Just out of curiosity, is the generally accepted Flat Earth view that all other celestial bodies are discs, or is the Earth unique in the Universe (at least, so far observed)? Anyone can buy a telescope and look at the other planets of the Solar System and so on, so are these other discs, or are they spheres? Is anything in the Universe beyond the surface of the Earth preferentially spherical?
bowler,
You say that neutrinos interact very weakly with matter, allowing them to pass through whole planets, and the interior of the Sun.
I probably missed the detail, but I am very interested to know how the neutrino observatories determine the direction from which the neutrions come from.
Have fun with them. I'd love to see the results when published.
Now we have to believe that neutrinos are refracted in the same way, so they come from the place we think the Sun is. But of course, neutrinos are not refracted the same way as light, so you need the conspiracy even more.
Now we have to believe that neutrinos are refracted in the same way, so they come from the place we think the Sun is. But of course, neutrinos are not refracted the same way as light, so you need the conspiracy even more.
Except in gravitational fields.
This thread is lacking the people I thought would come post in it.
None of them are Fe'ers.This thread is lacking the people I thought would come post in it.
If you know people who can make a decent contribution, could you invite them?
a pityIt really is, it is too bad that as soon as someone puts forth a well thought oput argument all of the FE'ers run away and hide. If they really believed they should welcome the chance to demonstrate that they are correct
Trig, I think that bowler and Matrix are handling themselves exceptionally well. I think that they quickly figured out that you can not attack FET directly. You must undermine FET one piece at a time with real science. They are also doing quite nice job of keeping this thread from degenerating into a flame war. I commend both of them and hope that they stick around for a while.
Neutrinos supposedly can travel through light years of lead, I am being hit by neutrinos right now ::)you are not being hit by any neutrinos at all they are passing right through you
More realistic explanation: neutrinos do not exist.
I would argue that these experiments directly exclude the Earth being flat.
Neutrinos that come through the earth from the sun unless you want to invent an anti-sun as wellQuoteI would argue that these experiments directly exclude the Earth being flat.
How does a detector detecting a few neutrinos passing through the earth exclude the possibility of the earth being flat?
Neutrinos that come through the earth from the sun unless you want to invent an anti-sun as wellQuoteI would argue that these experiments directly exclude the Earth being flat.
How does a detector detecting a few neutrinos passing through the earth exclude the possibility of the earth being flat?
Neutrinos that come through the earth from the sun unless you want to invent an anti-sun as well
By the Fequency and the oscillationQuoteNeutrinos that come through the earth from the sun unless you want to invent an anti-sun as well
How do you know that they're coming from the sun?
By the Fequency and the oscillation
http://www.wesleyan.edu/synthesis/GROUP4/FINALVERSIONS/neutrino.html
http://www.wesleyan.edu/synthesis/GROUP4/FINALVERSIONS/neutrino.html
Yes but we can tell where they come fromhttp://www.wesleyan.edu/synthesis/GROUP4/FINALVERSIONS/neutrino.html
Fourth paragraph down it says:"Neutrinos come from a variety of sources"
Yes but we can tell where they come from
By the Fequency and the oscillation
By the Fequency and the oscillation
Study Particle Physics them I can begin to explain it to youBy the Fequency and the oscillation
Please explain how the frequency and oscillation of the incoming neutrinos could only be produced by the sun.
So no explanation or anything at all to support your contentions then?You want me to explain how to run before you even know what it is to crawl so like I said study particle physics and then I can give you a better explaination
You want me to explain how to run before you even know what it is to crawl so like I said study particle physics and then I can give you a better explaination
I will even help you Tom, go ahead and read this:
http://pdg.lbl.gov/2006/reviews/numixrpp.pdf
Guess you don't really have an explanation then.Read the article and it will explain it to you why should I type it out when someone else already has
That article had nothing to do with explaining why the neutrinos could only come from the sun.I never claimed that they only come from the sun
I think what Tom is trying to say is, if you capture a nuetrino, how can you tell if it is from the sun, or some other far away nuclear source?That is what the paper addresses
I think what Tom is trying to say is, if you capture a nuetrino, how can you tell if it is from the sun, or some other far away nuclear source?Perhaps the article is saying that different neutrino sources have different frequency and oscillation characteristics, similar to the way that different elements have different spectral patterns. Once the sun's frequency and oscillation characteristics are figured out, then you can determine which neutrinos came from the sun and which neutrinos come from other sources. That doesn't seem to hard to understand, but then we are talking about Tom.
Perhaps the article is saying that different neutrino sources have different frequency and oscillation characteristics, similar to the way that different elements have different spectral patterns. Once the sun's frequency and oscillation characteristics are figured out, then you can determine which neutrinos came from the sun and which neutrinos come from other sources. That doesn't seem to hard to understand, but then we are talking about Tom.
read the Article and you will find outQuotePerhaps the article is saying that different neutrino sources have different frequency and oscillation characteristics, similar to the way that different elements have different spectral patterns. Once the sun's frequency and oscillation characteristics are figured out, then you can determine which neutrinos came from the sun and which neutrinos come from other sources. That doesn't seem to hard to understand, but then we are talking about Tom.
Where does the article say anything remotely like that?
read the Article and you will find out
In all this discussion one simple fact about the neutrino sensors is not mentioned: these sensors detect individual neutrinos that coincidentally smash the nucleus of an atom of a heavy water molecule. The direction of every individual detected neutrino is measured with some precision. Only a few neutrinos are detected each day, so you just cannot have a strange interaction of several neutrinos giving the illusion of a different origin of the neutrinos.
Every single detected neutrino is either known to have come from the general position where the Sun is or known to have come from a different place. With some statistics you can take the coincidences into account and get to the inescapable conclusion that most of the neutrinos come from the general direction where modern science calculates the Sun is.
The only way to explain this is to add the scientists from every neutrino observatory to the long list of conspirators. Or, just maybe, accept that there is no conspiracy and that every FE model is unsustainable.
So still no data which demonstrates that the neutrinos can only come from the sun?
Tom hasnt been programmed to read mathematical information so he can not understand the dataSo still no data which demonstrates that the neutrinos can only come from the sun?
Tom, it has been clearly stated that neutrinos come from a variety of sources including, but not limited to the sun. It has also been shown that the source of these neutrinos can be determined based on their direction, frequency and oscillation characteristics. Are you having trouble keeping up again?
Tom, it has been clearly stated that neutrinos come from a variety of sources including, but not limited to the sun. It has also been shown that the source of these neutrinos can be determined based on their direction, frequency and oscillation characteristics. Are you having trouble keeping up again?
the vast majority of neutrinos detected on the Earth originate from the point in the sky where the spherical Earth theory predicts the sun is.
Who ever said this?Tom, it has been clearly stated that neutrinos come from a variety of sources including, but not limited to the sun. It has also been shown that the source of these neutrinos can be determined based on their direction, frequency and oscillation characteristics. Are you having trouble keeping up again?
Right, so where's the data demonstrating that the neutrinos we see can only come from the sun?
Who ever said this?
The data is in the links I posted, I did actually check on another machine that my posts appeared. I even picked the paper that used colour images, unfortunately there isn't a ladybird book published as of yet. I cannot actually decide if you never read them, weren't prepared to find out or dont even believe the world is flat and are simply having me on. None of which I particularly appreciate to be honest given that I went to the trouble of finding the data you requested.
If you aren't prepared to look at experimental data we should probably move this whole debate to a religion forum because it by definition is not science.
We did, read the papers in the links providedWho ever said this?
You're supposed to be demonstrating that the neutrinos are coming from the sun. You haven't.QuoteThe data is in the links I posted, I did actually check on another machine that my posts appeared. I even picked the paper that used colour images, unfortunately there isn't a ladybird book published as of yet. I cannot actually decide if you never read them, weren't prepared to find out or dont even believe the world is flat and are simply having me on. None of which I particularly appreciate to be honest given that I went to the trouble of finding the data you requested.
If you aren't prepared to look at experimental data we should probably move this whole debate to a religion forum because it by definition is not science.
Show us the data. There's nothing demonstrating in those links that the neutrinos can only come from the sun.
We did, read the papers in the links provided
We did, read the papers in the links provided
So no data then?
Insolation is a measure of solar radiation energy received on a given surface area in a given time.
(although they could claim the graph doesnt actually match the real world i guess)
(http://i307.photobucket.com/albums/nn291/gary2914458/Gla.png?t=1233629845)Proof that is real?
Here is the key graph. It depicts the number of events as a function of cosine of angle to the Sun. There is a clear peak at 1, representing solar neutrinos. The other events along the line ~.08 represent other background neutrinos.
Read the entire scientific report, if you dispute its findings conduct your own experiment to refute his one then publish those results. Or learn a bunch of math and find an error in what they have published or GTFO your choice.(http://i307.photobucket.com/albums/nn291/gary2914458/Gla.png?t=1233629845)Proof that is real?
Here is the key graph. It depicts the number of events as a function of cosine of angle to the Sun. There is a clear peak at 1, representing solar neutrinos. The other events along the line ~.08 represent other background neutrinos.
Proof that is real?
Posting a graph is not science.Proof that is real?
Why do we bother? We RE'ers could have the most beautifully constructed argument tying together theory and evidence, and the FE'ers would claim it's a fabrication and we can't be trusted (something we obviously can't disprove).
How about FE'ers stick to science or STFU?
Correct but the paper it was attached to is, so go read that and get back to usPosting a graph is not science.Proof that is real?
Why do we bother? We RE'ers could have the most beautifully constructed argument tying together theory and evidence, and the FE'ers would claim it's a fabrication and we can't be trusted (something we obviously can't disprove).
How about FE'ers stick to science or STFU?
Johannes, debating against RE'ers is wonderful; however, you need to tone yourself down a bit with the low-content postings.Posting a graph is not science.Proof that is real?
Why do we bother? We RE'ers could have the most beautifully constructed argument tying together theory and evidence, and the FE'ers would claim it's a fabrication and we can't be trusted (something we obviously can't disprove).
How about FE'ers stick to science or STFU?
Scott-Amundsen station
Neutrinos do not exist.
There is no compelling proof of neutrinos, if you have taken college level physics classes like many of us FE'ers have you would know that.I will be taking AP Physics C next year, which will give me a further understanding of the physics field before i head off till college.
Neutrinos do not exist.
You'd better have a good theory and some solid evidence to go with this.
You don't need evidence to prove a theory wrong.Neutrinos do not exist.
So what particle preserves spin in beta decay?
You're trying to overturn an enormous amount of science here. You'd better have a good theory and some solid evidence to go with this.
You don't need evidence to prove a theory wrong.Neutrinos do not exist.
So what particle preserves spin in beta decay?
You're trying to overturn an enormous amount of science here. You'd better have a good theory and some solid evidence to go with this.
Unknown, the standard model is held together by duck/t tape and will be exposed as fraud pretty soon.
...Or how a beam of neutrinos was sent through the Earth?Obviously they had someone from "The Fraternity" fire the neutrinos so that they would bend. ::)
You don't need evidence to prove a theory wrong.Talk about low content postings.
ghazwozza, do you have an open source neutrino detector I can build? If something can not be replicated it is not admissible evidence.
Instructions please.ghazwozza, do you have an open source neutrino detector I can build? If something can not be replicated it is not admissible evidence.
As I recall, the early neutrino detectors were basically a large pools of ultra pure water a kilometer or so underground surrounded by very sensitive photodetectors. Essentially, they were looking for the Cherenkov effect as the passing neutrinos react with the water molecules. Shouldn't be too hard to replicate.
Sorry, but that would contaminate your "clean room" replication (very important in the review process). You can't allow any possibility of conspiracy influence in your design.Instructions please.ghazwozza, do you have an open source neutrino detector I can build? If something can not be replicated it is not admissible evidence.
As I recall, the early neutrino detectors were basically a large pools of ultra pure water a kilometer or so underground surrounded by very sensitive photodetectors. Essentially, they were looking for the Cherenkov effect as the passing neutrinos react with the water molecules. Shouldn't be too hard to replicate.
Shouldn't be too hard to replicate.
ghazwozza, do you have an open source neutrino detector I can build? If something can not be replicated it is not admissible evidence.
Which is a real pain because it is not compatible with GR so we know its wrong somewhere. Quietly many are hoping that the Higgs does not exist
Shouldn't be too hard to replicate.
Except for that kilometer deep hole in the ground you have to dig.
I don't want to do original research, I want to peer review the work on solar neutrinos. Please post plans/code for the neutrino detector used in the study."Peer review" means review by peers, that is review by people of equal qualifications. You can review the published works if you like, since most university libraries are open to all. It would be better if you get into a physics graduate program, assuming you are qualified.
Otherwise the machinery could be rigged.
Ok - just as I expected. RE doesn't reveal how to make the instrumentation that "proves" RE. I should have said earlier that solar neutrinos do not exist, as the name "neutrino" is arbitrary.
Ok - just as I expected. RE doesn't reveal how to make the instrumentation that "proves" RE. I should have said earlier that solar neutrinos do not exist, as the name "neutrino" is arbitrary.There is a nice little instrument that "proves" (gives enormous amounts of evidence for) modern science, or, as you call it, RE. Well, in fact it's two: a sextant and a clock. Or a telescope and a clock, if you prefer.
I don't want to do original research, I want to peer review the work on solar neutrinos. Please post plans/code for the neutrino detector used in the study.
Otherwise the machinery could be rigged.
You are the one trolling.Ok - just as I expected. RE doesn't reveal how to make the instrumentation that "proves" RE. I should have said earlier that solar neutrinos do not exist, as the name "neutrino" is arbitrary.
Everyone ignore him, he's just trolling.
Of course I don't know how your Neutrino detector works. You haven't posted the plans. This is starting to get pathetic. You guys like the scientific method where convenient... but when someone actually wants to peer review work you drop the notion of the necessity for repeatability.
Of course I don't know how your Neutrino detector works. You haven't posted the plans. This is starting to get pathetic.
You guys like the scientific method where convenient... but when someone actually wants to peer review work you drop the notion of the necessity for repeatability.
I have never said I know nothing about detecting Neutrinos. I don't know how the Neutrino detectors you cite work because you haven't posted documentation/instructions/source code.
I have studied nuclear physics... I'm no idiot. It would be naive for me to believe these detectors work without a doubt without inspecting them myself though.
Basically, you don't know how they work and are reluctant to admit it/ are hiding the fact that they do not really work....
I have never said I know nothing about detecting Neutrinos. I don't know how the Neutrino detectors you cite work because you haven't posted documentation/instructions/source code.Not even close, I do believe earlier in this conversation there was a link or a discussion explaining how they work (not into full details though). Just the basics.
I have studied nuclear physics... I'm no idiot. It would be naive for me to believe these detectors work without a doubt without inspecting them myself though.
Basically, you don't know how they work and are reluctant to admit it/ are hiding the fact that they do not really work....
Another victory for FE!
I could quite easily say that you're trying to avoid learning how they work. Instead of investigating, you're just sitting here asking for everyone to spoon-feed you documents consisting of hours of work by architects, engineers physicists and programmers.Oh come on. Not very many people will be looking at neutrino detector specifications.
If you really feel that the scientists at the facility don't know how to detect neutrinos, then feel free to contact them and ask for evidence of how they do what they do. But they're not going to waste bandwidth hosting all the documentation about how every little aspect of the detector works.
You'd be suprised. Firstly you have the neutrino direct neutrino physics community who design and calibrate and use the detectors. Which i'd estimate at 1000 people the the right order of magnitude. Then you have the funding councils and other scientists who review the designs again probably of the order 1000 people, probably less in detail but maybe more skim the documents. Then there are the civil engineers and architects who flesh out the specifics of the design from a mechanical perspective. Finally there are the thousands of contractors and builders involved in the construction. Usually some miners as well as far detectors are deep underground. These are not small devices in a lab, they are large civil engineering projects, the scientists who work on them do not constitute the main source of people who work on them.And the neutrino detectors are similar to the detectors at the end of every particle accelerator, so lots of people have some knowledge about subatomic particle detection. Universities and hardware providers work hard in these subjects, and have some of the best minds in the world reviewing each other's work.
Even in 10000 people (huge overestimate) downloaded a 100 mb documentation file (huge overestimate) the bandwidth wouldn't be very expensive. Universities want to show off their research. Thats the whole point. Stop distracting from the argument. You have no documentation on how the neutrino detectors are assembled, therefore the legitimacy of the experiments is non-existent.You are making my own point. Lots of people in lots of countries are working on our current state of the art installations and not-so-state-of-the-art installations. Most are repeating the experiments that demonstrated the standard model, others are breaking new ground. All of them have the problem of making invisible subatomic particles visible for a few nanoseconds so that they can be investigated, so the intricacies of the detectors used for neutrino observations are well known by lots of people. All have to be in the conspiracy or there is no conspiracy at all.
Here's documentation of the construction and calibration of a solar neutrino detector.Kepler, let us know when yo have dug hole big enough for neutrino detector.
http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/sno/sno2.html#excavation (http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/sno/sno2.html#excavation)
Even in 10000 people (huge overestimate) downloaded a 100 mb documentation file (huge overestimate) the bandwidth wouldn't be very expensive. Universities want to show off their research. Thats the whole point. Stop distracting from the argument. You have no documentation on how the neutrino detectors are assembled, therefore the legitimacy of the experiments is non-existent.You are making my own point. Lots of people in lots of countries are working on our current state of the art installations and not-so-state-of-the-art installations. Most are repeating the experiments that demonstrated the standard model, others are breaking new ground. All of them have the problem of making invisible subatomic particles visible for a few nanoseconds so that they can be investigated, so the intricacies of the detectors used for neutrino observations are well known by lots of people. All have to be in the conspiracy or there is no conspiracy at all.
Of course, for somebody like you who has not shown even the simplest of abilities required to study physics, nobody is stressing himself to make the documentation available. You should show some capabilities even as a high school physics student even before trying to get access to the more advanced stuff.
SNO Prime Contractors and Suppliers
* Agra-Monenco/Canatom Limited (Project Management and design)
* INCO Limited (Cavity excavation and support systems)
* Dynatec International (Civil construction)
* Reynolds Polymer Technology Incorporated (Acrylic vessel)
* Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Photomultiplier support structure)
* Hamamatsu Photonics (Photomultipliers)
* Schott Glass Incorporated (Photomultiplier glass bulbs)
* CVD Manufacturing Inc. (CVD nickel for neutral current detectors)
* Mirotech Limited (CVD nickel for neutral current detectors)
I am perfectly capable of studying physics. That is what I do for enjoyment.
Now please, documentation....
I am perfectly capable of studying physics. That is what I do for enjoyment.I study physics for free time too, and I'm only in high school. And I at least get the basic concepts of the whole Solar Neutrion idea.
Now please, documentation....
Why are you blindly assuming these detectors are legit?I am perfectly capable of studying physics. That is what I do for enjoyment.
Now please, documentation....
Then you should be capable of researching the documentation yourself too. You have been provided with a list of contractors and suppliers to get you started. I'm sure that each facility has it's own unique requirements so looking at existing facilities will only get you so far.
Why are you blindly assuming that they are a DIY project?Why are you blindly assuming these detectors are legit?I am perfectly capable of studying physics. That is what I do for enjoyment.
Now please, documentation....
Then you should be capable of researching the documentation yourself too. You have been provided with a list of contractors and suppliers to get you started. I'm sure that each facility has it's own unique requirements so looking at existing facilities will only get you so far.
Because if you can't do it yourself it's obviously fake. ::)Why are you blindly assuming that they are a DIY project?Why are you blindly assuming these detectors are legit?I am perfectly capable of studying physics. That is what I do for enjoyment.
Now please, documentation....
Then you should be capable of researching the documentation yourself too. You have been provided with a list of contractors and suppliers to get you started. I'm sure that each facility has it's own unique requirements so looking at existing facilities will only get you so far.
Then 747s must be fake too because I'll be damned if I can put one together myself, even if I did have the plans.Because if you can't do it yourself it's obviously fake. ::)Why are you blindly assuming that they are a DIY project?Why are you blindly assuming these detectors are legit?I am perfectly capable of studying physics. That is what I do for enjoyment.
Now please, documentation....
Then you should be capable of researching the documentation yourself too. You have been provided with a list of contractors and suppliers to get you started. I'm sure that each facility has it's own unique requirements so looking at existing facilities will only get you so far.
I am perfectly capable of studying physics. That is what I do for enjoyment.I am confused. Maybe you can show us some of the physics you have done? Maybe you can explain to us what is described about the detectors already in the proposed articles? Like, for example, how do the photodetectors reach the sensitivity to sense individual photons?
Stop distracting. You have no detailed documentation on how to detect solar neutrinos. Therefor, it is not an repeatable experiment and the data is not admissible scientific proof.
Im not sure what else you want. You have the SNO TDR, access to the SNO results papers I have posted these links. If you read all of those sources you would have a very good grasp of modern neutrino detectors. Or go on holiday to Soudan, take a tour why not. It is a repeatable experiment SNO and Superkamiokande have consistent result from the older experiments. I know from personal experience SuperK is very real.He is fishing for reasons why his failure can be shown as something different. Of course, he has to call "not repeatable" an experiment that is not "DIY". We have to say it clearly: even with the spare parts and the resources, Kepler would not know where to begin constructing this observatory because he is only a high-school-grade physics student that has learned many physics terms but no physics knowledge.
Thats a load of ****....Wow... angry much? Just calm down and we'll get back to you.
but isn't anyone supposed to be able to participate in the scientific community? You certainly wouldn't be afraid of posting documentation if you know it worked right?
Thats a load of ****....
but isn't anyone supposed to be able to participate in the scientific community? You certainly wouldn't be afraid of posting documentation if you know it worked right?
This experiment is not repeatable because it there is no procedure to build the instrumentation. This is not science.
Are you reading the thread? I know I have made two posts about current experiments under way. One of the links I provided links to at least 4 other websites using the same techniques. The information has been given to you. Start researching, start building.Thats not detailed enough.
What do you want?Are you reading the thread? I know I have made two posts about current experiments under way. One of the links I provided links to at least 4 other websites using the same techniques. The information has been given to you. Start researching, start building.Thats not detailed enough.
source code, exact schematics, designs etc.What do you want?Are you reading the thread? I know I have made two posts about current experiments under way. One of the links I provided links to at least 4 other websites using the same techniques. The information has been given to you. Start researching, start building.Thats not detailed enough.
source code, exact schematics, designs etc.What do you want?Are you reading the thread? I know I have made two posts about current experiments under way. One of the links I provided links to at least 4 other websites using the same techniques. The information has been given to you. Start researching, start building.Thats not detailed enough.
If you want to discuss who I am please make a new topic.
If you want to discuss who I am please make a new topic.
So your qualifications to build and run a DIY neutrino detector are not relevant to the discussion? ???
If you want to discuss who I am please make a new topic.
So your qualifications to build and run a DIY neutrino detector are not relevant to the discussion? ???
My thoughts exactly.
Most of the software is done with large software packages these days so each experiments doesn't have to reinvent the wheel.GEANT is a toolkit for the simulation of high energy physics
Simulation is normally done with GEANT - http://geant4.cern.ch
Data analysis with ROOT - http://root.cern.ch
Both these packages are open source and written and c++.
Often each analysis is implemented more than once is different ways to cross check for difference caused by different methodologies. Though a solid book on data analysis in high energy physics will take you through the steps used in a generic analysis.
Well you read the tagline well done. If you don't know ROOT inside out then anything else is going to be incomprehensible as analyses are build on ROOT.You are obviously not a C++ programmer.
Knowing a language is not the same as understanding the problem that you are trying to solve with that language. Just because you know how to swing a hammer doesn't mean that you know how to build a house.Well you read the tagline well done. If you don't know ROOT inside out then anything else is going to be incomprehensible as analyses are build on ROOT.You are obviously not a C++ programmer.
If you know how to program you can understand what the code is doing. Especially in C++ where lots of things are inherited and you can get to the "core" of the program pretty quickly by looking at the classes. Not to mention I have significant physics background. Which cannot hurt.Knowing a language is not the same as understanding the problem that you are trying to solve with that language. Just because you know how to swing a hammer doesn't mean that you know how to build a house.Well you read the tagline well done. If you don't know ROOT inside out then anything else is going to be incomprehensible as analyses are build on ROOT.You are obviously not a C++ programmer.
Well at this point im implicitly a member of the conspiracy so I'm happy. I've never been called a member of a dark conspiracy and I have to say it gives me a warm fuzzy feeling.
No, this is not your argument. Your argument is that because you don't know a thing about neutrinos and how to detect them you just bitch here. If you want to know something the go and study and get in to some of these laboratories. In your logic there is no way the atomic or hydrogen bomb works because their schematics and building instructions aren't also available.
Who care's about first hand witnesses. Bowler here has first hand experience with neutrinos(in my understanding) but who cares about it. And so are many other things here. You must ask Kepler, why is it so that if you can't get schematics and all other stuff then it's not working. If it goes for neutrino detectors so it goes for atomic or hydrogen bomb.No, this is not your argument. Your argument is that because you don't know a thing about neutrinos and how to detect them you just bitch here. If you want to know something the go and study and get in to some of these laboratories. In your logic there is no way the atomic or hydrogen bomb works because their schematics and building instructions aren't also available.
That's a ridiculous analogy. The results of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were witnessed first hand by an awful lot of people, many of whom were walking evidence themselves. You're comparing chalk and cheese because they are occasionally the same colour.
Uh, no it doesn't. Atomic weapons have been used in anger twice and tested thousands of times. More importantly, the result of those tests isto all intensivefor all intents and purposes undeniable.
Uh, no it doesn't. Atomic weapons have been used in anger twice and tested thousands of times. More importantly, the result of those tests is to all intensive purposes undeniable.Do you have data? Have you build one itself? don't you know that there is conspiracy which fakes all data and makes lot of money with supposedly working atomic bombs? And so on with exact arguments like FE has. I quite don't get it, why do you take at face value all stories about atomic bombs when you haven't seen one itself in action.
I'd say the evidence for atomic bombs is a bit more tangible than that for neutrinos... just buy a cheap Geiger counter and go on a tour of Japan...Do you have any proof that Geiger counters aren't tampered with? If there is conspiracy then all Geiger counter makers are in it. And maybe someone dumped some nuclear waste in japan... But let's drop the BS because if we go FE argument way we can make all things what we ever want impossible.
I'd say the evidence for atomic bombs is a bit more tangible than that for neutrinos... just buy a cheap Geiger counter and go on a tour of Japan...Do you have any proof that Geiger counters aren't tampered with? If there is conspiracy then all Geiger counter makers are in it. And maybe someone dumped some nuclear waste in japan... But let's drop the BS because if we go FE argument way we can make all things what we ever want impossible.
Just out of curiosity, when does FE theory not seem like a stretch? I mean if I look around me when im in a field I could believe the world is flat. In the same way I could believe that the moon is made of a small lump of cheese just above head height that follows me around. Everybode else has a similar lump of cheese that follows them around but only they can see it. Thats possibly the tastiest theory ever conceived.
I appreciate that not everyone is a physicist (that much is pretty evident). From through going cosmic neutrinos we know that there must be an atmosphere on the otherside of the 'disc' to convert cosmic rays to cosmic muons.
In your logic there is no way the atomic or hydrogen bomb works because their schematics and building instructions aren't also available.
If y'all (Flat Earth Conspiracy Theorists and Round Earth'ers both) would spend as much time as you waste on these fruitless debates of utter ignorance on something more productive (such as volunteer work, time with family, or possibly some education) then this world, regardless of geometrical shape, would be a much better place.
At the very least, this site has philosophical value, and I am willing to bet that many people here (RE'ers included) would testify that this forum has opened their minds in a way that possibly nothing else could. If you want my opinion, this site is already making the world a better place by expanding people's horizons (if you'll excuse the double entendre). For many, it's not about the destination, but the journey.
I put a simple DIY solar neutrino detector up a couple of pages ago. It would work, you would not have tracking or powerful calorimetry like a modern detector. But it should by constructible by someone with a solid technical mind. Probably be done for only a few thousand dollars I guess, though I guess some of the metal work may have to be professionally manufactured.Please repost these plans.
The solar neutrino experiments have been repeated over and over for the past 40 years. Though there are only 2 of the latest generation of detector. A third is currently under construction in India, or it will be soon I can't remember what their status is. I know of at least 1 more in the pipeline. The gargantuan neutrino factory will be under construction in a few years. This is designed to fire neutrinos through the Earth. Better evidence I would say than solar neutrinos. But its detectors will be large enough to study solar neutrinos in principle but with the energy difference between solar and man made neutrinos their kit may not be sensitive,
On the whole nuclear thing every fission reactor is kicking out neutrinos by the gazillion we can only understand their power output if neutrinos exist.
I'm almost offended. I assume you have a problem with the bit in bold? Cosmic rays, this is popular terminology for high energy particles, mostly protons, from deep space. These collide with atoms in the upper atmosphere which create large showers cascading down towards the Earths surface. The muons from this shower, decay into muon neutrinos, electrons and anti-electron neutrinos.
That would be true if there was actual knowledge being exchanged here, as opposed to the transfer of ignorance from one person to the next.
Philosophy is the love of knowledge and the pursuit thereof. If you are pursuing something already sought and found you wasting yours and others time.
I looked in my thesis. The anti-electron neutrino is a fermion. The existance of which has been verifed by direct observation from nuclear reactors. It is a product of nuclear fission with an energy of order 10MeV.
Actually, out-dated Uranium and Plutonium core A-Bomb schematics are quite easy to find if you have the conviction to learn about them and their functions. Of course, modern A-Bombs are highly classified.
I like this thread there's some very good physics in here that's correct :)
I must admit I don't know the ins and outs of particle physics because it's not my specialist area but from what I've read it seems correct.
One thing I don't thinks been discussed is the fact that published experimental results arn't just done once they are verified independantly of one another.
If a scientist says, Eureaka I've detected a neutrino, another scientist says: really I shall do my own experiment to verify it and make sure the results are what they say they are.
When you ask for the detail of an experimental apparatus you should really ask what other experiments have been done to verify it. Because each experiment may have been done on an apparatus that is designed differently.
Actually, out-dated Uranium and Plutonium core A-Bomb schematics are quite easy to find if you have the conviction to learn about them and their functions. Of course, modern A-Bombs are highly classified.
Actually, they're not. All bomb designs, 'outdated' or not are still highly classified under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. If you think you've got a 'real' bomb schematic, I can virtually guarantee that you haven't (unless you're a spy or work for the government, or both).
Actually, out-dated Uranium and Plutonium core A-Bomb schematics are quite easy to find if you have the conviction to learn about them and their functions. Of course, modern A-Bombs are highly classified.
Actually, they're not. All bomb designs, 'outdated' or not are still highly classified under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. If you think you've got a 'real' bomb schematic, I can virtually guarantee that you haven't (unless you're a spy or work for the government, or both).
Actually you can get a great deal of info over the net.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon
Although there will be fundamental parrameters and new designs which won't be on there.
If me and Tom Bishop announce that we have discovered a new sub atomic particle independently of each other but we don't post plans why should you believe us?
If me and Tom Bishop announce that we have discovered a new sub atomic particle independently of each other but we don't post plans why should you believe us?
Actually, out-dated Uranium and Plutonium core A-Bomb schematics are quite easy to find if you have the conviction to learn about them and their functions. Of course, modern A-Bombs are highly classified.
Actually, they're not. All bomb designs, 'outdated' or not are still highly classified under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. If you think you've got a 'real' bomb schematic, I can virtually guarantee that you haven't (unless you're a spy or work for the government, or both).
Actually you can get a great deal of info over the net.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon
Although there will be fundamental parrameters and new designs which won't be on there.
Functional block diagrams are hardly schematics.
If me and Tom Bishop announce that we have discovered a new sub atomic particle independently of each other but we don't post plans why should you believe us?
If me and Tom Bishop announce that we have discovered a new sub atomic particle independently of each other but we don't post plans why should you believe us?
I have yet to see plans for the experiments/equipment from you guys. It doesn't seem peer reviewed to me. As peers who have no money are unable to review it.
What source is the oscilloscope reading?I have yet to see plans for the experiments/equipment from you guys. It doesn't seem peer reviewed to me. As peers who have no money are unable to review it.
I would like to know what problems you have with the experiment so we could possible give you the references and details that will be most relavent.
Simply asking for the schematics of something is not likely to answer the problems you have with the experiment.
I don't think you understand how experimental apparatus are put together. The experiment is going to have an oscilloscope attached to it somewhere. Do you want the details of how an oscilloscope works?
You need to be more specific in relation to the problems you have with the experiment.
What source is the oscilloscope reading?I have yet to see plans for the experiments/equipment from you guys. It doesn't seem peer reviewed to me. As peers who have no money are unable to review it.
I would like to know what problems you have with the experiment so we could possible give you the references and details that will be most relavent.
Simply asking for the schematics of something is not likely to answer the problems you have with the experiment.
I don't think you understand how experimental apparatus are put together. The experiment is going to have an oscilloscope attached to it somewhere. Do you want the details of how an oscilloscope works?
You need to be more specific in relation to the problems you have with the experiment.
Seriously this is all in the TDR that was linked. Its a pdf and i can't cut copy paste, but needless to say no ones used an oscilloscope since before disco died. SuperK has over 11'000 output channels, thats a lot of oscilloscopes.
Seriously this is all in the TDR that was linked. Its a pdf and i can't cut copy paste, but needless to say no ones used an oscilloscope since before disco died. SuperK has over 11'000 output channels, thats a lot of oscilloscopes.
That is the essence of my argument. I would like to know how to build such instrumentation.What source is the oscilloscope reading?I have yet to see plans for the experiments/equipment from you guys. It doesn't seem peer reviewed to me. As peers who have no money are unable to review it.
I would like to know what problems you have with the experiment so we could possible give you the references and details that will be most relavent.
Simply asking for the schematics of something is not likely to answer the problems you have with the experiment.
I don't think you understand how experimental apparatus are put together. The experiment is going to have an oscilloscope attached to it somewhere. Do you want the details of how an oscilloscope works?
You need to be more specific in relation to the problems you have with the experiment.
So you would like to know how the experimental apparatus detects the neutrino?
That is the essence of my argument. I would like to know how to build such instrumentation.What source is the oscilloscope reading?I have yet to see plans for the experiments/equipment from you guys. It doesn't seem peer reviewed to me. As peers who have no money are unable to review it.
I would like to know what problems you have with the experiment so we could possible give you the references and details that will be most relavent.
Simply asking for the schematics of something is not likely to answer the problems you have with the experiment.
I don't think you understand how experimental apparatus are put together. The experiment is going to have an oscilloscope attached to it somewhere. Do you want the details of how an oscilloscope works?
You need to be more specific in relation to the problems you have with the experiment.
So you would like to know how the experimental apparatus detects the neutrino?
What does the acronym TDR stand for?
As peers who have no money are unable to review it.
That is the essence of my argument. I would like to know how to build such instrumentation.
What does the acronym TDR stand for?
That is the essence of my argument. I would like to know how to build such instrumentation.
What does the acronym TDR stand for?
Total Domination Racing?
Yeah TDR is technical design report.