Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - ThinkingMan

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 55
1
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Beam Neutrinos
« 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.

2
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Round and Flat
« on: December 03, 2012, 08:47:05 AM »
You are implying that the masses being spoon fed is a bad thing. 

They are easier to control that way.  Are you not not implying that the masses are being spoon fed?

But this does not mean that what the masses are spoon fed is not true. It just means that they believe it.

3
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: 2013 Virgin Galactic Flights
« on: November 30, 2012, 01:06:49 PM »
Why would there be government intervention? The government didn't intervene with SpaceX when they were testing the Dragon. The government didn't intervene with SpaceX when they sent Dragon to the ISS on a cargo run. The government isn't interfering with SpaceX on their reusable rocket program. They haven't intervened with Space Adventures bringing people to stay on the ISS. So why would they intervene with Virgin Galactic performing a simply suborbital flight?

Are you kidding?  Do you realize how many government permits, certifications, clearances and general red tape is involved in setting up a regular airline?  Just imagine how much more bureaucracy there is to wade through to get permission to send paying customers into space in a rocket plane.

I'm not sure that's the type of intervention he was referring to. I know that's not what I was referring to. I meant an act that was meant to prevent or alter the plans.
Something as simple as an inspection can be used to, for example, modify the windows to distort light. Be careful underestimating what can be done with that "bureaucracy."

And I'm sure all of the pilots and engineers wouldn't notice anything like that on pre-flight checks.

4
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Beam Neutrinos
« 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
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."

5
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: 2013 Virgin Galactic Flights
« on: November 30, 2012, 12:23:52 PM »
Why would there be government intervention? The government didn't intervene with SpaceX when they were testing the Dragon. The government didn't intervene with SpaceX when they sent Dragon to the ISS on a cargo run. The government isn't interfering with SpaceX on their reusable rocket program. They haven't intervened with Space Adventures bringing people to stay on the ISS. So why would they intervene with Virgin Galactic performing a simply suborbital flight?

Are you kidding?  Do you realize how many government permits, certifications, clearances and general red tape is involved in setting up a regular airline?  Just imagine how much more bureaucracy there is to wade through to get permission to send paying customers into space in a rocket plane.

I'm not sure that's the type of intervention he was referring to. I know that's not what I was referring to. I meant an act that was meant to prevent or alter the plans.

6
Flat Earth General / Re: Stars and light years.
« on: November 30, 2012, 10:56:11 AM »
The explosion itself its already creating force to create expansion. The force making the rocket move is that expansion against the rocket, mass causing pressure against mass.
The rocket moves because of the expansion of gasses against the rocket, not against the vacuum.

The point is where the explosion would be. Is not an accurate representation of a rocket, just to show the forces.
This is exactly you saying that the rocket pushes against itself with the exhaust having no part in it.
It's so silly , it's actually scary to think people believe this.

You don't get it, the exhaust against vacuum does nothing, but there are also gases moving against the rocket. The gasses push the rocket so it moves, is not the rocket against the rocket because this gases are not attached to the rocket and are constantly leaving it.
Have a word will you.

The gases cannot just push the rocket without an external force to act against.
On Earth it has that. It's called atmosphere.
In space, it's rendered a simply empty tin can.

Why don't you push against the atmosphere and see how far you get?
Give me a helicopter and I will.

A helicopter does not push anything. It's blades are designed to create a force known as lift, which is not the way a rocket works. Rockets do not have spinning rotors. They have a combustion chamber... and it has been explained how that works.

EDIT: Time for me to fade back into the background.
How do you think the blades create lift?

Downward force that's how.

Okay, I'll fade away after this brief response. They create lift from the shape of the blade and the way it moves laterally through the air, which creates a "pillow" of air underneath the blade. If the blade is angled properly and moving the right speed, it will live the craft underneath it. It works the same way with airplane wings. You're not going to tell me that wings create a downward force are you? Good, because that would just be ridiculous.

7
Flat Earth General / Re: Stars and light years.
« on: November 30, 2012, 10:36:42 AM »
The explosion itself its already creating force to create expansion. The force making the rocket move is that expansion against the rocket, mass causing pressure against mass.
The rocket moves because of the expansion of gasses against the rocket, not against the vacuum.

The point is where the explosion would be. Is not an accurate representation of a rocket, just to show the forces.
This is exactly you saying that the rocket pushes against itself with the exhaust having no part in it.
It's so silly , it's actually scary to think people believe this.

You don't get it, the exhaust against vacuum does nothing, but there are also gases moving against the rocket. The gasses push the rocket so it moves, is not the rocket against the rocket because this gases are not attached to the rocket and are constantly leaving it.
Have a word will you.

The gases cannot just push the rocket without an external force to act against.
On Earth it has that. It's called atmosphere.
In space, it's rendered a simply empty tin can.

Why don't you push against the atmosphere and see how far you get?
Give me a helicopter and I will.

A helicopter does not push anything. It's blades are designed to create a force known as lift, which is not the way a rocket works. Rockets do not have spinning rotors. They have a combustion chamber... and it has been explained how that works.

EDIT: Time for me to fade back into the background.

8
Flat Earth General / Re: Stars and light years.
« on: November 30, 2012, 10:13:50 AM »
The explosion itself its already creating force to create expansion. The force making the rocket move is that expansion against the rocket, mass causing pressure against mass.
The rocket moves because of the expansion of gasses against the rocket, not against the vacuum.

The point is where the explosion would be. Is not an accurate representation of a rocket, just to show the forces.
This is exactly you saying that the rocket pushes against itself with the exhaust having no part in it.
It's so silly , it's actually scary to think people believe this.

You don't get it, the exhaust against vacuum does nothing, but there are also gases moving against the rocket. The gasses push the rocket so it moves, is not the rocket against the rocket because this gases are not attached to the rocket and are constantly leaving it.
Have a word will you.

The gases cannot just push the rocket without an external force to act against.
On Earth it has that. It's called atmosphere.
In space, it's rendered a simply empty tin can.

Why don't you push against the atmosphere and see how far you get?

9
Flat Earth General / Re: Stars and light years.
« on: November 30, 2012, 10:07:24 AM »
I 'think' as the pressures on both sides of the breach approach equality the force of the gasses expanding will diminish, someone more versed then I may need to correct or clarify.

I think I know what you mean. For example, if we were talking about a simple can of air in space. If the can were breached, then the air would be propelled out, pushing the can in the opposite direction. As the air pressure in the can drops, there is less force pushing it, so it would diminish, you are correct. In the case of liquid fueled rockets, they have throttle controls, so the "pressure," or force, can be manually raised and lowered. It can fire full force until it's out of fuel if the pilot/person at the controls so desires.

10
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Air
« on: November 30, 2012, 09:52:58 AM »
Impossible.

Are you saying that my nonsensical question doesn't deserve an answer when yours does?

Irrelevant.

11
Flat Earth General / Re: Stars and light years.
« on: November 30, 2012, 09:51:13 AM »
So it comes out and somehow turns around, gripping the sides and pushing the rocket?
So for it to push this rocket it must use leverage...what leverage is it using?

Nope -

The gas escapes the breach and expands to attempt to fill the vacuum - this expansion creates force against the breach.
How does it create force in the vacuum?

The gas escapes the breach and expands to attempt to fill the vacuum - this expansion creates force against the breach.
Ok, it's expanding and attempting to fill the vacuum but it's failing to "fill" the vacuum, so where is it getting it's force from?

There is a combustion chamber in which the fuel is burning at such a high rate that it is essentially a continuous explosion. There is an opening at one end of the combustion chamber. When the fuel burns, it expands in all directions, pushing on all sides of the chamber. Since there is an opening on one side, it escapes out that side, the stuff that is still pushing within the chamber forces the rocket forwards in the opposite direction that the nozzle is facing.

12
Flat Earth General / Re: Stars and light years.
« on: November 30, 2012, 09:30:53 AM »
There is no low pressure in space. There is no pressure at all.

Ok - let me make a slight change in the wording of my explaination to make it more clear:

Quote
In this scenario - the gasses inside the 'rocket' - or any container filled with a gas under pressure - will create propulsion as they move from the high pressure through the 'breach' and expand in the zero pressure environment on the other side.
So what are these expanding gases pushing against?

The rocket's combustion chamber.

13
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Tesla Model S
« on: November 30, 2012, 07:59:05 AM »
You also have to realize that an electric motor has its peak torque at 0 RPMs, so off the line, you have crazy amounts of torque at your disposal.

I know, that's what gives it such great, even acceleration.

14
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Air
« on: November 30, 2012, 07:46:52 AM »
You cannot stir the water so that the salt is diffused to a relatively even mixture (equilibrium) before it dissolves?

This question makes no sense.

Your lack of comprehension makes no sense.

Draw me a square circle.

How about a square within a circle? Or a circle within a square?

No, I want a square circle. Draw me one.

Impossible.

15
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Air
« on: November 30, 2012, 07:39:52 AM »
You cannot stir the water so that the salt is diffused to a relatively even mixture (equilibrium) before it dissolves?

This question makes no sense.

Your lack of comprehension makes no sense.

Draw me a square circle.

How about a square within a circle? Or a circle within a square?

16
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Air
« on: November 30, 2012, 07:23:59 AM »
Isn't diffuse to be spread over a large area?

Or to mix throughout. Rushy gave a very good definition of the word.

17
Flat Earth General / Re: the moon
« on: November 30, 2012, 07:23:26 AM »
This is very informative. Do you have any proof other than a photo that will likely be shopped by NASA?
Wouldn't Russia have noticed if we hadn't? Also that would be thousands of people keeping a secret.
RASA is also in on it. They don't have to be deceived. Additionally, it wouldn't require that many people, as has been explained previously.

What the hell is RASA?
I don't know if that actually exists. I just didn't feel like looking up the name of the Russian space agency.

CCCP

18
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Air
« on: November 30, 2012, 07:17:31 AM »
You cannot stir the water so that the salt is diffused to a relatively even mixture (equilibrium) before it dissolves?

This question makes no sense.

Your lack of comprehension makes no sense.

19
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Air
« on: November 30, 2012, 07:03:24 AM »
Salt dissolves slowly.

Depends on the solvent.

It can be diffused into the medium (water) before it dissolves completely.

This sentence makes no sense whatsoever.

You cannot stir the water so that the salt is diffused to a relatively even mixture (equilibrium) before it dissolves?

20
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Air
« on: November 30, 2012, 06:55:48 AM »
Where does it state that something diffused into the air need be a gas? Does that mean if salt is diffused in water it is now a liquid?

Salt does not diffuse in water. You're thinking of the term dissolve.

Salt dissolves slowly. It can be diffused into the medium (water) before it dissolves completely.

21
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Beam Neutrinos
« 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.

22
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: 2013 Virgin Galactic Flights
« on: November 30, 2012, 06:40:05 AM »
When the first Virgin Galactic flight takes off for a 68 mile high trip into space what will FE'rs do when thousands of photos from Joe Citizen flood the Internet and show the curvature of the Earth?  What about the interviews that will take place upon their return from the maiden flight.  There are more than 532 people on the waiting list for the space flights.  How will the FE conspiracy hold up when the average (albeit wealthy) citizen comes back with no agenda to report how amazing their space flight was and how they could "see the curve of the Earth".
Good God... You can predict the future!

No, really, those events haven't happened yet. From my understanding, nobody has done any single one of those things, and, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems as if you're making the assumption that they are going to happen. First off, if there really is no government intervention on a trip to space, then it won't happen. The people will say, "Jeepers, looks pretty darn flat." But if there is government intervention, the flight either won't occur, or they'll be forced to lie, most likely the former.

Why would there be government intervention? The government didn't intervene with SpaceX when they were testing the Dragon. The government didn't intervene with SpaceX when they sent Dragon to the ISS on a cargo run. The government isn't interfering with SpaceX on their reusable rocket program. They haven't intervened with Space Adventures bringing people to stay on the ISS. So why would they intervene with Virgin Galactic performing a simply suborbital flight?

23
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Air
« on: November 30, 2012, 06:33:46 AM »
Are you saying that clouds are not water diffused through the atmosphere?

Yes, I am. If they were diffused throughout the atmosphere, they would be a gas, and they are not.

Where does it state that something diffused into the air need be a gas? Does that mean if salt is diffused in water it is now a liquid?

24
Flat Earth General / Re: NASA work of art
« on: November 30, 2012, 06:29:28 AM »

It takes 40+ years to get your story straight? Along with many changes of hands and drops in funding?

Does it make more sense for them to make regular trips, then just stop for no apparent reason for 40 years?

There was a reason, there was not enough money there, the people were tired of it, and they weren't going to fund it anymore. It got "boring." I personally think that it should have been pushed farther.
It got boring. ;D

Nothing to do with, " hey, why don't we land on another part of the moon as it will be good training for the future Astronauts"

If man could get into space and land on moons and such, I don't think boring would be a term used considering how dangerous the feat is supposed to be and the obvious benefits of seeing other plants.

There are no plants on the moon. There are many in NASA that want to go back to the moon. In fact, plans have been announced for a permanent moon base. But the funding needs to be there. If the people don't care, they won't fund it. It's really that simple. NASA either must find an alternate method of funding, or try and build the interest.

25
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Air
« on: November 30, 2012, 06:27:02 AM »
Don't like when people are vague, do you? Perhaps you should take your own advice to heart.

I'm never vague, which is why I am wrong so little of the time.

Quote
1va·por noun \ˈvā-pər\
Definition of VAPOR
1: diffused matter (as smoke or fog) suspended floating in the air and impairing its transparency

Vapor is still not a gas. Vapor is a liquid that has been dispersed into the air. The clouds are water vapor.

Does that help?

Diffused matter suspended in air is called a gas.

Quote
diffusedpast participle, past tense of dif·fuse (Verb)
Verb:   

    Spread or cause to spread over a wide area or among a large number of people.
    Become or cause (a fluid, gas, individual atom, etc.) to become intermingled with a substance by movement, typically in a specified...

Try again.  ::) All this shenanigan is showing is even that when overwhelming incorrect you still pretend like nothing is happening. Its ironic that you call me the troll and then do this. Clearly you can't even comprehend the subject at hand when simple definitions boggle your mind like this.

Are you saying that clouds are not water diffused through the atmosphere?

26
To be fair, the US defends freedom of speech to a much greater extent than any other nation-state I am aware of.

Yes, if freedom of speech is the only measure of how free a country is america is very free

Freedom of speech is of paramount importance. If you can't talk about the things your government doesn't want you to hear, then they can more easily walk all over you.

27
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Tesla Model S
« on: November 30, 2012, 06:23:20 AM »
By the way, the Tesla Roadster could smoke the Cadillac CTS-V.

Really, who would have thought that such a small car could eat up a 4200 pound sedan...  Why don't we compare apples to apples and see how the Tesla Roadster does next to a Z06 or a ZR1?  Oh, it gets eaten alive...  what a surprise.

What's their 0-60? I know that the Tesla is somewhere between 3.5-3.7.

28
Flat Earth General / Re: NASA work of art
« on: November 30, 2012, 06:16:56 AM »

It takes 40+ years to get your story straight? Along with many changes of hands and drops in funding?

Does it make more sense for them to make regular trips, then just stop for no apparent reason for 40 years?

There was a reason, there was not enough money there, the people were tired of it, and they weren't going to fund it anymore. It got "boring." I personally think that it should have been pushed farther.

29
Flat Earth General / Re: Stars and light years.
« on: November 30, 2012, 05:55:39 AM »
@Kendrick

I had no idea you were so versed in rocketry and physics. However, you're words will probably continue to fall on deaf ears. I don't know if you've noticed, but no matter who says what to septic tank, he doesn't understand, and refuses to even consider the possibility, even though the things we're trying to teach him have been understood for hundreds of years now.

Thank you for the compliment - I am not, really.  There is a rocket test facility a few hours away that invited the public to a test firing maybe 5-6 years ago - it was quite the spectacle, i've been making an effort to educate myself about it.

That's impressive though. Most people don't bother if they haven't had a higher eduction, as is evidenced by the simple existence of this thread. I haven't come anywhere close to finishing my BSME (bachelor's of science and mechanical engineering), but I'm doing my best to educate myself on these topics and the mathematics that goes with them.

*Hint* He's mocking you and will now turn around and say that's ridiculous.

I hope not - 'riding a long explosion' is a pretty eloquant way to explain the process - better then I was coming up with.

See... he's mocking you. He no more believes this than he would believe that it's the same concept that an internal combustion engine works on. The ICE is totally sealed off from the air, so I don't know how he expects this backlash of air to be pushing the pistons. Of course, by his logic, I could take the A-10 Warthog that moves ~450mph in the air, put it in the water, and go about mach 2, as the water is a lot more dense, so should push harder on the airplane, making it go faster.

30
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Beam Neutrinos
« 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.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 55