|
|
|
date: 14 Apr 2007 23:01:09 -0700,
group: uk.sci.misc
back
How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
In This Experiment, Clues Remain Elusive
By KENNETH CHANG
Published in New York Times April 12, 2007
An experiment some hoped would reveal a new class of
subatomic particles, and perhaps even point to clues
about why the universe exists at all, has instead
produced a first round of results that are
mysteriously inconclusive. "What we got was
intellectually interesting," said Janet M. Conrad,
professor of physics at Columbia University and a
spokeswoman for a collaboration that involves 77
scientists at 17 institutions. "We have to figure out
what it is."
Dr. Conrad and William C. Louis, a physicist at Los
Alamos National Laboratory, presented their initial
findings in a talk yesterday at the Fermi National
Accelerator Laboratory, outside Chicago, where the
experiment is being performed. The goal was to confirm
or refute observations made in the 90s in a Los Alamos
experiment that observed transformations in the
evanescent but bountiful particles known as neutrinos.
Neutrinos have no electrical charge and almost no
mass, but there are so many of them that they could
collectively outweigh all the stars in the universe.
Many physicists remain skeptical about the Los Alamos
findings, but the new experiment has attracted wide
interest. The Fermilab auditorium was filled with some
800 people, and talks were given at the 16 additional
institutions by other collaborating scientists. That
reflected in part the hope of finding cracks in the
Standard Model, which encapsulates physicists' current
knowledge about fundamental particles and forces. The
Standard Model has proved remarkably effective and
accurate, but it cannot answer some fundamental
questions, like why the universe did not completely
annihilate itself an instant after the Big Bang.
[The answer is quite simple/elegant: There
never was a "Big Bang." The universe is the
result of an evolution--and as with any
evolution, there is always enough time
allowed for all the factors involved to bring
about the overall harmony and consistency
which eventually gives the impression to
those who believe (like those who believe
that the universe erupted magically from the
Big Bang Bean), those who believe that all
the problems HAD to have been solved from the
start... and that therefore the only possible
answer is An Infinitely Informed Creator (in
other words, one cannot argue a Big Bang
without it arguing a God).]
'The solution has been available for everyone
to read it since the last century now on the
internet. You can find it at:
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
What the "neutrino results" described below
are actually hinting at is the fact that the
universe is a LOT older and considerably more
extensive than heretofore "conventionally"
suspected. SDR]
The birth of the universe 13.7 billion years ago
created equal amounts of matter and antimatter. Since
matter and antimatter annihilate each other when they
come in contact, that would have left nothing to
coalesce into stars and galaxies. There must be some
imbalance in the laws of physics that led to a slight
preponderance of matter over antimatter, and that
extra bit of matter formed everything in the visible
universe.
The imbalance, some physicists believe, may be hiding
in the dynamics of neutrinos: Neutrinos come in three
known types, or flavors. And they can change flavor as
they travel, a process that can occur only because of
the smidgen of mass they carry. But the neutrino
transformations reported in the Los Alamos data do not
fit the three-flavor model, suggesting four flavors of
neutrinos, if not more. Other data, from experiments
elsewhere, have said the additional neutrinos would
have to be "sterile" - completely oblivious to the
rest of the universe except for gravity.
The new experiment is called MiniBooNE. (BooNE,
pronounced boon, is a contraction of Booster Neutrino
Experiment. "Booster" refers to a Fermilab booster
ring that accelerates protons, and "mini" was added
because of plans for a second, larger stage to the
research.) MiniBooNE sought to count the number of
times one flavor of neutrino, called a muon, turned
into another flavor, an electron neutrino. The
experiment slams a beam of protons into a piece of
beryllium, and the cascade of particles from the
subatomic wreckage includes muon neutrinos that fly
about 1,650 feet to a detection chamber, a tank 40
feet in diameter that contains 250,000 gallons of
mineral oil. Most of the neutrinos fly through
unscathed, but occasionally a neutrino crashes into a
carbon atom in the mineral oil. That sets off another
cascade of particles, which is detected by 1,280 light
detectors mounted on the inside of the tank. From the
pattern of the cascades, the physicists distinguish
whether the incoming neutrino was of muon flavor or
electron. To minimize the chances of fooling
themselves, they deliberately did not look at any of
the electron neutrino events until they felt they had
adequately understood the much more common muon
neutrino events. They finally "opened the box" on
their electron neutrino data on March 26 and began the
analysis leading to their announcement yesterday.
For most of the neutrino energy range they looked at,
they did not see any more electron neutrinos than
would be predicted by the Standard Model. That ruled
out the simplest ways of interpreting the Los Alamos
neutrino data, Dr. Conrad and Dr. Louis said. But at
the lower energies, the scientists did see more
electron neutrinos than predicted: 369, rather than
the predicted 273. That may simply mean that some
calculations are off. Or it could point to a subtler
interplay of particles, known and unknown.
"It's tantalizing," said Boris Kayser, a Fermilab
physicist not on the MiniBooNE project. "It could be
real. But this remains to be established." Dr. Louis
said he was surprised by the results. "I was sort of
expecting a clear excess or no excess," he said. "In a
sense, we got both."
S D Rodrian
http://poems.sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://mp3.sdrodrian.com
All religions are local. Only science is universal.
date: 14 Apr 2007 23:01:09 -0700
author: sdr
|
Re: How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
People might actually listen to what you may have to say,
SDRodrian, if they didn't have doubts about your integrity as a
scientist and as an intellectual. To quell their doubts, please explain
to them that WTC7 did indeed collapse as a direct consequence of
controlled implosions, and not as the byproduct of plans of men with
cave man memes and Arabian genes.
Scream out loudly that it was an inside job performed by
neoCons/zioCons and general con men, and then you'll be free to explain
your theories about the Universe without eliciting looks of suspicion.
-zookumar-
sdr wrote:
> How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
> In This Experiment, Clues Remain Elusive
> By KENNETH CHANG
> Published in New York Times April 12, 2007
>
> An experiment some hoped would reveal a new class of
> subatomic particles, and perhaps even point to clues
> about why the universe exists at all, has instead
> produced a first round of results that are
> mysteriously inconclusive. "What we got was
> intellectually interesting," said Janet M. Conrad,
> professor of physics at Columbia University and a
> spokeswoman for a collaboration that involves 77
> scientists at 17 institutions. "We have to figure out
> what it is."
>
> Dr. Conrad and William C. Louis, a physicist at Los
> Alamos National Laboratory, presented their initial
> findings in a talk yesterday at the Fermi National
> Accelerator Laboratory, outside Chicago, where the
> experiment is being performed. The goal was to confirm
> or refute observations made in the 90s in a Los Alamos
> experiment that observed transformations in the
> evanescent but bountiful particles known as neutrinos.
> Neutrinos have no electrical charge and almost no
> mass, but there are so many of them that they could
> collectively outweigh all the stars in the universe.
>
> Many physicists remain skeptical about the Los Alamos
> findings, but the new experiment has attracted wide
> interest. The Fermilab auditorium was filled with some
> 800 people, and talks were given at the 16 additional
> institutions by other collaborating scientists. That
> reflected in part the hope of finding cracks in the
> Standard Model, which encapsulates physicists' current
> knowledge about fundamental particles and forces. The
> Standard Model has proved remarkably effective and
> accurate, but it cannot answer some fundamental
> questions, like why the universe did not completely
> annihilate itself an instant after the Big Bang.
>
> [The answer is quite simple/elegant: There
> never was a "Big Bang." The universe is the
> result of an evolution--and as with any
> evolution, there is always enough time
> allowed for all the factors involved to bring
> about the overall harmony and consistency
> which eventually gives the impression to
> those who believe (like those who believe
> that the universe erupted magically from the
> Big Bang Bean), those who believe that all
> the problems HAD to have been solved from the
> start... and that therefore the only possible
> answer is An Infinitely Informed Creator (in
> other words, one cannot argue a Big Bang
> without it arguing a God).]
>
> 'The solution has been available for everyone
> to read it since the last century now on the
> internet. You can find it at:
>
> http://physics.sdrodrian.com
>
> What the "neutrino results" described below
> are actually hinting at is the fact that the
> universe is a LOT older and considerably more
> extensive than heretofore "conventionally"
> suspected. SDR]
>
> The birth of the universe 13.7 billion years ago
> created equal amounts of matter and antimatter. Since
> matter and antimatter annihilate each other when they
> come in contact, that would have left nothing to
> coalesce into stars and galaxies. There must be some
> imbalance in the laws of physics that led to a slight
> preponderance of matter over antimatter, and that
> extra bit of matter formed everything in the visible
> universe.
>
> The imbalance, some physicists believe, may be hiding
> in the dynamics of neutrinos: Neutrinos come in three
> known types, or flavors. And they can change flavor as
> they travel, a process that can occur only because of
> the smidgen of mass they carry. But the neutrino
> transformations reported in the Los Alamos data do not
> fit the three-flavor model, suggesting four flavors of
> neutrinos, if not more. Other data, from experiments
> elsewhere, have said the additional neutrinos would
> have to be "sterile" - completely oblivious to the
> rest of the universe except for gravity.
>
> The new experiment is called MiniBooNE. (BooNE,
> pronounced boon, is a contraction of Booster Neutrino
> Experiment. "Booster" refers to a Fermilab booster
> ring that accelerates protons, and "mini" was added
> because of plans for a second, larger stage to the
> research.) MiniBooNE sought to count the number of
> times one flavor of neutrino, called a muon, turned
> into another flavor, an electron neutrino. The
> experiment slams a beam of protons into a piece of
> beryllium, and the cascade of particles from the
> subatomic wreckage includes muon neutrinos that fly
> about 1,650 feet to a detection chamber, a tank 40
> feet in diameter that contains 250,000 gallons of
> mineral oil. Most of the neutrinos fly through
> unscathed, but occasionally a neutrino crashes into a
> carbon atom in the mineral oil. That sets off another
> cascade of particles, which is detected by 1,280 light
> detectors mounted on the inside of the tank. From the
> pattern of the cascades, the physicists distinguish
> whether the incoming neutrino was of muon flavor or
> electron. To minimize the chances of fooling
> themselves, they deliberately did not look at any of
> the electron neutrino events until they felt they had
> adequately understood the much more common muon
> neutrino events. They finally "opened the box" on
> their electron neutrino data on March 26 and began the
> analysis leading to their announcement yesterday.
>
> For most of the neutrino energy range they looked at,
> they did not see any more electron neutrinos than
> would be predicted by the Standard Model. That ruled
> out the simplest ways of interpreting the Los Alamos
> neutrino data, Dr. Conrad and Dr. Louis said. But at
> the lower energies, the scientists did see more
> electron neutrinos than predicted: 369, rather than
> the predicted 273. That may simply mean that some
> calculations are off. Or it could point to a subtler
> interplay of particles, known and unknown.
>
> "It's tantalizing," said Boris Kayser, a Fermilab
> physicist not on the MiniBooNE project. "It could be
> real. But this remains to be established." Dr. Louis
> said he was surprised by the results. "I was sort of
> expecting a clear excess or no excess," he said. "In a
> sense, we got both."
>
>
> S D Rodrian
> http://poems.sdrodrian.com
> http://physics.sdrodrian.com
> http://mp3.sdrodrian.com
>
> All religions are local. Only science is universal.
>
date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 15:35:09 GMT
author: zookumar yelubandi
|
Re: How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
zookumar yelubandi wrote:
> People might actually listen to what you may have to say,
> SDRodrian, if they didn't have doubts about your integrity as a
> scientist and as an intellectual. To quell their doubts, please explain
> to them that WTC7 did indeed collapse as a direct consequence of
> controlled implosions, and not as the byproduct of plans of men with
> cave man memes and Arabian genes.
>
> Scream out loudly that it was an inside job performed by
> neoCons/zioCons and general con men, and then you'll be free to explain
> your theories about the Universe without eliciting looks of suspicion.
>
> -zookumar-
Go kiss a cow or something.
date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 14:14:53 -0500
author: unknown
|
Re: How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
wrote in message
news:46e98$462279bb$49ecfe5$21512@DIALUPUSA.NET...
> zookumar yelubandi wrote:
>> People might actually listen to what you may have to say,
>> SDRodrian, if they didn't have doubts about your integrity as a
>> scientist and as an intellectual. To quell their doubts, please
>> explain
>> to them that WTC7 did indeed collapse as a direct consequence of
>> controlled implosions, and not as the byproduct of plans of men with
>> cave man memes and Arabian genes. Scream out loudly that it was an
>> inside job performed by
>> neoCons/zioCons and general con men, and then you'll be free to
>> explain
>> your theories about the Universe without eliciting looks of
>> suspicion.
>> -zookumar-
Not so. The situation is, I only get to see Zook's postings when someone
responds to him. Above is an example of his tedious ploy in baiting,
entrapping and labeling someone who doesn't agree with his paranoid
world view.
How arrogant it is to believe that one's view is the absolute truth. On
the bright side, sdr has so far been too smart to even nibble the bait.
Phil H
date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 12:34:31 -0800
author: Phil Holman piholmanc@yourservice
|
Re: How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
Phil Holman wrote:
> wrote in message
> news:46e98$462279bb$49ecfe5$21512@DIALUPUSA.NET...
>
>>zookumar yelubandi wrote:
>>
>>> People might actually listen to what you may have to say,
>>>SDRodrian, if they didn't have doubts about your integrity as a
>>>scientist and as an intellectual. To quell their doubts, please
>>>explain
>>>to them that WTC7 did indeed collapse as a direct consequence of
>>>controlled implosions, and not as the byproduct of plans of men with
>>>cave man memes and Arabian genes. Scream out loudly that it was an
>>>inside job performed by
>>>neoCons/zioCons and general con men, and then you'll be free to
>>>explain
>>>your theories about the Universe without eliciting looks of
>>>suspicion.
>>> -zookumar-
>
>
> Not so. The situation is, I only get to see Zook's postings when someone
> responds to him.
And I should stop doing that.
> Above is an example of his tedious ploy in baiting,
> entrapping and labeling someone who doesn't agree with his paranoid
> world view.
>
> How arrogant it is to believe that one's view is the absolute truth. On
> the bright side, sdr has so far been too smart to even nibble the bait.
>
> Phil H
>
>
date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 16:29:59 -0500
author: unknown
|
Re: How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
"sdr" wrote in message
news:1176616869.509852.194080@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
A sturdy flak vest.
And thermal underwear.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 23:53:31 -0600
author: Denis Loubet
|
Re: How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
On 15 Apr, 07:01, "sdr" wrote:
> How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
Bob600 replies:- It did not, what you see is only the rubble left over
from the destruction of the "real" universe. After all there has to be
some rubbish left over, and we are it.
date: 19 Apr 2007 13:06:33 -0700
author: bob600
|
Re: How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
Crouching in a bomb shelter?
date: 19 Apr 2007 19:51:09 -0700
author: Don Stockbauer
|
Re: How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
On Apr 19, 8:51 pm, Don Stockbauer wrote:
> How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
>
> Crouching in a bomb shelter?
By smoking the Big Cigarette?
date: 20 Apr 2007 04:42:12 -0700
author: Don Stockbauer
|
Re: How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
People might actually listen to what you may have to say,
SDRodrian, if they didn't have doubts about your integrity as a
scientist and as an intellectual. To quell their doubts, please explain
to them that WTC7 did indeed collapse as a direct consequence of
controlled implosions, and not as the byproduct of plans of men with
cave man memes and Arabian genes.
Scream out loudly that it was an inside job performed by
neoCons/zioCons and general con men, and then you'll be free to explain
your theories about the Universe without eliciting looks of suspicion.
-zookumar-
sdr wrote:
> How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
> In This Experiment, Clues Remain Elusive
> By KENNETH CHANG
> Published in New York Times April 12, 2007
>
> An experiment some hoped would reveal a new class of
> subatomic particles, and perhaps even point to clues
> about why the universe exists at all, has instead
> produced a first round of results that are
> mysteriously inconclusive. "What we got was
> intellectually interesting," said Janet M. Conrad,
> professor of physics at Columbia University and a
> spokeswoman for a collaboration that involves 77
> scientists at 17 institutions. "We have to figure out
> what it is."
>
> Dr. Conrad and William C. Louis, a physicist at Los
> Alamos National Laboratory, presented their initial
> findings in a talk yesterday at the Fermi National
> Accelerator Laboratory, outside Chicago, where the
> experiment is being performed. The goal was to confirm
> or refute observations made in the 90s in a Los Alamos
> experiment that observed transformations in the
> evanescent but bountiful particles known as neutrinos.
> Neutrinos have no electrical charge and almost no
> mass, but there are so many of them that they could
> collectively outweigh all the stars in the universe.
>
> Many physicists remain skeptical about the Los Alamos
> findings, but the new experiment has attracted wide
> interest. The Fermilab auditorium was filled with some
> 800 people, and talks were given at the 16 additional
> institutions by other collaborating scientists. That
> reflected in part the hope of finding cracks in the
> Standard Model, which encapsulates physicists' current
> knowledge about fundamental particles and forces. The
> Standard Model has proved remarkably effective and
> accurate, but it cannot answer some fundamental
> questions, like why the universe did not completely
> annihilate itself an instant after the Big Bang.
>
> [The answer is quite simple/elegant: There
> never was a "Big Bang." The universe is the
> result of an evolution--and as with any
> evolution, there is always enough time
> allowed for all the factors involved to bring
> about the overall harmony and consistency
> which eventually gives the impression to
> those who believe (like those who believe
> that the universe erupted magically from the
> Big Bang Bean), those who believe that all
> the problems HAD to have been solved from the
> start... and that therefore the only possible
> answer is An Infinitely Informed Creator (in
> other words, one cannot argue a Big Bang
> without it arguing a God).]
>
> 'The solution has been available for everyone
> to read it since the last century now on the
> internet. You can find it at:
>
> http://physics.sdrodrian.com
>
> What the "neutrino results" described below
> are actually hinting at is the fact that the
> universe is a LOT older and considerably more
> extensive than heretofore "conventionally"
> suspected. SDR]
>
> The birth of the universe 13.7 billion years ago
> created equal amounts of matter and antimatter. Since
> matter and antimatter annihilate each other when they
> come in contact, that would have left nothing to
> coalesce into stars and galaxies. There must be some
> imbalance in the laws of physics that led to a slight
> preponderance of matter over antimatter, and that
> extra bit of matter formed everything in the visible
> universe.
>
> The imbalance, some physicists believe, may be hiding
> in the dynamics of neutrinos: Neutrinos come in three
> known types, or flavors. And they can change flavor as
> they travel, a process that can occur only because of
> the smidgen of mass they carry. But the neutrino
> transformations reported in the Los Alamos data do not
> fit the three-flavor model, suggesting four flavors of
> neutrinos, if not more. Other data, from experiments
> elsewhere, have said the additional neutrinos would
> have to be "sterile" - completely oblivious to the
> rest of the universe except for gravity.
>
> The new experiment is called MiniBooNE. (BooNE,
> pronounced boon, is a contraction of Booster Neutrino
> Experiment. "Booster" refers to a Fermilab booster
> ring that accelerates protons, and "mini" was added
> because of plans for a second, larger stage to the
> research.) MiniBooNE sought to count the number of
> times one flavor of neutrino, called a muon, turned
> into another flavor, an electron neutrino. The
> experiment slams a beam of protons into a piece of
> beryllium, and the cascade of particles from the
> subatomic wreckage includes muon neutrinos that fly
> about 1,650 feet to a detection chamber, a tank 40
> feet in diameter that contains 250,000 gallons of
> mineral oil. Most of the neutrinos fly through
> unscathed, but occasionally a neutrino crashes into a
> carbon atom in the mineral oil. That sets off another
> cascade of particles, which is detected by 1,280 light
> detectors mounted on the inside of the tank. From the
> pattern of the cascades, the physicists distinguish
> whether the incoming neutrino was of muon flavor or
> electron. To minimize the chances of fooling
> themselves, they deliberately did not look at any of
> the electron neutrino events until they felt they had
> adequately understood the much more common muon
> neutrino events. They finally "opened the box" on
> their electron neutrino data on March 26 and began the
> analysis leading to their announcement yesterday.
>
> For most of the neutrino energy range they looked at,
> they did not see any more electron neutrinos than
> would be predicted by the Standard Model. That ruled
> out the simplest ways of interpreting the Los Alamos
> neutrino data, Dr. Conrad and Dr. Louis said. But at
> the lower energies, the scientists did see more
> electron neutrinos than predicted: 369, rather than
> the predicted 273. That may simply mean that some
> calculations are off. Or it could point to a subtler
> interplay of particles, known and unknown.
>
> "It's tantalizing," said Boris Kayser, a Fermilab
> physicist not on the MiniBooNE project. "It could be
> real. But this remains to be established." Dr. Louis
> said he was surprised by the results. "I was sort of
> expecting a clear excess or no excess," he said. "In a
> sense, we got both."
>
>
> S D Rodrian
> http://poems.sdrodrian.com
> http://physics.sdrodrian.com
> http://mp3.sdrodrian.com
>
> All religions are local. Only science is universal.
>
date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 15:35:09 GMT
author: zookumar yelubandi
|
Re: How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
zookumar yelubandi wrote:
> People might actually listen to what you may have to say,
> SDRodrian, if they didn't have doubts about your integrity as a
> scientist and as an intellectual. To quell their doubts, please explain
> to them that WTC7 did indeed collapse as a direct consequence of
> controlled implosions, and not as the byproduct of plans of men with
> cave man memes and Arabian genes.
>
> Scream out loudly that it was an inside job performed by
> neoCons/zioCons and general con men, and then you'll be free to explain
> your theories about the Universe without eliciting looks of suspicion.
>
> -zookumar-
Go kiss a cow or something.
date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 14:14:53 -0500
author: unknown
|
Re: How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
wrote in message
news:46e98$462279bb$49ecfe5$21512@DIALUPUSA.NET...
> zookumar yelubandi wrote:
>> People might actually listen to what you may have to say,
>> SDRodrian, if they didn't have doubts about your integrity as a
>> scientist and as an intellectual. To quell their doubts, please
>> explain
>> to them that WTC7 did indeed collapse as a direct consequence of
>> controlled implosions, and not as the byproduct of plans of men with
>> cave man memes and Arabian genes. Scream out loudly that it was an
>> inside job performed by
>> neoCons/zioCons and general con men, and then you'll be free to
>> explain
>> your theories about the Universe without eliciting looks of
>> suspicion.
>> -zookumar-
Not so. The situation is, I only get to see Zook's postings when someone
responds to him. Above is an example of his tedious ploy in baiting,
entrapping and labeling someone who doesn't agree with his paranoid
world view.
How arrogant it is to believe that one's view is the absolute truth. On
the bright side, sdr has so far been too smart to even nibble the bait.
Phil H
date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 12:34:31 -0800
author: Phil Holman piholmanc@yourservice
|
Re: How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
Phil Holman wrote:
> wrote in message
> news:46e98$462279bb$49ecfe5$21512@DIALUPUSA.NET...
>
>>zookumar yelubandi wrote:
>>
>>> People might actually listen to what you may have to say,
>>>SDRodrian, if they didn't have doubts about your integrity as a
>>>scientist and as an intellectual. To quell their doubts, please
>>>explain
>>>to them that WTC7 did indeed collapse as a direct consequence of
>>>controlled implosions, and not as the byproduct of plans of men with
>>>cave man memes and Arabian genes. Scream out loudly that it was an
>>>inside job performed by
>>>neoCons/zioCons and general con men, and then you'll be free to
>>>explain
>>>your theories about the Universe without eliciting looks of
>>>suspicion.
>>> -zookumar-
>
>
> Not so. The situation is, I only get to see Zook's postings when someone
> responds to him.
And I should stop doing that.
> Above is an example of his tedious ploy in baiting,
> entrapping and labeling someone who doesn't agree with his paranoid
> world view.
>
> How arrogant it is to believe that one's view is the absolute truth. On
> the bright side, sdr has so far been too smart to even nibble the bait.
>
> Phil H
>
>
date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 16:29:59 -0500
author: unknown
|
Re: How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
"sdr" wrote in message
news:1176616869.509852.194080@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
A sturdy flak vest.
And thermal underwear.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 23:53:31 -0600
author: Denis Loubet
|
Re: How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
On 15 Apr, 07:01, "sdr" wrote:
> How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
Bob600 replies:- It did not, what you see is only the rubble left over
from the destruction of the "real" universe. After all there has to be
some rubbish left over, and we are it.
date: 19 Apr 2007 13:06:33 -0700
author: bob600
|
Re: How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
Crouching in a bomb shelter?
date: 19 Apr 2007 19:51:09 -0700
author: Don Stockbauer
|
Re: How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
On Apr 19, 8:51 pm, Don Stockbauer wrote:
> How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
>
> Crouching in a bomb shelter?
By smoking the Big Cigarette?
date: 20 Apr 2007 04:42:12 -0700
author: Don Stockbauer
|
Re: How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
People might actually listen to what you may have to say,
SDRodrian, if they didn't have doubts about your integrity as a
scientist and as an intellectual. To quell their doubts, please explain
to them that WTC7 did indeed collapse as a direct consequence of
controlled implosions, and not as the byproduct of plans of men with
cave man memes and Arabian genes.
Scream out loudly that it was an inside job performed by
neoCons/zioCons and general con men, and then you'll be free to explain
your theories about the Universe without eliciting looks of suspicion.
-zookumar-
sdr wrote:
> How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
> In This Experiment, Clues Remain Elusive
> By KENNETH CHANG
> Published in New York Times April 12, 2007
>
> An experiment some hoped would reveal a new class of
> subatomic particles, and perhaps even point to clues
> about why the universe exists at all, has instead
> produced a first round of results that are
> mysteriously inconclusive. "What we got was
> intellectually interesting," said Janet M. Conrad,
> professor of physics at Columbia University and a
> spokeswoman for a collaboration that involves 77
> scientists at 17 institutions. "We have to figure out
> what it is."
>
> Dr. Conrad and William C. Louis, a physicist at Los
> Alamos National Laboratory, presented their initial
> findings in a talk yesterday at the Fermi National
> Accelerator Laboratory, outside Chicago, where the
> experiment is being performed. The goal was to confirm
> or refute observations made in the 90s in a Los Alamos
> experiment that observed transformations in the
> evanescent but bountiful particles known as neutrinos.
> Neutrinos have no electrical charge and almost no
> mass, but there are so many of them that they could
> collectively outweigh all the stars in the universe.
>
> Many physicists remain skeptical about the Los Alamos
> findings, but the new experiment has attracted wide
> interest. The Fermilab auditorium was filled with some
> 800 people, and talks were given at the 16 additional
> institutions by other collaborating scientists. That
> reflected in part the hope of finding cracks in the
> Standard Model, which encapsulates physicists' current
> knowledge about fundamental particles and forces. The
> Standard Model has proved remarkably effective and
> accurate, but it cannot answer some fundamental
> questions, like why the universe did not completely
> annihilate itself an instant after the Big Bang.
>
> [The answer is quite simple/elegant: There
> never was a "Big Bang." The universe is the
> result of an evolution--and as with any
> evolution, there is always enough time
> allowed for all the factors involved to bring
> about the overall harmony and consistency
> which eventually gives the impression to
> those who believe (like those who believe
> that the universe erupted magically from the
> Big Bang Bean), those who believe that all
> the problems HAD to have been solved from the
> start... and that therefore the only possible
> answer is An Infinitely Informed Creator (in
> other words, one cannot argue a Big Bang
> without it arguing a God).]
>
> 'The solution has been available for everyone
> to read it since the last century now on the
> internet. You can find it at:
>
> http://physics.sdrodrian.com
>
> What the "neutrino results" described below
> are actually hinting at is the fact that the
> universe is a LOT older and considerably more
> extensive than heretofore "conventionally"
> suspected. SDR]
>
> The birth of the universe 13.7 billion years ago
> created equal amounts of matter and antimatter. Since
> matter and antimatter annihilate each other when they
> come in contact, that would have left nothing to
> coalesce into stars and galaxies. There must be some
> imbalance in the laws of physics that led to a slight
> preponderance of matter over antimatter, and that
> extra bit of matter formed everything in the visible
> universe.
>
> The imbalance, some physicists believe, may be hiding
> in the dynamics of neutrinos: Neutrinos come in three
> known types, or flavors. And they can change flavor as
> they travel, a process that can occur only because of
> the smidgen of mass they carry. But the neutrino
> transformations reported in the Los Alamos data do not
> fit the three-flavor model, suggesting four flavors of
> neutrinos, if not more. Other data, from experiments
> elsewhere, have said the additional neutrinos would
> have to be "sterile" - completely oblivious to the
> rest of the universe except for gravity.
>
> The new experiment is called MiniBooNE. (BooNE,
> pronounced boon, is a contraction of Booster Neutrino
> Experiment. "Booster" refers to a Fermilab booster
> ring that accelerates protons, and "mini" was added
> because of plans for a second, larger stage to the
> research.) MiniBooNE sought to count the number of
> times one flavor of neutrino, called a muon, turned
> into another flavor, an electron neutrino. The
> experiment slams a beam of protons into a piece of
> beryllium, and the cascade of particles from the
> subatomic wreckage includes muon neutrinos that fly
> about 1,650 feet to a detection chamber, a tank 40
> feet in diameter that contains 250,000 gallons of
> mineral oil. Most of the neutrinos fly through
> unscathed, but occasionally a neutrino crashes into a
> carbon atom in the mineral oil. That sets off another
> cascade of particles, which is detected by 1,280 light
> detectors mounted on the inside of the tank. From the
> pattern of the cascades, the physicists distinguish
> whether the incoming neutrino was of muon flavor or
> electron. To minimize the chances of fooling
> themselves, they deliberately did not look at any of
> the electron neutrino events until they felt they had
> adequately understood the much more common muon
> neutrino events. They finally "opened the box" on
> their electron neutrino data on March 26 and began the
> analysis leading to their announcement yesterday.
>
> For most of the neutrino energy range they looked at,
> they did not see any more electron neutrinos than
> would be predicted by the Standard Model. That ruled
> out the simplest ways of interpreting the Los Alamos
> neutrino data, Dr. Conrad and Dr. Louis said. But at
> the lower energies, the scientists did see more
> electron neutrinos than predicted: 369, rather than
> the predicted 273. That may simply mean that some
> calculations are off. Or it could point to a subtler
> interplay of particles, known and unknown.
>
> "It's tantalizing," said Boris Kayser, a Fermilab
> physicist not on the MiniBooNE project. "It could be
> real. But this remains to be established." Dr. Louis
> said he was surprised by the results. "I was sort of
> expecting a clear excess or no excess," he said. "In a
> sense, we got both."
>
>
> S D Rodrian
> http://poems.sdrodrian.com
> http://physics.sdrodrian.com
> http://mp3.sdrodrian.com
>
> All religions are local. Only science is universal.
>
date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 15:35:09 GMT
author: zookumar yelubandi
|
Re: How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
zookumar yelubandi wrote:
> People might actually listen to what you may have to say,
> SDRodrian, if they didn't have doubts about your integrity as a
> scientist and as an intellectual. To quell their doubts, please explain
> to them that WTC7 did indeed collapse as a direct consequence of
> controlled implosions, and not as the byproduct of plans of men with
> cave man memes and Arabian genes.
>
> Scream out loudly that it was an inside job performed by
> neoCons/zioCons and general con men, and then you'll be free to explain
> your theories about the Universe without eliciting looks of suspicion.
>
> -zookumar-
Go kiss a cow or something.
date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 14:14:53 -0500
author: unknown
|
Re: How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
wrote in message
news:46e98$462279bb$49ecfe5$21512@DIALUPUSA.NET...
> zookumar yelubandi wrote:
>> People might actually listen to what you may have to say,
>> SDRodrian, if they didn't have doubts about your integrity as a
>> scientist and as an intellectual. To quell their doubts, please
>> explain
>> to them that WTC7 did indeed collapse as a direct consequence of
>> controlled implosions, and not as the byproduct of plans of men with
>> cave man memes and Arabian genes. Scream out loudly that it was an
>> inside job performed by
>> neoCons/zioCons and general con men, and then you'll be free to
>> explain
>> your theories about the Universe without eliciting looks of
>> suspicion.
>> -zookumar-
Not so. The situation is, I only get to see Zook's postings when someone
responds to him. Above is an example of his tedious ploy in baiting,
entrapping and labeling someone who doesn't agree with his paranoid
world view.
How arrogant it is to believe that one's view is the absolute truth. On
the bright side, sdr has so far been too smart to even nibble the bait.
Phil H
date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 12:34:31 -0800
author: Phil Holman piholmanc@yourservice
|
Re: How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
Phil Holman wrote:
> wrote in message
> news:46e98$462279bb$49ecfe5$21512@DIALUPUSA.NET...
>
>>zookumar yelubandi wrote:
>>
>>> People might actually listen to what you may have to say,
>>>SDRodrian, if they didn't have doubts about your integrity as a
>>>scientist and as an intellectual. To quell their doubts, please
>>>explain
>>>to them that WTC7 did indeed collapse as a direct consequence of
>>>controlled implosions, and not as the byproduct of plans of men with
>>>cave man memes and Arabian genes. Scream out loudly that it was an
>>>inside job performed by
>>>neoCons/zioCons and general con men, and then you'll be free to
>>>explain
>>>your theories about the Universe without eliciting looks of
>>>suspicion.
>>> -zookumar-
>
>
> Not so. The situation is, I only get to see Zook's postings when someone
> responds to him.
And I should stop doing that.
> Above is an example of his tedious ploy in baiting,
> entrapping and labeling someone who doesn't agree with his paranoid
> world view.
>
> How arrogant it is to believe that one's view is the absolute truth. On
> the bright side, sdr has so far been too smart to even nibble the bait.
>
> Phil H
>
>
date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 16:29:59 -0500
author: unknown
|
Re: How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
"sdr" wrote in message
news:1176616869.509852.194080@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
A sturdy flak vest.
And thermal underwear.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 23:53:31 -0600
author: Denis Loubet
|
Re: How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
On 15 Apr, 07:01, "sdr" wrote:
> How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
Bob600 replies:- It did not, what you see is only the rubble left over
from the destruction of the "real" universe. After all there has to be
some rubbish left over, and we are it.
date: 19 Apr 2007 13:06:33 -0700
author: bob600
|
Re: How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
Crouching in a bomb shelter?
date: 19 Apr 2007 19:51:09 -0700
author: Don Stockbauer
|
Re: How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
On Apr 19, 8:51 pm, Don Stockbauer wrote:
> How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
>
> Crouching in a bomb shelter?
By smoking the Big Cigarette?
date: 20 Apr 2007 04:42:12 -0700
author: Don Stockbauer
|
Re: How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
People might actually listen to what you may have to say,
SDRodrian, if they didn't have doubts about your integrity as a
scientist and as an intellectual. To quell their doubts, please explain
to them that WTC7 did indeed collapse as a direct consequence of
controlled implosions, and not as the byproduct of plans of men with
cave man memes and Arabian genes.
Scream out loudly that it was an inside job performed by
neoCons/zioCons and general con men, and then you'll be free to explain
your theories about the Universe without eliciting looks of suspicion.
-zookumar-
sdr wrote:
> How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
> In This Experiment, Clues Remain Elusive
> By KENNETH CHANG
> Published in New York Times April 12, 2007
>
> An experiment some hoped would reveal a new class of
> subatomic particles, and perhaps even point to clues
> about why the universe exists at all, has instead
> produced a first round of results that are
> mysteriously inconclusive. "What we got was
> intellectually interesting," said Janet M. Conrad,
> professor of physics at Columbia University and a
> spokeswoman for a collaboration that involves 77
> scientists at 17 institutions. "We have to figure out
> what it is."
>
> Dr. Conrad and William C. Louis, a physicist at Los
> Alamos National Laboratory, presented their initial
> findings in a talk yesterday at the Fermi National
> Accelerator Laboratory, outside Chicago, where the
> experiment is being performed. The goal was to confirm
> or refute observations made in the 90s in a Los Alamos
> experiment that observed transformations in the
> evanescent but bountiful particles known as neutrinos.
> Neutrinos have no electrical charge and almost no
> mass, but there are so many of them that they could
> collectively outweigh all the stars in the universe.
>
> Many physicists remain skeptical about the Los Alamos
> findings, but the new experiment has attracted wide
> interest. The Fermilab auditorium was filled with some
> 800 people, and talks were given at the 16 additional
> institutions by other collaborating scientists. That
> reflected in part the hope of finding cracks in the
> Standard Model, which encapsulates physicists' current
> knowledge about fundamental particles and forces. The
> Standard Model has proved remarkably effective and
> accurate, but it cannot answer some fundamental
> questions, like why the universe did not completely
> annihilate itself an instant after the Big Bang.
>
> [The answer is quite simple/elegant: There
> never was a "Big Bang." The universe is the
> result of an evolution--and as with any
> evolution, there is always enough time
> allowed for all the factors involved to bring
> about the overall harmony and consistency
> which eventually gives the impression to
> those who believe (like those who believe
> that the universe erupted magically from the
> Big Bang Bean), those who believe that all
> the problems HAD to have been solved from the
> start... and that therefore the only possible
> answer is An Infinitely Informed Creator (in
> other words, one cannot argue a Big Bang
> without it arguing a God).]
>
> 'The solution has been available for everyone
> to read it since the last century now on the
> internet. You can find it at:
>
> http://physics.sdrodrian.com
>
> What the "neutrino results" described below
> are actually hinting at is the fact that the
> universe is a LOT older and considerably more
> extensive than heretofore "conventionally"
> suspected. SDR]
>
> The birth of the universe 13.7 billion years ago
> created equal amounts of matter and antimatter. Since
> matter and antimatter annihilate each other when they
> come in contact, that would have left nothing to
> coalesce into stars and galaxies. There must be some
> imbalance in the laws of physics that led to a slight
> preponderance of matter over antimatter, and that
> extra bit of matter formed everything in the visible
> universe.
>
> The imbalance, some physicists believe, may be hiding
> in the dynamics of neutrinos: Neutrinos come in three
> known types, or flavors. And they can change flavor as
> they travel, a process that can occur only because of
> the smidgen of mass they carry. But the neutrino
> transformations reported in the Los Alamos data do not
> fit the three-flavor model, suggesting four flavors of
> neutrinos, if not more. Other data, from experiments
> elsewhere, have said the additional neutrinos would
> have to be "sterile" - completely oblivious to the
> rest of the universe except for gravity.
>
> The new experiment is called MiniBooNE. (BooNE,
> pronounced boon, is a contraction of Booster Neutrino
> Experiment. "Booster" refers to a Fermilab booster
> ring that accelerates protons, and "mini" was added
> because of plans for a second, larger stage to the
> research.) MiniBooNE sought to count the number of
> times one flavor of neutrino, called a muon, turned
> into another flavor, an electron neutrino. The
> experiment slams a beam of protons into a piece of
> beryllium, and the cascade of particles from the
> subatomic wreckage includes muon neutrinos that fly
> about 1,650 feet to a detection chamber, a tank 40
> feet in diameter that contains 250,000 gallons of
> mineral oil. Most of the neutrinos fly through
> unscathed, but occasionally a neutrino crashes into a
> carbon atom in the mineral oil. That sets off another
> cascade of particles, which is detected by 1,280 light
> detectors mounted on the inside of the tank. From the
> pattern of the cascades, the physicists distinguish
> whether the incoming neutrino was of muon flavor or
> electron. To minimize the chances of fooling
> themselves, they deliberately did not look at any of
> the electron neutrino events until they felt they had
> adequately understood the much more common muon
> neutrino events. They finally "opened the box" on
> their electron neutrino data on March 26 and began the
> analysis leading to their announcement yesterday.
>
> For most of the neutrino energy range they looked at,
> they did not see any more electron neutrinos than
> would be predicted by the Standard Model. That ruled
> out the simplest ways of interpreting the Los Alamos
> neutrino data, Dr. Conrad and Dr. Louis said. But at
> the lower energies, the scientists did see more
> electron neutrinos than predicted: 369, rather than
> the predicted 273. That may simply mean that some
> calculations are off. Or it could point to a subtler
> interplay of particles, known and unknown.
>
> "It's tantalizing," said Boris Kayser, a Fermilab
> physicist not on the MiniBooNE project. "It could be
> real. But this remains to be established." Dr. Louis
> said he was surprised by the results. "I was sort of
> expecting a clear excess or no excess," he said. "In a
> sense, we got both."
>
>
> S D Rodrian
> http://poems.sdrodrian.com
> http://physics.sdrodrian.com
> http://mp3.sdrodrian.com
>
> All religions are local. Only science is universal.
>
date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 15:35:09 GMT
author: zookumar yelubandi
|
Re: How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
zookumar yelubandi wrote:
> People might actually listen to what you may have to say,
> SDRodrian, if they didn't have doubts about your integrity as a
> scientist and as an intellectual. To quell their doubts, please explain
> to them that WTC7 did indeed collapse as a direct consequence of
> controlled implosions, and not as the byproduct of plans of men with
> cave man memes and Arabian genes.
>
> Scream out loudly that it was an inside job performed by
> neoCons/zioCons and general con men, and then you'll be free to explain
> your theories about the Universe without eliciting looks of suspicion.
>
> -zookumar-
Go kiss a cow or something.
date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 14:14:53 -0500
author: unknown
|
Re: How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
wrote in message
news:46e98$462279bb$49ecfe5$21512@DIALUPUSA.NET...
> zookumar yelubandi wrote:
>> People might actually listen to what you may have to say,
>> SDRodrian, if they didn't have doubts about your integrity as a
>> scientist and as an intellectual. To quell their doubts, please
>> explain
>> to them that WTC7 did indeed collapse as a direct consequence of
>> controlled implosions, and not as the byproduct of plans of men with
>> cave man memes and Arabian genes. Scream out loudly that it was an
>> inside job performed by
>> neoCons/zioCons and general con men, and then you'll be free to
>> explain
>> your theories about the Universe without eliciting looks of
>> suspicion.
>> -zookumar-
Not so. The situation is, I only get to see Zook's postings when someone
responds to him. Above is an example of his tedious ploy in baiting,
entrapping and labeling someone who doesn't agree with his paranoid
world view.
How arrogant it is to believe that one's view is the absolute truth. On
the bright side, sdr has so far been too smart to even nibble the bait.
Phil H
date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 12:34:31 -0800
author: Phil Holman piholmanc@yourservice
|
Re: How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
Phil Holman wrote:
> wrote in message
> news:46e98$462279bb$49ecfe5$21512@DIALUPUSA.NET...
>
>>zookumar yelubandi wrote:
>>
>>> People might actually listen to what you may have to say,
>>>SDRodrian, if they didn't have doubts about your integrity as a
>>>scientist and as an intellectual. To quell their doubts, please
>>>explain
>>>to them that WTC7 did indeed collapse as a direct consequence of
>>>controlled implosions, and not as the byproduct of plans of men with
>>>cave man memes and Arabian genes. Scream out loudly that it was an
>>>inside job performed by
>>>neoCons/zioCons and general con men, and then you'll be free to
>>>explain
>>>your theories about the Universe without eliciting looks of
>>>suspicion.
>>> -zookumar-
>
>
> Not so. The situation is, I only get to see Zook's postings when someone
> responds to him.
And I should stop doing that.
> Above is an example of his tedious ploy in baiting,
> entrapping and labeling someone who doesn't agree with his paranoid
> world view.
>
> How arrogant it is to believe that one's view is the absolute truth. On
> the bright side, sdr has so far been too smart to even nibble the bait.
>
> Phil H
>
>
date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 16:29:59 -0500
author: unknown
|
Re: How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
"sdr" wrote in message
news:1176616869.509852.194080@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
A sturdy flak vest.
And thermal underwear.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 23:53:31 -0600
author: Denis Loubet
|
Re: How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
On 15 Apr, 07:01, "sdr" wrote:
> How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
Bob600 replies:- It did not, what you see is only the rubble left over
from the destruction of the "real" universe. After all there has to be
some rubbish left over, and we are it.
date: 19 Apr 2007 13:06:33 -0700
author: bob600
|
Re: How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
Crouching in a bomb shelter?
date: 19 Apr 2007 19:51:09 -0700
author: Don Stockbauer
|
Re: How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
On Apr 19, 8:51 pm, Don Stockbauer wrote:
> How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
>
> Crouching in a bomb shelter?
By smoking the Big Cigarette?
date: 20 Apr 2007 04:42:12 -0700
author: Don Stockbauer
|
Re: How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
People might actually listen to what you may have to say,
SDRodrian, if they didn't have doubts about your integrity as a
scientist and as an intellectual. To quell their doubts, please explain
to them that WTC7 did indeed collapse as a direct consequence of
controlled implosions, and not as the byproduct of plans of men with
cave man memes and Arabian genes.
Scream out loudly that it was an inside job performed by
neoCons/zioCons and general con men, and then you'll be free to explain
your theories about the Universe without eliciting looks of suspicion.
-zookumar-
sdr wrote:
> How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
> In This Experiment, Clues Remain Elusive
> By KENNETH CHANG
> Published in New York Times April 12, 2007
>
> An experiment some hoped would reveal a new class of
> subatomic particles, and perhaps even point to clues
> about why the universe exists at all, has instead
> produced a first round of results that are
> mysteriously inconclusive. "What we got was
> intellectually interesting," said Janet M. Conrad,
> professor of physics at Columbia University and a
> spokeswoman for a collaboration that involves 77
> scientists at 17 institutions. "We have to figure out
> what it is."
>
> Dr. Conrad and William C. Louis, a physicist at Los
> Alamos National Laboratory, presented their initial
> findings in a talk yesterday at the Fermi National
> Accelerator Laboratory, outside Chicago, where the
> experiment is being performed. The goal was to confirm
> or refute observations made in the 90s in a Los Alamos
> experiment that observed transformations in the
> evanescent but bountiful particles known as neutrinos.
> Neutrinos have no electrical charge and almost no
> mass, but there are so many of them that they could
> collectively outweigh all the stars in the universe.
>
> Many physicists remain skeptical about the Los Alamos
> findings, but the new experiment has attracted wide
> interest. The Fermilab auditorium was filled with some
> 800 people, and talks were given at the 16 additional
> institutions by other collaborating scientists. That
> reflected in part the hope of finding cracks in the
> Standard Model, which encapsulates physicists' current
> knowledge about fundamental particles and forces. The
> Standard Model has proved remarkably effective and
> accurate, but it cannot answer some fundamental
> questions, like why the universe did not completely
> annihilate itself an instant after the Big Bang.
>
> [The answer is quite simple/elegant: There
> never was a "Big Bang." The universe is the
> result of an evolution--and as with any
> evolution, there is always enough time
> allowed for all the factors involved to bring
> about the overall harmony and consistency
> which eventually gives the impression to
> those who believe (like those who believe
> that the universe erupted magically from the
> Big Bang Bean), those who believe that all
> the problems HAD to have been solved from the
> start... and that therefore the only possible
> answer is An Infinitely Informed Creator (in
> other words, one cannot argue a Big Bang
> without it arguing a God).]
>
> 'The solution has been available for everyone
> to read it since the last century now on the
> internet. You can find it at:
>
> http://physics.sdrodrian.com
>
> What the "neutrino results" described below
> are actually hinting at is the fact that the
> universe is a LOT older and considerably more
> extensive than heretofore "conventionally"
> suspected. SDR]
>
> The birth of the universe 13.7 billion years ago
> created equal amounts of matter and antimatter. Since
> matter and antimatter annihilate each other when they
> come in contact, that would have left nothing to
> coalesce into stars and galaxies. There must be some
> imbalance in the laws of physics that led to a slight
> preponderance of matter over antimatter, and that
> extra bit of matter formed everything in the visible
> universe.
>
> The imbalance, some physicists believe, may be hiding
> in the dynamics of neutrinos: Neutrinos come in three
> known types, or flavors. And they can change flavor as
> they travel, a process that can occur only because of
> the smidgen of mass they carry. But the neutrino
> transformations reported in the Los Alamos data do not
> fit the three-flavor model, suggesting four flavors of
> neutrinos, if not more. Other data, from experiments
> elsewhere, have said the additional neutrinos would
> have to be "sterile" - completely oblivious to the
> rest of the universe except for gravity.
>
> The new experiment is called MiniBooNE. (BooNE,
> pronounced boon, is a contraction of Booster Neutrino
> Experiment. "Booster" refers to a Fermilab booster
> ring that accelerates protons, and "mini" was added
> because of plans for a second, larger stage to the
> research.) MiniBooNE sought to count the number of
> times one flavor of neutrino, called a muon, turned
> into another flavor, an electron neutrino. The
> experiment slams a beam of protons into a piece of
> beryllium, and the cascade of particles from the
> subatomic wreckage includes muon neutrinos that fly
> about 1,650 feet to a detection chamber, a tank 40
> feet in diameter that contains 250,000 gallons of
> mineral oil. Most of the neutrinos fly through
> unscathed, but occasionally a neutrino crashes into a
> carbon atom in the mineral oil. That sets off another
> cascade of particles, which is detected by 1,280 light
> detectors mounted on the inside of the tank. From the
> pattern of the cascades, the physicists distinguish
> whether the incoming neutrino was of muon flavor or
> electron. To minimize the chances of fooling
> themselves, they deliberately did not look at any of
> the electron neutrino events until they felt they had
> adequately understood the much more common muon
> neutrino events. They finally "opened the box" on
> their electron neutrino data on March 26 and began the
> analysis leading to their announcement yesterday.
>
> For most of the neutrino energy range they looked at,
> they did not see any more electron neutrinos than
> would be predicted by the Standard Model. That ruled
> out the simplest ways of interpreting the Los Alamos
> neutrino data, Dr. Conrad and Dr. Louis said. But at
> the lower energies, the scientists did see more
> electron neutrinos than predicted: 369, rather than
> the predicted 273. That may simply mean that some
> calculations are off. Or it could point to a subtler
> interplay of particles, known and unknown.
>
> "It's tantalizing," said Boris Kayser, a Fermilab
> physicist not on the MiniBooNE project. "It could be
> real. But this remains to be established." Dr. Louis
> said he was surprised by the results. "I was sort of
> expecting a clear excess or no excess," he said. "In a
> sense, we got both."
>
>
> S D Rodrian
> http://poems.sdrodrian.com
> http://physics.sdrodrian.com
> http://mp3.sdrodrian.com
>
> All religions are local. Only science is universal.
>
date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 15:35:09 GMT
author: zookumar yelubandi
|
Re: How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
zookumar yelubandi wrote:
> People might actually listen to what you may have to say,
> SDRodrian, if they didn't have doubts about your integrity as a
> scientist and as an intellectual. To quell their doubts, please explain
> to them that WTC7 did indeed collapse as a direct consequence of
> controlled implosions, and not as the byproduct of plans of men with
> cave man memes and Arabian genes.
>
> Scream out loudly that it was an inside job performed by
> neoCons/zioCons and general con men, and then you'll be free to explain
> your theories about the Universe without eliciting looks of suspicion.
>
> -zookumar-
Go kiss a cow or something.
date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 14:14:53 -0500
author: unknown
|
Re: How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
wrote in message
news:46e98$462279bb$49ecfe5$21512@DIALUPUSA.NET...
> zookumar yelubandi wrote:
>> People might actually listen to what you may have to say,
>> SDRodrian, if they didn't have doubts about your integrity as a
>> scientist and as an intellectual. To quell their doubts, please
>> explain
>> to them that WTC7 did indeed collapse as a direct consequence of
>> controlled implosions, and not as the byproduct of plans of men with
>> cave man memes and Arabian genes. Scream out loudly that it was an
>> inside job performed by
>> neoCons/zioCons and general con men, and then you'll be free to
>> explain
>> your theories about the Universe without eliciting looks of
>> suspicion.
>> -zookumar-
Not so. The situation is, I only get to see Zook's postings when someone
responds to him. Above is an example of his tedious ploy in baiting,
entrapping and labeling someone who doesn't agree with his paranoid
world view.
How arrogant it is to believe that one's view is the absolute truth. On
the bright side, sdr has so far been too smart to even nibble the bait.
Phil H
date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 12:34:31 -0800
author: Phil Holman piholmanc@yourservice
|
Re: How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
Phil Holman wrote:
> wrote in message
> news:46e98$462279bb$49ecfe5$21512@DIALUPUSA.NET...
>
>>zookumar yelubandi wrote:
>>
>>> People might actually listen to what you may have to say,
>>>SDRodrian, if they didn't have doubts about your integrity as a
>>>scientist and as an intellectual. To quell their doubts, please
>>>explain
>>>to them that WTC7 did indeed collapse as a direct consequence of
>>>controlled implosions, and not as the byproduct of plans of men with
>>>cave man memes and Arabian genes. Scream out loudly that it was an
>>>inside job performed by
>>>neoCons/zioCons and general con men, and then you'll be free to
>>>explain
>>>your theories about the Universe without eliciting looks of
>>>suspicion.
>>> -zookumar-
>
>
> Not so. The situation is, I only get to see Zook's postings when someone
> responds to him.
And I should stop doing that.
> Above is an example of his tedious ploy in baiting,
> entrapping and labeling someone who doesn't agree with his paranoid
> world view.
>
> How arrogant it is to believe that one's view is the absolute truth. On
> the bright side, sdr has so far been too smart to even nibble the bait.
>
> Phil H
>
>
date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 16:29:59 -0500
author: unknown
|
Re: How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
"sdr" wrote in message
news:1176616869.509852.194080@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
A sturdy flak vest.
And thermal underwear.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 23:53:31 -0600
author: Denis Loubet
|
Re: How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
On 15 Apr, 07:01, "sdr" wrote:
> How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
Bob600 replies:- It did not, what you see is only the rubble left over
from the destruction of the "real" universe. After all there has to be
some rubbish left over, and we are it.
date: 19 Apr 2007 13:06:33 -0700
author: bob600
|
Re: How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
Crouching in a bomb shelter?
date: 19 Apr 2007 19:51:09 -0700
author: Don Stockbauer
|
Re: How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
On Apr 19, 8:51 pm, Don Stockbauer wrote:
> How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
>
> Crouching in a bomb shelter?
By smoking the Big Cigarette?
date: 20 Apr 2007 04:42:12 -0700
author: Don Stockbauer
|
Re: How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
People might actually listen to what you may have to say,
SDRodrian, if they didn't have doubts about your integrity as a
scientist and as an intellectual. To quell their doubts, please explain
to them that WTC7 did indeed collapse as a direct consequence of
controlled implosions, and not as the byproduct of plans of men with
cave man memes and Arabian genes.
Scream out loudly that it was an inside job performed by
neoCons/zioCons and general con men, and then you'll be free to explain
your theories about the Universe without eliciting looks of suspicion.
-zookumar-
sdr wrote:
> How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
> In This Experiment, Clues Remain Elusive
> By KENNETH CHANG
> Published in New York Times April 12, 2007
>
> An experiment some hoped would reveal a new class of
> subatomic particles, and perhaps even point to clues
> about why the universe exists at all, has instead
> produced a first round of results that are
> mysteriously inconclusive. "What we got was
> intellectually interesting," said Janet M. Conrad,
> professor of physics at Columbia University and a
> spokeswoman for a collaboration that involves 77
> scientists at 17 institutions. "We have to figure out
> what it is."
>
> Dr. Conrad and William C. Louis, a physicist at Los
> Alamos National Laboratory, presented their initial
> findings in a talk yesterday at the Fermi National
> Accelerator Laboratory, outside Chicago, where the
> experiment is being performed. The goal was to confirm
> or refute observations made in the 90s in a Los Alamos
> experiment that observed transformations in the
> evanescent but bountiful particles known as neutrinos.
> Neutrinos have no electrical charge and almost no
> mass, but there are so many of them that they could
> collectively outweigh all the stars in the universe.
>
> Many physicists remain skeptical about the Los Alamos
> findings, but the new experiment has attracted wide
> interest. The Fermilab auditorium was filled with some
> 800 people, and talks were given at the 16 additional
> institutions by other collaborating scientists. That
> reflected in part the hope of finding cracks in the
> Standard Model, which encapsulates physicists' current
> knowledge about fundamental particles and forces. The
> Standard Model has proved remarkably effective and
> accurate, but it cannot answer some fundamental
> questions, like why the universe did not completely
> annihilate itself an instant after the Big Bang.
>
> [The answer is quite simple/elegant: There
> never was a "Big Bang." The universe is the
> result of an evolution--and as with any
> evolution, there is always enough time
> allowed for all the factors involved to bring
> about the overall harmony and consistency
> which eventually gives the impression to
> those who believe (like those who believe
> that the universe erupted magically from the
> Big Bang Bean), those who believe that all
> the problems HAD to have been solved from the
> start... and that therefore the only possible
> answer is An Infinitely Informed Creator (in
> other words, one cannot argue a Big Bang
> without it arguing a God).]
>
> 'The solution has been available for everyone
> to read it since the last century now on the
> internet. You can find it at:
>
> http://physics.sdrodrian.com
>
> What the "neutrino results" described below
> are actually hinting at is the fact that the
> universe is a LOT older and considerably more
> extensive than heretofore "conventionally"
> suspected. SDR]
>
> The birth of the universe 13.7 billion years ago
> created equal amounts of matter and antimatter. Since
> matter and antimatter annihilate each other when they
> come in contact, that would have left nothing to
> coalesce into stars and galaxies. There must be some
> imbalance in the laws of physics that led to a slight
> preponderance of matter over antimatter, and that
> extra bit of matter formed everything in the visible
> universe.
>
> The imbalance, some physicists believe, may be hiding
> in the dynamics of neutrinos: Neutrinos come in three
> known types, or flavors. And they can change flavor as
> they travel, a process that can occur only because of
> the smidgen of mass they carry. But the neutrino
> transformations reported in the Los Alamos data do not
> fit the three-flavor model, suggesting four flavors of
> neutrinos, if not more. Other data, from experiments
> elsewhere, have said the additional neutrinos would
> have to be "sterile" - completely oblivious to the
> rest of the universe except for gravity.
>
> The new experiment is called MiniBooNE. (BooNE,
> pronounced boon, is a contraction of Booster Neutrino
> Experiment. "Booster" refers to a Fermilab booster
> ring that accelerates protons, and "mini" was added
> because of plans for a second, larger stage to the
> research.) MiniBooNE sought to count the number of
> times one flavor of neutrino, called a muon, turned
> into another flavor, an electron neutrino. The
> experiment slams a beam of protons into a piece of
> beryllium, and the cascade of particles from the
> subatomic wreckage includes muon neutrinos that fly
> about 1,650 feet to a detection chamber, a tank 40
> feet in diameter that contains 250,000 gallons of
> mineral oil. Most of the neutrinos fly through
> unscathed, but occasionally a neutrino crashes into a
> carbon atom in the mineral oil. That sets off another
> cascade of particles, which is detected by 1,280 light
> detectors mounted on the inside of the tank. From the
> pattern of the cascades, the physicists distinguish
> whether the incoming neutrino was of muon flavor or
> electron. To minimize the chances of fooling
> themselves, they deliberately did not look at any of
> the electron neutrino events until they felt they had
> adequately understood the much more common muon
> neutrino events. They finally "opened the box" on
> their electron neutrino data on March 26 and began the
> analysis leading to their announcement yesterday.
>
> For most of the neutrino energy range they looked at,
> they did not see any more electron neutrinos than
> would be predicted by the Standard Model. That ruled
> out the simplest ways of interpreting the Los Alamos
> neutrino data, Dr. Conrad and Dr. Louis said. But at
> the lower energies, the scientists did see more
> electron neutrinos than predicted: 369, rather than
> the predicted 273. That may simply mean that some
> calculations are off. Or it could point to a subtler
> interplay of particles, known and unknown.
>
> "It's tantalizing," said Boris Kayser, a Fermilab
> physicist not on the MiniBooNE project. "It could be
> real. But this remains to be established." Dr. Louis
> said he was surprised by the results. "I was sort of
> expecting a clear excess or no excess," he said. "In a
> sense, we got both."
>
>
> S D Rodrian
> http://poems.sdrodrian.com
> http://physics.sdrodrian.com
> http://mp3.sdrodrian.com
>
> All religions are local. Only science is universal.
>
date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 15:35:09 GMT
author: zookumar yelubandi
|
Re: How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
zookumar yelubandi wrote:
> People might actually listen to what you may have to say,
> SDRodrian, if they didn't have doubts about your integrity as a
> scientist and as an intellectual. To quell their doubts, please explain
> to them that WTC7 did indeed collapse as a direct consequence of
> controlled implosions, and not as the byproduct of plans of men with
> cave man memes and Arabian genes.
>
> Scream out loudly that it was an inside job performed by
> neoCons/zioCons and general con men, and then you'll be free to explain
> your theories about the Universe without eliciting looks of suspicion.
>
> -zookumar-
Go kiss a cow or something.
date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 14:14:53 -0500
author: unknown
|
Re: How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
wrote in message
news:46e98$462279bb$49ecfe5$21512@DIALUPUSA.NET...
> zookumar yelubandi wrote:
>> People might actually listen to what you may have to say,
>> SDRodrian, if they didn't have doubts about your integrity as a
>> scientist and as an intellectual. To quell their doubts, please
>> explain
>> to them that WTC7 did indeed collapse as a direct consequence of
>> controlled implosions, and not as the byproduct of plans of men with
>> cave man memes and Arabian genes. Scream out loudly that it was an
>> inside job performed by
>> neoCons/zioCons and general con men, and then you'll be free to
>> explain
>> your theories about the Universe without eliciting looks of
>> suspicion.
>> -zookumar-
Not so. The situation is, I only get to see Zook's postings when someone
responds to him. Above is an example of his tedious ploy in baiting,
entrapping and labeling someone who doesn't agree with his paranoid
world view.
How arrogant it is to believe that one's view is the absolute truth. On
the bright side, sdr has so far been too smart to even nibble the bait.
Phil H
date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 12:34:31 -0800
author: Phil Holman piholmanc@yourservice
|
Re: How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
Phil Holman wrote:
> wrote in message
> news:46e98$462279bb$49ecfe5$21512@DIALUPUSA.NET...
>
>>zookumar yelubandi wrote:
>>
>>> People might actually listen to what you may have to say,
>>>SDRodrian, if they didn't have doubts about your integrity as a
>>>scientist and as an intellectual. To quell their doubts, please
>>>explain
>>>to them that WTC7 did indeed collapse as a direct consequence of
>>>controlled implosions, and not as the byproduct of plans of men with
>>>cave man memes and Arabian genes. Scream out loudly that it was an
>>>inside job performed by
>>>neoCons/zioCons and general con men, and then you'll be free to
>>>explain
>>>your theories about the Universe without eliciting looks of
>>>suspicion.
>>> -zookumar-
>
>
> Not so. The situation is, I only get to see Zook's postings when someone
> responds to him.
And I should stop doing that.
> Above is an example of his tedious ploy in baiting,
> entrapping and labeling someone who doesn't agree with his paranoid
> world view.
>
> How arrogant it is to believe that one's view is the absolute truth. On
> the bright side, sdr has so far been too smart to even nibble the bait.
>
> Phil H
>
>
date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 16:29:59 -0500
author: unknown
|
Re: How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
"sdr" wrote in message
news:1176616869.509852.194080@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
A sturdy flak vest.
And thermal underwear.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 23:53:31 -0600
author: Denis Loubet
|
Re: How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
On 15 Apr, 07:01, "sdr" wrote:
> How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
Bob600 replies:- It did not, what you see is only the rubble left over
from the destruction of the "real" universe. After all there has to be
some rubbish left over, and we are it.
date: 19 Apr 2007 13:06:33 -0700
author: bob600
|
Re: How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
Crouching in a bomb shelter?
date: 19 Apr 2007 19:51:09 -0700
author: Don Stockbauer
|
Re: How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
On Apr 19, 8:51 pm, Don Stockbauer wrote:
> How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
>
> Crouching in a bomb shelter?
By smoking the Big Cigarette?
date: 20 Apr 2007 04:42:12 -0700
author: Don Stockbauer
|
Re: How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
People might actually listen to what you may have to say,
SDRodrian, if they didn't have doubts about your integrity as a
scientist and as an intellectual. To quell their doubts, please explain
to them that WTC7 did indeed collapse as a direct consequence of
controlled implosions, and not as the byproduct of plans of men with
cave man memes and Arabian genes.
Scream out loudly that it was an inside job performed by
neoCons/zioCons and general con men, and then you'll be free to explain
your theories about the Universe without eliciting looks of suspicion.
-zookumar-
sdr wrote:
> How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
> In This Experiment, Clues Remain Elusive
> By KENNETH CHANG
> Published in New York Times April 12, 2007
>
> An experiment some hoped would reveal a new class of
> subatomic particles, and perhaps even point to clues
> about why the universe exists at all, has instead
> produced a first round of results that are
> mysteriously inconclusive. "What we got was
> intellectually interesting," said Janet M. Conrad,
> professor of physics at Columbia University and a
> spokeswoman for a collaboration that involves 77
> scientists at 17 institutions. "We have to figure out
> what it is."
>
> Dr. Conrad and William C. Louis, a physicist at Los
> Alamos National Laboratory, presented their initial
> findings in a talk yesterday at the Fermi National
> Accelerator Laboratory, outside Chicago, where the
> experiment is being performed. The goal was to confirm
> or refute observations made in the 90s in a Los Alamos
> experiment that observed transformations in the
> evanescent but bountiful particles known as neutrinos.
> Neutrinos have no electrical charge and almost no
> mass, but there are so many of them that they could
> collectively outweigh all the stars in the universe.
>
> Many physicists remain skeptical about the Los Alamos
> findings, but the new experiment has attracted wide
> interest. The Fermilab auditorium was filled with some
> 800 people, and talks were given at the 16 additional
> institutions by other collaborating scientists. That
> reflected in part the hope of finding cracks in the
> Standard Model, which encapsulates physicists' current
> knowledge about fundamental particles and forces. The
> Standard Model has proved remarkably effective and
> accurate, but it cannot answer some fundamental
> questions, like why the universe did not completely
> annihilate itself an instant after the Big Bang.
>
> [The answer is quite simple/elegant: There
> never was a "Big Bang." The universe is the
> result of an evolution--and as with any
> evolution, there is always enough time
> allowed for all the factors involved to bring
> about the overall harmony and consistency
> which eventually gives the impression to
> those who believe (like those who believe
> that the universe erupted magically from the
> Big Bang Bean), those who believe that all
> the problems HAD to have been solved from the
> start... and that therefore the only possible
> answer is An Infinitely Informed Creator (in
> other words, one cannot argue a Big Bang
> without it arguing a God).]
>
> 'The solution has been available for everyone
> to read it since the last century now on the
> internet. You can find it at:
>
> http://physics.sdrodrian.com
>
> What the "neutrino results" described below
> are actually hinting at is the fact that the
> universe is a LOT older and considerably more
> extensive than heretofore "conventionally"
> suspected. SDR]
>
> The birth of the universe 13.7 billion years ago
> created equal amounts of matter and antimatter. Since
> matter and antimatter annihilate each other when they
> come in contact, that would have left nothing to
> coalesce into stars and galaxies. There must be some
> imbalance in the laws of physics that led to a slight
> preponderance of matter over antimatter, and that
> extra bit of matter formed everything in the visible
> universe.
>
> The imbalance, some physicists believe, may be hiding
> in the dynamics of neutrinos: Neutrinos come in three
> known types, or flavors. And they can change flavor as
> they travel, a process that can occur only because of
> the smidgen of mass they carry. But the neutrino
> transformations reported in the Los Alamos data do not
> fit the three-flavor model, suggesting four flavors of
> neutrinos, if not more. Other data, from experiments
> elsewhere, have said the additional neutrinos would
> have to be "sterile" - completely oblivious to the
> rest of the universe except for gravity.
>
> The new experiment is called MiniBooNE. (BooNE,
> pronounced boon, is a contraction of Booster Neutrino
> Experiment. "Booster" refers to a Fermilab booster
> ring that accelerates protons, and "mini" was added
> because of plans for a second, larger stage to the
> research.) MiniBooNE sought to count the number of
> times one flavor of neutrino, called a muon, turned
> into another flavor, an electron neutrino. The
> experiment slams a beam of protons into a piece of
> beryllium, and the cascade of particles from the
> subatomic wreckage includes muon neutrinos that fly
> about 1,650 feet to a detection chamber, a tank 40
> feet in diameter that contains 250,000 gallons of
> mineral oil. Most of the neutrinos fly through
> unscathed, but occasionally a neutrino crashes into a
> carbon atom in the mineral oil. That sets off another
> cascade of particles, which is detected by 1,280 light
> detectors mounted on the inside of the tank. From the
> pattern of the cascades, the physicists distinguish
> whether the incoming neutrino was of muon flavor or
> electron. To minimize the chances of fooling
> themselves, they deliberately did not look at any of
> the electron neutrino events until they felt they had
> adequately understood the much more common muon
> neutrino events. They finally "opened the box" on
> their electron neutrino data on March 26 and began the
> analysis leading to their announcement yesterday.
>
> For most of the neutrino energy range they looked at,
> they did not see any more electron neutrinos than
> would be predicted by the Standard Model. That ruled
> out the simplest ways of interpreting the Los Alamos
> neutrino data, Dr. Conrad and Dr. Louis said. But at
> the lower energies, the scientists did see more
> electron neutrinos than predicted: 369, rather than
> the predicted 273. That may simply mean that some
> calculations are off. Or it could point to a subtler
> interplay of particles, known and unknown.
>
> "It's tantalizing," said Boris Kayser, a Fermilab
> physicist not on the MiniBooNE project. "It could be
> real. But this remains to be established." Dr. Louis
> said he was surprised by the results. "I was sort of
> expecting a clear excess or no excess," he said. "In a
> sense, we got both."
>
>
> S D Rodrian
> http://poems.sdrodrian.com
> http://physics.sdrodrian.com
> http://mp3.sdrodrian.com
>
> All religions are local. Only science is universal.
>
date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 15:35:09 GMT
author: zookumar yelubandi
|
Re: How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
zookumar yelubandi wrote:
> People might actually listen to what you may have to say,
> SDRodrian, if they didn't have doubts about your integrity as a
> scientist and as an intellectual. To quell their doubts, please explain
> to them that WTC7 did indeed collapse as a direct consequence of
> controlled implosions, and not as the byproduct of plans of men with
> cave man memes and Arabian genes.
>
> Scream out loudly that it was an inside job performed by
> neoCons/zioCons and general con men, and then you'll be free to explain
> your theories about the Universe without eliciting looks of suspicion.
>
> -zookumar-
Go kiss a cow or something.
date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 14:14:53 -0500
author: unknown
|
Re: How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang?
wrote in message
news:46e98$462279bb$49ecfe5$21 | |