Anti-gravity from Gravity

Density that's the other part of the puzzle.

It takes X amount of energy to get an object into orbit and the orbit is maintained without further energy input due to lack of resistance (eg friction). Using any means of extracting a portion of that potential energy will be expressed in a slowing down of the orbiter and an ultimate catastrophic re-entry into the atmosphere unless the energy is being replenished (eg rockets).

a reply to: dragonridr

Neutrino's may have a potential higher velocity though those we can measure fall roughly in line with the speed of light.
Also Quantum reaction's/action are many magnitudes faster than the speed of light at least ten thousand times faster.

Tesla was very much the Leonardo Da'Vinci of the 20th century just as Leonardo was the Heron of the 20th century and Heron was the Archimedes of the of the 1st century, he was eccentric to our view claiming to be somehow tapped into a higher intelligence and many of his ideas seemed utterly absurd to these less intelligent men but of course if he was so dumb how did he create AC electricity, design a flying saucer even though it was then suppressed along with many of his other inventions and why did the FBI steal and hide his private papers when he died.
www.collective-evolution.com...

These men (With the sad exception of Heron of Alexandria whose inventions were lost to time for the most part) were inventors whom intuitively invented and created, they are what we mean by Ingenius - they were the real genius, there inventions were often ahead of there time such as Da'Vinci's helicopter and tank and they changed the world around them.

What - other than build on other academic's ideas and theory's did Einstein really invent, how was he a humanist.

Tesla wanted to provide free energy to the world and with free energy the constraints on human population could be completely lifted for one thing, what did Einstein do that was even remotely equal to that goal?.

Einstein was lauded by his peer's this made him famous to the press and to the public and his work's are still seminal but sorry he is not in the same league as Tesla or Da'Vinci or Heron or Archimedes these men were human's born before there time where as he was simply a very great thinker not a practical doer or genuine inventor BUT if only - if only he and Tesla could have gotten along whom is to say what such a collaboration would have born but nevertheless he was no great inventor and only became famous because of Academia so would fit more alongside the Greek scholars not the inventors and creators of the world.

Sorry Tesla was on a whole other and higher mental plane than even most modern so called genius and I believe he was ahead of Einstein on many level's, perhaps not theoretical physics but then since he was not offering papers to the scientific establishment for peer review what do we really know of what he understood.

a reply to: LABTECH767

Tesla was correct on some things, but in what he was in dispute over Einstein he was wrong. It doesnt mean Tesla is not a genius, he was, just in other areas.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I shall agree on that, without Einstein's contribution much of modern science would not have progressed but for me I just like inventor's and truly believe that old Nikola was far more intelligent than we will ever know, sadly he was not really worldly so missed out on becoming ultra wealthy but had too many scruples which is actually a commendable trait, not a very rewarding one in this world but definitely a commendable one, in fact he blew his wealth he had made earlier trying to push forward with his plan to provide free energy to the world but without the funding he needed was never able to complete his work, remember Wardenclyffe was only an incomplete prototype and what the final version would have looked like only he would know.
He ran afoul of several major league business interests of his time, his worst let down was his project at wardenclyffe were JP Morgan withdrew there financial support once they understood what he was intending to do with his contraption.
Years later the soviet's tried to recreate his work but of course they were only working with pieces of a jigsaw and not all the pieces so they could not since they never really knew what the ideas and theory's he had locked away in his head entailed.
www.slavorum.org...
And the idea just won't die.


Some more light entertainment on the subject
www.damninteresting.com...


Also remember Tesla NEVER had the benefit of a good education in science he was simply a natural genius and inventor.



Some - far before this video - believe that Nikolae Tesla may even have been murdered but the truth is that he was broke and died a poor man robbed of his legacy by thieves and corrupt business men and then afterwards his legacy intended for ALL MANKIND was then stolen by the FBI so that his written work's, theory's and idea's will now never the light of day if they have not long ago been incinerated by some scared idiot.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: dragonridr

Neutrino's may have a potential higher velocity though those we can measure fall roughly in line with the speed of light.
Also Quantum reaction's/action are many magnitudes faster than the speed of light at least ten thousand times faster.

citation required... neutrinos appear to fall in line with everything else with a maximum velocity of near the speed of light (since they have mass)

There is also no such thing as a Quantum reaction, at least not in the way i think you are using the terminology. There are affects, but not reactions in the same manner as chemistry. Please point me at a credible paper which has measured this velocity.

originally posted by: Mailman
Why dont we make a satellite that orbits earth or the sun that makes power from this simple action? I see the new wireless charging technology I dont think my phone has it. you would need to go Tesla and beam the power to earth or have it to power charging stations for shuttle systems

the fact that while in orbit your traveling at tens of thousands miles per hour...there has to be some kind of turbine that could absorb that.

im just bored at work btw.

Man-made satellites are put in orbit at rather substantial cost, so yes they have kinetic energy but it's a very expensive form of kinetic energy, which is the first problem.

The second problem is finding a practical and useful way to extract it (as others suggested, extracting tidal energy resulting from the gravitational effect of our natural satellite, the moon, can be done using existing technology, but I don't know of a practical means to extract useful energy from man-made satellites in the context of your suggestion).

The third problem is any kinetic energy you remove from the orbit will increase the rate at which the satellite will de-orbit. For example the ISS while in space still experiences small friction from a vanishingly thin "atmosphere", a near vacuum granted, but which reduces the kinetic energy enough so that it won't stay in orbit without periodically being re-boosted to a higher altitude, so it can fall back down again. If you take kinetic energy out of it, then it would fall faster and would need one of those very expensive re-boosts sooner.

Here's an article where NASA says it increased the altitude of the ISS to reduce the cost of keeping it in orbit:

www.nasa.gov...

At its current altitude, the space station uses about 19,000 pounds of propellant a year to maintain a consistent orbit. At the new, slightly higher altitude, the station is expected to expend about 8,000 pounds of propellant a year.

To deliver that much propellant to orbit takes a lot more propellant which is why the cost of keeping the ISS in orbit is millions and millions of dollars.

So even if you could figure out a way to extract energy from a man-made satellite in some useful manner, the only time you would really want to do that I think is when you want to de-orbit the satellite, and even then it would be a most uneconomical source of energy, given the high cost of putting things in orbit. It's expensive to keep the ISS in orbit even without extracting energy from it, just because of friction.

a reply to: ErosA433
I would guess he's talking about entanglement correlation or quantum teleportation using sloppy language, which is at least 10,000 times faster than the speed of light under Copenhagen interpretation, but is no faster than light under the increasingly popular (it seems) Everett interpretation of quantum mechanics. Nobody has clearly shown which interpretation suggested, if any, is correct, so from that perspective, we don't really know the speed of such a correlation.

If you have a turbine spin based on your motion, it will, in turn, add resistance to your motion, reducing your motion.

Fast space velocity? A turbine is an unlikely answer.

If you have a turbine spin based on your motion, it will, in turn, add resistance to your motion, reducing your motion.

Fast space velocity? A turbine is an unlikely answer.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I suspected as much but due to the fantastical claims and the language used to express it. I was mostly interested in the claim neutrinos may have the potential to travel much faster... which... is news to me. I think the neutrino beam experiments around the world would of already seen it.



As an aside to others it is also not true that orbits of satellites are perfectly stable, transfer of angular momentum between host and satellite does alter the velocity and cause orbits to decay. There have been studies (it would take me a while to find the citation, but i know of a couple because i did a paper on it while at university) of this exact effect. It was related to orbital stability and decay of old satellites, which were observed to stabilize when reaching orbital resonances, they would decay - stabilize - decay - stabilize over and over before finally becoming inoperable.

originally posted by: ErosA433

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: dragonridr

Neutrino's may have a potential higher velocity though those we can measure fall roughly in line with the speed of light.
Also Quantum reaction's/action are many magnitudes faster than the speed of light at least ten thousand times faster.

citation required... neutrinos appear to fall in line with everything else with a maximum velocity of near the speed of light (since they have mass)

There is also no such thing as a Quantum reaction, at least not in the way i think you are using the terminology. There are affects, but not reactions in the same manner as chemistry. Please point me at a credible paper which has measured this velocity.

Spooky Action.
As for Neutrino's why do we actually have to use deep underground observatory's miles down old mine shaft's to detect them BEFORE we receive the optical affects of far away supernova, please explain this in plain English so we humble human's can understand?.
As you know before we receive the optical wavelength's of light we do actually receive the Neutrinos which pass through our earth but are detected using a special - actually a cleaning solution was the original medium and perhaps they are still using it, the Neutrino's are NOT captured as they pass right through everything but they do periodically excite an atom's core due to there passage increasing it's energy which then as you know releases a brief pulse of energy from that atom, usually in the form of light but meanwhile the old Neutrino which is a quasi physical particle as you also know continues on it's way.
The only Neutrino's we have been able to generate are actually those created in our particle accelerators and those certainly do fall within the constraint's of just below the speed of light but that is from a particle accelerator not those we see coming from giant dying stars some of which may become quantum singularity's, so at what speed do you think those may travel, are they still constrained by the ideas of a few earth bound egg head's whom fry tiny particles in a giant magnetic accelerator and then claim there measurement's are so and this means' that they then must be universal or do you believe that there may and I do say may just be a slight margin for error on there part?.

Let's enlighten you a little on something since you believe you know it all.

Black holes' was Einstein correct or was Hawking correct, is there a complete collapse into the gravity well or is there a point at which matter can not be crushed any further so the toilette get's blocked with all that metaphorical toilette paper.

My answer is that they are BOTH correct.

To understand you will have to bring in a little bit of mixed physics.
The ideas of Brane theory which postulates that since Gravity is actually one of the WEAKEST forces in the universe for example it is millions of time's weaker than electrostatic attraction so it may potentially come from somewhere else?.
This is argued to be another brain in contact with or in close proximity to the brane (membrane universe) in superspace, since gravity may be integral and opposite to time this would postulate that the energy we perceive as time may therefore originate from another membrane overlying our own membrane drawn through us.

So to make a very coarse analogy view our universe as a thin sponge layer lain over a universe with too much jam and that fairly viscous jam is gravity and over it another universe made up of lot's of dusted icing sugar, the jam and the icing suger want to get together so they can boogy down all the night along but this skinny sponge guy is trapped between them while they dance.

Ok enough of the daft analogy's.

Black hole form's, think back to before it formed to when it was just a big fat over weight star too fat to join the WWF.

Now all mass has gravity right?.

Well if the brane theory is correct actually No all the Brane has gravity at a one to one ratio only weakened as the originating brane from which gravity come's into our brane fluctuates its contact or proximity to our brane in Super Space or where ever it is that these branes float about.

So - IF all the brane is saturated with gravity and all that matter is (String theory) is really just space scrunched up as a standing waveform at right angles to the linear perspective we have of the time space continuum then that is why the denser the mass the greater the gravity get it?.

So why is the universe not simply collapsing, ah we shall get to that.

Back to that fat WWF star whom can's play in the sport because he is about to have a massive heart attack and rip a whole in the ring since he is too heavy.

At the center - the exact center bearing in mind a little bit of uncertainty, rotation and moving mass so the center may be in several places almost or perhaps even simultaneously then that center has to be surrounded by all of that mass of the dying star are you following me?.

So were does that gravity pull in relation to this tiny point?.

That's right outward in all direction simultaneously am I right? though of course as the star collapses it still crushes this point into an infinitesimally tiny space but just enough for it to lens all of that black hole gravity into a tiny point and pull and tear at it, now ordinarily this would be the end of it if old Hawking was absolutely correct due to his brown hole idea - the toilette is blocked so to speak BUT that was only factoring in one given reality and of course the same black hole may be collapsing in several reality's simultaneously - now at the event horizon of the black hole all of those reality's undergo spaghettification am I right?, if so what difference remains between them on the inner side of that event horizon, actually non so they become a single reality there (perhaps even causing a single massive quantum gravity wave pulse which ZIP's reality's back together merging them at least in local space perhaps weakening over massive distance to emanate out from the black at the instant of it's formation BUT not were it is perceived as a brown hole), so of course since that tiny point at the center is from the moment of it's isolation by the formation of not only one but two event horizon's, one outside and one inside surround this point from the surrounding universe it is already now a seperate time space continuum but one devoid of mass and energy until all of that collapsing force of pulling gravity now lensed not only from one reality but from all that the same black hole has formed in onto that tiny point INVERTS it, this inversion is actually the breach that gives birth to a white hole and out of it time and energy spew - not only that but as you know in the instant before our universe settles down after this birth event energy is moving out from the white hole FASTER than the current speed of light but remember it is still bound by the law's of the empty TSC into which it has spewed, this mean's that it must back up on itself and create a surrounding black hole - well there is already one there to start the whole shibang and caboodle but to add insult to injury why not have more.

So our universe exists as a skin like reality inside what could be described as an onion skin of repeating big bang's, literally the big bang never went away.

Continued below

a reply to: LABTECH767

Although they have tried to dismiss it we find some corroboration for this in the fact that as our universe expands instead of slowing down at least one red shift analysis seemed to show it was actually accelerating the further away from the common point of origin (Were there will now if correct be a black hole? and on the other side of that another TSC with a black hole at it's cente until if you could fly through them all one after another you would find a primal white hole still spewing out energy AND TIME) and this can be surmised to be because of the still present gravity of the surrounding onion skin black hole around our own TSC, if we could fly that way we would pass through more onion skin universe and black holes until we came to a universe were a big fat star once died and tore a hole in the canvass, guess what it was just a star in a TSC not too different to our own with all the same law's only difference and it is a big one, time out there relative to us is slower, move in toward the white hole and it is faster.

Now Einstein's black hole, correct because it exists in multiple reality's.
Hawking's brown hole, correct because any given reality will try to heal itself and this scabbing leading to it's eventual quantum evaporation (in line with the entropy - really spaghettification of the TSC between it's inner and outer event horizon's) of the black hole itself.

It is way more complicated than that but simple as I can make it and yes you can tear holes away in it but we would be tearing holes in the analogy not the theory?.

Your answer is actually very wrong, you appear not to understand any of the history of the measurement, or the technology, or the detectors... you then lecture me on knowing it all? So lets break it down to REALITY shall we, rather than randomly pieced together snippets of information.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
As for Neutrino's why do we actually have to use deep underground observatory's miles down old mine shaft's to detect them BEFORE we receive the optical affects of far away supernova, please explain this in plain English so we humble human's can understand?.

This question doesn't make any sense, it is a run on sentence and question showing you are not sure exactly what you are asking, OR, showing you don;t really know what the measurement is like.

When a supernova occurs there is a great deal of physics processes occuring. The density of the material in and around the core of a dying star is very high. Due to photon scattering in this dense medium, photons produced during the initial explosion do not instantly escape, there is a buffering and the generation of shock-fronts of dense material, depending on the type of explosion the actual outward ejection of material and the release of vast amounts of light comes from in-falling material hitting the surface of a white dwarf, neutron star, or outward shock fronts. This light thus doesn't emerge instantly.

Neutrinos are so weakly interacting that they pass through the material of the star and emerge largely unaffected. This however is an over simplification, what actually happens is more complex. The material in the star is so dense and the amount of neutrinos produced is so large that neutrinos are thought to drive some of the processes that occur. Regardless with the amount of neutrinos produced, these come out of the dying star largely unaffected by the stellar envelope.

arxiv.org...
nice paper discussing some of this in 1987A

We use deep underground detectors to shield us from cosmic rays. On the surface of the Earth we receive 10s of muons per square meter per second... this signal is just far too high when you are searching for neutrino interactions. You need large detectors and even then you are only expecting 1-2 a day to interact with the detector... so... see why now? By going underground you shield against cosmic ray muons which can be stopped by the rock leaving your detector in a 'particle quiet' environment, allowing you to pick out those few neutrino events.

As you know before we receive the optical wavelength's of light we do actually receive the Neutrinos which pass through our earth but are detected using a special - actually a cleaning solution was the original medium and perhaps they are still using it, the Neutrino's are NOT captured as they pass right through everything but they do periodically excite an atom's core due to there passage increasing it's energy which then as you know releases a brief pulse of energy from that atom, usually in the form of light but meanwhile the old Neutrino which is a quasi physical particle as you also know continues on it's way.

Once more - confused and or incorrect or at least showing that you have read a couple of different bits of information and sandwiched it together and assumed its correct.

The Original solar neutrino experiment was not using a special...anything. IT used a cleaning fluid high in chlorine. This was the homestake experiment. The theory being that solar neutrinos had enough energy to undergo a neutrino capture process on chlorine, producing argon37, which is radioactive. The experiment would chemically remove this argon37 and count it at the end of each... week or month i think it was... IT was not an online detector capable of what you are describing.
It shows your knowledge of the detector technology and history is very limited. So again, im not sure why you are lecturing me on it.

Supernova 1987A was detected in several detectors, water cherenkov detectors and scintillation telescopes. These are 'online' detectors in which you actually have timing information unlike the cleaning solution one above. It is true that liquid scintillators are often chemical pre-cursers to cleaning solutions but they are not strictly the same thing.

The only Neutrino's we have been able to generate are actually those created in our particle accelerators and those certainly do fall within the constraint's of just below the speed of light but that is from a particle accelerator not those we see coming from giant dying stars some of which may become quantum singularity's, so at what speed do you think those may travel, are they still constrained by the ideas of a few earth bound egg head's whom fry tiny particles in a giant magnetic accelerator and then claim there measurement's are so and this means' that they then must be universal or do you believe that there may and I do say may just be a slight margin for error on there part?.

Let's enlighten you a little on something since you believe you know it all.

This is not really true either, the first confirmed neutrino detection was done at a nuclear powerplant, it didn't involve particle accelerators at all. They detected fission produced neutrinos. Experiments such as KAMLAND SNO+ and Boxeino have also detected geoneutrinos originating from within the earth. While we do not have timing information for these meaning we do not have a T=0 it is impossible to say they travel FTL or not, but, the likelyhood is that they do not as they are produced in 3 body reactions, and the kinematics do not allow for it.

Neutrino beams produced by smashing targets with protons, these are examples in which we have very clear T=0 and no they have never been observed to move FTL.

You miss a very important point, that the neutrinos even in a dying star are produced via nuclear dissociation and alpha baking of material... it is a understood process that occurs, NOT inside or escaping from a blackhole. In many ways, the processes that occur in the particle accelerators that produce neutrino beams are closer related to the supernova type neutrinos than you realize. You seem to be of the idea that when a star explodes, the core is the only part that sees any action... it couldn't be more incorrect.

The margin of error on there part? So far theonly errors iv seen are entirely on yourpart, so, no i don't go with your stipulation that neutrinos have any potential to travel FTL for the reasons you have given, because you do not appear to understand the very physics you are trying to lecture people on.

BTW... Im a PhD in Physics, my thesis was related to a neutrino physics experiment. Iv been a key person who built a multi-ton scale Dark matter search experiment at one of the worlds deepest underground labs. Iv also built detectors for Proton beam experiments, and done photo-sensing work using prototype, argubly next gen equipment.

know it all? No, id never claim to... but I do know somethings in relation to the field... so i naturally find your discussions somewhat troubling since you speak a lot, and trip yourself up with poor knowledge and understanding of the basics of what you are trying to discuss. I only skim read your post beyond the above quote due to this, and what i saw, was equally confused and stepping way beyond what i think you understand

a reply to: ErosA433

Sorry not wrong, at no point have i said they are wrong but that they have made a general consensus of opinion based upon there observation's and I stand by that.
What did Schrodinger say - cat in the box
Do not put these man on pedestals' they are in no way godlike, they are every bit as fallible as you or me.

I was unaware that they had detected neutrino's form Nuclear fission but it stand's to reason.
Off topic MAYBE but remember how UFO activity heated up after the Manhattan project, most of it was probably local and not alien just unidentified air craft but some remains' a mystery - what if we had inadvertently generated some form of energy or pulse that bypassed the usual limiting factors on what we perceive to be the ultimate speed mass and can travel at.

a reply to: LABTECH767

You may stand by what ever you wish, though it doesn't change the fact that the measurements do not support, in any manner, neutrinos from supernoave being any different than those produced in other places. The physics processes in which they are produced are known / understood from multiple observations, simulations based upon the energy we see and the light curves.

Scientists did way more than just go "Oh look, it must be x" and everyone nodded.

Being unaware of the detection of neutrinos from nuclear reactors speaks volumes to your knowledge on this subject and gives credence to my assertion that the 'knowledge' you are trying to build 'out side the box' thinking with is greatly incomplete, fractured and not detailed enough.

Quoting Schrodinger and saying "Don't put these men on a pedestal" doesn't add anything to your argument about being correct (which you are not) yes scientists are fallible, but to quote another scientist "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and what you are clearly doing is... not understanding the evidence and using that lack of understanding to claim something extraordinary.

Isn't that how the sun works, a brushless alternator?

a reply to: ErosA433

Ah I am not the only one with thumb's for fingers you mis-typed Super Nova there - I am forever having to backspace.

No they do not and they also in no way prove otherwise do they now, they merely provide a test result which back's up the scientists for the most part preconceived notion's.

Do you even understand about Schrodinger cat in the box or the aperture slit test and its' result's, how much has the very act of observing in the manner they have even potentially disrupted the result which they have achieved.

You are talking about sub atomic particles which have quantum property's outside of the normal time space continuum and overlap other reality's simultaneously.

Do you even understand the implications of this ability of the conscious mind to potential filter reality itself almost as if it is navigating it at some level.

Our entire reality is many magnitudes more complicated than our most intelligence physicist can even speculate or dream of and yet you seem so bog sure that you have the answer - well son you do not and neither do I, neither did old Einstein or old Tesla but at least we can give it some thought as after all what else good is the mind for.

Today we are living in a lazy world, some numbers are simply incalculable and I myself and no mathematician, oh I could do math's well up to AS level but did not pursue it because to be frank it bored me silly.

But today we have scientists using phrases such as Chaos/Kaos (Depending on where you live and how you choose to spell that) theory as a get out of jail card to excuse unworkable results and allow them to continue to use flawed theorem instead of having to demolish there whole house of cards and rewrite it from the ground up (which in term's of human life time's would take a very long time).

There is however one other THEORETICAL particle which may move far faster than light, Tachyon's but if they exist to my knowledge they have not been detected but of course they may be undetectable for our current level of technology and science - if they exist.


Of course one work around though these guy's are misusing it is quantum theory, it is perhaps more controversial since it for the most part deal's with realm's that normal Newtonian physicists do not want to touch upon.



Also you are aware that the very law's of physics may actually be fluid rather than static and the only workaround for this is also quantum physics, remember that for the briefest instant after the supposed big bank the universe expanded at a rate many magnitudes greater than the speed of light as we understand it today perhaps also due to these law's having been in flux at that time (time itself perhaps also having been in flux).

You may regard these as entertainment but they support a point or two.





Now while these are for entertainment purpose they claim to be and the last one is true but is about pushing a book.
The only way this can be modeled is with quantum theory since the standard Newtonian view which old Einstein built his view upon is simply too simple.

Many of the world's leading quantum physics researchers have become religious and have come away with religion because God is actually real? and that is not for entertainment purposes, the beginning of wisdom is realizing you have non and I know that I have non so you do not have to take my thought's as your own and neither do I your's.

And of course for people of other religions they believe that faster than light is possible but of course there belief's are based in religious interpretation's.


Well I am a Christian myself but of course Jesus manifested from spirit as flesh and changed his flesh which was really spirit all along back into spirit when he ascended.
Not of the earth - matter.
That is not to say I agree with the Hindu guy's belief that Tachyon's are related to spirit because to be fair I don't but interesting nevertheless and remember old Tesla believed there was a greater source of knowledge which he had learned to tap into but only very slightly.

You talk without citation using wishful thinking and what you believe as a point of reference. You piece together snippets of information and claim them to be factual/relevant etc. You are coming back at me referencing the concept of schrodingers cat and the double slit experiment? Really? And then saying I don't understand quantum mechanics. Your use of the double slit and wanting to suggest knowledge about it is really proving you are using the same bias to create meaning where there was never one.

The observer in the double slit, isn't someones eyes, at least not philosophically, but you clearly latched onto a notion of matching language and believe that an observer can only be one of a conscious being. There have been no experiments that prove quantum mechanics being manipulated by conscious thought. Yes there have been experiments, but typically they are performed without adequate controls and as a professional scientist, I cannot accept the results not because of an unwillingness to entertain an idea, but because experimental controls can mean the difference between proof or mistake.

I put it to you that the information presented between you and I, the level of detail and understanding calls you out as wanting to present yourself as a deep thinker, and Iv sadly rumbled you.

I know lots Quantum Theorists... none i am aware became any more or less religious as a result. To follow up with lots of youtube videos shows also where you get most of your information from.

Sorry... not sorry

a reply to: ErosA433

I've been told by a very reputable source that you're one of the very few people on ATS worth listening to when it comes to physics. So I pay attention to what you write in the science related threads.

Weren't/arent you researching neutrinos at one of the premier laboratories for neutrino study. And thus very knowledgeable on the subject.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

Thanks Bassplyr, I can confirm. My experience thus far is along the lines of...

PhD in Physics - the work i did mostly revolved around prototype photon counting devices for use in a Neutrino beam experiment. As such, I got a taste for detector technology spliced with neutrino physics.

1st Postdoc - Was a long one, it was for a dark matter experiment in the lab iv spoken about previously. Here my primary responsibility was in radio-chemical purification and generally building random things and helping to design and develop other components of the detector.
During that time I was working around lots of different experiments at the lab, meaning i got to chat and share ideas and problem solve with people working on experiments ranging from Dark matter, neutrino physics, supernova early warning and even some life science people.

2nd postdoc - bit of a short one, due to family issues beyond my control. But for this I worked on a detector for measuring proton interactions in order to reduce systematics on proton final state interaction cross-sections. I remained on this project until the detector was complete, I designed and upgraded about half of the internal components based upon an earlier design. I unfortunately missed out on the fun beam time stuff at CERN due to said family issues . Final state interactions in question are specifically for neutrino physics in which you can have an interaction in the nucleus of a target atom, but obviously the atom is very dense and what comes out at the end can be a combination of things depending on if the product exits the nucleus, or interacts again in the nucleus before it emerges. See... physics leaves nothing to chance, we need to know all this!

3rd - Detector Scientist / RA - Also probably a short one due to, family good fortune this time haha, my wife got an awesome job at a lab and thus we are moving city. I am however currently working out of a national lab on the Canadian West coast. I am doing detector technology stuff here, mostly in Vacuum UV optics.

SOooo id say me expertise is definitely in detector technology and experimental physics more than theory... but i like to keep up with theory as without it, understanding half of this stuff is simply not possible.


On one of the comments above, I can also state in the same manner that just as we don't have a T=0 for the production of neutrinos, and such, Labtech767's assertion that a neutrino produce around a 'quantum singularity' must travel faster than light, or the physics around those objects has to be wildly different... I use the exact same logical principle. "Why should it? what evidence is there that supports that assertion?" just as you say we cannot assume its the same, you cannot assume its not the same. And no, neutrinos arriving first before the light is not evidence. Our models and simulations of such events predict it, it is such strongly asserted that this is not supporting evidence for a fluid value to the constant C

I further ask the question, given the quantum mechanical nature that underpins the internal pressure that holds up the structure of white dwarf, and the more extreme case, the neutron star, why must the critical point go from an object we can describe entirely within quantum mechanics suddenly become a 'quantum singularity' There 'could' exist an entirely different manner to support the collapse of a star that results in a blackhole like object that is not a singularity.

So philosophically I don't agree with you Labtech, you claim we scientists are closed minded and dogmatic, but the truth is, that we understand what is inside the box better than most (im not saying we have complete knowledge, in fact, far from it), but what we have is an appreciation for the pile of evidence and data that we have collected on the subject that must be corroborated and logically consistent within theory. For your neutrinos to be faster than like they cannot have mass. This is just how the theory works out. If they can be produced faster than light, then none of our atomic physics makes sense at all when we look at supernova light curves. We can see atomic lines from the various decay and production products. If physics was vastly different or fluid as you describe, everywhere we look in the night sky would have objects that are for all intent and purpose identical, would be producing different energy signatures and different spectral lines. This is not what we see.

As you describe yourself, if it was fluid, then Type 1a Supernova wouldn't have such predictable light curves and intensities. There would be no such thing as a standard candle... yet what we see is that... there are and we do not need to invoke weird or special physics.