It strikes me after watching Trump's
performance in Europe and everyone's reaction to it that we have
forgotten who we are. Whether or not Trump has been deliberately
trying to destabilize the United States, Europe, or our alliances, in
some kind of payback to Putin for past monetary favors is really
irrelevant to what we need to focus on. That question is for others
to investigate. No, what we as Americans or citizens of what is
called the West need to remember is something larger.
Why was America created, why did we in
the West fight against Nazi Germany? Simply put it was to create a
world where people do have a say in their own governance. It was to
create a world where we the people could get to decide how our lives
are lived. We did not want to leave it up to a single person, like a
dictator or a king/queen, to control how we lived. Sure, we the
people have made mistakes, it comes with being human. Yes, even
that greed that rears its head in the search for easy money. But
because we have made mistakes does not mean we need a single “strong
man” to tell us how to live.
President Trump has continually
attacked the press as giving us “fake news”. We need to remember
that the press, even with all its faults, does serve a purpose. It
is our eyes and ears to events and actions taken by others on our
behalf. It is our watchdog, and that is the real reason it is being
attacked by President Trump. There is a scene from the movie “The
Post” which says it best.
President Trump has attacked our allies
and our alliances, for whatever reason, but we need to remember that
they were put in place for a reason. They are not our enemies.
They may not have always agreed with everything we did, but they have
stood our friends when needed the most. And before we throw them
over for someone like Putin it would be in our interest to also
remember who Putin really is. His idea of governance is exactly what we have fought against.
We the people have some strong tools
put in place to make sure that government by the people, for the
people continues to exist. But it is really up to us to exercise
them.
As long as we believe in ourselves, we
can overcome those who would tear us apart.
244 comments:
1 – 200 of 244 Newer› Newest»"…the basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the
very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to
decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or
newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to
prefer the latter."
Thomas Jefferson, writing from Paris, 16 Jan 1787
[Troll]: "Nope, wrong; not true [that everything interacts with gravity]."
Oh, I'm sure it won't be true after y'all get through with semantics and redefinin' the meanin' of "thing". It also ain't true that neutrino interactions with gravity depend on their mass, like ya imagined. Of course, yore imaginin' will be reimagined as ya try to weasel out of that one too. We're well used to yer neuroses by this stage.
"Oh, I'm sure it won't be true after y'all get through with
semantics and redefinin' the meanin' of 'thing'."
Wrong ‛thing’ ya found to concentrate your attention on there. It was the verb ya screwed up. However, I'll take primary note of the ‛I'm sure it won't be true’ part and I'll interpret that as an admission of your error, and I'll let the rest of your errors slide this time. (Including your pretense that I meant to assert that ‛neutrino interactions with gravity depend on their mass’, which is 1) not precisely true, and 2) certainly not what I meant to say, but rather what you'd like to pretend I meant--and I'll just let those errors go mostly unchallenged this time. I'll take the admission that you screwed it up--again--and just call that sufficient this time.)
(After all, no real point in dragging you all about on this new thread when I can just accept your concession and move on. It's not like either Marcus nor Lynnette really give a shit.)
[Lynnette]: " It [the press] is our watchdog, and that is the real reason it is being attacked by President Trump."
A lot of the media stopped being any kind of useful watchdog years ago. Most of them are partisan guardians of their own favourite orthodoxy. I'm not saying Trump's reason for attacking them is noble, but I do think it's naive to paint them as any kind of beacon of truth. I still defend their right to exist, but in polarised societies it is only reasonable to assume that the media is also polarised.
As for Trump, this leftie fantasy that he is a wannabe dictator trying to curtail freedoms is delusional. There is a much more simple explanation for Trump and his motivations. He has a huge and fragile ego and it makes him an overbearing idiot. The baby blimp captures him pretty well. Most people realise their ego has to be reined in for social reasons before they reach age ten. People just won't put up with non-stop bragging and tantrums.
He told CBS today that he'd given Theresa May strong and wise advice, and he thought she might follow it sometime in the future. But he said he'd leave it to her to reveal it. As it happens she did, on the UK's most watched Sunday morning political show. And the advice was ... to sue the EU! It's not even worth going into how childishly, utterly, stupid Trump's "wise" advice was. What's more important is that he actually believes he had sorted out all the UK's problems if only they would listen to him. The man is a cretin.
However, he is not the monster that the equally moronic left allege. And by making him a monster instead of an idiot, the left is gonna be instrumental in getting him reelected. Which may be a good thing as their last candidate actually was a monster. But it's painful to watch politics devouring itself.
[Troll]: "It's not like either Marcus nor Lynnette really give a shit."
About lectures on neutrinos from you? Well I'll grant ya one thing: ya'd prolly qualify for a degree in statin' the obvious, if not much else.
"…in polarised societies it is only reasonable to assume
that the media is also polarised."
Studies have shown that the more partisan a party is, the more partisan they believe the bulk of the press to be.
It is true that partisan press exists. (FoxNews and MSNBC are ready examples.) It does not follow that the bulk of the ‛Mainstream Media’ is highly partisan.
It is probably more correct to say that the truth is biased against the pronouncements of Trump (and against FoxNews).
"About lectures on neutrinos from you?"
Nope, I meant that they probably don't care about the additional errors you piled on in that last little spiel of yours (Petes @ Sun Jul 15, 02:13:00 pm ↑↑. Fairly intensely wrong in just a few lines right there; I'm somewhat surprised at your ability to pack multiple errors into such a tight little bundle there, but, the important point is your admission on the earlier errors. So, we'll just let that last little batch slide by this time.)
Just to remind "yore audience":
[Troll @ Sun Jul 15, 02:25:00 pm]: "...your pretense that I meant to assert that ‛neutrino interactions with gravity depend on their mass’"
[Troll @ Thu Jul 12, 07:22:00 pm]: "They interact gravitationally. They have mass, not a lot of mass, but there are a lot of them to help make up for that."
Troll wants "his audience" to believe that he jes' threw in that stuff about mass as a fun factoid, nothin' to do with the gravitational interaction. One suspects he's been studyin' Trump a bit too closely. Got his own line of pseudo-scientific fake news goin' on right there.
Particles with mass interact gravitationally with other particles. This is not the same thing as your apparent discovery of ‛neutrino interactions with gravity’ itself (which I'll leave to you for definition, being myself uninterested in your new theory of ‛neutrino gravitation’).
I remember when Cindy Sheehan was carryin’ on ‛bout how the ‛mainstream media’ was biased to the right and was covering up the Bush administration's errors and omissions regarding the war in Iraq.
The wingnuts on both sides are always certain that the middling-centered free press is biased against them.
Petes is convinced it's biased against his causes. Not hard to figure that one out. ♫♪One and one and one is three♫♪
"
Probably ought to rephrase that one line before Petes tries to make it out as some sort of lie on account of not being sufficiently precise. So, let's do that again, just to head him off.
"Particles with mass interact gravitationally with other particles with mass".
There: That oughta shut him down finally.
"What's more important is that he actually believes
he had sorted out all the UK's problems if only they
would listen to him."
That's likely not true. If Trump actually thought he had the answer, he'd be falling all over himself trying to make himself heard on the subject.
I'm looking at your repeated attempts to shore up faith Trump as an essentially benign force and the only conclusion I can come up with is that you're a dumbass. And you're committed to it. A dedicated Trumpkin of your own special sort.
LOL. The troll must be gettin' incautious in his old age. Didn't think he'd out himself as an oaf quite so easily, That kinda suggests he actually thinks his statements about neutrino mass and gravity made sense. I figgered he realised he was wrong and would do everything to avoid sayin' any more. But I underestimated his dumbness. If I had somethin' other than an iPad to type on I'd explain it, but that'll have to wait.
Perhaps it'll be interesting to see what new things you come up with and want to pretend are old things. So, I'll wait.
(But then again, might not be interesting, so, doesn't mean I'll change my mind and decide to feign interest in your new theories, but I'll wait.)
Just to mention: I never said Trump was essentially benign. He was the least worst option between yore crappy presidential candidates. Anything else you have inferred is fake news ;-)
It's been raining here for the last six hours. At first it was warm rain that evaporated almost as soon as it hit the ground. But now it's proper cool Irish rain, and the temperature has fallen to 17 degreees. It's delicious! I can almost hear the grass gasping in relief. And the north western horizon is clearing to a rainy purple sunset. Just gorgeous.
"I never said Trump was essentially benign."
You're arguing semantics. And we both know it. And I ain't interested in that argument.
He didn't say in public what his "solution" would have been because it was all bullshit. Suing the the E.U. was never gonna work and he knew it and she knew it and most of all the British public would have known it, and that is why he wouldn't say it out loud. It was bullshit off the git and Trump did not actually believe that ‛he had sorted out all the UK's problems if only they would listen to him’. That was bullshit and apparently you are the only one here who doesn't already know that.
You are a dumbass.
Oh, and one other thing to close with…
Your opinion that Trump was the ‛least worst option’ has absolute nothing to do with the fact that Trump had no workable solution to offer the Brits, and everybody knows that, including Trump, except Petes the dumbass.
Pleading against Hillary don't save ya on that one.
Oh, yeah, and one other thing to remember whilst Petes is off ‛googlin' furiously’ as he calls it… Well, two things actually:
1.
"[Neutrinos'] only interaction with other matter is via
the weak nuclear force…"
Petes @ Thu Jul 12, 07:15:00 pm (previous page)
That was wrong. And…
2.
"Everything interacts with gravity…"
Petes @ Thu Jul 12, 08:23:00 pm (previous
page; emphasis in original)
That was wrong too.
Now Petes is off somewhere ‛googlin' furiously’, no doubt (that's become something of a ‛tell’ with him) and he's lookin’ hard for a third thing to be wrong about.
Perhaps it will be interesting.
"Suing the the E.U. was never gonna work and he knew it and she knew it and most of all the British public would have known it, and that is why he wouldn't say it out loud. It was bullshit off the git and Trump did not actually believe that ‛he had sorted out all the UK's problems if only they would listen to him’. That was bullshit and apparently you are the only one here who doesn't already know that."
If it was bullshit and he knew it was bullshit he was runnin' a big risk suggestin' that Theresa May might mention it. And mention it she did, just a few hours later. So either he's a moron -- which I already said -- or you're a moron. But most likely both. They ain't mutually exclusive propositions.
"If it was bullshit and he knew it was bullshit he was runnin'
a big risk suggestin' that Theresa May might mention it."
He doesn't consider that a big risk; he routinely threatens to file lawsuits he has no intention of filing and he almost never pays any price for it. (For just one instance… He threatened to sue those dozen or so women who accused him of sexual misconduct--never filed the suit--never paid a price for the threat--no risk to those threats so far as Trump sees it.)
What price has he paid now for making the suggestion? Just like like the rest of the dedicated Trumpkins, you are unaffected by the disclosure. No loss; no risk.
Dumbass.
"What price has he paid now for making the suggestion? Just like like the rest of the dedicated Trumpkins, you are unaffected by the disclosure. No loss; no risk."
So Donald Trump had me in mind when he made that statement? Serious question -- are you on some kind of medication, or is Trump Derangement Syndrome really this debilitating to you lefties?
In fact, the Prime Minister of the UK actually laughed out loud on national TV when she mentioned Trump's suggestion. It may not matter to Trump. It may not affect his currency back home. But in the UK -- even among rightwingers -- he is a laughing stock. That will affect the British-American relationship whether Donald Trump likes it or not.
Just 'cos Trump doesn't care about his relationship with other leaders doesn't mean it is inconsequential, or might not come back to bite him. There's a bigger picture than yer own petty dislikes of "dedicated Trumpkins". (Or should I call it a neurotic obsession, as you seem to see them everywhere).
"But in the UK -- even among rightwingers -- he is
a laughing stock."
That's not new. No change; no loss, never was a risk.
Or, to put it another way…
Trump had something like an eleven or twelve percent favorability/confidence rating among the Brits, and you're telling me that the risk he took was to his political fortunes in Britain? Dumbass.
"Dumbass."
I see yore descendin' to a new level of vexatious trollin' -- just toss out any old inane comment that ya plucked out of yore ass, followed by an insult. Somethin' probably got ya more riled than usual. (Maybe yer abject failure with neutrinos). Ok, diallin' ya up to 100% ignore. Ya aren't worth wastin' any time whatever on.
Ah... Gave up on finding a new way to screw up your ‛neutrino gravitation’ idea I see. Well, okay. It was unlikely to prove interesting anyway.
And now that I am possessed of a keyboard again ... here's an explanation for Marcus and Lynnette. I am skipping loads of detail because I doubt anyone's even interested in this short version. I kept equations to a minimum (and you might have to expand your browser window to read the Unicode superscripts). I definitely ain't takin' no follow-on questions or objections from vexatious trolls who already blew their chance to engage. The troll's going on ignore, and staying there.
In Isaac Newton's theory of gravity, masses exerted a force on each other proportional to the products of the masses, and inversely proportional to the square of their separation: F = G(m1 x m2)/r², with G as a constant of proportionality). That was the kiddie science we learned at school. One might have said (as our resident troll did) that "particles with mass interact gravitationally with other particles with mass". Newton, however, was quick to point out the seeming absurdity of such action at a distance. You can read his quote here.
Be all that as it may, Newton's theory, along with a number of mathematical reformulations that made problem solving easier, remained successful for two hundred years. Then some problems began to mount up. One was an apparent problem with the orbit of the planet Mercury. For a while astronomers thought it was being disturbed by a hidden planet, Vulcan, but this proved to be a red herring. The answer had to wait for Einstein's General Theory of Relativity (GR) in 1915 which solved the Mercury problem and also predicted a deflection of starlight near the Sun which would be triumphantly confirmed by Eddington during an eclipse in 1919.
It is impossible to summarise General Relativity in a few paragraphs, nor even the gravitational part of it. Suffice it to say that it is a metric theory, one which describes how to make measurements in space and time. Indeed, space and time are not separate entities, but a single manifold whose dimensions and curvature can change depending on the conditions at each point. The conditions we are interested in here are described by something called the stress-energy tensor. It sounds complicated but it's just a description of the amount of matter and energy in a region, plus the rate at which it is moving or flowing.
The essential point is that the quantity of matter and energy causes space to curve. Objects moving through that curved space will travel on curved trajectories, called geodesics. Gravity in GR is not a ghostly force between particles that acts at a distance, but merely curved space. The great physicist John Archibald Wheeler summed it up succinctly: "matter tells space how to curve; space tells matter how to move". I note here that it is perfectly acceptable to say (as many physicists have) that "matter interacts with gravity". Actually, it is more accurate than saying that matter interacts with other matter. Since gravity is just curved spacetime, everything that travels in spacetime interacts with gravity. That includes all matter and radiant energy. That's how Einstein could predict the deflection of starlight by the large mass of the Sun.
(cont'd ...)
(... cont'd)
Ok, now we move onto another aspect. As I mentioned, the stress-energy tensor deals not only with mass but with energy and momentum. Energy can curve spacetime just as well as matter. Particles with no rest mass at all, such as photons, interact with gravity. Indeed, matter and energy are interchangeable, as most people know from relativity's most famous equation, E = mc². Here m is the so-called rest mass of an object. But a moving object also has momentum in addition to its rest mass-energy. Photons have momentum too, given by a combination of Planck's and de Broglie's equations p = E/c. So photons can also bend spacetime. Paul Dirac came up with the most general equation for the energy of a system with both rest mass, m, and momentum, p. The square of the energy is given by: E² = m²c⁴ + p²c². We can easily see that for a non-moving matter particle which has no momentum, this just simplifies to Einstein's equation for the rest mass. For a photon with zero rest mass it just simplifies to the Planck/de Broglie equations.
Usually the Dirac energy-momentum relation is dominated either by the rest mass component for slow-moving matter, or the momentum component for zero-rest-mass photons. But if matter particles are moving very close to the speed of light, their energy may be dominated by their momentum rather than their rest mass. We write this as pc >> mc², and we refer to it as the ultrarelativistic limit. Neutrinos, as we shall see, are essentially always at the ultrarelativistic limit. Their rest mass is neglible compared to their momentum. And therefore their coupling to gravity is dominated by the latter rather than the former. As far as gravity is concerned, they behave more like photons than matter particles.
I'm going to skip quickly over this bit, otherwise it would be longer than all the rest of the explanation. There are different types or flavours of neutrinos. We don't know the mass of each type, but we know the sum of the masses of all the types. It's about 0.3eV, where the eV or electron volt is a very small unit of energy (which remember is equivalent to mass). By comparison, the mass of a single proton or neutron is nearly a billion electron volts. We have three lines of evidence for ultrarelativistic neutrinos. The first is that they travel extremely close to the speed of light, as evidenced by the almost simultaneous arrival of light and neutrinos from the supernova SN1987A over a distance of 170,000 light years. The second is the high energies of neutrinos from astrophysical sources. The one in Lynnette's original article was at 290 TeV -- a trillion times more than the highest possible rest mass of any neutrino. The third line of evidence comes from the source of the vast majority of neutrinos in our vicinity, the Sun. We know which exact reactions produce our Sun's energy, and that 2% of that is carried away by neutrinos. We can work out that each solar neutrino has between several hundred thousand and several million times the rest mass energy of the neutrino. Again, its rest mass is negligible compared to its total energy.
To summarise what I've said here and have said all along: 1) Everything interacts with gravity; 2) the mass of neutrinos is inconsequential to their interaction with gravity.
So, after all that. We went from Petes' assertion that massless particles interact with gravity (which they do not) to "energy curves spacetime", which is arguably true inasmuch as E=mc².
Actually, depending on which theoretical physicist one wants to quote, gravity either is or is not a "force", or maybe is not "just" a force. One can find physicists willing to argue any of those postions.
Petes is just playing games with the varying descriptions, using elements of whichever one will serve best to confuse. However, he's got one thing consistently wrong; it's wrong every time he mentions it. Gravity is not the curvature of space time according to Einstein's theory. Rather, gravity is the result of the curvature of space time. And, it's to that curvature that cross-traveling photons react--which is different from ‛interact’.
Nope, Petes, it wasn't interesting after all. Wasn't even a good try.
Of course, some physicists are still looking for the still elusive ‛graviton’ which would be a particle rather than a force, if it exists.
Oh, and one final point to illustrate Petes' duplicity in that two-comment spanning spiel just above. It opened with…
"…here's an explanation for Marcus and Lynnette."
Let's get real here folks. Who actually believes Petes expected, or even wanted, either of you to follow that?
Come on, really? You really believe that was for you?
That wasn't an explanation for you; that was intended as a smokescreen.
Couple of days ago when Petes actually wanted you to understand what he was saying he managed to say it in English, (more or less) for three whole comment bodies. Not an equation in sight and as few jargon bits as he could bring himself to. (‛the short blurb’) That's what happens when he wants you to understand. (Didn't exactly help Marcus.)
What you see above is what happens when he damn well doesn't want you to understand. (Thing is I happened to understand it--which was also not his intention, but, shit happens.)
"Here's an explanation for Marcus and Lynnette."
No, really this time. We got a fella here, editor of Foreign Policy magazine, who makes the case for finding Trump guilty of treason (something Lynnette has mentioned before), just on the basis of facts we know already.
This may go a little beyond my understanding of the definition of treason, but he makes a case for his definition that I thought worthy of lookin’ at, even if I don't fully agree with him.
David Ignatius, (not usually given to breathless speculations) in the Washington Post. Putin must wonder what else America knows
Trump's gotta wonder too.
"The indictment also sends a message to President
Trump and members of his entourage who are
potential targets of Mueller’s probe: Here’s a hint of
what we know; how much are you willing to wager that
we don’t know a lot more about Russian contacts and
collusion?"
A vid with Scott Adams, who is a bit wacky at the best of times, discussing Trump Derangement Syndrome. It seems to me he has a couple of valid points about the cognitive dissonance of people who just could not accept that Trump could possibly win the presidency. Instead of realising "I've been a f*cking idiot" ... they make up stories about how there are more racists in the country than they realised, that Trump colluded with the Russians, and so on.
So, Petes gives us, as support for the Petes' position, a guy ‛who is a bit wacky at the best of times’. I'm not sure I should be surprised.
Here's a thought: What happens when the President of the United States can't trust his NSA to sweep the meeting room for bugs? Doesn't that mean that the Brits or the Germans or the like only have to outsmart the Russians? And are the Finns gonna be real coöperative with the Russians there?
Just watched the Trump-Putin press conference. I'd say the American president and the American press embarrassed themselves equally. Responding to questions about Russian election meddling, Trump let loose with both barrels on the FBI and why they didn't commandeer Clinton emails and DNC email servers. He refused to say that he trusted US intelligence more than Russian intelligence.
In response to stupid questions about whether the Russians had compromising material on Trump, Putin gave it the derision it deserved. Obviously the dedicated anti-Trumpkins have emboldened these morons to the extent they're prepared to parade their conspiracy nonsense in public. What a pity, as there are real issues that Trump could be held to account for.
We know that the Trump campaign made no less than three separate attempts to open a secret ‛back door’ communications channel with the Russians, unknown to rest of the American government. We further know that the Trump campaign was eager to engage in ‛collusion’ with the Russians to defeat Hillary. (We have the e-mail from Trump Jr. on that last one.)
Petes would have us believe that the Russians somehow never found a way to take advantage of these opportunities.
Haven't read the comments yet...just came from a headline about the Trump/Putin news conference. Sounds like Trump performed quite well...for Putin. Sad, very sad.
[Petes}: He was the least worst option between yore crappy presidential candidates.
I'm going to have to totally disagree with you on this, Petes. Hillary may not have been perfect, but at least she understood she was an American.
I can almost hear the grass gasping in relief. And the north western horizon is clearing to a rainy purple sunset. Just gorgeous.
lol! While it is bad for us I always feel sorry for the poor plants and animals that don't understand what's going on but still have to suffer through it.
But in the UK -- even among rightwingers -- he is a laughing stock.
Ummm...where is he not?
I recall that David Ignatius was saying that Putin must wonder just how much the Mueller investigation knows about the Russian spy network that worked the last presidential election. Ignatius may be correct there.
Putin was suggesting that his people get a shot at investigating the American counter-espionage operations. (Trump seemed to think that was a splendid idea; ‛incredible offer’ I believe was his terminology.)
2) the mass of neutrinos is inconsequential to their interaction with gravity.
Is their mass inconsequential to their interaction with us? What I am wondering here is if we are being bombarded with these things could they possibly have an effect on us in some way that we are not aware of...yet?
The most prominent headline on the FoxNews website (as of 2:50 pm Central Time) is: "Bipartisan Backlash", followed by "Losing Bigly?" "Putin eats Trump's lunch in shocking Helsinki summit"
So, that one may not be playing quite as well among even the dedicated Trumpkins as it played with Petes.
Talk of Trump and Treason has spread to Thomas Friedman, writing in the New York Times
Money quote is near the end.
"I cannot help wondering if the first thing Trump said
to Putin in their private one-on-one meeting in Helsinki,
before their aids were allowed to enter, was actually:
‛Vladimir, we’re still good, right? You and me, we’re still
good?’"
Ezra Klien on Vox: Never mind the stuff we don't know, what we already do know is damning enough. (A summary of the evidence--kinda like the Johnathan Chait piece in the Atlantic that I linked to earlier--except much shorter and pithier)
[Lynnette]: "Hillary may not have been perfect, but at least she understood she was an American."
But not a champion for all Americans. Trump is closer to that. But I'm coming to the unfortunate conclusion that Trump's ego is overshadowing literally everything else. His diplomacy with North Korea, Europe and Russia is probably best described as reckless. He just can't stop blabbing the first thing that comes into his head. He thinks he can solve problems just by declaring that he has solved them. And he has a hard neck and no sense of shame or embarrassment.
Which is why I say again, the left's unedifying conspiracy lunacy is the thing that is currently propping him up. His dealings with NATO, Britain, and Russia have been shambolic and I think there will be fallout from his European trip. (Hopefully not that kind of fallout ;-)
"Which is why I say again, the left's unedifying con-
spiracy lunacy is the thing that is currently propping
him up."
Dumbass.
What's propping him up is a Republican Congress which is more afraid of crossing its ‛base’ in the primaries than it is afraid of the general election--gerrymandering and voter suppression have a lot to do with that. (And, I s'pect that'll probably change here in about four months. Their anti-democratic initiatives won't be enough this time, I don't think.)
[Lynnette]: "Is [the neutrino] mass inconsequential to their interaction with us? What I am wondering here is if we are being bombarded with these things could they possibly have an effect on us in some way that we are not aware of...yet?"
In high energy physics it doesn't really make sense to talk about rest masses. Energy is everything. The most energetic neutrinos detected by IceCube are in the multiple PeV range (one peta-electron Volt = one million billion eV whereas the neutrino rest mass is in single digit eV).
It's hard to convey just how negligible the rest mass is by comparison. To take an example, suppose you were on a spacewalk servicing the International Space Station and you were hit by a micro-meteoroid travelling at a typical solar system velocity. It would easily punch a hole right through you even though it was only the size of a grain of sand. With those things you do not worry about how big they are but how fast they are going. And yet the meteoroid's kinetic energy would still be a hundred million times smaller than its rest mass-energy, that is, the energy that would be released if its entire mass could be converted to energy by some nuclear process. Now consider the neutrinos we are talking about. Their kinetic energy is a million billion times bigger than their rest mass-energy.
But the meteoroid interacts via the electric force which is what makes it, and us, solid. Neutrinos do not. The only way they can transmit their energy to us is by extremely rare weak nuclear interactions. (The weak nuclear force is one of the four fundamental forces of nature, along with the strong nuclear force, electromagnetism, and gravity). When a neutrino does interact like this it causes an atomic nucleus to disintegrate and spit out new particles. If one such interaction was to occur inside your body, and you were unlucky enough for it to disrupt a DNA molecule in a particular way, it could conceivably cause cancer. But the chances of this being caused by neutrinos is vastly, vastly smaller than from other sources like ultraviolet rays from the sun or terrestrial radioactivity.
"The only way they can transmit their energy to us is by
extremely rare weak nuclear interactions."
That's not true either. That's not even the primary manner in which they ‛transmit energy to us’ I don't think so anyway, but it's certainly not the only way. They often just bounce the nucleus around enough to disrupt the electron shell circling the nucleus, maybe even bounce an electron or two clear entirely and create an ion. Usually the electrons just drop back into their proper places (releasing photons in the process; the photons can be detected).
Just in case anyone is in any doubt that the resident troll is just furiously Googlin' for any nitpicking pissy little exceptions, here is Professor Martin Pohl, a CERN particle physicist, head of the physics department and director of particle physics at Geneva University... you only have to listen to the very first sentence of this lecture video to hear him introduce neutrinos, the only particles WHICH INTERACT EXCLUSIVELY BY WEAK INTERACTIONS. Let's not forget those dozens of posts and the last five days of sour grapes from the vexatious troll as he disputed this. Troll's got some sort of massive neurosis about been schooled by anyone. He just can't let it go. But don't let him fool ya that he knows jackshit about shit.
Ah, I see that Petes has been ‛googling furiously’ as he calls it.
Well, yes, there are indeed some physicists who adhere to the Petes school of science, where it is, as Petes puts it, ‛perfectly acceptable’ to make grand pronouncements which just happen to not be true.
For instance:
"I note here that it is perfectly acceptable to say (as
many physicists have) that 'matter interacts with
gravity’."
Petes @ Sun Jul 15, 09:34:00 pm ↑↑
Although that isn't actually true.
It nevertheless is true that neutrinos often just knock a nucleus around and dislodge some electrons from the electron shell in the process. Usually the electrons find their way back to their proper places, and emit photons in the process. So, bustin’ up the nucleus is most certainly not the only way they interact with more normal matter. (I'll have to do a little googling to confirm that--I'm makin’ this statement off the top of my head, but I'm confident I'll find the confirmation after just a few minutes of fairly non-furious googling.)
Ah, yes! Here we go… Scientific American, August of last year, ‛bout a quarter way down the page:
"Of course, once a neutrino and a nucleus collide, the
collision must still be detected. The neutrino bounces
off and continues its inscrutable wandering but the
nucleus also recoils slightly from the impact. That jolt
kicks a few electrons out of their orbits around the
nucleus and its neighbors. As the electrons fall back
into place, they release their acquired energy as
photons. Each burst of photons is the calling card of a
neutrino."
The troll simply dudn't get it. Neutrinos only interact by weak interactions. Neutrino scattering -- which happens at low energies -- IS STILL A WEAK INTERACTION. Troll imagines it's billiard balls all the way down. Low energies (as that vid tells you) means less than the Z-boson mass. Thats 80 GeV, almost the bottom of the range of detectable neutrino energies at IceCube. At the TeV to PeV range, we are not talkin' about gently shakin' a few electrons. Troll's furious Googlin' jes' ain't helpin' the pathetic creature catch up.
Oh yeah, could have told the troll that Sci Am article is about the first observation of elastic neutrino scattering which has been predicted for some decades but never before observed. BECAUSE IT IS RARE. Where will the quest to be vexatious lead the poor troll next.
And did I mention that when physicists calculate neutrino interaction cross sections they take the (very close) approximation of zero rest mass. Which makes a further mockery of the troll's rabbitin' on for days about gravitational interactions.
"Oh yeah, could have told the troll that…"
I ain't interested in what you claim you ‛could have told’ us now that you're lookin’ at it with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.
Point is you told it wrong before you had the benefit of hindsight.
And you been doin’ a lot of that lately.
And, it also appears that Petes is hard bent on discovering an ‛unedifying [liberal] conspiracy lunacy’ against Trump, based mostly on the fact that he keeps screwin’ up his physics lecturing here, and he thinks that's the way to get back at me for his screw ups. (Just from the looks of things.)
And…
That ‛ignore’ thing ain't workin’ for him neither. (Petes @ Sun Jul 15, 09:27:00 pm ↑↑)
The 'ignore' thing is workin' just fine. If you're gonna make a trollish quip after every time I make a comment to someone else, I'm gonna feel free to point out what a clueless asshole you are. Just so ya don't get to mislead everyone. Fact is, the 'ignore' thing is my prerogative, not yours. Ya can help it along by buttin' out of stuff that's none of yore bidness, but nobody thinks that's gonna happen, so regular whuppins are still called for.
"Ya can help it along…"
You keep sayin’ shit that ain't true. I got no reason at all to wanna help that along. Which is why you been gettin’ those regular whuppins.
"…the 'ignore' thing is my prerogative, not yours."
It's a farce is what it is. You got absolutely no self-control. That's why you're fat.
LOL. I really do have to laugh out loud at the troll. Last time round, when we were discussin' a mathematical fallacy, he claimed that thousands of people on the interwebs were wrong and he was right. Now we've got a bona fide frickin' NUCLEAR PHYSICIST FROM CERN tellin' him straight to his face that neutrinos interact exclusively by the weak force. And he's still got the sheer brass neck to try and tough it out. Donald Trump hisself would be in awe of the intransigence. ;-)
@ Lynnette,
Hannity and Tucker Carlson should be on-air tonight; both of them did ‛interviews’ with Trump after his meeting and short press session today. (Carlson's interview is supposed to actually air tomorrow I think, although Hannity's ought to be on-air tonight.) Anyway, point ain't to watch; I don't have cable TV anyway.
But, I's thinking that the dedicated Trumpkin's counter-attack should be able to launch tomorrow after they help him concoct the preliminary outline of some sort of counter-attack tonight.
"…he claimed that thousands of people on the interwebs
were wrong and he was right."
I never got around to discussing those imaginary thousands of people on the internet whom you thought you'd conjured up. That was all happenin’ in your imagination. (Just for the record--don't matter much otherwise these days.)
@ Lynnette,
I've been thinking about the calls that're going out for everybody who's anybody on national security issues to resign from Team Trump--mostly I was thinking at first that this was just nonsense. If they weren't gonna resign on their own, then call for their resignations by Trump's opponents wasn't gonna sway them.
But, it has occurred to me that this is maybe where some folks are laying down markers for the future. People who stick with Trump after this week can expect to be forever marked as pariahs post-Trump. I'm beginning to think that's the point, to be able to make a clean break with Trump as soon as we can be rid of Trump--folks who stick with him here will never be able to come back again. Other folks wanna get their markers down now.
Oh, and one other thing, just for the record, before I wander off for the evening.
"BECAUSE IT IS RARE."
Petes @ Mon Jul 16, 08:47:00 pm ↑↑
Well, no, that's not true either. Impacts which just bounce the nucleus around a bit are not noticeably rarer than collisions which break up the nucleus. (Just for the record.)
"Now we've got a bona fide frickin' NUCLEAR
PHYSICIST FROM CERN tellin' him straight to his face
that neutrinos interact exclusively by the weak force.
And he's still got the sheer brass… [to say]…"
Petes @ Mon Jul 16, 09:17:00 pm ↑↑
"Everything interacts with gravity…"
Petes @ Thu Jul 12, 08:23:00 pm (previous
page; emphasis in original)
New attempts by Russian agents to infiltrate the National Rifle Association (and from that perch gain priviledged entrance to the upper levels of the Republican Party) Vox
(I gotta admit I would not have thought of that one--launder campaign contributions from Russia through the NRA--I never would have thought of it myself.)
I was kinda expecting to see a twitterstorm this morning on the Trump account, but, nothin’…
Day's still young I guess; it could still happen, but he's off to slow start if he's startin’ today.
[Troll]: "Now we've got a bona fide frickin' NUCLEAR PHYSICIST FROM CERN tellin' him straight to his face that neutrinos interact exclusively by the weak force. And he's still got the sheer brass… [to say]…" Petes @ Mon Jul 16, 09:17:00 pm ↑↑
"Everything interacts with gravity…" Petes @ Thu Jul 12, 08:23:00 pm (previous page; emphasis in original)
Yup. Real slowly, one more time: a nuclear physicist from CERN says that neutrinos interact exclusively by the weak force because everything interacts with gravity so it would be superfluous to mention that.
Troll has reached the inevitable "hard of understanding" phase. Been soundly whupped and nowhere left to run, so he'll just obfuscate until he reckons nobody cares what his original Jesuitical quibble was. A weak of bitchin' and whahnin', just to cover his tracks on the original bitchy little intervention he couldn't stop hisself from makin' due to his ongoin' neurosis over "the great and wonderful Petes". Makes one wonder why he does it to hisself.
"…so it would be superfluous to mention that…"
Yeah, right. Also superfluous to mention that neutrinos often just bounce the nucleus and pop off some electrons out of their shells instead of splitting the nucleus? Or did you just forget that part again?
(Truth is theoretical physicists at CERN just don't mention the other stuff ‛cause the other stuff don't interest them, ‛cause the other stuff don't get funding for high dollar experiments at CERN.)
Oh, and another thing…
That E=mc² thing explains how energy would contribute to the curvature of space IF energy contributed to the curvature of space--which is a wildly hypothetical and uncertain IF to be relying upon--not to mention that the curvature of space is, in fact, NOT GRAVITY (at least not by Einstein's theory), contrary to what else Petes has tried to tell you folks.
I see we do, finally, have morning Trumptweets about the Putin/Trump get-together. It appears that Trump still thinks things went fine ("sadly it is not being reported that way" says Trump).
Well, Putin did smile on him, so he'll likely be on a high from that for several days before he comes back down to the real world.
So we can conclude:
There's one part of America that really hates Russia for some reason, wants american small boys to have their dicks cut off in the name of "transgender", wants infinity brown migration through the southern border, and supports BLM and any other disruptive and/or criminal elements. But they don't want the elite to finance the resulting mess, the want the middle classes to do so.
Then there's another America, who look back to a more sane America, who don't want to make enemies but look to future friends, who believe in the Constitution and in family. Where a man can make his fortune without too much hassle from government. Where a man can defend his own with leagal guns he bought himself. A nation of freedoms.
There are those two americas, it seems to me. And Lee and Lynette cling to the former. Where it's more important that fucking mexicans can just hop across the border than you yourselves and your eventual children having an actual nation of their own. It's really sad. It's like opposite Darwinism - survival of the unfittest.
WTF did the sunntanned dofus who sat on his throne for the last 8 years ever do for YOU Lee?
Sure he did "Obamacare", another high end swindle from the middle classes to the not even working ones, the coupon classes.
But what did he ever do for you? Nothing for you personally I bet.
What else did he do for you? He never finished any wars. He just ramped them up using drones. He fucking wrecked Libya for no real reason, using his bloodthirsty Ghouless Hillary, and got Khadaffi raped to death by bayonet, only for the last defence from African hordes willing to reach Europe to get shut down.
WE now suffer infinity africans cause your suntanned Moron In Chief let the bloodthirsty Ghoul Hillary break down our last line of defence, Khadaffi - who we could have made a deal with.
Thank GOD for Trump! He might not be perfect but he saved us all from the total Armageddon The Blood-Ghoul Hillary would have unleached upon us all. We might no even be alive today if that insane and bloodthirsty shrew had made it into executive office.
"We came, we saw, he died, HAHAHAHAHA" Was the insane war criminal Hilary's remark when Khadaffi was raped to death by bayonett, and the last defence of the Mediternian to infinite backs into Europe fell.
She lauged and lauged like a mainiac, the insane shrew who never in her life saw a war she didn't want to send other peoples' children to fight.
And you, you fucking IDIOTS, applaud her. I feel sad for you.
And as for this whole Trum - Russia insaniy these are the facts:
The DNC server was "investigated" by a private company, Crowdstrike, and then the server was "lost" for some reason.
The "evidence" ANY secuurity service in the USA has is based on ingtel from that private company, Crowdstrike.
Crowdstrike was paid by the Democratic Party.
In fact: there is ZERO, absolutely ZERO real evidence of any Trump-Russia collusion. It never happened.
Fact is Trump won cause he undertook a massive journey all across all importan states andheld rallies where he spoke directly to the people.
The MSM are pissed as fuck cause he showed that he could really by-pass much of their "informed" analysis.
But he won fair and square and there was nothing any fucking russian could do, or could have done, one way ore another.
Trump won BC a majority in the USA favour him over the opponent, in this case Hillary the mass murderer.
Which is why I say again, the left's unedifying conspiracy lunacy is the thing that is currently propping him up.
You have mentioned this in the past. What conspiracy lunacy are you referring to?
:)
[Lynnette]: "Hillary may not have been perfect, but at least she understood she was an American."
[Petes]: " But not a champion for all Americans. Trump is closer to that."
lol! Trump isn't a champion for anyone but himself.
[Petes]: "But I'm coming to the unfortunate conclusion that Trump's ego is overshadowing literally everything else."
As you pointed out.
:)
"Trump won BC a majority in the USA favour him over the opponent,
in this case Hillary the mass murderer."
Marcus @ Tue Jul 17, 01:49:00 pm ↑↑
Once again we have to remind these clowns that HILLARY got more votes than TRUMP.
Trump is a minority president.
By the way, in an utterly unbelievable reversal (and I mean that literally not figuratively), literally unbelievable, Trump just reversed himself and, pages rustling loudly, announced that he had misspoken in Finland and had said would where he intended to say wouldn't as in, he actually meant to say "I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be Russia".
Complete reversal; not believable, but then again doesn't have to be believable for the dedicated Trumpkins. So long as it's something they can say with a straight face (with practice, if necessary they'll practice), so long as they can say it with a straight face, even if they have to practice, then it'll do.
Post Script:
Seems probably a little early in the day for drunk time in Sweden, but that seems to be the most reasonable explanation for that string of posts--drunk time in Sweden, at least for Marcus.
No wait, it's later in the day than I thought--how time flies when you're havin’ fun. Should have looked at the clock before I wrote. May be early in the week, but not so much early in the day.
Word going around is that there were meetings being held among Republicans and especially among national security inclined Republicans (notably not including Rand Paul) about how to handle Trump's public grovel before Putin, and that these meetings lead to Trump coming out and publicly reversing himself.
Well, maybe if they've managed to force Team Trump to actually address the ongoing attempts by Russia to meddle in the upcoming 2018 elections that'll be a good thing.
If all that happens is Trump claims he misspoke and no other efforts are made to secure our election infrastructure than it don't mean much either way. They weren't gonna do anything after those meetings anyway.
Maybe last note on Trump and the ‛would/wouldn't’ fiasco. I had heard the FoxNews edited version of Trump's statement from today. After much page rustling and mumbling and such and finally saying he'd misspoken, "would" for "wouldn't", Trump went on to say maybe it was somebody else, there are a lot of people out there. (He did not invoke the 400 pounder sitting on the edge of the bed again, but maybe it wasn't the Russians after all.)
FoxNews cut that last part and went back to Hannity's daily radio rant instead of letting anybody hear that.
[Clueless Troll]: "Oh, and another thing… That E=mc² thing explains how energy would contribute to the curvature of space IF energy contributed to the curvature of space--which is a wildly hypothetical and uncertain IF to be relying upon"
A statement that Donald Trump would be proud for its combination of brass neck and complete dumbassed stupidity. The normal formulation of the stress-energy tensor DOES NOT EVEN HAVE AN ENTRY FOR REST MASS. As can be seen from this Wikipedia entry, the zeroth element of the stress-energy tensor (the hint is in the name!) is the energy density divided by the speed of light squared. Which means that energy, regardless of form (including rest mass energy) goes into the field equations. Fer Christ sake, the Wikipedia page even give the version for an electromagnetic field, which is the energy derived from the Poynting vector. I'm not expecting that to make much sense to "the audience" much less the clueless troll who clearly dudn't have the first clue what he's talking about. But you can take this to the bank -- the basic formulation of General Relativity from day one included energy as the source of curved spacetime and gravitation. Had it not, it wouldn't even be compatible with Special Relativity. Troll is plumbin' the depths of total embarrassment here.
"...not to mention that the curvature of space is, in fact, NOT GRAVITY (at least not by Einstein's theory), contrary to what else Petes has tried to tell you folks."
Yup, it is. Apart from any nitpicky crap (such as that it's spacetime, rather than space, which I already pointed out): So what is gravity, in Einstein's universe? Generally speaking, any distortion of spacetime geometry. And if you follow the credits on that link you can decide if you want to believe the clueless resident troll, or the Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics (Albert Einstein Institute) in Potsdam, Germany.
Tragically, it seems that even furious Googlin' ain't helpin' the troll this time round. He's gonna have to come up with an obfuscation at the level of "the meaning of 'if'" to get outta this one.
[Lynnette]: "You have mentioned this in the past. What conspiracy lunacy are you referring to?"
That Donald Trump colluded with the Russians to rig the presidential election. The lefties are so dead set on finding something to impeach Trump about, that they believe this crap. It's on the level of the birther conspiracy nuttery about Obama. If only they didn't act so deranged, they might find the political debate a little less polarised. For instance, the resident troll here is gleefully speculating about when Mueller will move on from indicting Russians to indicting their collaborator-in-chief in the White House. For many people it's not even a next step -- in their mind it's already a done deal. Such wishful thinking is not the mindset of someone who cares about America, but someone who cares about a particular partisan agenda. It's horribly unedifying. Trump is doing enough to sully the office of president without his opponents dragging it down further. Remember, their future candidate is going to have to occupy the office sometime too. But the conspiracy theorising belies a lack of respect for the office that will come back to bite them. (Can't believe I'm pointing this out, as a furriner ;-)
"The normal formulation of the stress-energy tensor
DOES NOT EVEN HAVE AN ENTRY FOR REST MASS."
Of course not. Logically it would not. Perhaps this is a bit over your head after all.
"So what is gravity, in Einstein's universe? Generally
speaking, any distortion of spacetime geometry."
Generally speaking, even specifically speaking, that's not true. link Accurately speaking; that's bullshit you're peddling.
"…it seems that even furious Googlin' ain't helpin'
the troll this time round."
So, you're back to your fixation with my googling again? Which tells us that you've been workin’ this one particularly hard. (I, myself, I haven't actually had to do any googling since I found that Scientific American article--I'm already on top of this stuff. I got ya covered; I already know better. Your fulla shit and I know it and I got ya.) All that work and ya got squat so far.
I find that amusing.
[Petes]: "So what is gravity, in Einstein's universe? Generally speaking, any distortion of spacetime geometry."
[Clueless Troll]: "Generally speaking, even specifically speaking, that's not true. link Accurately speaking; that's bullshit you're peddling."
Anyone else notice that the link provided by the troll IS THE SAME ONE I JUST QUOTED DIRECTLY FROM? At this stage, the troll has manifestly taken leave of whatever dwindling mental faculties he had (probably none).
"The lefties are so dead set on finding something to impeach Trump about,
that they believe this crap."
They already got him cold on obstruction. Just from what we know in public already, Mueller's got winner on an obstruction of justice case. (Which is why Team Trump has quit trying to argue that it never happened.)
But, the Republicans have at least a third of the Senate who'll never vote to remove him even if the Democrats get the votes in the House to impeach. So, there's that.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"Anyone else notice that the link provided by the
troll IS THE SAME ONE I JUST QUOTED DIRECTLY
FROM?"
You seem surprised.
Perhaps you didn't actually understand the article. Or, maybe you didn't read it. The went on to say that gravity "can be made to vanish by going into freefall", which makes it obvious that his formulation was what you like to call kiddie science, in other places, not real and not to be taken seriously.
I figured your reliance on that was all I needed in the way of proof. Obviously, if that's the best ya got then ya got squat.
Handling phone calls and open screens at the same time…
Correction: "The author went on to say that gravity 'can be made to vanish by going into freefall'…"
I'm predicting no more than 48 hours and Trump is trying to walk back his implications that Russia hacked the 2016 presidential elections and tried to get him elected in place of Hillary. Probably 48 hours and he'll again be trying to bury that idea.
Joke doing the rounds about the new Trump fitness craze -- it's a back pedaling spinning class.
[Troll]: "You seem surprised."
By y'all actin' the moron? Not in the least.
That was an observation, not a question. You might have understood had you noticed the lack of a question mark. Dumbass.
LOL. I mark Tue Jul 17, 06:04:00 pm above as the post where the troll stopped even pretendin' he had anything sensible to say. Anyone notice the troll even attemptin' to provide any backup to any of his claims? Nope, me neither. Expect nothin' but flat out obfuscation from here on in.
Ciao troll. Nice whuppin' you again.
Yeah, and the North Koreans aren't a nuclear threat anymore and Europeans bowed to Trump and promised to spend billions more than the 2% they'd already promised to Obama.
You've been living too long in your Trumpian fantasy land. It's starting to bleed over into the rest of your writing.
"[Neutrinos'] only interaction with other matter is via
the weak nuclear force…"
Petes @ Thu Jul 12, 07:15:00 pm (previous page)
That was wrong.
"Everything interacts with gravity…"
Petes @ Thu Jul 12, 08:23:00 pm (previous
page; emphasis in original)
That was wrong too.
"Gravity…is merely curved space."
Petes @ Sun Jul 15, 09:34:00 pm↑↑
Strike Three!
The problem for the vexatious troll is that I provided authoritative references for every one of those assertions. The troll provided jackshit other than his inane grumblings. Oh yeah, and his brass neck. So far he's up against me, a nuclear physicist from CERN in Switzerland, and the Max Planck Institute in Germany. And the deluded eejit imagines folks are gonna believe him jes' on his own say so? LOL.
"The problem for the vexatious troll is…"
I notice that it takes you an entire paragraph to deceive yourself over this. I'll give you paragraph in response then:
If they bothered to follow the argument they'll know I'm right. If they didn't bother (much more likely) then it's just you and me, and we both know I'm right. And, that's all that matters.
Dumbass.
[Lynnette]: You have mentioned this in the past. What conspiracy lunacy are you referring to?
[Petes]: That Donald Trump colluded with the Russians to rig the presidential election.
But isn't assuming that there is no proof that there was collusion the same as assuming there is? Unless, of course, you are privy to part of an investigation that we know nothing about?
In any case, it really isn't colluding to rig an election that I am concerned about. That would only be a symptom.
The Russians have announced that they are ready now to pursue the agreements made between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin in Helsinki.
So far, nobody seems to know, or to admit to knowing, what these ‛agreements’ entail.
Spokesmen for the National Security Council have said, for public consumption, that they are ‛reviewing the discussion’; presumably they mean the two hour plus discussion between Trump and Putin. That would mean that there are notes (noticably pictures of the two going in showed that Putin had writing materials at hand and Trump did not--Trump doesn't generally take notes anyway), or maybe there's a recording, or a transcript, or something. There's got to be something out there for them to review.
This could get interesting.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"…it really isn't colluding to rig an election that I am
concerned about."
I'm not worried about the last one. I am worried about the next one.
"But isn't assuming that there is no proof that there was
collusion the same as assuming there is?"
It occurred to me, as I was drifting off, that it's much worse than that.
Petes has never been able to articulate a credible reason for assuming that there was no collusion (never mind the trickier question of what qualifies as "proof"). So far as Petes has ever been able to tell us, it's just as likely that Trump did engage in collusion, willingly, eagerly, and extensively, as that he did not.
Woke up early and for some reason it was on my mind that Petes had totally abandoned his imaginary new thing--the infamous ‛neutrino gravitation’ has disappeared from his lexicon and from our consideration.
Again, I am amused. All that effort and then he just walked away from it. How can one not laugh?
[Vexatious troll]: "If they bothered to follow the argument they'll know I'm right."
There wadn't any argument. There was me, providing explanations and authoritative sources. Then there was you, bitchin' and whahnin'.
That ain't an argument. That's a whuppin'.
Same way it always goes, right down to you claimin' victory when ya got diddly squat to offer.
[Lynnette]: "You have mentioned this in the past. What conspiracy lunacy are you referring to?"
[Petes]: "That Donald Trump colluded with the Russians to rig the presidential election."
[Lynnette]: "But isn't assuming that there is no proof that there was collusion the same as assuming there is? Unless, of course, you are privy to part of an investigation that we know nothing about?"
Ah, but that's the essence of conspiracy lunacy -- to assume something is true or likely in the absence of evidence. I can't prove aliens didn't shoot JFK, therefore they probably did. The fallacy is ignoring the extreme a priori unlikelihood of that event. In the case of Trump there is also confirmation bias -- the lefties take evidence of Russian meddling as evidence of Trump collusion, even though it is no such thing, because they want it to be true.
[Vexatious troll]: "...it was on my mind that Petes had totally abandoned his imaginary new thing--the infamous ‛neutrino gravitation’ has disappeared from his lexicon and from our consideration... All that effort and then he just walked away from it. How can one not laugh?"
Most people would consider that part of yer very evident neurosis about "the great and wonderful Petes". The best advice is that ya oughtn't dwell on such things as they are clearly an upset to y'all. But if it helps set yer mind at ease, the ‛neutrino gravitation’ was only ever "infamous" in yer own tiny mind. I mentioned it exactly once, in connection with how gravitation affects neutrinos. For anyone other than a clueless drongo and Jesuitical nitpicker such as yerself, that would be obvious. But ya needed somethin' to seize on in the face of another inevitable whuppin', so ya seized on that. Perhaps ya'd like to also seize on "neutrino gravitational lensing". I'm sure the author would be very interested in yer theory about how those two words don't fit together 'cos it didn't surface durin' yer furious Googlin'. LOL.
And just because we're coming up on a week of vexatious trolling, during which the troll hopes we've forgotten what it was all about to being with...
Lynnette asked if the announcement of a high energy neutrino detection, localised to a blazar, was "the missing particle". It isn't, as we've known about neutrinos for a very long time. During the course of discussing it I made the following completely non-controversial assertions:
1) Neutrinos that we are interested in from cosmic sources are very energetic, on the order of GeV to PeV.
2) The rest masses of such neutrinos are completely negligible compared to their energy. The masses can be (and are) ignored for most experimental purposes.
3) It is perfectly valid to state that neutrinos interact only by the weak nuclear force, and both leading nuclear physicists and Wikipedia do state that.
4) Nevertheless, neutrinos interact gravitationally like all particles, whether or not they have zero mass. That's because gravity, according to General Relativity, is the warping of spacetime, and all particles must follow geodesics in curved spacetime. They also cause spacetime to curve, because anything with mass or energy does so (remembering that the two are interchangeable and not even distinguished in GR).
All of those assertions are true and easily verifiable, and I've provided links on all of them. The troll has provided exactly nothing.
"There wadn't any argument."
Wasn't much of one, but you did put up enough of an attempt to call it that anyway.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"I mentioned it exactly once."
Poor frustrated fella, you seem to have forgotten how to count as well as having blanked on your none too successful attempt to put up an argument.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"The fallacy is ignoring the extreme a priori
unlikelihood of that event."
Obviously, you could only be referring to the alien involvement in the assassination of John Kennedy.
"3) It is perfectly valid to state that neutrinos interact
only by the weak nuclear force…"
Your memory is suffering rather substantial failure. The first thing you said wrong was that:
"[Neutrinos] only interaction with other matter is via the
weak nuclear force…
Petes @ Thu Jul 12, 07:15:00 pm (previous page)
Obviously, that's not a true assertion. That's obviously wrong. You've admitted that neutrinos dislodge electrons in neutrino/nucleus kinetic collisions that do not involve splitting the atom nor implicate the weak nuclear force.
And that's just the first of your three most substantial errors. But, that should be enough to remind folks that you're still just tryin’ to bullshit you way through this.
And yes, I realize that you're gonna sputter about how you later discovered some physicist who insisted that it was ‛perfectly acceptable’ for you to be wrong. But, that's a judgment call, not a scientific one, and he obviously has poor judgment. (And I'm also pretty sure there's nothing in Wiki about it being ‛perfectly acceptable’ to tell it wrong; I'm confident you just made that up out of whole cloth.)
Actually, now that I think about it--I don't believe you ever identified any physicist who ever said it was ‛perfectly acceptable’ or ‛perfectly valid’ to say that neutrinos only interact via the weak nuclear force. I think you made that up too, and I just let it kinda slide the first time ‛cause it was one of your less important lies. (Now, there was a physicist you supposedly quoted who supposedly said that neutrinos only interact via the weak nuclear force, but you may have misrepresented him too--I didn't bother to check your link as he was obviously wrong (assuming he even said what you claimed), so why bother?) More than possible you made that one up too.
Donald Trump's new ‛zero-tolerance’, child-grabbing immigration policy is costing the federal government $1.5 dollars per day just for the costs for the Department of Health and Human Services to take possession of the children, half of whom it promptly loses track of. There was no budget for this; they're taking that money straight out of their Health Services accounts.
May wind up hearing more about this as that number settles into the national discussion.
That was supposed to be $1.5 million dollars a day…
Mort Kondrake, not a liberal, a conservative rather. Long time news host and pundit with FoxNews:
"Let’s face it: The president of the United States is an
agent of Russia, an enemy power. He demonstrated it
for all the world to see in Helsinki on Monday, but it
follows a long string of Trump actions to aid Vladimir
Putin’s strategic aims."
Oh, yeah, and one other thing from that Scientific American article I mentioned before--one of those other little things that you got wrong on your way by. Well two things actually…
"1)Neutrinos that we are interested in from cosmic sources
are very energetic…"
Petes @ Wed Jul 18, 09:16:00 am ↑↑
The neutrinos which produce the electron bouncing are rather non-energetic. The guys running the experiment described them as ‛lower-energy neutrinos’.
And, second:
"…that Sci Am article is about the first observation of
elastic neutrino scattering which has been predicted for
some decades but never before observed. BECAUSE IT
IS RARE."
Petes @ Mon Jul 16, 08:47:00 pm ↑↑
Emphasized, capitalized, the internet equivalent of screaming; ‛IT IS RARE’ shouts Petes.
And that is WRONG.
"…they are orders of magnitude more common than other
neutrino collisions…"
That's roughly half-way down the page, just after the caption reading "DOWN NEUTRINO ALLEY"
Check it out. I'm right. You're wrong.
Problem was figuring out how to detect the the low-energy collisions, the imagined rarity of these interactions is solely a product of your frantic imagination.
Lee: "By the way, in an utterly unbelievable reversal (and I mean that literally not figuratively), literally unbelievable, Trump just reversed himself and, pages rustling loudly, announced that he had misspoken in Finland and had said would where he intended to say wouldn't as in, he actually meant to say "I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be Russia"."
Of course that was planned. He said what he really meant to say at that meeting, the truth as he sees it, and the truth as it is.
He knew in advance that ya'lls press and some politruchs would go apeshit over it.
So he then said: LOL, well I forgot an apostraphy. I meant to say "wouldn't". Sry ROTFL.
OF COURSE he really meant the sane and obvious thing he first said. But, given your Lugenpress and your completely dishonest politicians, he then shielded himself with a 180 on that remark, just for show.
Classic Trump. My respect for the dude only increases every time he trolls ya'll so hard.
In any case you're completely correct Lee, the "apology" was not sincere at all. But what you don't get is that it was pre planned.
N'otherone bit the dust in Malmö two nights ago, in Rosengård (yet nother dune coon so who would give a fuck, unless we were paying for these violent apes to be here). That makes ten deaths in about 20 shootings in a city of 300K so far this year.
Norway, a country of about 6 million have had ONE fatal shooting so far this year.
Wonder why that is. I DO wonder. I am.... flabberghasted.
[Troll]: "That's obviously wrong. You've admitted that neutrinos dislodge electrons in neutrino/nucleus kinetic collisions that do not involve splitting the atom nor implicate the weak nuclear force. And that's just the first of your three most substantial errors. But, that should be enough to remind folks that you're still just tryin’ to bullshit you way through this.
You truly are a complete frickin' dolt. You are not only wrong, but your pathetic attempt at derision just shows up your lack of any kind of integrated knowledge about physics. It really is just all furious Googlin'.
How exactly do you think a neutrino interacts in a "kinetic collision" (which, if I was the same sort of nitpicky asshole as you, would go in the same box as "neutrino gravitation")? Ya reckon there are weak interactions, and then there's just general kinda "banging off stuff"? I already pointed out that whatever billiard ball analogy y'all had in yer head was misguided. What a joke!
There are four forces. Energy is transferred by forces doing work, and no other way. Anyone who had the first clue about the most basic physics would know that. We know neutrinos don't feel the electric force. So it sure as hell ain't billiard balls. What force do y'all imagine is causing neutrino scattering. Give ya a hint -- it ain't gravity. And there's only one other choice for neutrinos. That should give ya enough of a clue to hone yer furious Googlin'. Yore welcome. (Anyone else suspectin' that it ain't me bullshittin' my way through this? ;-)
[Idiot Troll]: "Actually, now that I think about it--I don't believe you ever identified any physicist who ever said it was 'perfectly acceptable' or 'perfectly valid' to say that neutrinos only interact via the weak nuclear force. I think you made that up too, and I just let it kinda slide the first time 'cause it was one of your less important lies. (Now, there was a physicist you supposedly quoted who supposedly said that neutrinos only interact via the weak nuclear force, but you may have misrepresented him too--I didn't bother to check your link as he was obviously wrong (assuming he even said what you claimed), so why bother?) More than possible you made that one up too."
Allow me to refresh yer idiot memory so. You don't have to listen very far -- it is in the very first sentence of the video, which says "neutrinos are the only particles that interact *exclusively* by weak interactions". Also gives his name, which you can look up. He is a former particle physicist at CERN, now the head of the physics department at the University of Geneva, i.e. the most senior physics professional there. He has produced over 900 research items and has 20,000 citations. So now that we have established he said what I claimed, and that he presumably wouldn't have said it if he didn't think it was "perfectly valid", we are left with your word against A FRICKIN' BONA FIDE SENIOR PARTICLE PHYSICIST that he was "obviously wrong". And since you are BONA FIDE SENIOR MORON, I know who my money's on.
[Moronic Troll]: "And I'm also pretty sure there's nothing in Wiki about it being ?perfectly acceptable’ to tell it wrong; I'm confident you just made that up out of whole cloth."
Direct wikipedia quote: "This will be difficult as the neutrinos which make up the CνB [cosmic neutrino background] are non-relativistic, in addition to interacting only weakly with normal matter".
"But what you don't get is that it was pre planned."
Not only was it not pre-planned, he was really unhappy about being pressured into doing it at all. As folks mentioned who've seen the tape (I just heard it on the radio originally), he looked like one of those victims in a hostage video reading stuff he hates to have to read for the camera.
Nope wasn't planned, arranged on the fly. And he'll be walking it back in another 36 hours or so, as much as he thinks he can get away with.
[Clueless Vexatious Troll]: "...your three most substantial errors"
Uh, I think "yore audience" can see every one of these alleged errors dealt with by authoritative references above. They can also see precisely jack shit from you, other than your claim to know better than me, Wikipedia, and a senior particle physicist. And surely nobody, even an arrogant know-nothing like you, can expect anybody's gonna believe yore trollish nonsense.
Anything else I can help y'all with, be sure to let me know.
"…in addition to interacting only weakly with normal matter…"
Apparently you are unaware that electromagnetism is considered a weak force.
Although, I will give you one thing, that german physicist who's needing high dollar contributions to support his experiments at CERN doesn't seem to want to believe in the guys in Chicago who are doing low-dollar, low-energy neutrino experiments. Seems he'd like to pretend they don't exist. But, they do.
Oh yeah, and those low energy neutrino scatterings -- y'all were right about that. I suppose ya can't always be wrong when yore furiously Googlin' at a thousand miles an hour. And I can't always be right neither -- still have stuff to learn. Of course, I wasn't the one who invented a magical new force to explain scattering ... I do know the basics of physics unlike y'all. I don't get it all from furious Googlin'. And unlike y'all, I have no neurosis about admittin' when I'm wrong ;-)
"Allow me to refresh yer idiot memory so."
That guy did not say that it was ‛perfectly acceptable’ or ‛perfectly valid’ to say something that happened to be wrong. He did say something about ‛weak interactions’, which would include the electrical interactions, which are also generally considered a ‛weak’ interaction (just not exactly a weak nuclear interaction).
Your ability to distinguish and think logically appears to have deserted you. You can't seem to get your head around the fact that electromagnetism is also considered a ‛weak’ force. Frustration with being proven wrong I suppose.
[Troll]: "Apparently you are unaware that electromagnetism is considered a weak force."
Yeah, ya got me there alright. Now ya really are trollin' me. The electromagnetic force is ten frickin' trillion times as strong as the weak nuclear force and a hundred trillion trillion trillion times stronger than gravity. The only thing weaker than the weak nuclear force and gravity is whatever keeps the lights on dimly in that thing ya call a brain.
"I suppose ya can't always be wrong when yore furiously
Googlin' at a thousand miles an hour."
One article, which I already knew to look for. I've just hit you with the one article. That's all I've needed. Your need to pretend otherwise is an obvious tell. You've been workin’ it hard and you've come up short.
I will personally give $1,000 to anybody's favourite charity who can show that elastic neutrino scattering is due to anything other than the weak nuclear force. I doubt the troll will reciprocate with an equivalent offer ... but surely even he will think of the poor starvin' children and try to make me donate my cash. The audience may want to monitor his pathetic attempts.
Over to you pal. The poor children are waitin'...
The relative strength of the electrical force as compared to gravity is irrelevant. And, electrical forces (including magnetism) are called ‛weak’ because, theoretically anyway, the two forces (electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force) are ‛unified’ under some weird theory about how they are actually the same force except different. I'll look that up for ya (probably have put up with you babbling on about how I'm ‛googling furiously’, but, truth is, I already know what I'm looking for).
Ah, here we go; turns out there is a Wiki page on it. That was easy. End of ‛googling furiously’.
Yeah, the electroweak force has been unified for decades. That doesn't mean the electromagnetic force hasn't got a characteristic strength, which is ten trillion times stronger than the weak force. "Weak interactions" means "weak nuclear interactions". If ya think a particle physicist lecturing on neutrinos is referring to electromagnetism when he says "exclusively by weak interations"... well, ya don't think that. You are shit trollin' at this stage.
That $1,000 offer is open for as long as ya like.
Apart from that, ciao.
"I will personally give $1,000 to anybody's favourite charity…"
As I have observed before. You lie easily and often. Your word's no good. In the end you'll find a way to welsh on the bet.
[Petes]: Ah, but that's the essence of conspiracy lunacy -- to assume something is true or likely in the absence of evidence. I can't prove aliens didn't shoot JFK, therefore they probably did. The fallacy is ignoring the extreme a priori unlikelihood of that event.
Except, given Trump's past associations with various Russians, especially those who are in Putin's pocket, and given that there is enough evidence on so many of those around him to bring them to the attention of our courts, to automatically assume that Trump is innocent just because he managed to become President of the United States is to ignore some rather large red flags. A good investigator would dig a little deeper.
As for the left using Trump's rather questionable behavior to accuse him of being a Putin stooge, well, as Lee pointed out, it isn't only the left who are starting to wonder.
There are also enough Americans who are rather disturbed on Trump's making nice with Putin from a pure policy standpoint. It would be like making nice with a boa constrictor, you would never know when it would try to swallow you.
[Lynnette]: "There are also enough Americans who are rather disturbed on Trump's making nice with Putin from a pure policy standpoint."
Not just Americans! ;-)
But again,I think all this is easily explained by Trump's massive ego. It's really much simpler than the leftie conspiracists are thinking. Trump just makes stuff up if he thinks it'll make him sound good. Most of the time it makes him sound like a five year old kid. I honestly don't think he has the brains to collude with Russians.
"'Weak interactions' means 'weak nuclear interactions'."
Well, I'm not sure you speak for the German professor there, but, assuming that you do--there's that discovery from Chicago that he's not taking account of. So, IF he means to say what you insist he means to say, then he's ignoring the science out of Chicago. So, either you're wrong about what he means, or he's wrong about what he says. Pick one. I'm right either way.
[Marcus]: "Classic Trump. My respect for the dude only increases every time he trolls ya'll so hard."
Then you're as idiotic as him. If Trump was trolling it would be reckless endangerment of the western hemisphere. But he wasn't. He hasn't got the brains for it.
"…to automatically assume that Trump is innocent just
because he managed to become President of the United States…"
Petes has never, so far as I could tell, and I've been looking for an explanation, never even attempted to articulate a rationale for his faith in Trump. It's apparently simply a matter of faith. Saint Donald the Orange, newest addition to the Petes' pantheon of worship.
I checked the Facebook on a couple of dedicated Trumpkins I just happen to know.
They are not discussing Helsinki--ain't no news about Helsinki making its way into their Trump adulations. No excuses, no apologizing, no explaining; it's like the Great Leader never even went to Finland--didn't happen, never heard a thing ‛bout it.
[Petes]: "'Weak interactions' means 'weak nuclear interactions'."
[Troll]: "Well, I'm not sure you speak for the German professor there, but, assuming that you do--there's that discovery from Chicago that he's not taking account of. So, IF he means to say what you insist he means to say, then he's ignoring the science out of Chicago. So, either you're wrong about what he means, or he's wrong about what he says. Pick one. I'm right either way."
You frickin' dunderhead. I know you ain't gonna understand this 'cos you know jack shit about it, and even if you did you'd obfuscate. But HERE is the paper announcing the Chicago measurements. Look at Figure 1A which the Feynman diagram for the scattering. It it a neutral current interaction involving a Z boson, i.e. a WEAK NUCLEAR INTERACTION. The text makes clear there are also charged current interactions with charged leptons. Those are the ones involving the W+ and W- bosons, i.e. another WEAK NUCLEAR INTERACTION.
Just out if interest, what force did y'all think was involved? Got a Feynman diagram for yer imagined interactions? Dope!
In the end you decide once again to hide behind jargon-babble; yes, I know all about the bosons.
Nobody ever said that there were no bosons moving among the mix of electrons which were also interacting. That proves nothin’.
By the way, I suppose you just decided to eat those errors about these reactions being rare, and about them being high-energy? Pretend that never happened? (Like our American Trumpkins and Helsinki--just never happened in your world.)
"Apart from that, ciao."
Petes @ Wed Jul 18, 01:29:00 pm ↑↑
Yeah, right. The farce continues.
[Troll]: "Nobody ever said that there were no bosons moving among the mix of electrons which were also interacting. That proves nothin’."
Oh yeah, those non-weak interactions that the discoverers don't mention once in the discovery paper? U. Chicago makes a breakthrough in neutrino interactions and they fail to mention these extra interactions that only the resident troll knows about? LOL. Get outta here. You are beyond clueless.
(But feel free to offer up yore Feynman diagrams if ya ever figure out what that means. Oh, and that $1,000 still stands.).
From a former British ambassador:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/07/detente-bad-cold-war-good/
Excerpt: ...
Political memories are short, but just 15 years after Iraq was destroyed and the chain reaction sent most of the Arab world back to the dark ages, it is now “treason” to question the word of the Western intelligence agencies, which deliberately and knowingly produced a fabric of lies on Iraqi WMD to justify that destruction.
It would be more rational for it to be treason for leaders to blindly accept the word of the intelligence services.
This is especially true on “Russia hacking the election” when, after three years of crazed accusations and millions of man hours by lawyers and CIA and FBI investigators, they are yet to produce any substantive evidence of accusations which are plainly nuts in the first place. This ridiculous circus has found a few facebook ads and indicted one Russian for every 100,000 man hours worked, for unspecified or minor actions which had no possible bearing on the election result.
There are in fact genuine acts of election rigging to investigate. In particular, the multiple actions of the DNC and Democratic Party establishment to rig the Primary against Bernie Sanders do have some very real documentary evidence to substantiate them, and that evidence is even public. Yet those real acts of election rigging are ignored and instead the huge investigation is focused on catching those who revealed Hillary’s election rigging. This gets even more absurd – the investigation then quite deliberately does not focus on catching whoever leaked Hillary’s election rigging, but instead seeks to prove that the Russians hacked Hillary’s election-rigging, which I can assure you they did not. Meanwhile, those of us who might help them with the truth if they were actually interested, are not questioned at all.
The Russophobic witch hunt has its first real life victim in 29 year old Maria Butina, whose life is to be destroyed for chatting up members of the NRA in order to increase Russian influence. With over 20 years of diplomatic experience, I can tell you that every country, including the UK and US, has bit part players of its own nationals who self-start in a country to make their way, and if they gain any traction are tapped by their national security service as potential “agents of influence”. I could name quite literally scores of such people, but have no desire to get anyone in trouble. The elevation of Butina into a huge threat and part of a gigantic plot, is to ignore the way the United States and the United Kingdom and indeed all major governments’ Embassies behave around the globe.
The war-hawks who were devastated by the loss of champion killer Hillary now see the prospect of their very worst fear coming true. Their very worst fear is the outbreak of peace and international treaties of arms control. Hence the media and political establishment today has reached peaks of hysteria never before seen. Pursuing peace is “treason” and the faux left now stand starkly exposed.
"Oh yeah, those non-weak interactions that the discoverers
don't mention once in the discovery paper"
The discovers likewise never once mentioned the ‛weak nuclear force’. That's not exactly a big deal, as you already know--as I also already know.
I told you before, electromagnetic activity is a ‛weak’ interaction rather than a ‛strong’ one. At some level electromagnetism is considered to be identical with the ‛weak nuclear force’ (Except different; gets into that quantum physics weirdness.)
Anyway, the important point is that electrical activity which is undeniably occurring does not preclude simultaneous boson activity; nobody ever said it did. One can have both a fever and a cough.
Your descent into jargon-babble proves nothing except that you rely too much on jargon-babble and the hope that it'll confuse folks into thinking you're brilliant when you're just babbling.
"nobody ever said it did"
Come to think on it, that actually is what you're trying to say. You're trying to tell us that there cannot be electrical in the electron shell because there's boson activity theorized in the nucleus. But that's obviously wrong--there IS electrical activity, the photon flashes prove it.
Typo correction: "You're trying to tell us that there cannot be electrical activity in the electron shell because there's boson activity theorized in the nucleus." But, that's obviously wrong…
"In particular, the multiple actions of the DNC and Democratic Party
establishment to rig the Primary against Bernie Sanders…"
Oh yeah? Name one such activity. And what is the supposed documentation?
Walking back the walking back. Reporter asked Trump if Russia looked at the reporter and answered "no". Later Sarah Huckabee-Sanders said that Trump mean "no further questions" although he keep on talking to the press after that question and answer. Possible that Sarah's not fully informed yet about what the President said. Also possible that the President is not fully informed yet about what he said. He'll probably decide that one later.
Ackkk… Reporter asked Trump if Russia was still targeting the United States, and Trump looked at the reporter and answered "no".
[Troll]: "The discovers likewise never once mentioned the ‛weak nuclear force’. That's not exactly a big deal, as you already know--as I also already know. I told you before, electromagnetic activity is a ‛weak’ interaction rather than a ‛strong’ one. At some level electromagnetism is considered to be identical with the ‛weak nuclear force’ (Except different; gets into that quantum physics weirdness.) Anyway, the important point is that electrical activity which is undeniably occurring does not preclude simultaneous boson activity; nobody ever said it did. One can have both a fever and a cough."
$1,000 there for the taking. Even clueless trolls may apply.
[Troll]: "In particular, the multiple actions of the DNC and Democratic establishment to rig the Primary against Bernie Sanders…" Oh yeah? Name one such activity. And what is the supposed documentation?'
Spoken like a true-blue leftie. I ain't no expert but this seems rather damning.
"[Debbie Wasserman Schultz] reportedly resisted stepping down, and blamed subordinates for the content of the leaked emails that were released Friday, which clearly showed the committee’s posture of neutrality in the Democratic primary to have been a hollow pretense, just as Bernie Sanders and his supporters long contended. She finally relinquished the convention gavel only after receiving three days of strong-arming, a ceremonial position in the Clinton campaign, and a raucous round of boos at a convention breakfast."
You lie easily and often, people who wear their religion on their sleeve are seldom honest. (Grandpa taught me early, alway make sure the preachers pay cash or do their business elsewhere.) You will almost certainly welsh on the bet if given the opportunity.
So, who holds the bet? And who decides the winner--‛cause there ain't a tinker's chance in hell I'm gonna trust you. And, I see no need to designate a charity; I'll be happy to take your money when I win.
I'll volunteer to hold your bet, and I'll decide the winner. At least I'm honest.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
I believe the charge you made was that the Democratic National Committee rigged the primary. Failure to maintain a promised neutrality (assuming for the sake of argument) obviously does not fill the bill.
Name one action that qualifies as rigging a primary, and tell us what documentation you have to support it.
Tell ya what… I'll even give ya a hint of the challenge you face for that $1,000.00.
"It was the verb ya screwed up."
Lee C. @ Sun Jul 15, 02:25:00 pm ↑↑
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Interact
in·ter·act \ ËŒin-tÉ™r-ˈakt \
intransitive verb
: to act upon one another
Those W bosons you mentioned are charged particles. And you have to take into account the action of the neutrino on the atom (nucleus and electron shells) as well as the reaction of the neutrino to the collision. In other words, you don't get to shut down the examination of what happens during the interactions at the neutrino ‛scattering’ stage, as you probably assumed you'd get to do.
And, back to politics. Trump recognizes some fallout from the Helsinki trip.
Now he's back to telling CBS that the Russians did indeed meddle in the last presidential election and that he ‛would’ hold Putin responsible. Then he switched subjects to how Obama had mishandled Putin. Trump is ‛very strong’; Obama was not--that's where he left it. CBSNews
[Troll]: "You lie easily and often, people who wear their religion on their sleeve are seldom honest."
It ain't news that yer a bigot as well as a troll.
[Troll]: "And, I see no need to designate a charity; I'll be happy to take your money when I win."
Well, they say don't feed the trolls. So screw the starvin' children, right? Figgers.
[Troll]: "I'll volunteer to hold your bet, and I'll decide the winner. At least I'm honest."
LOL. Glad to see ya have some vestige of a sense of humour. I have to admit to not expectin' that. Yore still a lyin' troll, though.
[Troll]: "I believe the charge you made was that the Democratic National Committee rigged the primary. Failure to maintain a promised neutrality (assuming for the sake of argument) obviously does not fill the bill."
Ok, gotcha. Hilary or her henchmen cheated but she never said she wouldn't so that's ok. I'm startin' to figger out yer idea of honesty. That's progress.
[Troll]: "Tell ya what… I'll even give ya a hint of the challenge you face for that $1,000.00... Those W bosons you mentioned are charged particles. And you have to take into account the action of the neutrino on the atom (nucleus and electron shells) as well as the reaction of the neutrino to the collision. In other words, you don't get to shut down the examination of what happens during the interactions at the neutrino ‛scattering’ stage, as you probably assumed you'd get to do."
And I'll even give ya a hint of what it means to be able to read. Ya scan the words real slow and, if it helps, ya can say them at loud.C'mon, say it with me, we'll repeat it nice and slow:
I will personally give $1,000 to anybody's favourite charity who can show that elastic neutrino scattering is due to anything other than the weak nuclear force.
Starvin' children/trolls are waiting.
... distant sounds of furious Googlin' ...
"It ain't news that yer a bigot as well as a troll."
Petes @ Wed Jul 18, 07:08:00 pm ↑↑
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the
hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the
synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they
may be seen of men. ***
But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and
when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which
is in secret…."
KJV
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"So screw the starvin' children, right?"
I didn't say that. But I will take your money, and what I do with it will be my choice, which choice will be known to me and my God and never be any business of yours.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"[For anyone who can]…show that elastic neutrino scattering
is due to anything other than…"
That was not the subject of our dispute. That is what you tried to slide in there after you finally figured out you'd screwed up yourself royally. That is your effort to pull a bait and switch. This was the statement I challenged:
"[Neutrinos'] only interaction with other matter is via
the weak nuclear force…"
Petes @ Thu Jul 12, 07:15:00 pm (previous page)
Everybody can see. Even Marcus can figure this one out if he just tries.
"Hilary or her henchmen cheated but she never said she
wouldn't so that's ok."
I see no significant difference in the meaning of rigging the primary and cheating in the primary. As far as I'm concerned those are interchangable terms.
So, what what the nature of her cheating, and in which primary, and what is your documentary evidence of same?
[Troll]: "That was not the subject of our dispute. That is what you tried to slide in there after you finally figured out you'd screwed up yourself royally. That is your effort to pull a bait and switch."
No, actually YOU inserted this as one of the many nitpicky diversions y'all have been try to obfuscate with. Allow me to quote:
[Troll]: "You've admitted that neutrinos dislodge electrons in neutrino/nucleus kinetic collisions that do not involve splitting the atom nor implicate the weak nuclear force. And that's just the first of your three most substantial errors."
THAT'S when I offered $1,000 to you or anyone who can show that elastic neutrino scattering is due to anything other than the weak nuclear force.
But no problem. I've got all yer nitpicky objections covered. All right in front of me ready to copy and paste everytime ya keep surfacin' the same objections over and over. Ready to shoot ya down in flames every time. So, if you insist that yore real objection is:
[Troll]: "This was the statement I challenged: "[Neutrinos'] only interaction with other matter is via the weak nuclear force…". Everybody can see. Even Marcus can figure this one out if he just tries."
Yep, allow me to copy and paste exactly what I told ya last time.
_________________________________________________________
You don't have to listen very far -- it is in the very first sentence of the video, which says "neutrinos are the only particles that interact *exclusively* by weak interactions".
And then there was this:
Direct wikipedia quote: "This will be difficult as the neutrinos which make up the CνB [cosmic neutrino background] are non-relativistic, in addition to interacting only weakly with normal matter".
_________________________________________________________
So when ya say "even Marcus can figure it out" ... yeah, even Marcus can figure out that ya said a world leading particle physicist was wrong, and that Wikipedia dudn't say what it says in black and white. In other words, Marcus can figure out just as well as I can that yore a lyin' arrogant moronic troll.
"YOU inserted this… [and it goes on]
The quote is accurate. However, it doesn't take you where you want to go, which is obviously why you don't actually wrap it up--it doesn't wrap up. You're obviously just hoping the babble is sufficient. (With Marcus that may be enough, he's not competent really--won't fool Lynnette though. Sure as hell don't impress me. And I don't even think you can fool Marcus with that, but I already said that much. So, ya got anything else or was that your last desperate shot? ‛Cause if that's all ya got…)
Oh, and I look at that and what it tells me is that you ain't bettin’ no $1,000 up on your one-time claim that:
"[Neutrinos'] only interaction with other matter is via
the weak nuclear force…"
Petes @ Thu Jul 12, 07:15:00 pm (previous page)
But I'm still willing to take a bet on that one. (You know the rules.)
Oh, yeah, and last thing…
You have a sort of overriding need I've noticed to gettin’ the last word.
So, consider this your free shot.
Last word's yours; go for it. But, make it good, ‛cause it'll have to stand on its own.
(Except for the Hillary rigging/cheating thing, which still has room to embarrass you further--that's still open--hop right to it and I'll be right there with ya.)
[Troll]: " You're obviously just hoping the babble is sufficient... Sure as hell don't impress me."
That's why you have no clue how to approach science. The argument doesn't depend on you bein' impressed. The argument depends on the presentation and evaluation of evidence. Any fairminded observer will note that I backed up every single assertion with references and links. I didn't post half the ones I had 'cos they'd be way over yer head and you'd just rabbit on about jargon and technobabble. But I posted sufficient to blow your asinine nonsense out of the water. What's more, I stand willing to answer any questions whatsoever on any of these topics to fairminded individuals (which obviously dudn't include nasty nitpickin' neurotic trolls). And oh yeah, I still happily have $1,000 of my personal cash on the line.
[Troll]: "So, consider this your free shot. Last word's yours; go for it. But, make it good, ‛cause it'll have to stand on its own."
Well on the one hand I'm glad to see yore giving up. On the other hand, ya don't have much choice in the matter. You ain't got a leg to stand. Dudn't matter to me whether it's the last word or not. Got all the quotes, all the links, all the proof ready to copy and paste anytime ya decide yore not beat after all, as ya tend to do.
Nothin' I can do, of course, when ya justly flatly assert that yore more qualified than a world leading particle physicist. On the other hand, that particular stunt is gonna very quickly lead yore all important "audience" to the conclusion that y'all are a delusional moron. Fact of the matter is, I'm sick enough of yore trollish lyin' and nitpickin' that I'm happy to paste refutations from here to kingdom come.
So whether it's the last word or not will be up to y'all, not me. You keep trollin', I'll keep troll huntin'.
"I still happily have $1,000 of my personal cash on the line."
The bet I offered? (Yeah, I know I said you could have the last word, but that was after I offered to make the bet--Wed Jul 18, 08:40:00 pm, and when I offered you the last word--at Wed Jul 18, 08:45:00 pm it was intended to cover last word on your closing argument on why your new parameters made you smart or whatever the hell you think you're proving with the bait and switch, and it was not intended to offer last word on the bet or on Hillary's supposed cheating/rigging thing)
So, you willing to take the bet I offered? Under the rules I laid out? (@Wed Jul 18, 08:40:00 pm)
If so there's logistics to discuss. If not, there's still the Hillary cheating/rigging thing waiting for you to address.
Or, to be plain about it all… I'm still willing to bet against:
"[Neutrinos] only interaction with other matter is via
the weak nuclear force…"
Petes @ Thu Jul 12, 07:15:00 pm (previous page)
But I never agreed to limit the interactions under consideration to only the ‛neutrino scattering’ part of the interactions. And I ain't agreeing to that limitation now. So far as I'm concerned all interactions, including secondary interactions, are up for examination. So, without that new limitation you wanna slide in there--you still wanna bet? (You know the rules.)
[Troll]: "Or, to be plain about it all… I'm still willing to bet against: "[Neutrinos] only interaction with other matter is via the weak nuclear force…""
Yeah, I had a feelin' ya weren't ready to shut up about it. Well, I presume you ain't askin' me to paste the same links again?! Ya know ... the ones where Wikipedia and the world-renowned particle physicist say yore full of shit?
[Troll]: "But I never agreed to limit the interactions under consideration to only the ‛neutrino scattering’ part of the interactions."
That's 'cos ya don't know what an interaction is ... leastways, not in the formal physical sense. Ya want to introduce yer own troll colloquialisms in which words can mean anything ya like, and even "the meaning of 'if'" can be challenged. Ain't got time for that shit. Ya wanna talk science, we'll talk actual science ... in which "interactions" are not just stuff generally jigglin' around, and "the weak interaction" means a very specific set of currents involving very specific gauge bosons. As Richard Feynman famously said... "you don't like it? then go somewhere else -- to another universe where the rules are different, more aesthetically pleasing to you".
[Troll]: "And I ain't agreeing to that limitation now. So far as I'm concerned all interactions, including secondary interactions, are up for examination."
Then go talk to someone who cares. Someone who will let words mean whatever ya want them to mean. Someone who will let ya make up yer own science in which electromagnetism is a weak interaction (LOL) and particle physicists are wrong just 'cos ya say so. Hint: that someone ain't me.
That reads as a "no" on the bet I offered. Well, so be it then.
So, on to Hillary and the cheating/rigging of Democratic primaries, whichever way you want to spell it.
What primary did she rig/cheat; what action did she take that constituted cheating/rigging; and what documentation do you have to support your claim that her campaign took the action you identify as cheating/rigging of the said primary?
Doesn't look like Petes is gonna try to back up that ‛rigging’ of the Democratic primary spiel, so we're not gonna get to bounce him around on his Hillary fantasies.
And, he obviously did a lot of googling furiously and he obviously now knows not to say that:
"[Neutrinos] only interaction with other matter is via
the weak nuclear force…"
Petes @ Thu Jul 12, 07:15:00 pm (previous page)
So, we'll not probably not be hearing that out of him in the future (except, of course, for occasional Trumpian-type displays of defiance of the truth for the sake of demonstrating his defiance). That leaves me with a couple of things to beat him about the head and shoulders with in the coming days. The first being:
"Everything interacts with gravity…"
Petes @ Thu Jul 12, 08:23:00 pm (previous
page; emphasis in original)
And then, of course, there's…
"Gravity…is merely curved space."
Petes @ Sun Jul 15, 09:34:00 pm ↑↑
Which is also not true.
There's potentially a lot of fun to be had with Petes with those two things in the coming days.
I mentioned once before that it appeared curious that several of the major players on Team Trump had not been subpoenaed nor even questioned by Mueller's troops. I specifically included Trump Jr., Michael Cohen, Trump himself (of course), and Jared Kushner (then I remembered that Kushner had actually been questioned by Mueller's team early in the game, but not under subpoena).
I speculated that this was gonna be changing here soon.
Well, I've run across a contrary theory being advanced by an ex-federal prosecutor, and it seems credible to me. May not be correct; he's on the outside lookin’ in as are most of us, and Mueller's running a tight ship, no leaks out of there, so we're all guessing. But this looks like a credible theory to me.
Basically, it boils down the idea that Mueller already has the information he needs to indict Kushner and Trump Jr. And has already decided to indict them. It's apparently DoJ policy to not subpeona the targets of a grand jury investigation, and they're already targets. (DoJ lingo for gonna get indicted.) This reasoning also applies to why Mueller's people seem to have backed off trying to get testimony from Trump, himself.
I think it's a credible theory; worth looking at and considering. NBCNews
(Probably Mueller will never indict Trump, but he might name him as an unindicted co-conspirator à la Richard Nixon in the Watergate scandal. Or, Mueller might even get an indictment out of the grand jury and then turn it over unsigned to Rod Rosenstein and make him decide whether to sign and file it.)
[Petes]: But again,I think all this is easily explained by Trump's massive ego.
Some of it, yes. But the finances, I don't think so. He's still in business, and yet, he really isn't that good at it. He's went under too many times and manged to find financing. I'd start digging there.
Oops, I haven't had a chance to read the comments, yet. I just noticed Lee may have commented on the same subject.
After Trump became toxic to American financiers he turned to Russians for financing. Nobody knows how deeply indebted he became. However, Trump Jr. has written over the years (from about 2008 through 2014) that the Trump financial conglomerate didn't suffer unduly from the Great Recession because they had all the financing they needed from the Russians--again this was Trump Jr. writing as recently as 2014. (And then there's the matter of Russian oligarchs paying $109 million in cash for Trump properties just in New York, and those are just the ones we know about.)
Come 2016 and Trump reverses his prior pledge to release his tax returns. And he swears that doesn't have any indebtedness to any Russian entities.
This stuff ain't explained by ‛massive ego’.
[Troll]: "[Neutrinos] only interaction with other matter is via the weak nuclear force… Everything interacts with gravity… Gravity…is merely curved space."
Yup. All true. Posted the links which anyone who ain't a deranged neurotic troll can find on this or previous pages.
[Troll]: "So, we'll not probably not be hearing that out of him in the future..."
You wish.
Back in Prague again. But on My iPad so don't feel like typing much. Great to be here. Feels much more like Europe than back home does. Doubt they shoot people left and right here like the arabs at home do. Am actually contemplating buying an apartment here, but have no real Idea yet on how to do so.
Anyways, here until Monday. Good Times'.
"That's 'cos ya don't know what an interaction is ...
leastways, not in the formal physical sense. Ya want to
introduce yer own troll colloquialisms in which words
can mean anything ya like."
I think I will address that after all. I was thinking of letting it go. But, to paraphrase that first Poltergist movie: ‛he's back’.
One must assume that Petes was bitchin’ here about what he claims is my supposedly "colloquial" use of the intransitive verb ‛interaction’. Nothing else makes any sense in context. So, without further ado:
Merriam-Webster
Interact
in·ter·act \ ËŒin-tÉ™r-ˈakt \
intransitive verb
: to act upon one another
Cambridge Online (American)
interact
verb [ I ] US /ˌɪn·tÉ™rˈækt/
to communicate with or react to each other:
Google
[yes, I've come to know that Google now has their own
online dictionary; bastards are everywhere these days]
in·ter·act
/ˌ in(t)ərˈakt/Submit
verb
verb: interact; 3rd person present: interacts; past
tense: interacted; past participle: interacted; gerund or
present participle: interacting
act in such a way as to have an effect on another; act
reciprocally.
Dictionary.Com
interact
[in-ter-akt]
verb (used without object)
to act one upon another.
Oxford Online
interact
VERB
[NO OBJECT]
1 Act in such a way as to have an effect on each other.
Petes, on the other hand appears to have his own set of definitions for the word ‛interact’, which definition or definitions he's keeping secret to himself. (Much like one of those secret theological definitions he used to rely upon and which he would reveal to no one lest they the definitions be examined and the examination expose him further in his idiocies.)
It appears that Trump has backed down from his plan to allow Putin' minions to question American intelligence officers (and some former diplomats--may be some overlap there). The White House revealed that Trump had decided he didn't like that plan only moments before the Senate voted, in a veto-proof, 98-0 majority--to denounce the idea entirely.
[Lee]: Probably Mueller will never indict Trump,...
[From article]: Maybe Mueller is simply biding his time.
Or perhaps if Mueller waits long enough Trump will "indict" himself...
That kind of gets back to Petes' theory that Trump is an idiot.
I wouldn't be surprised to see a slew of indictments, probably including Trump Jr. and Kushner (if Mueller's got the goods), around August or early September. If I recall correctly, DoJ guidelines (the ones James Comey didn't follow with Hillary), the guidelines call for not making major moves like indictments or major announcements within 60 days of an election.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Back to Petes
Originally Pete made the following incorrect statement:
"[Neutrinos] only interaction with other matter is via
the weak nuclear force…"
Petes @ Thu Jul 12, 07:15:00 pm (previous page)
That was wrong (still is wrong) and I called him on it.
After much fuss over the new science out of Chicago from last summer, Petes insisted that those were high energy particles:
"1) Neutrinos that we are interested in from cosmic sources
are very energetic…"
Petes @ Wed Jul 18, 09:16:00 am ↑↑
That was definitely wrong. So he just moved on along to claim instead that:
"…elastic neutrino scattering which has been predicted for
some decades but never before observed. BECAUSE IT IS RARE."
Petes @ Mon Jul 16, 08:47:00 pm ↑↑
Well, that's not true either. The low-energy, bounce the atom, bounce the electrons, type of collision is the common type--more common than the high-energy collisions Petes knew about by ‛orders of magnitude’, plural (they didn't specify how many orders of magnitude, but they did specify the plural), far and away the most common--not rare at all.
It should have been obvious by then that Petes didn't know what the hell he's talking about. If it weren't obvious by then, his next move should have clued in even Marcus. Petes moved his target away from ‛[neutrino] interaction with other matter’, and now he wants to talk only about ‛neutrino scattering’. (Petes @ Mon Jul 16, 08:44:00 pm ↑↑) That's a whole different thing. Neutrinos scatter after they've interacted with matter--it's all over by the time they're scattering; they hit; they bounce; they separate from the matter; they scatter, move off in a new direction. (And he made sure to call me things like dickhead and dolt and some other choice ones while he switching subjects, probably an attempt to distract us from his bait and switch, but I didn't see any reason to discuss the childish naming with him--waste of time.)
Now, the reason he wants to talk only about ‛neutrino scattering’ is because the scattering happens after the collision with matter--and the interactions are all over by then. His game here is to only count the interactions which are not electromagnetic, ignore those--just pretend they don't exist, and then claim they don't exist because he doesn't count them.
That's it guys--that's Petes doing his very best physics for ya right there. All deceptions, all of it.
[Marcus]: "Back in Prague again... Am actually contemplating buying an apartment here, but have no real Idea yet on how to do so."
Yeah, I can think of worse places to live or go for extended visits. I've also worked with some Czech people and liked them a lot. One of my siblings spends a few weeks there at the end of summer every year. Pity about the language being neither Romance nor Germanic.
[Troll]: "His game here is to only count the interactions which are not electromagnetic, ignore those--just pretend they don't exist, and then claim they don't exist because he doesn't count them. That's it guys--that's Petes doing his very best physics for ya right there. All deceptions, all of it."
LOL. The troll jes' cannot let it go. I thought I was being given the last word several posts ago. Nope, apparently not.
First of all, the troll treats us to dictionary definitions of "interaction". His typical Jesuitical stuff. Says of me that "Petes, on the other hand appears to have his own set of definitions for the word ‛interact’, which definition or definitions he's keeping secret to himself". Nope, wrong again. They are not secret. They are the ones used by particle physicists, and described using Feynman diagrams. I already pointed this out to the troll, but he avoided it like the plague. Probably because a) he don't understand them, b) they show him to categorically wrong.
And when I say categorically wrong, I mean stupidly, laughably wrong. The only problem is I can't explain it to him 'cos he ain't got the background and neither does anyone else here. Every time I try I get accused of jargon and technobabble. But just so I don't get accused of hiding anything, here is YET ANOTHER PRESENTATION which explains it all. (Anyone noticin' how I'm the one providing all the evidence -- the troll provides nothin' but fodder for jokes and a lot of gripin'). For anyone who can understand it (and I am going to bold direct quotes so ya can search for them) this lecture explains:
- Neutrinos only feel the weak force (particle physicists mostly don't care about gravity, a fact that the dumb troll has resolutely and intentionally misunderstood 'cos it allows him to nitpick)
- Why “Weak”? Weak interactions are weak because of the massive W and Z bosons exchange (and therefore cannot possibly include electromagnetic interactions as the troll laughably claimed)
- interactions are illustrated by Feynman diagrams which show messenger particle exchanges. That's the technical definition of an interaction, not miscellaneous jiggles that the troll wants to talk about in order to avoid precision (which would show him up to be full of shit).
- even neutrino-electron elastic scattering interactions are weak interactions, and involve the exchange of a Z boson (see Feynman diagram page 32).
The problem is, the troll didn't know anything about any of this stuff when he decided to nitpick my very simple reply to Lynnette that neutrinos only feel the weak nuclear force. More'n'a week later he has dug hisself in so deep he is furiously Googlin' stuff that is so way over his head he can't even formulate the questions, let alone understand the answers. However, I suspect he's bright enough to learn a bit from all this ... only pity is he can't admit it because of his ongoing neuroses.
"…here is YET ANOTHER PRESENTATION which
explains it all…"
That artwork's dated 2006, and the low-energy ”coherent" neutrino/nucleus collisions weren't found until 2017, some eleven years later. Obviously, it does not explain what wasn't found until eleven years later.
This the best you can do?
"…messenger particle exchanges [are] the technical
definition of an interaction…"
Now you're just making shit up again. Let's see your authority for this little gem. Let's see where that's given as the definition of an interaction with rather than just the description of the mechanics involved on the neutrino side of the interaction.
As much ‛furious googling’ as you've been accusing me of, you'd have run across just such a definition by now if it existed. If such a defintion existed, you'd have linked to it here instead of just making that grand sweeping pronouncement on the authority of The Great and Wonderful Petes (I shoulda realized when you resurrected that persona that you'd abandoned all allegiance to the truth. But then again, I should have figured it out when you told us that it is ‛perfectly acceptable’ (Petes @ Sun Jul 15, 09:34:00 pm ↑↑) and ‛perfectly valid’ (Petes @ Wed Jul 18, 09:16:00 am ↑↑) to make grand pronouncements which happen to not be true.)
"…neutrinos only feel the weak nuclear force…"
Now, that part happens to be true. If you'd have said that instead of what you did say, we'd not have been having this litte interaction of ours. But, we were originally arguing over:
"[Neutrinos'] …interaction with other matter…"
Petes @ Thu Jul 12, 07:15:00 pm (previous page)
Now you wanna cut it back to only the mechanics of what happens on the neutrino side, which is exactly what I've tried to explain to our friends. You wanna look just at the neutrino side of neutino interaction with other matter, and ignore the other matter on the other side. (Apparently on the assumption that if you pretend you don't see it, then it don't exist. That doesn't actually work. Things do not disappear because The Great and Wonderful Petes refuses to see them.)
"WASHINGTON — President Trump’s longtime lawyer,
Michael D. Cohen, secretly recorded a conversation
with Mr. Trump two months before the presidential
election in which they discussed payments to a former
Playboy model who said she had an affair with Mr.
Trump, according to lawyers and others familiar with
the recording.
"The F.B.I. seized the recording this year during a raid
on Mr. Cohen’s office."
NewYorkTimes
Well, there's Trump caught, dead to rights on a second obstruction of justice charge. Problem is, the Republicans will never vote to impeach, nor to convict, and Trump's newest Supreme Court Justice is gonna vote that Trump may not be indicted. (He doesn't even have to pardon himself--the Republicans will protect him.)
Post Script:
Might as well get one thing straight right now. May save us some time going forward. Diagrams are not definitions. Feynman diagrams are not definitions. Simple English language truth.
[Troll]: "That artwork's dated 2006, and the low-energy ”coherent" neutrino/nucleus collisions weren't found until 2017, some eleven years later. Obviously, it does not explain what wasn't found until eleven years later."
Did you even read the U.Chicago paper? That also means you didn't look at the parts of it I referred you to. The paper is the announcement of an OBSERVATION, not a discovery. Those elastic scatterings were expected from forty years previously, they knew exactly what they were looking for, it's in the references. It's also in their own diagram 1A.
[Petes]: "interactions are illustrated by Feynman diagrams which show messenger particle exchanges. That's the technical definition of an interaction..."
[Troll]: "Now you're just making shit up again. Let's see your authority for this little gem. Let's see where that's given as the definition of an interaction with rather than just the description of the mechanics involved on the neutrino side of the interaction."
In particle physics, force carriers or messenger particles or intermediate particles are particles that give rise to forces between other particles. (Wikipedia).
[Troll]: "Might as well get one thing straight right now. May save us some time going forward. Diagrams are not definitions. Feynman diagrams are not definitions."
The interaction of sub-atomic particles can be complex and difficult to understand intuitively. Feynman diagrams give a simple visualization of what would otherwise be an arcane and abstract formula... theoretical physicists have increasingly turned to this tool to help them undertake critical calculations... Feynman diagrams have revolutionized nearly every aspect of theoretical physics. (Wikipedia)
[Troll]: " "…neutrinos only feel the weak nuclear force…" Now, that part happens to be true. If you'd have said that instead of what you did say, we'd not have been having this litte interaction of ours."
No, that part happens not to be true. Neutrinos feel the gravitational force too. Troll hisself pointed this out, except he presumably has now discovered some big distinction between "feeling a force" and "interacting with other particles".
I'm gonna set this out for "the audience". Don't give a crap what the troll makes of it, as he's demonstrated a complete lack of comprehension so far.
There are four fundamental forces of nature. Forces are the way (the ONLY way) that energy is transmitted in the universe. In the most basic kiddie physics, forces are described as the capacity to do work. (Work = energy). In modern physics three of the forces are described by quantum field theory and one -- gravity -- by General Relativity. Quantum physicists hope and expect that one day they will have a quantum description of gravity too that is also consistent with GR, but it has eluded everyone so far.
The forces described by QFT all involve the exchange of messenger particles known as gauge bosons. That is THE ONLY way a particle feels a force or interacts with anything else. There is no other way. If a particle doesn't emit or absorb a messenger particle it has not interacted, and no work has been done.
Each force has its own gauge bosons -- photons for the electromagnetic force, gluons for the strong nuclear force, and W and Z bosons for the weak nuclear force. Neutrinos only feel (i.e. only interact through) the weak nuclear force. That is, they only exchange W and Z bosons in interactions. That's all they can do. If you find a Feynman diagram showing them exchanging anything else, either it's wrong or I'm wrong. (Hint: I'm not wrong).
[Troll]: "Now you wanna cut it back to only the mechanics of what happens on the neutrino side, which is exactly what I've tried to explain to our friends. You wanna look just at the neutrino side of neutino interaction with other matter, and ignore the other matter on the other side. (Apparently on the assumption that if you pretend you don't see it, then it don't exist. That doesn't actually work. Things do not disappear because The Great and Wonderful Petes refuses to see them.)"
Nope, as "our friends" can see, I've been doing exactly the opposite of that from the beginning. Force interactions involve interactions between particles. You are the one getting all pissy about the Fenyman diagrams which show that. And what they show is that neutrinos do not interact any way other than by exchange of W and Z bosons, i.e. by the weak nuclear force, as I've been saying from the beginning.
Pete:
"Yeah, I can think of worse places to live or go for extended visits. I've also worked with some Czech people and liked them a lot. One of my siblings spends a few weeks there at the end of summer every year. Pity about the language being neither Romance nor Germanica"
I Love the Chech people. Very straight forward and no bullshit. Also Prague might be a good refuge point IF Scandinavia should continue on its course and become an arabia of the north. Of course we shouldntry and fight that, but IF worst come to pass one might need a refuge point.
This place has a great feel to it, and it's a beautiful city.
That said, i agree with you on the language. It's fucking incomprihensible.
Oh those recordings, you just never know where they'll turn up...
Also Prague might be a good refuge point IF Scandinavia should continue on its course and become an arabia of the north.
I have to wonder how the new neighbors would go over with Trump's new BFF Putin?
"The paper is the announcement of an OBSERVATION, not a discovery.
Those elastic scatterings were expected from forty years previously,"
Expectations are not a discovery; predictions are not a discovery; a lot of things theoreticians or predicted over the last forty years haven't worked out. I'm comfortable with calling it a discovery as of last summer, confirming one set of predictions, disproving another old theory (i.e. that neutrinos only interact with other types of matter via the weak nuclear force)
"No, that part happens not to be true."
Yeah, you're right; neutrinos have mass; I should have caught your mistake when you first made it there, but I let that one get by me. But, it's fixed now.
"That is THE ONLY way a particle feels a force or
interacts with anything else. There is no other way."
Ya know, I'm not sure whether the electromagnet interactions (usually but not always based on non-mass photons) are considered ‛gauge bosons’ or not. Are photons considered ‛gage bosons’? I'd have to look that up to know for sure (non-furious googling, as I already know what I'd be looking for).
However, W particles carry a charge, and their interactions are sometimes electrical, not weak nuclear (depending on what it's interacting with). Again for emphasis that interaction is electrical, not weak nuclear. Get back your furious googling and check it out; you'll learn some more; you'll learn I'm right; and there's more yet for you to learn.
There is a special tonight on CNN at 10:00 Central time about Putin. Yes, I know Lee, you don't get cable. I'll try to post the highlights if I manage to stay awake for it. :)
It's just pouring rain out right now. Hmmm...I kind of wanted to go grocery shopping after dinner. Maybe it will quit.
"…you'll learn I'm right…"
Actually, I'm pretty much sure you already know I'm right, the resurrection of The Great and Wonderful Petes persona certainly seems to indicate that, along with your ‛perfectly acceptable’ and ‛perfectly valid intentional misstatements.
But, every once in a while I begin to suspect that maybe your really are just confused.
Oh, and just so everybody notices… He's dropped his attempt at pretending diagrams are definitions. That one bit the dust fairly ingloriously and fairly quick. Now he's off on another tear in a whole new direction.
Post a Comment