I cant help thinking of these nuclear experiments to be performed for the sake of the construction of new particle weapons however that may be done.they wont tell me that its just for the reason of examining new paricles. that makes nos ense. with the huge amount of money being implied there must be a military involvement in those weird experiments.
Although everyone else on youtube seems to hate it, I love seeing pages of debate in the comments section. It means that people are at least using their brains.
@fishypaw Well, even the ones that I disagree with are engaged in some form of intellectual discussion. You know, instead of talking about boobs, farts, and how they don't like it when youtube makes upgrades, because they are too retarded to adapt.
@gagnashdiak the CERN laboratory is testing nuclear particle physics, the most powerfull mekanism know too mankind, the nuclear reaction, for example the sun... it's the worlds largest (and perhaps greatest) research facility, and boast the worlds largest analysing center, one of their greatest accomplicements that we see taking form today is the world wide web. show some respect.
Thanks guys, I was reading your comments and I missed the presentation about neutrinos. You are disturbing the whole class. Now I have to download this and watch it later.
It's amazing how far we've come and that we can actualy even know of a neutrinos existence. We've gone from thinking an atom of matter is the smallest bit of matter in existence, to this, and beyond.
Good Channel, Much more than People can Imagine We are DRUGGED before Birth to Death, they are Adding Hex-ACID to our BRAINS thru Cola's=Sodium=Micro tiny Particles of Aluminum, Lead etc attaches to ends of Neurons forms Clusters in Pineal Gland, Causes Lazy Thyroid=Depression=Tired BAd Feeling, Damaging thinking 25% upto Millions with NO MIND LEFT, see Films at "FLUORIDEALERT", 4cents day Take Magnesium especially at Bedtime, Pure Water, ADDICTION to Cola & Sweets Broke in 2 weeks, You go thru
Nice vid!Thanks.fertilizerspike u should get the reptoids in yr basement to fire up that crank-lotron and look again for those neutrinos,and post the vid here-I'd LOVE to see it!And toss in some"electric evidence"from your pal halton arp too-thats if yr not seeing red by now Lol!And weapons lab?!WTF?Where would we be without you?it would be a duller world for sure.But hurry before you get banned here,like u have everywhere else.Ka Kite,Scatole breath!
I have no idea what you're talking about, but Cern is a weapons lab. If you don't think so, it's only because you are stupendously ignorant and stupid.
@fertilizerspike You seem to be a well educated person with a good perspective in life. I'll just assume that from your talking. Your so good with the trolling you do here, I wish I could be as creative with my view on the world. I'm pretty sure it would be more fun and almost be as an action game where I can fight some bad ass govs and companys while being the hero of my own little world. =D
There's always one weirdo defending something other than Science on every science based video. Freedom of speech, love it but it can sometimes be annoying.lol
@Irockmarkdowns Okay...I'll stop feeding the troll. If he doesn't want the antidote for all the poisoned information in his head, I guess I'll let it consume him instead of trying to force it in his head. I can see he's failing to infect others here so no reason bothering anymore. Thanks for the advice!
No one with their right mind would claim the universe was created from nothing. The source of energy in the universe was GPE which is and has always been produced by the vacuum. Of course it's expanding, it cannot be completely static. Without an opposing force, gravity would cause it to collapse. Plus energy is always in motion and thus the universe must be dynamic by nature. The BB is confirmed by observations such as Cosmic Background Radiation, Microwave Anisotropy, Hubble Shift etc.
What you fail to realize is that whenever charged bodies are able to interact electrically, gravity is mooted. Over 99% of the universe is plasma. Plasmas are affected about thirty times more strongly by electromagnetic forces than by "gravity". There is no evidence suggesting the universe is "expanding", or contracting, for that matter. This "energy from vacuum" idea you seem to have latched onto is similar to the way electric and magnetic fields arise spontaneously in plasma.
CMBR does not in any way lend support to big bang. There were literally dozens of guesses as to the "temperature" of space, all made by big bang believers, and about 99% of them wrong. How big bang believers can call this a success is beyond me.
CMBR is isotropic, or homogeneous, everywhere in the sky, not anisotropic, as you claim. This would only support big bang belief if the Earth was in the center of the universe.
The so-called "Hubble shift" has absolutely nothing to do with distance, age or velocity, Halton Arp and many others have proven this belief is false. Welcome to the twentieth century, now you're just a century behind modern science. This "shift" is caused by the faraday effect, a well-known effect of magnetic fields on light. See also for contrast: Zeeman effect
@fertilizerspike Arp is a man that closed his mind around his claims. Because of newer technological advances since Arp's initial claims, such as the Hubble, it has been increasingly easy to disprove Arp's assessments. Arp has lost most of his credibility in the international science arena because of his irrational and close minded cling to his ideals. A scientist must be open-minded and must adapt to the times. Arp fails to do this and fell prey to delusion from his own theories.
Your big bang belief system is as easily deconstructed as christainity. If you say it relies on "redshift" equaling distance equaling velocity, Halton Arp proved that wrong, many times, my direct observation. He so upset the apple cart that he was eventually denied time on university telescopes. that's how threatening he was to your redshift beliefs. His observations destroyed it.
I really wish fundamentalists would stick to religion and stay out of science.
@fertilizerspike Threatening?! No. Arp got to emotional with his own theories and closed his mind around it, which is not a good sign. Arp ignores evidence shown by Hubble Deep Field, X-ray telescopes, radio telescopes and other powerful telescopes. His theories a threat?! No. Just it's become easier to disprove his theories. Arp's rival, Maarten Schmidt, ended up defeating Arp in the end.
Debate is not about convincing the opponent, but the audience.
@luckystrke It does seem impossible, but that is because the only forms of matter we have daily experience with respond to the electromagnetic force and strong nuclear force. They are also traveling very slowly. Neutrinos only respond to the weak force and even weaker force of gravity. They just can't touch (transfer energy) to other particles because they share so little attraction or repulsion with them. Weird Huh?
I will admit, I am thoroughly amazed by the research mentioned in this video. Granted, I have never really studied physics, but from having been subscribed to this channel long enough, I've gleaned a little something. It's true what they say about any sufficiently advanced technology being indistinguishable from magic. To imagine everything around us as made up of nothing but particles is truly, in my opinion, akin to religion, albeit a religion I'm comfortable with. Hooray for Science!
There is No question that they are making History with this new Machine. What is important is who are you working for, and what are you helping to acomplish? Is it for the GOOD of all Humanity or is it just helping a few to............................!!!?
So... do they just fire the neutrinos through the earth since they hardly react with real matter? It would be a lot cheaper than building a 700 km tunnel
@fertilizerspike You must correct your own errors first before you can correct others. Right now, all you're doing is feeding misinformation, something I'm clearly against.
@fertilizerspike Then everything about you is in serious error and your to stupid to see that. I guess that's because of your low reading comprehension skills, clearly observable from your posts.
@spritestouch Now we understand the nature of neutrinos better and the observation of neutrino oscillations is strong evidence for new physics, that could shed light on Dark Matter. They'll be useful for testing astrophysical sources beyond our solar system, also as a very good observation technique.
Dark matter is a preposterous fable invented to explain why black hole doesn't explain the shape and motion of observed galaxies. Dark matter broke big bang so dark energy had to be invented. In both cases these things are said to be unobservable. Only a complete fool would profess belief in something that can not be observed.
@fertilizerspike First of all, dark matter is NOT an ad hoc epicycle-like explanation. It's empirically testable, and has been seen via gravitational lensing. There are numerous ways to explain dark matter - WIMPs, HDM, MACHOs and so on. Besides, there are alternative theories which don't get as much press, such as TeVeS or Modified Newtonian Dynamics. Regardless, none of this affects Big Bang theory so you're plain wrong.
Dark matter is ad hoc, and is not empirically testable, since it's stated that it can not be observed.
Gravitational lensing is a crock, it violates proven principles of physics, gravity has absolutely no discernible effect on light at all. This is verified by experiment, the idea that gravity can have any such influence on light is speculative. Electric and magnetic forces can so effect light, see the faraday and zeeman effects for two examples. Welcome to the twenty-first century.
@fertilizerspike "gravity has absolutely no discernible effect on light at all."
So what would you call observations made where a single star is tracked and in one location, there are all of a sudden, multiple images of the same star in one image, then it goes back to a single star after passing the gravitational lens.
Gravitational lensing is no longer doubted in the scientific community. Start getting your facts straight and stop with your speculation. You've been anything but right.
As for the effect on big bang, if you abandon dark matter, you are left to explain the shape and motion of galaxies, which gravity can not. Galaxies are dominated on every scale by electric and magnetic forces, which is why gravity models fail. The universe as a whole largely ignores gravity. The only place gravity works reasonably well is on the thin lithosphere-atmosphere boundary layer of Earth where all known life exists. Even here it fails, see: refrigerator magnet
As for the effect on big bang, if you abandon dark matter, you are left to explain the shape and motion of galaxies, which gravity can not. Galaxies are dominated on every scale by electric and magnetic forces, which is why gravity models fail. The universe as a whole largely ignores gravity. The only place gravity works reasonably well is on the thin lithosphere-atmosphere boundary layer of Earth where all known life exists. Even here it fails, see: refrigerator magnet
As for the effect on big bang, if you abandon dark matter, you are left to explain the shape and motion of galaxies, which gravity can not. Galaxies are dominated on every scale by electric and magnetic forces, which is why gravity models fail. The universe as a whole largely ignores gravity. The only place gravity works reasonably well is on the thin lithosphere-atmosphere boundary layer of Earth where all known life exists. Even here it fails, see: refrigerator magnet
CERN is producing exotic elements by firing beams of energy and particles at a giant matrix of lead bricks. They're also taking the opportunity to study the particle and energy beams while they're being powered up in order to exploit the principles for weapons.
I wish YouTube existed when I was taking Physics. So often I watch a BestOfScience video and think to myself, "Oh yeah, now I see it!" compared to the classroom or lecture hall where i'd say to myself, "Huh???" and hoped I'd not be called on to comment.
I can appreciate exploration for exploration sake but I respectfully suggest advances go the route of need - work - discovery; sometimes dream - work discovery. For example we dreamed of flight, did the work and figured it out. My question is really what is the dream, where is the need. I'm not discounting the exploration just asking a practical question. If scientists did not think like me they wouldn't have money to do any research and yes we would still be in the dark ages.
@stonetop I am not saying it is not important, but the LHC is a very, very expensive tool, and I am still wondering what theories it is a good test of. The standard model already has the hell tested out of it while the GUT's and TOE's I have heard "don't know" are mostly beyond the energy range of the LHC,
@IconOfSin88 Everytime, I hear a creotard say that their bible is the best science book in the world. I ask them to name one discovery or invention that came out of the Bible. It is the most studied book in the world, you'd think someone would have invented something by now.
@TheCaptainLulz It's not thier size which causes them to struggle to interact with matter, it's the fact that they do not interact strongly (via the strong force), so they don't "see" normal baryonic matter which is what most of the universe is made of (negating dark matter and energy). A neutrino flying through a planet is like a plane flying through a cloud...it doesn't matter if it's there or not.
@Neutrinoghost Kewl, Didn't know the mechanism behind their lack of interaction, thanks for that. Im guessing a better analogy than the plane would probably be like trying to hit a penny on the moon with a lazer. Theres just so little target that hitting it is virtually impossible. I read once it would take a lead block from the surface of the sun to saturn to stop 5 nutrinos.
@TheCaptainLulz No, your still wrong. Your analogy is still dependant on the size of the penny and the moon. The size isn't important, neutrino's physically DO NOT SEE matter, they can travel straight thorugh anything without hittng it. Regarding your last comment, the analogy is wrong again im afraid. From everything I've heard, it would take 7 light years worth of lead (175 trillion miles) to stop ONE neutrino.
@fertilizerspike a weapons lab? Are you somehow crazy? Or are you a member of some right- or leftwing group? CERN is just a scientific lab. Science does not create weapons it creates knowledge. The mankind often uses new knowledge to be destructive is a thing on th other hand. "Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?"
@fertilizerspike The LHC isn't about making neutrinos, you need to actually learn what it is doing before you start making up shit. And please provide some form of evidence to back up your claims.
@fertilizerspike Your really good at avoiding quesitons, maybe you should become a politician. Like I've asked for 3 times now...please provide evidence of your claims.
@Neutrinoghost fertilizespike isn't capable of providing evidence. Everything he said can easily be verified as false and as conspiracy theory. He appears be and individual whom has a misplaced superiority complex whom believes he knows more then scientists. He follows uncredited scientists, conspiracy theorists and his own baseless speculation. The evidence of his delusion is all around this comment page. See for yourself! CERN as a weapons lab is one of his own baseless speculations.
@Ridleysama isn't capable of carrying on an intelligent discussion because he lacks intelligence, and is ignorant in the extreme. If intelligence and knowledge were dynamite, this dumb fuck wouldn't have enough to blow his runny nose. I didn't claim to "know more than scientists", what I claimed was that there are a large number of people calling themselves scientists who are anything but. These people should be ridiculed at every opportunity.
If you're talking about yourself in that comment, that would explain you perfectly. If not, then you are once again completely off! I'm sure other will agree that your own comment describes you perfectly.
I've been through this with another douchebag in another comments section, you'll have to tell me which claims you want me to support, since I've made more than one. Is that clear enough for you? I can't provide evidenciary support for every single claim I've made in one comment.
I'm thinking you have to know some psychics to understand this, so my question is, why you watch it since you don't get anything? Some people here are ignorant trolls and others praise something they don't understand, it's equally dumb.
You seem to be one of the ignorant trolls. What do you get out of it? I haven't seen any of your comments that suggest you know anything about anything other than running your mouth.
@fertilizerspike For starters, don't tell me what I should be talking about. You are no kind of authority to be giving anyone orders on how they should write their comments. Second really? You don't know anything about psychics and you've studied it? I really don't believe you. I study biology and astrophysics and I KNOW that you don't KNOW what you're talking about.
I never told you anything about what you should talk about, I said you're ignorant and that you're a troll and that your comments don't support this notion that you're educated or intelligent. The consensus views an "astrophysics" are cartoonish and generally false. Feel free to spout whatever you think you know about astrophysics.
@fertilizerspike See, and from everything you stated even the stupidest person can check at least 100 sites and books that you don't understand psychics. At least I wasn't trying to convince people of something. So what's the lesson, kids? Don't listen to ME, don't listen to Fertilizerspike and for that matter to ANYONE on the internet, because they can lie for just about everything. Do your own research.
@fertilizerspike Where did I say that people should accept anything from every source? Of course I was suggesting they look up reliable sources and turn to people, of whose education they're absolutely certain. Not to mention that most of the stuff you mention can be proved wrong by a fricken encyclopedia. I don't know what you've been reading, but you sound like a little goon who can't be bothered to use one. If it's your intent to be contrary, then take that up with someone who gives a damn.
Just because it's written in an encyclopedia doesn't mean it's right.
I'm very familiar with the consensus views on these subjects. This is a case where the consensus is wrong. CERN is a weapons lab, not a "neutrino producer".
@fertilizerspike If you're familiar with the modern scientific method you have to know that the burden of proof is generally on the opponents(like you) rather than the proponents of the scientific ideas. So YOU have to prove to US your statements. Also too much study on a subject makes it possible to have a solid consensus, if they are only 5-6 peer-review papers on a complex subject that very rarely equals a consensus, but that's not the case in any of the topics you've discussed.
What you fail to realize is that I'm not refuting science. I'm not saying science is wrong, I'm saying if it's wrong it's not science. Your big bang belief is more like a religion than a science. You believe in any number of unobservable and impossible to verify creatures, like HALOs, WIMPs, MACHOs, dark matter, dark energy, black hole, but not electricity in space...do you believe in ANYTHING real?
What you fail to realize is that I'm not refuting science. I'm not saying science is wrong, I'm saying if it's wrong it's not science. Your big bang belief is more like a religion than a science. You believe in any number of unobservable and impossible to verify creatures, like HALOs, WIMPs, MACHOs, dark matter, dark energy, black hole, but not electricity in space...do you believe in ANYTHING real?
Peer review is not part of the scientific method. It never ceases to amaze me when people cite peer review as an excuse not to think. I don't have to prove shit, you can remain ignorant if you like, keep believing in the big bang myth, I don't care one way or the other, but I'll correct your errors every time I see them.
Peer review is not part of the scientific method. It never ceases to amaze me when people cite peer review as an excuse not to think. I don't have to prove shit, you can remain ignorant if you like, keep believing in the big bang myth, I don't care one way or the other, but I'll correct your errors every time I see them.
Peer review is not part of the scientific method. It never ceases to amaze me when people cite peer review as an excuse not to think. I don't have to prove shit, you can remain ignorant if you like, keep believing in the big bang myth, I don't care one way or the other, but I'll correct your errors every time I see them.
@fertilizerspike And I see you don't have any questions for me concerning the video, obviously cos you don't know what the hell these strange people are talking about so, bye bye.
I don't have any questions for you because I already know more about this subject than you do. Thanks for the offer, though. Feel free to spout any nonsense you like about physics.
@fertilizerspike Ah a diversion. What exactly you've presented about the subject? Nothing. You only said neutrinos don't exist, but they have been detected and verified. And their rate is even following the predictions of the underlying theories! You say you know more about the subject not than me but than CERN! LOL Fail, you silly clown! Prove that CERN is a weapon lab, and not a research facility. If you can't, then I reject your claim as false. Violently stick the dumb assertions in your ass.
What I said was "neutrino" is an invention of particle physics, it's a transient artifact of fusion or in other words elemental transmutation. CERN is a weapons lab, not a "neutrino detector".
"following the predictions of the underlying theories!"
Your enthusiasm is noted. Neutrinos were not "predicted", they were invented as a model to describe the behaviour of atoms being smashed together. "Neutrino" is a transient phenomenon.
@fertilizerspike "they were invented as a model to describe the behaviour of atoms being smashed together."
No, neutrinos are PRODUCED in particle interactions like fusion or decay mostly, They're not transmutation, we've discovered them. Also one source of neutrinos is the nuclear fusion of the sun and beta (-) decay..
@fertilizerspike I never said neutrinos were "predicted" I said they're following the correct predictions by the Standard Model, which is used to explain the behaviour of fundamental particles, but now they no longer come with the hindrance of the prediction of zero-mass neutrinos, and that's what I meant by "new physics".
The so-called "standard model" is a dismal failure, I don't know where you get this idea that "neutrino" is a particle. It just absolutely staggers me. This is like if somebody was trying to convince you that bombs are made of loud bangs and bright flashes of light, so when you blow them up, the loud bangs and bright flashes of light come out, where you can trap them in a can...and that's how flash bang grenades are made!
"You say you know more about the subject not than me but than CERN!"
Again, your enthusiasm is noted. I never said I "know more than CERN", CERN is a lab, the people operating it know much more than I do about developing energy weapons.
I don't have to prove CERN is a weapons lab, it's obvious to anyone who doesn't have their head stuffed up their ass.
Apparently it is not obvious to anyone who doesn't have their head stuffed up their ass, since I do not, that CERN is a weapons lab. You can't make accusations like that without evidence. I assume that you have some?
If you don't realize CERN is a weapons lab, kindly pull your head from your ass. They are quite open about what they do there, they just fixate on irrelevant, superfluous bullshit like "tau neutrino" so you boneheads will think the point is to detect neutrinos.
@fertilizerspike I said I'm not here to educate anyone, I think everybody should do their own research, but if you have a question concerning the video and not one of your "theories" I'd love to say my thoughts on neutrino physics and the Standard Model.
I see you have nothing to add to the conversation at hand, so you choose to talk about me. Nicely done, way to shoot yourself in the foot right out of the gate.
As for "non-accepted theories", every belief I have and every claim I've made is supported by direct observation and experimental evidence. The same can not be said of big bang believers.
thanks for the video
TheSanovita 1 month ago
Thanks for the great video
andreeaweed 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Interesting video!
TheSanovita 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Very Good the video!
andreeaweed 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Interesting video!
TheSanovita 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Very Good the video!
andreeaweed 1 month ago
Cool Video. Thanks for shared
Spasatcom 1 month ago
Ok, Gw siap di lawan di sini. Good thanks for the vids.
directorygod 1 month ago
Very Good Video, I like This.
ngeliatduit 1 month ago
Great stuff
MyDavidsun 2 months ago
0:38 Matrix !
qiovanni 4 months ago
i'd like to bombard her with something else *_0
VanMedia 4 months ago
Very interesting but please get rid of the loud irritating music!
Inflatonable 4 months ago
She stands funny
BADDOOKUS 4 months ago
LOL Stupid Liar For Stupid Human. The Most Failed Human Plot.
TheMythbust 4 months ago
Turn out the lights in your house, poof dark matter
ricktbdgc 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
YOU WILL SEE IT FASTER THAN YOU SUPPOSE ...
stragona 5 months ago
GODLIKE!?!??!?!
mp3talon 5 months ago
Cant watch. Upload too dense.
Lherbistro 5 months ago
I am constantly wondering, how can they aim that well? I mean the detectors are big, but not nearly as big as you'd think.
Quintinohthree 7 months ago
I do her
terceranoche 7 months ago
I cant help thinking of these nuclear experiments to be performed for the sake of the construction of new particle weapons however that may be done.they wont tell me that its just for the reason of examining new paricles. that makes nos ense. with the huge amount of money being implied there must be a military involvement in those weird experiments.
DrPunjabi 8 months ago
@DrPunjabi 'implied there must be a military involvement in those weird experiments.'
why?
Kenshiroit 5 months ago
YEAH BABY
Ur11 10 months ago
I like tau neutrinos, very zen, but my favourite particle will always be the gluon. XD
fishypaw 1 year ago
@fishypaw my favorite particle will always be ur dick
:D
nexernexer 1 year ago
Although everyone else on youtube seems to hate it, I love seeing pages of debate in the comments section. It means that people are at least using their brains.
nozerty 1 year ago
@nozerty ... "It means that people are at least using their brains."
Have you actually read the comments? I think you should re-word that statement as "It means that SOME people are using their brains" ;OP
fishypaw 1 year ago
@fishypaw Well, even the ones that I disagree with are engaged in some form of intellectual discussion. You know, instead of talking about boobs, farts, and how they don't like it when youtube makes upgrades, because they are too retarded to adapt.
nozerty 1 year ago 2
how nature and this hostess fit makes me very horny... 8A
dedanoe 1 year ago
I laughed when she went up the stairs with that skirt and those shoes at 0:56. Didn't look too comfortable :D
Garbimba1900 1 year ago
for a moment I thought it was the music by Moby , (hopefully it wasn't...)
p.s.: please stop comments about italian accent damn'it!!
kontarkorz 1 year ago
Ok, somebody tell me why this is so interresting, OK?
gagnashdiak 1 year ago
@gagnashdiak the CERN laboratory is testing nuclear particle physics, the most powerfull mekanism know too mankind, the nuclear reaction, for example the sun... it's the worlds largest (and perhaps greatest) research facility, and boast the worlds largest analysing center, one of their greatest accomplicements that we see taking form today is the world wide web. show some respect.
Meansofviewing 1 year ago
@Meansofviewing Who talked about the CERN? Not me, that's sure.
gagnashdiak 1 year ago
@gagnashdiak oh, ok, well then, as long as you understand... XD
Meansofviewing 1 year ago
scintillating..
IAINoodle 1 year ago
@IAINoodle i know! both the neutrinos and the presenter.
ItsaStringThing 1 year ago
@ItsaStringThing
haha
i especially like it when she climbs that ladder in her office-wear
phwoaarrr
IAINoodle 1 year ago
Thanks guys, I was reading your comments and I missed the presentation about neutrinos. You are disturbing the whole class. Now I have to download this and watch it later.
derman077 1 year ago
Why do people laugh at fertilizer?
Only fertilizer doesn't know..
JesterAzazel 1 year ago 15
@JesterAzazel I'm a fertilizer, if you know what i mean ;)
DefenitionBlack 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JesterAzazel I'm a fertilizer, if you know what i mean ;)
DefenitionBlack 1 year ago
It's amazing how far we've come and that we can actualy even know of a neutrinos existence. We've gone from thinking an atom of matter is the smallest bit of matter in existence, to this, and beyond.
spartacandream 1 year ago
Good Channel, Much more than People can Imagine We are DRUGGED before Birth to Death, they are Adding Hex-ACID to our BRAINS thru Cola's=Sodium=Micro tiny Particles of Aluminum, Lead etc attaches to ends of Neurons forms Clusters in Pineal Gland, Causes Lazy Thyroid=Depression=Tired BAd Feeling, Damaging thinking 25% upto Millions with NO MIND LEFT, see Films at "FLUORIDEALERT", 4cents day Take Magnesium especially at Bedtime, Pure Water, ADDICTION to Cola & Sweets Broke in 2 weeks, You go thru
deadadelta 1 year ago
Ok I get the part where this is a Higher Level of Physics
What can we hope to Acomplish with this Knowledge?
deadadelta 1 year ago
Women using nerd speak turn me on. I guess It helps that she climbs in the ladder in a skirt, lol
VvDOPAMEANvV 1 year ago
Scintillating stuff indeed!
thebrassdubliner 1 year ago
@saxmanchiro Very true indeed!
Ridleysama 1 year ago
CERN has 666 in its logo
TheMexxican 1 year ago
who are the people who thumbs down videos like this ? :(
adikid89 1 year ago
Nice vid!Thanks.fertilizerspike u should get the reptoids in yr basement to fire up that crank-lotron and look again for those neutrinos,and post the vid here-I'd LOVE to see it!And toss in some"electric evidence"from your pal halton arp too-thats if yr not seeing red by now Lol!And weapons lab?!WTF?Where would we be without you?it would be a duller world for sure.But hurry before you get banned here,like u have everywhere else.Ka Kite,Scatole breath!
jeebersjumpincryst 1 year ago
@jeebersjumpincryst
I have no idea what you're talking about, but Cern is a weapons lab. If you don't think so, it's only because you are stupendously ignorant and stupid.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike You're a nice little troll want some fish?
jackprince1983 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jackprince1983
Eat shit and die, maggot.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike You seem to be a well educated person with a good perspective in life. I'll just assume that from your talking. Your so good with the trolling you do here, I wish I could be as creative with my view on the world. I'm pretty sure it would be more fun and almost be as an action game where I can fight some bad ass govs and companys while being the hero of my own little world. =D
jackprince1983 1 year ago
@jackprince1983
Assumption is the mother of all fuckups.
I'm not a troll, you shitfucking weasel. Why don't you keep your ill-informed opinions about me to yourself, shit-for-brains.
I never said I was a hero, but of course you're right in your implication that I am better than you are.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
Comment removed
jackprince1983 1 year ago
I can wait until Cern has a major world changing breakthrough. It will happen.
WhattsHisName 1 year ago
There's always one weirdo defending something other than Science on every science based video. Freedom of speech, love it but it can sometimes be annoying.lol
marcuelcajon 1 year ago
@marcuelcajon
There's more than one "weirdo" here who thinks CERN is anything but a weapons lab. People have their heads up their asses.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
Physics is awesome. Paola is awesome.
Fand421 1 year ago
Physics is awesome. Paola is awesome and very pretty.
Fand421 1 year ago
Fertilizerspike=troll
refuckulate420 1 year ago
@refuckulate420 = faggot
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
Keep proving what a troll you are...GJ
refuckulate420 1 year ago
@refuckulate420
Keep proving what a cocksmoker you are by continually calling me a troll. If you call me names, expect to be treated the same, jackass.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
But your trolling is so obvious one can't help but make the observation. Stop being a troll and you won't be called one :).
refuckulate420 1 year ago
@refuckulate420
Eat my shit, assfucker, I'm not a troll. Your mother sure didn't think I was a troll when I was plugging her in the butt last night.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
Nice. Perfect troll response.
refuckulate420 1 year ago
@refuckulate420
Suck a dog dick, you genital wart. I'm not a troll, fuckface.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
Another angry troll response. Have at it hoss.
refuckulate420 1 year ago
@refuckulate420
youtube watch?v=_QyYaPWasos
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
Now trolling with links. Congrats, you're doing well.
refuckulate420 1 year ago
Guys Fertilizerspike is an obvious troll...stop feeding him.
Irockmarkdowns 1 year ago
@Irockmarkdowns
Go fuck yourself, numbnuts. You stop calling me names and I'll stop calling you names, needledick.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@Irockmarkdowns Okay...I'll stop feeding the troll. If he doesn't want the antidote for all the poisoned information in his head, I guess I'll let it consume him instead of trying to force it in his head. I can see he's failing to infect others here so no reason bothering anymore. Thanks for the advice!
Ridleysama 1 year ago
No one with their right mind would claim the universe was created from nothing. The source of energy in the universe was GPE which is and has always been produced by the vacuum. Of course it's expanding, it cannot be completely static. Without an opposing force, gravity would cause it to collapse. Plus energy is always in motion and thus the universe must be dynamic by nature. The BB is confirmed by observations such as Cosmic Background Radiation, Microwave Anisotropy, Hubble Shift etc.
AnnaLang17 1 year ago
@AnnaLang17
What you fail to realize is that whenever charged bodies are able to interact electrically, gravity is mooted. Over 99% of the universe is plasma. Plasmas are affected about thirty times more strongly by electromagnetic forces than by "gravity". There is no evidence suggesting the universe is "expanding", or contracting, for that matter. This "energy from vacuum" idea you seem to have latched onto is similar to the way electric and magnetic fields arise spontaneously in plasma.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@AnnaLang17
CMBR does not in any way lend support to big bang. There were literally dozens of guesses as to the "temperature" of space, all made by big bang believers, and about 99% of them wrong. How big bang believers can call this a success is beyond me.
CMBR is isotropic, or homogeneous, everywhere in the sky, not anisotropic, as you claim. This would only support big bang belief if the Earth was in the center of the universe.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@AnnaLang17
The so-called "Hubble shift" has absolutely nothing to do with distance, age or velocity, Halton Arp and many others have proven this belief is false. Welcome to the twentieth century, now you're just a century behind modern science. This "shift" is caused by the faraday effect, a well-known effect of magnetic fields on light. See also for contrast: Zeeman effect
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike Arp is a man that closed his mind around his claims. Because of newer technological advances since Arp's initial claims, such as the Hubble, it has been increasingly easy to disprove Arp's assessments. Arp has lost most of his credibility in the international science arena because of his irrational and close minded cling to his ideals. A scientist must be open-minded and must adapt to the times. Arp fails to do this and fell prey to delusion from his own theories.
Ridleysama 1 year ago
@AnnaLang17 fertilizerspike is a Poe, and it's not worth the watts used to post to reply.
stonetop 1 year ago
@AnnaLang17
Your big bang belief system is as easily deconstructed as christainity. If you say it relies on "redshift" equaling distance equaling velocity, Halton Arp proved that wrong, many times, my direct observation. He so upset the apple cart that he was eventually denied time on university telescopes. that's how threatening he was to your redshift beliefs. His observations destroyed it.
I really wish fundamentalists would stick to religion and stay out of science.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike Threatening?! No. Arp got to emotional with his own theories and closed his mind around it, which is not a good sign. Arp ignores evidence shown by Hubble Deep Field, X-ray telescopes, radio telescopes and other powerful telescopes. His theories a threat?! No. Just it's become easier to disprove his theories. Arp's rival, Maarten Schmidt, ended up defeating Arp in the end.
Debate is not about convincing the opponent, but the audience.
Ridleysama 1 year ago
Nature does nuclear fusion from water
JonThm 1 year ago
@luckystrke It does seem impossible, but that is because the only forms of matter we have daily experience with respond to the electromagnetic force and strong nuclear force. They are also traveling very slowly. Neutrinos only respond to the weak force and even weaker force of gravity. They just can't touch (transfer energy) to other particles because they share so little attraction or repulsion with them. Weird Huh?
michalchik 1 year ago
@michalchik Yeah..It's too weird. I heard one place that one particle happily will travel trough a light year of lead. :)
luckystrke 1 year ago
How could 4 people thumb this down? Ridiculous.
Koss42 1 year ago
damn, please filter noises >20khz from your vids next time!
phlexonance 1 year ago
I will admit, I am thoroughly amazed by the research mentioned in this video. Granted, I have never really studied physics, but from having been subscribed to this channel long enough, I've gleaned a little something. It's true what they say about any sufficiently advanced technology being indistinguishable from magic. To imagine everything around us as made up of nothing but particles is truly, in my opinion, akin to religion, albeit a religion I'm comfortable with. Hooray for Science!
TimCubUAkbar 1 year ago
There is No question that they are making History with this new Machine. What is important is who are you working for, and what are you helping to acomplish? Is it for the GOOD of all Humanity or is it just helping a few to............................!!!?
LetsFri 1 year ago
The thumbnail for this video made me think it was Julie Andrews in the Sound of Music!
alien8ted 1 year ago
Nuclear fusion goes on in the deep sea
JonThm 1 year ago
@Eastmanarium
It is english, they just have accents.
Kargoneth 1 year ago
So... do they just fire the neutrinos through the earth since they hardly react with real matter? It would be a lot cheaper than building a 700 km tunnel
Kargoneth 1 year ago
@Kargoneth
By 'real matter' I meant normal physical matter.
Kargoneth 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@calmdowngirl
I'm not arguing, just correcting errors where I see them.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike You must correct your own errors first before you can correct others. Right now, all you're doing is feeding misinformation, something I'm clearly against.
Ridleysama 1 year ago
@Ridleysama
I haven't made any errors to correct, except the error I made in assuming you weren't a fucking moron.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike Then everything about you is in serious error and your to stupid to see that. I guess that's because of your low reading comprehension skills, clearly observable from your posts.
Ridleysama 1 year ago
science is so weird haha. i can't believe the detector is in italy! that is so far away haha...
millamulisha 1 year ago
What an unprofessional thing to do, dressed like that.
HeatherOfOz 1 year ago
Nothings much hotter than a skirt wearing sexy scientist climbing a ladder.
216trixie 1 year ago
Could anyone foresee the possible practical use for the experiment discoveries?
I understand science is about knowledge for the sake of knowledge, but I wonder...
spritestouch 1 year ago
@spritestouch Now we understand the nature of neutrinos better and the observation of neutrino oscillations is strong evidence for new physics, that could shed light on Dark Matter. They'll be useful for testing astrophysical sources beyond our solar system, also as a very good observation technique.
AnnaLang17 1 year ago
@AnnaLang17
Dark matter is a preposterous fable invented to explain why black hole doesn't explain the shape and motion of observed galaxies. Dark matter broke big bang so dark energy had to be invented. In both cases these things are said to be unobservable. Only a complete fool would profess belief in something that can not be observed.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike First of all, dark matter is NOT an ad hoc epicycle-like explanation. It's empirically testable, and has been seen via gravitational lensing. There are numerous ways to explain dark matter - WIMPs, HDM, MACHOs and so on. Besides, there are alternative theories which don't get as much press, such as TeVeS or Modified Newtonian Dynamics. Regardless, none of this affects Big Bang theory so you're plain wrong.
AnnaLang17 1 year ago
@AnnaLang17
Dark matter is ad hoc, and is not empirically testable, since it's stated that it can not be observed.
Gravitational lensing is a crock, it violates proven principles of physics, gravity has absolutely no discernible effect on light at all. This is verified by experiment, the idea that gravity can have any such influence on light is speculative. Electric and magnetic forces can so effect light, see the faraday and zeeman effects for two examples. Welcome to the twenty-first century.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike "gravity has absolutely no discernible effect on light at all."
So what would you call observations made where a single star is tracked and in one location, there are all of a sudden, multiple images of the same star in one image, then it goes back to a single star after passing the gravitational lens.
Gravitational lensing is no longer doubted in the scientific community. Start getting your facts straight and stop with your speculation. You've been anything but right.
Ridleysama 1 year ago
@AnnaLang17
As for the effect on big bang, if you abandon dark matter, you are left to explain the shape and motion of galaxies, which gravity can not. Galaxies are dominated on every scale by electric and magnetic forces, which is why gravity models fail. The universe as a whole largely ignores gravity. The only place gravity works reasonably well is on the thin lithosphere-atmosphere boundary layer of Earth where all known life exists. Even here it fails, see: refrigerator magnet
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@AnnaLang17
As for the effect on big bang, if you abandon dark matter, you are left to explain the shape and motion of galaxies, which gravity can not. Galaxies are dominated on every scale by electric and magnetic forces, which is why gravity models fail. The universe as a whole largely ignores gravity. The only place gravity works reasonably well is on the thin lithosphere-atmosphere boundary layer of Earth where all known life exists. Even here it fails, see: refrigerator magnet
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@AnnaLang17
As for the effect on big bang, if you abandon dark matter, you are left to explain the shape and motion of galaxies, which gravity can not. Galaxies are dominated on every scale by electric and magnetic forces, which is why gravity models fail. The universe as a whole largely ignores gravity. The only place gravity works reasonably well is on the thin lithosphere-atmosphere boundary layer of Earth where all known life exists. Even here it fails, see: refrigerator magnet
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@spritestouch
CERN is producing exotic elements by firing beams of energy and particles at a giant matrix of lead bricks. They're also taking the opportunity to study the particle and energy beams while they're being powered up in order to exploit the principles for weapons.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
I wish YouTube existed when I was taking Physics. So often I watch a BestOfScience video and think to myself, "Oh yeah, now I see it!" compared to the classroom or lecture hall where i'd say to myself, "Huh???" and hoped I'd not be called on to comment.
PlutoTourist 1 year ago
So you find a particle changing into a tau neutrino, now what. How is that beneficial to human kind? What can you do with it?
nckeller 1 year ago
@nckeller
You're right. We shouldn't waste time on research unless we have a practical application already lined up for it. /sarcasm
If scientists thought like you, we'd still be in the dark ages.
check86 1 year ago
@check86
I can appreciate exploration for exploration sake but I respectfully suggest advances go the route of need - work - discovery; sometimes dream - work discovery. For example we dreamed of flight, did the work and figured it out. My question is really what is the dream, where is the need. I'm not discounting the exploration just asking a practical question. If scientists did not think like me they wouldn't have money to do any research and yes we would still be in the dark ages.
nckeller 1 year ago
@stonetop I am not saying it is not important, but the LHC is a very, very expensive tool, and I am still wondering what theories it is a good test of. The standard model already has the hell tested out of it while the GUT's and TOE's I have heard "don't know" are mostly beyond the energy range of the LHC,
michalchik 1 year ago
@IconOfSin88 Everytime, I hear a creotard say that their bible is the best science book in the world. I ask them to name one discovery or invention that came out of the Bible. It is the most studied book in the world, you'd think someone would have invented something by now.
michalchik 1 year ago
allright allright .what about the party?
wersuss 1 year ago
@TheCaptainLulz It's not thier size which causes them to struggle to interact with matter, it's the fact that they do not interact strongly (via the strong force), so they don't "see" normal baryonic matter which is what most of the universe is made of (negating dark matter and energy). A neutrino flying through a planet is like a plane flying through a cloud...it doesn't matter if it's there or not.
Neutrinoghost 1 year ago
@Neutrinoghost Kewl, Didn't know the mechanism behind their lack of interaction, thanks for that. Im guessing a better analogy than the plane would probably be like trying to hit a penny on the moon with a lazer. Theres just so little target that hitting it is virtually impossible. I read once it would take a lead block from the surface of the sun to saturn to stop 5 nutrinos.
TheCaptainLulz 1 year ago
@TheCaptainLulz No, your still wrong. Your analogy is still dependant on the size of the penny and the moon. The size isn't important, neutrino's physically DO NOT SEE matter, they can travel straight thorugh anything without hittng it. Regarding your last comment, the analogy is wrong again im afraid. From everything I've heard, it would take 7 light years worth of lead (175 trillion miles) to stop ONE neutrino.
Neutrinoghost 1 year ago
@Neutrinoghost
I've never seen a bigger load of horse shit than the above claims.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike What claims? The claims of the LHC searching for neutrinos? Like I said....explain, comments mean nothing.
Neutrinoghost 1 year ago
@Neutrinoghost
Grow up, they're not "searching for neutrinos", they're transmuting lead into other elements. CERN is a weapons lab, not a "neutrino generator".
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike a weapons lab? Are you somehow crazy? Or are you a member of some right- or leftwing group? CERN is just a scientific lab. Science does not create weapons it creates knowledge. The mankind often uses new knowledge to be destructive is a thing on th other hand. "Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?"
jackprince1983 1 year ago
@jackprince1983
CERN is a weapons lab, and every single weapon ever developed by man relies on scientific principles to operate. Pull your head out of your ass.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike The LHC isn't about making neutrinos, you need to actually learn what it is doing before you start making up shit. And please provide some form of evidence to back up your claims.
Neutrinoghost 1 year ago
@Neutrinoghost
That's exactly what I said, the LHC is not for "making neutrinos". It's a weapons lab.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike Your really good at avoiding quesitons, maybe you should become a politician. Like I've asked for 3 times now...please provide evidence of your claims.
Neutrinoghost 1 year ago
@Neutrinoghost fertilizespike isn't capable of providing evidence. Everything he said can easily be verified as false and as conspiracy theory. He appears be and individual whom has a misplaced superiority complex whom believes he knows more then scientists. He follows uncredited scientists, conspiracy theorists and his own baseless speculation. The evidence of his delusion is all around this comment page. See for yourself! CERN as a weapons lab is one of his own baseless speculations.
Ridleysama 1 year ago
@Ridleysama isn't capable of carrying on an intelligent discussion because he lacks intelligence, and is ignorant in the extreme. If intelligence and knowledge were dynamite, this dumb fuck wouldn't have enough to blow his runny nose. I didn't claim to "know more than scientists", what I claimed was that there are a large number of people calling themselves scientists who are anything but. These people should be ridiculed at every opportunity.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike "…isn't capable of carrying…"
If you're talking about yourself in that comment, that would explain you perfectly. If not, then you are once again completely off! I'm sure other will agree that your own comment describes you perfectly.
Ridleysama 1 year ago
@Neutrinoghost
I've been through this with another douchebag in another comments section, you'll have to tell me which claims you want me to support, since I've made more than one. Is that clear enough for you? I can't provide evidenciary support for every single claim I've made in one comment.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@TheCaptainLulz Concider SN1987a, an entire supernova exploded 168,000ly away and only 19 neutrinos were detected from it.
Neutrinoghost 1 year ago
lol @ Windows XP
KazeOo 1 year ago
I'm thinking you have to know some psychics to understand this, so my question is, why you watch it since you don't get anything? Some people here are ignorant trolls and others praise something they don't understand, it's equally dumb.
AnnaLang17 1 year ago
@AnnaLang17
You seem to be one of the ignorant trolls. What do you get out of it? I haven't seen any of your comments that suggest you know anything about anything other than running your mouth.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike For starters, don't tell me what I should be talking about. You are no kind of authority to be giving anyone orders on how they should write their comments. Second really? You don't know anything about psychics and you've studied it? I really don't believe you. I study biology and astrophysics and I KNOW that you don't KNOW what you're talking about.
AnnaLang17 1 year ago
@AnnaLang17
I never told you anything about what you should talk about, I said you're ignorant and that you're a troll and that your comments don't support this notion that you're educated or intelligent. The consensus views an "astrophysics" are cartoonish and generally false. Feel free to spout whatever you think you know about astrophysics.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike See, and from everything you stated even the stupidest person can check at least 100 sites and books that you don't understand psychics. At least I wasn't trying to convince people of something. So what's the lesson, kids? Don't listen to ME, don't listen to Fertilizerspike and for that matter to ANYONE on the internet, because they can lie for just about everything. Do your own research.
AnnaLang17 1 year ago
@AnnaLang17
I can do a search for unicorns and turn up 100 sites talking all about them. Kindly pull your head from your ass. CERN is a weapons lab.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike Weapons lab? care to explain?
Neutrinoghost 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike Where did I say that people should accept anything from every source? Of course I was suggesting they look up reliable sources and turn to people, of whose education they're absolutely certain. Not to mention that most of the stuff you mention can be proved wrong by a fricken encyclopedia. I don't know what you've been reading, but you sound like a little goon who can't be bothered to use one. If it's your intent to be contrary, then take that up with someone who gives a damn.
AnnaLang17 1 year ago
@AnnaLang17
Just because it's written in an encyclopedia doesn't mean it's right.
I'm very familiar with the consensus views on these subjects. This is a case where the consensus is wrong. CERN is a weapons lab, not a "neutrino producer".
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike If you're familiar with the modern scientific method you have to know that the burden of proof is generally on the opponents(like you) rather than the proponents of the scientific ideas. So YOU have to prove to US your statements. Also too much study on a subject makes it possible to have a solid consensus, if they are only 5-6 peer-review papers on a complex subject that very rarely equals a consensus, but that's not the case in any of the topics you've discussed.
AnnaLang17 1 year ago
@AnnaLang17
What you fail to realize is that I'm not refuting science. I'm not saying science is wrong, I'm saying if it's wrong it's not science. Your big bang belief is more like a religion than a science. You believe in any number of unobservable and impossible to verify creatures, like HALOs, WIMPs, MACHOs, dark matter, dark energy, black hole, but not electricity in space...do you believe in ANYTHING real?
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@AnnaLang17
What you fail to realize is that I'm not refuting science. I'm not saying science is wrong, I'm saying if it's wrong it's not science. Your big bang belief is more like a religion than a science. You believe in any number of unobservable and impossible to verify creatures, like HALOs, WIMPs, MACHOs, dark matter, dark energy, black hole, but not electricity in space...do you believe in ANYTHING real?
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@AnnaLang17
Peer review is not part of the scientific method. It never ceases to amaze me when people cite peer review as an excuse not to think. I don't have to prove shit, you can remain ignorant if you like, keep believing in the big bang myth, I don't care one way or the other, but I'll correct your errors every time I see them.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@AnnaLang17
Peer review is not part of the scientific method. It never ceases to amaze me when people cite peer review as an excuse not to think. I don't have to prove shit, you can remain ignorant if you like, keep believing in the big bang myth, I don't care one way or the other, but I'll correct your errors every time I see them.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@AnnaLang17
Peer review is not part of the scientific method. It never ceases to amaze me when people cite peer review as an excuse not to think. I don't have to prove shit, you can remain ignorant if you like, keep believing in the big bang myth, I don't care one way or the other, but I'll correct your errors every time I see them.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike And I see you don't have any questions for me concerning the video, obviously cos you don't know what the hell these strange people are talking about so, bye bye.
AnnaLang17 1 year ago
@AnnaLang17
I don't have any questions for you because I already know more about this subject than you do. Thanks for the offer, though. Feel free to spout any nonsense you like about physics.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike Ah a diversion. What exactly you've presented about the subject? Nothing. You only said neutrinos don't exist, but they have been detected and verified. And their rate is even following the predictions of the underlying theories! You say you know more about the subject not than me but than CERN! LOL Fail, you silly clown! Prove that CERN is a weapon lab, and not a research facility. If you can't, then I reject your claim as false. Violently stick the dumb assertions in your ass.
AnnaLang17 1 year ago
@AnnaLang17 said:
"said neutrinos don't exist"
What I said was "neutrino" is an invention of particle physics, it's a transient artifact of fusion or in other words elemental transmutation. CERN is a weapons lab, not a "neutrino detector".
"following the predictions of the underlying theories!"
Your enthusiasm is noted. Neutrinos were not "predicted", they were invented as a model to describe the behaviour of atoms being smashed together. "Neutrino" is a transient phenomenon.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike "they were invented as a model to describe the behaviour of atoms being smashed together."
No, neutrinos are PRODUCED in particle interactions like fusion or decay mostly, They're not transmutation, we've discovered them. Also one source of neutrinos is the nuclear fusion of the sun and beta (-) decay..
AnnaLang17 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike I never said neutrinos were "predicted" I said they're following the correct predictions by the Standard Model, which is used to explain the behaviour of fundamental particles, but now they no longer come with the hindrance of the prediction of zero-mass neutrinos, and that's what I meant by "new physics".
AnnaLang17 1 year ago
@AnnaLang17
The so-called "standard model" is a dismal failure, I don't know where you get this idea that "neutrino" is a particle. It just absolutely staggers me. This is like if somebody was trying to convince you that bombs are made of loud bangs and bright flashes of light, so when you blow them up, the loud bangs and bright flashes of light come out, where you can trap them in a can...and that's how flash bang grenades are made!
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike I guess all those neutrions that we detect coming from the sun are artifacts of the Illuminati weapons lab at the core of the sun?
stonetop 1 year ago 5
@AnnaLang17 said:
"You say you know more about the subject not than me but than CERN!"
Again, your enthusiasm is noted. I never said I "know more than CERN", CERN is a lab, the people operating it know much more than I do about developing energy weapons.
I don't have to prove CERN is a weapons lab, it's obvious to anyone who doesn't have their head stuffed up their ass.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
Apparently it is not obvious to anyone who doesn't have their head stuffed up their ass, since I do not, that CERN is a weapons lab. You can't make accusations like that without evidence. I assume that you have some?
Kargoneth 1 year ago
@Kargoneth
If you don't realize CERN is a weapons lab, kindly pull your head from your ass. They are quite open about what they do there, they just fixate on irrelevant, superfluous bullshit like "tau neutrino" so you boneheads will think the point is to detect neutrinos.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike I said I'm not here to educate anyone, I think everybody should do their own research, but if you have a question concerning the video and not one of your "theories" I'd love to say my thoughts on neutrino physics and the Standard Model.
AnnaLang17 1 year ago
@AnnaLang17
I would not waste your time with fertilizerspike, notice a synonym for the name is "Bullshit Increase".
Pretty sure someone who makes up their own physics and points to non-accepted theories as correct is a troll.
Cheers!
PlanetOfTheMonkeys 1 year ago
@PlanetOfTheMonkeys
I see you have nothing to add to the conversation at hand, so you choose to talk about me. Nicely done, way to shoot yourself in the foot right out of the gate.
As for "non-accepted theories", every belief I have and every claim I've made is supported by direct observation and experimental evidence. The same can not be said of big bang believers.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago