Solar Neutrinos

  • 263 Replies
  • 49184 Views
?

zork

  • 3319
Re: Solar Neutrinos
« Reply #210 on: March 02, 2009, 12:34:37 PM »
Uh, no it doesn't. Atomic weapons have been used in anger twice and tested thousands of times. More importantly, the result of those tests is to all intensive purposes undeniable.
  Do you have data? Have you build one itself? don't you know that there is conspiracy which fakes all data and makes lot of money with supposedly working atomic bombs? And so on with exact arguments like FE has. I quite don't get it, why do you take at face value all stories about atomic bombs when you haven't seen one itself in action.
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.

Re: Solar Neutrinos
« Reply #211 on: March 02, 2009, 12:50:10 PM »
If they physically didn't exist then a huge number of people would have to be in on it by the time scientists, engineers, contractors, funding agencies, builders, visiting school children and dignitaries. In teh case of SNO they also had to build somewhere to hide all the heavy water they borrowed. Proving the data isn't rigged I suppose is more difficult as only the scientists would have to be in on it. Though its worth noting that for 40 years the experiments didn't give the result we expected and in the late 1990's led to the discovery of neutrino oscillations. Presumably if the data was rigged then we would have rigged it to what we thought the answer would be. This agrees with the other main class of neutrino experiment which study neutrinos from nuclear reactors.

*

Johannes

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 2755
Re: Solar Neutrinos
« Reply #212 on: March 02, 2009, 12:51:41 PM »
The fact is, no one has offered a way to reconstruct the experiments, so there is no evidence to support the solar neutrinos.

?

zork

  • 3319
Re: Solar Neutrinos
« Reply #213 on: March 02, 2009, 12:53:06 PM »
We know, also no one has offered atomic bombs plan so there is no evidence to support atomic bombs.
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.

?

Dr Matrix

  • 4312
  • In Soviet Russia, Matrix enters you!
Re: Solar Neutrinos
« Reply #214 on: March 02, 2009, 01:03:59 PM »
I'd say the evidence for atomic bombs is a bit more tangible than that for neutrinos... just buy a cheap Geiger counter and go on a tour of Japan...
Quote from: Arthur Schopenhauer
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

Re: Solar Neutrinos
« Reply #215 on: March 02, 2009, 01:06:38 PM »
I put a simple DIY solar neutrino detector up a couple of pages ago. It would work, you would not have tracking or powerful calorimetry like a modern detector. But it should by constructible by someone with a solid technical mind. Probably be done for only a few thousand dollars I guess, though I guess some of the metal work may have to be professionally manufactured.

The solar neutrino experiments have been repeated over and over for the past 40 years. Though there are only 2 of the latest generation of detector. A third is currently under construction in India, or it will be soon I can't remember what their status is. I know of at least 1 more in the pipeline. The gargantuan neutrino factory will be under construction in a few years. This is designed to fire neutrinos through the Earth. Better evidence I would say than solar neutrinos. But its detectors will be large enough to study solar neutrinos in principle but with the energy difference between solar and man made neutrinos their kit may not be sensitive,

On the whole nuclear thing every fission reactor is kicking out neutrinos by the gazillion we can only understand their power output if neutrinos exist.

?

zork

  • 3319
Re: Solar Neutrinos
« Reply #216 on: March 02, 2009, 01:19:32 PM »
I'd say the evidence for atomic bombs is a bit more tangible than that for neutrinos... just buy a cheap Geiger counter and go on a tour of Japan...
Do you have any proof that Geiger counters aren't tampered with? If there is conspiracy then all Geiger counter makers are in it. And maybe someone dumped some nuclear waste in japan... But let's drop the BS because if we go FE argument way we can make all things what we ever want impossible.
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.

?

Dr Matrix

  • 4312
  • In Soviet Russia, Matrix enters you!
Re: Solar Neutrinos
« Reply #217 on: March 02, 2009, 01:23:54 PM »
I'd say the evidence for atomic bombs is a bit more tangible than that for neutrinos... just buy a cheap Geiger counter and go on a tour of Japan...
Do you have any proof that Geiger counters aren't tampered with? If there is conspiracy then all Geiger counter makers are in it. And maybe someone dumped some nuclear waste in japan... But let's drop the BS because if we go FE argument way we can make all things what we ever want impossible.

You can build your own fairly decent Geiger counter for a couple of hundred quid if you really want to, and for a bit more outlay you could do some radionuclide tests to see that all around the world there is A- and H-bomb residue, not just fission waste from a reactor...

...however, I do take your point that FET can seem like a bit of a stretch.  Sometimes.
Quote from: Arthur Schopenhauer
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

Re: Solar Neutrinos
« Reply #218 on: March 02, 2009, 01:28:34 PM »
Just out of curiosity, when does FE theory not seem like a stretch? I mean if I look around me when im in a field I could believe the world is flat. In the same way I could believe that the moon is made of a small lump of cheese just above head height that follows me around. Everybode else has a similar lump of cheese that follows them around but only they can see it. Thats possibly the tastiest theory ever conceived.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2009, 01:32:13 PM by bowler »

?

Dr Matrix

  • 4312
  • In Soviet Russia, Matrix enters you!
Re: Solar Neutrinos
« Reply #219 on: March 02, 2009, 01:34:53 PM »
Just out of curiosity, when does FE theory not seem like a stretch? I mean if I look around me when im in a field I could believe the world is flat. In the same way I could believe that the moon is made of a small lump of cheese just above head height that follows me around. Everybode else has a similar lump of cheese that follows them around but only they can see it. Thats possibly the tastiest theory ever conceived.

... and also the most cruel... all that cheese, just out of reach  :'(
Quote from: Arthur Schopenhauer
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

Re: Solar Neutrinos
« Reply #220 on: March 02, 2009, 01:59:10 PM »
Its a whole other level of hell. For those who are blind yet can see.

?

Dr Matrix

  • 4312
  • In Soviet Russia, Matrix enters you!
Re: Solar Neutrinos
« Reply #221 on: March 02, 2009, 02:22:17 PM »
That's where all the RE'ers go.  You have been warned.
Quote from: Arthur Schopenhauer
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

Re: Solar Neutrinos
« Reply #222 on: March 02, 2009, 02:42:00 PM »
I like cheese.

Re: Solar Neutrinos
« Reply #223 on: March 02, 2009, 03:05:39 PM »
I appreciate that not everyone is a physicist (that much is pretty evident). From through going cosmic neutrinos we know that there must be an atmosphere on the otherside of the 'disc' to convert cosmic rays to cosmic muons.

Yes, it is quite evident that your yourself are not a Physicist.

If y'all (Flat Earth Conspiracy Theorists and Round Earth'ers both) would spend as much time as you waste on these fruitless debates of utter ignorance on something more productive (such as volunteer work, time with family, or possibly some education) then this world, regardless of geometrical shape, would be a much better place.

In your logic there is no way the atomic or hydrogen bomb works because their schematics and building instructions aren't also available.

Actually, out-dated Uranium and Plutonium core A-Bomb schematics are quite easy to find if you have the conviction to learn about them and their functions. Of course, modern A-Bombs are highly classified.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2009, 03:10:16 PM by Scl0182 »

Re: Solar Neutrinos
« Reply #224 on: March 02, 2009, 03:14:05 PM »
I'm almost offended. I assume you have a problem with the bit in bold? Cosmic rays, this is popular terminology for high energy particles, mostly protons, from deep space. These collide with atoms in the upper atmosphere which create large showers cascading down towards the Earths surface. The muons from this shower, decay into muon neutrinos, electrons and anti-electron neutrinos. The electrons are quickly captured but the neutrinos pass through the Earth and some are detected on the other side. At least thats what I predict a physicist would say.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: Solar Neutrinos
« Reply #225 on: March 02, 2009, 03:15:49 PM »
If y'all (Flat Earth Conspiracy Theorists and Round Earth'ers both) would spend as much time as you waste on these fruitless debates of utter ignorance on something more productive (such as volunteer work, time with family, or possibly some education) then this world, regardless of geometrical shape, would be a much better place.

At the very least, this site has philosophical value, and I am willing to bet that many people here (RE'ers included) would testify that this forum has opened their minds in a way that possibly nothing else could. If you want my opinion, this site is already making the world a better place by expanding people's horizons (if you'll excuse the double entendre). For many, it's not about the destination, but the journey.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

Re: Solar Neutrinos
« Reply #226 on: March 02, 2009, 03:20:57 PM »
At the very least, this site has philosophical value, and I am willing to bet that many people here (RE'ers included) would testify that this forum has opened their minds in a way that possibly nothing else could. If you want my opinion, this site is already making the world a better place by expanding people's horizons (if you'll excuse the double entendre). For many, it's not about the destination, but the journey.

That would be true if there was actual knowledge being exchanged here, as opposed to the transfer of ignorance from one person to the next.

Philosophy is the love of knowledge and the pursuit thereof. If you are pursuing something already sought and found you  wasting yours and others time.

*

Johannes

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 2755
Re: Solar Neutrinos
« Reply #227 on: March 02, 2009, 03:22:58 PM »
I put a simple DIY solar neutrino detector up a couple of pages ago. It would work, you would not have tracking or powerful calorimetry like a modern detector. But it should by constructible by someone with a solid technical mind. Probably be done for only a few thousand dollars I guess, though I guess some of the metal work may have to be professionally manufactured.

The solar neutrino experiments have been repeated over and over for the past 40 years. Though there are only 2 of the latest generation of detector. A third is currently under construction in India, or it will be soon I can't remember what their status is. I know of at least 1 more in the pipeline. The gargantuan neutrino factory will be under construction in a few years. This is designed to fire neutrinos through the Earth. Better evidence I would say than solar neutrinos. But its detectors will be large enough to study solar neutrinos in principle but with the energy difference between solar and man made neutrinos their kit may not be sensitive,

On the whole nuclear thing every fission reactor is kicking out neutrinos by the gazillion we can only understand their power output if neutrinos exist.
Please repost these plans.

Re: Solar Neutrinos
« Reply #228 on: March 02, 2009, 03:34:59 PM »
My problem with this forum has just been well demonstrated. As a fraction of my posts I spend most trying to defend the existence of neutrino detectors of the reliability of the data. School children go to visit them. The data is harder to verify but a number of experiments have been performed over the years and as I say the early ones didn't give the 'right' answer. So its not really about science its about conspiracy. If I searched this site for Popper or Kuhn I doubt I'd get many hits. At least at Roswell something crashed, the conspiracy is based around an event, with FE theory im still not sure what the metaphorical crash is that RE people are trying to explain away.

Re: Solar Neutrinos
« Reply #229 on: March 02, 2009, 03:39:22 PM »
DIY neutrino detector instructions:
1) Fill a large container with salt water Cadmium Chloride is best as cadmium is a large atom but I think any salt will work just the event rate will be lower. Though of course the sensitivity to different energies of neutrino will change.
2) Set up scintillator paddles around the outside of the tank.
3) Look for coincidence of the two gamma rays produced by a neutrino interaction  followed by a neutron decay after a short gap.

There are lots of variations on a theme and one would want to tailor their exact experiments around whether they wanted to look for solar neutrinos or ones produced by man made activity. But with appropriate modification the procedure above will find low energy neutrinos. The key is the electronics to look for the tell tale gammas followed by neutron. You would of course have to do a background study to quantify your systematic errors. None of this is new Reines and Cowan did pretty much this. There is no good reason that a clever person with some money could not reproduce this experiment if they wished. The rest of teh world is happy with the big modern machines capable of precision measurements but if you would rather make you own there you go. I must admit I kind of admire the idea i've often wished I had the motivation to try and recreate great old experiments.

Re: Solar Neutrinos
« Reply #230 on: March 02, 2009, 03:45:43 PM »
I'm almost offended. I assume you have a problem with the bit in bold? Cosmic rays, this is popular terminology for high energy particles, mostly protons, from deep space. These collide with atoms in the upper atmosphere which create large showers cascading down towards the Earths surface. The muons from this shower, decay into muon neutrinos, electrons and anti-electron neutrinos.

Yes the bit in bold is completely wrong and misguided. Cosmic muons? Did you not go to the Quantum Physics lectures or have you just never even taken a basic Modern Physics course ever?
« Last Edit: March 02, 2009, 03:50:31 PM by Scl0182 »

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: Solar Neutrinos
« Reply #231 on: March 02, 2009, 03:50:05 PM »
That would be true if there was actual knowledge being exchanged here, as opposed to the transfer of ignorance from one person to the next.

Philosophy is the love of knowledge and the pursuit thereof. If you are pursuing something already sought and found you  wasting yours and others time.

Am I wasting my time if I have not found said knowledge? Am I wasting my time if the person I'm talking to hasn't?
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

Re: Solar Neutrinos
« Reply #232 on: March 02, 2009, 03:50:35 PM »
I looked in my thesis. The anti-electron neutrino is a fermion. The existance of which has been verifed by direct observation from nuclear reactors. It is a product of nuclear fission with an energy of order 10MeV.

Re: Solar Neutrinos
« Reply #233 on: March 02, 2009, 03:54:57 PM »
I looked in my thesis. The anti-electron neutrino is a fermion. The existance of which has been verifed by direct observation from nuclear reactors. It is a product of nuclear fission with an energy of order 10MeV.

The "anti-neutrino" is not a true anti-particle in the sense of the other anti-particles. It is identical to the regular neutrino in every way except spin, whereas a normal anti-particle is opposite of charge

Re: Solar Neutrinos
« Reply #234 on: March 02, 2009, 04:05:52 PM »
Kinda, the picture is not quite that straight forward. It is true that the neutrino is neutral. As a consequence of V-A structure of the weak interaction only right handed anti-neutrinos are produced and only left-handed anti-neutrinos are produced. It is possible that the other components do not exists because there is no mechanism by which they can be created. It is also possible, since the discovery that the neutrino has mass, that the neutrino is a majorana particle that is the particle is also the anti-particle. At that point it gets a bit more philosophical about the difrerence between the two as a majorana particle has only a two component spinor.

Re: Solar Neutrinos
« Reply #235 on: March 03, 2009, 01:10:10 PM »

I like this thread there's some very good physics in here that's correct :)

I must admit I don't know the ins and outs of particle physics because it's not my specialist area but from what I've read it seems correct.

One thing I don't thinks been discussed is the fact that published experimental results arn't just done once they are verified independantly of one another.

If a scientist says, Eureaka I've detected a neutrino, another scientist says: really I shall do my own experiment to verify it and make sure the results are what they say they are.

When you ask for the detail of an experimental apparatus you should really ask what other experiments have been done to verify it. Because each experiment may have been done on an apparatus that is designed differently.

?

Dr Matrix

  • 4312
  • In Soviet Russia, Matrix enters you!
Re: Solar Neutrinos
« Reply #236 on: March 03, 2009, 01:55:36 PM »
Actually, out-dated Uranium and Plutonium core A-Bomb schematics are quite easy to find if you have the conviction to learn about them and their functions. Of course, modern A-Bombs are highly classified.

Actually, they're not.  All bomb designs, 'outdated' or not are still highly classified under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.  If you think you've got a 'real' bomb schematic, I can virtually guarantee that you haven't (unless you're a spy or work for the government, or both).
Quote from: Arthur Schopenhauer
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

Re: Solar Neutrinos
« Reply #237 on: March 03, 2009, 02:01:37 PM »

I like this thread there's some very good physics in here that's correct :)

I must admit I don't know the ins and outs of particle physics because it's not my specialist area but from what I've read it seems correct.

One thing I don't thinks been discussed is the fact that published experimental results arn't just done once they are verified independantly of one another.

If a scientist says, Eureaka I've detected a neutrino, another scientist says: really I shall do my own experiment to verify it and make sure the results are what they say they are.

When you ask for the detail of an experimental apparatus you should really ask what other experiments have been done to verify it. Because each experiment may have been done on an apparatus that is designed differently.

Yeah but unless you are Johannes Kepler of the FES boards performing the experiment, it can't be accepted as a success among the scientific community.

He has yet to tell us what his qualifications are to judge such experiments though.
The Earth is Round.

Re: Solar Neutrinos
« Reply #238 on: March 03, 2009, 03:45:46 PM »
Actually, out-dated Uranium and Plutonium core A-Bomb schematics are quite easy to find if you have the conviction to learn about them and their functions. Of course, modern A-Bombs are highly classified.

Actually, they're not.  All bomb designs, 'outdated' or not are still highly classified under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.  If you think you've got a 'real' bomb schematic, I can virtually guarantee that you haven't (unless you're a spy or work for the government, or both).

Actually you can get a great deal of info over the net.

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

Although there will be fundamental parrameters and new designs which won't be on there.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Solar Neutrinos
« Reply #239 on: March 03, 2009, 06:54:54 PM »
Actually, out-dated Uranium and Plutonium core A-Bomb schematics are quite easy to find if you have the conviction to learn about them and their functions. Of course, modern A-Bombs are highly classified.

Actually, they're not.  All bomb designs, 'outdated' or not are still highly classified under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.  If you think you've got a 'real' bomb schematic, I can virtually guarantee that you haven't (unless you're a spy or work for the government, or both).

Actually you can get a great deal of info over the net.

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

Although there will be fundamental parrameters and new designs which won't be on there.

Functional block diagrams are hardly schematics.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.