Prev: New Volcanic Activity This Week- Three~~ Total 16 active
Next: Solutions manual to Intermediate Accounting 13e Kieso
From: Jonah Thomas on 24 Sep 2009 23:16
doug <xx(a)xx.com> wrote:
> Jonah Thomas wrote:
> > doug <xx(a)xx.com> wrote:
> >>Jonah Thomas wrote:

> >
> >>>I hope they do better than the experiments that detected neutrinos.
> >>
> >>You really should read some actual science some time. The
> >experiments>that detect neutrinos were well done. You seem to be
> >totally>ignorant of them.
> >
> >
> > They detected positrons and neutrons at about the same time,
> > indicating that what they found was protons converting to neutrons
> > and positrons. This happened far more often near the nuclear reactor
> > than it usually would, indicating that something about the reactor
> > was probably causing it. They assumed that it was the many incidents
> > in the reactor where beta particles were produced that caused it. In
> > those reactions there was something missing, in the neutron+positron
> > reacton something extra was needed.
> >
> > This did not actually detect the undetectable particle. It detected
> > the reaction that visibly violated conservation of energy and
> > momentum. The undetectable particle is still undetectable, but you
> > can detect its traces -- incidents where stuff disappears or appears
> > out of nowhere, that imply that the undetectable particle has been
> > there.
>
> You really should read some actual science. The experiments were very
> well done.

Yes, I agree they were well designed.

I have no quarrel with them except perhaps that what they demonstrated
was that the rare event proton -> neutron + positron was not so rare
near a nuclear reactor, and many people interpreted that as observation
of the undetectable neutrinos.

And that isn't an unreasonable interpretation. Ask me for a better
interpretation and I can't give you one that even I would say is better
given what we know today. But still it's an assumption that the
observations which violate various conservation laws must not really
violate conservation laws, far more than actual observation of a
particle.
From: doug on 25 Sep 2009 00:12


Jonah Thomas wrote:

> doug <xx(a)xx.com> wrote:
>
>>Jonah Thomas wrote:
>>
>>>doug <xx(a)xx.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Jonah Thomas wrote:
>
>
>
>>>>>I hope they do better than the experiments that detected neutrinos.
>>>>
>>>>You really should read some actual science some time. The
>>>
>>>experiments>that detect neutrinos were well done. You seem to be
>>>totally>ignorant of them.
>>>
>>>
>>>They detected positrons and neutrons at about the same time,
>>>indicating that what they found was protons converting to neutrons
>>>and positrons. This happened far more often near the nuclear reactor
>>>than it usually would, indicating that something about the reactor
>>>was probably causing it. They assumed that it was the many incidents
>>>in the reactor where beta particles were produced that caused it. In
>>>those reactions there was something missing, in the neutron+positron
>>>reacton something extra was needed.
>>>
>>>This did not actually detect the undetectable particle. It detected
>>>the reaction that visibly violated conservation of energy and
>>>momentum. The undetectable particle is still undetectable, but you
>>>can detect its traces -- incidents where stuff disappears or appears
>>>out of nowhere, that imply that the undetectable particle has been
>>>there.
>>
>>You really should read some actual science. The experiments were very
>>well done.
>
>
> Yes, I agree they were well designed.
>
> I have no quarrel with them except perhaps that what they demonstrated
> was that the rare event proton -> neutron + positron was not so rare
> near a nuclear reactor, and many people interpreted that as observation
> of the undetectable neutrinos.

Have you actually looked at any of the experiments?
>
> And that isn't an unreasonable interpretation. Ask me for a better
> interpretation and I can't give you one that even I would say is better
> given what we know today. But still it's an assumption that the
> observations which violate various conservation laws must not really
> violate conservation laws, far more than actual observation of a
> particle.

You are certainly hopeless in your delusions. Your comic book knowledge
has let you down again.
From: Y.Porat on 25 Sep 2009 01:16
On Sep 25, 4:17 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 24, 10:19 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 24, 2:36 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 24, 7:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 24, 11:51 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Sep 24, 5:23 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Sep 24, 10:10 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Sep 24, 4:51 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Sep 24, 9:09 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Sep 24, 2:40 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Sep 23, 9:00 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 20, 4:02 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Dear PD:  "Engineering" is taught in various colleges of engineering
> > > > > > > > > > > NOT in the useless college of physics.  Can you show otherwise?  —
> > > > > > > > > > > NoEinstein —
>
> > > > > > > > > > This may not be familiar to you, NoEinstein, but all engineers are
> > > > > > > > > > required to take physics courses from the physics department, not the
> > > > > > > > > > engineering department. They use the physics that they learn in the
> > > > > > > > > > physics department later in their engineering work.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 20, 9:09 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 18, 3:31 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce:  Architecture is primarily an art over
> > > > > > > > > > > > > engineering discipline.  If the world were put under the control of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > architects and engineers—forgetting about the head-in-clouds scientists
> > > > > > > > > > > > > —the world would be a better place.  — NE —
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Why do you say that? Engineers practice physics.
> > > > > > > > > > > > What's head-in-the-clouds about that?
> > > > > > > > > > > > Note that a lot of the physics that is used by architects and
> > > > > > > > > > > > engineers is the stuff you've rejected.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 18, 3:07 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PD wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 18, 1:09 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>On Sep 16, 6:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>On Sep 16, 4:58 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>On Sep 14, 5:32 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>Einstein "made-up-out-of-thin-air" the infinite energy needed (sic) to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>get even a tiny mass to travel to velocity 'c'.  What you call "made
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>up", in my case, is objective reasoning ability and teleologic
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>projection (reasoning so as to see the unseen).  I have put into my
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>own words a history of Einstein's blunders, and how I came to deduce
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>the true, new science for the Universe.  Have YOU ever put anything
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>about science into your own words?  You can't, because the dead status
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>quo is all that you know.  When you can express yourself regarding any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>area of science as good as I can, then, you will have arrived.  In
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>your DREAMS, that is!  — NoEinstein —
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>I think you have confused "making stuff up" with "putting science in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>your own words".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>You do know that the fiction aisles and the nonfiction aisles in the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>bookstore are in separate places, right? Or is reality and fantasy a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>blurred distinction?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce:  All physics texts are in the FICTION
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>aisles!  — NoEinstein —
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All of them. Imagine!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Must be true of the chemistry texts, too, since so much of chemistry
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is based on physics.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And that must be true of the biology texts, too, since so much of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > biology is based on chemistry.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why, there's absolutely nothing in science books at all that can be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > believed!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All that stuff about levers they t
> > > > > if you find an absurd experiment
>
> > > > Nothing absurd about it.
>
> > > > > tha violates basic laws
>
> > > > It's not a basic law, it's an ASSUMPTION in your head. When experiment
> > > > tells you that this assumption is wrong, even if you think it's a
> > > > basic law, then what you think is a basic law is WRONG.
>
> > > > > than first of all
> > > > >  you should start to look
> > > > > where was it  *deceiving*
>
> > > > > Y.P
> > > > > ------------------------
>
> > > > > > So when something happens that you believe must be impossible, what's
> > > > > > the first question you should ask yourself?
>
> > > > > > > or cant i know that** no** particle witrhout mass or even temorarily
> > > > > > > willbe eith no mass --
> > > > > > > will ever be found because
> > > > > > > no mass no real physics ??
>
> > > > > > > and that there will never be a proof
> > > > > > > that he photon has no mass
> > > > > > > while the existing
>
> > > > ...
> > > > -------------------------
>
> > > i would like to see proves
> > > that no particles from the machine
> > > are neutralised and donot tak epart in that absured
> > > now
> > > btw
>
> > It's pretty easy to look up.
>
> > > did  you say that elctron postitron
> > > create  single  protons and neutrons??
>
> > No, I said electrons colliding with positrons have produced proton-
> > antiproton pairs.
> > It's also true that electrons colliding with positrons have produced
> > neutron-antineutron pairs.
>
> > > i never was aware to it
>
> > Well, that's been my point all along. You're not aware of a lot of
> > experimental information that's available.
>
> > > and if it is right
>
> > > did you hear about the
> > > **all electron theory??**
>
> > Yes, and there are several places where those theories fall apart
> > quickly in the face of experimental evidence. Some background in
> > observed selection rules will show this pretty quickly.
>
> > > it sais that all bigger particles
> > > are actually composed of the
> > > eelctron family!!
> > > i have even evidence to that that i found
> > > independently in my research !!
> > > yet
> > > th e  mass of  an electron is the  mass of electron
> > > it is about 0.00045 mev
>
> > No, that's wrong, Porat. Try looking it up again. You're off by over a
> > factor of 1000.
>
> > > While that of a proton is 1800 times bigger
> > > and i am sure that
> > > just a single electron
> > > and a single positron
> > > will never create a single proton
>
> > An electron and a positron together have a mass of 1.022 MeV. The mass
> > of a proton and antiproton have a mass of 1876 MeV.
>
> > > there must be a mistake
> > > i would   say
> > >  a **silly mistake !!!**
> > > how do   you see that it does not violate
> > > th e   law of
> > > conservation of energy ??
>
> > It doesn't violate conservation of energy. Apparently you don't know
> > how to add the energy of the initial state and the final state. This
> > is an important skill to learn before you try to use it.
>
> > > (i never  studied the above experiment )
> > > surely it cant be responsible with
> > > beta  emission
>
> > Of course it is.
>
> > > the differnce in mass of an atom that emited an electron is not
> > > changed
> > > by a mass of a proton or neutron
>
> > Nor should it be. You have the two cases jumbled up in your head.
> > Maybe some diagrams will help you understand the initial and final
> > states. Diagrams are best shown in books.
>
> > > it seems fantastically wrong to me
>
> > >  i am sure that if i will study   it better
> > > i will find the mistake
>
> > That's exactly what I recommend, that you study it better. In books.
>
> > > Y.P
> > > --------------------
>
> i started to look the Viki
> about the W and Z  and weak force story
>
> i will go on withit later
> anyway thsre ar ethings that i can say right now
>
> it is one of the most idiotic stories i ever met
> sort of
> th ebigger thelie
> th ebtetr chance that it will be swallowed by people
>
> but even before it i can atatck it and get no real  answers
> (i promis to show its nonsense later
> yet there are facts that are not answered rigythnow
> bythat silly theory)
> 1
> you   ddint tell us the probability of which  those W and Z were found
>
> it i s    one to a few billions !!!
> 2
> it was found not by say bombarding Atoms
> th e palce those super aprticles; are alleged tobe found
> but in a huge accelerator  using eelctron positron collission
> in the nuc
> trhere ar e   not all those huge accelerations as in that
> artificially made accelerator
>
> NORE THOSE HUGE ENERGIES  (in the atom )THAT ARE IN THAT ACCELERATOR
> you dont find any traces in normal obseravtions of Atom and nuc  about
> suchenormous energies involved !!
> so
> no connection     between those fantastic  experiments and **reality *
> an unbelievable stupidity !!
> 3
> as i understand
> the Higgs   bosons were   nevr found !!
> and it is part and parcel of that theory !!
>
> so  as long as they are not found
> it is a big bleeding    hole in all that theory !!
> that shoud   or well   might kill it !!if not found
> and all the chances (untill now )show it will  never  be  found
> 4
> i said the mass of the electron is 0.00045 mev/c^2
> you are right it is a little difference it is Meves
> (with capital M)
> (you enjoy to catch me by obvious Typo mistakes ...)
> but still doea not make a differnce to our dispute
> 5
>  i
> ...
>
> read more »

---------------------------------
and another question:
what has
Anti proton and Anti neutrons
got to do in our regular Atom ???!!!!

Y.P
-----------------------------

From: Y.Porat on 25 Sep 2009 01:25
On Sep 24, 9:25 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 24, 2:11 pm, Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > You see, this is what separates you from science, Porat.
>
> > > You have it in your head that some basic notions that come into your
> > > head MUST be true, and you simply do not have any way to verify
> > > whether they ARE true. Scientists don't do that. They check
> > > everything, every assumption to see if it really is true.
>
> > > Let's take the example of your notion that no daughter can be larger
> > > than its mother. You insist that this MUST be true. A scientist would
> > > test whether that really is true by creating an explicit test of that
> > > assumption. The accelerator is a good example of that kind of test.
> > > The accelerator is specifically designed to do (among other things)
> > > collisions of light particles and to identify all the particles that
> > > come out of those collisions, and it is very carefully designed to
> > > rule out background events.
>
> > > So when a scientist sees in this test that heavy daughters can come
> > > from light parents, the scientist will say, "Well, there's no arguing
> > > with experiment. It appears that the statement that no daughter can be
> > > bigger than its mother was just wrong." You, on the other hand, stick
> > > with the rule you had in your head and insist that there must be
> > > something wrong with the experiment or something else was going on
> > > that masked the truth.
>
> > Not to defend Porat, who is saying things I do not understand, but the
> > behavior you describe is very common in physics, isn't it?
>
> > For example, physicists generally believe in conservation of mass+energy
> > and momentum, and angular momentum. So when they found an example where
> > these were not conserved, they invented an undetectable particle, the
> > neutrino, that was carrying away the stuff that was missing, or
> > occasionally bringing in extra when there was a lack.
>
> > And somebody got a nobel prize for confirming that the reaction that
> > people thought would violate conservation of stuff really did happen.
> > This was interpreted as "direct observation of neutrinos".
>
> > I'm not saying they're wrong to believe in conservation of stuff even
> > when they get examples where stuff disappears and they can't find it, or
> > extra stuff sometimes appears out of nowhere. Just, they're doing what
> > you accuse Porat of doing, and mostly nobody thinks they're wrong to do
> > so. When experiments give results that disagree with their theories they
> > usually decide that something else is going on that masks the truth.
>
> Not quite, but I see where you're going.
> Momentum conservation was deduced from a number of observations, and
> then it was tested in thousands of applications after the rule was
> proposed.
> In an interesting case, though, momentum conservation seemed not to
> hold. So two candidate proposals were put forward:
> 1. Momentum is not conserved in all cases after all.
> 2. Momentum is conserved, but there is a yet undiscovered particle
> that is carrying away some of the momentum.
> Now, the key to the second is that you can't just leave it that. You
> have to find some OTHER way to verify the existence of that particle
> OTHER THAN deducing it from missing momentum. And so there were
> numerous experiments devised to do just that. The Nobel Prize was
> awarded for the first work that showed that unambiguously -- that
> neutrinos can be detected by some means other than by insisting that
> momentum be conserved. If you look at the Nobel award lecture, you'll
> learn what was involved.
>
> A similar thing is going on now with dark matter. There are two
> proposals on the table:
> 1. General relativity is wrong.
> 2. General relativity is right, but there is matter that is
> undiscovered and not accounted for.
> And once again, it is important to establish the presence of dark
> matter by some evidence OTHER THAN it makes general relativity hold.
> And so there are a number of experiments in progress to do just that.
>
> PD

--------------
how can one get the Nobel on a theorty
while as yous say
there are still two missing particles to complete
the story
and still A HIGGS BOSON !! missing
to complete the story ??!!!
and while at the end of the day
it is one bigg bul!!.... ???
that olly the croocky 'Dugi ' and alike are supporting ???!!!

Y.P
-------------------------
From: Y.Porat on 25 Sep 2009 01:39
On Sep 24, 11:52 pm, Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > For example, physicists generally believe in conservation of
> > > mass+energy and momentum, and angular momentum. So when they found
> > > an example where these were not conserved, they invented an
> > > undetectable particle, the neutrino, that was carrying away the
> > > stuff that was missing, or occasionally bringing in extra when there
> > > was a lack.
>
> > > And somebody got a nobel prize for confirming that the reaction that
> > > people thought would violate conservation of stuff really did
> > > happen. This was interpreted as "direct observation of neutrinos".
>
> > > I'm not saying they're wrong to believe in conservation of stuff
> > > even when they get examples where stuff disappears and they can't
> > > find it, or extra stuff sometimes appears out of nowhere. Just,
> > > they're doing what you accuse Porat of doing, and mostly nobody
> > > thinks they're wrong to do so. When experiments give results that
> > > disagree with their theories they usually decide that something else
> > > is going on that masks the truth.
>
> > Not quite, but I see where you're going.
> > Momentum conservation was deduced from a number of observations, and
> > then it was tested in thousands of applications after the rule was
> > proposed.
> > In an interesting case, though, momentum conservation seemed not to
> > hold. So two candidate proposals were put forward:
> > 1. Momentum is not conserved in all cases after all.
> > 2. Momentum is conserved, but there is a yet undiscovered particle
> > that is carrying away some of the momentum.
> > Now, the key to the second is that you can't just leave it that. You
> > have to find some OTHER way to verify the existence of that particle
> > OTHER THAN deducing it from missing momentum. And so there were
>
> e that we do
> not understand yet. We really should not ignore that possibility. It
> could easily be that GR is right within broad limits but in our attempts
> to interpret the actions of distant galaxies from their EM radiation
> alone we have made some mistakes.
>
> And it could easily be that GR is wrong and also there is matter that is
> undiscovered and not accounted for.
>
> > And once again, it is important to establish the presence of dark
> > matter by some evidence OTHER THAN it makes general relativity hold.
> > And so there are a number of experiments in progress to do just that.
>
> I hope they do better than the experiments that detected neutrinos.
>
> > numerous experiments devised to do just that. The Nobel Prize was
> > awarded for the first work that showed that unambiguously -- that
> > neutrinos can be detected by some means other than by insisting that
> > momentum be conserved. If you look at the Nobel award lecture, you'll
> > learn what was involved.
>
> As I understand it, the original problem was that neutrons spontaneously
> change into protons plus electrons with a variable amount of measurable
> energy. So it was assumed there was an undetectable particle that
> carried off the extra energy etc.
>
> The assumption was that there would be a whole lot of these particles
> coming out of a nuclear reactor, so they looked for protons turning into
> neutrons plus positrons near the reactor. And they found a few protons
> turning into neutrons plus positrons there. Since protons are completely
> stable and never turn into anything else normally, they assumed what was
> making it happen was the undetectable particles.
>
> Why did they assume it was particles and not some sort of undetectable
> radiation? Why was it particles and not changes in the probability field
> that allows unlikely things to happen much more often? Because they were
> predisposed to particles. For the same reason that they preferred to
> think it was undetectable particles instead of undetectable elves. It
> fit their prejudices.
>
> But that isn't exactly a bad thing. They're physicists and they ought to
> be prejudiced in favor of undetectable particles over undetectable
> elves. There's nothing really wrong here. It's proper that when they
> find an experiment that contradicts a rule they believe is never
> contradicted, they should decide there's an undetectable fudge factor
> that secretly restores the rule. That's how physics is done, and other
> sciences too. And they might as well think it's particles instead of,
> say, waves, because if it's a particle then each individual particle
> that gets created can get destroyed in a single interaction. Waves would
> leave little bits of wave slopping around, radiating off to the farthest
> star or beyond. Particles tie up the loose ends neater. Tidy. And with
> no evidence whatsoever to tell them what the undetectable entity is
> like, they might as well assume it's the sort of thing they've been
> looking for. In those days a lot of physicists were looking for new
> particles, so it only makes sense to call the undetectable entity one.
>
> > A similar thing is going on now with dark matter. There are two
> > proposals on the table:
> > 1. General relativity is wrong.
> > 2. General relativity is right, but there is matter that is
> > undiscovered and not accounted for.
>
> Or:
>
> 3. There are other things going on out in distant space that we do
> not understand yet. We really should not ignore that possibility. It
> could easily be that GR is right within broad limits but in our attempts
> to interpret the actions of distant galaxies from their EM radiation
> alone we have made some mistakes.
>
> And it could easily be that GR is wrong and also there is matter that is
> undiscovered and not accounted for.
>
> > And once again, it is important to establish the presence of dark
> > matter by some evidence OTHER THAN it makes general relativity hold.
> > And so there are a number of experiments in progress to do just that.
>
> I hope they do better than the experiments that detected neutrinos. But
> I think they're right to look.
>
> "There is nothing like looking, if you want to find something. .... You
> certainly usually find something if you look, but it is not always quite
> the something you were after. --J.R.R. Tolkien

----------------
to explain some unexplained part
by relating it to some suggeted particle
that i s not really found is
cheating !!
and certainly does not worth and djsutify
that hurry to reward them by the Nobel !
and certianly does not justify all those parrot crooks to blow their
chests with
an idiotic theory in which
there are force messengers that are
hundreds of times bigger than their mother !!!

Y.P
------------------------

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Prev: New Volcanic Activity This Week- Three~~ Total 16 active
Next: Solutions manual to Intermediate Accounting 13e Kieso