Beam Neutrinos

  • 254 Replies
  • 88028 Views
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #180 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.

*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • Oh, Really?
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #181 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.
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.

Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #182 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/ 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.

*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • Oh, Really?
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #183 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/ 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.
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.

Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #184 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/ 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.

*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • Oh, Really?
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #185 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/ 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.
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.

Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #186 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/ 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.

*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • Oh, Really?
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #187 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/ 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.
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.

*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • Oh, Really?
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #188 on: November 08, 2012, 01:03:46 PM »
Here it is. A space.com article

This one is from dailymail.

This is from Fox News

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.
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.

Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #189 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 . Now I just need the textbook.

*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • Oh, Really?
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #190 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 . 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.
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.

?

Nolhekh

  • 1669
  • Animator
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #191 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.

*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • Oh, Really?
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #192 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.
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.

Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #193 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?

*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • Oh, Really?
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #194 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.
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.

Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #195 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.

*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • Oh, Really?
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #196 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.
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.

Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #197 on: November 18, 2012, 11:18:54 PM »
I still wish to see an answer to this from the FET'rs

Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #198 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.

Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #199 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.

*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • Oh, Really?
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #200 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.
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.

Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #201 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.

?

Science

  • 156
  • The voice of reason in the world.
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #202 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?
We had Dumber (spectimatic), whe have now Dumber (science).
I, for one, do not think that science is dumb.

*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • Oh, Really?
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #203 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.
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17920
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #204 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.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2012, 08:08:16 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • Oh, Really?
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #205 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.
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.

?

Science

  • 156
  • The voice of reason in the world.
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #206 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.
We had Dumber (spectimatic), whe have now Dumber (science).
I, for one, do not think that science is dumb.

*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • Oh, Really?
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #207 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.
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.

Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #208 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.

?

Science

  • 156
  • The voice of reason in the world.
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #209 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.
We had Dumber (spectimatic), whe have now Dumber (science).
I, for one, do not think that science is dumb.