S.
I missed out a couple of subscripts as i was going cross-eyed but if you noticed your not getting much out of this post anyway.

Although the kinematics of the beta decay very quickly showed that such a particle must be very light. This concerned Pauli who apologised profusely for predicting a particle that could not be detected. Although it became clear as particle interaction theory developed that the difference between weakly intereacting and non-interactnig was huge. Infact it even became called the weak interaction due to its weakness. Fortunately nuclear reactors generate neutrinos by the gajillion. Reines and Cowan first detected a neutrino for a nuclear reactor in about 1953. After that attention turned to the sun. During the 1990s Superkamiokande made some fantastic plots showing the direction neutrinos were coming from as a function of time of day. During the day most neutrinos came from above and at night most came from through the floor. Now once again attention is turning to intense sources of man made neutrinos fired through the Earth to observe quantum phenomena that occur because they are both light and weakly interacting.

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: REFUTATE THIS
« Reply #25 on: March 05, 2010, 09:48:39 AM »
nice copypasta. Trying to keep up with levee I see.

Re: REFUTATE THIS
« Reply #26 on: March 05, 2010, 09:58:35 AM »
I'm not where near stoned enough to keep up with levee. Where was that copy pasted from? Most of the neutrino stuff was from the opening paragraph of my thesis. I guess I could have got the beta stuff from anywhere (though unusually for this forum not wiki, i just looked), though my influences include my second year nuclear notes. Its pretty much just the Fermi Golden rule for nuclear beta decay, not rokcet science.

*

SupahLovah

  • 5164
  • Santasaurus Rex!
Re: REFUTATE THIS
« Reply #27 on: March 05, 2010, 10:03:34 AM »
I'm not where near stoned enough to keep up with levee. Where was that copy pasted from? Most of the neutrino stuff was from the opening paragraph of my thesis. I guess I could have got the beta stuff from anywhere (though unusually for this forum not wiki, i just looked), though my influences include my second year nuclear notes. Its pretty much just the Fermi Golden rule for nuclear beta decay, not rokcet science.
How does it feel to know you'll never be able to call yourself a rocket scientist? If you were, you'd be part of the conspiracy, though.
"Study Gravitation; It's a field with a lot of potential!"

Re: REFUTATE THIS
« Reply #28 on: March 05, 2010, 10:12:21 AM »
I'm not where near stoned enough to keep up with levee. Where was that copy pasted from? Most of the neutrino stuff was from the opening paragraph of my thesis. I guess I could have got the beta stuff from anywhere (though unusually for this forum not wiki, i just looked), though my influences include my second year nuclear notes. Its pretty much just the Fermi Golden rule for nuclear beta decay, not rokcet science.
How does it feel to know you'll never be able to call yourself a rocket scientist? If you were, you'd be part of the conspiracy, though.

Im a neutrino physicist so I am in on it. It feels pretty good to be in on a conspiracy. Unfortunately theres so many of us in on it now its kinda lost the exclusivity. Its the little things that cause the problems. When environmentalists started tagging whales we had to buy new ships to move the whales around the ocean because obviosuly they cant move fast enough to do it on their own. Also things like that Tsunami the other week you have no idea how hard it was to make it appear in Australia 12 hours before Japan. Still no rest for the wicked, literally.

?

ERTW

  • 611
  • Always fall back to common sense
Re: REFUTATE THIS
« Reply #29 on: March 05, 2010, 10:51:31 AM »
ertw...I have dealt many times with the likes of people like you...look at your own messages, perhaps you know, at this point in time, about 5% of what you should know in order to debate here...
...
A bunch of stuff about Bohr Model...
...
I am going to let bowler refute your statements, since he is actually a neutrino physicist. However, I must point out that nothing you have stated so far has anything to do with modern physics. You can refute Bohr's model all you want, but it has no bearing on our ability to measure neutrinos.

I think you are also misunderstanding my support of the Bohr model. I never said it was true to nature. I specifically said it was a good approximation in certain situations. If you want to think about simple covalent bonds and simple stoichometry a basic Bohr model of the atom is enough. If you want to understand sp3 hybridization then of course you need the more advanced 'pear shaped' orbitals that you mentioned. Each of these models are tools, useful in their own region of interest.

So, I suggest you make your argument more clear. If you are really arguing that neutrinos don't exist then I suggest you present an explanation for the many underground shielded neutrino observations made to date.
Don't diss physics until you try it!