Neutrino oscillation captured in the lab for the first time
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Ohm's Law and Maxwell on Relativity !
Next: For PD....was; Re: Experts doubt Einstein..... but EinsteinDingleberries still worship him
From: Inertial on 3 Jun 2010 21:38 "Edward Green" <spamspamspam3(a)netzero.com> wrote in message news:a95e4c32-ecc3-4723-bbb4-2584e60f3e28(a)y12g2000vbr.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 2, 6:52 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:600954cd-f35f-4229-81b6-b26994e42112(a)e21g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On Jun 2, 10:39 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On 6/1/10 11:54 AM, Sam Wormley wrote: >> >> >> > On 6/1/10 12:46 AM, YKhan wrote: >> >> >> Physicists observe change in neutrinos, unlocking mystery of >> >> >> subatomic >> >> >> particle - latimes.com >> >> >> "The new finding is important because in the theories now used to >> >> >> explain the behavior of fundamental particles, called the Standard >> >> >> Model, neutrinos have no mass. >> >> >> > Breakthrough in the matter antimatter divide >> >> >http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/42692 >> >> >> > Particle physics experiment catches neutrino flip >> >> >http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/42692 >> >> >> > "Neutrinos, elementary particles with no electric charge that rarely >> >> > interact with matter, come in three flavours: muon, tau and >> >> > electron. >> >> > For at least 15 years, researchers have been collecting evidence >> >> > that >> >> > they can change (or oscillate) from one flavour to another. Whereas >> >> > neutrinos were originally thought to have no mass, such oscillations >> >> > would imply that they do, a finding that would have significant >> >> > consequences for cosmology and for the standard model of particle >> >> > physics". >> >> >> > "While analyzing data from 2008 and 2009, the Gran Sasso team found >> >> > that >> >> > one among billions of muon neutrinos beamed towards the lab from >> >> > CERN, >> >> > Europe's particle-physics facility near Geneva, Switzerland, had >> >> > turned >> >> > into a tau neutrino by the time it reached the Opera detector". >> >> >> Neutrino quick-change artist caught in the act >> >> A transformation from one flavor to another confirms the elusive >> >> elementary particles have mass and suggests a need for new >> >> physics.http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/59825/title/Neutrino_quick... >> >> > -------------------- >> > Good morning parrot Sami >> > dId you ever heard that >> >> > NO MASS - NO REAL PHYSICS !!?? >> >> AFAIK you're the first to make up that slogan. >> >> > (that is going to be the basic new iron rule of physics !!) >> >> Its not a rule .. its not physics .. its just a slogan >> >> > and i wonder from whom did you heard it >> > first ??!!! >> > can you tell the people who claimed it first ?? >> >> You make lots of claims, and put together a lot of nonsense that no-one >> else >> would. >> >> > and who for instance proved >> > black on while --that even >> > the photon has mass!! >> >> Noone >> >> > - the only mass ?? >> >> You mean nothing other than a photon has mass ? .. that can't be right, >> seeing all the experimental evidence supports it NOT having a mass. > > The Wikipedia article on mass energy equivalence supports a photon > having a mass Yes .. relativistic mass > -- it's just a rest mass it lacks. That's right. Porat denies both of those statements. He says there is only one kind of mass and relativitistic mass doesn't exist (which is nonsense .. it is a defined value one can calculate .. you cannot say it doesn't exist) He also says that photons have non-zero invariant/rest mass. He then uses this non-zero rest mass in the formulas where relativistic mass appears (eg. p = mc and E = mc^2 for a photon). Which contradicts his claim that there is no relativistic mass. It also contradicts the experimental observations that rest mass of a photon is zero (to much much higher precision than the m in p = mc and E = mc^2). Basically almost everything he says either contradicts known physics, or physical experimental evidence, or logic .. usually all three.
From: Y.Porat on 4 Jun 2010 00:20 On Jun 4, 3:50 am, "In > > The photon. Gees, how can you even ask such a question? -------------------- photon is not dimensions crook if you will not do the dimension analysis **with your own hands **-- YOU WILL NEVER UNDERSTAND IT GOT IS MY PHYSICS TEACHER PIG??!! s o i will help you piggy something that a secondary school could do: P photon is h/lambda right ?so h is == 6.6 exp34 KG ( Meter )^2/second Lambda is n1 Meter while n1 is a scalr number and meter is Meter so just go on combine them on one line and see what you get TIA Y.Porat -----------------------
From: Inertial on 4 Jun 2010 02:13 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:cbdecb05-16a1-4099-b3cb-49fcbf0a8e70(a)r27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 4, 3:50 am, "In > >> The photon. Gees, how can you even ask such a question? > > -------------------- > photon is not dimensions I didn't say it was. Why should it be? > crook Again .. you resort to unfounded and unprovoked insults > if you will not do the dimension analysis I did. > **with your own hands **-- I did > YOU WILL NEVER UNDERSTAND IT I do understand it. It is you who does not > GOT IS MY PHYSICS TEACHER PIG??!! Again .. you resort to unfounded and unprovoked insults > s o i will help you piggy something that a secondary school could > do: Again .. you resort to unfounded and unprovoked insults > P photon is h/lambda right ?so Yes > h is == 6.6 exp34 KG ( Meter )^2/second Yes .. as I said before, the dimensions at ML^2/T > Lambda is n1 Meter > while n1 is a scalr number You mean a dimension-less number > and meter is Meter Yes .. and so, as I said before, its dimensions are L > so > just go on combine them on one line > and see what you get I already know what you get .. I did all this already for you. ML^2/T / L = ML/T And ML/T is the dimensions of momentum. We know all this already Why are you wasting my time. I've told you all this before
From: Y.Porat on 4 Jun 2010 03:51 On Jun 4, 8:13 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:cbdecb05-16a1-4099-b3cb-49fcbf0a8e70(a)r27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > > > On Jun 4, 3:50 am, "In > > >> The photon. Gees, how can you even ask such a question? > > > -------------------- > > photon is not dimensions > > I didn't say it was. Why should it be? > > > crook > > Again .. you resort to unfounded and unprovoked insults > > > if you will not do the dimension analysis > > I did. > > > **with your own hands **-- > > I did > > > YOU WILL NEVER UNDERSTAND IT > > I do understand it. It is you who does not > > > GOT IS MY PHYSICS TEACHER PIG??!! > > Again .. you resort to unfounded and unprovoked insults > > > s o i will help you piggy something that a secondary school could > > do: > > Again .. you resort to unfounded and unprovoked insults > > > P photon is h/lambda right ?so > > Yes > > > h is == 6.6 exp34 KG ( Meter )^2/second > > Yes .. as I said before, the dimensions at ML^2/T > > > Lambda is n1 Meter > > while n1 is a scalr number > > You mean a dimension-less number > > > and meter is Meter > > Yes .. and so, as I said before, its dimensions are L > > > so > > just go on combine them on one line > > and see what you get > > I already know what you get .. I did all this already for you. > > ML^2/T / L = ML/T > > And ML/T is the dimensions of momentum. > > We know all this already > > Why are you wasting my time. I've told you all this before piggy crook !!! YOU ARE PREPARING YOUR PIG CROOK COWARD DISAPEARANCE !!!??? wHat about the scalars there ???!! piggy crook ***THE SCALAR THERE ARE THE MAIN BREAKTHROUGH POINT*** THAT AN IMBECILE LIKE YOU DINT GET. SO PIGGY JUST FILL IN THOSE SCALARS THERE the 6.6 exp -34 the n1 scalr of the L (meter ) etc etc dont miss anyone of them in oredr that you will say later that i di did it wrong so just **YOU ** do a COMPLETE WORK !! not a partially cheating sloppy crook y work !!! AND WE WILL SEE ABOUT IT -- WHAT DOES IT MEAN !! TIA Y.Porat ----------------------------
From: Y.Porat on 4 Jun 2010 04:32
On Jun 4, 9:51 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 4, 8:13 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:cbdecb05-16a1-4099-b3cb-49fcbf0a8e70(a)r27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com.... > > > > On Jun 4, 3:50 am, "In > > > >> The photon. Gees, how can you even ask such a question? > > > > -------------------- > > > photon is not dimensions > > > I didn't say it was. Why should it be? > > > > crook > > > Again .. you resort to unfounded and unprovoked insults > > > > if you will not do the dimension analysis > > > I did. > > > > **with your own hands **-- > > > I did > > > > YOU WILL NEVER UNDERSTAND IT > > > I do understand it. It is you who does not > > > > GOT IS MY PHYSICS TEACHER PIG??!! > > > Again .. you resort to unfounded and unprovoked insults > > > > s o i will help you piggy something that a secondary school could > > > do: > > > Again .. you resort to unfounded and unprovoked insults > > > > P photon is h/lambda right ?so > > > Yes > > > > h is == 6.6 exp34 KG ( Meter )^2/second > > > Yes .. as I said before, the dimensions at ML^2/T > > > > Lambda is n1 Meter > > > while n1 is a scalr number > > > You mean a dimension-less number > > > > and meter is Meter > > > Yes .. and so, as I said before, its dimensions are L > > > > so > > > just go on combine them on one line > > > and see what you get > > > I already know what you get .. I did all this already for you. > > > ML^2/T / L = ML/T > > > And ML/T is the dimensions of momentum. > > > We know all this already > > > Why are you wasting my time. I've told you all this before > > piggy crook !!! > YOU ARE PREPARING YOUR PIG CROOK > COWARD DISAPEARANCE !!!??? > wHat about the scalars there ???!! > piggy crook > ***THE SCALAR THERE ARE THE MAIN BREAKTHROUGH POINT*** > THAT AN IMBECILE LIKE YOU DINT GET. > > SO PIGGY > > JUST FILL IN THOSE SCALARS THERE > the 6.6 exp -34 > the n1 scalr of the L (meter ) etc etc > dont miss anyone of them > > in oredr that you will say later that i di did it wrong > so > just **YOU ** do a COMPLETE WORK !! > not a partially cheating sloppy crook y work !!! > > AND WE WILL SEE ABOUT IT -- > WHAT DOES IT MEAN !! > > TIA > Y.Porat > ---------------------------- so?? were are you inertial ?? did you went to consult your advisers ??? just add the **all * scalars there !!! it is very simple !!! TIA Y.Porat ---------------- TIA |