- Thank you received: 0
Antigravity Research
- Larry Burford
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
12 years 10 months ago #11056
by Larry Burford
Replied by Larry Burford on topic Reply from Larry Burford
So - no such thing as a neutrino? Possible of course, but it leaves us with a question. What is actually happening when a neutrino detector goes "ding"?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
12 years 10 months ago #24390
by Jim
Replied by Jim on topic Reply from
It is a surprise to me that you are open to an idea like this. I don't know what the bell chime means or how the billions of gallons of fluid needed to signal the rope that rocks the bell does its part. It seems a bit like inventing an angel detector way back when.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Larry Burford
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
12 years 10 months ago #11057
by Larry Burford
Replied by Larry Burford on topic Reply from Larry Burford
Being open minded is part of my definition of being an explorer (aka scientist). But it will take a little more than asserting that 'they sound a lot like angles' to <u>convince</u> me that neutrinos do not exist.
For that matter, I'm still 'open' to the possibility that something we might agree to call 'angles' can exist. No one has put forth a convincing body of evidence so far, but who knows what tomorrow will bring?
Not closing your mind to an idea is related to, but different from, accepting that idea.
===
Do neutrinos exist? A number of machines called 'neutrino detectors' have been built by a number of independent groups around the world. They seem to be detecting something.
Rather than call these machines neutrino detectors, we might call them something detectors.
===
It is OK if your thinking has not gone any deeper than what you have revealed so far. I do not always dig below the surface of everything, either. However, it seems to me that if you are going to challenge something like this, you ought to be able to offer more than you have in support of your challenge.
For example, would you answer these questions?
Q1) Why does the status of E=mc^2 as an approximation rather than an exact equation influence your ideas in this regard?
Q2) Do you have any ideas about what this something might be? (IOW, 'What is actually happening when a neutrino detector goes "ding"?')
I know a tiny bit about neutrinos (or what establishment science calls neutrinos), but I'm no expert. This is a big part of why I am open to alternate ideas. If I were to become deeply interested in the subject, and seriously study it, I'm sure my mind would become a little less flexible (on this subject).
But I like to believe that no matter how 'sure' I am about anything, I always hang on to a little piece of doubt. Gold is where you find it. If you stop looking, you stop finding.
Regards,
LB
For that matter, I'm still 'open' to the possibility that something we might agree to call 'angles' can exist. No one has put forth a convincing body of evidence so far, but who knows what tomorrow will bring?
Not closing your mind to an idea is related to, but different from, accepting that idea.
===
Do neutrinos exist? A number of machines called 'neutrino detectors' have been built by a number of independent groups around the world. They seem to be detecting something.
Rather than call these machines neutrino detectors, we might call them something detectors.
===
It is OK if your thinking has not gone any deeper than what you have revealed so far. I do not always dig below the surface of everything, either. However, it seems to me that if you are going to challenge something like this, you ought to be able to offer more than you have in support of your challenge.
For example, would you answer these questions?
Q1) Why does the status of E=mc^2 as an approximation rather than an exact equation influence your ideas in this regard?
Q2) Do you have any ideas about what this something might be? (IOW, 'What is actually happening when a neutrino detector goes "ding"?')
I know a tiny bit about neutrinos (or what establishment science calls neutrinos), but I'm no expert. This is a big part of why I am open to alternate ideas. If I were to become deeply interested in the subject, and seriously study it, I'm sure my mind would become a little less flexible (on this subject).
But I like to believe that no matter how 'sure' I am about anything, I always hang on to a little piece of doubt. Gold is where you find it. If you stop looking, you stop finding.
Regards,
LB
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
12 years 10 months ago #24391
by Jim
Replied by Jim on topic Reply from
OK, we can agree on that. So, what is your field? Maybe I have some interest in that although not an expert of course.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- cosmicsurfer
- Topic Author
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
12 years 3 months ago #13812
by cosmicsurfer
The Matter Universe exists because of a DUAL TIME MANIFOLD
Why does antimatter always disappear first during colider experiments? The answer to the Charge Parity Time violations are key to understanding how our Universe works over large scales. Yet, existing doctrines are holding back this logical conclusion.
by John W. Rickey
The Tevatron at Fermilabs, before being superseded by the LHC at CERN as the worlds cutting-edge high-energy particle accelerator, released results that indicated an asymmetry between the properties of matter and antimatter in the decay of B mesons particles consisting of one bottom (b) quark and one lighter antiquark, or vice-versa. If the other quark is a down, the corresponding meson Bd is electrically neutral, as is its antiparticle. They appear to oscillate back and forth between each other. The one difference is that the meson and anti-meson decay a little bit differently; this has been studied in great detail at B-factories, with results that have been very useful in determining values of parameters in the Standard Model of Particle Physics. Now, Fermi Labs actually measured the flipping rate of these B Sub s Meson's at an incredible 3.3 trillion times per second between a state of matter and antimatter. Supposedly, the neutral B mesons can oscillate into matter and antimatter but the visible symmetry does not appear to be equal in shape or form. What are we really seeing here, and is there a reason why these Meson's are not symmetric given the incredible flipping rates of motion?
The question remains, do we really have a clue as to the cause of Charge Parity Time symmetries between matter and antimatter at local and large scales? Probably not, and that is why we see deformations on the local level because of large scale interactions that skew the data causing antimatter to disappear first during colider experiments. Suggesting that the relationship between matter and antimatter in forward time, might operate far different in reverse time. Because we do not understand that baryogenesis, or mass formational processes in galaxies is an ongoing process that is naturally occurring all the time because of a large scale energy exchange between a matter and antimatter paired motions.
For example, the rate of decay of the Bs and its antiparticle, appears inconsistent barely with the Standard Model. In particular, they looked at decays that produced muons or anti-muons.
muoncpviolation
You would expect that a single collision would produce one Bs and one anti-Bs, and that one would decay into a muon and the other into an anti-muon. However, something else is going on that skews this symmetry with B Meson decay reports showing that they see muons more often than anti-muons. Here is the problem, maybe Fermi Labs has no idea what they are observing. What if by chance the Proton/Antiproton collision blew off the strong force or Proton sheath, and for the first time we were able to see inside of a Proton or an Antiproton to see what it looks like. I believe that we saw for the first time the inside of a Proton. Although deformed, a quark and antiquark were moving around each other at the incredible motion of 3.3 trillion times per second. So, instead of seeing a neutral B meson oscillating as its own antiparticles, that sometimes decays into the same kind of particle both muons, or both anti-muons---Fermi Labs witnessed the standing leftover's of a real Proton's core.
If I am right, and B Meson's are left over standing oscillations from cores of Proton's then most likely there is only One Quark and One Antiquark inside Protons. In other words, because forward time matter and reverse time antimatter are always found in paired conjugated rotations at all scales of motion then CHARGE, PARITY, TIME violations are observed as an artifact of being stuck in forward time perspective. We can not step back far enough to see the big picture, and what we do see we miss-understand with antiquated theories that attempt to answer how our universe was created rather than HOW DOES UNIVERSE WORK?
So, how does the Universe work to create mass on a continuous basis? I will leave you with a visual, GMF inward motion at 4D terminates in polarity reversals in cores of Proton's sending a jet back toward reverse time. We live in a DUAL TIME UNIVERSE.
source: www.futurenewsnetwork.com/index.php?opti...le&id=79902&catid=75
Replied by cosmicsurfer on topic Reply from John Rickey
The Matter Universe exists because of a DUAL TIME MANIFOLD
Why does antimatter always disappear first during colider experiments? The answer to the Charge Parity Time violations are key to understanding how our Universe works over large scales. Yet, existing doctrines are holding back this logical conclusion.
by John W. Rickey
The Tevatron at Fermilabs, before being superseded by the LHC at CERN as the worlds cutting-edge high-energy particle accelerator, released results that indicated an asymmetry between the properties of matter and antimatter in the decay of B mesons particles consisting of one bottom (b) quark and one lighter antiquark, or vice-versa. If the other quark is a down, the corresponding meson Bd is electrically neutral, as is its antiparticle. They appear to oscillate back and forth between each other. The one difference is that the meson and anti-meson decay a little bit differently; this has been studied in great detail at B-factories, with results that have been very useful in determining values of parameters in the Standard Model of Particle Physics. Now, Fermi Labs actually measured the flipping rate of these B Sub s Meson's at an incredible 3.3 trillion times per second between a state of matter and antimatter. Supposedly, the neutral B mesons can oscillate into matter and antimatter but the visible symmetry does not appear to be equal in shape or form. What are we really seeing here, and is there a reason why these Meson's are not symmetric given the incredible flipping rates of motion?
The question remains, do we really have a clue as to the cause of Charge Parity Time symmetries between matter and antimatter at local and large scales? Probably not, and that is why we see deformations on the local level because of large scale interactions that skew the data causing antimatter to disappear first during colider experiments. Suggesting that the relationship between matter and antimatter in forward time, might operate far different in reverse time. Because we do not understand that baryogenesis, or mass formational processes in galaxies is an ongoing process that is naturally occurring all the time because of a large scale energy exchange between a matter and antimatter paired motions.
For example, the rate of decay of the Bs and its antiparticle, appears inconsistent barely with the Standard Model. In particular, they looked at decays that produced muons or anti-muons.
muoncpviolation
You would expect that a single collision would produce one Bs and one anti-Bs, and that one would decay into a muon and the other into an anti-muon. However, something else is going on that skews this symmetry with B Meson decay reports showing that they see muons more often than anti-muons. Here is the problem, maybe Fermi Labs has no idea what they are observing. What if by chance the Proton/Antiproton collision blew off the strong force or Proton sheath, and for the first time we were able to see inside of a Proton or an Antiproton to see what it looks like. I believe that we saw for the first time the inside of a Proton. Although deformed, a quark and antiquark were moving around each other at the incredible motion of 3.3 trillion times per second. So, instead of seeing a neutral B meson oscillating as its own antiparticles, that sometimes decays into the same kind of particle both muons, or both anti-muons---Fermi Labs witnessed the standing leftover's of a real Proton's core.
If I am right, and B Meson's are left over standing oscillations from cores of Proton's then most likely there is only One Quark and One Antiquark inside Protons. In other words, because forward time matter and reverse time antimatter are always found in paired conjugated rotations at all scales of motion then CHARGE, PARITY, TIME violations are observed as an artifact of being stuck in forward time perspective. We can not step back far enough to see the big picture, and what we do see we miss-understand with antiquated theories that attempt to answer how our universe was created rather than HOW DOES UNIVERSE WORK?
So, how does the Universe work to create mass on a continuous basis? I will leave you with a visual, GMF inward motion at 4D terminates in polarity reversals in cores of Proton's sending a jet back toward reverse time. We live in a DUAL TIME UNIVERSE.
source: www.futurenewsnetwork.com/index.php?opti...le&id=79902&catid=75
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
1 year 3 months ago #24486
by Lifyalita
Replied by Lifyalita on topic ZZ Maid Service
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.361 seconds