Beam Neutrinos

  • 254 Replies
  • 88560 Views
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #210 on: November 29, 2012, 09:54:00 AM »
See my first post in this thread:

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

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

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

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

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

Can you demonstrate that 'neutrino beams' are spreading out in this fashion to explain the results of the experiment or are you just guessing?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17933
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #211 on: November 29, 2012, 01:54:49 PM »
See my first post in this thread:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is a very unreliable experiment.

Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #212 on: November 29, 2012, 03:27:36 PM »
It would be an attempt to convince FErs. A poor attempt, but still an attempt.
It could also be to affirm the beliefs of RErs and prevent them from listening to us.

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

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

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



You make a claim, now back it up.

?

Science

  • 156
  • The voice of reason in the world.
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #213 on: November 30, 2012, 05:32:48 AM »
It would be an attempt to convince FErs. A poor attempt, but still an attempt.
It could also be to affirm the beliefs of RErs and prevent them from listening to us.

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is a very unreliable experiment.

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

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

?

Zurian

  • 20
  • Posts: 86473
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #215 on: November 30, 2012, 05:47:32 AM »
It would be an attempt to convince FErs. A poor attempt, but still an attempt.
It could also be to affirm the beliefs of RErs and prevent them from listening to us.

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

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

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



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

Question: All celestial bodies we've observed from earth that are close in mass to our own are oblate spheroids. What would make you think that earth is any different? If you observe a pattern enough times, isn't it safe to assume the pattern will continue to apply?
« Last Edit: November 30, 2012, 05:49:33 AM by Zurian »
Please take some Troll classes from Rushy, he at least tries.

?

Science

  • 156
  • The voice of reason in the world.
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #216 on: November 30, 2012, 05:52:33 AM »
It would be an attempt to convince FErs. A poor attempt, but still an attempt.
It could also be to affirm the beliefs of RErs and prevent them from listening to us.

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

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

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



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

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

?

Zurian

  • 20
  • Posts: 86473
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #217 on: November 30, 2012, 05:54:50 AM »
It would be an attempt to convince FErs. A poor attempt, but still an attempt.
It could also be to affirm the beliefs of RErs and prevent them from listening to us.

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

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

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



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

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

Planets are rocks WITH A DIAMETER GREATER THAN 300-350km- and no, i've never seen a rock that large that wasn't round.
Please take some Troll classes from Rushy, he at least tries.

?

Science

  • 156
  • The voice of reason in the world.
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #218 on: November 30, 2012, 06:37:22 AM »
It would be an attempt to convince FErs. A poor attempt, but still an attempt.
It could also be to affirm the beliefs of RErs and prevent them from listening to us.

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

Besides, the Earth isn't a celestial body or a planet, so you're really comparing fir trees to cows.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2012, 07:31:16 AM by Science »
We had Dumber (spectimatic), whe have now Dumber (science).
I, for one, do not think that science is dumb.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17933
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #219 on: November 30, 2012, 06:45:39 AM »
See my first post in this thread:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is a very unreliable experiment.

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

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

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

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

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

*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • Oh, Really?
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #220 on: November 30, 2012, 06:52:44 AM »
See my first post in this thread:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is a very unreliable experiment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These experiments remain the definitive proof of a RE. This was not their intention in conducting these experiments.

Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #222 on: November 30, 2012, 08:54:08 AM »
See my first post in this thread:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is a very unreliable experiment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Enjoy.

I'm still trying to go through it all - its there if you want to attempt it but it may be above our pay grade.

?

Zurian

  • 20
  • Posts: 86473
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #223 on: November 30, 2012, 10:53:40 AM »
It would be an attempt to convince FErs. A poor attempt, but still an attempt.
It could also be to affirm the beliefs of RErs and prevent them from listening to us.

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

?

Science

  • 156
  • The voice of reason in the world.
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #224 on: November 30, 2012, 12:43:39 PM »
It would be an attempt to convince FErs. A poor attempt, but still an attempt.
It could also be to affirm the beliefs of RErs and prevent them from listening to us.

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is hardly the topic to discuss this. I believe the title is "Beam Neutrinos," not "Planetary Formation."
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.

?

Zurian

  • 20
  • Posts: 86473
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #226 on: November 30, 2012, 01:37:04 PM »
It would be an attempt to convince FErs. A poor attempt, but still an attempt.
It could also be to affirm the beliefs of RErs and prevent them from listening to us.

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please take some Troll classes from Rushy, he at least tries.

?

Science

  • 156
  • The voice of reason in the world.
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #227 on: November 30, 2012, 02:02:04 PM »
It would be an attempt to convince FErs. A poor attempt, but still an attempt.
It could also be to affirm the beliefs of RErs and prevent them from listening to us.

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

?

Zurian

  • 20
  • Posts: 86473
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #228 on: November 30, 2012, 02:34:58 PM »
It would be an attempt to convince FErs. A poor attempt, but still an attempt.
It could also be to affirm the beliefs of RErs and prevent them from listening to us.

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An infinite plane of ice would also imply infinite matter. How was an infinite amount of matter (and energy) suddenly created?
Please take some Troll classes from Rushy, he at least tries.

?

Science

  • 156
  • The voice of reason in the world.
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #229 on: November 30, 2012, 03:47:38 PM »
It would be an attempt to convince FErs. A poor attempt, but still an attempt.
It could also be to affirm the beliefs of RErs and prevent them from listening to us.

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Once again, how it came to be is irrelevant. The only thing that currently matters is what IS.
We had Dumber (spectimatic), whe have now Dumber (science).
I, for one, do not think that science is dumb.

?

Zurian

  • 20
  • Posts: 86473
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #230 on: November 30, 2012, 04:31:36 PM »
It would be an attempt to convince FErs. A poor attempt, but still an attempt.
It could also be to affirm the beliefs of RErs and prevent them from listening to us.

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sometimes you must use the past to (dis)prove the present. All I'm asking, is how can you fit an object with infinite size in a space which is finite?
Please take some Troll classes from Rushy, he at least tries.

?

Science

  • 156
  • The voice of reason in the world.
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #231 on: November 30, 2012, 04:41:04 PM »
It would be an attempt to convince FErs. A poor attempt, but still an attempt.
It could also be to affirm the beliefs of RErs and prevent them from listening to us.

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I didn't say that it could, so I don't understand your point. Space is that which is above and below the Earth, whether or not I subscribe to the model of the universe that is proliferated by institutions like NASA is irrelevant.
We had Dumber (spectimatic), whe have now Dumber (science).
I, for one, do not think that science is dumb.

Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #232 on: November 30, 2012, 06:23:57 PM »
If you want to discuss how the earth came to be, the shape of celestial objects, and other theories of FE, please start a new thread. This one is about beam neutrinos.

Mods would you please separate this thread?

Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #233 on: December 01, 2012, 05:06:13 AM »
Will you guys learn how to quote properly - stop just quoting the entire post each time - it just makes the thread unreadable.
Fine, I'll spell it out to you. All stones (that are in moving water) eventually become flat due to erosion. If the earth were round, one would expect that the stones would show some curvature due to the curvature of the way the water would have to flow over a round

Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #234 on: December 01, 2012, 10:15:01 AM »
Will you guys learn how to quote properly - stop just quoting the entire post each time - it just makes the thread unreadable.

Speak truth to power.

 Mods, please seperate.

?

Zurian

  • 20
  • Posts: 86473
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #235 on: December 01, 2012, 12:55:37 PM »
Will you guys learn how to quote properly - stop just quoting the entire post each time - it just makes the thread unreadable.

Speak truth to power.

 Mods, please seperate.

Haha, sorry, I'm sorta new. I'll try to learn how to quote correctly and digress from the topic less.
Please take some Troll classes from Rushy, he at least tries.

Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #236 on: December 02, 2012, 01:50:44 PM »
Ok to answer a couple of misconceptions/questions. There is nothing mysterious about neutrinos, they are just another fundamental particle like the electron. What makes them interesting is their lack of electric charge, they only interact via the weak interaction. As a result of which they have a very long mean free path length through matter. The 'mean free path length' is a measure of how far an object is expected to travel through a material. Gamma rays can typically travel up to a metre through lead, depending on their energy. This is why nuclear reactors have a lot of shielding. Neutrinos by contrast have a mean free path of about 10 light years in lead. This means that if our eyes detected neutrinos, not light, then the Earth would be transparent, like glass. The implication of this on this website cannot be understated, given that the sun throws them out (over a billion solar neutrinos are passing through your body at any one time regardless of whether it's day or night).

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

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

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


*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • Oh, Really?
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #237 on: December 03, 2012, 09:02:11 AM »
Thank you for coming back bowler. I was trying to explain this, but I'm no physicist, and I was trying to break it down to layman's terms.
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.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7138
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #238 on: December 04, 2012, 02:42:27 AM »
It is very easy to explain the beam neutrinos subject within the context of the flat earth (the alternative flat earth theory, that is).


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

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


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

T. Henry Moray:

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

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

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



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

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


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

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

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

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

THE ELUSIVE NEUTRINO: In my opinion the neutrino concept is the work of a relativistic accountant who tries to balance his books by making a fictitious entry. He does not recognize the existence of the aether and so, when accounting for something where an energy transaction involves an energy transfer to or from the aether, he incorporates an entry under the heading 'neutrinos'.

The neutrino was first postulated in 1930 when it was found that, from the standpoint of relativity theory, beta decay (the decay of a neutron into a proton and an electron) seemed to violate the conservation of energy. Wolfgang Pauli saved the day by inventing the neutrino, a particle that would be emitted along with every electron and carry away energy and momentum (the emitted particle is nowadays said to be an antineutrino).

W.A. Scott Murray described this as ‘an implausible ad hoc suggestion designed to make the experimental facts agree with the theory and not far removed from a confidence trick’.

Aspden calls the neutrino ‘a figment of the imagination invented in order to make the books balance’ and says that it simply denotes ‘the capacity of the aether to absorb energy and momentum’. Several other scientists have also questioned whether neutrinos really exist.


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


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


In my next message, the proof that the signal through a telluric current (this includes "neutrinos") can and does travel faster than the speed of light.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2012, 03:51:25 AM by sandokhan »

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7138
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #239 on: December 04, 2012, 03:30:12 AM »
Furthermore, we have Nikola Tesla's superb experiments with faster than light signals sent through the telluric currents (ether):

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

Tesla Patent/original paper:

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



See also:

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

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



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

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


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


Detection of subquarks/fractional charge of electrons:

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


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

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1401101.html#msg1401101
« Last Edit: December 04, 2012, 03:38:26 AM by sandokhan »