Posted on 08/22/2020 1:57:04 PM PDT by SunkenCiv
ROFL!!!!!
Yeah man I mean it’s just not true.
They have done INCREDIBLE experiments with that collide that DEFINITELY point to more than meets the eye and DO put physics on its head.
“Posting that does not support your post.”
*******************************************
Your post 6 led me to believe that I could expect some explanatory insight from you later in the thread. So, I’ve been trying to follow your “contributions” to this thread looking for that insight on the subject of this thread... so far to no avail.
Your thread posts are:
Post 6 : Not exactly ...
Post 11: GEEZ!
Post 16: Wrong
Post 17: So you say.
Post 19: How so?
Post 27: Please explain.
Post 30: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterile_neutrino
Post 33: How is that?
Post 35: Posting that does not support your post.
I’m guessing that I’m wasting my time looking for that insight to appear.
I just invented transparent aluminum - Scottish guy from the future gave me the formula though
Then there's the Ford Torino.
Let me offer a possible explanation: Dunning–Kruger Effect.
“Actually, it does.”
Actually it does not.
Yep. His copy/paste does not support his post.
One has definitely lost when they have only personal insults to offer!
You can’t defend your post.
“yeah man I can’t believe what I’m reading. I think a lot of people are commenting that don’t do a lot of reading on it or don’t know much about the subject”
Some don’t even read or understand the article!
Agreed.
And they are wrong. INCREDIBLE tests have been done especially with the super collider that have had some breathtaking results
That was even cooler than the Taurus. ;^)
>>Sterile species tend to die out. Maybe it’s too late to find sterile nutrinos<<
Maybe they are are not sterile. Maybe they are gay or just really bad at dating.
Same result
“And they are wrong.”
Usually science post only generate a few lame jokes.
The Letts/Craven effect of generating muons from a material target with a 30 mW, 680 nm laser doesn’t agree with the Standard Model. A member of the Los Alamos National Laboratory research scientists repeated the procedure, obtaining similar findings. The parameters of creating the active material were not understood sufficiently well to reproduce once the batch was exhausted.
Holmlid and Olofson experiments a decade ago have found a route to recreate the muon production, a cascade of particle decay leading to muons created cheaply, in the sense of energy input to produce the muon. Norrønt Fusion Energy AS is furthering exploration into use of these particles to stimulate Deuterium fusion for heat production.
The direct energy extractable from initial meson generation by laser stimulation is relatively small, thus fusion serves to amplify that output.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15361055.2018.1546090
That's an excellent idea, the brute force approaches used to try to harness fusion seem remarkably unlikely to work.
You don’t need to emphasize it, you just need to make a scientific case based on provable and verifiable facts.
The fact that you can’t and need to resort to non-argument arguments “as the father of a particle physicist” “one does not earn a PhD in Physics”, bringing in unrelated successes to try to bolster the weak argument etc. should demonstrate to you just how weak the assertion is.
If the existence of those particles were verifiable in fact, all you’d need to do is show that. But instead you HAVE to go off in a totally different, fallacy-driven direction, because that argument DOES NOT EXIST.
Now bring this physicist son of yours into the conversation so I can have this discussion with him, instead of you trying to speak on his behalf. (Spoiler alert: he will do no better - I have done all the research and have not come to this conclusion lightly at all.)
“I have done all the research and have not come to this conclusion lightly at all.)”
Really? Make your case!
Sure. Particle-ists believe there’s something called an “electron”.
They also believe that electrons “flow” along an electric current.
Now take a simple “electron gun” experiment in a pressure chamber, and vary the pressure inside.
If electrons are genuinely moving from cathode to anode, then increased pressure should result in decreased current, as the greater density should intercept more moving electrons. Maximum current should occur in a vacuum, with no atoms to intercept the allegedly moving electrons.
Go look it up, that’s exactly how electron guns are supposed to work - don’t take my word for it.
Except there’s a problem when you try to verify this with experiment. When you lower the pressure, the electric current DECREASES. In vacuum the current goes to zero.
The opposite should happen if particle theory is true.
Furthermore, when you try to nail them down on what exactly an electron is, they instantly go to the impossible “wave-particle duality” so they can pick and choose which set of rules they want to use to explain events, in defiance of those rules contradicting each other. And an electron instead of being a distinct particle becomes a “cloud” of probable positions.
They can’t prove any of that and the simplest experiment with an electron gun blows the hell out of the theory.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.