The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: bowler on March 06, 2009, 07:17:37 AM

Title: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: bowler on March 06, 2009, 07:17:37 AM
Beam neutrinos, as is heavily implied by the name, are man made beams of neutrinos. Rather like the LHC at CERN beam beams of protons are accelerated to high energies. Unlike CERN the beams are collided with a solid target even less like CERN the resultant beam of muon neutrinos is aimed into the ground. Why the madness a sane person might ask? Well as I mentioned in the solar neutrino thread neutrinos do not interact strongly, infact they barely interact at all. Where as a gamma ray from nuclear radiation will penetrate a few feet of lead a neutrino will penetrate a few light years of lead. So for these experiments we need lots of neutrinos and big detectors. The sun provides lots of neutrinos but that is a long way away, so we'd rather make our own and target them exactly where we want them to collect lots more quickly. So we aim the neutrinos into the ground and build a big detector where they re-emerge from the ground. So this isn't really a tricky particle physics question is more of a geometry question. A beam of neutrinos is fired into the ground to be detected elsewhere. How do you do this with a flat surface. Keep in mind that they dont really interact so they don't bend, at least not unless your talking about cosmological distances (real ones not FE ones).
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: markjo on March 06, 2009, 12:34:31 PM
Bendy neutrinos?
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: bowler on March 06, 2009, 12:42:58 PM
Everything seems to bend in FE theory. The light, the logic, why is it that the Earth has to be so damn flat.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: markjo on March 06, 2009, 12:54:35 PM
I blame Rowbotham's unique interpretation of perspective.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: ghazwozza on March 06, 2009, 01:37:21 PM
Everything seems to bend if FE theory the light, the logic why is it the the Earth has to be so damn flat.

I'm not even sure that's a sentence  :P
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: bowler on March 06, 2009, 01:55:25 PM
sorted
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: ghazwozza on March 06, 2009, 01:58:22 PM
Ah! Now I see what you did there.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: Ambassadork on March 06, 2009, 06:19:43 PM
I heard they got James McAvoy's character from "Wanted" to fire the neutrinos.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: niceguybut on March 07, 2009, 05:03:50 AM
Bendy neutrinos?

Hmm, I had a similar idea not so long ago, but I'm buggered if I can find the post anywhere.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: bowler on March 09, 2009, 02:22:26 AM
This is disappointing. I was at least hoping to be called a conspirator again. If nothing else my ego likes the boost.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: MotherNature on March 09, 2009, 10:44:28 AM

It's because you have a very valid point which they can't answer :)

I would also like to see how the FE theory links into this.

Although I think one of the arguments you'll get is the fact that they don't think the experiment exists.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: bowler on March 09, 2009, 11:04:49 AM
I probably have pics on my camera still. Though admittedly I guess the hardware could be of anything. Well its pretty obviously some kind of particle experiment or a behind the scenes shot of the last Terminator movie. I guess that was all CGI though. Theres a beam neutrino experiment at CERN don't know if its on the tour not quite as impressive as the LHC.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: Cpt. Potato Head on August 07, 2009, 09:23:11 AM
I would like to see how the FE'ers debunk this one.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: SSSavio on August 07, 2009, 01:16:13 PM
I would like to see how the FE'ers debunk this one.

Simple. Bendy Conspiracy.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: John Davis on August 07, 2009, 05:59:41 PM
Beam neutrinos, as is heavily implied by the name, are man made beams of neutrinos. Rather like the LHC at CERN beam beams of protons are accelerated to high energies. Unlike CERN the beams are collided with a solid target even less like CERN the resultant beam of muon neutrinos is aimed into the ground. Why the madness a sane person might ask? Well as I mentioned in the solar neutrino thread neutrinos do not interact strongly, infact they barely interact at all. Where as a gamma ray from nuclear radiation will penetrate a few feet of lead a neutrino will penetrate a few light years of lead. So for these experiments we need lots of neutrinos and big detectors. The sun provides lots of neutrinos but that is a long way away, so we'd rather make our own and target them exactly where we want them to collect lots more quickly. So we aim the neutrinos into the ground and build a big detector where they re-emerge from the ground. So this isn't really a tricky particle physics question is more of a geometry question. A beam of neutrinos is fired into the ground to be detected elsewhere. How do you do this with a flat surface. Keep in mind that they dont really interact so they don't bend, at least not unless your talking about cosmological distances (real ones not FE ones).
Where are the long and lats of where this was done?  OR has it been?
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: zork on August 08, 2009, 01:27:35 AM
Where are the long and lats of where this was done?  OR has it been?
Google for the "long baseline neutrino experiment".
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: Abysmal on August 08, 2009, 08:36:51 PM
Very nice post, I would like to see some more FE counter-arguments to this one.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: raziel on August 11, 2009, 06:56:06 AM
and yet still no arguments... they google for arguments long enough  :P
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: ris-b on August 11, 2009, 07:05:05 AM
pwnd i would say but the FE will say that the dark energy bends it and sends it back up at the exact same spot that it would be if the earth was round :P
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: julianmartin on August 12, 2009, 03:31:29 AM
Good post....
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: parsec on August 12, 2009, 04:07:31 AM
I always wondered how is it that the neutrinos which interact very weekly with ordinary matter and, hence, the explaination that they travel in a straight line, can be detected? It seems these detectors counter the accepted physical laws.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: Redingold on August 12, 2009, 04:53:06 AM
I always wondered how is it that the neutrinos which interact very weekly with ordinary matter and, hence, the explaination that they travel in a straight line, can be detected? It seems these detectors counter the accepted physical laws.

They interact weakly. That doesn't mean they don't interact. I don't actually know how particle detectors work, but I see nothing that stops neutrinos being detected.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: parsec on August 12, 2009, 06:46:23 AM
So, it means they might not travel in a straight line.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: AwesomeForever on August 12, 2009, 07:20:12 AM
Unless the ground is made of lead or something, then I guess the beam will travel in a slightly curved line.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: parsec on August 12, 2009, 07:39:22 AM
Why lead? What magical properties does it have to interact with neutrinos better than the atoms of other elements?
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: zork on August 12, 2009, 08:33:25 AM
So, it means they might not travel in a straight line.

 Have you any suggestions why they must deviate from the straight line they travel? Or do you just ask - why they must travel straight. Why not curved or spiraled or whatever else trajectory. As I see they just have no reason to travel any other way than straight line. Except when they hit something.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: iznih on August 12, 2009, 08:34:36 AM
Why lead? What magical properties does it have to interact with neutrinos better than the atoms of other elements?

high density
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: raziel on August 12, 2009, 09:07:30 AM
Why lead? What magical properties does it have to interact with neutrinos better than the atoms of other elements?

Anything seems to be magical to you...

Then why must it BEND??
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: bowler on August 24, 2009, 10:44:15 AM
Ah one of my old posts has been resurrected. Ill start by answering the non-controversial questions. As to how the detectors work. I said neutrinos interact very weakly, not, they don't interact. So to detect them you need a huge detector and a lot of neutrinos. The most famous detector is Superkamiokande in Japan, which is filled with 50'000 tonnes of water. There are other designs, Iron is another common material, denser than water so you don't need as much, although its a pain to see anything with photo sensors as Iron is not transparent to light. You get round this by having alternating layers of Iron and plastic.

As to where the experiments are located, in vague chronological order;
K2K - source: KEK, Tsukuba, Japan      detector: Superkamiokande, Japan
KamLAND - source: nuclear reactors all over Japan   detector: Same place as Superkamiokande, Japan
MINOS - source: Fermilab, Batavia, Illinois, US    detector: Soudan, Minnesota, US
CNGS - source: CERN-SPS, Geneva, Switzerland     detector: Gran Sasso, Italy (near where the earthquake was)
T2K - source: Tokai, Japan      detector: Superkamiokande, Japan   (Construction nearly completed, beginning data runs in December 09/Jan 10)
NOVA - source: Fermilab, Batavia, Illinois, US   detector: Ash River (I think), Minnesota, US

A plethora of short baseline experments also exist but are not really relevant here. The experiments above have a baseline between 200km and 1000km, roughly. This corresponds to the beam passing between about 1 and 10 miles deep through the crust, if you do the math assuming the Earth that all bar a few of people accept. The mother of all long baseline neutrino experiments, the neutrino factor is being designed to have a baseline of about 7000km hopefully construction will begin when someone figure out how to make a beamline going down in to the ground at a steep angle. Current long baseline experiments only need to be a few degrees from the horizontal.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: Johannes on August 26, 2009, 10:55:30 AM
Neutrinos do not penetrate a light year of lead. This is all RET propganda.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: Parsifal on August 26, 2009, 02:55:36 PM
Please be careful when saying that neutrinos interact weakly. It can also be taken to mean that they interact through the weak force, which is true but also completely different to your intended meaning.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: bowler on August 26, 2009, 03:09:20 PM
Actually it was a deliberate pun another gag about the top being heavier than the bottom making the standard model unstable almost made my thesis, but thanks for noticing as it beings me on nicely to the calculation of the mean free path of a neutrino. The key quantity when finding the mean free path of a particle is the cross section it has to other particles. For a neutrino electroweak theory predicts and experiment has found that the cross section is of order 10-47m2 at energies found in nuclear beta decay. This increases by a few orders of magnitude, the cross section goes up with energy. Though though typically it is around 20 orders of magnitude less than two nucleons. We find the path length by;
path = u/(xsec x density), for lead this works out as;
path = 1.66x10-27/(10-47 * 11400) = 1.5x1016m. A light year by comparison is 9.46x1015m. This is a standard quantum mechanical calculation that has been around since Fermi and is in many textbooks.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: raziel on September 05, 2009, 11:53:59 AM
So, flat earth is impossible after all..
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: parsec on September 05, 2009, 12:22:01 PM
Beam neutrinos, as is heavily implied by the name, are man made beams of neutrinos. Rather like the LHC at CERN beam beams of protons are accelerated to high energies. Unlike CERN the beams are collided with a solid target even less like CERN the resultant beam of muon neutrinos is aimed into the ground. Why the madness a sane person might ask? Well as I mentioned in the solar neutrino thread neutrinos do not interact strongly, infact they barely interact at all. Where as a gamma ray from nuclear radiation will penetrate a few feet of lead a neutrino will penetrate a few light years of lead. So for these experiments we need lots of neutrinos and big detectors. The sun provides lots of neutrinos but that is a long way away, so we'd rather make our own and target them exactly where we want them to collect lots more quickly. So we aim the neutrinos into the ground and build a big detector where they re-emerge from the ground. So this isn't really a tricky particle physics question is more of a geometry question. A beam of neutrinos is fired into the ground to be detected elsewhere. How do you do this with a flat surface. Keep in mind that they dont really interact so they don't bend, at least not unless your talking about cosmological distances (real ones not FE ones).

Please tell us the locations from where they are emitted and where they are detected. I suspect this is highly possible according to FE.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: raziel on September 05, 2009, 04:46:01 PM
Beam neutrinos, as is heavily implied by the name, are man made beams of neutrinos. Rather like the LHC at CERN beam beams of protons are accelerated to high energies. Unlike CERN the beams are collided with a solid target even less like CERN the resultant beam of muon neutrinos is aimed into the ground. Why the madness a sane person might ask? Well as I mentioned in the solar neutrino thread neutrinos do not interact strongly, infact they barely interact at all. Where as a gamma ray from nuclear radiation will penetrate a few feet of lead a neutrino will penetrate a few light years of lead. So for these experiments we need lots of neutrinos and big detectors. The sun provides lots of neutrinos but that is a long way away, so we'd rather make our own and target them exactly where we want them to collect lots more quickly. So we aim the neutrinos into the ground and build a big detector where they re-emerge from the ground. So this isn't really a tricky particle physics question is more of a geometry question. A beam of neutrinos is fired into the ground to be detected elsewhere. How do you do this with a flat surface. Keep in mind that they dont really interact so they don't bend, at least not unless your talking about cosmological distances (real ones not FE ones).

Please tell us the locations from where they are emitted and where they are detected. I suspect this is highly possible according to FE.

learn2read
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: parsec on September 05, 2009, 04:47:59 PM
I only saw a list of detectors. Would you give me a quote where the exact locations of the said experiment are.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: raziel on September 05, 2009, 05:03:27 PM
Google for the "long baseline neutrino experiment".
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: parsec on September 05, 2009, 05:05:43 PM
Google for the "long baseline neutrino experiment".


http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ei=fvyiSsPCJIKknQeA59WFBQ&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=long+baseline+neutrino+experiment&spell=1 (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ei=fvyiSsPCJIKknQeA59WFBQ&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=long+baseline+neutrino+experiment&spell=1)

The first page of search results is dominated by government or somehow related sources.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: markjo on September 05, 2009, 05:45:05 PM
Google for the "long baseline neutrino experiment".


http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ei=fvyiSsPCJIKknQeA59WFBQ&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=long+baseline+neutrino+experiment&spell=1 (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ei=fvyiSsPCJIKknQeA59WFBQ&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=long+baseline+neutrino+experiment&spell=1)

The first page of search results is dominated by government or somehow related sources.

Well, since governments are just about the only ones with the financial resources for such experiments, I'm not sure what your question is.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: cbarnett97 on September 05, 2009, 06:00:58 PM

The first page of search results is dominated by government or somehow related sources.
this response always makes me laugh no matter how many times I read it. Nevermind the fact that all results are published in peer reviewed journals which can be read and verified by anyone with the drive to do so. ANd there are non governments groups conducting the same experiments and getting the same results
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: parsec on September 05, 2009, 06:46:55 PM
The only important quantity for our purposes I found was L = 250 km. This is not a very long distance and, according to RE, the 'bulge' between the two points is:

h = R*[1 - cos(L/(2*R))]

With a RE radius R = 2*10,000 km/π = 6,366 km, we get a height of h = 1.2 km. The depth of the instruments (Super-Kamiokande. for example) is estimated to be 1,000 m.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: Tristan on September 15, 2009, 06:58:38 AM
Dude, they can't even tell you how the sun rises and sets, or how people get from Australia to Argentina without going via the north pole. You really think they're going to have a proper answer for beam neutrinos?
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: bowler on September 15, 2009, 09:10:16 AM
1) What bulge? Is the Earth a hemisphere? Or are we talking dimples, like some kind of shallow mountain range? If so how do you know where in a dimple you are? I know how to take a cosine unfortunately without any context you may as well pick a random number?

2) If the 'bulge' at 3 well spaced points on the Earths surface (Europe, Japan and North America) are consistent with the Earth being a sphere then may I posit one crazy hypothesis - the Earth is a sphere. Then we could use the equivalence principle to suggest that infact the reason that everything in the universe with the exception of the things on this planet seem to be accelerating upwards at 9.81 m/s is due to the mass of the Earth (actually this happens even in FE though its a fact ppl seem blissfully ignorant of). If we assume this to be true then the fact that one can get from South America to Sydney without some kind of warp drive or indeed make any sense of weather patterns.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: senoctar on September 16, 2009, 10:08:40 AM
It would be interesting to see this for longer distances.
Although it will probably be categorized as an action of the conspiracy, it would yield interesting results because EA can not apply here.
First, neutrinos fired directly down should never come back because they should bend at an angle, but they would, exactly on the other side of RE.
Second, pointing the neutrinos slightly south, they should come out behind the FE ice wall, but in RE the they would come out on the other side at a different latitude.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: ERTW on December 06, 2009, 02:17:05 PM
I only saw a list of detectors. Would you give me a quote where the exact locations of the said experiment are.

A presentation that I made about T2K that contains background information (reading past slide 12 may require knowledge of digital electronics):
http://t2k-information.googlegroups.com/web/T2KFGDDAQ_Presentation.pdf?hl=en&gsc=dpZkfBYAAABTl-BqToBP6YtkdhV4EunzxLvg5J8DkvikzuC_7TuOSg

For now here is a picture from the near detector (ND280) in Tokai (TPC detectors [in blue] are not currently present):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/45321145@N03/4162595960/

If any FET'ers happen to also be physics grad students they could directly participate in the analysis of the T2K data and eliminate the conspiracy angle. If so please let me know and I may be able to direct you to the SVN where we keep the analysis software. Of course it would be best if you could personally visit an analysis cluster where you could be shown how to use the software. There is one at UBC, Vancouver and they have free tours Wednesday and Friday at 1:00pm.
http://maps.google.ca/maps/ms?hl=en&ie=UTF8&msa=0&msid=114542839659020283502.00047a16ad9b0cab0dc59&ll=49.247748,-123.23193&spn=0.006836,0.019076&z=16
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: Robert64 on December 06, 2009, 02:56:56 PM
This is the most watertight proof so far as far as I am concerned. The FE'ers would have to invent a new force that is unknown to modern science... or just accept a spherical planet.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: Thermal Detonator on December 06, 2009, 03:20:36 PM
So, it means they might not travel in a straight line.

It is proven that they travel in a straight line because they can be detected coming from the Sun. If they were not travelling straight they'd appear to be coming from elsewhere.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: Thermal Detonator on December 06, 2009, 03:22:53 PM
This is the most watertight proof so far as far as I am concerned. The FE'ers would have to invent a new force that is unknown to modern science... or just accept a spherical planet.

I guess so, though I do like my "why can't anyone go further south than the south pole" proof too.  8)
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: ERTW on December 06, 2009, 03:46:28 PM
The only important quantity for our purposes I found was L = 250 km. This is not a very long distance and, according to RE, the 'bulge' between the two points is:

h = R*[1 - cos(L/(2*R))]

With a RE radius R = 2*10,000 km/π = 6,366 km, we get a height of h = 1.2 km. The depth of the instruments (Super-Kamiokande. for example) is estimated to be 1,000 m.

The point is that the neutrino's are shot into the ground at a downward angle. For them to be detected 300km away on a flat earth with a downward angle of 1 degree:

depth = 300km * sin(1[degree]) = 5.236km

So for Super K to see the neutrinos from Tokai it would have to be ~5km deep...
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: ERTW on December 07, 2009, 12:35:25 AM
I got the following post from parsec on another related thread and I felt that it belonged here.

I must note that this is a straw man argument. The OP is clearly more confident in computer systems and uses this strenght to divert the question from the main issue, namely, the rectilinear propagation of neutrinos and their arrival at two distant points on Earth's surface. This is used to deduce that the outer surface is convex. But, there are two hidden assumptions.
Well, in the forum you posted this in, I was providing hardware specs for a neutrino detector because Johannes asked for them.

The first one might seem as a bit of a desparate attempt from nitpickers, but, nevertheless, it is important. We have seen on this website a theory that proposes that light actually travels along curved paths being put forward. In this respect, the position of the Sun is not exactly where it appears to be on the sky. But, they use they 'prove' that neutrinos travel along a straight line by saying that the observed neutrinos come from a position where the sun appears to be on the sky. All I can deduce from this, in light of the above mentioned theory, is that neutrinos travel along the same path as light rays from the Sun.
I am not using the idea that solar neutrinos appear to come from the direction of the Sun as a proof that they travel straight. Previously in this thread it was mentioned that the direction of observed neutrino events can be interpolated to point in the expected direction of the Sun in RET, assuming they travel in straight lines. The assumption of straightness can be made because neutrinos are observed to travel in straight lines over short distances, and there is no reason to believe that they curve over long distances except due to gravitation. Neutrinos have no observable charge and the upper limit on their mass is very small, so without invoking some new yet unobserved force I can think of no reason for them to bend.

Secondly, they always ommit to mention that the detector itself is not on the Earth's surface, but underground, and, for that matter, deep underground.
I have never personally visited the Super K site, but according to their website it is not actually underground relative to sea-level. The website states that the Super K detector has a 1000m overburden of rock, and is located under the peak of Mt. Ikeno-yama, which has a height of 1360m above sea level.
http://www-sk.icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp/sk/location-e.html
This is also illustrated in the second slide of the T2KFGDDAQ presentation in my previous post. It shows the far detector Super K suspended in the mountain ranges as it says on the Super K website.

Therefore, even straight paths for neutrions allow for detection on a Flat Earth.
Of course they can! If the Earth was flat and you shot neutrinos horizontally from one side you might expect them to be detectable straight across the Earth because of the low influence of gravitation (or UA or whatever). Of course, the experiment I am referring to is T2K, which shoots neutrinos at a downward angle of about 1 degree from sea level. The receiving end is in the mountains slightly above sea level, about 300km away. In my previous post I showed that a downward angle of 1 degree over 300km would require Super K to be 5.2km below sea level on a flat Earth, assuming neutrinos travel in straight lines.

The purpose of T2K is not to test if the Earth is round, it is to observe neutrino behavior over long distances. If the Earth was flat we wouldn't bother with the downward angle, we would just shoot them straight. Of course Tom Bishop has said that this is the case, we are just wasting our time, and T2K will fail (I assume he means fail to produce events at both detectors, but he can correct me if I am wrong).
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: ERTW on December 08, 2009, 07:04:03 PM
Any rebuttal? T2K may not be complete, but K2K and MINOS are. I am sure I can talk to people there and get some pictures neutrino tracks.
For starters from the Interwebs:
http://www.ps.uci.edu/~tomba/sk/tscan/k2k-1st/
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: parsec on December 08, 2009, 07:21:27 PM
The UA has influence even on neutrinos just as on everything else, because its effects are due to changing of reference frames. However, because the neutrinos travel at speeds very close to the speed of light, their deflection in the vertical direction is negligible. Namely, if neutrions are fired horizontally, then, at a point that is at a distance D, they would have a vertical deflcetion of approximately (t = D/c, h = g*t2/2):

h = g*D^2/(2*c^2),

or, if we express D in kilometers and h in micrometers, we get:

h/(um) = 5.46 x 10-8 x (D/km)2.

For the above case D = 250 km, we get a vertical deflection of h = 0.0034 um = 3.4 nm, which is just of the order of one wavelength for soft X-rays. That's pretty straight.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: ERTW on December 08, 2009, 08:55:59 PM
The UA has influence even on neutrinos just as on everything else, because its effects are due to changing of reference frames. However, because the neutrinos travel at speeds very close to the speed of light, their deflection in the vertical direction is negligible. Namely, if neutrions are fired horizontally, then, at a point that is at a distance D, they would have a vertical deflcetion of approximately (t = D/c, h = g*t2/2):

h = g*D^2/(2*c^2),

or, if we express D in kilometers and h in micrometers, we get:

h/(um) = 5.46 x 10-8 x (D/km)2.

For the above case D = 250 km, we get a vertical deflection of h = 0.0034 um = 3.4 nm, which is just of the order of one wavelength for soft X-rays. That's pretty straight.
So, according to your viewpoint of UA and its affect on neutrinos, they should travel straight. Now that we are on the same page, what is the explanation for neutrinos traveling at a downward angle and being detected elsewhere in the world?

Also, I believe I have shown that Super K is above sea level, in response to this:
The only important quantity for our purposes I found was L = 250 km. This is not a very long distance and, according to RE, the 'bulge' between the two points is:

h = R*[1 - cos(L/(2*R))]

With a RE radius R = 2*10,000 km/π = 6,366 km, we get a height of h = 1.2 km. The depth of the instruments (Super-Kamiokande. for example) is estimated to be 1,000 m.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: parsec on December 08, 2009, 09:08:11 PM
The UA has influence even on neutrinos just as on everything else, because its effects are due to changing of reference frames. However, because the neutrinos travel at speeds very close to the speed of light, their deflection in the vertical direction is negligible. Namely, if neutrions are fired horizontally, then, at a point that is at a distance D, they would have a vertical deflcetion of approximately (t = D/c, h = g*t2/2):

h = g*D^2/(2*c^2),

or, if we express D in kilometers and h in micrometers, we get:

h/(um) = 5.46 x 10-8 x (D/km)2.

For the above case D = 250 km, we get a vertical deflection of h = 0.0034 um = 3.4 nm, which is just of the order of one wavelength for soft X-rays. That's pretty straight.
So, according to your viewpoint of UA and its affect on neutrinos, they should travel straight. Now that we are on the same page, what is the explanation for neutrinos traveling at a downward angle and being detected elsewhere in the world?
I am afraid I don't understand your question.

Also, I believe I have shown that Super K is above sea level, in response to this:
The only important quantity for our purposes I found was L = 250 km. This is not a very long distance and, according to RE, the 'bulge' between the two points is:

h = R*[1 - cos(L/(2*R))]

With a RE radius R = 2*10,000 km/π = 6,366 km, we get a height of h = 1.2 km. The depth of the instruments (Super-Kamiokande. for example) is estimated to be 1,000 m.
But, still, it is sufficient that the the two points be on different heights relative to sea level.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: ERTW on December 08, 2009, 09:39:29 PM
The only important quantity for our purposes I found was L = 250 km. This is not a very long distance and, according to RE, the 'bulge' between the two points is:

h = R*[1 - cos(L/(2*R))]

With a RE radius R = 2*10,000 km/π = 6,366 km, we get a height of h = 1.2 km. The depth of the instruments (Super-Kamiokande. for example) is estimated to be 1,000 m.
Sorry, I just noticed this request for locations.

T2K Neutrino Source and Near Detector 280m in Tokai, Japan:
http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&source=hp&q=36.459661,+140.599483

K2K Neutrino Source and Near Detector in Tsukuba city, Japan:
http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&source=hp&q=36.149668,+140.078208

Both experiments terminate at the Super Kamiokande Neutrino Observatory in Hida, Japan:
http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&source=hp&q=36.433874%2C+137.277106&fp=1&cad=b

MINOS is based out of Fermilab:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/econf/C9910183/papers/025.PDF

MINOS is at an even steeper angle...
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: ERTW on December 08, 2009, 09:41:57 PM
The UA has influence even on neutrinos just as on everything else, because its effects are due to changing of reference frames. However, because the neutrinos travel at speeds very close to the speed of light, their deflection in the vertical direction is negligible. Namely, if neutrions are fired horizontally, then, at a point that is at a distance D, they would have a vertical deflcetion of approximately (t = D/c, h = g*t2/2):

h = g*D^2/(2*c^2),

or, if we express D in kilometers and h in micrometers, we get:

h/(um) = 5.46 x 10-8 x (D/km)2.

For the above case D = 250 km, we get a vertical deflection of h = 0.0034 um = 3.4 nm, which is just of the order of one wavelength for soft X-rays. That's pretty straight.
So, according to your viewpoint of UA and its affect on neutrinos, they should travel straight. Now that we are on the same page, what is the explanation for neutrinos traveling at a downward angle and being detected elsewhere in the world?
I am afraid I don't understand your question.

Also, I believe I have shown that Super K is above sea level, in response to this:
The only important quantity for our purposes I found was L = 250 km. This is not a very long distance and, according to RE, the 'bulge' between the two points is:

h = R*[1 - cos(L/(2*R))]

With a RE radius R = 2*10,000 km/π = 6,366 km, we get a height of h = 1.2 km. The depth of the instruments (Super-Kamiokande. for example) is estimated to be 1,000 m.
But, still, it is sufficient that the the two points be on different heights relative to sea level.
The neutrino source is just above sea level, and pointed down, so if the receiving end is above sea level than I don't see how straight neutrinos will get there.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: parsec on December 08, 2009, 11:27:31 PM
(http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/8121/straighfe.png)

Like this?
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: SupahLovah on December 09, 2009, 04:57:08 AM
Both are above sea level, and pointed down INTO the planet.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: ERTW on December 09, 2009, 10:06:48 AM
(http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/8121/straighfe.png)

Like this?
Since your diagram is not labeled, I will assume the small dot on the right is the first detector and the big dot on the left is the second detector. What you have drawn is an upward angle from the first to the second, which is opposite to what I said.
Here is a simple, labeled diagram of what it might look like. Not to scale!
http://t2k-information.googlegroups.com/web/General%20Neutrino%20Detector%20Diagram.jpg?hl=en&gsc=81ObtAsAAADg5gu_c_6XUl9IC-5YX-tj
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: parsec on December 09, 2009, 10:09:11 AM
no, actually, it's the other way around.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: ERTW on December 09, 2009, 10:18:14 AM
no, actually, it's the other way around.

I only saw a list of detectors. Would you give me a quote where the exact locations of the said experiment are.

A presentation that I made about T2K that contains background information (reading past slide 12 may require knowledge of digital electronics):
http://t2k-information.googlegroups.com/web/T2KFGDDAQ_Presentation.pdf?hl=en&gsc=dpZkfBYAAABTl-BqToBP6YtkdhV4EunzxLvg5J8DkvikzuC_7TuOSg

For now here is a picture from the near detector (ND280) in Tokai (TPC detectors [in blue] are not currently present):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/45321145@N03/4162595960/

If any FET'ers happen to also be physics grad students they could directly participate in the analysis of the T2K data and eliminate the conspiracy angle. If so please let me know and I may be able to direct you to the SVN where we keep the analysis software. Of course it would be best if you could personally visit an analysis cluster where you could be shown how to use the software. There is one at UBC, Vancouver and they have free tours Wednesday and Friday at 1:00pm.
http://maps.google.ca/maps/ms?hl=en&ie=UTF8&msa=0&msid=114542839659020283502.00047a16ad9b0cab0dc59&ll=49.247748,-123.23193&spn=0.006836,0.019076&z=16

Did you look at my presentation (up to page 3 would be enough)? Did you read my post about having personally worked on the T2K near detector, which is in a 40m deep pit? Would you like to read the TDR for MINOS that I posted on the Neutrino Hardware thread? Here it is anyway:
http://www-numi.fnal.gov/Minos/info/minos_tdr.html

Regardless, where is the information that tells you "its the other way", other than "the Earth is flat".
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: parsec on December 09, 2009, 10:19:21 AM
lol, and you said several posts above, both are above sea level.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: SupahLovah on December 09, 2009, 10:23:51 AM
I'm above sea level.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: parsec on December 09, 2009, 10:25:40 AM
I am underground and above sea level.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: ERTW on December 09, 2009, 10:29:14 AM
lol, and you said several posts above, both are above sea level.
The source is in the basement of a building, a few meters below sea level. The near detector is 40m below sea level. Super K is roughly 100-300m above sea level (since I am using information relative to the 1360m mountain peak and their report of 1000m of rock overburden). I never said the near detector was above sea level in any of my posts, I previously said that the neutrino source was at sea level, which is pretty much bang on. The neutrino source would have to be in a ~43m deep pit to change the angle to an upward angle, and I can attest to the fact that it is not.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: ERTW on December 09, 2009, 10:43:11 AM
lol, and you said several posts above, both are above sea level.
Besides, there is no both. There are three points on this line. If you reduce it to two you can infer what you want, but we have three: Neutrino source, near detector, far detector.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: parsec on December 09, 2009, 10:45:04 AM
do neutrinos keep travelling in a straight line after passing through the first detector?
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: ERTW on December 09, 2009, 11:50:35 AM
do neutrinos keep travelling in a straight line after passing through the first detector?
I detect a circular argument (pun intended), so I will take a moment to clarify.
First, you question if they travel in straight lines:
So, it means they might not travel in a straight line.

When an explanation is provided, you switch to question the relative location of the experiment, now apparently accepting the straightness.
Beam neutrinos, as is heavily implied by the name, are man made beams of neutrinos. Rather like the LHC at CERN beam beams of protons are accelerated to high energies. Unlike CERN the beams are collided with a solid target even less like CERN the resultant beam of muon neutrinos is aimed into the ground. Why the madness a sane person might ask? Well as I mentioned in the solar neutrino thread neutrinos do not interact strongly, infact they barely interact at all. Where as a gamma ray from nuclear radiation will penetrate a few feet of lead a neutrino will penetrate a few light years of lead. So for these experiments we need lots of neutrinos and big detectors. The sun provides lots of neutrinos but that is a long way away, so we'd rather make our own and target them exactly where we want them to collect lots more quickly. So we aim the neutrinos into the ground and build a big detector where they re-emerge from the ground. So this isn't really a tricky particle physics question is more of a geometry question. A beam of neutrinos is fired into the ground to be detected elsewhere. How do you do this with a flat surface. Keep in mind that they dont really interact so they don't bend, at least not unless your talking about cosmological distances (real ones not FE ones).

Please tell us the locations from where they are emitted and where they are detected. I suspect this is highly possible according to FE.

Then you questioned the authenticity of the experiment information:
Google for the "long baseline neutrino experiment".


http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ei=fvyiSsPCJIKknQeA59WFBQ&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=long+baseline+neutrino+experiment&spell=1 (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ei=fvyiSsPCJIKknQeA59WFBQ&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=long+baseline+neutrino+experiment&spell=1)

The first page of search results is dominated by government or somehow related sources.

Then you tried to show that the experiment could be done on a flat Earth:
The only important quantity for our purposes I found was L = 250 km. This is not a very long distance and, according to RE, the 'bulge' between the two points is:

h = R*[1 - cos(L/(2*R))]

With a RE radius R = 2*10,000 km/π = 6,366 km, we get a height of h = 1.2 km. The depth of the instruments (Super-Kamiokande. for example) is estimated to be 1,000 m.

Which I feel that I successfully answered:
The point is that the neutrino's are shot into the ground at a downward angle. For them to be detected 300km away on a flat earth with a downward angle of 1 degree:

depth = 300km * sin(1[degree]) = 5.236km

So for Super K to see the neutrinos from Tokai it would have to be ~5km deep...

Then for some reason (this makes it much easier for me), you appeared to agree based on UA that neutrinos would travel in a straight line:
The UA has influence even on neutrinos just as on everything else, because its effects are due to changing of reference frames. However, because the neutrinos travel at speeds very close to the speed of light, their deflection in the vertical direction is negligible. Namely, if neutrions are fired horizontally, then, at a point that is at a distance D, they would have a vertical deflcetion of approximately (t = D/c, h = g*t2/2):

h = g*D^2/(2*c^2),

or, if we express D in kilometers and h in micrometers, we get:

h/(um) = 5.46 x 10-8 x (D/km)2.

For the above case D = 250 km, we get a vertical deflection of h = 0.0034 um = 3.4 nm, which is just of the order of one wavelength for soft X-rays. That's pretty straight.

Then, when asked again, you went back and attacked the idea that the angle is downward with this post:
(http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/8121/straighfe.png)

Like this?
Which is missing the third point on the line, the below sea level near detector. I replied with this picture:
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2776/4171945657_c14b6d0ff4_o.jpg)
http://t2k-information.googlegroups.com/web/General+Neutrino+Detector+Diagram.jpg?hl=en&gda=gQtfqFcAAACRTuUW9np5-UAIyR2Eir-sJ0Ok0tEziVbbPG5GIe4snYxv0q0VZhjKiWMs9yi7adzMY-wpAXVKhiwImBIOO5DiJey9J-K9TpVnNBVqJ8Vj4u10aVPw-pIVf8OUHFYczcU

Edit: Photo source changed from Google Groups to Flickr

Now you are back to questioning if neutrinos travel in a straight line:
do neutrinos keep traveling in a straight line after passing through the first detector?

Before continuing, I am going to make a habit of including my current assumptions in the beginning of my post, to avoid confusion. It is great to debate, and I enjoy it, but it becomes frustrating when there is a lack of agreement on a definition or premise.

Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: parsec on December 09, 2009, 11:53:08 AM
nice picture.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: ERTW on December 09, 2009, 11:54:17 AM
nice picture.
Thanks, its the best I could do with 3 minutes and a FET model. There is a much better picture in my presentation, but it assumes RET. Do you have any response to the logic that the picture is trying to convey?
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: parsec on December 09, 2009, 11:58:28 AM
not until i can see your picture.
(http://t2k-information.googlegroups.com/web/General%20Neutrino%20Detector%20Diagram.jpg?hl=en&gsc=81ObtAsAAADg5gu_c_6XUl9IC-5YX-tj)

EDIT:

Btw, you quote too much, without any essence. I guess you think pretending you're an expert in the field by supplying us with irrelevant detail would give you more credibility.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: ERTW on December 09, 2009, 12:27:53 PM
not until i can see your picture.
(http://t2k-information.googlegroups.com/web/General%20Neutrino%20Detector%20Diagram.jpg?hl=en&gsc=81ObtAsAAADg5gu_c_6XUl9IC-5YX-tj)

EDIT:

Btw, you quote too much, without any essence. I guess you think pretending you're an expert in the field by supplying us with irrelevant detail would give you more credibility.

This appears to be an attack on my credibility, a new one. Perhaps this picture can settle that:
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2623/4172712576_90bfc99277_b.jpg)
I believe my detailed explanations of the T2K data acquisition hardware on the Neutrino Hardware thread can attest to the fact that I did work in the field. I do not claim to be an expert, I only worked on T2K for eight months. I did however directly contribute to the data acquisition hardware and software. I also traveled to Japan to install and commission the DAQ. I can post more pictures if you still feel like attacking my credibility, or you can try to attack my argument.

Edit: To avoid confusion, this is a picture of the FGD in the assembly building, not in the 40m ND280 pit. It is much more difficult to debug hardware in the pit!
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: ERTW on December 09, 2009, 07:28:29 PM
It doesn't take an expert in the field of neutrino physics to understand the geometry of the picture I drew. There are three points to match up, and I can't seem to find a way to make them match up in FET. If the relative elevation of the three points is in question, please point to information which indicates what you instead think the elevation should be.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: watchayakan on December 10, 2009, 12:22:35 AM
For a flat Earth, the neutrino beam would have to curve by 1 degree in those 300 km.  I'm curious how something interacting so weakly could possibly pull this off.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: ERTW on December 10, 2009, 10:15:31 AM
Does any other FET'er want to try to explain how this experiment might work on a flat Earth? At this point in the thread it seems that neutrinos travel in roughly straight lines due to UA. I believe that the elevation relative to sea level of the three points in the experiment have also been demonstrated.
Anyone care to contest either of these points, or propose a different solution?
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: Thermal Detonator on December 10, 2009, 11:28:03 AM
do neutrinos keep travelling in a straight line after passing through the first detector?

Yes, because once detected they do not reach the second detector, and those undetected don't interact with it.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: ERTW on December 11, 2009, 10:24:26 AM
While Parsec is studying for exams, any other FET'ers want to take a stab?
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: adolf einholm on December 11, 2009, 11:19:04 AM
While Parsec is studying for exams, any other FET'ers want to take a stab?

While not my field of scientific study, I find it amusing that this new item, the "Neutrino" which has near zero mass and supposedly travels near the speed of light is suddenly (relatively) hailed by all of you as proof the Earth is round. Just when the RET is being critically evaluated this magical particle is "discovered". Let me ask you this; Have you ever seen a neutrino? Even better, let us use taxpayer and contributing monies to build large detectors and artificial neutrino generators.

I find it concerning that the "research" for these projects is supported by government funding. How convenient that the government controls the outcome of the data, once again.

I have seen your picture young man. While you seem intelligent and are obviously very attractive in a boyish way, I am inclined to believe you have drunk the Kool-Aid refreshment.

Nice try but you will not fool us.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: ERTW on December 11, 2009, 11:39:14 AM
While Parsec is studying for exams, any other FET'ers want to take a stab?

While not my field of scientific study, I find it amusing that this new item, the "Neutrino" which has near zero mass and supposedly travels near the speed of light is suddenly (relatively) hailed by all of you as proof the Earth is round. Just when the RET is being critically evaluated this magical particle is "discovered". Let me ask you this; Have you ever seen a neutrino? Even better, let us use taxpayer and contributing monies to build large detectors and artificial neutrino generators.

I find it concerning that the "research" for these projects is supported by government funding. How convenient that the government controls the outcome of the data, once again.

I have seen your picture young man. While you seem intelligent and are obviously very attractive in a boyish way, I am inclined to believe you have drunk the Kool-Aid refreshment.

Nice try but you will not fool us.
Thanks for posting, I appreciate the interesting discussion.
I see two points here:

First, the Neutrino Conspiracy... I have begun to address this point in the thread http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=34703.0
If you want to be involved in the data analysis then get a physics degree and sign up, they need people. Also, you can have a free tour of many government physics experimentation halls (at least in the USA and Canada). If you visit Vancouver, BC on a Wednesday or Friday I can show you around TRIUMF myself. You can view all the physics data and code that you want. You will see that its the grunts (physics grad students) that directly analyze the data, not a few highly paid executives.

Second, have I seen a neutrino? By definition one cannot 'see' a neutrino, any more than one can see an electron. However, one can observe the affect that neutrinos have on matter. For example, one can attempt to direct electrons towards a phosphorus screen in the presence of a magnetic field and observe the deflection from a straight path (CRT). For neutrinos, one way (the one I worked on) is to direct them towards a closely observed mass in a strong magnetic field, and look for flashes of light (neutrinos hitting things). If the directed beam does not appear to bend due to the magnetic field, we can infer that we are observing a non-charged particle. Since we observe many more flashes when shooting other known particles, we infer that the neutrino interacts weakly with matter. When we shoot it through 750km of Earth and still observe it on the other side, then we strengthen the idea that it interacts weakly.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2779/4162595960_8c08fe6e32_o.gif)
Again, taken in a nice 0.2T magnet.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: ERTW on December 11, 2009, 11:41:22 AM
While Parsec is studying for exams, any other FET'ers want to take a stab?
I have seen your picture young man. While you seem intelligent and are obviously very attractive in a boyish way, I am inclined to believe you have drunk the Kool-Aid refreshment.
I admit I am not sure how to respond to this statement.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: adolf einholm on December 11, 2009, 11:46:48 AM

Quote
Thanks for posting, I appreciate the interesting discussion.

I see two points here:

If you want to be involved in the data analysis then get a physics degree and sign up, they need people. Also, you can have a free tour of many government physics experimentation halls (at least in the USA and Canada). If you visit Vancouver, BC on a Wednesday or Friday I can show you around TRIUMF myself. You can view all the physics data and code that you want. You will see that its the grunts (physics grad students) that directly analyze the data, not a few highly paid executives.


Trying to further capitalize on your business or are you spreading the propaganda? I can also go to NASA and look at "Moon Rocks" and "Space Suits". Nice try.

Quote
Second, have I seen a neutrino? By definition one cannot 'see' a neutrino, any more than one can see an electron. However, one can observe the affect that neutrinos have on matter.

Using your logic I could say that no one has ever seen the wind, only the effects of the wind. Therefore, using your logic, a Neutrinobeast could be blowing on the Earth which is evidenced by the leaves blowing in the wind. Once again, nice try.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: ERTW on December 11, 2009, 12:28:59 PM
Second, have I seen a neutrino? By definition one cannot 'see' a neutrino, any more than one can see an electron. However, one can observe the affect that neutrinos have on matter.

Using your logic I could say that no one has ever seen the wind, only the effects of the wind. Therefore, using your logic, a Neutrinobeast could be blowing on the Earth which is evidenced by the leaves blowing in the wind. Once again, nice try.
Could be, its certainly possible (its impossible to prove that its impossible). However, this is not the theory that I am defending. Besides, the theory of fluid flow is quite well developed and I see no reason to think its from a neutrino beast. You can come up with all the fanciful hypotheses you want, but you have to test them before they become theories.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: adolf einholm on December 11, 2009, 12:51:23 PM
Second, have I seen a neutrino? By definition one cannot 'see' a neutrino, any more than one can see an electron. However, one can observe the affect that neutrinos have on matter.

Using your logic I could say that no one has ever seen the wind, only the effects of the wind. Therefore, using your logic, a Neutrinobeast could be blowing on the Earth which is evidenced by the leaves blowing in the wind. Once again, nice try.
Could be, its certainly possible (its impossible to prove that its impossible). However, this is not the theory that I am defending. Besides, the theory of fluid flow is quite well developed and I see no reason to think its from a neutrino beast. You can come up with all the fanciful hypotheses you want, but you have to test them before they become theories.

Could a better hypothesis be to invent "Neutrinos" as conclusive evidence of a round Earth then use taxpayer and "grant" money to employ bright people and build elaborate machinery to find "evidence" which really amounts to nothing more than "spots on detectors"?
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: markjo on December 11, 2009, 01:24:59 PM
Could a better hypothesis be to invent "Neutrinos" as conclusive evidence of a round Earth then use taxpayer and "grant" money to employ bright people and build elaborate machinery to find "evidence" which really amounts to nothing more than "spots on detectors"?

No.  Neutrinos were not "invented" to prove the shape of the earth. 

Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino#Proposal_of_neutrino_existence.2C_from_conservation_arguments
Proposal of neutrino existence, from conservation arguments
The neutrino was first postulated in 1930 by Wolfgang Pauli to preserve the conservation of energy, conservation of momentum, and conservation of angular momentum in beta decay -- the decay of a atomic-neucleus (not known as neutron back then) into a proton, an electron and an antineutrino.

He theorized that an undetected particle was carrying away the observed difference between the energy, momentum, and angular momentum of the initial and final particles.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: ERTW on December 11, 2009, 11:18:52 PM
Second, have I seen a neutrino? By definition one cannot 'see' a neutrino, any more than one can see an electron. However, one can observe the affect that neutrinos have on matter.

Using your logic I could say that no one has ever seen the wind, only the effects of the wind. Therefore, using your logic, a Neutrinobeast could be blowing on the Earth which is evidenced by the leaves blowing in the wind. Once again, nice try.
Could be, its certainly possible (its impossible to prove that its impossible). However, this is not the theory that I am defending. Besides, the theory of fluid flow is quite well developed and I see no reason to think its from a neutrino beast. You can come up with all the fanciful hypotheses you want, but you have to test them before they become theories.

Could a better hypothesis be to invent "Neutrinos" as conclusive evidence of a round Earth then use taxpayer and "grant" money to employ bright people and build elaborate machinery to find "evidence" which really amounts to nothing more than "spots on detectors"?
That sounds like a hypothesis to me. I suggest you begin to present evidence for this or show some reasoning, but I won't hold my breath waiting for it to become a theory. For the moment, I have presented evidence for my hypothesis so I suggest you focus your attention on it instead of inventing new ones. If you want to start a neutrino conspiracy hypothesis then please start a new thread, and I will debate you there. It is my understanding that discussions of conspiracy belong in Flat Earth General Forums.
By the way, what do you think the spots on the CRT screen are? The fact that we can manipulate those particle is pretty amazing don't you think? And again, nobody said T2K, MINOS, or K2K were built to prove that the Earth is round. They were built to better understand neutrinos by testing them over long distances.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: ERTW on December 13, 2009, 01:37:03 PM
So, I got another conspiracy rebuttal. I must admit I enjoy when I get these because it indicates that the poster has no coherent argument against my claims. Please feel free to continue setting up a card house of Conspiracy, and I will continue to let the Neutrinobeast's wind blow it down.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: Canadark on December 13, 2009, 10:18:24 PM
So, I got another conspiracy rebuttal. I must admit I enjoy when I get these because it indicates that the poster has no coherent argument against my claims. Please feel free to continue setting up a card house of Conspiracy, and I will continue to let the Neutrinobeast's wind blow it down.

I'm no scientist, but I think I get the gist of what you're saying. You shoot laser thingies into the ground that can pass through anything without bending and they come out at a higher angle several hundred kilometers away. Makes enough sense to me. I don't know why anybody would need a diagram to understand it.

The only possible argument that the Flat Earthers can produce is that you are lying. How can any sane person rationalize the sheer magnitude of this "conspiracy"?
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: bowler on January 03, 2010, 08:22:25 AM
Nice to see those initial event displays have been put to good use.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: ERTW on January 21, 2010, 03:11:36 PM
So for the moment, it appears several thousand grad students must be added to the conspiracy. I am starting to see that this conspiracy is more on the scale of what Dino is suggesting over in the General forums. Are there any FET'ers who have a problem with leaving this where it is, or is someone going to jump back into the pool?
Parsec had something going for a while, but I think he got busy with exams and forgot about it.

If there is no rebuttal, perhaps it should be added to the FAQ as an unexplained phenomenon, since others in the future may ask about it.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: Johannes on January 21, 2010, 03:37:04 PM
So for the moment, it appears several thousand grad students must be added to the conspiracy. I am starting to see that this conspiracy is more on the scale of what Dino is suggesting over in the General forums. Are there any FET'ers who have a problem with leaving this where it is, or is someone going to jump back into the pool?
Parsec had something going for a while, but I think he got busy with exams and forgot about it.

If there is no rebuttal, perhaps it should be added to the FAQ as an unexplained phenomenon, since others in the future may ask about it.
Maybe, if you could prove neutrinos exist.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: ERTW on January 21, 2010, 03:42:44 PM
So for the moment, it appears several thousand grad students must be added to the conspiracy. I am starting to see that this conspiracy is more on the scale of what Dino is suggesting over in the General forums. Are there any FET'ers who have a problem with leaving this where it is, or is someone going to jump back into the pool?
Parsec had something going for a while, but I think he got busy with exams and forgot about it.

If there is no rebuttal, perhaps it should be added to the FAQ as an unexplained phenomenon, since others in the future may ask about it.
Maybe, if you could prove neutrinos exist.
Perhaps you could begin by presenting an argument, rather than feigning ignorance of this entire thread. I have linked to websites for MINOS and SNO, as well as posting my own material from T2K. Which part do you contest and why?
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: Canadark on January 21, 2010, 09:09:59 PM
So for the moment, it appears several thousand grad students must be added to the conspiracy. I am starting to see that this conspiracy is more on the scale of what Dino is suggesting over in the General forums. Are there any FET'ers who have a problem with leaving this where it is, or is someone going to jump back into the pool?
Parsec had something going for a while, but I think he got busy with exams and forgot about it.

If there is no rebuttal, perhaps it should be added to the FAQ as an unexplained phenomenon, since others in the future may ask about it.
Maybe, if you could prove neutrinos exist.
Perhaps you could begin by presenting an argument, rather than feigning ignorance of this entire thread. I have linked to websites for MINOS and SNO, as well as posting my own material from T2K. Which part do you contest and why?

I can second this. One of my housemates is in Engineering Physics and he was telling me about work they do with beam neutronis, so its not just ERTW.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: ERTW on January 21, 2010, 10:16:37 PM
So for the moment, it appears several thousand grad students must be added to the conspiracy. I am starting to see that this conspiracy is more on the scale of what Dino is suggesting over in the General forums. Are there any FET'ers who have a problem with leaving this where it is, or is someone going to jump back into the pool?
Parsec had something going for a while, but I think he got busy with exams and forgot about it.

If there is no rebuttal, perhaps it should be added to the FAQ as an unexplained phenomenon, since others in the future may ask about it.
Maybe, if you could prove neutrinos exist.
Perhaps you could begin by presenting an argument, rather than feigning ignorance of this entire thread. I have linked to websites for MINOS and SNO, as well as posting my own material from T2K. Which part do you contest and why?

I can second this. One of my housemates is in Engineering Physics and he was telling me about work they do with beam neutronis, so its not just ERTW.
Fizzers are awesome: http://www.engineering.ubc.ca/enph-spider-2008.mov (http://www.engineering.ubc.ca/enph-spider-2008.mov)
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: bowler on January 22, 2010, 01:20:41 AM
http://www.nu.to.infn.it/. Short of looking for decaying particles in the cloud chamber i suggested and trusting conservation of momentum, your probably going to need to spend a lot on money to detect them on your own. That link is to a website that I go to when I need to find a paper or some kind of information. Even if you don't get all the science you can look at the number of papers and number of people that have been involved over the years. If nothing else this is will give you an idea as to the size of the conspiracy.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: ERTW on January 22, 2010, 02:18:36 AM
So for the moment, it appears several thousand grad students must be added to the conspiracy. I am starting to see that this conspiracy is more on the scale of what Dino is suggesting over in the General forums. Are there any FET'ers who have a problem with leaving this where it is, or is someone going to jump back into the pool?
Parsec had something going for a while, but I think he got busy with exams and forgot about it.

If there is no rebuttal, perhaps it should be added to the FAQ as an unexplained phenomenon, since others in the future may ask about it.
Maybe, if you could prove neutrinos exist.
Ya, thanks to bowler's link, here are a few places to get started:
4 - Fundamental Papers - Experiment

[4-1]
    Observation of large CP violation in the neutral B meson system, Abe, K. et al. (Belle), Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 (2001) 091802, arXiv:hep-ex/0107061.
[4-2]
    Observation of CP violation in the B^0 meson system, Aubert, B. et al. (BABAR), Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 (2001) 091801, arXiv:hep-ex/0107013.
[4-3]
    Evidence for the 2 \pi decay of the K_2^0 meson, Christenson, J. H., Cronin, J. W., Fitch, V. L., Turlay, R., Phys. Rev. Lett. 13 (1964) 138-140.
    Comment: Nobel Prize in Physics 1980.

5 - Experiment

[5-1]
    Measurement of CP violation observables and parameters for the decays B^{ +- } -> D K^{* +- }, B. Aubert (BaBar), Phys. Rev. D80 (2009) 092001, arXiv:0909.3981.
[5-2]
    Search for CP violation in semileptonic Bs decays, V. Abazov (D0), arXiv:0904.3907, 2009.
[5-3]
    Improved Measurement of B^+ -> \rho^+\rho^0 and Determination of the CKM Angle \alpha, B. Aubert (BABAR), Phys. Rev. Lett. 102 (2009) 141802, arXiv:0901.3522.
[5-4]
    Evidence for CP violation in B0->J/Psi pi0 decays, Aubert, B. (BABAR), Phys. Rev. Lett. 101 (2008) 021801, arXiv:0804.0896.
[5-5]
    Evidence for Direct CP Violation from Dalitz-plot analysis of B+/- -> K+/- pi+/- pi-/+, Aubert, : B. (The BABAR), Phys. Rev. D78 (2008) 012004, arXiv:0803.4451.
[5-6]
    Measurement of B_s^0 mixing parameters from the flavor-tagged decay B^0_s -> J/\psi \phi, Abazov, V. M. et al. (D0), Phys. Rev. Lett. 101 (2008) 241801, arXiv:0802.2255.
[5-7]
    Search for CP Violation in the Decays D0 -> K- K+ and D0 -> pi- pi+, B. Aubert et al. (BaBar), Phys. Rev. Lett. 100 (2008) 061803, arXiv:0709.2715.
[5-8]
    Search for direct CP violating charge asymmetries in K^ +- -> \pi^ +- \pi^+\pi^- and K^ +- -> \pi^ +- \pi^0\pi^0 decays, J.R. Batley et al. (NA48/2), Eur. Phys. J. C52 (2007) 875-891, arXiv:0707.0697.
[5-9]
    Branching fraction and CP-violation charge asymmetry measurements for B-meson decays to eta K+-, etapi+-, eta'K, eta'pi+-, omega K, and omegapi+-, B. Aubert et al. (BABAR), Phys. Rev. D76 (2007) 031103, arXiv:0706.3893.
[5-10]
    Measurements of CP-Violating Asymmetries in the Decay B0->K+K-K0, B. Aubert et al. (BABAR), Phys. Rev. Lett. 99 (2007) 161802, arXiv:0706.3885.
[5-11]
    Measurement of CP-Violating Asymmetries in B0->D(*)+D-, B. Aubert et al. (BaBar), Phys. Rev. Lett. 99 (2007) 071801, arXiv:0705.1190.
[5-12]
    Evidence for CP Violation in B0 -> D+D- Decays, S. Fratina et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 98 (2007) 221802, arXiv:hep-ex/0702031.
[5-13]
    Measurement of CP Asymmetry in B0 to Ks pi0 pi0 Decays, BABAR (BABAR), Phys. Rev. D76 (2007) 071101, arXiv:hep-ex/0702010.
[5-14]
    Measurement of the B+ -> rho+ pi0 Branching Fraction and Direct CP Asymmetry, BABAR (BABAR), Phys. Rev. D75 (2007) 091103, arXiv:hep-ex/0701035.
[5-15]
    Measurement of the Branching Fraction and Time-Dependent CP Asymmetry in the Decay B0->D*+D*-Ks, BABAR (BABAR), Phys. Rev. D74 (2006) 091101, arXiv:hep-ex/0608016.
[5-16]
    Updated Measurement of the CKM Angle alpha Using B0->rho+rho- Decays, B. Aubert et al. (BABAR), arXiv:hep-ex/0607098, 2006.
[5-17]
    First observation of quantum interference in the process \phi -> K_S K_L -> \pi^+ \pi^- \pi^+ \pi^- : a test of quantum mechanics and CPT symmetry, KLOE (KLOE), Phys. Lett. B642 (2006) 315-321, arXiv:hep-ex/0607027.
[5-18]
    New CP-violation and preferred-frame tests with polarized electrons, B. R. Heckel et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 97 (2006) 021603, arXiv:hep-ph/0606218.
[5-19]
    Measurements of CP Violation in B^0 -> D^{*-}\pi^+ and B^0 -> D^- \pi^+ Decays, Belle Collaboration et al. (BELLE), Phys. Rev. D73 (2006) 092003, arXiv:hep-ex/0604013.
[5-20]
    Search for direct CP violation in the decays K^ +- -> 3\pi^ +- , J. R. Batley et al. (NA48/2), Phys. Lett. B634 (2006) 474, arXiv:hep-ex/0602014.
[5-21]
    Measurement of CP Asymmetries for the Decays B+/- -> D0_CP K*+/-, B. Aubert et al. (BaBar), Phys. Rev. D72 (2005) 071103, arXiv:hep-ex/0507002.
[5-22]
    A direct search for the CP-violating decay Ks->3p^0 with the KLOE detector at DAFNE, KLOE (KLOE), Phys. Lett. B619 (2005) 61, arXiv:hep-ex/0505012.
[5-23]
    Measurement of gamma in B-+ -> D(*)K-+ decays with a Dalitz analysis of D -> K0s pi- pi+, B. Aubert et al. (BaBar), Phys. Rev. Lett. 95 (2005) 121802, arXiv:hep-ex/0504039.
[5-24]
    Evidence for direct CP violation in B0 -> K+ pi- decays, Chao, Y. et al. (Belle), Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 (2004) 191802, arXiv:hep-ex/0408100.
    From the abstract: The measured CP violating asymmetry is at 3.9 \sigma level (including systematics).
[5-25]
    Observation of direct CP violation in B0 -> K+ pi- decays, Aubert, B. et al. (BaBar), Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 (2004) 131801, arXiv:hep-ex/0407057.
    From the abstract: This measurement establishes direct CP violation in the B0 meson system at the level of 4.2 standard deviations.
[5-26]
    Measurement of the Direct CP Asymmetry in b -> s gamma Decays, B. Aubert et al. (BaBar), Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 (2004) 021804, arXiv:hep-ex/0403035.
[5-27]
    Limits on the Decay-Rate Difference of Neutral-B Mesons and on CP, T, and CPT Violation in B0-antiB0 Oscillations, B. Aubert et al. (BaBar), Phys. Rev. D70 (2004) 012007, arXiv:hep-ex/0403002.
[5-28]
    Measurements of CP-violating Asymmetries in B^{0} -> K_{s}^{0}\pi^{0} Decays, B. Aubert et al. (BaBar), Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 (2004) 131805, arXiv:hep-ex/0403001.
[5-29]
    Limits on the Decay-Rate Difference of Neutral B Mesons and on CP, T, and CPT Violation in B0-B0bar Oscillations, B. Aubert et al. (BaBar), Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 (2004) 181801, arXiv:hep-ex/0311037.
[5-30]
    Measurement of Time-Dependent CP Asymmetries and Constraints on sin(2beta+gamma) with Partial Reconstruction of B0 -> D*-+ pi+- Decays, B. Aubert et al. (BaBar), Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 (2004) 251802, arXiv:hep-ex/0310037.
[5-31]
    Improved Measurement of the Partial-Rate CP Asymmetry in B+ -> K0pi+ and B- -> K0bar pi- Decays, Y. Unno et al. (Belle), Phys. Rev. D68 (2003) 011103, arXiv:hep-ex/0304035.
[5-32]
    Measurement of branching fraction ratios and CP asymmetries in B^{\pm} \to D_{CP}K^{\pm}, S. K. Swain et al. (Belle), Phys. Rev. D68 (2003) 051101, arXiv:hep-ex/0304032.
[5-33]
    First measurement of the T-violating muon polarization in the decay K+ -> mu+ nu gamma, Anisimovsky, V. V., Khotjantsev, A. N., Ivashkin, A. P. (KEK E246), Phys. Lett. B562 (2003) 166, arXiv:hep-ex/0304027.
[5-34]
    Search for D0D0bar Mixing and a Measurement of the Doubly Cabibbo-suppressed Decay Rate in D0 -> K pi Decays, B. Aubert et al. (BaBar), Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 (2003) 171801, arXiv:hep-ex/0304007.
[5-35]
    Measurements of CP-violating Asymmetries and Branching Fractions in B Meson Decays to eta' K, B. Aubert et al. (BaBar), Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 (2003) 161801, arXiv:hep-ex/0303046.
[5-36]
    Measurement of the Branching Fraction and CP-violating Asymmetries in Neutral B Decays to D*+-D-+, B. Aubert et al. (BaBar), Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 (2003) 221801, arXiv:hep-ex/0303004.
[5-37]
    Apparatus for a Search for T-violating Muon Polarization in Stopped-Kaon Decays, M. Abe et al. (KEK-E246), Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A506 (2003) 60, arXiv:hep-ex/0302001.
[5-38]
    Evidence for CP-Violating Asymmetries B0->pi+pi- Decays and Constraints on the CKM Angle phi2, K. Abe et al. (Belle), Phys. Rev. D68 (2003) 012001, arXiv:hep-ex/0301032.
[5-39]
    Search for the Electric Dipole Moment of the tau Lepton, Inami, K. (Belle), Phys. Lett. B551 (2003) 16, arXiv:hep-ex/0210066.
[5-40]
    A precision measurement of direct CP violation in the decay of neutral kaons into two pions, Batley, J. R. et al. (NA48), Phys. Lett. B544 (2002) 97-112, arXiv:hep-ex/0208009.
[5-41]
    Measurements of direct CP violation, CPT symmetry, and other parameters in the neutral kaon system, Alavi-Harati, A. et al. (KTeV), Phys. Rev. D67 (2003) 012005, arXiv:hep-ex/0208007.
[5-42]
    An Improved Measurement of Mixing-induced CP Violation in the Neutral B Meson System, Abe, K. (Belle), arXiv:hep-ex/0207098, 2002.
[5-43]
    Measurement of the CP-Violating Asymmetry Amplitude sin2beta, Aubert, B. et al. (BaBar), Phys. Rev. Lett. 89 (2002) 201802, arXiv:hep-ex/0207042.
[5-44]
    Measurement of CP-Violating Parameters in B -> \eta^\prime K Decays, Chen, K. F. et al. (Belle), Phys. Lett. B546 (2002) 196-205, arXiv:hep-ex/0207033.
[5-45]
    Measurement of CP-Violating Asymmetries in B0 -> pi+pi- Decays, K. Abe et al. (Belle), Phys. Rev. Lett. 89 (2002) 071801, arXiv:hep-ex/0204002.
[5-46]
    Measurement of the Branching Fraction and CP Content for the Decay B^0 -> D^+ D^-, Aubert, B. et al. (BaBar), Phys. Rev. Lett. 89 (2002) 061801, arXiv:hep-ex/0203008.

6 - Experiment - Conference Proceedings

[6-1]
    Measurements of CP violation parameters at the NA48 experiment at CERN, Evgueni Goudzovski, arXiv:0812.4820, 2008. PANIC 08, Eilat, Israel, 9-14 Nov 2008.
[6-2]
    Recent Belle results on CP violation, Olsen, Stephen L. (BELLE), Int. J. Mod. Phys. A23 (2008) 3277-3281, arXiv:0712.2353.
[6-3]
    Recent results from the NA48 experiment at CERN: CP violation and CKM parameter Vus, Evgueni Goudzovski, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 110 (2008) 052019, arXiv:0709.3048. 2007 Europhysics Conference on High Energy Physics.
[6-4]
    Measurement of Direct CP Asymmetries in Charmless Hadronic B Decays, Emanuele Di Marco, BABAR Collaboration (BABAR), arXiv:hep-ex/0610015, 2006. ICHEP2006.
[6-5]
    Search for CPT and Lorentz Violation in B0-B0bar Oscillations with Inclusive Dilepton Events, BABAR (BABAR), arXiv:hep-ex/0607103, 2006. ICHEP2006.
[6-6]
    Measurements of the CKM angle \beta/\phi_1 at the B Factories, J. Ocariz, BABAR Collaboration, BELLE Collaboration (BABAR), arXiv:hep-ex/0607001, 2006. XLI Rencontres de Moriond - Electroweak Interactions and Unified Theory, La Thuile Italy, March 11-18, 2006.
[6-7]
    New developments in measurements of CP violation, Gabriele Benelli, arXiv:hep-ex/0606052, 2006. Moriond ElectroWeak 2006 Proceedings.
[6-8]
    Sides of "The" Unitarity Triangle: Results from Belle and Babar, K. Kinoshita, Aip Conf. Proc. 815 (2006) 146, arXiv:hep-ex/0510036. XXV Physics in Collision, 6-9 July, 2005, Czech Republic.
[6-9]
    Recent measurements of sin2b at BaBar, Gabriella Sciolla (BABAR), Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 156 (2006) 16, arXiv:hep-ex/0509022. BEAUTY 2005.
[6-10]
    Angles of the CKM Unitarity Triangle Measured at Belle, A. J. Schwartz, arXiv:hep-ex/0508033, 2005. 19th Les Rencontres de Physique de la Vallee d'Aoste.
[6-11]
    Hadronic B and D studies at BABAR, F. Couderc (BABAR), arXiv:hep-ex/0506031, 2005. 40th Rencontres de Moriond QCD 2005.
[6-12]
    Cold-Antimatter Physics, ATHENA (ATHENA), Ric. Sci. 124 (2005) 25, arXiv:hep-ex/0503034. XLIII International Meeting on Nuclear Physics, Bormio (Italy), March 13-20 (2005).
[6-13]
    Hot Topics from Belle, Tim Gershon et al. (the Belle), arXiv:hep-ex/0412001, 2004. FPCP2004, Daegu, Korea.
[6-14]
    Review of Recent BaBar Results, Luca Lista (BaBar), eConf C0409272 (2004) 010, arXiv:hep-ex/0411086. 2nd International Conference in High-Energy Physics: HEP MAD 04, 26 Sep - 4 Oct 2004, Antananarivo, Madagascar.
[6-15]
    CP Violation in b->s Decays and New Physics Phases, Garmash, Alexei (BELLE), Int. J. Mod. Phys. A20 (2005) 3527, arXiv:hep-ex/0411058. DPF2004, Riverside, CA.
[6-16]
    Selected Topics in CP Violation and Weak Decays from BABAR, John J. Back (BABAR), Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 152 (2006) 148, arXiv:hep-ex/0409068. 11th International Conference In Quantum ChromoDynamics (QCD 04), Montpellier, France, 5-9 July 2004.
[6-17]
    Direct CP Violation - Recent Results from Babar, A. Satpathy, arXiv:hep-ex/0409056, 2004. "5th Rencontres Du Vietnam".
[6-18]
    ATHENA - First Production of Cold Antihydrogen and Beyond, ATHENA (ATHENA), arXiv:hep-ex/0409045, 2004. Third Meeting on CPT and Lorentz Symmetry, Bloomington (Indiana), USA, August 2004.
[6-19]
    CP Violation in B Decays and the CKM Matrix, E.O. Olaiya, eConf C0406271 (2004) SUNT06, arXiv:hep-ex/0409041. XXIV Physics in Collisions Conference (PIC04), Boston, USA, June 2004.
[6-20]
    New search for T-violation in the decays of the charged kaon, V. Anisimovsky, A. Ivashkin, Yu. Kudenko (KEK-PS-E246), Phys. Atom. Nucl. 67 (2004) 1989, arXiv:hep-ex/0312006. NANP'03, Dubna, Russia, June 23-28, 2003.
[6-21]
    CP Violation: Recent Results from BABAR, Gautier Hamel De Monchenault (BABAR), arXiv:hep-ex/0305055, 2003. 38th Rencontres De Moriond On Electroweak Interactions And Unified Theories, 15-22 Mar 2003, Les Arcs, France.
[6-22]
    Towards a measurement of \phi_3, S. K. Swain, arXiv:hep-ex/0305026, 2003. XXXVIII Rencontres De Moriond, Electroweak and Unified Theories, Les Arcs, France, March 15-22, 2003.
[6-23]
    Limits on the Lifetime Difference of Neutral B Mesons and on CP, T, and CPT Violation in B0-B0bar Mixing, B. Aubert et al. (BABAR), arXiv:hep-ex/0303043, 2003. XXXVIIIth Rencontres de Moriond on Electroweak Interactions and Unified Theories, 15-22 March 2003, Les Arcs, France.
[6-24]
    Direct CP violation in neutral kaon decays, Wojciech Wislicki (NA48), Pramana 62 (2004) 601, arXiv:hep-ex/0303037. PASCOS 2003 Conference, Mumbai, India, 2-8 Jan 2003.
[6-25]
    Further search for T-violation in the decay K^+ -> pi^0 mu^+ nu, M Abe, M. Aliev, V. Anisimovsky et al. (KEK-E246), Nucl. Phys. A721 (2003) 445, arXiv:hep-ex/0211049. PANIC02, Osaka, Sept 30 - Oct 4, 2002.
[6-26]
    Search for the Electric Dipole Moment of the tau lepton, K. Inami, Belle collaboration (Belle), eConf C0209101 (2002) TU10, arXiv:hep-ex/0210035. Seventh International Workshop on Tau Lepton Physics (TAU02), Santa Cruz, Ca, USA, Sept 2002.
[6-27]
    Measurements of time dependent CP asymmetry in B -> VV decays with BELLE, Ryosuke Itoh (BELLE), arXiv:hep-ex/0210025, 2002. ICHEP2002, Amsterdam, Netherland, 24-31 July (2002).
[6-28]
    Results on \sin 2\phi_2 (\alpha) from the B Factories, T. E. Browder, eConf C020620 (2002) THAT02, arXiv:hep-ex/0210012. XXIII Physics in Collision Conference (PIC02) Stanford, CA USA, June 2002.
[6-29]
    CP Violation in Charm, Kevin Stenson, Frascati Phys. Ser. 28 (2002) 353, arXiv:hep-ex/0207035. International workshop on Heavy Quarks and Leptons, 2002.
[6-30]
    Radiative B Decays - an Experimental Overview, Edward H. Thorndike (Cleo), arXiv:hep-ex/0206067, 2002. FPCP, May 16-18, 2002.
[6-31]
    sin2phi_2(alpha)) from Belle, Eunil Won (Belle), arXiv:hep-ex/0206066, 2002. Flavor Physics and CP Violation (FPCP) 16-18 May 2002, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA.
[6-32]
    Measurements of branching fractions and CP-violating asymmetries in B0 -> pi+pi-, K+pi-, K+K- decays, P.D. Dauncey (BABAR), arXiv:hep-ex/0206064, 2002. FPCP, 16-18 May 2002.
[6-33]
    Producing slow antihydrogen for a test of CPT symmetry with ATHENA, Fujiwara, M. C. et al. (ATHENA), arXiv:nucl-ex/0202020, 2002. International RIKEN Conference on Muon Catalyzed Fusion and Related Exotic Atoms, Shimoda, Japan, 22-26 Apr 2001.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: parsec on January 22, 2010, 12:48:28 PM
So for the moment, it appears several thousand grad students must be added to the conspiracy. I am starting to see that this conspiracy is more on the scale of what Dino is suggesting over in the General forums. Are there any FET'ers who have a problem with leaving this where it is, or is someone going to jump back into the pool?
Parsec had something going for a while, but I think he got busy with exams and forgot about it.

If there is no rebuttal, perhaps it should be added to the FAQ as an unexplained phenomenon, since others in the future may ask about it.
Maybe, if you could prove neutrinos exist.
What would you consider a proof of the existence of neutrinos?
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: ERTW on January 23, 2010, 03:44:11 AM
So for the moment, it appears several thousand grad students must be added to the conspiracy. I am starting to see that this conspiracy is more on the scale of what Dino is suggesting over in the General forums. Are there any FET'ers who have a problem with leaving this where it is, or is someone going to jump back into the pool?
Parsec had something going for a while, but I think he got busy with exams and forgot about it.

If there is no rebuttal, perhaps it should be added to the FAQ as an unexplained phenomenon, since others in the future may ask about it.
Maybe, if you could prove neutrinos exist.

What would you consider a proof of the existence of neutrinos?

For context on the following picture, please check out the first few pages of this document:
http://t2k-information.googlegroups.com/web/T2KFGDDAQ_Presentation.pdf?hl=en (http://t2k-information.googlegroups.com/web/T2KFGDDAQ_Presentation.pdf?hl=en)

I will start with another event display from the T2K ND280, which shows a semi-horizontal beam triggered event with hits in four different types of detectors:
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4042/4296823761_38781b73f4_b.jpg)
1. Both FGD's, the P0D, the ECal, and one TPC all saw this beam triggered event
2. The angle of the track, the known depth of the ND280, and the fact that the event was beam triggered strongly suggests that it is not a cosmic ray track
3. The beam must travel from the accelerator though ~280m of dirt before reaching the ND280, which in my opinion rules out axial neutrons as the source of the track
4. The ND280 is surrounded by a 0.2T magnet and the track does not noticeably deflect in a particular direction, indicating that the beam is not charged

The above four points indicated that the track is composed of non-charged, weakly (in both senses) interacting particles. Some nice starter evidence that neutrinos exist. More to follow...
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: ERTW on January 23, 2010, 03:47:23 AM
And for another source along the same lines:
http://www.physorg.com/news178300806.html (http://www.physorg.com/news178300806.html)
This one is related to the first detection of T2K, in the INGRID sub-detector.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: bowler on January 23, 2010, 04:09:15 AM
that pic is my background at the moment :D.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: bowler on January 23, 2010, 04:34:26 AM
Why are you so interested in seeing a neutrino your eyes only lie to you anyway. It took us hundreds of years too get passed the limits of our eyes and other senses and really understand our universe. Why are you so keen to handicap yourself? The neutrino doesn't have an electric charge so there is no way to 'see' it. The sodium channels in your eye only respond to photons. Does that mean it can't exist? Make the cloud chamber, you may to wait a couple of hours but eventually you will see a muon decay and you can see the kinked track. Then either the neutrino exists or conservation of momentum is part of the conspiracy.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: Raiku on January 23, 2010, 07:10:50 PM
Lol, I'm not even involved in this thread, and just by skimming it, I saw the typical FE response:  Instead of proving themselves right, they use Creative Writing to prove us wrong.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: Triangleman on January 25, 2010, 08:53:01 AM
Everything seems to bend in FE theory. The light, the logic, why is it that the Earth has to be so damn flat.

Well, if we think of the Earth in a coordinate system where the planet is round and the trajectory of light and neutrinos (and logic if you like :))
 is a straight line, then maybe one can imagine another coordinate system where the Earth is flat. In this system the trajectory of
light and neutrinos isn´t straight anymore.  This means FE´ers are, in their twisted way, right after all!
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: ERTW on January 25, 2010, 09:12:31 AM
Everything seems to bend in FE theory. The light, the logic, why is it that the Earth has to be so damn flat.

Well, if we think of the Earth in a coordinate system where the planet is round and the trajectory of light and neutrinos (and logic if you like :))
 is a straight line, then maybe one can imagine another coordinate system where the Earth is flat. In this system the trajectory of
light and neutrinos isn´t straight anymore.  This means FE´ers are, in their twisted way, right after all!
That's a nice idea, but:
A. Another coordinate system another coordinate system
B. This means FE´ers are, in their twisted way, right after all!

A does not imply B. Just because someone could possibly construct a coordinate system that fits observations doesn't mean they have. Until they do it does not exist, because a coordinate system is purely an imaginary concept. Nature is nature; physical laws and coordinate systems are in our heads.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: Triangleman on January 25, 2010, 09:44:15 AM


A does not imply B.
Actually it does. Since logic is also deranged in this system, all absurd FE claims seem totally logical there.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: Canadark on January 25, 2010, 11:36:27 AM


A does not imply B.
Actually it does. Since logic is also deranged in this system, all absurd FE claims seem totally logical there.

FET requires that logic be put aside, so within FET this is totally plausible.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: ERTW on January 25, 2010, 04:50:28 PM


A does not imply B.
Actually it does. Since logic is also deranged in this system, all absurd FE claims seem totally logical there.

FET requires that logic be put aside, so within FET this is totally plausible.
I am going to ignore this idea for now since I doubt any serious FE'er would take it up. It is more of a joke than an actual argument.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: Canadark on January 25, 2010, 05:55:37 PM


A does not imply B.
Actually it does. Since logic is also deranged in this system, all absurd FE claims seem totally logical there.

FET requires that logic be put aside, so within FET this is totally plausible.
I am going to ignore this idea for now since I doubt any serious FE'er would take it up. It is more of a joke than an actual argument.
Yes
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: ERTW on January 26, 2010, 09:33:35 AM
I just found out that the previous event displays I posted were with the magnet still open, so my argument about the tracks not being bent by the magnet is on hold until I get some new event displays. Of course, there is a wealth of other information out there about the dozens of other experiments observing neutrinos, however I don't have as direct access to their raw data so I am less likely to post it.
Here is a nice video of them closing the magnet:
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: bowler on January 26, 2010, 09:46:13 AM
ooooo an up to the minute news flash
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: ERTW on January 26, 2010, 09:51:39 AM
ooooo an up to the minute news flash
It is exciting stuff!
Either that or I should be very quick to get my conspiracy videos out into the general public.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: bowler on January 26, 2010, 09:53:50 AM
Seriously I only read my e-mails about 5 mins before that post. Much more quickly and ill start coming here first
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: ERTW on January 29, 2010, 09:12:59 AM
Observations:
1. Neutrinos directed with a downward angle at the near detector site (example shown from T2K, but same experiment done with MINOS)
2. Neutrinos observed at far detector site some distance away (300km with T2K, 735km with MINOS)
3. Flight timing achieved by synchronized by atomic clocks in MINOS, and GPS in T2K
4. Neutrino identification made surrounding detectors with magnetic fields and/or burying them in the ground
5. Experiment conducted over long period of time to build statistical evidence against random electrical fluctuations
6. Cosmic rays continuously monitored, observed, and characterized in order to differentiate from beam neutrinos

Result:
Neutrinos are being purposefully emitted, detected traveling at a downward angle into the ground, and then detected some distance away within expected travel time.

Conclusion:
These experiments disprove the hypothesis that the Earth is in a flat planar shape, and agree with the accepted idea that the Earth is a sphere with an approximate radius of ~6350km.

Afterthought:
These experiments were never intended to prove the earth is flat, simply constructed assuming that it was. Their successful operation is evidence of the round earth not dependent on NASA or any other space faring governments. Their success is built on the dedication of the public to natural science, the commitment of various governments and universities, the careful planning of administrators and engineers, the scientific rigor of hundreds of scientists, and the careful analysis of thousands of graduate level physicists. If you want to dismiss that all as conspiracy I can't stop you, but I can guarantee that high energy physics is not a profiting enterprise.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: Thermal Detonator on January 29, 2010, 10:24:10 AM
*Applauds and fires party popper*
*Watches Bishop scream and scream and scream until he's sick*
 ;D
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 29, 2010, 12:51:14 PM
Observations:
1. Neutrinos directed with a downward angle at the near detector site (example shown from T2K, but same experiment done with MINOS)
2. Neutrinos observed at far detector site some distance away (300km with T2K, 735km with MINOS)
3. Flight timing achieved by synchronized by atomic clocks in MINOS, and GPS in T2K
4. Neutrino identification made surrounding detectors with magnetic fields and/or burying them in the ground
5. Experiment conducted over long period of time to build statistical evidence against random electrical fluctuations
6. Cosmic rays continuously monitored, observed, and characterized in order to differentiate from beam neutrinos

Result:
Neutrinos are being purposefully emitted, detected traveling at a downward angle into the ground, and then detected some distance away within expected travel time.

Conclusion:
These experiments disprove the hypothesis that the Earth is in a flat planar shape, and agree with the accepted idea that the Earth is a sphere with an approximate radius of ~6350km.

Afterthought:
These experiments were never intended to prove the earth is flat, simply constructed assuming that it was. Their successful operation is evidence of the round earth not dependent on NASA or any other space faring governments. Their success is built on the dedication of the public to natural science, the commitment of various governments and universities, the careful planning of administrators and engineers, the scientific rigor of hundreds of scientists, and the careful analysis of thousands of graduate level physicists. If you want to dismiss that all as conspiracy I can't stop you, but I can guarantee that high energy physics is not a profiting enterprise.

From what I've seen, these neutrinos were shot into the ground a couple degrees below the horizon line to their destination, cutting a slight sliver through the globe earth.

How do we know that the neutrinos didn't spread out from their origin, much like how the beam of a laser pointer spreads when shot over a long distance?

If you've ever seen the dot of a laser pointer 1000+ feet away, it's a huge faded red dot which could easily illuminate the side of a house. The beams of a laser pointer don't travel in exact straight lines, but gradually spread out as they proceed.

If the neutrinos were spreading out, as they easily could and probably would, it's not at all conclusive that they were traveling into the earth.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: bowler on January 29, 2010, 02:09:49 PM
Observations:
1. Neutrinos directed with a downward angle at the near detector site (example shown from T2K, but same experiment done with MINOS)
2. Neutrinos observed at far detector site some distance away (300km with T2K, 735km with MINOS)
3. Flight timing achieved by synchronized by atomic clocks in MINOS, and GPS in T2K
4. Neutrino identification made surrounding detectors with magnetic fields and/or burying them in the ground
5. Experiment conducted over long period of time to build statistical evidence against random electrical fluctuations
6. Cosmic rays continuously monitored, observed, and characterized in order to differentiate from beam neutrinos

Result:
Neutrinos are being purposefully emitted, detected traveling at a downward angle into the ground, and then detected some distance away within expected travel time.

Conclusion:
These experiments disprove the hypothesis that the Earth is in a flat planar shape, and agree with the accepted idea that the Earth is a sphere with an approximate radius of ~6350km.

Afterthought:
These experiments were never intended to prove the earth is flat, simply constructed assuming that it was. Their successful operation is evidence of the round earth not dependent on NASA or any other space faring governments. Their success is built on the dedication of the public to natural science, the commitment of various governments and universities, the careful planning of administrators and engineers, the scientific rigor of hundreds of scientists, and the careful analysis of thousands of graduate level physicists. If you want to dismiss that all as conspiracy I can't stop you, but I can guarantee that high energy physics is not a profiting enterprise.

From what I've seen, these neutrinos were shot into the ground a couple degrees below the horizon line to their destination, cutting a slight sliver through the globe earth.

How do we know that the neutrinos didn't spread out from their origin, much like how the beam of a laser pointer spreads when shot over a long distance?

If you've ever seen the dot of a laser pointer 1000+ feet away, it's a huge faded red dot which could easily illuminate the side of a house. The beams of a laser pointer don't travel in exact straight lines, but gradually spread out as they proceed.

If the neutrinos were spreading out, as they easily could and probably would, it's not at all conclusive that they were traveling into the earth.

The energy spectrum of the neutrino is a very strong function of the angle of emission. We can easily tell the difference between a couple of degrees. Infact the T2K experiment is deliberately offset by 2 degrees to make the energy spectrum more favourable for the aims of the experiment. In the case of MINOS the angle of the beam was more than the other experiments as it had a baseline of nearer 1000km. I forget the exact angle but probably greater then 5 degrees. Not that it matters we can easily tell the difference between 1 degree and 0 degrees by the energy spectrum we measure.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 29, 2010, 03:34:01 PM
The energy spectrum of the neutrino is a very strong function of the angle of emission. We can easily tell the difference between a couple of degrees. Infact the T2K experiment is deliberately offset by 2 degrees to make the energy spectrum more favourable for the aims of the experiment. In the case of MINOS the angle of the beam was more than the other experiments as it had a baseline of nearer 1000km. I forget the exact angle but probably greater then 5 degrees. Not that it matters we can easily tell the difference between 1 degree and 0 degrees by the energy spectrum we measure.

I'm sorry, but how do you shoot out a beam of neutrinos without the beam spreading apart again?
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: bowler on January 29, 2010, 03:44:40 PM
Your quite right the beam sprays all over the place. We confirm the angle by measureing the energy spectrum. As I say this can be done to within a degree. Especially as after 300km the difference between 1 degree and 0 degrees is quite pronounced. The Earths core, the sun, nuclear reactors all give off plenty of neutrinos which can be detected. This entire farce such as it is relies on the Earth being opaque, this isn't the case.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 29, 2010, 03:57:01 PM
Your quite right the beam sprays all over the place. We confirm the angle by measureing the energy spectrum.

Who's "we"? Are you involved with this experiment? Clearly not

Quote
As I say this can be done to within a degree. Especially as after 300km the difference between 1 degree and 0 degrees is quite pronounced. The Earths core, the sun, nuclear reactors all give off plenty of neutrinos which can be detected. This entire farce such as it is relies on the Earth being opaque, this isn't the case.

If the beam of neutrinos is spreading out by a couple degrees, like the beam on a laser pointer, it's hard to say which neutrinos are "correct" and which ones are "incorrect". The intensity of the beam has been spread over its widened area.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: bowler on January 29, 2010, 04:04:03 PM
Yes I am a neutrino physicist, thats why I started the beam and solar neutrino threads some time ago.

I'm not sure what you mean by correct and incorrect neutrinos. We know where the source is and we can measure the energy spectra there and we know where we are detecting them and we measure them there. We can tell the angle between the beamline and the detector by the energy spectra of the neutrinos. I'm really not sure how to say it any simpler than this, maybe ERTW can have a go.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 29, 2010, 04:26:33 PM
We can tell the angle between the beamline and the detector by the energy spectra of the neutrinos. I'm really not sure how to say it any simpler than this, maybe ERTW can have a go.

The energy spectra doesn't tell you anything about its angle. Please stop talking nonsense.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: bowler on January 29, 2010, 04:30:44 PM
http://www.hep.shef.ac.uk/cartwright/home/images/neutrino-spectrum.gif

The two plots are the on-axis spectrum and the 2 degree (I think) spectrum.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: ERTW on January 29, 2010, 04:39:42 PM
The energy spectra tells you everything about the angle. For a simple analogy, the neutrinos directly on the axial path of the beam have the highest energy, and the ones off axis have less and less energy. Imagine the beam is a group of cars on a large flat space, and they encounter some debris. The cars that completely miss the debris continue on in a straight line, although at a slightly slower speed because they were afraid to hit the debris. The cars that high the debris and turn a couple of degrees off their original path will slow be slowed a bit more than the cars that hit nothing. In a more extreme case the cars that hit major debris and deflect 90 degrees of path will be significantly slowed down. This is very similar to the way the neutrino beam behaves.

The beam is similar to the car example because the beam starts out as something other than neutrinos. The beam is then smashed into a big block of something (bowler will probably know), and some neutrinos come flying out the other end. The highest energy neutrinos will be right on axis with the original beam, and the energy decreases from there. This effect can be very carefully measured right after the source, and thus characterized.

Later, when the neutrinos are observed in the far detector, this energy level can be measured to confirm its original angle.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: bowler on January 29, 2010, 04:41:59 PM
The energy spectra tells you everything about the angle. For a simple analogy, the neutrinos directly on the axial path of the beam have the highest energy, and the ones off axis have less and less energy. Imagine the beam is a group of cars on a large flat space, and they encounter some debris. The cars that completely miss the debris continue on in a straight line, although at a slightly slower speed because they were afraid to hit the debris. The cars that high the debris and turn a couple of degrees off their original path will slow be slowed a bit more than the cars that hit nothing. In a more extreme case the cars that hit major debris and deflect 90 degrees of path will be significantly slowed down. This is very similar to the way the neutrino beam behaves.

The beam is similar to the car example because the beam starts out as something other than neutrinos. The beam is then smashed into a big block of something (bowler will probably know), and some neutrinos come flying out the other end. The highest energy neutrinos will be right on axis with the original beam, and the energy decreases from there. This effect can be very carefully measured right after the source, and thus characterized.

Later, when the neutrinos are observed in the far detector, this energy level can be measured to confirm its original angle.

Told you it would be better than mine.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 29, 2010, 04:46:08 PM
Quote
Imagine the beam is a group of cars on a large flat space, and they encounter some debris. The cars that completely miss the debris continue on in a straight line, although at a slightly slower speed because they were afraid to hit the debris. The cars that high the debris and turn a couple of degrees off their original path will slow be slowed a bit more than the cars that hit nothing. In a more extreme case the cars that hit major debris and deflect 90 degrees of path will be significantly slowed down. This is very similar to the way the neutrino beam behaves.

What makes you think that the beams are spreading out because they're running into anything? They would naturally spread out just as the beam from a laser pointer naturally spreads out.

Ergo, since the neutrinos aren't "hitting" anything to spread out one wouldn't expect the energy spectra to be any different.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: bowler on January 29, 2010, 04:50:41 PM
I think you may have taken the metaphor a little directly. There is some similarity in the maths but the origin is different. The spectrum actually comes from the decay of charged particles used to generate the neutrinos, not from a scattering interaction. Obviously neutrino scattering is negligable,
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: ERTW on January 29, 2010, 05:00:56 PM
Ya, that is my bad. Actually what happens is the cars go driving into the field, and the debris consist of rockets. When the cars hit a rocket, the rocket goes whizzing off in roughly the same direction as the car. If the car glaces off the rocket debris, the rocket is only partially activated, and so it goes whizzing off slower than the other rockets.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: ERTW on January 29, 2010, 05:05:13 PM
As for the laser pointer comparison, the neutrino beam is more like a laser, highly focused. If you point a real laser at the moon (in RET at least) you can detect it when it bounces back, and that is 384,403 km away.
Before impacting the target, the original beam is highly focused through a magnetic horn, which results in an extremely narrow beam of particles, which results in an extremely narrow beam of neutrinos:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_horn

How do we know the horn works? Because it has been tested by many experiments:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_neutrino_experiments
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: Thermal Detonator on January 29, 2010, 05:17:16 PM

The energy spectra doesn't tell you anything about its angle. Please stop talking nonsense.

I can't believe Bishop has the balls to try and make out he knows more about neutrino experiments than these guys.  ::)
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: ERTW on January 29, 2010, 05:27:25 PM
I welcome his arguments. A lot of the underlying physics is analogous to other more common situations. It is all about understanding the geometry of things and how they interact.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: parsec on January 29, 2010, 09:55:54 PM
ITT: Tom Bishop pwns 'Neutrino Physicists'.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 29, 2010, 10:49:50 PM
I think you may have taken the metaphor a little directly. There is some similarity in the maths but the origin is different. The spectrum actually comes from the decay of charged particles used to generate the neutrinos, not from a scattering interaction. Obviously neutrino scattering is negligable,

I'm sorry, but how does the energy spectra of the neutrinos change if they're not hitting anything?

Quote
Ya, that is my bad. Actually what happens is the cars go driving into the field, and the debris consist of rockets. When the cars hit a rocket, the rocket goes whizzing off in roughly the same direction as the car. If the car glaces off the rocket debris, the rocket is only partially activated, and so it goes whizzing off slower than the other rockets.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. So are they hitting something or aren't they?

If you're saying that the neutrinos which diverge from the angled path would hitting matter, opposed to the ones on the straight line path, why would that be? Is there not matter along the straight line path to hit?

If the neutrinos are going to be hitting matter any way it goes, straight or angled, how can the "energy spectra" tell us anything at all?

I'm afraid this "energy spectra" thing you made up is not very thought through.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: ERTW on January 29, 2010, 11:26:30 PM
My failure to explain a complex physics phenomenon to you whilst having no information about your physics background or previous experience does not indicate I am making things up. There are many papers on neutrinos experiments that I could point you to, but I imagine you expect me to flesh out the details in this forum regardless.

In the T2K neutrino source, a beam of protons is accelerated to an energy of 50GeV, and are directed to a target area. The protons strike the target and produce positive pions (an many other particles), which are a type of positively charged meson. After the decay target is a magnetic horn that focuses the pions into a very tight beam. In an average of 26ns a pion decays into a muon and a muon neutrino. After the magnetic horn the neutrino beam spreads out due to the different possible angles that the muon neutrino can be emitted as it decays from the pion. Each of these decay angles results in a certain energy spectrum due to the particle momentum and other factors. Page 3 of the following paper contains a graph of the neutrino energy spectra at angles of interest in T2K:
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1742-6596/110/8/082023/jpconf8_110_082023.pdf?request-id=229db4bf-e8dd-4ab7-9f0e-0ea620a78d6d

Because T2K is looking for evidence of neutrino oscillations, neutrinos at the 600MeV energy level are desirable, hence the experiment is conducted 2.5 degrees off axis. The energy of the neutrinos observed in the near and far detectors can be measured by the momentum of the particles produced in neutrino collisions.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: ERTW on January 30, 2010, 12:10:27 AM
ITT: Tom Bishop pwns 'Neutrino Physicists'.
I am just glad he finally came to chat. You gave up months ago and adolf einholm forgot where the General discussion boards were.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: bowler on January 30, 2010, 02:06:42 AM
ITT: Tom Bishop pwns 'Neutrino Physicists'.

I agree that at least he is debating. Reminds of a song, 'You say it best when you say nothing at all'. The idea that the energy that a particle has depends on its angle is not so unusual. The physics of the situation we have here is that a paticle decays into amongst other things a muon neutrino. A particle going in the same direction as the decaying parent will have the most energy. Although this is a decay not a collision, from the perpective of momentum conservation its pretty much the same situation, one particle gives its momentum to another. Rather like if I stirke a snooker ball with a given force it will go fastest if I strike it such that it goes 'forward'. If I strike it so that it goes almost at 90 degrees then it will go significantly slower
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: ERTW on January 30, 2010, 10:03:35 AM
ITT: Tom Bishop pwns 'Neutrino Physicists'.
Just to clarify I am not a physicist. I am a mechatronics (mechanical, electrical, computer) engineering student (for the next 3 months anyway). I worked in a high energy research facility for 8 months and had to understand how the project worked in order to help finish the data acquisition system. There are many aspects of neutrino physics that I cannot explain in full mathematical detail, hence I must resort to analogies.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: Parsifal on February 01, 2010, 03:16:29 AM
Where is the evidence that the neutrinos being detected are the same as the ones being emitted?
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: ERTW on February 01, 2010, 03:49:18 AM
Where is the evidence that the neutrinos being detected are the same as the ones being emitted?
Confidence is built due to the timing of the observations and the energy spectrum.
For timing in K2K identical atomic clocks were synchronized and driven to the two sites. T2K uses GPS timing as it is much cheaper than atomic clocks. The probability of a coincidence solar neutrino strike at both the near and far detectors drops as more neutrino events are observed.

The momentum and direction of the neutrino can be calculated from the interaction geometry. Commonly a muon neutrino will interact with a nucleus in a detector and cause the emission of a muon. This muon will have roughly the same direction as the neutrino and a predictable momentum. The detector is surrounded in a magnetic field, which causes the muon to deflect, and allows its momentum to be measured. There are several other techniques to measure the momentum but that is the basic one.

In T2K the primary axis of the beam is directed 2.5 degrees below the near detector. On axis, the mean neutrino energy is 2GeV, whereas the mean energy 2.5 degrees off axis is 0.6Gev. Most of the near detector is lined up at 2.5 degrees off axis, but the INGRID detector is in a plus shape centered directly on axis with the beam. The INGRID detector can be used to verify that the beam is pointing where it should be, and that the energy spectra is as expected.

The energy spectra is measured again in the far detector Super K. Here the Cherenkov radiation of the interacting neutrino produces a ring of light on the inside of the Super K chamber, which is lined with photomultiplier tubes. Due to the timing and shape of the ring the energy and flavor of the neutrino can be determined.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 01, 2010, 02:21:21 PM
My failure to explain a complex physics phenomenon to you whilst having no information about your physics background or previous experience does not indicate I am making things up. There are many papers on neutrinos experiments that I could point you to, but I imagine you expect me to flesh out the details in this forum regardless.

You're not being entirely coherent with how this works.

Quote
The momentum and direction of the neutrino can be calculated from the interaction geometry. Commonly a muon neutrino will interact with a nucleus in a detector and cause the emission of a muon. This muon will have roughly the same direction as the neutrino and a predictable momentum.

Your explanation now seems to be that the neutrino will hit atoms in a detector like billiard balls and cause muons to be spit out in an opposite direction towards the detector. Igoring the assumption that the muons would be spit out in exactly opposite directions (whereas billiard balls would not), how does the detector distinguish from one muon coming in at one angle and another muon coming in at a similar angle 2 degrees away?

Where is the control? Is this control sensitive enough to distinguish between a couple of degrees?

Would the people involved in this experiment even consider the possibility that the earth is flat and that it's possible for a neutrino following horizontally along the surface of the earth to hit the detector? I doubt they did. And if they were not considering that possibility, I doubt that they would do much in the way of creating controls to rule out the possibility of a flat earth.

Quote
In T2K the primary axis of the beam is directed 2.5 degrees below the near detector. On axis, the mean neutrino energy is 2GeV, whereas the mean energy 2.5 degrees off axis is 0.6Gev. Most of the near detector is lined up at 2.5 degrees off axis, but the INGRID detector is in a plus shape centered directly on axis with the beam. The INGRID detector can be used to verify that the beam is pointing where it should be, and that the energy spectra is as expected.

This experiment is occurring extremely close to the earth's surface and it is not conclusive that the neutrinos are passing through the earth.

When shooting the neutrinos two degrees below the horizon line, there does not seem to be a control to rule out the possibility that the neutrinos may be spreading out, as the laser from a laser beam spreads out, and is following along the surface of the earth to the detector. The experimenters, believing to be on a RE two degrees below the horizon, would not even consider this possibility.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: bowler on February 01, 2010, 02:33:37 PM
My failure to explain a complex physics phenomenon to you whilst having no information about your physics background or previous experience does not indicate I am making things up. There are many papers on neutrinos experiments that I could point you to, but I imagine you expect me to flesh out the details in this forum regardless.

You're not being entirely coherent with how this works.

Quote
The momentum and direction of the neutrino can be calculated from the interaction geometry. Commonly a muon neutrino will interact with a nucleus in a detector and cause the emission of a muon. This muon will have roughly the same direction as the neutrino and a predictable momentum.

Your explanation now seems to be that the neutrino will hit atoms in a detector like billiard balls and cause muons to be spit out in an opposite direction towards the detector. Igoring the assumption that the muons would be spit out in exactly opposite directions (whereas billiard balls would not), how does the detector distinguish from one muon coming in at one angle and another muon coming in at a similar angle 2 degrees away?

Where is the control? Is this control sensitive enough to distinguish between a couple of degrees?

Would the people involved in this experiment even consider the possibility that the earth is flat and that it's possible for a neutrino following horizontally along the surface of the earth to hit the detector? I doubt they did. And if they were not considering that possibility, I doubt that they would do much in the way of creating controls to rule out the possibility of a flat earth.

Quote
In T2K the primary axis of the beam is directed 2.5 degrees below the near detector. On axis, the mean neutrino energy is 2GeV, whereas the mean energy 2.5 degrees off axis is 0.6Gev. Most of the near detector is lined up at 2.5 degrees off axis, but the INGRID detector is in a plus shape centered directly on axis with the beam. The INGRID detector can be used to verify that the beam is pointing where it should be, and that the energy spectra is as expected.

This experiment is occurring extremely close to the earth's surface and it is not conclusive that the neutrinos are passing through the earth.

When shooting the neutrinos two degrees below the horizon line, there does not seem to be a control to rule out the possibility that the neutrinos may be spreading out, as the laser from a laser beam spreads out, and is following along the surface of the earth to the detector. The experimenters, believing to be on a RE two degrees below the horizon, would not even consider this possibility.

The experiment can easily tell the difference between a couple of degrees. The effects its trying to measure have a far more subtle effect than that. We use detectors very close to measure the energy spectra accurately. This can then be compared to the far detector allowing a confirmation of a number of physical phenomena, including but not limited to the angle of the far detector with respect to the beamline.

If the Earth was not round then these experiments would not work because the difference between the assumed geometry of the Earth and its true geometry would be a much larger effect than the aims of the experiment.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 01, 2010, 03:01:59 PM
Quote
The experiment can easily tell the difference between a couple of degrees.

How?

Where is the control experiment which distinguishes neutrinos from 2 degrees and neutrinos from 0 degrees?
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: markjo on February 01, 2010, 03:13:18 PM
Quote
The experiment can easily tell the difference between a couple of degrees.

How?

Where is the control experiment which distinguishes neutrinos from 2 degrees and neutrinos from 0 degrees?

Quote
In T2K the primary axis of the beam is directed 2.5 degrees below the near detector. On axis, the mean neutrino energy is 2GeV, whereas the mean energy 2.5 degrees off axis is 0.6Gev.

Honestly Tom, I'm beginning to think that you are dense enough to absorb neutrinos.  ::)
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 01, 2010, 03:14:59 PM
I don't see any control experiments for those assumptions. I just see figures and nothing to back it up.

How would a neutrino decrease or increase its energy coming in at a slightly different angle?  ???
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: bowler on February 01, 2010, 03:21:30 PM
Well the position of the detector fixes the angle. I mean the far detector weights 50kton and sits in a mine. It really doesn't move an appreciable amount, so whatever the angle maybe, its fixed. Can we agree on that? I posted a link earlier in this thread to the difference in energy spectrum between the neutrino beam on-axis and the neutrino beam at 2 degrees. So the question is, are we able to distinguish these spectra from each other. The answer is yes, easily. This data for T2K is not available yet because it hasn't been taken. Currently the neutrino beam is being commissioned so is only strong enough to see events a the near detector which ERTW has posted pictures of. However previous long baseline experiments K2K (couple of degrees into the Earth), KamLAND(variable degrees as it used nuclear reactors in different places), CNGS(more than K2K less than MINOS, 4ish) and MINOS(maybe more than 5degrees I think, I forgot its baseline) all have peer reviewed papers on the open acess pre-print server arXiv.

If theres enough demand I may make a version of my thesis theory section with no maths and pretty pictures that people can read if they so desire and I can find the will. That said there are excellent introductions already on arXiv that are better I could write. Theres a review called the non-physicists guide to neutrino oscillations or something that doesn't really require much understanding of tricky physics.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: bowler on February 01, 2010, 03:23:32 PM
I don't see any control experiments for those assumptions. I just see figures and nothing to back it up.

How would a neutrino decrease or increase its energy coming in at a slightly different angle?  ???

Lets be honest, I could make the numbers up and I could probably get away with it, unless ERTW rumbles with me. If I don't make them up ill be accused of it anyway. So people can go onto arXiv and find out for themselves, that way someone else gets accused of making it up.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: ERTW on February 01, 2010, 03:53:13 PM
I don't see any control experiments for those assumptions. I just see figures and nothing to back it up.

How would a neutrino decrease or increase its energy coming in at a slightly different angle?  ???
The INGRID detector is directly on axis with the beam, and as expected it observes less events at angles further off axis. As for the figures graphing neutrino energy spectrum vs angle, they are produced from direct observation near the source. Each of the several dozen neutrino experiments listed earlier was and is interested in this energy spectrum, and hence the measurement has been verified many times. I found several papers relevant to the prediction and measurement of the neutrino energy spectrum, however I need some time to understand it better myself before I can explain it.

Contains a mathematical derivation of part of the energy spectra relationship:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/l07g4j084555m271/fulltext.pdf

Page 10 contains a measurement of the energy spectrum on axis vs 1 degree off axis.
http://nwg.phy.bnl.gov/~diwan/talks/others/chiaki-BNLUCLA05.pdf

Contains detailed results from the SciBar experiment, which makes a more accurate measurement of the neutrino energy spectrum:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=01589311

Contains a derivation and observations of neutrino energy spectra emitted from a reletivistic plasma:
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=1983A%26A...125..121G&db_key=AST&page_ind=0&plate_select=NO&data_type=GIF&type=SCREEN_GIF&classic=YES

If you have too much time on your hands, here is a 268 page PHD thesis on solar neutrino flux measurements:
http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/sno/papers/OrebiGannThesis.pdf

This presentation explains how and why the magnetic horn is used to focus the neutrino beam. Page 27 specifically explains why we would want to measure the beam off axis:
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=31&ved=0CAcQFjAAOB4&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww2.ph.ed.ac.uk%2Fsussp61%2Flectures%2F08_Harris_AcceleratorNeutrinoOscillationPhysics%2FHarris_lecture1.ppt&rct=j&q=neutrino+energy+spectrum+vs+angle&ei=GWhnS7rqPJSusgOI3ID0BA&usg=AFQjCNHrtunWfjRVL_f2wvYBqg8hP_TCzg&sig2=Q7DdIUW2HhTJS76WhrcNVw

Enjoy.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: ERTW on February 01, 2010, 03:53:57 PM
I don't see any control experiments for those assumptions. I just see figures and nothing to back it up.

How would a neutrino decrease or increase its energy coming in at a slightly different angle?  ???

Lets be honest, I could make the numbers up and I could probably get away with it, unless ERTW rumbles with me. If I don't make them up ill be accused of it anyway. So people can go onto arXiv and find out for themselves, that way someone else gets accused of making it up.

Rumble Rumble Rumble. And yes, we could always just make up the numbers. That is why its so important that you all help Johannes build a neutrino experiment in his back yard.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: ERTW on February 03, 2010, 04:25:30 PM
The cats and dogs vs. snakes argument isn't valid, because dogs and cats and snakes became the way they are due to the exact same biological process of evolution.  Neutrinos do not necessarily have to behave like photons because they are governed by different processes.  The behavior of photons is governed by electromagnetism (in the standard model, photons are the electromagnetic force carriers), while the behavior of neutrinos is governed largely by the weak force.  However, there is some overlap between the two forces, which is why the unifying electro-weak theory of Glashow, Weinberg, and Salam is needed to derive the energy spectrum of the neutrinos, as the derivation that ERTW posted earlier shows.
This.
Also, this could be useful re-posted here.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: ERTW on February 27, 2010, 05:39:45 PM
I provided a lot of relevant material and explanations on neutrino energy spectrum, so if anyone has any objections other than "you made it up", go ahead.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: Canadark on February 27, 2010, 10:12:58 PM
You should be credited for bumping this thread and keeping it alive. I don't understand how FE'ers can maintain such contradictory realities at once. I can only assume that they believe you are part of the conspiracy or they just choose to ignore the contents of this thread. It is mind boggling.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: bowler on February 28, 2010, 03:13:58 AM
The trouble is its the only thread on this forum where someone (actually two people) really understand whats going on.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: Thermal Detonator on February 28, 2010, 09:04:15 AM
You should be credited for bumping this thread and keeping it alive. I don't understand how FE'ers can maintain such contradictory realities at once.

I have a link to the neutrino experiment result post in my sig.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: SupahLovah on February 28, 2010, 09:12:39 AM
You should be credited for bumping this thread and keeping it alive. I don't understand how FE'ers can maintain such contradictory realities at once.

I have a link to the neutrino experiment result post in my sig.
I don't view signatures. It wastes bandwidth.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: ERTW on March 04, 2010, 12:11:22 PM
For documentation purposes, discussion relevant to beam neutrinos is occurring in this thread:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=36931.0 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=36931.0)
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: dude55 on April 29, 2010, 06:21:12 AM
Major bump, because honestly it really deserve to have some more discussion. :/
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: bowler on May 03, 2010, 02:55:46 AM
I forgot to say that T2K is has now observed neutrinos passing through the Earths crust.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: Thermal Detonator on May 03, 2010, 12:36:29 PM
I forgot to say that T2K is has now observed neutrinos passing through the Earths crust.

So that's really curtains for FET now I guess. That's two different detectors in different places proving it, right?
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: Ellipsis on May 03, 2010, 12:43:31 PM
* Humbly awaiting the phrase "bendy neutrino paths" *
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: bowler on May 03, 2010, 01:07:03 PM
I forgot to say that T2K is has now observed neutrinos passing through the Earths crust.

So that's really curtains for FET now I guess. That's two different detectors in different places proving it, right?

No more than that by my count;
K2K (Japan)
MINOS (USA)
Opera & CNGS(Switzerland - Italy)
KamLAND (Japan)
T2K (also Japan - successor to K2K, far detector is the same place)
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: Space Tourist on May 15, 2010, 09:26:35 AM
* Humbly awaiting the phrase "bendy neutrino paths" *

that was back on page two... i think
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: Johannes on June 22, 2010, 12:35:12 PM
Your quite right the beam sprays all over the place. We confirm the angle by measureing the energy spectrum. As I say this can be done to within a degree. Especially as after 300km the difference between 1 degree and 0 degrees is quite pronounced. The Earths core, the sun, nuclear reactors all give off plenty of neutrinos which can be detected. This entire farce such as it is relies on the Earth being opaque, this isn't the case.

Correct me if I am wrong, but according to arxiv (http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.4211, http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.1245 ), this measurement is done at 280 meters away from the source... if any spitting/interaction occurs beyond that point it is unaccounted for... ?
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: bowler on June 26, 2010, 12:49:52 PM
You measure the spectra at 280m and at 295km. All long baseline neutrino experiments have a near and far detector, both of which measure the energy spectra. They all use slightly different tactics. T2K takes a significant intensity hit by having its far detector at 2 degrees with respect to the beamline, the upside is that the peak energy is more favorable as discussed in one of those papers i think. The beam is far more intense on axis. Older experiments with less intense beamlines had to be 'on axis' to get enough data to make the experiment worth while.

Either way while this forum is busy debating the shape of the Earth and the colour of an orange - dark matter maybe - http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2010/06/post_59.html .

Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: Johannes on June 27, 2010, 10:57:48 AM
You measure the spectra at 280m and at 295km
Proof?
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: bowler on June 27, 2010, 01:02:23 PM
Well T2K hasn't yet as it only started taking data 2 months ago. K2K was a near identical experiment using the same far detector the accelerator was slight closer, giving a baseline of 250 km. All of this stuff is on the arXiv which you have clearly found. Their publications list is here http://neutrino.kek.jp/publications/ along with journal and usually a pre-print arXiv link accessible to everyone.

A similar list of publication for a similar experiment is the US, MINOs is given here http://www-numi.fnal.gov/Minos/minospub.txt. Again all major publications, and most minor, are on the arXiv. CNGS the European version will also have a publication list which I can't be bothered to dig out. kamLAND also has a publications list.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: Johannes on June 27, 2010, 05:09:57 PM
So you admit T2K could be rigged by the conspiracy as far as we know?
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: ClockTower on June 28, 2010, 05:11:51 AM
So you admit T2K could be rigged by the conspiracy as far as we know?
Of course, your conspiracy is non-falsifible, right? However, any debate in which one side relies on a non-falsifiable tenet falls automatically to the opposition, right?

How would you feel if we invoke the "RE ogre", Alice? She (and the rest of her species) with the design of tormenting those who believe in a flat earth creates illusions and uses magic powers to change experimental results and to maintain her total invisibility. She's a first cousin to Bigfoot. Now anytime an FEer makes a good point, we'll just say Alice is tricking the FEer again. What, you don't believe in magic? But you do believe that the conspiracy can magically prevent you from seeing the truth of FE, right?
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: markjo on June 28, 2010, 06:44:34 AM
So you admit T2K could be rigged by the conspiracy as far as we know?

If neutrino experiments are being rigged by a conspiracy, then it seems to be a conspiracy against Einstein rather than the shape of the earth.
Quote from: http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/60568/title/Neutrino_experiments_sow_seeds_of_possible_revolution_
The new findings “could even signal a tiny breakdown of Einstein’s theory of special relativity,” Mohapatra adds. “This could completely alter the way we are doing physics now.”
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: bowler on June 28, 2010, 10:41:49 AM
So you admit T2K could be rigged by the conspiracy as far as we know?

Well we can't have rigged anything so far as we havent claimed to have done anything. But I think you can assume that a claim to have propagaed neutrinos through the Earths crust will be forthcoming. So far all the papers/talks have been progress reports and very basic results saying that it works. I guess for the purposes of this forum the fact it claims to work at all is the important bit, not the exact results, though T2K is by no means the first, just the one I know particularly well. If its any consolation I never rigged/faked anything. My dark matter was way more interesting than the flat Earth rubbish, why did that get ignored.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: Johannes on June 28, 2010, 03:08:51 PM
So you admit T2K could be rigged by the conspiracy as far as we know?
Of course, your conspiracy is non-falsifible, right? However, any debate in which one side relies on a non-falsifiable tenet falls automatically to the opposition, right?

How would you feel if we invoke the "RE ogre", Alice? She (and the rest of her species) with the design of tormenting those who believe in a flat earth creates illusions and uses magic powers to change experimental results and to maintain her total invisibility. She's a first cousin to Bigfoot. Now anytime an FEer makes a good point, we'll just say Alice is tricking the FEer again. What, you don't believe in magic? But you do believe that the conspiracy can magically prevent you from seeing the truth of FE, right?
There is no peer reviewed work proving neutrinos traveled through the earths crust in T2K. Therefore I have no reason to believe it happened.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: ClockTower on June 28, 2010, 04:04:58 PM
So you admit T2K could be rigged by the conspiracy as far as we know?
Of course, your conspiracy is non-falsifible, right? However, any debate in which one side relies on a non-falsifiable tenet falls automatically to the opposition, right?

How would you feel if we invoke the "RE ogre", Alice? She (and the rest of her species) with the design of tormenting those who believe in a flat earth creates illusions and uses magic powers to change experimental results and to maintain her total invisibility. She's a first cousin to Bigfoot. Now anytime an FEer makes a good point, we'll just say Alice is tricking the FEer again. What, you don't believe in magic? But you do believe that the conspiracy can magically prevent you from seeing the truth of FE, right?
There is no peer reviewed work proving neutrinos traveled through the earths crust in T2K. Therefore I have no reason to believe it happened.
That’s non-responsive.  Please do stay on topic.
However, let me take advantage of your error about. Since there is no peer-reviewed work proving that the Earth is flat but there are numerous works proving that it is, I therefore conclude that the Earth is a sphere.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: bowler on June 29, 2010, 12:30:17 AM
So you admit T2K could be rigged by the conspiracy as far as we know?
Of course, your conspiracy is non-falsifible, right? However, any debate in which one side relies on a non-falsifiable tenet falls automatically to the opposition, right?

How would you feel if we invoke the "RE ogre", Alice? She (and the rest of her species) with the design of tormenting those who believe in a flat earth creates illusions and uses magic powers to change experimental results and to maintain her total invisibility. She's a first cousin to Bigfoot. Now anytime an FEer makes a good point, we'll just say Alice is tricking the FEer again. What, you don't believe in magic? But you do believe that the conspiracy can magically prevent you from seeing the truth of FE, right?
There is no peer reviewed work proving neutrinos traveled through the earths crust in T2K. Therefore I have no reason to believe it happened.

Thats a perfectly respectable view point. I think most people would accept they probably have although certainly its too early to say exactly how well its working. There is a press release showing the first detection at the far detector, that was only a couple of months ago. So it probably isn't certain that everything is working correctly. Though as I say for the purposes of this K2K, MINOS, KamLAND and CNGS already have a plethora of peer reviewed articles performing essentially the same experiment as T2K, I belive a book devoted to the subject has been published.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: ERTW on July 04, 2010, 09:58:08 PM
So you admit T2K could be rigged by the conspiracy as far as we know?

K2K, MINOS, and several other neutrino experiments have complete data sets, which require the Earth to be round to make sense (without invoking bendy neutrinos). T2K will take data for the next 5 years or so, and will greatly improve on the measurement accuracy of previous experiments in several important ways.

This information is offered in order to fuel debate about things like bendy neutrinos, detector placement geometry, and general neutrino physics. The done-ness of T2K has nothing to do with any argument involving the Conspiracy. The Conspiracy can be equally applied to a fully complete T2K, a halfway complete T2K, UFO's, and the 911 hijackings. The Conspiracy has no place in a debate about particle physics and geometry, and it is the main reason I have had better things to do for the last few months than post here.

I hope anyone who wishes to have an enjoyable debate with mature people will find it here, but in my experience it will be the exception not the rule.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: zork on July 05, 2010, 12:59:36 AM
The Conspiracy has no place in a debate about particle physics and geometry, and it is the main reason I have had better things to do for the last few months than post here.
  I wouldn't be surprised if the result of debate was that The Conspiracy is the one that bends the neutrinos. Sorry, couldn't help it.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: bowler on November 07, 2012, 02:10:07 AM
Since I brought up the point that the Earth is in fact not opaque but perfectly transparent if you use the right kind of radiation T2K has published it's results and another experiment in America has shown that the North American continent also appears to be curved with a radius consistent with all other measurements.

Along with the use of neutrinos from the Earths core to perform geological studies the use of neutrinos for communication between submarines is now being seriously considered (prematurely I think but hey).
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: Son of Orospu on November 07, 2012, 04:52:25 AM
Maybe you should have started a new thread instead of dragging up a 2 year old post with 9 pages that no one is going to sift through to find out what you are talking about.

Maybe you could also post links to the articles you reference so that others can read them and join in on your discussion.

Just some thoughts.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: ThinkingMan on November 07, 2012, 08:59:08 AM
Maybe you should have started a new thread instead of dragging up a 2 year old post with 9 pages that no one is going to sift through to find out what you are talking about.

Maybe you could also post links to the articles you reference so that others can read them and join in on your discussion.

Just some thoughts.

Well, I wouldn't say no one. I just read all of it, and I wish I had found this a long time ago. This thread is a gem, and it's too bad it was left to die for two years.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: bowler on November 07, 2012, 09:28:02 AM
I agree science can take a long time just because time has elapsed doesn't mean the material is not part of the same thread. Putting in the same thread makes it easy for readers to refresh their memory which I'm sure they will want to.

References (almost all will be on ArXiV as well with pdf links provided as their respective journal so free-to-view for all)

NOVA (the new one, no results yet just stuff about kit, although now operational)
http://www.nu.to.infn.it/exp/all/nova/ (http://www.nu.to.infn.it/exp/all/nova/)

T2K latest results
http://www.nu.to.infn.it/exp/all/t2k (http://www.nu.to.infn.it/exp/all/t2k)

Opera - latest results
http://www.nu.to.infn.it/exp/all/opera/ (http://www.nu.to.infn.it/exp/all/opera/)

MINOS final results almost
http://www.nu.to.infn.it/exp/all/minos (http://www.nu.to.infn.it/exp/all/minos)

K2K
http://www.nu.to.infn.it/exp/all/k2k (http://www.nu.to.infn.it/exp/all/k2k)

Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: ThinkingMan on November 07, 2012, 10:19:31 AM
I learned a lot from this thread. It's quite fascinating, although I don't understand it enough to present arguments with it. I liked Tom Bishop's attempt at using a laser (photons) as an example for why this wouldn't work. Although lasers spread out due to photon scattering in the atmosphere. In space, they do not spread, which would be a better analogy for a neutrino beam, as neutrinos hardly ever interact with normal matter. I also never understood why, until I read about the cross sections. It make a lot more sense now.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: bowler on November 07, 2012, 10:35:17 AM
When the neutrinos are created they are released at all angles (although the intensity dies away very quickly as you go off axis). The energy of the neutrinos changes very strongly with energy. Measuring the energy of the neutrinos you detect allows you to verify the angle of your experiment. In the case of T2K it was deliberately built a couple of degrees off axis to get a better range of energies for what it was looking to observe at the expense of a small loss of intensity.

Solar neutrinos are also interesting here as we can track the sun around the Earth by detecting it's neutrinos at night. Although there are no new results on solar neutrinos. Since the solution to the missing neutrino problem was solved solar neutrinos have not been as useful.

The bottom line is the Earth is not opaque after all. Great if you need to confirm it's shape as to a neutrino physicist the Earth is like a glass sphere.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: ThinkingMan on November 07, 2012, 10:44:02 AM
When the neutrinos are created they are released at all angles (although the intensity dies away very quickly as you go off axis). The energy of the neutrinos changes very strongly with energy. Measuring the energy of the neutrinos you detect allows you to verify the angle of your experiment. In the case of T2K it was deliberately built a couple of degrees off axis to get a better range of energies for what it was looking to observe at the expense of a small loss of intensity.

I understood all of that, it's analogous to any high energy collision. Stuff goes in many directions, but the stuff at goes straight from the direction of impact has the highest energy.

Solar neutrinos are also interesting here as we can track the sun around the Earth by detecting it's neutrinos at night. Although there are no new results on solar neutrinos. Since the solution to the missing neutrino problem was solved solar neutrinos have not been as useful.

I'd like to know more about this. I'm not a physicist, but I am an enthusiast and in school for mechanical engineering (more specifically aerospace [more specifically space]). Neutrinos could be useful for interplanetary and (in the distant future) interstellar communications as well, since you said they're being considered for submarine communications.

The bottom line is the Earth is not opaque after all. Great if you need to confirm it's shape as to a neutrino physicist the Earth is like a glass sphere.

I know, it's incredible. I had known that neutrinos didn't interact with normal matter (usually), but for some reason the earth being "see through" didn't occur to me.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: bowler on November 08, 2012, 01:07:21 AM
Neutrinos are generated in many nuclear reactions and for years before the advent of suitably powerful particle accelerators the best source of neutrinos were nuclear reactors and the sun. Even now there are experiments that use neutrinos generated from nuclear reactors (CHOOZ, RENO, Daya Bay etc) these are not useful here as the detectors are usually only 1 km or so from the source. The sun creates a colossal amount of neutrinos and even as far away as the earth one can still get a good signal with a decent detector. We also have a good knowledge of nuclear reactions in the sun from optical spectrometry so accurate predictions of the solar neutrino flux have been available for many years, long before the satellite era, so in the early days of neutrino physics the sun was a valuable resource. Solar neutrinos are still interesting in the popularization of science as people find the idea of neutrino passing through the earth like light through a window quite a cool concept. As a colleague once put it in a talk - the sun never sets a Super-Kamiokande.

Nowadays because we can't vary the energy of solar neutrinos or change our distance we have measured most of what we can measure so attention has turned to accelerators where we can choose our energy. We can also choose the distance between detectors. The current generation of experiments typically use distances of just under 1000 km through the crust; USA -> Canada and Geneva -> Italy are typical. For the next generation of neutrino experiments there are plans use to use distances on the order of thousands of km. This creates an interesting problem because you have to play off technology and politics. You need to find two countries with suitable infrastructure at the right distance. Also as you go further the angle into the ground increases. Europe->India and USA->Europe both have about the right distance although the angle into the crust starts to become closer to 40-50 degrees than the 10-15 experiments are at now which makes the engineering more interesting.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: FlatulencE Theory on November 08, 2012, 10:11:53 AM
This is really interesting stuff. I, too, read through the entire thread, so thank you for bumping it.

It is now the irrefutable proof of the round Earth. I'm excited to learn more about how the nutrinos could be used to communicate. I think that long distance communication, through vast distances of space, could be possible.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: ThinkingMan on November 08, 2012, 10:33:28 AM
This is really interesting stuff. I, too, read through the entire thread, so thank you for bumping it.

It is now the irrefutable proof of the round Earth. I'm excited to learn more about how the nutrinos could be used to communicate. I think that long distance communication, through vast distances of space, could be possible.

It definitely could. You would no longer need to worry about direct line of sight. I'm not sure how a black hole would effect neutrinos though. As bowler is our resident neutrino physicist, perhaps he could clear this up for us?

But back to what I was saying, it would be very useful, but the longer the distance, the more energetic the neutrinos have to be to reach their destination. You also would need pinpoint accuracy, which could prove difficult. Time Dilation could play a huge part in future space travel, especially if it gets to the point of interstellar travel. Stars all travel and different speeds, which mean they are traveling through the fourth dimension at a different rate than us here on earth. The local reference frame could, very possibly, be way off from our own time here at home. This would need to be factored in to travel and communications.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: bowler on November 08, 2012, 10:57:00 AM
Well communications is a difficult one. As neutrinos so rarely interact you need a lot of them and a big detector to create them. The reason that the submarine idea might work is that you have a big detector - the sea. A submarine could detect the flashes of light as the neutrinos interact in the sea water, deep down where its very dark even a little signal could be detected. Ice is also a good detector (although not for a sub) and an experiment called Ice Cube http://icecube.wisc.edu/ (http://icecube.wisc.edu/) located near the South Pole in Antarctica already uses this idea. Instead of building a big detector, nature has already built it, all that was needed was a few thousand light detectors.

In space its more difficult because there is no medium to detect the neutrinos and EM radiation already travels pretty well as it is. Over very very long distances, many thousands of light years and greater, neutrinos do have a slight advantage. As passes through gas clouds it slows down every so slightly while neutrinos don't. As a result when a supernova occurs in a distant galaxy (although not too distance or not enough neutrinos reach Earth) the neutrinos arrive slightly before the light. This happened with supernova SN1987A. This was the first non EM radiation confirmation of core-collapse supernova theory. In the future neutrino detectors will warn optical telescopes if a number of neutrino facilities all detect a big signal the same time. The optical telescopes should then have time to target the area of the sky from which the neutrinos originated. Although as for space communications, I think conventional technologies (or lasers) are probably going to be better.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: ThinkingMan on November 08, 2012, 11:12:22 AM
Well communications is a difficult one. As neutrinos so rarely interact you need a lot of them and a big detector to create them. The reason that the submarine idea might work is that you have a big detector - the sea. A submarine could detect the flashes of light as the neutrinos interact in the sea water, deep down where its very dark even a little signal could be detected. Ice is also a good detector (although not for a sub) and an experiment called Ice Cube http://icecube.wisc.edu/ (http://icecube.wisc.edu/) located near the South Pole in Antarctica already uses this idea. Instead of building a big detector, nature has already built it, all that was needed was a few thousand light detectors.

In space its more difficult because there is no medium to detect the neutrinos and EM radiation already travels pretty well as it is. Over very very long distances, many thousands of light years and greater, neutrinos do have a slight advantage. As passes through gas clouds it slows down every so slightly while neutrinos don't. As a result when a supernova occurs in a distant galaxy (although not too distance or not enough neutrinos reach Earth) the neutrinos arrive slightly before the light. This happened with supernova SN1987A. This was the first non EM radiation confirmation of core-collapse supernova theory. In the future neutrino detectors will warn optical telescopes if a number of neutrino facilities all detect a big signal the same time. The optical telescopes should then have time to target the area of the sky from which the neutrinos originated. Although as for space communications, I think conventional technologies (or lasers) are probably going to be better.

I'm sorry, I mean planet-planet communications, not necessarily between spacecraft (unless we end up making some monster-ships in the future). The way you can generate a lot of neutrinos (I'm sure these collisions take a lot of energy) and send them in the right direction. Then you just have your detector, which sounds like it's a giant box of water, on the receiving planet, and vise versa for two way communication. You still have to deal with the delay of c over interstellar distances, but it seems to me that neutrinos will arrive significantly ahead of any EM radiation because they don't slow down upon entering a medium, and they can pass through solids as if they weren't there. This means you can send the signals at any time. Of course, you would need to figure out how to adapt these beams into signal or be read as data packets. Of course, if we ever figure out the Alcubierre/white drive, this will be totally unnecessary as we can send a craft to the other star system before the signal arrived.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: bowler on November 08, 2012, 11:23:31 AM
Well communications is a difficult one. As neutrinos so rarely interact you need a lot of them and a big detector to create them. The reason that the submarine idea might work is that you have a big detector - the sea. A submarine could detect the flashes of light as the neutrinos interact in the sea water, deep down where its very dark even a little signal could be detected. Ice is also a good detector (although not for a sub) and an experiment called Ice Cube http://icecube.wisc.edu/ (http://icecube.wisc.edu/) located near the South Pole in Antarctica already uses this idea. Instead of building a big detector, nature has already built it, all that was needed was a few thousand light detectors.

In space its more difficult because there is no medium to detect the neutrinos and EM radiation already travels pretty well as it is. Over very very long distances, many thousands of light years and greater, neutrinos do have a slight advantage. As passes through gas clouds it slows down every so slightly while neutrinos don't. As a result when a supernova occurs in a distant galaxy (although not too distance or not enough neutrinos reach Earth) the neutrinos arrive slightly before the light. This happened with supernova SN1987A. This was the first non EM radiation confirmation of core-collapse supernova theory. In the future neutrino detectors will warn optical telescopes if a number of neutrino facilities all detect a big signal the same time. The optical telescopes should then have time to target the area of the sky from which the neutrinos originated. Although as for space communications, I think conventional technologies (or lasers) are probably going to be better.

I'm sorry, I mean planet-planet communications, not necessarily between spacecraft (unless we end up making some monster-ships in the future). The way you can generate a lot of neutrinos (I'm sure these collisions take a lot of energy) and send them in the right direction. Then you just have your detector, which sounds like it's a giant box of water, on the receiving planet, and vise versa for two way communication. You still have to deal with the delay of c over interstellar distances, but it seems to me that neutrinos will arrive significantly ahead of any EM radiation because they don't slow down upon entering a medium, and they can pass through solids as if they weren't there. This means you can send the signals at any time. Of course, you would need to figure out how to adapt these beams into signal or be read as data packets. Of course, if we ever figure out the Alcubierre/white drive, this will be totally unnecessary as we can send a craft to the other star system before the signal arrived.

In principal your scheme works well. The Alcubierre metric involves negative energy if memory serves which I suspect might be a not so small problem.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: ThinkingMan on November 08, 2012, 11:42:03 AM
Well communications is a difficult one. As neutrinos so rarely interact you need a lot of them and a big detector to create them. The reason that the submarine idea might work is that you have a big detector - the sea. A submarine could detect the flashes of light as the neutrinos interact in the sea water, deep down where its very dark even a little signal could be detected. Ice is also a good detector (although not for a sub) and an experiment called Ice Cube http://icecube.wisc.edu/ (http://icecube.wisc.edu/) located near the South Pole in Antarctica already uses this idea. Instead of building a big detector, nature has already built it, all that was needed was a few thousand light detectors.

In space its more difficult because there is no medium to detect the neutrinos and EM radiation already travels pretty well as it is. Over very very long distances, many thousands of light years and greater, neutrinos do have a slight advantage. As passes through gas clouds it slows down every so slightly while neutrinos don't. As a result when a supernova occurs in a distant galaxy (although not too distance or not enough neutrinos reach Earth) the neutrinos arrive slightly before the light. This happened with supernova SN1987A. This was the first non EM radiation confirmation of core-collapse supernova theory. In the future neutrino detectors will warn optical telescopes if a number of neutrino facilities all detect a big signal the same time. The optical telescopes should then have time to target the area of the sky from which the neutrinos originated. Although as for space communications, I think conventional technologies (or lasers) are probably going to be better.

I'm sorry, I mean planet-planet communications, not necessarily between spacecraft (unless we end up making some monster-ships in the future). The way you can generate a lot of neutrinos (I'm sure these collisions take a lot of energy) and send them in the right direction. Then you just have your detector, which sounds like it's a giant box of water, on the receiving planet, and vise versa for two way communication. You still have to deal with the delay of c over interstellar distances, but it seems to me that neutrinos will arrive significantly ahead of any EM radiation because they don't slow down upon entering a medium, and they can pass through solids as if they weren't there. This means you can send the signals at any time. Of course, you would need to figure out how to adapt these beams into signal or be read as data packets. Of course, if we ever figure out the Alcubierre/white drive, this will be totally unnecessary as we can send a craft to the other star system before the signal arrived.

In principal your scheme works well. The Alcubierre metric involves negative energy if memory serves which I suspect might be a not so small problem.

Actually, there's some new research by (forgive me) someone with the last name White. He has made some of his own modifications to the equation. He says that he has eliminated the need for negative mass and has also reduced the amount of mass/energy needed from a jupiter-mass to 500kg.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: bowler on November 08, 2012, 12:54:49 PM
Well communications is a difficult one. As neutrinos so rarely interact you need a lot of them and a big detector to create them. The reason that the submarine idea might work is that you have a big detector - the sea. A submarine could detect the flashes of light as the neutrinos interact in the sea water, deep down where its very dark even a little signal could be detected. Ice is also a good detector (although not for a sub) and an experiment called Ice Cube http://icecube.wisc.edu/ (http://icecube.wisc.edu/) located near the South Pole in Antarctica already uses this idea. Instead of building a big detector, nature has already built it, all that was needed was a few thousand light detectors.

In space its more difficult because there is no medium to detect the neutrinos and EM radiation already travels pretty well as it is. Over very very long distances, many thousands of light years and greater, neutrinos do have a slight advantage. As passes through gas clouds it slows down every so slightly while neutrinos don't. As a result when a supernova occurs in a distant galaxy (although not too distance or not enough neutrinos reach Earth) the neutrinos arrive slightly before the light. This happened with supernova SN1987A. This was the first non EM radiation confirmation of core-collapse supernova theory. In the future neutrino detectors will warn optical telescopes if a number of neutrino facilities all detect a big signal the same time. The optical telescopes should then have time to target the area of the sky from which the neutrinos originated. Although as for space communications, I think conventional technologies (or lasers) are probably going to be better.

I'm sorry, I mean planet-planet communications, not necessarily between spacecraft (unless we end up making some monster-ships in the future). The way you can generate a lot of neutrinos (I'm sure these collisions take a lot of energy) and send them in the right direction. Then you just have your detector, which sounds like it's a giant box of water, on the receiving planet, and vise versa for two way communication. You still have to deal with the delay of c over interstellar distances, but it seems to me that neutrinos will arrive significantly ahead of any EM radiation because they don't slow down upon entering a medium, and they can pass through solids as if they weren't there. This means you can send the signals at any time. Of course, you would need to figure out how to adapt these beams into signal or be read as data packets. Of course, if we ever figure out the Alcubierre/white drive, this will be totally unnecessary as we can send a craft to the other star system before the signal arrived.

In principal your scheme works well. The Alcubierre metric involves negative energy if memory serves which I suspect might be a not so small problem.

Actually, there's some new research by (forgive me) someone with the last name White. He has made some of his own modifications to the equation. He says that he has eliminated the need for negative mass and has also reduced the amount of mass/energy needed from a jupiter-mass to 500kg.

That does sound interesting do you have a reference (in the genuine I'm interested sense, not the im-about-to-say-conspiracy sense)? And I'll dust off the old GR textbook.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: ThinkingMan on November 08, 2012, 12:57:33 PM
Well communications is a difficult one. As neutrinos so rarely interact you need a lot of them and a big detector to create them. The reason that the submarine idea might work is that you have a big detector - the sea. A submarine could detect the flashes of light as the neutrinos interact in the sea water, deep down where its very dark even a little signal could be detected. Ice is also a good detector (although not for a sub) and an experiment called Ice Cube http://icecube.wisc.edu/ (http://icecube.wisc.edu/) located near the South Pole in Antarctica already uses this idea. Instead of building a big detector, nature has already built it, all that was needed was a few thousand light detectors.

In space its more difficult because there is no medium to detect the neutrinos and EM radiation already travels pretty well as it is. Over very very long distances, many thousands of light years and greater, neutrinos do have a slight advantage. As passes through gas clouds it slows down every so slightly while neutrinos don't. As a result when a supernova occurs in a distant galaxy (although not too distance or not enough neutrinos reach Earth) the neutrinos arrive slightly before the light. This happened with supernova SN1987A. This was the first non EM radiation confirmation of core-collapse supernova theory. In the future neutrino detectors will warn optical telescopes if a number of neutrino facilities all detect a big signal the same time. The optical telescopes should then have time to target the area of the sky from which the neutrinos originated. Although as for space communications, I think conventional technologies (or lasers) are probably going to be better.

I'm sorry, I mean planet-planet communications, not necessarily between spacecraft (unless we end up making some monster-ships in the future). The way you can generate a lot of neutrinos (I'm sure these collisions take a lot of energy) and send them in the right direction. Then you just have your detector, which sounds like it's a giant box of water, on the receiving planet, and vise versa for two way communication. You still have to deal with the delay of c over interstellar distances, but it seems to me that neutrinos will arrive significantly ahead of any EM radiation because they don't slow down upon entering a medium, and they can pass through solids as if they weren't there. This means you can send the signals at any time. Of course, you would need to figure out how to adapt these beams into signal or be read as data packets. Of course, if we ever figure out the Alcubierre/white drive, this will be totally unnecessary as we can send a craft to the other star system before the signal arrived.

In principal your scheme works well. The Alcubierre metric involves negative energy if memory serves which I suspect might be a not so small problem.

Actually, there's some new research by (forgive me) someone with the last name White. He has made some of his own modifications to the equation. He says that he has eliminated the need for negative mass and has also reduced the amount of mass/energy needed from a jupiter-mass to 500kg.

That does sound interesting do you have a reference (in the genuine I'm interested sense, not the im-about-to-say-conspiracy sense)? And I'll dust off the old GR textbook.

I'll have to do a search. I don't remember where I saw it, but the articles I found didn't have any equations or anything. It was just a short blip. One of them did name a very specific effect that would cause the negative-warp of space "behind" the craft, but I can't for the life of me remember what the term was. Something starting with a C.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: ThinkingMan on November 08, 2012, 01:03:46 PM
Here it is. A space.com article (http://www.space.com/17628-warp-drive-possible-interstellar-spaceflight.html)

This one is from dailymail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2204913/Nasa-breakthrough-suggests-Star-Treks-warp-drives-possible--practical.html).

This is from Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/science/2012/09/17/warp-drive-may-be-more-feasible-than-thought-scientists-say/)

There's many more. I'd love to find the research papers, but all I can find for now is the articles. I can't find the specific one where they mention the exact mass that it would require. The funny thing is, with this type of drive, I'm pretty sure the size and mass of the craft makes no difference in reference to the amount of fuel required, only the "speed" and travel time.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: bowler on November 08, 2012, 01:06:30 PM
Hmmmm I make a point of avoiding the daily mail. The space.com one ultimately leads to a reasonably technical document http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110015936_2011016932.pdf (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110015936_2011016932.pdf) . Now I just need the textbook.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: ThinkingMan on November 08, 2012, 01:09:13 PM
Hmmmm I make a point of avoiding the daily mail. The space.com one ultimately leads to a reasonably technical document http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110015936_2011016932.pdf (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110015936_2011016932.pdf) . Now I just need the textbook.

Oooooh this is fun. I'll have to find my textbook as well. I have it but I've never taken the classes! Unfortunately, I am just an under-educated enthusiast compared to you, good sir. Still in school for my BME.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: Nolhekh on November 08, 2012, 07:52:35 PM
Forums like this need a like / unlike feature so threads like this never truely get lost, and you have a quick reference to threads you think are good.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: ThinkingMan on November 09, 2012, 05:51:44 AM
Forums like this need a like / unlike feature so threads like this never truely get lost, and you have a quick reference to threads you think are good.

We could just keep bumping it. Or you can link the thread in your signature.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: FlatulencE Theory on November 09, 2012, 06:25:02 AM
Is there yet a proposed method for warping space/time? From what I understand in limited knowledge gravity is the only thing we know about right now that can do it.

What is the theory on how we might expand on one side and contract on the other?
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: ThinkingMan on November 09, 2012, 06:32:40 AM
Is there yet a proposed method for warping space/time? From what I understand in limited knowledge gravity is the only thing we know about right now that can do it.

What is the theory on how we might expand on one side and contract on the other?

I'm not sure, I haven't read the entire technical document. But from what I did read, the actual compression and expansion of spacetime is postulated to be a side effect of the warp-bubble, rather than the actual cause of the bubble. I'm also not as versed in relativity and the equations as I'd like to be to understand all of what it's talking about.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: bowler on November 09, 2012, 02:42:29 PM
They do seem to have reduced the energy required not that pesky minus sign, does look to a (non-expert) me as though it a fairly fundamental feature. A microscopic test to look for signs of distortion would be pretty ground breaking in itself, i'm less skeptical than I was but I'm not about to go and buy a space-suit.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: ThinkingMan on November 12, 2012, 05:30:35 AM
They do seem to have reduced the energy required not that pesky minus sign, does look to a (non-expert) me as though it a fairly fundamental feature. A microscopic test to look for signs of distortion would be pretty ground breaking in itself, i'm less skeptical than I was but I'm not about to go and buy a space-suit.

Oh definitely not. Even if FTL travel truly has been, or will be, worked out with this future tech, I don't think we'll see any manned flights for a long time. Possibly not even any probes or anything like that in the near future. But like the document says, the actual warping that's going on appears to be an effect rather than a cause.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: davidbloop on November 18, 2012, 11:18:54 PM
I still wish to see an answer to this from the FET'rs
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: FlatulencE Theory on November 20, 2012, 07:54:03 AM
I still wish to see an answer to this from the FET'rs

Exactly. There hasn't been. Maybe they'd like to claim lack of funding to run their own neutrino experiments that would undoubtedly show some evidence of the conspiracy.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: Kendrick on November 20, 2012, 01:28:00 PM
This is all very interesting but way above my comprehension level.

Zeteticism is all about using personal observations and common sense to explain phenomena - There has to be a better way to demonstrate the shape of the earth then invoking phenomena you can only detect under certain conditions with special equipment.

Find a way to demonstrate 'beam neutrinos' to a lay-person like me if you intend to use them as proof of the sun's path in relation to the earth.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: ThinkingMan on November 20, 2012, 01:41:25 PM
This is all very interesting but way above my comprehension level.

Zeteticism is all about using personal observations and common sense to explain phenomena - There has to be a better way to demonstrate the shape of the earth then invoking phenomena you can only detect under certain conditions with special equipment.

Find a way to demonstrate 'beam neutrinos' to a lay-person like me if you intend to use them as proof of the sun's path in relation to the earth.

That wasn't the only important part of this thread. The other part is that they can shoot the neutrinos on a slightly downward angle and detect them at a higher elevation ~250km away. Neutrinos have been demonstrated to move in straight paths, especially over distances as short as these experiments are being done. The even more interesting thing is that gravity has little to no effect on neutrinos, and that they interact with matter so little that it's almost irrelevant. The reason for this is simple, they have a small cross section. Take this as an example, shooting neutrinos through the earth is similar to shooting a rifle between trees that are a mile apart each with your eyes shut and hoping you don't accidentally hit one.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: FlatulencE Theory on November 21, 2012, 08:28:42 AM
This is all very interesting but way above my comprehension level.

Zeteticism is all about using personal observations and common sense to explain phenomena - There has to be a better way to demonstrate the shape of the earth then invoking phenomena you can only detect under certain conditions with special equipment.

Find a way to demonstrate 'beam neutrinos' to a lay-person like me if you intend to use them as proof of the sun's path in relation to the earth.

I, too, am a lay-person and I understood this thread quite perfectly. I doubt that any of us could duplicate the experiments on our own, but I'm sure if you ask nicely enough, Bowler would happily arrange for you to review his data. Maybe if you ask really nicely, he'll figure out how to get you to a neutrino detector or emitter. Billions of people will never duplicate these experiments, but that does not change their validity.

The relevant information is:
-Neutrinos do not interact with matter
-Neutrinos travel in a straight line
-Neutrinos can be emitted and detected in repeatable experiments
-Neutrinos that are emitted with a 1 degree downward direction are detected at large distances and at a higher local elevation than where they were emitted.

Absent any other information that might satisfy the data, the experiment proves a round earth. Interestingly, this was not the intent of the experiment, just a fun by-product.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: Science on November 29, 2012, 07:52:26 AM
Can you prove that these experiments actually happened, and that this is not simply an attempt to deceive the sheeple?
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: ThinkingMan on November 29, 2012, 07:57:20 AM
Can you prove that these experiments actually happened, and that this is not simply an attempt to deceive the sheeple?

For starters, bowler is a neutrino physicist who has worked on some of the experiments himself. The object of the experiments had nothing to do with proving earth shape, the objective of them was mentioned previously in this thread. The side effect just happens to show that there earth is spherical in nature.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 29, 2012, 08:06:38 AM
See my first post in this thread:

From what I've seen, these neutrinos were shot into the ground a couple degrees below the horizon line to their destination, cutting a slight sliver through the globe earth.

How do we know that the neutrinos didn't spread out from their origin, much like how the beam of a laser pointer spreads when shot over a long distance?

If you've ever seen the dot of a laser pointer 1000+ feet away, it's a huge faded red dot which could easily illuminate the side of a house. The beams of a laser pointer don't travel in exact straight lines, but gradually spread out as they proceed.

If the neutrinos were spreading out, as they easily could and probably would, it's not at all conclusive that they were traveling into the earth.

In this experiment the neutrinos are only cutting through a couple degrees of the earth's surface. The beam is simply  spreading out over distance like a laser pointer, and is hitting the detector parallel to the surface.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: ThinkingMan on November 29, 2012, 08:13:36 AM
See my first post in this thread:

From what I've seen, these neutrinos were shot into the ground a couple degrees below the horizon line to their destination, cutting a slight sliver through the globe earth.

How do we know that the neutrinos didn't spread out from their origin, much like how the beam of a laser pointer spreads when shot over a long distance?

If you've ever seen the dot of a laser pointer 1000+ feet away, it's a huge faded red dot which could easily illuminate the side of a house. The beams of a laser pointer don't travel in exact straight lines, but gradually spread out as they proceed.

If the neutrinos were spreading out, as they easily could and probably would, it's not at all conclusive that they were traveling into the earth.

In this experiment the nutrinos are only cutting through a few degrees of the earth's surface. Where was beam spread ruled out?

That post and the following were also answered. The neutrinos that were traveling straight on had a higher energy that was measured right after they were "shot." The neutrinos that came out at another angle had lower energy. The detector at the end of the line detected neutrinos passing through with the energy that the neutrinos going straight on had, not the lower energy neutrinos. You were even given an example of an experiment was set up to detect some of the lower energy ones by being put on a slightly off angle. You laser pointer example is also not the same. Neutrinos do not interact with normal matter to anywhere near the degree that light does. Light bounces off many particles, neutrinos do not. The reason a laser spreads is because of refraction through the atmosphere. A better example would have been a laser used in space, where there is almost no matter for it to refract off of. This would cause no noticeable spread in the beam of the laser. This is the case with neutrinos passing through anything, be it empty space, or dense matter, as they don't interact with normal matter, and will continue on in the direction and energy level that they started traveling at.

Again, this experiment had nothing to do with proving earth shape. It just happened to be a side effect.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: Science on November 29, 2012, 08:23:51 AM
Can you prove that these experiments actually happened, and that this is not simply an attempt to deceive the sheeple?

For starters, bowler is a neutrino physicist who has worked on some of the experiments himself. The object of the experiments had nothing to do with proving earth shape, the objective of them was mentioned previously in this thread. The side effect just happens to show that there earth is spherical in nature.
He could be a conspirator, or he could have been deceived. That does not prove that this experiment actually happened. Obviously, they knew that this "experiment" could also be used to prove a RE, so that could be why they faked it.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: ThinkingMan on November 29, 2012, 08:32:29 AM
Can you prove that these experiments actually happened, and that this is not simply an attempt to deceive the sheeple?

For starters, bowler is a neutrino physicist who has worked on some of the experiments himself. The object of the experiments had nothing to do with proving earth shape, the objective of them was mentioned previously in this thread. The side effect just happens to show that there earth is spherical in nature.
He could be a conspirator, or he could have been deceived. That does not prove that this experiment actually happened. Obviously, they knew that this "experiment" could also be used to prove a RE, so that could be why they faked it.

99% of the planet has no doubts in their minds that the earth is round... why would they try and prove it? The experiment was simply to detect neutrino emissions at long distances on earth's surface. You can research the experiments yourself. Many sources have been provided throughout this thread, and you can go look them up on google.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: FlatulencE Theory on November 29, 2012, 08:48:57 AM
Can you prove that these experiments actually happened, and that this is not simply an attempt to deceive the sheeple?

For starters, bowler is a neutrino physicist who has worked on some of the experiments himself. The object of the experiments had nothing to do with proving earth shape, the objective of them was mentioned previously in this thread. The side effect just happens to show that there earth is spherical in nature.
He could be a conspirator, or he could have been deceived. That does not prove that this experiment actually happened. Obviously, they knew that this "experiment" could also be used to prove a RE, so that could be why they faked it.

Nothing more to add besides its all a conspiracy? At least Tom put forth a possible alternative explanation for the experiment. Its wrong, but his attempt is infinitely better than claiming a conspiracy.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: Science on November 29, 2012, 09:29:40 AM
Can you prove that these experiments actually happened, and that this is not simply an attempt to deceive the sheeple?

For starters, bowler is a neutrino physicist who has worked on some of the experiments himself. The object of the experiments had nothing to do with proving earth shape, the objective of them was mentioned previously in this thread. The side effect just happens to show that there earth is spherical in nature.
He could be a conspirator, or he could have been deceived. That does not prove that this experiment actually happened. Obviously, they knew that this "experiment" could also be used to prove a RE, so that could be why they faked it.

99% of the planet has no doubts in their minds that the earth is round... why would they try and prove it? The experiment was simply to detect neutrino emissions at long distances on earth's surface. You can research the experiments yourself. Many sources have been provided throughout this thread, and you can go look them up on google.
It would be an attempt to convince FErs. A poor attempt, but still an attempt.
It could also be to affirm the beliefs of RErs and prevent them from listening to us.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: Kendrick on November 29, 2012, 09:54:00 AM
See my first post in this thread:

From what I've seen, these neutrinos were shot into the ground a couple degrees below the horizon line to their destination, cutting a slight sliver through the globe earth.

How do we know that the neutrinos didn't spread out from their origin, much like how the beam of a laser pointer spreads when shot over a long distance?

If you've ever seen the dot of a laser pointer 1000+ feet away, it's a huge faded red dot which could easily illuminate the side of a house. The beams of a laser pointer don't travel in exact straight lines, but gradually spread out as they proceed.

If the neutrinos were spreading out, as they easily could and probably would, it's not at all conclusive that they were traveling into the earth.

In this experiment the neutrinos are only cutting through a couple degrees of the earth's surface. The beam is simply  spreading out over distance like a laser pointer, and is hitting the detector parallel to the surface.

Can you demonstrate that 'neutrino beams' are spreading out in this fashion to explain the results of the experiment or are you just guessing?
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 29, 2012, 01:54:49 PM
See my first post in this thread:

From what I've seen, these neutrinos were shot into the ground a couple degrees below the horizon line to their destination, cutting a slight sliver through the globe earth.

How do we know that the neutrinos didn't spread out from their origin, much like how the beam of a laser pointer spreads when shot over a long distance?

If you've ever seen the dot of a laser pointer 1000+ feet away, it's a huge faded red dot which could easily illuminate the side of a house. The beams of a laser pointer don't travel in exact straight lines, but gradually spread out as they proceed.

If the neutrinos were spreading out, as they easily could and probably would, it's not at all conclusive that they were traveling into the earth.

In this experiment the nutrinos are only cutting through a few degrees of the earth's surface. Where was beam spread ruled out?

That post and the following were also answered. The neutrinos that were traveling straight on had a higher energy that was measured right after they were "shot." The neutrinos that came out at another angle had lower energy.

How do they know that neutrinos with a deviation of 2 degrees don't have "high energy" and that anything beyond that had "low energy"? What controls are used?

This is a very unreliable experiment.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: RandomSheep on November 29, 2012, 03:27:36 PM
It would be an attempt to convince FErs. A poor attempt, but still an attempt.
It could also be to affirm the beliefs of RErs and prevent them from listening to us.

You realize that FErs are such a small number that no one beyond these forums really care about your opinion and would have no need to even try to convince anyone that the world is round, right?

There is concrete evidence the world is round.
Science backs it up, here's a simple example of proof the earth can be round: The Cavendish Experiment.
Grab a telescope and look at other planets and you can see they are round too.
There are thousands of pictures and videos of the round earth itself.

This is the "evidence" of a flat earth.
"Conspiracy!"



You make a claim, now back it up.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: Science on November 30, 2012, 05:32:48 AM
It would be an attempt to convince FErs. A poor attempt, but still an attempt.
It could also be to affirm the beliefs of RErs and prevent them from listening to us.

You realize that FErs are such a small number that no one beyond these forums really care about your opinion and would have no need to even try to convince anyone that the world is round, right?

There is concrete evidence the world is round.
Science backs it up, here's a simple example of proof the earth can be round: The Cavendish Experiment.
Grab a telescope and look at other planets and you can see they are round too.
There are thousands of pictures and videos of the round earth itself.

This is the "evidence" of a flat earth.
"Conspiracy!"



You make a claim, now back it up.
1. The Cavendish Experiment, according to Encyclopedia Britannica, was done to measure the gravitational constant. It was done under the assumption of gravity. I fail to see how this proves gravity or a round Earth.
2. The fact that celestial bodies are round doesn't prove that the Earth is round. What's your point here? You're comparing apples to sliced cucumber.
3. Photoshop and studios.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: ThinkingMan on November 30, 2012, 05:45:38 AM
See my first post in this thread:

From what I've seen, these neutrinos were shot into the ground a couple degrees below the horizon line to their destination, cutting a slight sliver through the globe earth.

How do we know that the neutrinos didn't spread out from their origin, much like how the beam of a laser pointer spreads when shot over a long distance?

If you've ever seen the dot of a laser pointer 1000+ feet away, it's a huge faded red dot which could easily illuminate the side of a house. The beams of a laser pointer don't travel in exact straight lines, but gradually spread out as they proceed.

If the neutrinos were spreading out, as they easily could and probably would, it's not at all conclusive that they were traveling into the earth.

In this experiment the nutrinos are only cutting through a few degrees of the earth's surface. Where was beam spread ruled out?

That post and the following were also answered. The neutrinos that were traveling straight on had a higher energy that was measured right after they were "shot." The neutrinos that came out at another angle had lower energy.

How do they know that neutrinos with a deviation of 2 degrees don't have "high energy" and that anything beyond that had "low energy"? What controls are used?

This is a very unreliable experiment.

Think of it like a pool table. To create the neutrinos, there has to be high energy particle collisions. So if you try and imagine a pool table where the cue ball is at one end, and then the others are lined up across the table, block the other end. The cue ball is shot at the "wall" of pool balls. The ones that are moving in a more direct path relative to the direction the cue ball struck them at will move faster (aka, higher energy). This is what is meant by higher energy. If two objects of the same mass (neutrinos) are moving, and one is moving faster, than that one has higher kinetic energy, hence higher energy.

When the cue ball hits a pool ball straight on, you'll notice that it stops, and all of it's kinetic energy has been transferred into the ball it struck, and that ball continues at practically the same rate of speed that the cue ball was moving. This is the highest energy that the pool ball can obtain. If the cue ball strikes at a glancing blow, it will continue moving, only slower, and at an odd angle, and the pool ball will also move at a mirrored angle, and slower speed. The same thing happens in particle collisions (well, any collision really). The neutrinos that are not moving straight on from the initial trajectory have been given a "glancing blow" and are moving slower, not the highest energy. The ones that are moving straight on have had a "direct hit," and are moving faster, therefore termed as the "highest energy" neutrinos for the experiment. This is how conservation of momentum works.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: Zurian on November 30, 2012, 05:47:32 AM
It would be an attempt to convince FErs. A poor attempt, but still an attempt.
It could also be to affirm the beliefs of RErs and prevent them from listening to us.

You realize that FErs are such a small number that no one beyond these forums really care about your opinion and would have no need to even try to convince anyone that the world is round, right?

There is concrete evidence the world is round.
Science backs it up, here's a simple example of proof the earth can be round: The Cavendish Experiment.
Grab a telescope and look at other planets and you can see they are round too.
There are thousands of pictures and videos of the round earth itself.

This is the "evidence" of a flat earth.
"Conspiracy!"



You make a claim, now back it up.
1. The Cavendish Experiment, according to Encyclopedia Britannica, was done to measure the gravitational constant. It was done under the assumption of gravity. I fail to see how this proves gravity or a round Earth.
2. The fact that celestial bodies are round doesn't prove that the Earth is round. What's your point here? You're comparing apples to sliced cucumber.
3. Photoshop and studios.

Question: All celestial bodies we've observed from earth that are close in mass to our own are oblate spheroids. What would make you think that earth is any different? If you observe a pattern enough times, isn't it safe to assume the pattern will continue to apply?
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: Science on November 30, 2012, 05:52:33 AM
It would be an attempt to convince FErs. A poor attempt, but still an attempt.
It could also be to affirm the beliefs of RErs and prevent them from listening to us.

You realize that FErs are such a small number that no one beyond these forums really care about your opinion and would have no need to even try to convince anyone that the world is round, right?

There is concrete evidence the world is round.
Science backs it up, here's a simple example of proof the earth can be round: The Cavendish Experiment.
Grab a telescope and look at other planets and you can see they are round too.
There are thousands of pictures and videos of the round earth itself.

This is the "evidence" of a flat earth.
"Conspiracy!"



You make a claim, now back it up.
1. The Cavendish Experiment, according to Encyclopedia Britannica, was done to measure the gravitational constant. It was done under the assumption of gravity. I fail to see how this proves gravity or a round Earth.
2. The fact that celestial bodies are round doesn't prove that the Earth is round. What's your point here? You're comparing apples to sliced cucumber.
3. Photoshop and studios.

Question: All celestial bodies we've observed from earth that are close in mass to our own are oblate spheroids. What would make you think that earth is any different? If you observe a pattern enough times, isn't it safe to assume the pattern will continue to apply?
No, of course not. Planets are rocks and they are round. Does that mean all rocks are round? No, you can find flat rocks on Earth.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: Zurian on November 30, 2012, 05:54:50 AM
It would be an attempt to convince FErs. A poor attempt, but still an attempt.
It could also be to affirm the beliefs of RErs and prevent them from listening to us.

You realize that FErs are such a small number that no one beyond these forums really care about your opinion and would have no need to even try to convince anyone that the world is round, right?

There is concrete evidence the world is round.
Science backs it up, here's a simple example of proof the earth can be round: The Cavendish Experiment.
Grab a telescope and look at other planets and you can see they are round too.
There are thousands of pictures and videos of the round earth itself.

This is the "evidence" of a flat earth.
"Conspiracy!"



You make a claim, now back it up.
1. The Cavendish Experiment, according to Encyclopedia Britannica, was done to measure the gravitational constant. It was done under the assumption of gravity. I fail to see how this proves gravity or a round Earth.
2. The fact that celestial bodies are round doesn't prove that the Earth is round. What's your point here? You're comparing apples to sliced cucumber.
3. Photoshop and studios.

Question: All celestial bodies we've observed from earth that are close in mass to our own are oblate spheroids. What would make you think that earth is any different? If you observe a pattern enough times, isn't it safe to assume the pattern will continue to apply?
No, of course not. Planets are rocks and they are round. Does that mean all rocks are round? No, you can find flat rocks on Earth.

Planets are rocks WITH A DIAMETER GREATER THAN 300-350km- and no, i've never seen a rock that large that wasn't round.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: Science on November 30, 2012, 06:37:22 AM
It would be an attempt to convince FErs. A poor attempt, but still an attempt.
It could also be to affirm the beliefs of RErs and prevent them from listening to us.

You realize that FErs are such a small number that no one beyond these forums really care about your opinion and would have no need to even try to convince anyone that the world is round, right?

There is concrete evidence the world is round.
Science backs it up, here's a simple example of proof the earth can be round: The Cavendish Experiment.
Grab a telescope and look at other planets and you can see they are round too.
There are thousands of pictures and videos of the round earth itself.

This is the "evidence" of a flat earth.
"Conspiracy!"



You make a claim, now back it up.
1. The Cavendish Experiment, according to Encyclopedia Britannica, was done to measure the gravitational constant. It was done under the assumption of gravity. I fail to see how this proves gravity or a round Earth.
2. The fact that celestial bodies are round doesn't prove that the Earth is round. What's your point here? You're comparing apples to sliced cucumber.
3. Photoshop and studios.

Question: All celestial bodies we've observed from earth that are close in mass to our own are oblate spheroids. What would make you think that earth is any different? If you observe a pattern enough times, isn't it safe to assume the pattern will continue to apply?
No, of course not. Planets are rocks and they are round. Does that mean all rocks are round? No, you can find flat rocks on Earth.

Planets are rocks WITH A DIAMETER GREATER THAN 300-350km- and no, i've never seen a rock that large that wasn't round.
Okay, now let's take the example of trees. Where I live, there are mostly fir trees, with branches coming out from the bottom of the tree to the top of the tree. I have never seen any trees different then these, so, in your eyes, all trees having branches coming out from the bottom all the way up to the top.

By now you've probably realized that not all trees are like that. There is such a thing a a palm tree, which only has branches at the top. Therefore, even though I could only see the first kind of tree, others still exist. In the same way even though we can only see round planets, doesn't mean a flat one is impossible.

Besides, the Earth isn't a celestial body or a planet, so you're really comparing fir trees to cows.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 30, 2012, 06:45:39 AM
See my first post in this thread:

From what I've seen, these neutrinos were shot into the ground a couple degrees below the horizon line to their destination, cutting a slight sliver through the globe earth.

How do we know that the neutrinos didn't spread out from their origin, much like how the beam of a laser pointer spreads when shot over a long distance?

If you've ever seen the dot of a laser pointer 1000+ feet away, it's a huge faded red dot which could easily illuminate the side of a house. The beams of a laser pointer don't travel in exact straight lines, but gradually spread out as they proceed.

If the neutrinos were spreading out, as they easily could and probably would, it's not at all conclusive that they were traveling into the earth.

In this experiment the nutrinos are only cutting through a few degrees of the earth's surface. Where was beam spread ruled out?

That post and the following were also answered. The neutrinos that were traveling straight on had a higher energy that was measured right after they were "shot." The neutrinos that came out at another angle had lower energy.

How do they know that neutrinos with a deviation of 2 degrees don't have "high energy" and that anything beyond that had "low energy"? What controls are used?

This is a very unreliable experiment.

Think of it like a pool table. To create the neutrinos, there has to be high energy particle collisions. So if you try and imagine a pool table where the cue ball is at one end, and then the others are lined up across the table, block the other end. The cue ball is shot at the "wall" of pool balls. The ones that are moving in a more direct path relative to the direction the cue ball struck them at will move faster (aka, higher energy). This is what is meant by higher energy. If two objects of the same mass (neutrinos) are moving, and one is moving faster, than that one has higher kinetic energy, hence higher energy.

When the cue ball hits a pool ball straight on, you'll notice that it stops, and all of it's kinetic energy has been transferred into the ball it struck, and that ball continues at practically the same rate of speed that the cue ball was moving. This is the highest energy that the pool ball can obtain. If the cue ball strikes at a glancing blow, it will continue moving, only slower, and at an odd angle, and the pool ball will also move at a mirrored angle, and slower speed. The same thing happens in particle collisions (well, any collision really). The neutrinos that are not moving straight on from the initial trajectory have been given a "glancing blow" and are moving slower, not the highest energy. The ones that are moving straight on have had a "direct hit," and are moving faster, therefore termed as the "highest energy" neutrinos for the experiment. This is how conservation of momentum works.

I can hit a pool ball 2 degrees off it's center with nearly the same amount of kenetic force as 0 degrees off center. It's only when you hit it at angles beyond 45 degrees off center that you "sideswipe" it.

But aside from you being wrong, my argument is that the beams are naturally spreading out after they leave the device, not that they are hitting anything to become spread out.

Again, there is no control to rule out spreading of the beam, or what constitutes "high" or "low" energy. It is an unreliable guessing game.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: ThinkingMan on November 30, 2012, 06:52:44 AM
See my first post in this thread:

From what I've seen, these neutrinos were shot into the ground a couple degrees below the horizon line to their destination, cutting a slight sliver through the globe earth.

How do we know that the neutrinos didn't spread out from their origin, much like how the beam of a laser pointer spreads when shot over a long distance?

If you've ever seen the dot of a laser pointer 1000+ feet away, it's a huge faded red dot which could easily illuminate the side of a house. The beams of a laser pointer don't travel in exact straight lines, but gradually spread out as they proceed.

If the neutrinos were spreading out, as they easily could and probably would, it's not at all conclusive that they were traveling into the earth.

In this experiment the nutrinos are only cutting through a few degrees of the earth's surface. Where was beam spread ruled out?

That post and the following were also answered. The neutrinos that were traveling straight on had a higher energy that was measured right after they were "shot." The neutrinos that came out at another angle had lower energy.

How do they know that neutrinos with a deviation of 2 degrees don't have "high energy" and that anything beyond that had "low energy"? What controls are used?

This is a very unreliable experiment.

Think of it like a pool table. To create the neutrinos, there has to be high energy particle collisions. So if you try and imagine a pool table where the cue ball is at one end, and then the others are lined up across the table, block the other end. The cue ball is shot at the "wall" of pool balls. The ones that are moving in a more direct path relative to the direction the cue ball struck them at will move faster (aka, higher energy). This is what is meant by higher energy. If two objects of the same mass (neutrinos) are moving, and one is moving faster, than that one has higher kinetic energy, hence higher energy.

When the cue ball hits a pool ball straight on, you'll notice that it stops, and all of it's kinetic energy has been transferred into the ball it struck, and that ball continues at practically the same rate of speed that the cue ball was moving. This is the highest energy that the pool ball can obtain. If the cue ball strikes at a glancing blow, it will continue moving, only slower, and at an odd angle, and the pool ball will also move at a mirrored angle, and slower speed. The same thing happens in particle collisions (well, any collision really). The neutrinos that are not moving straight on from the initial trajectory have been given a "glancing blow" and are moving slower, not the highest energy. The ones that are moving straight on have had a "direct hit," and are moving faster, therefore termed as the "highest energy" neutrinos for the experiment. This is how conservation of momentum works.

I can hit a pool ball 2 degrees off it's center with nearly the same amount of kenetic force as 0 degrees off center. It's only when you hit it at angles approaching 45 degrees off center that you "sideswipe" it.

But aside from you being wrong, my argument is that the beams are naturally spreading out after they leave the device, not that they are hitting anything to become spread out.

If you hit it 2 degrees of center, you do not transfer all of the kinetic energy. You transfer most of it. That does not mean I'm wrong, that means you're attempting to pick apart what I say by throwing falsehoods at me.

Okay, so let's discuss your argument. How do the beams naturally spread out? The reason a laser spreads out is because it's beam interacts with other particles in the atmosphere, and the refract, or bounce off of the particles and go off course. Neutrinos do not interact with normal matter. How do they naturally spread out?

Again, there is no control to rule out spreading of the beam, or what constitutes "high" or "low" energy. It is an unreliable guessing game.

Yes there is, neutrinos have been studied before this, and have been shown to not interact with normal matter. Now they are taking these studies to longer distances. There are two detectors, the close detector and far detector. The close detector can detect any neutrino emissions that left the "gun" if you will. It detects all of the different energy levels (or, ones moving in different directions and speeds). The far detector is far enough away that anything going off angle is not detected, the ones with the energy level of the ones that were going straight are detected. The near detector is the control. This shows us that the neutrinos are in fact moving straight and not deviating from their course.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: FlatulencE Theory on November 30, 2012, 08:13:14 AM
Tom, you're grasping at straws here. ThinkingMan's cue ball analogy is accurate because to even produce neutrinos, you must collide certain elements together. Neutrinos are produced and fly away at many different angles when this happens.

In this way, you are sorta correct. The neutrinos do naturally spread out, but not AFTER leaving the "gun." The spread is a natural result of their creation, and happens BEFORE they leave the "gun."

We can set up detectors at different angles from the "gun" and measure the energy of the neutrinos. When we set up a detector along the firing axis of the "gun" the energy of the detected neutrinos is much higher than the ones we detected off-axis because more of the initial energy is transferred.

These experiments remain the definitive proof of a RE. This was not their intention in conducting these experiments.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: Kendrick on November 30, 2012, 08:54:08 AM
See my first post in this thread:

From what I've seen, these neutrinos were shot into the ground a couple degrees below the horizon line to their destination, cutting a slight sliver through the globe earth.

How do we know that the neutrinos didn't spread out from their origin, much like how the beam of a laser pointer spreads when shot over a long distance?

If you've ever seen the dot of a laser pointer 1000+ feet away, it's a huge faded red dot which could easily illuminate the side of a house. The beams of a laser pointer don't travel in exact straight lines, but gradually spread out as they proceed.

If the neutrinos were spreading out, as they easily could and probably would, it's not at all conclusive that they were traveling into the earth.

In this experiment the nutrinos are only cutting through a few degrees of the earth's surface. Where was beam spread ruled out?

That post and the following were also answered. The neutrinos that were traveling straight on had a higher energy that was measured right after they were "shot." The neutrinos that came out at another angle had lower energy.

How do they know that neutrinos with a deviation of 2 degrees don't have "high energy" and that anything beyond that had "low energy"? What controls are used?

This is a very unreliable experiment.

Think of it like a pool table. To create the neutrinos, there has to be high energy particle collisions. So if you try and imagine a pool table where the cue ball is at one end, and then the others are lined up across the table, block the other end. The cue ball is shot at the "wall" of pool balls. The ones that are moving in a more direct path relative to the direction the cue ball struck them at will move faster (aka, higher energy). This is what is meant by higher energy. If two objects of the same mass (neutrinos) are moving, and one is moving faster, than that one has higher kinetic energy, hence higher energy.

When the cue ball hits a pool ball straight on, you'll notice that it stops, and all of it's kinetic energy has been transferred into the ball it struck, and that ball continues at practically the same rate of speed that the cue ball was moving. This is the highest energy that the pool ball can obtain. If the cue ball strikes at a glancing blow, it will continue moving, only slower, and at an odd angle, and the pool ball will also move at a mirrored angle, and slower speed. The same thing happens in particle collisions (well, any collision really). The neutrinos that are not moving straight on from the initial trajectory have been given a "glancing blow" and are moving slower, not the highest energy. The ones that are moving straight on have had a "direct hit," and are moving faster, therefore termed as the "highest energy" neutrinos for the experiment. This is how conservation of momentum works.

I can hit a pool ball 2 degrees off it's center with nearly the same amount of kenetic force as 0 degrees off center. It's only when you hit it at angles beyond 45 degrees off center that you "sideswipe" it.

But aside from you being wrong, my argument is that the beams are naturally spreading out after they leave the device, not that they are hitting anything to become spread out.

Again, there is no control to rule out spreading of the beam, or what constitutes "high" or "low" energy. It is an unreliable guessing game.

ERTW linked a whole slew of pertinant documentation in response to this same request earlier in this thread:

I don't see any control experiments for those assumptions. I just see figures and nothing to back it up.

How would a neutrino decrease or increase its energy coming in at a slightly different angle?  ???
The INGRID detector is directly on axis with the beam, and as expected it observes less events at angles further off axis. As for the figures graphing neutrino energy spectrum vs angle, they are produced from direct observation near the source. Each of the several dozen neutrino experiments listed earlier was and is interested in this energy spectrum, and hence the measurement has been verified many times. I found several papers relevant to the prediction and measurement of the neutrino energy spectrum, however I need some time to understand it better myself before I can explain it.

Contains a mathematical derivation of part of the energy spectra relationship:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/l07g4j084555m271/fulltext.pdf (http://www.springerlink.com/content/l07g4j084555m271/fulltext.pdf)

Page 10 contains a measurement of the energy spectrum on axis vs 1 degree off axis.
http://nwg.phy.bnl.gov/~diwan/talks/others/chiaki-BNLUCLA05.pdf (http://nwg.phy.bnl.gov/~diwan/talks/others/chiaki-BNLUCLA05.pdf)

Contains detailed results from the SciBar experiment, which makes a more accurate measurement of the neutrino energy spectrum:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=01589311 (http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=01589311)

Contains a derivation and observations of neutrino energy spectra emitted from a reletivistic plasma:
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=1983A%26A...125..121G&db_key=AST&page_ind=0&plate_select=NO&data_type=GIF&type=SCREEN_GIF&classic=YES (http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=1983A%26A...125..121G&db_key=AST&page_ind=0&plate_select=NO&data_type=GIF&type=SCREEN_GIF&classic=YES)

If you have too much time on your hands, here is a 268 page PHD thesis on solar neutrino flux measurements:
http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/sno/papers/OrebiGannThesis.pdf (http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/sno/papers/OrebiGannThesis.pdf)

This presentation explains how and why the magnetic horn is used to focus the neutrino beam. Page 27 specifically explains why we would want to measure the beam off axis:
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=31&ved=0CAcQFjAAOB4&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww2.ph.ed.ac.uk%2Fsussp61%2Flectures%2F08_Harris_AcceleratorNeutrinoOscillationPhysics%2FHarris_lecture1.ppt&rct=j&q=neutrino+energy+spectrum+vs+angle&ei=GWhnS7rqPJSusgOI3ID0BA&usg=AFQjCNHrtunWfjRVL_f2wvYBqg8hP_TCzg&sig2=Q7DdIUW2HhTJS76WhrcNVw (http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=31&ved=0CAcQFjAAOB4&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww2.ph.ed.ac.uk%2Fsussp61%2Flectures%2F08_Harris_AcceleratorNeutrinoOscillationPhysics%2FHarris_lecture1.ppt&rct=j&q=neutrino+energy+spectrum+vs+angle&ei=GWhnS7rqPJSusgOI3ID0BA&usg=AFQjCNHrtunWfjRVL_f2wvYBqg8hP_TCzg&sig2=Q7DdIUW2HhTJS76WhrcNVw)

Enjoy.

I'm still trying to go through it all - its there if you want to attempt it but it may be above our pay grade.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: Zurian on November 30, 2012, 10:53:40 AM
It would be an attempt to convince FErs. A poor attempt, but still an attempt.
It could also be to affirm the beliefs of RErs and prevent them from listening to us.

You realize that FErs are such a small number that no one beyond these forums really care about your opinion and would have no need to even try to convince anyone that the world is round, right?

There is concrete evidence the world is round.
Science backs it up, here's a simple example of proof the earth can be round: The Cavendish Experiment.
Grab a telescope and look at other planets and you can see they are round too.
There are thousands of pictures and videos of the round earth itself.

This is the "evidence" of a flat earth.
"Conspiracy!"



You make a claim, now back it up.
1. The Cavendish Experiment, according to Encyclopedia Britannica, was done to measure the gravitational constant. It was done under the assumption of gravity. I fail to see how this proves gravity or a round Earth.
2. The fact that celestial bodies are round doesn't prove that the Earth is round. What's your point here? You're comparing apples to sliced cucumber.
3. Photoshop and studios.

Question: All celestial bodies we've observed from earth that are close in mass to our own are oblate spheroids. What would make you think that earth is any different? If you observe a pattern enough times, isn't it safe to assume the pattern will continue to apply?
No, of course not. Planets are rocks and they are round. Does that mean all rocks are round? No, you can find flat rocks on Earth.

Planets are rocks WITH A DIAMETER GREATER THAN 300-350km- and no, i've never seen a rock that large that wasn't round.
Okay, now let's take the example of trees. Where I live, there are mostly fir trees, with branches coming out from the bottom of the tree to the top of the tree. I have never seen any trees different then these, so, in your eyes, all trees having branches coming out from the bottom all the way up to the top.

By now you've probably realized that not all trees are like that. There is such a thing a a palm tree, which only has branches at the top. Therefore, even though I could only see the first kind of tree, others still exist. In the same way even though we can only see round planets, doesn't mean a flat one is impossible.

Besides, the Earth isn't a celestial body or a planet, so you're really comparing fir trees to cows.

Trees have different general appearances, some may be taller, have branches in different places etc. However, the important fact of the matter is that they are all perennial woody plants with a trunk taller than 2 metres. Celestial bodies all have their differences, but they all (above a certain size) are oblate spheroids- one of their defining characteristics. As for your statement, a celestial object is merely an object naturally created which is located in the vacuum of space, therefore, even a flat-earth fits the definition (though not sensibly).
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: Science on November 30, 2012, 12:43:39 PM
It would be an attempt to convince FErs. A poor attempt, but still an attempt.
It could also be to affirm the beliefs of RErs and prevent them from listening to us.

You realize that FErs are such a small number that no one beyond these forums really care about your opinion and would have no need to even try to convince anyone that the world is round, right?

There is concrete evidence the world is round.
Science backs it up, here's a simple example of proof the earth can be round: The Cavendish Experiment.
Grab a telescope and look at other planets and you can see they are round too.
There are thousands of pictures and videos of the round earth itself.

This is the "evidence" of a flat earth.
"Conspiracy!"



You make a claim, now back it up.
1. The Cavendish Experiment, according to Encyclopedia Britannica, was done to measure the gravitational constant. It was done under the assumption of gravity. I fail to see how this proves gravity or a round Earth.
2. The fact that celestial bodies are round doesn't prove that the Earth is round. What's your point here? You're comparing apples to sliced cucumber.
3. Photoshop and studios.

Question: All celestial bodies we've observed from earth that are close in mass to our own are oblate spheroids. What would make you think that earth is any different? If you observe a pattern enough times, isn't it safe to assume the pattern will continue to apply?
No, of course not. Planets are rocks and they are round. Does that mean all rocks are round? No, you can find flat rocks on Earth.

Planets are rocks WITH A DIAMETER GREATER THAN 300-350km- and no, i've never seen a rock that large that wasn't round.
Okay, now let's take the example of trees. Where I live, there are mostly fir trees, with branches coming out from the bottom of the tree to the top of the tree. I have never seen any trees different then these, so, in your eyes, all trees having branches coming out from the bottom all the way up to the top.

By now you've probably realized that not all trees are like that. There is such a thing a a palm tree, which only has branches at the top. Therefore, even though I could only see the first kind of tree, others still exist. In the same way even though we can only see round planets, doesn't mean a flat one is impossible.

Besides, the Earth isn't a celestial body or a planet, so you're really comparing fir trees to cows.

Trees have different general appearances, some may be taller, have branches in different places etc. However, the important fact of the matter is that they are all perennial woody plants with a trunk taller than 2 metres. Celestial bodies all have their differences, but they all (above a certain size) are oblate spheroids- one of their defining characteristics. As for your statement, a celestial object is merely an object naturally created which is located in the vacuum of space, therefore, even a flat-earth fits the definition (though not sensibly).

Above a certain size? So even trees have more consistency than celestial objects? http://www.tytyga.com/Pygmy-Date-Palm-p/pygmy-date-palm-tree.htm (http://www.tytyga.com/Pygmy-Date-Palm-p/pygmy-date-palm-tree.htm)
Also, what about nebulae? Are they not large enough to condense into spheres?

The Earth is not located in the "vacuum of space." Space is merely anything that is not within Earth's atmolayer. This does not include the Moon, though it does include the Sun and stars. The Earth is an infinite plane, with the Ice Wall extending indefinitely, is quite unique in that it supports life and is not round. If you are going to ask me HOW this infinite plane came into existence, I do not know, but this is irrelevant to the discussion of whether it exists.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: ThinkingMan on November 30, 2012, 12:46:16 PM
It would be an attempt to convince FErs. A poor attempt, but still an attempt.
It could also be to affirm the beliefs of RErs and prevent them from listening to us.

You realize that FErs are such a small number that no one beyond these forums really care about your opinion and would have no need to even try to convince anyone that the world is round, right?

There is concrete evidence the world is round.
Science backs it up, here's a simple example of proof the earth can be round: The Cavendish Experiment.
Grab a telescope and look at other planets and you can see they are round too.
There are thousands of pictures and videos of the round earth itself.

This is the "evidence" of a flat earth.
"Conspiracy!"



You make a claim, now back it up.
1. The Cavendish Experiment, according to Encyclopedia Britannica, was done to measure the gravitational constant. It was done under the assumption of gravity. I fail to see how this proves gravity or a round Earth.
2. The fact that celestial bodies are round doesn't prove that the Earth is round. What's your point here? You're comparing apples to sliced cucumber.
3. Photoshop and studios.

Question: All celestial bodies we've observed from earth that are close in mass to our own are oblate spheroids. What would make you think that earth is any different? If you observe a pattern enough times, isn't it safe to assume the pattern will continue to apply?
No, of course not. Planets are rocks and they are round. Does that mean all rocks are round? No, you can find flat rocks on Earth.

Planets are rocks WITH A DIAMETER GREATER THAN 300-350km- and no, i've never seen a rock that large that wasn't round.
Okay, now let's take the example of trees. Where I live, there are mostly fir trees, with branches coming out from the bottom of the tree to the top of the tree. I have never seen any trees different then these, so, in your eyes, all trees having branches coming out from the bottom all the way up to the top.

By now you've probably realized that not all trees are like that. There is such a thing a a palm tree, which only has branches at the top. Therefore, even though I could only see the first kind of tree, others still exist. In the same way even though we can only see round planets, doesn't mean a flat one is impossible.

Besides, the Earth isn't a celestial body or a planet, so you're really comparing fir trees to cows.

Trees have different general appearances, some may be taller, have branches in different places etc. However, the important fact of the matter is that they are all perennial woody plants with a trunk taller than 2 metres. Celestial bodies all have their differences, but they all (above a certain size) are oblate spheroids- one of their defining characteristics. As for your statement, a celestial object is merely an object naturally created which is located in the vacuum of space, therefore, even a flat-earth fits the definition (though not sensibly).

Above a certain size? So even trees have more consistency than celestial objects? http://www.tytyga.com/Pygmy-Date-Palm-p/pygmy-date-palm-tree.htm (http://www.tytyga.com/Pygmy-Date-Palm-p/pygmy-date-palm-tree.htm)
Also, what about nebulae? Are they not large enough to condense into spheres?

The Earth is not located in the "vacuum of space." Space is merely anything that is not within Earth's atmolayer. This does not include the Moon, though it does include the Sun and stars. The Earth is an infinite plane, with the Ice Wall extending indefinitely, is quite unique in that it supports life and is not round. If you are going to ask me HOW this infinite plane came into existence, I do not know, but this is irrelevant to the discussion of whether it exists.

This is hardly the topic to discuss this. I believe the title is "Beam Neutrinos," not "Planetary Formation."
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: Zurian on November 30, 2012, 01:37:04 PM
It would be an attempt to convince FErs. A poor attempt, but still an attempt.
It could also be to affirm the beliefs of RErs and prevent them from listening to us.

You realize that FErs are such a small number that no one beyond these forums really care about your opinion and would have no need to even try to convince anyone that the world is round, right?

There is concrete evidence the world is round.
Science backs it up, here's a simple example of proof the earth can be round: The Cavendish Experiment.
Grab a telescope and look at other planets and you can see they are round too.
There are thousands of pictures and videos of the round earth itself.

This is the "evidence" of a flat earth.
"Conspiracy!"



You make a claim, now back it up.
1. The Cavendish Experiment, according to Encyclopedia Britannica, was done to measure the gravitational constant. It was done under the assumption of gravity. I fail to see how this proves gravity or a round Earth.
2. The fact that celestial bodies are round doesn't prove that the Earth is round. What's your point here? You're comparing apples to sliced cucumber.
3. Photoshop and studios.

Question: All celestial bodies we've observed from earth that are close in mass to our own are oblate spheroids. What would make you think that earth is any different? If you observe a pattern enough times, isn't it safe to assume the pattern will continue to apply?
No, of course not. Planets are rocks and they are round. Does that mean all rocks are round? No, you can find flat rocks on Earth.

Planets are rocks WITH A DIAMETER GREATER THAN 300-350km- and no, i've never seen a rock that large that wasn't round.
Okay, now let's take the example of trees. Where I live, there are mostly fir trees, with branches coming out from the bottom of the tree to the top of the tree. I have never seen any trees different then these, so, in your eyes, all trees having branches coming out from the bottom all the way up to the top.

By now you've probably realized that not all trees are like that. There is such a thing a a palm tree, which only has branches at the top. Therefore, even though I could only see the first kind of tree, others still exist. In the same way even though we can only see round planets, doesn't mean a flat one is impossible.

Besides, the Earth isn't a celestial body or a planet, so you're really comparing fir trees to cows.

Trees have different general appearances, some may be taller, have branches in different places etc. However, the important fact of the matter is that they are all perennial woody plants with a trunk taller than 2 metres. Celestial bodies all have their differences, but they all (above a certain size) are oblate spheroids- one of their defining characteristics. As for your statement, a celestial object is merely an object naturally created which is located in the vacuum of space, therefore, even a flat-earth fits the definition (though not sensibly).

Above a certain size? So even trees have more consistency than celestial objects? http://www.tytyga.com/Pygmy-Date-Palm-p/pygmy-date-palm-tree.htm (http://www.tytyga.com/Pygmy-Date-Palm-p/pygmy-date-palm-tree.htm)
Also, what about nebulae? Are they not large enough to condense into spheres?

The Earth is not located in the "vacuum of space." Space is merely anything that is not within Earth's atmolayer. This does not include the Moon, though it does include the Sun and stars. The Earth is an infinite plane, with the Ice Wall extending indefinitely, is quite unique in that it supports life and is not round. If you are going to ask me HOW this infinite plane came into existence, I do not know, but this is irrelevant to the discussion of whether it exists.

As I stated earlier, a plant is not considered a tree unless its height surpasses approximately 2 metres. Also, it is a common misconception that palm "trees" are trees. They are not, as they are a part of the monocotyledoneae family which also includes corn, grass, bamboo, agave, irises, yucca, etc.

Trees do in fact have more consistency than celestial bodies in many aspects such as their: composure, size, location- after all, trees are living organisms, celestial bodies are not. Celestial bodies, however, are very consistent in regards to shape when the average width is greater than 300-350 km. In these cases, they succumb to gravity and are crushed into, more or less, an oblate spheroid. Emission and reflection nebulae succumb to gravity as well, hence stars. Planetary nebula cannot for obvious reasons.

As you wish, I will not ask as how the infinite plane came to be, however, I do wonder how you could believe that some force (which I believe to be gravity) affects all astronomical objects, but does not deform our own, as it is certainly large enough. You can't say gravity does not have an effect on earth, since obviously if you drop something, it falls regardless.

Also, what keeps the Sun and Moon from floating away from its defined path of circulation above the flat earth?

Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: Science on November 30, 2012, 02:02:04 PM
It would be an attempt to convince FErs. A poor attempt, but still an attempt.
It could also be to affirm the beliefs of RErs and prevent them from listening to us.

You realize that FErs are such a small number that no one beyond these forums really care about your opinion and would have no need to even try to convince anyone that the world is round, right?

There is concrete evidence the world is round.
Science backs it up, here's a simple example of proof the earth can be round: The Cavendish Experiment.
Grab a telescope and look at other planets and you can see they are round too.
There are thousands of pictures and videos of the round earth itself.

This is the "evidence" of a flat earth.
"Conspiracy!"



You make a claim, now back it up.
1. The Cavendish Experiment, according to Encyclopedia Britannica, was done to measure the gravitational constant. It was done under the assumption of gravity. I fail to see how this proves gravity or a round Earth.
2. The fact that celestial bodies are round doesn't prove that the Earth is round. What's your point here? You're comparing apples to sliced cucumber.
3. Photoshop and studios.

Question: All celestial bodies we've observed from earth that are close in mass to our own are oblate spheroids. What would make you think that earth is any different? If you observe a pattern enough times, isn't it safe to assume the pattern will continue to apply?
No, of course not. Planets are rocks and they are round. Does that mean all rocks are round? No, you can find flat rocks on Earth.

Planets are rocks WITH A DIAMETER GREATER THAN 300-350km- and no, i've never seen a rock that large that wasn't round.
Okay, now let's take the example of trees. Where I live, there are mostly fir trees, with branches coming out from the bottom of the tree to the top of the tree. I have never seen any trees different then these, so, in your eyes, all trees having branches coming out from the bottom all the way up to the top.

By now you've probably realized that not all trees are like that. There is such a thing a a palm tree, which only has branches at the top. Therefore, even though I could only see the first kind of tree, others still exist. In the same way even though we can only see round planets, doesn't mean a flat one is impossible.

Besides, the Earth isn't a celestial body or a planet, so you're really comparing fir trees to cows.

Trees have different general appearances, some may be taller, have branches in different places etc. However, the important fact of the matter is that they are all perennial woody plants with a trunk taller than 2 metres. Celestial bodies all have their differences, but they all (above a certain size) are oblate spheroids- one of their defining characteristics. As for your statement, a celestial object is merely an object naturally created which is located in the vacuum of space, therefore, even a flat-earth fits the definition (though not sensibly).

Above a certain size? So even trees have more consistency than celestial objects? http://www.tytyga.com/Pygmy-Date-Palm-p/pygmy-date-palm-tree.htm (http://www.tytyga.com/Pygmy-Date-Palm-p/pygmy-date-palm-tree.htm)
Also, what about nebulae? Are they not large enough to condense into spheres?

The Earth is not located in the "vacuum of space." Space is merely anything that is not within Earth's atmolayer. This does not include the Moon, though it does include the Sun and stars. The Earth is an infinite plane, with the Ice Wall extending indefinitely, is quite unique in that it supports life and is not round. If you are going to ask me HOW this infinite plane came into existence, I do not know, but this is irrelevant to the discussion of whether it exists.

As I stated earlier, a plant is not considered a tree unless its height surpasses approximately 2 metres. Also, it is a common misconception that palm "trees" are trees. They are not, as they are a part of the monocotyledoneae family which also includes corn, grass, bamboo, agave, irises, yucca, etc.

Trees do in fact have more consistency than celestial bodies in many aspects such as their: composure, size, location- after all, trees are living organisms, celestial bodies are not. Celestial bodies, however, are very consistent in regards to shape when the average width is greater than 300-350 km. In these cases, they succumb to gravity and are crushed into, more or less, an oblate spheroid. Emission and reflection nebulae succumb to gravity as well, hence stars. Planetary nebula cannot for obvious reasons.

As you wish, I will not ask as how the infinite plane came to be, however, I do wonder how you could believe that some force (which I believe to be gravity) affects all astronomical objects, but does not deform our own, as it is certainly large enough. You can't say gravity does not have an effect on earth, since obviously if you drop something, it falls regardless.

Also, what keeps the Sun and Moon from floating away from its defined path of circulation above the flat earth?
You cannot bend the edges of an infinite plane, as it has no edges. Additionally, gravity does not exist to begin with. Look up "Universal Acceleration" on the wiki. I fail to understand what you're saying about "some force" that  "affects all astronomical objects." Why must it be gravity? Once again, gravity is not an astronomical object, so I don't understand why some other force, completely unrelated to gravity or UA, could be causing the celestial objects to be round, and simply not be able to cause the Earth to be round, or effect it in some way.
To propose a question for you: How do you bend that which has no beginning and no end (the infinite plane)?
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: Zurian on November 30, 2012, 02:34:58 PM
It would be an attempt to convince FErs. A poor attempt, but still an attempt.
It could also be to affirm the beliefs of RErs and prevent them from listening to us.

You realize that FErs are such a small number that no one beyond these forums really care about your opinion and would have no need to even try to convince anyone that the world is round, right?

There is concrete evidence the world is round.
Science backs it up, here's a simple example of proof the earth can be round: The Cavendish Experiment.
Grab a telescope and look at other planets and you can see they are round too.
There are thousands of pictures and videos of the round earth itself.

This is the "evidence" of a flat earth.
"Conspiracy!"



You make a claim, now back it up.
1. The Cavendish Experiment, according to Encyclopedia Britannica, was done to measure the gravitational constant. It was done under the assumption of gravity. I fail to see how this proves gravity or a round Earth.
2. The fact that celestial bodies are round doesn't prove that the Earth is round. What's your point here? You're comparing apples to sliced cucumber.
3. Photoshop and studios.

Question: All celestial bodies we've observed from earth that are close in mass to our own are oblate spheroids. What would make you think that earth is any different? If you observe a pattern enough times, isn't it safe to assume the pattern will continue to apply?
No, of course not. Planets are rocks and they are round. Does that mean all rocks are round? No, you can find flat rocks on Earth.

Planets are rocks WITH A DIAMETER GREATER THAN 300-350km- and no, i've never seen a rock that large that wasn't round.
Okay, now let's take the example of trees. Where I live, there are mostly fir trees, with branches coming out from the bottom of the tree to the top of the tree. I have never seen any trees different then these, so, in your eyes, all trees having branches coming out from the bottom all the way up to the top.

By now you've probably realized that not all trees are like that. There is such a thing a a palm tree, which only has branches at the top. Therefore, even though I could only see the first kind of tree, others still exist. In the same way even though we can only see round planets, doesn't mean a flat one is impossible.

Besides, the Earth isn't a celestial body or a planet, so you're really comparing fir trees to cows.

Trees have different general appearances, some may be taller, have branches in different places etc. However, the important fact of the matter is that they are all perennial woody plants with a trunk taller than 2 metres. Celestial bodies all have their differences, but they all (above a certain size) are oblate spheroids- one of their defining characteristics. As for your statement, a celestial object is merely an object naturally created which is located in the vacuum of space, therefore, even a flat-earth fits the definition (though not sensibly).

Above a certain size? So even trees have more consistency than celestial objects? http://www.tytyga.com/Pygmy-Date-Palm-p/pygmy-date-palm-tree.htm (http://www.tytyga.com/Pygmy-Date-Palm-p/pygmy-date-palm-tree.htm)
Also, what about nebulae? Are they not large enough to condense into spheres?

The Earth is not located in the "vacuum of space." Space is merely anything that is not within Earth's atmolayer. This does not include the Moon, though it does include the Sun and stars. The Earth is an infinite plane, with the Ice Wall extending indefinitely, is quite unique in that it supports life and is not round. If you are going to ask me HOW this infinite plane came into existence, I do not know, but this is irrelevant to the discussion of whether it exists.

As I stated earlier, a plant is not considered a tree unless its height surpasses approximately 2 metres. Also, it is a common misconception that palm "trees" are trees. They are not, as they are a part of the monocotyledoneae family which also includes corn, grass, bamboo, agave, irises, yucca, etc.

Trees do in fact have more consistency than celestial bodies in many aspects such as their: composure, size, location- after all, trees are living organisms, celestial bodies are not. Celestial bodies, however, are very consistent in regards to shape when the average width is greater than 300-350 km. In these cases, they succumb to gravity and are crushed into, more or less, an oblate spheroid. Emission and reflection nebulae succumb to gravity as well, hence stars. Planetary nebula cannot for obvious reasons.

As you wish, I will not ask as how the infinite plane came to be, however, I do wonder how you could believe that some force (which I believe to be gravity) affects all astronomical objects, but does not deform our own, as it is certainly large enough. You can't say gravity does not have an effect on earth, since obviously if you drop something, it falls regardless.

Also, what keeps the Sun and Moon from floating away from its defined path of circulation above the flat earth?
You cannot bend the edges of an infinite plane, as it has no edges. Additionally, gravity does not exist to begin with. Look up "Universal Acceleration" on the wiki. I fail to understand what you're saying about "some force" that  "affects all astronomical objects." Why must it be gravity? Once again, gravity is not an astronomical object, so I don't understand why some other force, completely unrelated to gravity or UA, could be causing the celestial objects to be round, and simply not be able to cause the Earth to be round, or effect it in some way.
To propose a question for you: How do you bend that which has no beginning and no end (the infinite plane)?

"Once again, gravity is not an astronomical object," -What? who ever said gravity was an astronomical object?...

As for the question regarding the bending of an infinite object, It is impossible, however, the earth is not an infinite plane. Please explain how an infinite plane is possible if the universe is not infinite. An infinite plane would imply that the ice walls extend beyond the edges of the universe, which of course is nonsense. Do not try to argue that the universe is infinite, as that would mean it expanded at an infinite speed at the creation of the universe (greater than c). Please explain to me why special relativity is incorrect.

An infinite plane of ice would also imply infinite matter. How was an infinite amount of matter (and energy) suddenly created?
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: Science on November 30, 2012, 03:47:38 PM
It would be an attempt to convince FErs. A poor attempt, but still an attempt.
It could also be to affirm the beliefs of RErs and prevent them from listening to us.

You realize that FErs are such a small number that no one beyond these forums really care about your opinion and would have no need to even try to convince anyone that the world is round, right?

There is concrete evidence the world is round.
Science backs it up, here's a simple example of proof the earth can be round: The Cavendish Experiment.
Grab a telescope and look at other planets and you can see they are round too.
There are thousands of pictures and videos of the round earth itself.

This is the "evidence" of a flat earth.
"Conspiracy!"



You make a claim, now back it up.
1. The Cavendish Experiment, according to Encyclopedia Britannica, was done to measure the gravitational constant. It was done under the assumption of gravity. I fail to see how this proves gravity or a round Earth.
2. The fact that celestial bodies are round doesn't prove that the Earth is round. What's your point here? You're comparing apples to sliced cucumber.
3. Photoshop and studios.

Question: All celestial bodies we've observed from earth that are close in mass to our own are oblate spheroids. What would make you think that earth is any different? If you observe a pattern enough times, isn't it safe to assume the pattern will continue to apply?
No, of course not. Planets are rocks and they are round. Does that mean all rocks are round? No, you can find flat rocks on Earth.

Planets are rocks WITH A DIAMETER GREATER THAN 300-350km- and no, i've never seen a rock that large that wasn't round.
Okay, now let's take the example of trees. Where I live, there are mostly fir trees, with branches coming out from the bottom of the tree to the top of the tree. I have never seen any trees different then these, so, in your eyes, all trees having branches coming out from the bottom all the way up to the top.

By now you've probably realized that not all trees are like that. There is such a thing a a palm tree, which only has branches at the top. Therefore, even though I could only see the first kind of tree, others still exist. In the same way even though we can only see round planets, doesn't mean a flat one is impossible.

Besides, the Earth isn't a celestial body or a planet, so you're really comparing fir trees to cows.

Trees have different general appearances, some may be taller, have branches in different places etc. However, the important fact of the matter is that they are all perennial woody plants with a trunk taller than 2 metres. Celestial bodies all have their differences, but they all (above a certain size) are oblate spheroids- one of their defining characteristics. As for your statement, a celestial object is merely an object naturally created which is located in the vacuum of space, therefore, even a flat-earth fits the definition (though not sensibly).

Above a certain size? So even trees have more consistency than celestial objects? http://www.tytyga.com/Pygmy-Date-Palm-p/pygmy-date-palm-tree.htm (http://www.tytyga.com/Pygmy-Date-Palm-p/pygmy-date-palm-tree.htm)
Also, what about nebulae? Are they not large enough to condense into spheres?

The Earth is not located in the "vacuum of space." Space is merely anything that is not within Earth's atmolayer. This does not include the Moon, though it does include the Sun and stars. The Earth is an infinite plane, with the Ice Wall extending indefinitely, is quite unique in that it supports life and is not round. If you are going to ask me HOW this infinite plane came into existence, I do not know, but this is irrelevant to the discussion of whether it exists.

As I stated earlier, a plant is not considered a tree unless its height surpasses approximately 2 metres. Also, it is a common misconception that palm "trees" are trees. They are not, as they are a part of the monocotyledoneae family which also includes corn, grass, bamboo, agave, irises, yucca, etc.

Trees do in fact have more consistency than celestial bodies in many aspects such as their: composure, size, location- after all, trees are living organisms, celestial bodies are not. Celestial bodies, however, are very consistent in regards to shape when the average width is greater than 300-350 km. In these cases, they succumb to gravity and are crushed into, more or less, an oblate spheroid. Emission and reflection nebulae succumb to gravity as well, hence stars. Planetary nebula cannot for obvious reasons.

As you wish, I will not ask as how the infinite plane came to be, however, I do wonder how you could believe that some force (which I believe to be gravity) affects all astronomical objects, but does not deform our own, as it is certainly large enough. You can't say gravity does not have an effect on earth, since obviously if you drop something, it falls regardless.

Also, what keeps the Sun and Moon from floating away from its defined path of circulation above the flat earth?
You cannot bend the edges of an infinite plane, as it has no edges. Additionally, gravity does not exist to begin with. Look up "Universal Acceleration" on the wiki. I fail to understand what you're saying about "some force" that  "affects all astronomical objects." Why must it be gravity? Once again, gravity is not an astronomical object, so I don't understand why some other force, completely unrelated to gravity or UA, could be causing the celestial objects to be round, and simply not be able to cause the Earth to be round, or effect it in some way.
To propose a question for you: How do you bend that which has no beginning and no end (the infinite plane)?

"Once again, gravity is not an astronomical object," -What? who ever said gravity was an astronomical object?...

As for the question regarding the bending of an infinite object, It is impossible, however, the earth is not an infinite plane. Please explain how an infinite plane is possible if the universe is not infinite. An infinite plane would imply that the ice walls extend beyond the edges of the universe, which of course is nonsense. Do not try to argue that the universe is infinite, as that would mean it expanded at an infinite speed at the creation of the universe (greater than c). Please explain to me why special relativity is incorrect.

An infinite plane of ice would also imply infinite matter. How was an infinite amount of matter (and energy) suddenly created?

Oops, I meant the Earth there, not gravity. It was a typo.

Once again, how it came to be is irrelevant. The only thing that currently matters is what IS.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: Zurian on November 30, 2012, 04:31:36 PM
It would be an attempt to convince FErs. A poor attempt, but still an attempt.
It could also be to affirm the beliefs of RErs and prevent them from listening to us.

You realize that FErs are such a small number that no one beyond these forums really care about your opinion and would have no need to even try to convince anyone that the world is round, right?

There is concrete evidence the world is round.
Science backs it up, here's a simple example of proof the earth can be round: The Cavendish Experiment.
Grab a telescope and look at other planets and you can see they are round too.
There are thousands of pictures and videos of the round earth itself.

This is the "evidence" of a flat earth.
"Conspiracy!"



You make a claim, now back it up.
1. The Cavendish Experiment, according to Encyclopedia Britannica, was done to measure the gravitational constant. It was done under the assumption of gravity. I fail to see how this proves gravity or a round Earth.
2. The fact that celestial bodies are round doesn't prove that the Earth is round. What's your point here? You're comparing apples to sliced cucumber.
3. Photoshop and studios.

Question: All celestial bodies we've observed from earth that are close in mass to our own are oblate spheroids. What would make you think that earth is any different? If you observe a pattern enough times, isn't it safe to assume the pattern will continue to apply?
No, of course not. Planets are rocks and they are round. Does that mean all rocks are round? No, you can find flat rocks on Earth.

Planets are rocks WITH A DIAMETER GREATER THAN 300-350km- and no, i've never seen a rock that large that wasn't round.
Okay, now let's take the example of trees. Where I live, there are mostly fir trees, with branches coming out from the bottom of the tree to the top of the tree. I have never seen any trees different then these, so, in your eyes, all trees having branches coming out from the bottom all the way up to the top.

By now you've probably realized that not all trees are like that. There is such a thing a a palm tree, which only has branches at the top. Therefore, even though I could only see the first kind of tree, others still exist. In the same way even though we can only see round planets, doesn't mean a flat one is impossible.

Besides, the Earth isn't a celestial body or a planet, so you're really comparing fir trees to cows.

Trees have different general appearances, some may be taller, have branches in different places etc. However, the important fact of the matter is that they are all perennial woody plants with a trunk taller than 2 metres. Celestial bodies all have their differences, but they all (above a certain size) are oblate spheroids- one of their defining characteristics. As for your statement, a celestial object is merely an object naturally created which is located in the vacuum of space, therefore, even a flat-earth fits the definition (though not sensibly).

Above a certain size? So even trees have more consistency than celestial objects? http://www.tytyga.com/Pygmy-Date-Palm-p/pygmy-date-palm-tree.htm (http://www.tytyga.com/Pygmy-Date-Palm-p/pygmy-date-palm-tree.htm)
Also, what about nebulae? Are they not large enough to condense into spheres?

The Earth is not located in the "vacuum of space." Space is merely anything that is not within Earth's atmolayer. This does not include the Moon, though it does include the Sun and stars. The Earth is an infinite plane, with the Ice Wall extending indefinitely, is quite unique in that it supports life and is not round. If you are going to ask me HOW this infinite plane came into existence, I do not know, but this is irrelevant to the discussion of whether it exists.

As I stated earlier, a plant is not considered a tree unless its height surpasses approximately 2 metres. Also, it is a common misconception that palm "trees" are trees. They are not, as they are a part of the monocotyledoneae family which also includes corn, grass, bamboo, agave, irises, yucca, etc.

Trees do in fact have more consistency than celestial bodies in many aspects such as their: composure, size, location- after all, trees are living organisms, celestial bodies are not. Celestial bodies, however, are very consistent in regards to shape when the average width is greater than 300-350 km. In these cases, they succumb to gravity and are crushed into, more or less, an oblate spheroid. Emission and reflection nebulae succumb to gravity as well, hence stars. Planetary nebula cannot for obvious reasons.

As you wish, I will not ask as how the infinite plane came to be, however, I do wonder how you could believe that some force (which I believe to be gravity) affects all astronomical objects, but does not deform our own, as it is certainly large enough. You can't say gravity does not have an effect on earth, since obviously if you drop something, it falls regardless.

Also, what keeps the Sun and Moon from floating away from its defined path of circulation above the flat earth?
You cannot bend the edges of an infinite plane, as it has no edges. Additionally, gravity does not exist to begin with. Look up "Universal Acceleration" on the wiki. I fail to understand what you're saying about "some force" that  "affects all astronomical objects." Why must it be gravity? Once again, gravity is not an astronomical object, so I don't understand why some other force, completely unrelated to gravity or UA, could be causing the celestial objects to be round, and simply not be able to cause the Earth to be round, or effect it in some way.
To propose a question for you: How do you bend that which has no beginning and no end (the infinite plane)?

"Once again, gravity is not an astronomical object," -What? who ever said gravity was an astronomical object?...

As for the question regarding the bending of an infinite object, It is impossible, however, the earth is not an infinite plane. Please explain how an infinite plane is possible if the universe is not infinite. An infinite plane would imply that the ice walls extend beyond the edges of the universe, which of course is nonsense. Do not try to argue that the universe is infinite, as that would mean it expanded at an infinite speed at the creation of the universe (greater than c). Please explain to me why special relativity is incorrect.

An infinite plane of ice would also imply infinite matter. How was an infinite amount of matter (and energy) suddenly created?

Oops, I meant the Earth there, not gravity. It was a typo.

Once again, how it came to be is irrelevant. The only thing that currently matters is what IS.

Sometimes you must use the past to (dis)prove the present. All I'm asking, is how can you fit an object with infinite size in a space which is finite?
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: Science on November 30, 2012, 04:41:04 PM
It would be an attempt to convince FErs. A poor attempt, but still an attempt.
It could also be to affirm the beliefs of RErs and prevent them from listening to us.

You realize that FErs are such a small number that no one beyond these forums really care about your opinion and would have no need to even try to convince anyone that the world is round, right?

There is concrete evidence the world is round.
Science backs it up, here's a simple example of proof the earth can be round: The Cavendish Experiment.
Grab a telescope and look at other planets and you can see they are round too.
There are thousands of pictures and videos of the round earth itself.

This is the "evidence" of a flat earth.
"Conspiracy!"



You make a claim, now back it up.
1. The Cavendish Experiment, according to Encyclopedia Britannica, was done to measure the gravitational constant. It was done under the assumption of gravity. I fail to see how this proves gravity or a round Earth.
2. The fact that celestial bodies are round doesn't prove that the Earth is round. What's your point here? You're comparing apples to sliced cucumber.
3. Photoshop and studios.

Question: All celestial bodies we've observed from earth that are close in mass to our own are oblate spheroids. What would make you think that earth is any different? If you observe a pattern enough times, isn't it safe to assume the pattern will continue to apply?
No, of course not. Planets are rocks and they are round. Does that mean all rocks are round? No, you can find flat rocks on Earth.

Planets are rocks WITH A DIAMETER GREATER THAN 300-350km- and no, i've never seen a rock that large that wasn't round.
Okay, now let's take the example of trees. Where I live, there are mostly fir trees, with branches coming out from the bottom of the tree to the top of the tree. I have never seen any trees different then these, so, in your eyes, all trees having branches coming out from the bottom all the way up to the top.

By now you've probably realized that not all trees are like that. There is such a thing a a palm tree, which only has branches at the top. Therefore, even though I could only see the first kind of tree, others still exist. In the same way even though we can only see round planets, doesn't mean a flat one is impossible.

Besides, the Earth isn't a celestial body or a planet, so you're really comparing fir trees to cows.

Trees have different general appearances, some may be taller, have branches in different places etc. However, the important fact of the matter is that they are all perennial woody plants with a trunk taller than 2 metres. Celestial bodies all have their differences, but they all (above a certain size) are oblate spheroids- one of their defining characteristics. As for your statement, a celestial object is merely an object naturally created which is located in the vacuum of space, therefore, even a flat-earth fits the definition (though not sensibly).

Above a certain size? So even trees have more consistency than celestial objects? http://www.tytyga.com/Pygmy-Date-Palm-p/pygmy-date-palm-tree.htm (http://www.tytyga.com/Pygmy-Date-Palm-p/pygmy-date-palm-tree.htm)
Also, what about nebulae? Are they not large enough to condense into spheres?

The Earth is not located in the "vacuum of space." Space is merely anything that is not within Earth's atmolayer. This does not include the Moon, though it does include the Sun and stars. The Earth is an infinite plane, with the Ice Wall extending indefinitely, is quite unique in that it supports life and is not round. If you are going to ask me HOW this infinite plane came into existence, I do not know, but this is irrelevant to the discussion of whether it exists.

As I stated earlier, a plant is not considered a tree unless its height surpasses approximately 2 metres. Also, it is a common misconception that palm "trees" are trees. They are not, as they are a part of the monocotyledoneae family which also includes corn, grass, bamboo, agave, irises, yucca, etc.

Trees do in fact have more consistency than celestial bodies in many aspects such as their: composure, size, location- after all, trees are living organisms, celestial bodies are not. Celestial bodies, however, are very consistent in regards to shape when the average width is greater than 300-350 km. In these cases, they succumb to gravity and are crushed into, more or less, an oblate spheroid. Emission and reflection nebulae succumb to gravity as well, hence stars. Planetary nebula cannot for obvious reasons.

As you wish, I will not ask as how the infinite plane came to be, however, I do wonder how you could believe that some force (which I believe to be gravity) affects all astronomical objects, but does not deform our own, as it is certainly large enough. You can't say gravity does not have an effect on earth, since obviously if you drop something, it falls regardless.

Also, what keeps the Sun and Moon from floating away from its defined path of circulation above the flat earth?
You cannot bend the edges of an infinite plane, as it has no edges. Additionally, gravity does not exist to begin with. Look up "Universal Acceleration" on the wiki. I fail to understand what you're saying about "some force" that  "affects all astronomical objects." Why must it be gravity? Once again, gravity is not an astronomical object, so I don't understand why some other force, completely unrelated to gravity or UA, could be causing the celestial objects to be round, and simply not be able to cause the Earth to be round, or effect it in some way.
To propose a question for you: How do you bend that which has no beginning and no end (the infinite plane)?

"Once again, gravity is not an astronomical object," -What? who ever said gravity was an astronomical object?...

As for the question regarding the bending of an infinite object, It is impossible, however, the earth is not an infinite plane. Please explain how an infinite plane is possible if the universe is not infinite. An infinite plane would imply that the ice walls extend beyond the edges of the universe, which of course is nonsense. Do not try to argue that the universe is infinite, as that would mean it expanded at an infinite speed at the creation of the universe (greater than c). Please explain to me why special relativity is incorrect.

An infinite plane of ice would also imply infinite matter. How was an infinite amount of matter (and energy) suddenly created?

Oops, I meant the Earth there, not gravity. It was a typo.

Once again, how it came to be is irrelevant. The only thing that currently matters is what IS.

Sometimes you must use the past to (dis)prove the present. All I'm asking, is how can you fit an object with infinite size in a space which is finite?

I didn't say that it could, so I don't understand your point. Space is that which is above and below the Earth, whether or not I subscribe to the model of the universe that is proliferated by institutions like NASA is irrelevant.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: FlatulencE Theory on November 30, 2012, 06:23:57 PM
If you want to discuss how the earth came to be, the shape of celestial objects, and other theories of FE, please start a new thread. This one is about beam neutrinos.

Mods would you please separate this thread?
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: Father Luke Duke on December 01, 2012, 05:06:13 AM
Will you guys learn how to quote properly - stop just quoting the entire post each time - it just makes the thread unreadable.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: Mantaxi on December 01, 2012, 10:15:01 AM
Will you guys learn how to quote properly - stop just quoting the entire post each time - it just makes the thread unreadable.

Speak truth to power.

 Mods, please seperate.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: Zurian on December 01, 2012, 12:55:37 PM
Will you guys learn how to quote properly - stop just quoting the entire post each time - it just makes the thread unreadable.

Speak truth to power.

 Mods, please seperate.

Haha, sorry, I'm sorta new. I'll try to learn how to quote correctly and digress from the topic less.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: bowler on December 02, 2012, 01:50:44 PM
Ok to answer a couple of misconceptions/questions. There is nothing mysterious about neutrinos, they are just another fundamental particle like the electron. What makes them interesting is their lack of electric charge, they only interact via the weak interaction. As a result of which they have a very long mean free path length through matter. The 'mean free path length' is a measure of how far an object is expected to travel through a material. Gamma rays can typically travel up to a metre through lead, depending on their energy. This is why nuclear reactors have a lot of shielding. Neutrinos by contrast have a mean free path of about 10 light years in lead. This means that if our eyes detected neutrinos, not light, then the Earth would be transparent, like glass. The implication of this on this website cannot be understated, given that the sun throws them out (over a billion solar neutrinos are passing through your body at any one time regardless of whether it's day or night).

Beam neutrinos are fired from a particle accelerator and detected some distance later, typically a few hundred to a thousand kilometers. This necessarily required that the Earth is more or less spherical, certainly not flat. One misconception is that the neutrinos spray out at all angles and so we don't necessarily know that the ones we have observed have traveled in a straight line. There is a grain of truth in this, neutrinos are emitted at all angles but their energies are very different. By looking at the range of energies one observes (called the energy spectrum) you can very accurately measure the angle you are at with respect to the accelerator that produced the beam. In some ways this is like looking at light from a prism, by looking at the 'colour' of the neutrinos we can measure the angle.

Solar neutrinos are in some way a better way of finding the shape of the Earth, or at least demonstrating that at times the Sun is 'under' you. Most (all modern) neutrino detectors can not only count neutrinos but re-construct their path. This allows one to track the sun's position day and night (remembering that the Earth is transparent). Superkamiokande has produced a nice series of plots over the years demonstrating this. Though for the purposes of the forum it is sufficient that solar neutrinos come through the floor at night.

Once other thing, while I'm discussing space, I'd never really considered just how tiny the FE cosmos is. High energy particles bombard the Earth's atmosphere constantly, many with energies far beyond even what CERN can create in the LHC. No one has proposed a physical mechanism for this particles that would allow life to exist within many millions of miles, but that's an aside.

Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: ThinkingMan on December 03, 2012, 09:02:11 AM
Thank you for coming back bowler. I was trying to explain this, but I'm no physicist, and I was trying to break it down to layman's terms.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: sandokhan on December 04, 2012, 02:42:27 AM
It is very easy to explain the beam neutrinos subject within the context of the flat earth (the alternative flat earth theory, that is).


The precise proofs re: the existence of the telluric currents (ether):

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1255899.html#msg1255899 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1255899.html#msg1255899)


bowler, read carefully the words of Dr. Henry T. Moray, one of the greatest physicists of the 20th century:

T. Henry Moray:

"I started my experiments with the taking of electricity from the ground, as I termed it, during the summer of 1909. By fall of 1910 I had sufficient power to operate a small electrical device, and I made a demonstration of my idea to two friends... This demonstration in the early stages consisted of operating a miniature arc light... It soon became evident that the energy was not static and that the static of the universe would be of no assistance to me in obtaining the power I was seeking...

During the Christmas Holidays of 1911, I began to fully realize that the energy I was working with was not of a static nature, but of an oscillating nature. Further I realized that the energy was not coming out of the earth, but instead was coming to the earth from some outside source. These electrical oscillations in the form of waves were not simple oscillations, but were surgings --- like the waves of the sea --- coming to the earth continually, more in the daytime than at night, but always coming in vibrations from the reservoir of colossal energy out there in space. By this time I was able to obtain enough power to light the old 16-candlepower carbon lamp for about one half capacity, and I did not seem to make any further improvement until the spring of 1925."

These peculiar waves did not arrive with "clock precision". Just like ocean waves, they arrived in schedules of their own. Dr. Moray was convinced that these were world-permeating waves. He came to believe that they represented the natural "cadence of the universe". This intriguing characteristic suggested that small amounts of pulsating electrostatic charge might be used to induce large oscillations in a large "tank" of charge. The resultant oscillating power would be applied to industrial use.



The waves are the telluric currents, also known as ether.

Their influence on matter is sometimes mistakenly inferred as "neutrinos".


Again, read the following material very carefully: no such thing as neutrinos (in the official definition of currently accepted quantum mechanics) -

The neutrino must exist, Pauli reasoned, because otherwise the atomic process known as beta decay would violate the physical laws of conservation of energy and conservation of angular momentum.

The neutrino, which is a subatomic particle, is described by Hoffmann as 'fluctuating uncertainly between existence and non-existence.' That is to say, in the language of dialectics, 'it is and is not.' How can such a phenomenon be reconciled with the law of identity, which categorically asserts that a thing either is or is not? Faced with such dilemmas, which reappear at every step in the world of subatomic particles described by quantum mechanics, there is frequently a tendency to resort to formulations such as the idea that the neutrino is a particle with neither mass nor charge. The initial opinion, still held by many scientists, was that the neutrino had no mass, and since electric charge cannot exist without mass, the inescapable conclusion was that the neutrino had neither.

Neutrinos are extremely small particles, and therefore difficult to detect. The existence of the neutrino was first postulated to explain a discrepancy in the amount of energy present in particles emitted from the nucleus. A certain amount of energy appeared to be lost, which could not be accounted for. Since the law of the conservation of energy states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, this phenomenon required another explanation. Although it seems that the idealist physicist Niels Bohr was quite prepared to throw the law of conservation of energy overboard in 1930, this proved to be slightly premature! The discrepancy was explained by the discovery of a previously unknown particle—the neutrino.

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'.

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’. Several other scientists have also questioned whether neutrinos really exist.


The neutrino is nothing else than the presence of the telluric currents (rigorously proven to exist, see Dayton Miller's precise experiments)...


The telluric currents have a helical geometrical shape (3D sinusoidal wave), accounting thus for the shape of the particle paths experiments observed at LHC. The entire space around us is filled with these currents, of various amplitudes through which a signal can travel at faster than light speeds.


In my next message, the proof that the signal through a telluric current (this includes "neutrinos") can and does travel faster than the speed of light.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: sandokhan on December 04, 2012, 03:30:12 AM
Furthermore, we have Nikola Tesla's superb experiments with faster than light signals sent through the telluric currents (ether):

The most essential requirement is that irrespective of frequency the wave or wave-train should continue for a certain period of time, which I have estimated to be not less than one-twelfth or probably 0.08484 of a second and which is taken in passing to and returning from the region diametrically opposite the pole over the earth's surface with a mean velocity of about 471,240 kilometers per second [292,822 miles per second, a velocity equal to one and a half times the "official" speed of light].

Tesla Patent/original paper:

http://www.classictesla.com/Patent/us000787412.pdf (http://www.classictesla.com/Patent/us000787412.pdf)



See also:

http://www.rastko.rs/rastko/delo/10868 (http://www.rastko.rs/rastko/delo/10868)

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/tesla/esp_tesla_10.htm (http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/tesla/esp_tesla_10.htm)



TRUE WIRELESS, BY NIKOLA TESLA: explaining the tremendous mistakes committed by H. Hertz:

http://milan.milanovic.org/math/srpski/tesla/tesla3.html (http://milan.milanovic.org/math/srpski/tesla/tesla3.html)


The signal sent through the subquarks which make up a telluric current can and does travel faster than light often; and now we know that these telluric currents are mistakenly inferred to be neutrinos (see my previous message, complete explanation of the beam neutrinos within the FE theory - http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,27426.msg1422469.html#msg1422469 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,27426.msg1422469.html#msg1422469) ).


Detection of subquarks/fractional charge of electrons:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1278981.html#msg1278981 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1278981.html#msg1278981)


The atom consists of subquarks in various geometric arrangements, perfect proof:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1401101.html#msg1401101 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1401101.html#msg1401101)
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: bowler on December 04, 2012, 05:33:58 AM
I'm on my phone so I apologise for typos. Firstly neutrinos do have mass.  This is now and matter of record.  Neutrinos are not hard to detect because they are small they are hard to detect because they don't interact. They would still be hard to detect if they were massive.  I'm not sure what this is and Ian't stuff is about neutrinos are in the same way electrons are.  Their lack of interaction allows one to observe some unusual quantum mechanical properties.  These properties are not unique to the neutrino just their properties lend them to observing such properties. 

I'm not sure that much of the rest of i can give a scientific opinion on.  If there's a particular issue you'd like me to diacuss please present it formally.  I'm a physicist not a philosopher.  Although I'm yet to hear of anything going faster than light.  Other than the phase velocity of a wave.

Also I just realised what is a 'telluric aether' literally is it not a greek-latin portmanteau that essentially means Earths atmosphere or sky?
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: sandokhan on December 05, 2012, 01:05:28 AM
Dr. T. Henry Moray was one of the greatest scientists of the 20th century.

Dr. Thomas Henry Moray, an electrical engineer, began research on aerial static generators in 1910. He succeeded in deriving usable electrical energy from the earth's electrostatic field. Many others had achieved similar results in the century preceding Dr. Moray. Patents of "aerial batteries" fill the archives (Vion, Ward, Dewey, Palenscar, Pennock, Plausen). Their remarkable efficiency required only the establishment of elevated stations in appropriate places, each differing in the actual mode of extracting the atmospheric energies.


During the Christmas Holidays of 1911, I began to fully realize that the energy I was working with was not of a static nature, but of an oscillating nature. Further I realized that the energy was not coming out of the earth, but instead was coming to the earth from some outside source. These electrical oscillations in the form of waves were not simple oscillations, but were surgings --- like the waves of the sea --- coming to the earth continually, more in the daytime than at night, but always coming in vibrations from the reservoir of colossal energy out there in space.


While investigating the output of his device, he discovered a feature of the natural static energy, which had somehow been overlooked by other aerial battery designers. The electrostatic power had a flimmering, pulsating quality to it. He learned of this "static pulsation" while listening through headphones, which were connected to telephone wires. The static came in a single, potent surge. This first "wave" subsided, with numerous "back surges" following. Soon thereafter, the process repeated itself. The static surges came "like ocean waves". Indeed, with the volume of "white noise" which they produced, they sounded like ocean waves!

These peculiar waves did not arrive with "clock precision". Just like ocean waves, they arrived in schedules of their own. Dr. Moray was convinced that these were world-permeating waves. He came to believe that they represented the natural "cadence of the universe". This intriguing characteristic suggested that small amounts of pulsating electrostatic charge might be used to induce large oscillations in a large "tank" of charge.



Nathan Stubblefield and his work on telluric currents:

http://johnbedini.net/john34/stubblefield.html (http://johnbedini.net/john34/stubblefield.html)



Dr. Gustav Le Bon and his work on telluric currents:

Another researcher, a contemporary of Tesla, succeeded in advancing the "external bombardment" theory of radioactivity with new experimental proofs. Dr. Gustav Le Bon, a Belgian physicist, examined and compared ultraviolet rays and radioactive energies with great fascination. Concluding from experiments that energetic bombardments were directly responsible for radioactivity, he was able to perform manipulations of the same. He succeeded in diminishing the radioactive output of certain materials by simple physical treatments. Heating measurably slowed the radioactive decay of radium chloride, a thing considered implausible by physicists.


In each case, Le Bon raised the radium temperature until it glowed red-hot. The same retardation of emanations were observed. He found it possible to isolate the agent, which was actually radioactive in the radium lattice, a glowing gaseous "emanation" which could be condensed in liquid air. Radium was thereafter itself de-natured. Being exposed to the external influence of bombarding rays, the radium again became active. The apparent reactivation of radium after heating required twenty days before reaching its maximum value.

Dr. Le Bon was utterly dumbfounded when forcing theory into fact, other colleagues announced the "immutability of radioactive decay". He also perceived where their erroneous logic would ultimately lead when they cited "internal instability" as the source of radioactivity. Separating themselves once more from the external world of energy, they would lose more than they imagined themselves gaining.


Le Bon disagreed when physicists began isolating the heavy metals as "the only radioactive elements. He had already distinctly demonstrated for them that "all matter was to a degree radioactive". He was first to write books on the conversion of ordinary matter into rays, an activity he claimed was constant. He showed that this flux from ordinary matter could be measured. Le Bon stated that the reason why all matter was spontaneously emanating rays was not because they were contaminated with heavy radioactive elements. Ordinary matter was disintegrating into rays because it was being bombarded by external rays of a peculiar variety.


http://www.rexresearch.com/lebonmat/lebonmat.htm (http://www.rexresearch.com/lebonmat/lebonmat.htm)



The work done by Dr. Dayton Miller on detecting ether (telluric currents):

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,3152.msg1398930.html#msg1398930 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,3152.msg1398930.html#msg1398930)

"The effect [of ether-drift] has persisted throughout. After considering all the possible sources of error, there always remained a positive effect." Dayton Miller (1928, p.399)

http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm (http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm)

Dayton Miller's 1933 paper in Reviews of Modern Physics details the positive results from over 20 years of experimental research into the question of ether-drift, and remains the most definitive body of work on the subject of light-beam interferometry.


 As a graduate of physics from Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society and Acoustical Society of America, Chairman of the Division of Physical Sciences of the National Research Council, Chairman of the Physics Department of Case School of Applied Science (today Case Western Reserve University), and Member of the National Academy of Sciences well known for his work in acoustics, Miller was no "outsider". While he was alive, he produced a series of papers presenting solid data on the existence of a measurable ether-drift, and he successfully defended his findings to not a small number of critics, including Einstein.



Therefore, bowler, you have at your disposal the best and most profound scientific proofs re: the existence of telluric currents (ether).


Please read again:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,27426.msg1422469.html#msg1422469 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,27426.msg1422469.html#msg1422469)


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’.


The neutrino is simply the detected presence of the telluric currents (made up of subquarks, please see my previous message); they travel not in straight lines, but in helical paths of various wavelengths (depends on the strength of the initial energy of the signal how many telluric currents are actually activated). It is claimed here that the Super K detector has a 1000m overburden of rock, and is located under the peak of Mt. Ikeno-yama, which has a height of 1360m above sea level, which leaves some 360 meters to be accounted for (T2K, which shoots neutrinos at a downward angle of about 1 degree from sea level, some 300 km distance). Let us not forget that the Super K detector uses some 11,000 photomultipliers which would activate the aether around the detectors to a high degree, thus constituting a "target" for the telluric currents which pass nearby (at various amplitudes/wavelengths). The initial input of the telluric currents shot at some downward angle is picked up by the currents which travel in helical paths, some of them certainly reaching some 360 meters above ground to reach the activated aether around the 11,000 photomultipliers. The telluric current theory is the most important fact re: the production of "neutrino" beams, which is not taken into account in current quantum physics (unfortunately).

It is the end of discussion here: the proper, correct theory of neutrinos accounts very nicely for a flat surface of the Earth.


A few words about Nikola Tesla.

He was truly the greatest physicist of all time, the inventor of: alternating current electricity, wireless communication, radar, television, radio, robotics, internet, cryogenics.  He discovered and set forth the theory for the first time for: laser beams, fluorescent light, x-ray devices, remote control technology.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/esp_tesla.htm (http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/esp_tesla.htm)

http://www.tfcbooks.com/mainpage/site_map.htm (http://www.tfcbooks.com/mainpage/site_map.htm)

http://www.classictesla.com/Patent/us000787412.pdf (http://www.classictesla.com/Patent/us000787412.pdf) (original patent, published in April 1905)

The most essential requirement is that irrespective of frequency the wave or wave-train should continue for a certain period of time, which I have estimated to be not less than one-twelfth or probably 0.08484 of a second and which is taken in passing to and returning from the region diametrically opposite the pole over the earth's surface with a mean velocity of about 471,240 kilometers per second [292,822 miles per second, a velocity equal to one and a half times the "official" speed of light].


A clear and perfect demonstration by the greatest scientist ever that a signal sent through the telluric currents can and does exceed the speed of light easily.


Here you will find the details about the experiments done by Dr. Nikolai Kozyrev, Dr. Bruce DePalma and other on the dextrorotatory and laevorotatory nature of the telluric currents:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55865.msg1393588.html#msg1393588 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55865.msg1393588.html#msg1393588)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55865.msg1394647.html#msg1394647 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55865.msg1394647.html#msg1394647)
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: FlatulencE Theory on December 05, 2012, 08:38:59 AM
I love how Levee continues to rely on centuries-old science to attempt to disprove modern-day experiments.

Bravo, Levee. I'm sure science will be happy to know that everything we've learned since Tesla doesn't count.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: bowler on December 05, 2012, 12:48:59 PM
T. Henry Moray was, according to wikipedia, an electrical engineer as was Tessla. I know next to nothing about T. Henry Moray, Tessla however was one of the greatest electrical engineers ever. Along, it has to be said, with Edison. What he wasn't was a terribly gifted physicist, the Lorentz was to physics what Tessla was to electrical engineering in my book. While Tessla did talk about physics he never published particularly extensively and his theoretical opinions were never formalized. What ideas he did express were at always at odds with the experimental evidence to hand. His failure to even appreciate the existence of the electron was rather belligerent given that other scientists at the time were measuring it's mass, charge and other properties. This isn't to take away what he achieved much of which was not appreciated until after his death but simply demonstrates that engineering and physics can be much more different disciplines than they appear from the outside, and greats in one are very rarely greats in the other.

Speaking of physics, lets jump in. A telluric current is nothing to do with the aether. A telluric current is simply an electrical current flowing through the Earth due to one of a multitude of phenomena. Certainly has nothing to do with neutrinos so I think we can put that to one side.

Most of what you say about the original motivation for postulating neutrinos is a matter of pubic record. Although the theoretical motivation for the neutrino is perhaps stronger than you have put it. Without it beta decay violates conservation of momentum. Fortunately for Pauli as quantum field theory developed it turned out that the neutrino does interact, just rarely. Technology developed quickly and the particle was discovered in 1956 via their interaction with protons,
v + p = e+ + n.

The development of electroweak theory by Glashow, Weinberg and Salam gave a solid quantum mechanical basis for the neutrino field. The properties of neutrino interactions are very well predicted by theory but quantum field theory is quite happy with a massless neutrino, and the working assumption was that it did have no mass for a while. The theoretical basis for proving that a neutrino has mass was given by Pontecorvo in 1957. Although there was good experimental reasons for think he was right for years the issue wasn't actually put to bed once and for all until 1999. One of the big developments in the 1990s was the ability not just to detect neutrinos but to reconstruct their kinematics. This meant that as opposed to a flash of light we could reconstruct the direction and momentum of the neutrino was good accuracy. For the first time we would absolutely track solar neutrinos by saying 'that come from the sun' as opposed to 'that had an energy consistent with what nuclear physics tells us should come form the sun'. Thankfully due to excellent work from Ray Davis we had phenomenally good predictions of how many neutrinos come from the sun anyway but still it's nice to be able to produce nice pictures. Either way from this we know neutrinos are massive and we are still trying to get the exact masses. Interestingly we know the differences in their mass quite well, just not what the absolute masses are.

Having worked at T2K (and indeed posted here from the site in the small hours) I can assure you that neutrinos do not move in a helical pattern. You do see helical patterns in the LHC from charged particles moving in a magnetic field. As superK has no magnets there is no helical motion. Not that that path of a neutrino would be perturbed by a magnet as the neutrino field does not interact with the photon field.

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0211134 (http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0211134)
Gives a fairly simple overview of the mathematics of what I have been discussing and derives the above statements in detail. For more rigour and a full field theory approach then I recommend Carlo Giunti's tutorials. I have the book so I don't have links to hand but I am happy to provide specific proofs if necessary.
 
Some questions which I have been unable to derive satisfactory answers:
How does a photomultiplier 'activate the aether'?
Using a telluric current how do I create a muon inside a water chamber? I am unable to find a way to produce a muon/nucleon in isolation with only an electric potential?
Many more but the novelty is wearing off
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: Kendrick on December 05, 2012, 01:43:41 PM
Forum user Bowler-

Thank you for your time and effort into attempting to educate us on your point of view.

Its largely over my head, but I can glean enough to not sound like a total miscreant at parties.

Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: sandokhan on December 06, 2012, 12:02:58 AM
You haven't done your homework on Lorentz.

http://www.aquestionoftime.com/lorentz.html (http://www.aquestionoftime.com/lorentz.html)

http://www.aquestionoftime.com/michelson.html (http://www.aquestionoftime.com/michelson.html)


You have not answered anything pertaining to the precise ether (telluric currents) detection performed by Dr. Dayton Miller.

This alone proves that the official dogma/science is ignoring the most important fact re: the beam neutrinos.


A telluric current is not just an electrical current flowing through the Earth: read again the discoveries of Dr. Henry T. Moray.

Or even better read the entire file on telluric currents:

http://johnbedini.net/john34/eternal%20lanterns.htm (http://johnbedini.net/john34/eternal%20lanterns.htm)


You are ignoring the fact that the particles which do make up a telluric current (namely, subquarks) are in fact following a helical path, here is the most precise proof ever (a work copied by Higgs, Gell-Mann and Dirac):

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1401101.html#msg1401101 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1401101.html#msg1401101) (written by none other than Dr. Stephen Phillips of UCLA)


The same subquarks do make up what we currently call a magnetic field: time-lapse photography, helical paths:

http://freeenergycommunity.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/the-secret-world-of-magnets-spintronics-2006-howard-johnson.pdf (http://freeenergycommunity.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/the-secret-world-of-magnets-spintronics-2006-howard-johnson.pdf)


Here is Tesla himself telling you that neutrinos = cosmic rays = telluric currrents:

Brooklyn Eagle July 10, 1932 Nikola Tesla states:

I have harnessed the cosmic rays and caused them to operate a motive device. Cosmic ray investigation is a subject that is very close to me. I was the first to discover these rays and I naturally feel toward them as I would toward my own flesh and blood. I have advanced a theory of the cosmic rays and at every step of my investigations I have found it completely justified. The attractive features of the cosmic rays is their constancy. They shower down on us throughout the whole 24 hours, and if a plant is developed to use their power it will not require devices for storing energy as would be necessary with devices using wind, tide or sunlight. All of my investigations seem to point to the conclusion that they are small particles, each carrying so small a charge that we are justified in calling them neutrons. They move with great velocity, exceeding that of light. More than 25 years ago I began my efforts to harness the cosmic rays and I can now state that I have succeeded in operating a motive device by means of them.


The particles which do make up a magnetic field move in a helical path.

Subquarks are made up of vortices which follow a helical path.

Telluric currents are made up of subquarks.

All this proved in the works provided in this message.


Therefore, bowler, we have a very simple explanation for the beam neutrinos phenomenon: while shot at a downward angle, the energy input activates the telluric currents which do have various amplitudes/wavelengths.

Aether is activated by any electrical/magnetic source nearby and at Super K we do have some 11,000 photomultipliers.

Here is the activation of aether by sound, the science called cymatics:

Cymatic experiment (http://#)


More information here on the activation of aether:

http://www.world-mysteries.com/sci_cymatics.htm (http://www.world-mysteries.com/sci_cymatics.htm)


Please update your knowledge of telluric currents and the precise proofs/experiments which do prove their existence.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: Major Twang on December 06, 2012, 01:35:45 AM
Brooklyn Eagle July 10, 1932 Nikola Tesla states:

I have harnessed the cosmic rays and caused them to operate a motive device. Cosmic ray investigation is a subject that is very close to me. I was the first to discover these rays and I naturally feel toward them as I would toward my own flesh and blood. I have advanced a theory of the cosmic rays and at every step of my investigations I have found it completely justified. The attractive features of the cosmic rays is their constancy. They shower down on us throughout the whole 24 hours, and if a plant is developed to use their power it will not require devices for storing energy as would be necessary with devices using wind, tide or sunlight. All of my investigations seem to point to the conclusion that they are small particles, each carrying so small a charge that we are justified in calling them neutrons. They move with great velocity, exceeding that of light. More than 25 years ago I began my efforts to harness the cosmic rays and I can now state that I have succeeded in operating a motive device by means of them.



Have you not noticed that this bit of text talks about Neutrons, not Neutrinos.  And he's talking about them being faster than light - which is impossible.

He was wrong about Cosmic Rays too.  90% of them are protons, 9% helium nucleii and 1% electrons.  Interestingly - the ratio of protons to helium nucleii is exactly the same as the ratio of hydrogen to helium predicted by the maths of the Big Bang.

Tesla was a genius, but he also had severe mental health issues - feeling unable to enter a building unless he had walked around it 3 times & exhibiting a pathalogical hatred of round objects.  Have you also noticed that a number of Teslas more fantastical experimental claims have never been sucessfully repeated, despite the fact that there are thousands of scientist in his fan club who keep doggedly trying.

Neutrinos DO NOT INTERACT with the electromagnetic force.  That's why they are so difficult to detect.

Telluric currents are ELECTRICITY.  They are caused by the motion of electrons.  Trying to claim that telluric currents are caused by neutrinos is like trying to claim that elephant footprints are caused by mosquitos.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: bowler on December 06, 2012, 06:53:05 AM
At the risk of sounding belligerent; are you making up sciency sounding words? The post reads like sniffing glue and watching Star Wars. Anyway I'll extract what I can from what is actual physics or at least is using words from actual physics. I assume by 'sub-quark' you are referring to the preon. Again there is a grain of reality here. The Preon was a hypothetical particle that quarks were mode of. The idea was kicking around before I was born but had largely died away by the time I specialized. It does have some nice properties one could see how it could explain the structure of the CKM matrix (a mixing of QM states amongst the quarks) and the fact there are three generations of particles. Unfortunately nature disagreed and the idea fell into decay, also it has become apparent that similar questions arise with other particles which have nothing to do with quarks. The discovery of the Higgs more or less kills the preon model although it's been on life support and essentially forgotten for some time now. There are a number of other rather unappealing properties with preons which are rather technical for here such as the top quark decay time. All that said the LHC has given supersymmetry a couple of big blows recently which will bring a smile to the small but dedicated bunch of preon theorists. The flip side is that the discovery of the Higss is probably a more or less fatal blow to preons, as I've seen them at least.

None of this should take anything away from the fact that the Phillip's paper is sheer crackpottery and is essentially a large ream of verbal diarrhea punctuated by conjuntions and passages probably lifted from undergraduate textbooks. While I agree one shouldn't demand that an author is a Cambridge don, sometimes there is a reason the authors contact address is a flat in Bournemouth.

The reason I didn't comment on the other guy is that I couldn't find any science to comment on. In much the same way you shouldn't ignore someone because they're not famous just because they have a PhD doesn't mean they can't be an idiot, look at me for example.

Cosmic rays are mostly protons - fact. Some may well be neutrons although as neutrons decay after about 15 mins in the neutron's rest frame they can't be coming from that far away. Probably not far from outside the solar system it at all and the solar system isn't full of cosmic ray sources. So that one is easy.

The guy who wrote that aquestionoftime website has made a number of misconceptions about absolute and relative time as well as the structure of the Lorentz transform. All it really is - is a trap for non-physicists looking to learn about relativity. Thanks, for the link I have forwarded it to a colleague who like to set 'spot the error' type questions.

Still its far form clear to me what an electric current in the Earth has to do with all of the above.

I completely agree that just because someone is not a well known name doesn't mean they should be ignored. Einstein is the usual case study here. Similarly an old name shouldn't be believed without question - indeed the young generation often go out after their elders that's how we progress. However where the entire physics community has agreed one something there is usually a good reason for that, particularly when it's often hard to get two physicists to agree on the color of an orange. Never believe something 'just because' but bear in mind sometimes there is a good reason a consensus has been reached.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: sandokhan on December 06, 2012, 11:54:48 PM
Faster than light waves (telluric currents) are not impossible, you have not read my previous messages.

The most essential requirement is that irrespective of frequency the wave or wave-train should continue for a certain period of time, which I have estimated to be not less than one-twelfth or probably 0.08484 of a second and which is taken in passing to and returning from the region diametrically opposite the pole over the earth's surface with a mean velocity of about 471,240 kilometers per second [292,822 miles per second, a velocity equal to one and a half times the "official" speed of light].

Tesla Patent/original paper:
http://www.classictesla.com/Patent/us000787412.pdf (http://www.classictesla.com/Patent/us000787412.pdf)


You certainly have not done your homework on neutrons. In fact, Chadwick did not discover anything resembling a neutron.

http://web.archive.org/web/20050206091142/http://luloxbooks.co.uk/findings1.htm (http://web.archive.org/web/20050206091142/http://luloxbooks.co.uk/findings1.htm)

Read Tesla's words carefully. He is saying that cosmic rays are made up of particles resembling neutrons; in the official theory, based on Chadwick disastrous experiment, neutrons have no charge; Tesla says that a neutron is made up of much smaller particles, with FRACTIONAL CHARGE.


Discovery of subquarsk/preons:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1278981.html#msg1278981 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1278981.html#msg1278981) (please read carefully and avoid making statements with no scientific value)


Lorentz committed some of the most catastrophic mistakes ever made in quantum physics, the works provided do indeed prove this thing beyond a shadow of a doubt:

http://www.aquestionoftime.com/lorentz.html (http://www.aquestionoftime.com/lorentz.html)

http://www.aquestionoftime.com/michelson.html (http://www.aquestionoftime.com/michelson.html)



Let us now get back to the discovery of ether (telluric currents) by the extraordinary experiments done by Dr. Dayton Miller.


http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,3152.msg1398930.html#msg1398930 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,3152.msg1398930.html#msg1398930)

"The effect [of ether-drift] has persisted throughout. After considering all the possible sources of error, there always remained a positive effect." Dayton Miller (1928, p.399)

http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm (http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm)

Dayton Miller's 1933 paper in Reviews of Modern Physics details the positive results from over 20 years of experimental research into the question of ether-drift, and remains the most definitive body of work on the subject of light-beam interferometry.


 As a graduate of physics from Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society and Acoustical Society of America, Chairman of the Division of Physical Sciences of the National Research Council, Chairman of the Physics Department of Case School of Applied Science (today Case Western Reserve University), and Member of the National Academy of Sciences well known for his work in acoustics, Miller was no "outsider". While he was alive, he produced a series of papers presenting solid data on the existence of a measurable ether-drift, and he successfully defended his findings to not a small number of critics, including Einstein.


This alone is sufficient to dispose of your beam neutrinos thread. Telluric currents are made up of subquarks in a helical path, the entire current itself has a sinusoidal wave pattern, it is such a wave/telluric currents which carried the energy of the T2K experiment 360 meters above the ground at Super K.

Read the entire file on cymatics: the activation of aether by sound/electrical current/magnetism.



The biography of Dr. Stephen Phillips.

DR STEPHEN PHILLIPS earned his Ph.D. at the University of California, where he also taught mathematics and physics. In 1979 one of his scientific papers was published, proposing a theory that unified particle interactions and predicted that quarks are not fundamental (as most physicists currently believe) but are composed of three more basic particles ('subquarks') which, may have since been detected at FermiLab, high-energy physics laboratory near Chicago in America. He has lectured on his research at the Cavendish Laboratory of Cambridge University.

A century-old claim by  two early leaders of  the Theosophical
Society to have used a form of ESP to observe subatomic particles is evaluat-
ed. Their observations  are  found  to be consistent with  facts  of  nuclear
physics and with the quark model of particle physics provided that their as-
sumption that they saw atoms is rejected.  Their account of the force binding
together the fundamental constituents of  matter is shown to agree with the
string model.  Their description of these basic particles bears striking similar-
ity to basic ideas of superstring theory.  The implication  of  this remarkable
correlation between ostensible paranormal  observations of subatomic parti-
cles and facts of nuclear and particle physics is that quarks are neither funda-
mental nor hadronic states of superstrings, as many physicists  currently as-
sume, but, instead, are composed of three subquark states of a superstring.


Given that the gaps in the periodic table represented by these anticipated un-
stable elements were known to Besant & Leadbeater, how can we be sure that
their descriptions were based upon real  objects and were not fabricated  ac-
cording  to their expectations?  Knowing which  groups of  the periodic  table
these  undiscovered  elements belong  to could  have  enabled them  to  deduce
what shape their atoms ought to have, having decided upon a rule to link atom-
ic shapes to groups. But the values of  the atomic weights of  these elements
were unknown to science at the time when Besant and Leadbeater published
observations of them and yet the "number weights" (defined shortly) that they
calculated for  these  elements  agree with  their  chemical atomic  weights  to
within one unit. It is highly implausible that this measure of agreement could
have  come about by  chance in  every case. Furthermore, analysis (Phillips,
1994) of the particles reported to have been observed in the supposed atoms of
these elements undiscovered by science at the time reveals such a high degree
of agreement with the theory presented in this paper to explain micro-psi ob-
servations of atoms that neither deliberate fabrication nor hallucinations influ-
enced by knowledge of the gaps in the periodic table are realistic explanations
of these elements being examined before their scientific discovery.  These two
considerations strongly suggest that the descriptions by Besant and Leadbeat-
er of the supposed atoms of these elements must have been based upon physi-
cal objects, for there is simply no more plausible alternative that can explain
such a measure of agreement.


The fact that elements in the same subgroup of a group of the periodic table do not always
occur in the same subgroup of the micro-psi  version of this table is inconsis-
tent with what one would expect if  Besant and Leadbeater  had been merely
guided by their knowledge of chemistry to fabricate the correlation.  Secondly,
how could hallucinations, whose cause was located entirely inside their brains
and not outside amongst the trillions of atoms in all the chemicals they exam-
ined, generate UPA populations in MPAs that always turned out to be about 18
times the correct atomic weights of their elements?  This is true, remarkable,
even for elements like francium and astatine, whose atomic weights must have
been unknown to Besant and Leadbeater because science discovered them in,
respectively,  1939  and  1940,  about seven years  after the deaths of  the two
Theosophists.  How, if  MPAs  are not atoms, could they have anticipated  in
1908 - five years before scientists suspected the existence of isotopes - the
fact that an element such as neon could have more than one type of  atom, an
MPA, moreover, whose calculated number weight of 22.33 is consistent with
their having detected with micro-psi the neon-22 nuclide before the physicist
J. J. Thomson discovered it in  1913? One must turn to particle physics for an-
swers.



This paper has presented evidence (summarized in Table 3) of how facts of
nuclear and particle physics are consistent with purported psychic descriptions
of subatomic particles.  It is because Besant and Leadbeater finished their ob-
servations many years before pertinent scientific knowledge became available
that their work cannot be rejected  as fraudulent once this consistency is ac-
cepted.
  Nor can critics plausible interpret their observations as precognitive
visions of future ideas and discoveries of  physics.  If  this had been the case, Besant and Leadbeater might reasonably have been expected to describe atoms according to the Rutherford-Bohr model. The nuclear model of the atom was
formulated by Rutherford in 1911, two years after they concluded their main
investigation of MPAs. Yet none of its features can be found in their publica-
tions. Instead of being atoms, as would be expected if micro-psi faculty were
actually precognition, MPAs are more exotic objects which, as Figure 5 shows,
have  compositions and  UPA  populations indicating  that  they consist of  the
constituent quarks and subquarks or two atomic nuclei of  an element.  This
makes  them more  akin  to what  nuclear physicists  call  "compound nuclei,"
which are formed in high-energy physics laboratories by the collision and brief
fusion  of  two  very  fast-moving  nuclei. Moreover, precognition would  not
have led Besant and Leadbeater to portray some chemical molecules such as
methane and benzene in a way that conflicts with chemistry.  If they had used
merely  precognition, they  would never have observed four MPAs for which
atomic theory can provide no corresponding element; they would have record-
ed only MPAs of known elements.

The fact that most of their descriptions of MPAs were  published  several  years  before  physicists even suspected  that atoms had nuclei excludes the possibility  of their fraudulent use of scientific knowledge about the composition of nuclei in terms of protons, neutrons and mass numbers because no such information existed then, Chadwick discover-
ing  the  neutron  in  1932, twenty-four years  after  the first  edition  of  Occult
Chemistry  appeared.  No normal or alternative paranormal explanation  of the
correlation between modern physics and their ostensible 100-year old obser-
vations  of  subatomic  particles appears  to exist  other  than that  Besant  and
Leadbeater genuinely described aspects of the microscopic world by means of
ESP, albeit one disturbed by the act of paranormal observation.



A. Besant work was copied word by word by none other than Dirac (antiparicles), Gell-Mann (quarks) and by Higgs himself (higgs boson/field), are you going to call them too crackpots?


EACH AND EVERY ELEMENT AND ISOTOPE PREDICTED WITH 100% ACCURACY. READ AGAIN.

The fact that most of their descriptions of MPAs were  published  several  years  before  physicists even suspected  that atoms had nuclei excludes the possibility  of their fraudulent use of scientific knowledge about the composition of nuclei in terms of protons, neutrons and mass numbers because no such information existed then, Chadwick discovering  the  neutron  in  1932, twenty-four years  after  the first  edition  of  Occult Chemistry  appeared. 

The fact that elements in the same subgroup of a group of the periodic table do not always
occur in the same subgroup of the micro-psi  version of this table is inconsis-
tent with what one would expect if  Besant and Leadbeater  had been merely
guided by their knowledge of chemistry to fabricate the correlation.  Secondly,
how could hallucinations, whose cause was located entirely inside their brains
and not outside amongst the trillions of atoms in all the chemicals they exam-
ined, generate UPA populations in MPAs that always turned out to be about 18
times the correct atomic weights of their elements?  This is true, remarkable,
even for elements like francium and astatine, whose atomic weights must have
been unknown to Besant and Leadbeater because science discovered them in,
respectively,  1939  and  1940,  about seven years  after the deaths of  the two
Theosophists.  How, if  MPAs  are not atoms, could they have anticipated  in
1908 - five years before scientists suspected the existence of isotopes - the
fact that an element such as neon could have more than one type of  atom, an
MPA, moreover, whose calculated number weight of 22.33 is consistent with
their having detected with micro-psi the neon-22 nuclide before the physicist
J. J. Thomson discovered it in  1913?


Is this what you call crackpottery bowler, just because it contradicts EVERYTHING you have been taught by the official dogma?

A. Besant showed and proved that atoms are made up of various arrangements of subquarks, they come in two types:

(http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/fig003.gif)

A proton is made up of NINE laevorotatory subquarks - an electron is actually comprised of NINE dextrorotatory subquarks (called now preons).

However, modern science has mistakenly named a SINGLE dextrorotatory subquark as an electron and has ascribed THE TOTAL charge of the NINE corresponding subquarks as the total negative charge of a single electron, thus confusing the whole matter.


TELLURIC CURRENTS are represented by double torsion waves of BOTH laevorotatory (antigravity) and dextrorotatory (terrestrial gravity) subquarks.



ARE YOU GOING TO CALL DR. N. KOZYREV AND DR. BRUCE DEPALMA CRACKPOTS, TOO?

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55865.msg1393588.html#msg1393588 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55865.msg1393588.html#msg1393588)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55865.msg1394647.html#msg1394647 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55865.msg1394647.html#msg1394647)

According to the theory developed by N.A.Kozyrev, the greatest astrophysicist of the former Soviet Union, time and rotation are closely interconnected.

In order to verify his theory, N.A.Kozyrev conducted a series of experiments with spinning gyroscopes. The goal of these experiments was to make a measurement of the forces arising while the gyroscope was spinning.

N.A.Kozyrev detected that the weight of the spinning gyroscope changes slightly depending on the angular velocity and the direction of rotation. The effect he discovered was not large, but the nature of the arising forces could not be explained by existing theories. N.A.Kozyrev explained the observed effect as being the manifestation of some "physical properties of time".

It is important to remember that these experiments were conducted under the strictest conditions, repeated in hundreds or in many cases thousands of trials and were written about in extensive mathematical detail. They have been rigorously peer-reviewed, and Lavrentyev and others have replicated the results independently.


TERRESTRIAL GRAVITY = TELLURIC CURRENTS OF DEXTROROTATORY TYPE

Cosmic rays = telluric currents (certainly not made up of protons, but subquarks)

Throwing Experiments
DePalma and his assistants were experts for photograph recording of high speed motions. In 1974 they studied parabolic curves of bodies thrown upward, using ball bearings and catapults. Ball bearings were put into rotation before start and also not-rotating likely objects were used for comparison. In 1977 these experiments were repeated by most precisely working equipment and Bruce DePalma published paper entitled ´Understanding the Dropping of the Spinning Ball Experiment´. His astonishment clearly is expressed, e.g. by this section:


Actually the experiment has two parts, the spinning ball going up, and the spinning ball falling. Since I would be rather thought a fool than misrepresent results of experiments I only attempted to analyze the portion of the experiment I thought I understood. Basically the spinning object going higher than the identical non-rotating control with the same initial velocity, and, then falling faster than the identical non-rotating control; present a dilemma which can only be resolved or understood -- on the basis of radically new concepts in physics -- concepts so radical that only the heretofore un-understood results of other experiments, (the elastic collision of a rotating and an identical non- rotating object, et al.), and new conceptions of physics growing out of the many discussions and correspondence pertaining to rotation, inertia, gravity, and motion in general.


A ball spinning at 27,000 RPM and a non-spinning ball were catapulted side-by-side with equal momentum and projection angle. In defiance of all who reject the ether as unrealistic, the spinning ball actually weighed less, and traveled higher than its non-spinning counterpart. Those who attribute this to an aerodynamic or atmospheric effect, please note that it works just as well in a vacuum. Also note, this effect has since been verified by other [enlightened] researchers. The decrease in weight of the spinning ball - anti-gravity - can explain why the spinning object goes higher and falls faster than the identical non-rotating control. Current thinking is that there is no special interaction between rotation and gravity. The behavior of rotating objects is simply the addition of ether energy to whatever motion the rotating object is making.


Is this a harnessing of torsional ether waves by rotation? Both balls draw energy into themselves from an unseen source, but the rotating ball absorbs more of this ethereal energy than its counterpart - energy that would be manifest as gravity, moving down into the Earth. With a decrease in torsional ether above the ball, there is a slight decrease in gravity, the ball gets slightly lighter. Needless to say, this effect defies standard theories.



No other comments are needed: the most precise proofs (Besant, Dayton Miller, DePalma, Kozyrev) that prove the existence of the telluric currents, a fact ignored by you and "science".
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: FlatulencE Theory on December 07, 2012, 08:21:10 AM
No other comments are needed: ...

Couldn't this have come about 2600 words earlier? Would have saved me scrolling through 2600 words of nonsense.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: Major Twang on December 07, 2012, 09:38:44 AM
the most precise proofs (Besant, Dayton Miller, DePalma, Kozyrev) that prove the existence of the telluric currents, a fact ignored by you and "science".

Telluric currents are well understood

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telluric_current (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telluric_current)

They have a practical application for oil exploration, the mining industry & geophysics.

Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: sandokhan on December 08, 2012, 01:53:29 AM
Your wikipedia source is just the tip of the iceberg on telluric currents.

Please read again the discoveries about telluric currents made by Dr. Moray and Dr. Le Bon:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,27426.msg1423019.html#msg1423019 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,27426.msg1423019.html#msg1423019)

Again, here are the words of Dr. Moray:

During the Christmas Holidays of 1911, I began to fully realize that the energy I was working with was not of a static nature, but of an oscillating nature. Further I realized that the energy was not coming out of the earth, but instead was coming to the earth from some outside source. These electrical oscillations in the form of waves were not simple oscillations, but were surgings --- like the waves of the sea --- coming to the earth continually, more in the daytime than at night, but always coming in vibrations from the reservoir of colossal energy out there in space.


While investigating the output of his device, he discovered a feature of the natural static energy, which had somehow been overlooked by other aerial battery designers. The electrostatic power had a flimmering, pulsating quality to it. He learned of this "static pulsation" while listening through headphones, which were connected to telephone wires. The static came in a single, potent surge. This first "wave" subsided, with numerous "back surges" following. Soon thereafter, the process repeated itself. The static surges came "like ocean waves". Indeed, with the volume of "white noise" which they produced, they sounded like ocean waves!

These peculiar waves did not arrive with "clock precision". Just like ocean waves, they arrived in schedules of their own. Dr. Moray was convinced that these were world-permeating waves. He came to believe that they represented the natural "cadence of the universe". This intriguing characteristic suggested that small amounts of pulsating electrostatic charge might be used to induce large oscillations in a large "tank" of charge.



Dr. Bruce DePalma:

The decrease in weight of the spinning ball - anti-gravity - can explain why the spinning object goes higher and falls faster than the identical non-rotating control. Current thinking is that there is no special interaction between rotation and gravity. The behavior of rotating objects is simply the addition of ether energy to whatever motion the rotating object is making.


This ether energy constitutes the telluric currents/cosmic rays discovered by Dr. Dayton Miller in his classic experiments.


There are two types of telluric currrents: dextrorotatory waves (terrrestrial gravity) and laevorotatory waves (which do cause antigravitational effects).



SUBQUARK QUANTUM ETHER PHYSICS

For many decades, scientists have been trying to devise a single unified theory to explain all known physical phenomena, but a model that appears to unite the seemingly incompatible String Theory and Standard Model has existed for 100 years. It described baryons, mesons, quarks and preons over 50 years before conventional science. It stated that matter is composed of strings 80 years before string theory. It described the existence of anti-matter 30 years before conventional science. It described the Higgs field over 50 years before Peter Higgs. It described the existence of isotopes 5 years before conventional science. Could this be the beginning of a Theory of Everything – the holy grail of modern physics?


Quantum foam, also known as space-time foam, is a concept in quantum physics proposed by Nobel physicist John Wheeler in 1955 to describe the microscopic sea of bubbling energy-matter. The foam is what space-time would look like if we could zoom in to a scale of 10-33 centimetres (the Planck length). At this microscopic scale, particles of matter appear to be nothing more than standing waves of energy. Wheeler proposed that minute wormholes measuring 10-33 centimetres could exist in the quantum foam, which some physicists theorise could even be hyper-spatial links to other dimensions. The hyper-spatial nature of the quantum foam could account for principles like the transmission of light and the flow of time. Some scientists believe that quantum foam is an incredibly powerful source of zero-point energy, and it has been estimated that one cubic centimetre of empty space contains enough energy to boil all the world's oceans.

So, if we could describe a microscopic standing wave pattern that appeared particle-like and incorporated a vortex within its structure, we might have the basis for a theory that could unite all the current variants in modern physics. Figure 1 appears to meet these criteria – it is a drawing of a subatomic particle reproduced from Occult Chemistry by Charles Leadbeater and Annie Besant, which was first published in 1909, although a similar diagram was published in a journal in 1895. Leadbeater explains that each subatomic particle is composed of ten loops which circulate energy from higher dimensions. Back in 1895, he knew that physical matter was composed from "strings" – 10 years before Einstein's theory of relativity and 80 years before string theory.

(http://www.esotericscience.org/diagrams/5a1-Subatomic-Particle.jpg)

According to Leadbeater these particles are composed of 10 vibrating strings, which are in turn composed of even smaller particles, which are in turn composed of even smaller strings, etc... This suggests that the seemingly incompatible standard model and string theory may in fact be two sides of the same coin.

String theory proposes that everything is composed of incredibly minute strings or loops of energy-matter vibrating in ten (or more) dimensions. Our brains can only comprehend four dimensions – the three spatial dimensions (length, width and height) plus one temporal dimension (time). So according to string theory, six (or more) hidden spatial dimensions must exist beyond our perception. It is interesting to note that the ancient cosmologies of eastern religions are based on seven planes of existence, with our physical plane being the lowest.

According to Leadbeater the fundamental particle shown in Figure 1 is merely the fundamental particle of our physical dimension (plane 1) – for this reason I will refer to it as the 1-atom. 1-atoms are so small that modern science has not yet detected them, but they were theorised back in 1974 by Jogesh Pati and Abdus Salam, who referred to them as "preons". According to Leadbeater, two varieties of 1-atom exist (positive and negative), each with the same basic structure but the spirals spin the other way in the negative variety (see Figure 2). This is due to zero point energy flowing down through the negative atoms and up through the positive atoms.


(http://www.esotericscience.org/diagrams/5a2-Positive-and-Negative.jpg)

1-atoms are far from being the ultimate fundamental particle from which everything in the universe is composed. Each 1-atom is composed of ten separate "strings" (closed loops) which are in turn composed of coiled loops of even smaller particles – see figure 3.

(http://www.esotericscience.org/diagrams/5a3-String-Microstructure.jpg)

1-atoms are the fundamental particles of the physical plane (plane 1), 2-atoms are the fundamental particles of plane 2, 3-atoms are the fundamental particles of plane 3, etc. According to Leadbeater, each 1-atom is composed of forty nine 2-atoms, each 2-atom is composed of forty nine 3-atoms, each 3-atom is composed of forty nine 4-atoms, etc. The matter of the lower planes is composed of the matter of the higher planes, so all the planes can interpenetrate each other and occupy the same space. Figure 3 shows the number of fundamental atoms from the various planes that make up one fundamental atom of the physical plane.

(http://www.esotericscience.org/diagrams/5a4-Anatomy-of-an-Atom.jpg)

According to Leadbeater there are actually seven phases of physical matter; and where that ends different kinds of even subtler matter begin. The three lowest phases of physical matter (1:1, 1:2 and 1:3) broadly correspond to solid, liquid and gas. The four higher phases of physical matter (1:4, 1:5, 1:6 and 1:7) are etheric, and are what science refers to as subatomic particles or dark matter. 1-atoms belong to the 1:7 phase and combine in many different molecular permutations to produce the hundreds of sub-atomic particles and chemical elements known to science.

Figure 5 depicts the subatomic structure of a hydrogen atom as described by Leadbeater a hundred years ago. The nucleus is composed of six units (in two groups of three), and each unit is composed of three 1-atoms. According to conventional science the nucleus of a hydrogen atom is composed of only three units called quarks.

(http://www.esotericscience.org/diagrams/5a5-Subatomic-Hydrogen.jpg)

Figure 7 depicts the subatomic structure of a hydrogen atom (in the 1:3 gaseous phase) and its decomposition through four etheric phases:

•The 1:4-molecules are baryons.
•The large 1:5-molecules are unstable mesons.
•The small 1:5-molecules and the 1:6-phase molecules are quarks.
•The 1:7-atoms (or 1-atoms) are preons.
Leadbeater did not state what the membranes surrounding the molecular structures are composed of, but they are probably 2-atoms or 3-atoms.

(http://www.esotericscience.org/diagrams/5a7-Baryon-Meson-Quark-Preon.jpg)

Figures 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 are extracted from Occult Chemistry by Charles Leadbeater and Annie Besant. The book depicts the subatomic structure of every element in the periodic table from Hydrogen to Uranium, including various isotopes (atoms with the same atomic number but different mass numbers). Leadbeater knew that isotopes existed in 1907 – five years before conventional science discovered them.

The Higgs Field
The Higgs field is a quantum field that is believed to permeate the entire universe. The theory was proposed by physicist Peter Higgs in the 1960s to account for the fact that that particles have mass. Particles of matter that interact with the Higgs field are subject to resistance, which shows itself as mass. Particles that interact strongly with the Higgs field are heavy, while those that interact weakly are light. The Higgs field has been compared to treacle through which every particle in the universe has to "swim". Small particles can easily move through the Higgs field so they appear to have negligible mass, but large particles create more drag so appear to be heavier.

Leadbeater described something very similar to the Higgs field over 50 years earlier in Occult Chemistry. He explained that an incredibly dense substance, which he called koilon, permeates the entire universe, and that every atom of matter corresponds to an empty bubble in this incredibly dense substance.

When a particle moves, its corresponding bubble must move through the dense koilon and this causes resistance. This resistance manifests as inertia in the particle, and inertia gives the appearance of mass. Large particles correspond to large clusters of bubbles which are subject to greater resistance, giving the appearance of a large mass. Small particles correspond to small clusters of bubbles which are subject to less resistance, giving the appearance of a small mass.


The perfect description of ether (telluric currents): these currents consist of subquarks (both dextrorotatory and laevorotatory).

Dayton Miller, Nikolai Kozyrev, Bruce DePalma, T. Henry Moray, T. Townsend Brown, Nikola Tesla showed and proved their existence beyond any shadow of a doubt.

Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: Mantaxi on December 10, 2012, 03:41:23 AM
Your wikipedia source is just the tip of the iceberg on telluric currents.

Please read again the discoveries about telluric currents made by Dr. Moray and Dr. Le Bon:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,27426.msg1423019.html#msg1423019 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,27426.msg1423019.html#msg1423019)

Again, here are the words of Dr. Moray:

During the Christmas Holidays of 1911, I began to fully realize that the energy I was working with was not of a static nature, but of an oscillating nature. Further I realized that the energy was not coming out of the earth, but instead was coming to the earth from some outside source. These electrical oscillations in the form of waves were not simple oscillations, but were surgings --- like the waves of the sea --- coming to the earth continually, more in the daytime than at night, but always coming in vibrations from the reservoir of colossal energy out there in space.


While investigating the output of his device, he discovered a feature of the natural static energy, which had somehow been overlooked by other aerial battery designers. The electrostatic power had a flimmering, pulsating quality to it. He learned of this "static pulsation" while listening through headphones, which were connected to telephone wires. The static came in a single, potent surge. This first "wave" subsided, with numerous "back surges" following. Soon thereafter, the process repeated itself. The static surges came "like ocean waves". Indeed, with the volume of "white noise" which they produced, they sounded like ocean waves!

These peculiar waves did not arrive with "clock precision". Just like ocean waves, they arrived in schedules of their own. Dr. Moray was convinced that these were world-permeating waves. He came to believe that they represented the natural "cadence of the universe". This intriguing characteristic suggested that small amounts of pulsating electrostatic charge might be used to induce large oscillations in a large "tank" of charge.



Dr. Bruce DePalma:

The decrease in weight of the spinning ball - anti-gravity - can explain why the spinning object goes higher and falls faster than the identical non-rotating control. Current thinking is that there is no special interaction between rotation and gravity. The behavior of rotating objects is simply the addition of ether energy to whatever motion the rotating object is making.


This ether energy constitutes the telluric currents/cosmic rays discovered by Dr. Dayton Miller in his classic experiments.


There are two types of telluric currrents: dextrorotatory waves (terrrestrial gravity) and laevorotatory waves (which do cause antigravitational effects).



SUBQUARK QUANTUM ETHER PHYSICS

For many decades, scientists have been trying to devise a single unified theory to explain all known physical phenomena, but a model that appears to unite the seemingly incompatible String Theory and Standard Model has existed for 100 years. It described baryons, mesons, quarks and preons over 50 years before conventional science. It stated that matter is composed of strings 80 years before string theory. It described the existence of anti-matter 30 years before conventional science. It described the Higgs field over 50 years before Peter Higgs. It described the existence of isotopes 5 years before conventional science. Could this be the beginning of a Theory of Everything – the holy grail of modern physics?


Quantum foam, also known as space-time foam, is a concept in quantum physics proposed by Nobel physicist John Wheeler in 1955 to describe the microscopic sea of bubbling energy-matter. The foam is what space-time would look like if we could zoom in to a scale of 10-33 centimetres (the Planck length). At this microscopic scale, particles of matter appear to be nothing more than standing waves of energy. Wheeler proposed that minute wormholes measuring 10-33 centimetres could exist in the quantum foam, which some physicists theorise could even be hyper-spatial links to other dimensions. The hyper-spatial nature of the quantum foam could account for principles like the transmission of light and the flow of time. Some scientists believe that quantum foam is an incredibly powerful source of zero-point energy, and it has been estimated that one cubic centimetre of empty space contains enough energy to boil all the world's oceans.

So, if we could describe a microscopic standing wave pattern that appeared particle-like and incorporated a vortex within its structure, we might have the basis for a theory that could unite all the current variants in modern physics. Figure 1 appears to meet these criteria – it is a drawing of a subatomic particle reproduced from Occult Chemistry by Charles Leadbeater and Annie Besant, which was first published in 1909, although a similar diagram was published in a journal in 1895. Leadbeater explains that each subatomic particle is composed of ten loops which circulate energy from higher dimensions. Back in 1895, he knew that physical matter was composed from "strings" – 10 years before Einstein's theory of relativity and 80 years before string theory.

(http://www.esotericscience.org/diagrams/5a1-Subatomic-Particle.jpg)

According to Leadbeater these particles are composed of 10 vibrating strings, which are in turn composed of even smaller particles, which are in turn composed of even smaller strings, etc... This suggests that the seemingly incompatible standard model and string theory may in fact be two sides of the same coin.

String theory proposes that everything is composed of incredibly minute strings or loops of energy-matter vibrating in ten (or more) dimensions. Our brains can only comprehend four dimensions – the three spatial dimensions (length, width and height) plus one temporal dimension (time). So according to string theory, six (or more) hidden spatial dimensions must exist beyond our perception. It is interesting to note that the ancient cosmologies of eastern religions are based on seven planes of existence, with our physical plane being the lowest.

According to Leadbeater the fundamental particle shown in Figure 1 is merely the fundamental particle of our physical dimension (plane 1) – for this reason I will refer to it as the 1-atom. 1-atoms are so small that modern science has not yet detected them, but they were theorised back in 1974 by Jogesh Pati and Abdus Salam, who referred to them as "preons". According to Leadbeater, two varieties of 1-atom exist (positive and negative), each with the same basic structure but the spirals spin the other way in the negative variety (see Figure 2). This is due to zero point energy flowing down through the negative atoms and up through the positive atoms.


(http://www.esotericscience.org/diagrams/5a2-Positive-and-Negative.jpg)

1-atoms are far from being the ultimate fundamental particle from which everything in the universe is composed. Each 1-atom is composed of ten separate "strings" (closed loops) which are in turn composed of coiled loops of even smaller particles – see figure 3.

(http://www.esotericscience.org/diagrams/5a3-String-Microstructure.jpg)

1-atoms are the fundamental particles of the physical plane (plane 1), 2-atoms are the fundamental particles of plane 2, 3-atoms are the fundamental particles of plane 3, etc. According to Leadbeater, each 1-atom is composed of forty nine 2-atoms, each 2-atom is composed of forty nine 3-atoms, each 3-atom is composed of forty nine 4-atoms, etc. The matter of the lower planes is composed of the matter of the higher planes, so all the planes can interpenetrate each other and occupy the same space. Figure 3 shows the number of fundamental atoms from the various planes that make up one fundamental atom of the physical plane.

(http://www.esotericscience.org/diagrams/5a4-Anatomy-of-an-Atom.jpg)

According to Leadbeater there are actually seven phases of physical matter; and where that ends different kinds of even subtler matter begin. The three lowest phases of physical matter (1:1, 1:2 and 1:3) broadly correspond to solid, liquid and gas. The four higher phases of physical matter (1:4, 1:5, 1:6 and 1:7) are etheric, and are what science refers to as subatomic particles or dark matter. 1-atoms belong to the 1:7 phase and combine in many different molecular permutations to produce the hundreds of sub-atomic particles and chemical elements known to science.

Figure 5 depicts the subatomic structure of a hydrogen atom as described by Leadbeater a hundred years ago. The nucleus is composed of six units (in two groups of three), and each unit is composed of three 1-atoms. According to conventional science the nucleus of a hydrogen atom is composed of only three units called quarks.

(http://www.esotericscience.org/diagrams/5a5-Subatomic-Hydrogen.jpg)

Figure 7 depicts the subatomic structure of a hydrogen atom (in the 1:3 gaseous phase) and its decomposition through four etheric phases:

•The 1:4-molecules are baryons.
•The large 1:5-molecules are unstable mesons.
•The small 1:5-molecules and the 1:6-phase molecules are quarks.
•The 1:7-atoms (or 1-atoms) are preons.
Leadbeater did not state what the membranes surrounding the molecular structures are composed of, but they are probably 2-atoms or 3-atoms.

(http://www.esotericscience.org/diagrams/5a7-Baryon-Meson-Quark-Preon.jpg)

Figures 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 are extracted from Occult Chemistry by Charles Leadbeater and Annie Besant. The book depicts the subatomic structure of every element in the periodic table from Hydrogen to Uranium, including various isotopes (atoms with the same atomic number but different mass numbers). Leadbeater knew that isotopes existed in 1907 – five years before conventional science discovered them.

The Higgs Field
The Higgs field is a quantum field that is believed to permeate the entire universe. The theory was proposed by physicist Peter Higgs in the 1960s to account for the fact that that particles have mass. Particles of matter that interact with the Higgs field are subject to resistance, which shows itself as mass. Particles that interact strongly with the Higgs field are heavy, while those that interact weakly are light. The Higgs field has been compared to treacle through which every particle in the universe has to "swim". Small particles can easily move through the Higgs field so they appear to have negligible mass, but large particles create more drag so appear to be heavier.

Leadbeater described something very similar to the Higgs field over 50 years earlier in Occult Chemistry. He explained that an incredibly dense substance, which he called koilon, permeates the entire universe, and that every atom of matter corresponds to an empty bubble in this incredibly dense substance.

When a particle moves, its corresponding bubble must move through the dense koilon and this causes resistance. This resistance manifests as inertia in the particle, and inertia gives the appearance of mass. Large particles correspond to large clusters of bubbles which are subject to greater resistance, giving the appearance of a large mass. Small particles correspond to small clusters of bubbles which are subject to less resistance, giving the appearance of a small mass.


The perfect description of ether (telluric currents): these currents consist of subquarks (both dextrorotatory and laevorotatory).

Dayton Miller, Nikolai Kozyrev, Bruce DePalma, T. Henry Moray, T. Townsend Brown, Nikola Tesla showed and proved their existence beyond any shadow of a doubt.

A summary would have been sufficient.
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: sandokhan on December 10, 2012, 04:03:23 AM
ESP OF QUARKS AND STRINGS, 1999, DR. STEPHEN PHILLIPS

http://books.google.ro/books?id=5Qgfx4bXkT4C&pg=PA33&dq=esp+of+quarks+and+strings&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=rM3FUMTSM4b14QT264GYAw&redir_esc=y#v=snippet&q=neutrino&f=false (http://books.google.ro/books?id=5Qgfx4bXkT4C&pg=PA33&dq=esp+of+quarks+and+strings&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=rM3FUMTSM4b14QT264GYAw&redir_esc=y#v=snippet&q=neutrino&f=false)



HISTORICAL EVIDENCE, QUARKS AND STRINGS:

http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_09_4_phillips.pdf (http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_09_4_phillips.pdf)



FARCE OF MODERN PHYSICS:

http://davidpratt.info/farce.htm (http://davidpratt.info/farce.htm)


OCCULT CHEMISTRY, the work copied by Dirac, Gell-Mann, Higgs and many others:

http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/pdfindex.htm (http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/pdfindex.htm)
Title: Re: Beam Neutrinos
Post by: robertotrevor on December 11, 2012, 06:23:46 PM
Can someone explain how is the thread going on?
I mean, I know everybody is writing a lot of stuff, and sandokhan more than everyone, but can someone summarize?
Do neutrinos travel from one side of the earth to another traversing earth or what?