Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #689319 > unrolled thread
| Started by | numbernumber1964@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-06-07 10:13 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-06-14 13:04 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 184 — 13 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-07 10:13 -0700
Particle physics 2 john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-06-07 10:17 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-08 15:02 -0500
Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-07 17:39 +0000
Re: Particle physics 2 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-08 14:58 -0500
Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 20:43 +0000
Re: Particle physics 2 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-08 19:13 -0400
Re: Particle physics 2 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-08 18:48 -0500
Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-07 12:25 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-07 20:38 +0000
Re: Particle physics 2 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-06-07 22:44 +0200
Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-07 12:26 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-07 12:27 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-06-07 23:06 +0200
Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-07 21:47 +0000
Re: Particle physics 2 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-06-08 04:16 +0200
Re: Particle physics 2 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-06-07 22:38 +0200
Re: Particle physics 2 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-08 15:07 -0500
Re: Particle physics 2 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-08 09:57 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 17:48 +0000
Re: Particle physics 2 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-08 10:05 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 17:48 +0000
Re: Particle physics 2 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-08 14:53 -0500
Re: Particle physics 2 Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 12:54 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-08 18:57 -0400
Re: Particle physics 2 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-08 12:26 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 20:43 +0000
Re: Particle physics 2 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-08 12:27 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 20:43 +0000
Re: Particle physics 2 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-08 19:10 -0400
Re: Particle physics 2 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-09 19:03 -0500
Re: Particle physics 2 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-09 22:50 -0400
Re: Particle physics 2 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-10 21:11 -0500
Re: Particle physics 2 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-11 11:58 -0400
Re: Particle physics 2 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 08:09 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-12 18:05 -0400
Re: Particle physics 2 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 06:48 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 09:30 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 16:43 +0000
Re: Particle physics 2 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 09:31 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 09:36 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 16:46 +0000
Re: Particle physics 2 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-11 14:07 -0500
Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 19:27 +0000
Re: Particle physics 2 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 09:39 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 16:56 +0000
Re: Particle physics 2 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-11 14:06 -0500
Re: Particle physics 2 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-11 17:24 -0400
Re: Particle physics 2 poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 22:46 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 05:31 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-12 09:09 -0500
Re: Particle physics 2 john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 08:31 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-12 17:34 -0400
Re: Particle physics 2 poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 17:00 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-12 17:15 -0400
Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 22:06 +0000
Re: Particle physics 2 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 09:43 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 12:27 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 19:53 +0000
Re: Particle physics 2 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 12:32 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 19:59 +0000
Re: Particle physics 2 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-11 17:29 -0400
Re: Particle physics 2 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 08:20 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 12:48 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 20:45 +0000
Re: Particle physics 2 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-11 17:34 -0400
Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 12:52 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 08:25 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 12:53 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 08:42 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-12 18:12 -0400
Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 00:50 +0000
Re: Particle physics 2 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-12 22:29 -0400
Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 12:21 +0000
Re: Particle physics 2 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-13 11:36 -0400
Re: Particle physics 2 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-13 13:03 -0500
Re: Particle physics 2 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-13 14:38 -0400
Re: Particle physics 2 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 06:50 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 14:33 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 22:30 +0000
Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 14:36 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 22:31 +0000
Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 14:39 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 14:52 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 15:05 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 15:07 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 15:55 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-06-12 00:02 +0000
Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 12:27 +0000
Re: Particle physics 2 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-12 09:10 -0500
Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 14:36 +0000
Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 17:21 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-06-12 01:28 +0000
Re: Particle physics 2 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 09:02 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 17:51 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 12:27 +0000
Re: Particle physics 2 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-12 09:16 -0500
Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 14:36 +0000
Re: Particle physics 2 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-12 09:54 -0500
Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 17:55 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-06-12 01:33 +0000
Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 18:12 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 18:24 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 18:35 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-06-12 01:49 +0000
Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 18:36 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-06-12 01:54 +0000
Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 09:33 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 10:08 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 09:41 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 17:53 +0000
Re: Particle physics 2 moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-06-12 17:55 +0000
Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 10:04 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 10:18 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-06-12 17:57 +0000
Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 18:01 +0000
Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 10:06 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-06-12 17:59 +0000
Re: Particle physics 2 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 06:20 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 10:17 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 10:21 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-06-12 18:05 +0000
Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 18:35 +0000
Re: Particle physics 2 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 10:24 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 13:59 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 22:06 +0000
Re: Particle physics 2 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 06:22 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-13 15:48 -0500
Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 14:02 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 14:04 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 14:09 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 22:06 +0000
Re: Particle physics 2 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 06:37 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 14:13 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 22:06 +0000
Re: Particle physics 2 Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-13 01:26 -0400
Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 08:04 -0500
Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 15:39 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 00:50 +0000
Re: Particle physics 2 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-12 22:33 -0400
Re: Particle physics 2 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 15:45 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 00:50 +0000
Re: Particle physics 2 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-13 15:46 -0500
Re: Particle physics 2 Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-13 01:31 -0400
Re: Particle physics 2 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 15:50 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 00:50 +0000
Re: Particle physics 2 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-12 22:36 -0400
Re: Particle physics 2 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 07:28 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-13 11:13 -0400
Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 18:14 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 22:15 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-13 01:34 -0400
Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 08:05 -0500
Re: Particle physics 2 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 07:25 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-13 11:14 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-14 07:53 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 earle Jones <earle.jones@comcast.net> - 2018-06-14 11:38 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-13 11:17 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-13 11:20 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 18:40 +0000
Re: Particle physics 2 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-13 15:50 -0500
Re: Particle physics 2 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-13 11:24 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-13 14:43 -0400
Re: Particle physics 2 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-13 15:52 -0500
Re: Particle physics 2 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-13 11:25 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-14 07:57 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-13 12:31 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 20:30 +0000
Re: Particle physics 2 Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-13 16:42 -0400
Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-13 13:55 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-14 08:06 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-14 12:42 -0400
Re: Particle physics 2 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-14 11:52 -0500
Re: Particle physics 2 Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-14 13:04 -0400
Re: Particle physics 2 Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-14 13:08 -0400
Re: Particle physics 2 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-14 12:40 -0500
Re: Particle physics 2 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-14 16:01 -0400
Re: Particle physics 2 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-15 05:39 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-13 13:58 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-13 14:01 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-13 20:41 -0400
Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-14 11:15 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-14 11:57 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-14 13:04 -0700
Page 9 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 Next page →
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-13 15:50 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pfs035$jo8$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #690451 |
On 6/13/2018 1:40 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> <furthermore7990662@gmail.com> wrote:
>> It's worth talking a bit about range..
>> A 20 keV electron ranges out in air after about 1 cm..
>> An 80 keV electron ranges out in air after about 10 cm..
>> A 300 keV electron ranges out in air after about 100 cm..
>> Most of the electrons observed in particle accelerator collisions are .
>> between 10's of MeV and 10's of GeV. At these energies, the most common .
>> energy loss mechanism is the creation of a shower or secondary cascade,.
>> which can easily penetrate a good fraction of a meter of lead..
>>
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> It is not physically possible for an electron that has a mass to
>> propagate through glass that is also composed of matter. Example, if one
>> was to attempt to drive their car into a garage, one must open the garage
>> door since the car is composed of matter which cannot propagate through a
>> garage door that is also composed of matter.
>>
>
> And yet cosmic rays penetrate the roof of your car constantly. No holes.
>
> Given that this is an observational FACT, how then do you question your own
> presumptions? Do you? Ever? That’s a yes or no question.
>
he's comparing electrons to cars....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | furthermore7990662@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-13 11:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a6d7dc09-1765-4582-b91f-7771aa67546e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #689319 |
And to make this analogy clearer, the gun fires grains of rice! . For the arc welder, imagine a cannon firing sacks of rice! . _______________________________________________________ It is not physically possible for subatomic particles that have a mass to propagate through the steel enclosure of the bubble chamber since subatomic particles are composed of matter which cannot propagate through the steel enclosure that is also composed of matter. Example, a person attempt to walk into their house if he does not open the door he cannot enter the house since the person is composed of matter and cannot propagate through the door without opening the door
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-13 14:43 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <%AdUC.236383$go7.82704@fx08.iad> |
| In reply to | #690442 |
On 6/13/2018 2:24 PM, furthermore7990662@gmail.com wrote: > And to make this analogy clearer, the gun fires grains of rice! . > > For the arc welder, imagine a cannon firing sacks of rice! . > > _______________________________________________________ > > > It is not physically possible for subatomic particles that have a mass to propagate through the steel enclosure of the bubble chamber since subatomic particles are composed of matter which cannot propagate through the steel enclosure that is also composed of matter. Example, a person attempt to walk into their house if he does not open the door he cannot enter the house since the person is composed of matter and cannot propagate through the door without opening the door > You are only a few hundred years behind science. I suggest you take a little time to catch up before opening your pie hole in a world-wide public forum.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-13 15:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pfs06c$jo8$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #690453 |
On 6/13/2018 1:43 PM, benj wrote: > On 6/13/2018 2:24 PM, furthermore7990662@gmail.com wrote: >> And to make this analogy clearer, the gun fires grains of rice! . >> >> For the arc welder, imagine a cannon firing sacks of rice! . >> >> _______________________________________________________ >> >> >> It is not physically possible for subatomic particles that have a mass >> to propagate through the steel enclosure of the bubble chamber since >> subatomic particles are composed of matter which cannot propagate >> through the steel enclosure that is also composed of matter. Example, >> a person attempt to walk into their house if he does not open the door >> he cannot enter the house since the person is composed of matter and >> cannot propagate through the door without opening the door >> > You are only a few hundred years behind science. I suggest you take a > little time to catch up before opening your pie hole in a world-wide > public forum. perhaps a LOT of time, read 3 or 4 books on particle physics, or general physics
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | furthermore7990662@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-13 11:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f848e735-abb9-45d1-baf6-a351e8976a1d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #689319 |
I think you have gotten your vector directions mixed.. the quad fields are such that the protons move away from the walls.. _______________________________________________________________________ Then what happens?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-14 07:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0cd71f37-aa12-46dc-82ba-79c1a46b2478@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #690443 |
On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 2:25:37 PM UTC-4, furthermo...@gmail.com wrote: > I think you have gotten your vector directions mixed.. > the quad fields are such that the protons move away from the walls.. > > > _______________________________________________________________________ > > > Then what happens? I answered this already-- On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 10:26:01 AM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: > > Again, you have your vectors wrong. Protons on the right side > passing through that quadrature, moving INTO the image, > will be subject to a force toward the left (i.e., the center). > Correspondingly, protons on the left moving INTO the image > will be subject to a force toward the right (again the center). > And similarly for top and bottom. > > You must have been thinking the protons were coming OUT > of the image. Then your analysis would be right. It is an > easy mistake to make. > > HTH, > ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | numbernumber1964@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-13 12:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a3dfe448-c7a9-42da-8640-ea3997e95ce3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #689319 |
And yet cosmic rays penetrate the roof of your car constantly. No holes.. Given that this is an observational FACT, how then do you question your. own presumptions? Do you? Ever? That’s a yes or no question. . ___________________________________________________ Maybe a cosmical ray is similar to an xray or gamma ray that are massless. Na, Jackson.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-13 20:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pfrutf$hv1$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #690462 |
<numbernumber1964@gmail.com> wrote: > And yet cosmic rays penetrate the roof of your car constantly. No holes.. > > Given that this is an observational FACT, how then do you question your. own > presumptions? Do you? Ever? That’s a yes or no question. . > > ___________________________________________________ > > > Maybe a cosmical ray is similar to an xray or gamma ray that are massless. Na, Jackson. > Nope. Cosmic rays are massive particles. So given that this is an observational FACT, what do you do when facts don’t line up with your thinking? -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@volney.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-13 16:42 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pfrviv$1if$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #690462 |
On 6/13/2018 3:31 PM, numbernumber1964@gmail.com wrote: > And yet cosmic rays penetrate the roof of your car constantly. No holes.. > > Given that this is an observational FACT, how then do you question your. own > presumptions? Do you? Ever? That’s a yes or no question. . If it's a fact, than you are wrong. Period. Go off and figure out _why_ you are wrong. > > ___________________________________________________ > > > Maybe a cosmical ray is similar to an xray or gamma ray that are massless. Na, Jackson. Cosmic rays are not massless. The ones that reach the ground are mostly muons and electrons. Scientists locate neutrino detectors in old salt mines a mile underground to shield them from cosmic ray muons, because cosmic ray muons are VERY penetrating. Don't look now, but they are flying through your body this very second! Good thing they don't leave holes!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | numbernumber1964@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-13 13:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bd9b4fa0-c3a8-4247-906a-51d36cb77b0c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #689319 |
Obviously, cosmic rays are not propagating through 1800 meters of bed rock. So it is questionable if cosmic rays are actually propagating through your body. How do you know if it is background radiation. Get background radiation or more like underground radiation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-14 08:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d526f236-e3d2-4152-82b5-dd2c2cf00bab@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #690474 |
On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 4:55:59 PM UTC-4, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote: > Obviously, cosmic rays are not propagating through 1800 meters > of bed rock. So it is questionable if cosmic rays are actually > propagating through your body. How do you know if it is background > radiation. Get background radiation or more like underground radiation. A good question. but consider: if it is background radiation, at 1800 meters, the radiation will come from all directions because the source is the surrounding rock. if it is cosmic radiation (particles), there is a preferred direction from above. when tests are done, there is indeed an excess coming from above. That excess increases as the testing is done close to the surface. And even greater excess from above for tests done at higher elevations (mountain tops). This is opposite what would happen if the source is the bedrock. On the mountain tops the bedrock is below, so the particle direction would be up not down. Since the observations shown the direction coming from above, then we can rule out background radiation. HTH, ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@volney.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-14 12:42 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pfu5ti$81u$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #690596 |
On 6/14/2018 11:06 AM, Edward Prochak wrote: > On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 4:55:59 PM UTC-4, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote: >> Obviously, cosmic rays are not propagating through 1800 meters >> of bed rock. Obviously, actual measurements show that cosmic rays actually do go through substantial distances of bedrock. When actual data conflicts with one's hypothesis or belief, it's the belief that is wrong, not the measured data. Otherwise that is denial of reality, and denial of reality (delusions) is often considered a symptom of insanity, not science. >> So it is questionable if cosmic rays are actually >> propagating through your body. How do you know if it is background >> radiation. Get background radiation or more like underground radiation. > > A good question. but consider: > if it is background radiation, at 1800 meters, the radiation will come > from all directions because the source is the surrounding rock. > > if it is cosmic radiation (particles), there is a preferred direction > from above. > > when tests are done, there is indeed an excess coming from above. > That excess increases as the testing is done close to the surface. > And even greater excess from above for tests done at higher elevations > (mountain tops). > > This is opposite what would happen if the source is the bedrock. > On the mountain tops the bedrock is below, so the particle direction > would be up not down. > > Since the observations shown the direction coming from above, > then we can rule out background radiation. Yes that is something that confounded early radiation experimenters. They wanted a place with a low background level for more sensitive experiments. They knew rocks contained radioactive elements, so they figured things would work better if they did their work on mountaintops or balloons. To their surprise, the radiation _increased_. And it was coming from above, even to a large extent on the surface of the earth or below ground.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-14 11:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pfu6g4$fcv$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #690602 |
On 6/14/2018 11:42 AM, Volney wrote: > On 6/14/2018 11:06 AM, Edward Prochak wrote: >> On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 4:55:59 PM UTC-4, numbernu...@gmail.com >> wrote: >>> Obviously, cosmic rays are not propagating through 1800 meters >>> of bed rock. > > Obviously, actual measurements show that cosmic rays actually do go > through substantial distances of bedrock. When actual data conflicts > with one's hypothesis or belief, it's the belief that is wrong, not the > measured data. Otherwise that is denial of reality, and denial of > reality (delusions) is often considered a symptom of insanity, not science. > >>> So it is questionable if cosmic rays are actually >>> propagating through your body. How do you know if it is background >>> radiation. Get background radiation or more like underground radiation. >> >> A good question. but consider: >> if it is background radiation, at 1800 meters, the radiation will come >> from all directions because the source is the surrounding rock. >> >> if it is cosmic radiation (particles), there is a preferred direction >> from above. >> >> when tests are done, there is indeed an excess coming from above. >> That excess increases as the testing is done close to the surface. >> And even greater excess from above for tests done at higher elevations >> (mountain tops). >> >> This is opposite what would happen if the source is the bedrock. >> On the mountain tops the bedrock is below, so the particle direction >> would be up not down. >> >> Since the observations shown the direction coming from above, >> then we can rule out background radiation. > > Yes that is something that confounded early radiation experimenters. > They wanted a place with a low background level for more sensitive > experiments. They knew rocks contained radioactive elements, so they > figured things would work better if they did their work on mountaintops > or balloons. To their surprise, the radiation _increased_. And it was > coming from above, even to a large extent on the surface of the earth or > below ground. http://rocketsetc.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/hab2-geiger2.png https://meteolcd.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/dose_rate_versus_altitude.jpg http://www.ansto.gov.au/cs/groups/corporate/documents/stillimage/mdaw/mda5/~edisp/acs017612.jpg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@volney.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-14 13:04 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pfu76e$h0b$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #690604 |
On 6/14/2018 12:52 PM, Sergio wrote: > On 6/14/2018 11:42 AM, Volney wrote: >> On 6/14/2018 11:06 AM, Edward Prochak wrote: >>> On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 4:55:59 PM UTC-4, numbernu...@gmail.com >>> wrote: >>>> So it is questionable if cosmic rays are actually >>>> propagating through your body. How do you know if it is background >>>> radiation. Get background radiation or more like underground radiation. >>> >>> A good question. but consider: >>> if it is background radiation, at 1800 meters, the radiation will come >>> from all directions because the source is the surrounding rock. >>> >>> if it is cosmic radiation (particles), there is a preferred direction >>> from above. >>> >>> when tests are done, there is indeed an excess coming from above. >>> That excess increases as the testing is done close to the surface. >>> And even greater excess from above for tests done at higher elevations >>> (mountain tops). >>> >>> This is opposite what would happen if the source is the bedrock. >>> On the mountain tops the bedrock is below, so the particle direction >>> would be up not down. >>> >>> Since the observations shown the direction coming from above, >>> then we can rule out background radiation. >> >> Yes that is something that confounded early radiation experimenters. >> They wanted a place with a low background level for more sensitive >> experiments. They knew rocks contained radioactive elements, so they >> figured things would work better if they did their work on mountaintops >> or balloons. To their surprise, the radiation _increased_. And it was >> coming from above, even to a large extent on the surface of the earth or >> below ground. > > http://rocketsetc.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/hab2-geiger2.png > > https://meteolcd.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/dose_rate_versus_altitude.jpg > > http://www.ansto.gov.au/cs/groups/corporate/documents/stillimage/mdaw/mda5/~edisp/acs017612.jpg yeah I remember reading how airline pilots and flight attendants (and the passengers, of course) receive the equivalent of n dental X-rays of radiation on every cross-country flight. This is a bigger problem for the airline employees than occasional passengers, of course. I forgot what "n" is, or how long it takes sitting on your butt at sea level to "get" a dental X-ray.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@volney.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-14 13:08 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pfu7e3$ipe$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #690606 |
On 6/14/2018 1:04 PM, Volney wrote: > On 6/14/2018 12:52 PM, Sergio wrote: >> On 6/14/2018 11:42 AM, Volney wrote: >>> Yes that is something that confounded early radiation experimenters. >>> They wanted a place with a low background level for more sensitive >>> experiments. They knew rocks contained radioactive elements, so they >>> figured things would work better if they did their work on mountaintops >>> or balloons. To their surprise, the radiation _increased_. And it was >>> coming from above, even to a large extent on the surface of the earth or >>> below ground. >> >> http://rocketsetc.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/hab2-geiger2.png >> >> https://meteolcd.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/dose_rate_versus_altitude.jpg >> >> >> http://www.ansto.gov.au/cs/groups/corporate/documents/stillimage/mdaw/mda5/~edisp/acs017612.jpg >> > > yeah I remember reading how airline pilots and flight attendants (and > the passengers, of course) receive the equivalent of n dental X-rays of > radiation on every cross-country flight. This is a bigger problem for > the airline employees than occasional passengers, of course. I forgot > what "n" is, or how long it takes sitting on your butt at sea level to > "get" a dental X-ray. Someone invented the "banana" scale for small amounts of radiation. One "banana" was the amount of radiation you get by eating an average banana, from the high levels of potassium (and thus K-40) they contain. You can rate such things as dental X-rays or spending a day in Quito Ecuador in "bananas" of radiation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-14 12:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pfu9b7$k32$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #690607 |
On 6/14/2018 12:08 PM, Volney wrote: > On 6/14/2018 1:04 PM, Volney wrote: >> On 6/14/2018 12:52 PM, Sergio wrote: >>> On 6/14/2018 11:42 AM, Volney wrote: > >>>> Yes that is something that confounded early radiation experimenters. >>>> They wanted a place with a low background level for more sensitive >>>> experiments. They knew rocks contained radioactive elements, so they >>>> figured things would work better if they did their work on mountaintops >>>> or balloons. To their surprise, the radiation _increased_. And it was >>>> coming from above, even to a large extent on the surface of the >>>> earth or >>>> below ground. >>> >>> http://rocketsetc.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/hab2-geiger2.png >>> >>> https://meteolcd.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/dose_rate_versus_altitude.jpg >>> >>> >>> http://www.ansto.gov.au/cs/groups/corporate/documents/stillimage/mdaw/mda5/~edisp/acs017612.jpg >>> >> >> yeah I remember reading how airline pilots and flight attendants (and >> the passengers, of course) receive the equivalent of n dental X-rays >> of radiation on every cross-country flight. This is a bigger problem >> for the airline employees than occasional passengers, of course. I >> forgot what "n" is, or how long it takes sitting on your butt at sea >> level to "get" a dental X-ray. > > Someone invented the "banana" scale for small amounts of radiation. One > "banana" was the amount of radiation you get by eating an average > banana, from the high levels of potassium (and thus K-40) they contain. > You can rate such things as dental X-rays or spending a day in Quito > Ecuador in "bananas" of radiation. > > quite true, I can measure the radiation increase by a banana, or a granite counter top I did not find a well logging chart of ionizing radiation as one goes below the surface of the earth. Im sure one is out there. I think on the surface here, we have a minimum of ionizing radiation. Enough to cause a few mutations enabling genitic change.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-14 16:01 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <QQzUC.272418$Hv4.89203@fx39.iad> |
| In reply to | #690608 |
On 6/14/2018 1:40 PM, Sergio wrote: > On 6/14/2018 12:08 PM, Volney wrote: >> On 6/14/2018 1:04 PM, Volney wrote: >>> On 6/14/2018 12:52 PM, Sergio wrote: >>>> On 6/14/2018 11:42 AM, Volney wrote: >> >>>>> Yes that is something that confounded early radiation experimenters. >>>>> They wanted a place with a low background level for more sensitive >>>>> experiments. They knew rocks contained radioactive elements, so they >>>>> figured things would work better if they did their work on mountaintops >>>>> or balloons. To their surprise, the radiation _increased_. And it was >>>>> coming from above, even to a large extent on the surface of the >>>>> earth or >>>>> below ground. >>>> >>>> http://rocketsetc.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/hab2-geiger2.png >>>> >>>> https://meteolcd.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/dose_rate_versus_altitude.jpg >>>> >>>> >>>> http://www.ansto.gov.au/cs/groups/corporate/documents/stillimage/mdaw/mda5/~edisp/acs017612.jpg >>>> >>> >>> yeah I remember reading how airline pilots and flight attendants (and >>> the passengers, of course) receive the equivalent of n dental X-rays >>> of radiation on every cross-country flight. This is a bigger problem >>> for the airline employees than occasional passengers, of course. I >>> forgot what "n" is, or how long it takes sitting on your butt at sea >>> level to "get" a dental X-ray. >> >> Someone invented the "banana" scale for small amounts of radiation. One >> "banana" was the amount of radiation you get by eating an average >> banana, from the high levels of potassium (and thus K-40) they contain. >> You can rate such things as dental X-rays or spending a day in Quito >> Ecuador in "bananas" of radiation. >> >> > > quite true, > I can measure the radiation increase by a banana, or a granite counter top > > I did not find a well logging chart of ionizing radiation as one goes > below the surface of the earth. Im sure one is out there. > > I think on the surface here, we have a minimum of ionizing radiation. > Enough to cause a few mutations enabling genitic change. Get a Geiger counter. Background readings for most places near sea level is about 15-20 clicks per minute. I don't know what it is on a mountain top. Neutrino's were discovered at the bottom of a salt mine so there was little radioactive rock around. I don't know what the background count was there either (though I probably did once).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-15 05:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2d6d0df2-89a8-4876-853d-9b9a2ee0b155@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #690607 |
On Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 1:08:22 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > On 6/14/2018 1:04 PM, Volney wrote: > > On 6/14/2018 12:52 PM, Sergio wrote: > >> On 6/14/2018 11:42 AM, Volney wrote: > > >>> Yes that is something that confounded early radiation experimenters. > >>> They wanted a place with a low background level for more sensitive > >>> experiments. They knew rocks contained radioactive elements, so they > >>> figured things would work better if they did their work on mountaintops > >>> or balloons. To their surprise, the radiation _increased_. And it was > >>> coming from above, even to a large extent on the surface of the earth or > >>> below ground. > >> > >> http://rocketsetc.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/hab2-geiger2.png > >> > >> https://meteolcd.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/dose_rate_versus_altitude.jpg > >> > >> > >> http://www.ansto.gov.au/cs/groups/corporate/documents/stillimage/mdaw/mda5/~edisp/acs017612.jpg > >> > > > > yeah I remember reading how airline pilots and flight attendants (and > > the passengers, of course) receive the equivalent of n dental X-rays of > > radiation on every cross-country flight. This is a bigger problem for > > the airline employees than occasional passengers, of course. I forgot > > what "n" is, or how long it takes sitting on your butt at sea level to > > "get" a dental X-ray. > > Someone invented the "banana" scale for small amounts of radiation. One > "banana" was the amount of radiation you get by eating an average > banana, from the high levels of potassium (and thus K-40) they contain. > You can rate such things as dental X-rays or spending a day in Quito > Ecuador in "bananas" of radiation. just because I have the information handy: dental x-ray 0.005 millisieverts per exposure. Maybe once per year. Airline crew 3.1 millisieverts per year. Also pilots are above nuclear power plant workers who average 1.9 msv per year. for comparison chest x-ray 0.1 msv and chest CT scan 7.0 msv (Above from a SciAm statistics page) The pilots get the equivalent of 620 dental x-rays per year. Working out the per hour exposure: By law pilots may not fly more than 1000 hours per year. The average would be less. just to make the math easy, if the average flight hours was 620 then they receive the equivalent of one dental x-ray per hour. The actual is likely something less. If pilots average 900 hours per year, the exposure would be one dental x-ray per 1.45 hours flight time. That number is likely closer to the real average. And FYI the OSHA occupational limit still 50 msv per year. Enjoy, Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | numbernumber1964@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-13 13:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2f07fea2-c011-473a-9b4e-d83dac3193aa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #689319 |
this is well know and observed daily.. an electron beam will go through air several feet,. and will go through glass attenuated as well. depends upon energy and beam divergance. . __________________________________ The LIGO 10^-18 meter length variation is also well know and observed daily. I am not impressed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | numbernumber1964@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-13 14:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <37864beb-908d-4dc2-89bf-6dbc040b5c83@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #689319 |
an electron beam will go through air several feet,. and will go through glass attenuated as well. depends upon energy and beam divergance.. _______________________________________ Yes an arc welder's electrons will go through glass.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web