reply to post by ErosA433
EA: Pretty amazing reply there, You probably dont know that i have a PhD that happens to be in particle physics,
RS: Great!!!(not sarcastic) You have a PhD in Physics... Where have you been all this time? Your the kind of person that I need to pick your brain,
if you don't mind. Whatever you do, don't go away.
EA: Neutrino oscillation the cause?
RS: Interesting that you should state "oscillation" because when I was out there in the region of the Wolf Creek Nuclear Reactor on different
occassions my equipment picked up oscillations EVERY TIME. The oscillations are quite obvious around that nuclear power plant, there is no doubt
about them being everywhere outward to quite a few miles. My equipment hadn't detected oscillations like that before; only in the region of that
nuclear reactor.
EA: There is no missing neutrino flux at the south pole that I am aware of that cant be explained by systematics, especially being the unknown
optical path length in the ice at all depths. Maybe you can furbish me with a paper? To say a theory is wrong might be fair if the theory doesn't
hold up to observables, but when the theory fits very well then to say it is wrong and produce exactly ZERO evidence other than to say "oh go find the
sources yourself" is just bad form...
RS: Here is your article, part of the evidence you think doesn't exist, one of quite a few on the Internet.
www.wired.com...
Don't take my word for it, here are the words from a "Neutrino Physicist" making the actual study, his paper was in the "Physical Review Letters".
"In 13 months of observing with the half-complete IceCube detector at the South Pole, “we didn’t see anything,” said neutrino physicist Nathan
Whitehorn of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, co-author of a new Physical Review Letters paper describing the hunt. “We didn’t even have any
close calls.”" There, I got rid of my bad form for you....
EA: Respectfully, these posts are quite typical of the reasons that 'alternative' theory seems to go absolutely nowhere. I am a scientist and I would
love to know to learn to understand everything that is around me. Posts like this which ask honest questions then get filled with personalities that
seem to exist only to feed each others egos. Most of what alot of people talk about when they invent 'exotic devices' are never at all backed up, and
when ever evidence or at least an explaination is asked, the response is always a backtrack and an excuse not to answer the question.
RS: When people like myself "discover" scientific stuff that others haven't discovered, it usually pisses off the rest of the scientific world;
especially when people like myself have the scientific background and have spent butt loads of our own money and our own time on our discoveries. As
far as I can tell, most threads on ATS get filled with personalities.
Let's face it, we didn't know we were going to have a another physicist personality (we wouldn't have known that now would we unless there was ego in
letting it be known) in this thread, but I personally am glad you came, because I'm hoping that a good relationship will come out of it, because I
have made many great discoveries... but I do have to admit I don't have all the answers to them.
My exotic devices as you IMPLY aren't "exotic" but common and are backed up by normal science, there is nothing unscientific about my devices and none
of my devices have broken any scientific laws, but my discoveries none-the-less have been GREAT! I'm not backtracking and I'm not making up any
excuses, but you have had quite an imagination as to your implying things, which I hope that you can curb.
EA: You can say anything is a theory... and you would be correct, but taking that it is a theory and ignoring that the theory fits the observables
at a high level... then ignoring it as irrelevant is NOT science.
RS: Obviously the Neutrino Theory has holes in it, otherwise a Neutrino Physicist wouldn't have stated the following. "In 13 months of observing
with the half-complete IceCube detector at the South Pole, “we didn’t see anything,” said neutrino physicist Nathan Whitehorn of the University
of Wisconsin-Madison, co-author of a new Physical Review Letters paper describing the hunt. “We didn’t even have any close calls.”
Obviously, according the the statement above by a Neutrino Physicist, the theory doesn't fit the observables at a high level as you have implied.
EA: Furthermore, if you can 'see' the energy, what form does it take? furbish us with a photograph
RS: No deal. I have my secrets, you are stepping over the line. That would reveal too much information, and you know it.
edit on 4-1-2013 by RussianScientists because: (no reason given)
