Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #690970 > unrolled thread

Re: What is A Neutrino ?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: What is A Neutrino ? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-06-17 16:46 +0000
    Re: What is A Neutrino ? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-06-18 07:01 -0700
      Re: What is A Neutrino ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-18 15:44 +0000
      Re: What is A Neutrino ? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-06-18 16:57 +0000
      Re: What is A Neutrino ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-06-24 12:24 +0200
    Re: What is A Neutrino ? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-06-18 07:15 -0700
      Re: What is A Neutrino ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-18 15:44 +0000
        Re: What is A Neutrino ? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-06-18 08:49 -0700
          Re: What is A Neutrino ? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-18 09:16 -0700
          Re: What is A Neutrino ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-18 17:19 +0000
            Re: What is A Neutrino ? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-18 13:40 -0700
      Re: What is A Neutrino ? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-18 09:11 -0700
        Re: What is A Neutrino ? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-06-18 09:22 -0700
          Re: What is A Neutrino ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-18 17:45 +0000
          Re: What is A Neutrino ? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-18 13:37 -0700
      Re: What is A Neutrino ? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-06-18 17:12 +0000

#690970 — Re: What is A Neutrino ?

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>A W particle is a Cooper Pair of electrons that has been impacted in 
>such a way (by energetic collisions) that it temporarily becomes Spin 1, 
>like a photon. It then decays. Since there are TWO different Ws, their 
>are two different electrons (up and down have opposite spins). Ws and Zs 
>are a consequence of smashing subatomic particles and temporarily 
>knocking them out of equilibrium. They are NOT a normal constituent of 
>the atom. However, they provide information.

Wow, you went into full blown word salad mode here, John.
You got out a large bowl, threw in a bunch of sciencey words such as
"neutrino", "electron", "Cooper pair", "antielectron", "photon" etc.,
garnish with your OCD terms "spin" and "precess", toss thoroughly, and you
come up with total nonsense like:

"A neutrino is an antielectron"
"The W photon is a Cooper pair of electrons..."

just about all of which conflicts with known definitions and laws of
physics such as an antiparticle has all attributes of the corresponding
particle negated, conservation of charge, conservation of energy,
conservation of spin and so forth. Why do you do that? You complain that
your ideas are not appreciated, but these ideas are such complete, total
nonsense that nobody will ever consider them as anything more than the
babbling of a kook.

I see Lahn typed in a nice long explanation trying to teach you something.
Read it and learn. Or read actual science books and learn. And learn
simple logic such as 'a photon is a boson, a W particle is a boson, but
that does NOT make a W particle a photon'.
(why do you redefine what scientists have already defined anyway?)

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#691049

MM
“Read it and learn. Or read actual science books and learn. And learn 
simple logic such as 'a photon is a boson, a W particle is a boson, but 
that does NOT make a W particle a photon'. 
(why do you redefin”

So, a boson has spin 1, 
a photon has spin 1,
but a photon only has one kernel, with positive propagation.
The Z has two kernels- one at the front with positive propagation that decays into a normal electron, and one at the back that decays into a neutrino.
The W also has two kernels- one on each side. Since the 1:1 Spin has handedness, there are two different Ws, which proves there are two different electrons, up and down.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#691053

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> MM
> “Read it and learn. Or read actual science books and learn. And learn 
> simple logic such as 'a photon is a boson, a W particle is a boson, but 
> that does NOT make a W particle a photon'. 
> (why do you redefin”
> 
> So, a boson has spin 1, 
> a photon has spin 1,
> but a photon only has one kernel, with positive propagation.
> The Z has two kernels- one at the front with positive propagation that
> decays into a normal electron, and one at the back that decays into a neutrino.
> The W also has two kernels- one on each side. Since the 1:1 Spin has
> handedness, there are two different Ws, which proves there are two
> different electrons, up and down.
> 

That’s still babbling, John, tossing around a few jargon terms you don’t
really understand along with sprinkles of pine cones, shredded newspapers,
poker chips, and a splash of motor oil to make a lovely salad. 

-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#691065

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>So, a boson has spin 1,
>a photon has spin 1,
>but a photon only has one kernel, with positive propagation.
>The Z has two kernels- one at the front with positive propagation that 
>decays into a normal electron, and one at the back that decays into a 
>neutrino.
>The W also has two kernels- one on each side. Since the 1:1 Spin has 
>handedness, there are two different Ws, which proves there are two 
>different electrons, up and down.

No, John, explaining word salad with more word salad, with stuff you 
pulled out of your ass ("two kernels") doesn't work. It's still babbling
nonsense. Why do you babble nonsense instead of trying to learn this?

Also, "which proves there are two different electrons, up and down"
makes as much sense as stating "there are two different quarters, heads
and tails". They're just different states of the same thing.

The two W's are _quite_ different, they have opposite charges and are
antiparticles of each other. Look up what that means.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#691723

john wrote:
> So, a boson has spin 1, 

No, can’t you read?  All *bosons* have *integer* spin.  Bosons are a *class*
of elementary particles.

> a photon has spin 1,

And 1 *is* an integer.  That is why *a* photon is *a* boson.  Got it?

> but a photon only has one kernel, with positive propagation.

Elementary particles like photons are point-like.  They do not have a
"kernel".  (You are confusing concepts of computer science with concepts
of physics.)

> [crank fantasies]

Why do you make things up and pretend that they are true?

F’up2 sci.physics.particle

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#691050

MM
“why do you redefine what scientists have already defined anyway?) ”

Higher knowledge.
Point particles don’t exist. They were introduced early on as ‘fundamental’. Total bullshit.
Scientists that couldn’t figure out that Benzene is a ring, and that that 3rd electron doesn’t need ‘delocalization magic’, but only to be shared out in one direction and accepted from the other? Pretty stupid science.
Pretty much everything needs to be re-done, scientifically. You can tell by looking at...oh...Fukushima, the plastic-filled ocean, the poison-soaked soil...
But Michael doesn’t see a problem

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#691054

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> MM
> “why do you redefine what scientists have already defined anyway?) ”
> 
> Higher knowledge.

Revealed to you by aliens? 

Seriously, John, how do you rank yourself as a prophet when you are
completely uneducated in physics? Do you really think that happens?

> Point particles don’t exist. They were introduced early on as
> ‘fundamental’. Total bullshit.
> Scientists that couldn’t figure out that
> Benzene is a ring, and that that 3rd electron doesn’t need
> ‘delocalization magic’, but only to be shared out in one direction and
> accepted from the other? Pretty stupid science.
> Pretty much everything needs to be re-done, scientifically. You can tell
> by looking at...oh...Fukushima, the plastic-filled ocean, the poison-soaked soil...

Aha, so technological problems are an indicator that science is off the
rails, and if science were on track there would be none of these problems,
and so a prophet like you is needed.....

> But Michael doesn’t see a problem
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#691056

Odd
“
Aha, so technological problems are an indicator that science is off the 
rails, and if science were on track there would be none of these problem”
Many things indicate science is off the rails.
It has been since JPMorgan decided that selling oil was better than Tesla’s solution of free electricity.
And you go along with that bullshit.
Of course, you claim you’re not a scientist.
I believe you

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#691059

On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 11:49:51 AM UTC-4, john wrote:
> Odd
> “
> Aha, so technological problems are an indicator that science is off the 
> rails, and if science were on track there would be none of these problem”
> Many things indicate science is off the rails.
> It has been since JPMorgan decided that selling oil was
> better than Tesla’s solution of free electricity.

There is no such thing as free energy, John. You cannot get
free energy from nowhere. Solar energy is close, but you still
need equipment to convert it. You are the one off the rails,
and you don't even seem to know it.

 Ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#691068

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> Odd
> “
> Aha, so technological problems are an indicator that science is off the 
> rails, and if science were on track there would be none of these problem”
> Many things indicate science is off the rails.
> It has been since JPMorgan decided that selling oil was better than
> Tesla’s solution of free electricity.
> And you go along with that bullshit.
> Of course, you claim you’re not a scientist.
> I believe you
> 

Aha, so political and economic choices about technology tells you that
science is off track. If science were on track, then we wouldn’t have
problems and we would have made sounder political and economic decisions.
And that’s why science needs a prophet like you with a “higher view”. 

-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#691107

On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 1:19:55 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Odd
> > “
> > Aha, so technological problems are an indicator that science is off the 
> > rails, and if science were on track there would be none of these problem”
> > Many things indicate science is off the rails.
> > It has been since JPMorgan decided that selling oil was better than
> > Tesla’s solution of free electricity.
> > And you go along with that bullshit.
> > Of course, you claim you’re not a scientist.
> > I believe you
> > 
> 
> Aha, so political and economic choices about technology tells you that
> science is off track. If science were on track, then we wouldn’t have
> problems and we would have made sounder political and economic decisions.
> And that’s why science needs a prophet like you with a “higher view”. 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Odd,
You forgot to wrap that comment in
<sarcasm> </sarcasm>  markers.
I don't think John will realize it otherwise. 8^)

ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#691058

On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 10:15:07 AM UTC-4, john wrote:
> MM
> “why do you redefine what scientists have already defined anyway?) ”
> 
> Higher knowledge.
> Scientists that couldn’t figure out that Benzene is a ring,

Look up benzene in wikipedia and note this:
"In 1865, the German chemist Friedrich August Kekulé published
 a paper in French (for he was then teaching in Francophone Belgium)
 suggesting that the structure contained a ring of six carbon
 atoms with alternating single and double bonds. The next year
 he published a much longer paper in German on the same subject.
 Kekulé used evidence that had accumulated in the intervening
 years — namely, that there always appeared to be only one isomer
 of any monoderivative of benzene, and that there always appeared
 to be exactly three isomers of every disubstituted derivative
 —now understood to correspond to the ortho, meta, and para
 patterns of arene substitution— to argue in support of his
 proposed structure. Kekulé's symmetrical ring could explain
 these curious facts, as well as benzene's 1:1 carbon-hydrogen
 ratio.

 The new understanding of benzene, and hence of all aromatic
 compounds, proved to be so important for both pure and applied
 chemistry that in 1890 the German Chemical Society organized
 an elaborate appreciation in Kekulé's honor, celebrating the
 twenty-fifth anniversary of his first benzene paper."

So Benzene has been known to be a ring for about 150 years.

> and that that 3rd electron doesn’t need ‘delocalization magic’,
> but only to be shared out in one direction and accepted from
> the other? Pretty stupid science.

Poor uninformed John. If you took a little time to actually
read some science, you may discover that your ideas are either
ols news or disproven news.

> Pretty much everything needs to be re-done, scientifically.
> You can tell by looking at...oh...Fukushima, the plastic-filled
> ocean, the poison-soaked soil...
> But Michael doesn’t see a problem

Each of those things involves other areas, not just science:
engineering
economics
politics

As we have known since Pogo in the 70's:
people are the problem.
"We have met the enemy and he is us."

Michael and others here see much more clearly than you.
Take some time, John, to learn and realize just how deep
the problem goes.

Science can point to the safe path, but people have to walk it.
Ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#691060

Ed
“Science can point to the safe path, but people have to walk it. 
Ed ”
Tesla pointed to free electricity and electric cars.
Scientist.
JPMorgan insisted on oil.
Money man.
Now we’ve had a century of ‘valuable’ oil with which we’re wrecking our aquifers and air and soil and over which we  are fighting wars.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#691072

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ed
> “Science can point to the safe path, but people have to walk it. 
> Ed ”
> Tesla pointed to free electricity and electric cars.
> Scientist.
> JPMorgan insisted on oil.
> Money man.
> Now we’ve had a century of ‘valuable’ oil with which we’re wrecking our
> aquifers and air and soil and over which we  are fighting wars.
> 

I think it would be helpful if you understood what Tesla actually proposed,
rather than just stopping at the free energy headline. There’s no free
electricity generation in his proposal. There is wireless electrical power
DUSTRIBUTION, which would be metered differently. But there’s no “free”
except in the eyes of gee-whiz blog reporters. That’s your own special
trait, John. You go ape-shit ga-ga over anything gee-whiz, with absolutely
no bullshit meter. Which is why you buy into every change-the-world
flim-flam artist around. 

-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#691106

On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 12:22:12 PM UTC-4, john wrote:
> Ed
> “Science can point to the safe path, but people have to walk it. 
> Ed ”
> Tesla pointed to free electricity and electric cars.
> Scientist.
> JPMorgan insisted on oil.
> Money man.
> Now we’ve had a century of ‘valuable’ oil with which we’re
> wrecking our aquifers and air and soil and over which we
>  are fighting wars.

Yeah, I don't disagree with you there.
Ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#691067

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>MM
>"why do you redefine what scientists have already defined anyway?) "

>Higher knowledge.

"Higher knowledge"? WTF? Do you think science works on prophecy?
Where did you get this "higher knowledge"? Did God tell this to you?
Are you perhaps schizophrenic?

>Point particles don't exist.

You never gave an explanation of this belief of yours.

>Scientists that couldn't figure out that Benzene is a ring,

Science has known benzene is a ring since Kekule, 150+ years ago.

>that 3rd electron doesn't need "delocalization magic", but only to be 
>shared out in one direction and accepted from the other? Pretty stupid 
>science.

No magic, just add the wave functions of the electrons involved, and 
delocalization pops right out.

Plus, it explains the chemical behavior of benzene and related compounds.
Your retarded precessing spinny things can't do that!

>Pretty much everything needs to be re-done, scientifically. You can tell by
>looking at...oh...Fukushima, the plastic-filled ocean, the poison-soaked
>soil...

Accidents, misuse or abuse of technology don't come from misunderstanding
the fundamental basic science! Entirely different issue.

>But Michael doesn't see a problem

Entirely different issue. I am discussing the science here, not technology
gone wrong.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web