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 - MotherNature

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7
31
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Why it is impossible to reason with an FE'er.
« on: March 08, 2009, 05:18:59 PM »
Graham... Go find the thread Mothernature started the Coriolis force argument on and get caught up.

It doesn't matter at all I think, but MN made a comment that we called MN on and still... MN refuses to admit that all the evidence is going our way.

As to why it works, when it works, I haven't asked yet.  I will.

Those papers give you the extent of the coriolis force. One even gives you the possible extent of the force which is alot more than that quoted in the FAQ.

Anyway

I'm going to try and put it another way and this relates to initial conditions and stability limits.

Imagine you have a hanging bucket of still water. The bucket has a hole in the bottom that is corked.

You remove the cork.

What initial forces are acting on the water?

Bump te Bump Bump


32
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Whos in the middle
« on: March 08, 2009, 05:12:42 PM »
I started off skeptical, but I think MotherNature is right in this case, maybe at the macro level, matter and energy appear to be different things, with different properties, but when you get down to it, if you were to observe some matter and energy at the subatomic level, I think all but the most highly trained would be hard pressed to tell the difference between the two.

An apple and an onion are the same thing at a subatomic level too.

You really need to understand the concept more :)


I understand the concept fine.  Mass and energy describe different properties of a given system.  They are therefore, by definition, different things.

I'm sorry but you don't understand the concept. I will even post some of the references again as you've either done two things. One not read them or Two not understood them.

Quote

I have given people a reference that they can look at that states E=M. I'll quote the relevant parts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass-energy_equivalence#Practical_examples

Quote

Einstein used the CGS system of units (centimeters, grams, seconds, dynes, and ergs), but the formula is independent of the system of units. In natural units, the speed of light is defined to equal 1, and the formula expresses an identity: E = m. In the SI system (expressing the ratio E / m in joules per kilogram using the value of c in meters per second):



Quote

Whenever energy is added to a system, the system gains mass. A spring's mass increases whenever it is put into compression or tension. Its added mass arises from the added potential energy stored within it, which is bound in the stretched chemical (electron) bonds linking the atoms within the spring. Raising the temperature of an object (increasing its heat energy) increases its mass. If the temperature of the platinum/iridium "international prototype" of the kilogram ? the world?s primary mass standard ? is allowed to change by 1?C, its mass will change by 1.5 picograms (1 pg = 1 ? 10?12 g).[8]
Note that no net mass or energy is really created or lost in any of these scenarios. Mass/energy simply moves from one place to another. These are some examples of the transfer of energy and mass in accordance with the principle of mass?energy conservation.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_units#Introduction

Quote

Natural units are natural because the origin of their definition comes only from properties of nature and not from any human construct. Planck units are often, without qualification, called "natural units," when in fact they are only one of several systems of natural units, albeit the best known such system. Planck units might be considered unique in that the set of units are not based on properties of any prototype, object, or particle but are solely derived from the properties of free space.



I've tried to describe matter in a different way not using the E=mc^2 because people arn't understanding the equation properly.

/facedesk



33
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Whos in the middle
« on: March 08, 2009, 02:36:30 PM »
I started off skeptical, but I think MotherNature is right in this case, maybe at the macro level, matter and energy appear to be different things, with different properties, but when you get down to it, if you were to observe some matter and energy at the subatomic level, I think all but the most highly trained would be hard pressed to tell the difference between the two.

An apple and an onion are the same thing at a subatomic level too.

You really need to understand the concept more :)

/sigh

Hopefully I got through to the rest.

Like I've said before no matter how hard someone tries some people will never understand.

This is one of those occasions.

34

I would be concerned if there wern't errors in science and mathematics.

Science tries to match the current observation to a theory. Science by it's very nature assume it's wrong.

It's why we are still experimenting and theorising about the world around us.



35
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Why it is impossible to reason with an FE'er.
« on: March 08, 2009, 10:03:05 AM »
Great, the REers are arguing against each other now.

lol

Why do you think were arguing?

There's some confusion that's being clarified.

36
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Why it is impossible to reason with an FE'er.
« on: March 08, 2009, 08:39:53 AM »
I know where MotherNature is going with this.
;)
If my head isn't on another planet, you're trying to debunk the UA now right?




Nope not yet that's for another question  ;)

Ok, but aren't you asking what makes the water "fall" down from the bucket and down to the ground?
Isn't that the "force" your asking about?

Nope I'm trying to get them to establish an initial force diagram i.e. what initial forces are acting on the water. The UA model is actually quite sound in terms of an accelerating reference frame.

Although I haven't had time to go into most of the ideas and how they get over certain laws in physics :)

Alright then! Then my question is:
If you hold this bucket of water in front of you, and then you make a hole in the bottom.
The water falls down to the ground. Why is that? What force makes the water fall down to the ground?
Even though you hold the bucket at the same position. It can't be the earth that catches up on the water.


In that case the bucket will be connected to the earth. The reason why the water falls through the hole is becasue of inertia. The water wants to stay in its original position while the earth and bucket (which is connected to the earth) carry on accelerating.

37
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Why it is impossible to reason with an FE'er.
« on: March 08, 2009, 05:11:32 AM »
I know where MotherNature is going with this.
;)
If my head isn't on another planet, you're trying to debunk the UA now right?




Nope not yet that's for another question  ;)

Ok, but aren't you asking what makes the water "fall" down from the bucket and down to the ground?
Isn't that the "force" your asking about?

Nope I'm trying to get them to establish an initial force diagram i.e. what initial forces are acting on the water. The UA model is actually quite sound in terms of an accelerating reference frame.

Although I haven't had time to go into most of the ideas and how they get over certain laws in physics :)

38
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Why it is impossible to reason with an FE'er.
« on: March 08, 2009, 04:26:30 AM »
I don't need to, I've been here for two years and already know that you don't.

*begins acting like you and the other trolls*

Yes but I could answer your question but I'd rather put more effort into insulting and telling you to use the search facility of the forum.

*incomes the troll crowd*

HAHAHAHA your so funny your my forum buddy I think I'll join in.

*insert other random insult*

HAHAHAHAHA

*the end*

It's like a script. I've seen it in many many threads using the search function and the question is still not answered.



I am now deeply in love with you.

Like a script :D

39
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Why it is impossible to reason with an FE'er.
« on: March 07, 2009, 05:40:12 PM »
I know where MotherNature is going with this.
;)
If my head isn't on another planet, you're trying to debunk the UA now right?




Nope not yet that's for another question  ;)

40
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Why it is impossible to reason with an FE'er.
« on: March 07, 2009, 05:24:23 PM »
Me too, but it's completely the wrong direction. A bowl shape prevents interference from bumps or cracks.

If the water is perfectly still how will the bumps and cracks of the bowl etc... affect the initial force?

41
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Why it is impossible to reason with an FE'er.
« on: March 07, 2009, 05:23:02 PM »
I know where MotherNature is going with this.

 ;)

42
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Why it is impossible to reason with an FE'er.
« on: March 07, 2009, 04:57:43 PM »
The Coriolis effect can only be noticed in a perfect bowl, with no distortions at all, no movement of the bowl at all, and the water entering the bowl at exactly the right angle. No matter what theory anybody subscribes to, stabbing a hole in the bottom of a bucket using a screwdriver and holding it out in front of you is not an adequate test.

Do the experiment and see for yourself and I never said hold the bucket out in front of you.

Also why do you think it needs to be a bowl?

I can see why that would need to be a requirement if you are trying to measure the coriolis force, but if all you're trying to do is see if it will effect the rotation direction then a symmetrical shape will surfice if the area of water is relativly small.


I'm going to try and put it another way and this relates to initial conditions and stability limits.

Imagine you have a hanging bucket of still water. The bucket has a hole in the bottom that is corked.

You remove the cork.

What initial forces are acting on the water?

43
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Why it is impossible to reason with an FE'er.
« on: March 07, 2009, 04:20:08 PM »
Graham... Go find the thread Mothernature started the Coriolis force argument on and get caught up.

It doesn't matter at all I think, but MN made a comment that we called MN on and still... MN refuses to admit that all the evidence is going our way.

As to why it works, when it works, I haven't asked yet.  I will.

Those papers give you the extent of the coriolis force. One even gives you the possible extent of the force which is alot more than that quoted in the FAQ.

Anyway

I'm going to try and put it another way and this relates to initial conditions and stability limits.

Imagine you have a hanging bucket of still water. The bucket has a hole in the bottom that is corked.

You remove the cork.

What initial forces are acting on the water?

The primary would be the UA in the FE model.  Total others... hm...

Well it says in the FAQ that the coriolis force exists even if it's not being given the correct magnitude in terms of it's effect of water vortices. So if you are an FE'r then you believe it exists. Even though I haven't seen posts accounting for this effect in the FE theory (Well there was one posts which looked promising but the links don't work).

44
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Why it is impossible to reason with an FE'er.
« on: March 07, 2009, 03:19:05 PM »
Graham... Go find the thread Mothernature started the Coriolis force argument on and get caught up.

It doesn't matter at all I think, but MN made a comment that we called MN on and still... MN refuses to admit that all the evidence is going our way.

As to why it works, when it works, I haven't asked yet.  I will.

Those papers give you the extent of the coriolis force. One even gives you the possible extent of the force which is alot more than that quoted in the FAQ.

Anyway

I'm going to try and put it another way and this relates to initial conditions and stability limits.

Imagine you have a hanging bucket of still water. The bucket has a hole in the bottom that is corked.

You remove the cork.

What initial forces are acting on the water?

45
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Why it is impossible to reason with an FE'er.
« on: March 07, 2009, 02:29:01 PM »
Paper one is 31.50... which I don't have.  I will have to get someone to find me a copy of it.

Paper two:  "The magnitude and direction of this rotation-induced force are determined in exact mathematical form in this article. It is calculated that the gravitational force is at least 300 times larger than the largest rotation-induced force anywhere on Earth, the latter force being maximal along the equator and approximately equal to 34 N/m3 there. This compares with a gravitational force of ∼104 N/m3.

Paper three: "The tendency for the LSC to be in a preferred orientation due to the Coriolis force could be canceled by a slight tilt of the apparatus relative to gravity, although this tilt affected other aspects of the LSC that the Coriolis force did not."

Paper four: "In the high-frequency limit, the Coriolis effects may be neglected, and a family of stationary Kolmogorov solutions can be found, which includes the Garrett?Munk spectrum of oceanic internal waves."

All of your own papers that I could get my hands on say the same thing, two right in the abstract.  The Coriolis force is not important.  Paper four was even a restricted study, carefully controlling the shape size and forces of the experiment and it still doesn't say a thing about the Coriolis force being a major effect on the fluid.

The only one that might back your position is the first one and they are trying to create the Coriolis force, even though they claim "To get a viscous Shallow Water type model with Coriolis force from free surface Navier?Stokes equations, the required order of approximation depends on the relative order between the Reynolds number and the aspect ratio. Even if the methodology is classical in the field of asymptotic analysis (ansatz), we will prove that new terms depending on the latitude cosine have been omitted in recent papers and must be taken into account for some applications in geophysics. However, these terms do not appear when we study rotating thin films. We will also give the quasi-geostrophic and the lake limits corresponding to the equations with cosine effect. All these models are well posed (existence of global weak solutions) and we show that the cosine terms affect equatorial waves."

It should be an interesting paper at least.

But the rest of them still say the Coriolis force is simply not that important.  Does it exist?  Yes.  Why, under the FE?  Because the FE spins, I believe.  Let me check on that before I claim it.

Before you quote those sections it might be worth understanding what they are saying and also be able to quantify the other forces that may be involved.

You might also want to read the papers themselves.

p.s. one of the papers eliminated the coriolis force by tilting the apparatus.

edit: There is also a dependancy on stability limits and initial conditions i.e. a still system and cascading forces involved within the initial vortex and water draining direction.

46
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Why it is impossible to reason with an FE'er.
« on: March 07, 2009, 02:03:43 PM »
There's one big flaw (among the many small ones) in that, and it's that you think it's easier to answer the question than insult you. In fact, insults jump to the forefront of my mind whenever you post.

So why are you here?

To insult people?

Because that's all I've seen so far.



Possibly that would be because you don't listen to anyone trying to talk to you.  The first thread you were in you made a point and at least three different people proved your point wrong and you wouldn't accept it.

Debate assumes that both sides have an open mind and are willing to admit that they might be wrong.  No one here is going to waste time debating with someone who has blind faith in their own opinions.

We all have better things to do than crashing into brick walls.

I wasn't wrong. It was you who wasn't reading the references you provided.

I even told you where you should read them. I still don't think I was wrong. You can conduct the experiment at home. I haven't seen anything in the FE'rs literature that tells me why the Coriolis effect exists within the FE model. There's some reference to a cog and gear motion that's associated with stellar movements but I can't see how that relates to the coriolis effect.

You second point is half valid. I agree people should admit they are wrong (I have admited it on this forum). The blind faith part is what most FE'rs are doing.

You all have better things to be doing than crashing into brick walls?

Well what better things is that? Insulting people? Because thats all I've seen you and your crew doing.

I've seen many RE'rs crashing into many brick walls with FE'rs. Simply because the FE'rs scientific method is seriously flawed and they can't understand it.

This is one of the arguments I've seen:

If you can't do the experiment at home then I don't except it's true. It's not peer reviewed.

This is a stupid way of approaching science. It shows that 'in psychology terms' the FE'rs is in some way paranoid and not willing to accept the fact that there are scientific discoveries that can't be conducted on a home built apparatus. It shows that they don't trust the science being presented to them even though countless people with the appropriate qualifications are saying it's correct.

I've worked at the ILL in France and I have seen the equiptment working with my own eyes. If they are going to claim a theory is wrong because of this 'home built' argument then they should at least verify there suspicons and go to a scientific facility and see them work with their own eyes.

Until they do that then simply saying I don't believe it is not a good argument for the FE theory.

First, the man would created the theory behind the effect said that it would take a Perfect sink under heavily controlled laboratory conditions... this is a man with proven skills and experience.

Now, you, an unknown being on the internet, with no known skills or training and say, "Oh, no, you can do the experiment in a bucket in your yard."

Do you not see why we're not taking your word for it?  Proven scientist vs. internet typist.  Which one would you believe?

And now, since you think we've been insulting you, allow me to show you what insulting you really is. 

You are full of shit.  You claim to be an educated person, but you cannot use simple English properly, certainly not to any standard I have ever seen in any higher education facility.  Note your post above.  I skimmed it once, not expecting to find anything worth replying to and then read it.

While I did that, I marked a few of the simple errors that any professor or higher level instructor should know better than to make.  Other people have pointed errors out to you, so this is not a once in awhile thing, but a continuous series of errors.

I don't believe that you are a graduate of any decent school.  You may be a student in college.  Insufficient data for a conclusion in that.

You are possibly the most pig headed person posting on this board.  I do believe that you even outdo Tom and Kingman in sheer stubborn crap.  You made a claim, three people showed you that the claim you made was wrong, that your experiment wouldn't work according to the pioneer of the field and still you insist it will work.  That is either an inability to change your mind or an ego the size of Bill Gates' bank account.

You criticize us for shoddy science, but your idea was to use a bucket with a hole punched in it with a screwdriver.  This is the best science you could come up with?  At the very least, drill the hole in the bucket, since no two holes done with a screwdriver are going to be the same.

In short, you are either a zealot, so absolutely certain of your own correctness that you couldn't change your mind at gun point or a particularly sneaky troll, hiding an attempt to annoy people under pseudo-science.

Either way, your combination of bullheaded ignorance, sloppy work and sheer mental blindness has lost it's attraction.  I was hoping, when you first arrived, that you would be a welcome addition to FES, with posts worthy of discussion.  Instead, you're just another /b/tard with a better vocabulary.

Now, I have called you stupid, ignorant, a lying weasel and mentally ossified.  Now, you have been insulted, not that you will care.  No mere words typed on any screen could penetrate that armour of self righteous bullshit that you wrap around yourself like a cloak.

Goodbye,

Raven


lol

Hmm I wonder why you are so annoyed?

Anyway

You've discredited my experimental procedure because I said use a screw driver. If you'd of read the next paragraph you would of seen a remark about the hole. The final post also comments on it.

The reason why I know I'm right with this experimental procedure is because I know it works. The papers and references that you've quoted don't give any idea as to how much the external parameters will effect the result. They simply say they have an influence.

Have a look at these papers

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6X1B-4PJ6BS7-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=5fae882c517325f4cfd76576bb2d22e9

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118538745/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=PHFLE6000018000012125108000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TVK-4CMJFVC-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=8850b00c1659d88d2729445b751f7047

Thats just some of the papers I have found. These papers quantify the force of the coriolis effect and show that it is more dominant than you and many others seem to think it is.

If you have access to a university you should be able to access the full papers. Also there were many more papers that I could of quoted that quantify and show the coriolis effect is not just something that should be ignored.

The coriolis effect can be tested at home. Whether you use a bucket or another symmetrical containg vessel.
 


47
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Why it is impossible to reason with an FE'er.
« on: March 07, 2009, 12:13:17 PM »
There's one big flaw (among the many small ones) in that, and it's that you think it's easier to answer the question than insult you. In fact, insults jump to the forefront of my mind whenever you post.

So why are you here?

To insult people?

Because that's all I've seen so far.



Possibly that would be because you don't listen to anyone trying to talk to you.  The first thread you were in you made a point and at least three different people proved your point wrong and you wouldn't accept it.

Debate assumes that both sides have an open mind and are willing to admit that they might be wrong.  No one here is going to waste time debating with someone who has blind faith in their own opinions.

We all have better things to do than crashing into brick walls.

I have to disagree with your last point, Mothernature couldn't get that job as the crash-test dummy.

Point proven I think :)

48
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Why it is impossible to reason with an FE'er.
« on: March 07, 2009, 12:10:00 PM »
There's one big flaw (among the many small ones) in that, and it's that you think it's easier to answer the question than insult you. In fact, insults jump to the forefront of my mind whenever you post.

So why are you here?

To insult people?

Because that's all I've seen so far.



Possibly that would be because you don't listen to anyone trying to talk to you.  The first thread you were in you made a point and at least three different people proved your point wrong and you wouldn't accept it.

Debate assumes that both sides have an open mind and are willing to admit that they might be wrong.  No one here is going to waste time debating with someone who has blind faith in their own opinions.

We all have better things to do than crashing into brick walls.

I wasn't wrong. It was you who wasn't reading the references you provided.

I even told you where you should read them. I still don't think I was wrong. You can conduct the experiment at home. I haven't seen anything in the FE'rs literature that tells me why the Coriolis effect exists within the FE model. There's some reference to a cog and gear motion that's associated with stellar movements but I can't see how that relates to the coriolis effect.

You second point is half valid. I agree people should admit they are wrong (I have admited it on this forum). The blind faith part is what most FE'rs are doing.

You all have better things to be doing than crashing into brick walls?

Well what better things is that? Insulting people? Because thats all I've seen you and your crew doing.

I've seen many RE'rs crashing into many brick walls with FE'rs. Simply because the FE'rs scientific method is seriously flawed and they can't understand it.

This is one of the arguments I've seen:

If you can't do the experiment at home then I don't except it's true. It's not peer reviewed.

This is a stupid way of approaching science. It shows that 'in psychology terms' the FE'rs is in some way paranoid and not willing to accept the fact that there are scientific discoveries that can't be conducted on a home built apparatus. It shows that they don't trust the science being presented to them even though countless people with the appropriate qualifications are saying it's correct.

I've worked at the ILL in France and I have seen the equiptment working with my own eyes. If they are going to claim a theory is wrong because of this 'home built' argument then they should at least verify their suspicons and go to a scientific facility and see them work with their own eyes.

Until they do that then simply saying I don't believe it is not a good argument for the FE theory.

49
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Why it is impossible to reason with an FE'er.
« on: March 07, 2009, 09:04:02 AM »
There's one big flaw (among the many small ones) in that, and it's that you think it's easier to answer the question than insult you. In fact, insults jump to the forefront of my mind whenever you post.

So why are you here?

To insult people?

Because that's all I've seen so far.


50
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Why it is impossible to reason with an FE'er.
« on: March 07, 2009, 08:52:11 AM »
I don't need to, I've been here for two years and already know that you don't.

*begins acting like you and the other trolls*

Yes but I could answer your question but I'd rather put more effort into insulting and telling you to use the search facility of the forum.

*incomes the troll crowd*

HAHAHAHA your so funny your my forum buddy I think I'll join in.

*insert other random insult*

HAHAHAHAHA

*the end*

It's like a script. I've seen it in many many threads using the search function and the question is still not answered.

51
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Why it is impossible to reason with an FE'er.
« on: March 07, 2009, 06:48:36 AM »
Can you name any?

Why don't you use the FAQ and the search facility?

52
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Why it is impossible to reason with an FE'er.
« on: March 06, 2009, 03:10:10 PM »
Because they have the same argument all the time. You can throw you're proven scientific facts at them, but they will always have some sought of reply, going along these lines.

If you question them about anything to do with the government, NASA, etc., It's a conspiracy. This is their main argument of course, as most modern things space/sphere earth related (Satellites, space launches, images of earth, etc) revolve around these things. Therefore they can just tell you 'it's all a lie' (Of course providing zero evidence backing up these 'lies'). Oh and anything in history to do with a round earth didn't happen either. After all it's in the FAQ so it must be true.

If NASA is so legit, how did they lose 565 Billion dollars in 48 years?


This means that whatever you throw at them will result at them telling you it didn't happen, is a government conspiracy, or it doesn't exist. In other words, our evidence isn't actually evidence at all to them. Despite being proven facts (Don't quote that telling me it's made up by the government either).

Did I mention my aunte and both my cousins moved to Australia recently? Oh wait, Australia doesn't exist, meaning she's either a government agent or she's been imprisoned in a 'fake' Austrailia which is actually a different place.

The other posters have told you about this already.

launching shit into space isn't exactly pocket change.

can anybody answer why australia isn't cold if its close to so much ice?

NASA didn't launch the money into space.  Maybe if you could do some simple research of your own, you'd know that the outside Auditors that do the reports for the government regularly report that NASA cannot account for all their money and they did in fact lose, not spend, but lose 565 billion dollars in money and assets during the 90ies.

You can even google it.

Hmm I wonder if a FE'r was their acountant  ::)

That would make more sense than some of the science that's being misinterpreted and butchered in the FAQ and the list of references FE'rs have.

53
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Asteroids
« on: March 05, 2009, 03:59:33 PM »
Unnatural,    like this?




or this?




Sometimes things cannot be explained.



Why do you think that can't be explained?

I could go out build a rock sculpture and take a picture. Also I didn't think a picture was admissible as evidence?

54
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: I challenge you to change my mind
« on: March 05, 2009, 03:04:36 PM »

trolls trolling trolls ::)






55
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Whos in the middle
« on: March 05, 2009, 02:10:58 PM »
The fact that you can differentiate the two of them is my point, no matter how slight the change may seem to an observer.

You can't differentiate between the two of them. They are equivalent.

In what way are you differentiating between them?

56
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Whos in the middle
« on: March 05, 2009, 07:46:19 AM »
So what differences are between the two?

I recall it being mentioned that mass is a more stable configuration of energy. Reminds me of how ice is a more stable form of liquid water.

Ok let me describe energy in another way.

Imagine you have a pool of water that has a square boundary around the edges. Now drop a stone in the middle of the pool. The waves that are created will travel along the pool and interact with the boundary and reflect back. If there is no dampning of the wave then it will carry on across the pool and reflect off another surface and either constructivly intefere or destructivly interfer with other reflected waves. After a while the pool will stabilise and a resonance condition will be setup.

If we take this oversimplified example and match it to the wave function of a proton, neutron, electron etc... then the boundary conditions of the of the pool will determine what kind of particle we have i.e. which way round waves interfer and how they appear in the center or at the boundary. The energy is the wave in the pool it bounces around within the boundary. The energy does not take a diffferent form it is still a wave in either a neutron, proton, electron etc... So when we say packets of (stable'ish) energy then we are saying the energy is contained within a boundary condition.

This is an over simplified version of the wave function used within quantum mechanics.

57
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Solar Neutrinos
« on: March 04, 2009, 05:16:28 PM »
I have yet to see plans for the experiments/equipment from you guys. It doesn't seem peer reviewed to me. As peers who have no money are unable to review it.

I would like to know what problems you have with the experiment so we could possible give you the references and details that will be most relavent.

Simply asking for the schematics of something is not likely to answer the problems you have with the experiment.

I don't think you understand how experimental apparatus are put together. The experiment is going to have an oscilloscope attached to it somewhere. Do you want the details of how an oscilloscope works?

You need to be more specific in relation to the problems you have with the experiment.

What source is the oscilloscope reading?

So you would like to know how the experimental apparatus detects the neutrino?
That is the essence of my argument. I would like to know how to build such instrumentation.

What does the acronym TDR stand for?

Knowing how to build the experiment and how the experiment works are two different questions.

If you want to build the experiment then a knowledge of both is required.

If you want to use the experiment for research and to verify results then a knowledge of how it works is required.

TDR, I assume stands for Technical Design Report.

The following reference gives you the concept behind the detectors used in the experiments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_detector

http://underground.cityofember.com/2008/07/japans-superkamiokande.html

http://icecube.wisc.edu/science/publications/pdd/pdd.pdf  (this is a design document for a neutrino detector)

58
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Solar Neutrinos
« on: March 04, 2009, 03:09:57 PM »
Seriously this is all in the TDR that was linked. Its a pdf and i can't cut copy paste, but needless to say no ones used an oscilloscope since before disco died. SuperK has over 11'000 output channels, thats a lot of oscilloscopes.

Yeah know I was using it as an example most experiments use a data capture card connected to a PC :)

I was just trying to ascertain which part of the experiment they have a problem with.

59
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Solar Neutrinos
« on: March 04, 2009, 02:56:39 PM »
I have yet to see plans for the experiments/equipment from you guys. It doesn't seem peer reviewed to me. As peers who have no money are unable to review it.

I would like to know what problems you have with the experiment so we could possible give you the references and details that will be most relavent.

Simply asking for the schematics of something is not likely to answer the problems you have with the experiment.

I don't think you understand how experimental apparatus are put together. The experiment is going to have an oscilloscope attached to it somewhere. Do you want the details of how an oscilloscope works?

You need to be more specific in relation to the problems you have with the experiment.

What source is the oscilloscope reading?

So you would like to know how the experimental apparatus detects the neutrino?

60
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Solar Neutrinos
« on: March 04, 2009, 02:50:12 PM »
I have yet to see plans for the experiments/equipment from you guys. It doesn't seem peer reviewed to me. As peers who have no money are unable to review it.

I would like to know what problems you have with the experiment so we could possible give you the references and details that will be most relavent.

Simply asking for the schematics of something is not likely to answer the problems you have with the experiment.

I don't think you understand how experimental apparatus are put together. The experiment is going to have an oscilloscope attached to it somewhere. Do you want the details of how an oscilloscope works?

You need to be more specific in relation to the problems you have with the experiment.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7