• Re: Dunning-Kruger examples

    From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to RichD on Sun Aug 20 10:38:48 2023
    RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:

    On August 1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    First, we do not measure frequency, as we can't resolve time
    down to a femtosecond.

    Your lack of knowledge of real physics is showing again.
    Femtosecond pulses, and the corresponding frequency combs
    are a standard tool for precision frequency measurement nowadays.
    Since the speed of light has an exact value it is nowadays
    more convenient to work with terahertz directly,

    THz: 10^12 Hz

    The frequency comb filters can measure time down to a
    femtosecond? Is that resolution, or accuracy? If supposedly
    accuracy, what's the reference? Or perhaps they generate
    femtosecond width pulses?

    Yes, they can generate mode-locked femtosecond laser pulses.
    Yes, the Fourier transform of that is a frequency comb.

    What's the repetition rate?

    Yes, by comparing light of unknown frequency with such a comb
    it is possible to measure absolute frequencies
    to accuracies of order 10^-11

    red line frequency: .5 x 10^15 Hz

    ('absolute' in terms of the definition of the second)

    red line period: 2 x 10^-15 second

    Your spec of 10^-11 misses by more than 3 orders of magnitude.

    Yes, and so what? All that means is that it is not yet possible
    to count red light to better than a thousand periods or so.
    But they are geting close.
    Anyway, given the definitions, lenth/frequency measurements
    are always going to be less accurate than time measurements.
    Hint: those definitions are what they are with good reason.

    Does the femtosecond comb spec refer to resolution, or accuracy?
    Do you know the difference, do you comprehend the question?

    You want a place in the bozo bin too, with Wozniac and Dolan?

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lou@21:1/5 to Volney on Sun Aug 20 04:35:04 2023
    On Saturday, 19 August 2023 at 17:31:12 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
    On 8/19/2023 7:35 AM, Lou wrote:
    On Saturday, 19 August 2023 at 12:20:35 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 3:04:42 AM UTC-5, Lou wrote:

    Did you forget to read the latest news that shows that H atoms in the sun
    produce far more gammarays than the standard model predicts?
    Didn’t you just just finish suggesting that H atoms cannot release
    any g rays at all?😂

    No he did not.
    He said that any gamma rays emitted by alternate
    mechanisms such as you suggest would not be
    emitted in pairs with the characteristic energies of
    gamma ray pairs produced by the annihilation of
    neutral pions. Are you some sort of idiot not to
    understand?
    PCH understood me, Lou. Why can't you?

    Sorry Prokey, but this comment of yours shows just how brainwashed
    you are by Relativity and the standard model.
    The behavior of neutral pions isn't directly influenced by relativity.
    Because true to form for
    a relativist you can’t tell the difference between observation and theoretical assumption.
    And neither can you. It is OBSERVED that neutral pions immediately decay into pairs of gamma rays of ~62.5 MeV energy in opposite directions.
    Forget your fantasies. What actually is observed?
    Do individual “pairs” of g rays arrive at each of the 2 detectors (arranged
    at 180 degrees) with little ID name tags identifying them
    as paired twins ???
    They use simultaneity detectors, electronic circuitry which flags an
    event when it records energetic photons in the front and rear detector
    AT THE SAME TIME. (of course in the real experiment it was a little more complicated, measuring timing to get their speeds, filtering for ~62.5
    MeV photons etc.).

    You certainly like to assume that “arriving at the same time” is what actually is observed. The way you take an experiment that subjects
    H atoms to a beam in Fermi and then pretend, without evidence or citations
    that Filipas Fox were able to count individually exactly time a gammaray
    was detected ....is ridiculous.
    Usually in these sort of situations 100s of millions of protons are in
    each bunch in the beam. And usually at g ray detectors or optical detectors
    the energies are “BINNED”. Like in SWIFT. In case you don’t know what binned means,..it means anything detected within certain time frames.
    So for you to fantasise that Filipas measured each detection of imaginary gammarays “photons” is completely fact free and ridiculous.


    Look up how a PET scanner works.
    Noooooo Prokey baby. I know for a relativist you will find the facts hard to accept,...but...What actually happens is that copious amounts of G rays are detected at each detector.
    But they come one at a time, so the simultaneity detectors don't get triggered. Now I'm sure you'll ask "what if they cranked up the
    energizing beam to be so powerful that random gammas coincidentally
    arrive at the same time?" Well they thought of that, and any such
    experiment will fail if flooded with noise like that.

    And don't forget filters which only look for powerful 62.5 MeV gammas,
    not others.
    And it is a fantasy theoretical assumption
    made by brainwashed relativists that these g rays come in pairs
    with little ID name tags. 😂🤣😂
    They come in pairs and show up at the same time. OK, if it helps you understand, consider the time stamps to be name tags if you want.
    I have to say that sometimes when I’m talking to you guys I feel
    like an anthropologist trying to explain to Cargo Cult believers
    that those packages were dropped by US airplanes. Not by gods.
    And when I try to explain relatively simple science to anti-relativity kooktards, it's nearly guaranteed that they won't, or refuse to
    understand it if it conflicts with their idée fixe. But I do it anyway.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lou@21:1/5 to Ross Finlayson on Sun Aug 20 04:48:01 2023
    On Sunday, 20 August 2023 at 01:50:13 UTC+1, Ross Finlayson wrote:
    On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 12:41:01 PM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 2:03:55 PM UTC-5, RichD wrote:

    This is of course Doppler reasoning. And you derive the Doppler formula...
    how? Via the ASSUMPTION of constant light velocity! Now you wish to
    use that supposition to argue that deep field astronomy, based on Doppler
    reasoning, constitutes a test of constant light speed, hmmm....

    The question is subtler than you realize.
    The fact is that, regardless of *any* assumptions you make
    about the relationship between Doppler and recession speed,
    light from all sources in Hubble Deep Field images must travel
    within 1% of c or there would be noticeable blurring of the
    images.

    The Gaia satellite gives more stringent limits on the possible
    variation of the speed of light from c. My quick estimate
    (without sitting down with a calculator) is that the speed of
    light cannot vary by more than, say, 0.0001% from c or variable
    speed of light effects would have been noticed during
    analysis of the billion or objects that have been cataloged.

    So do all objects in the universe obey a maximum speed
    limit of 0.3 km/s?
    The sky survey includes some objects that, if their distance according to standard candles is accurate, have "apparent superluminal" velocity.



    (Many composite routines these days in programming include both usual procedural and usual functional elements, vis-a-vis stacks and monads, though usually in a stack machine, vis-a-vis closures, in the recursive,
    in instruction pointer models and event loops.

    Some people still learn lower-level and internals and protocols the physical,
    but there are so many tradespeople that often it's a mixture of framework convention and loose strings.

    The book Russell and Norvig's "Artificial Intelligence" is pretty good, I enjoy
    it some 30 years after reading Haugeland's "Artificial Intelligence", but, I study
    foundations including logic so there are various notions that do and don't reflect logic overall, and various of their reasoning or inference routines, aren't monotonic not necessarily resilient to bad data or arbitrary rules.)


    So, the sky survey includes objects that if their distance according to standard
    candles, which, after the hydrogen line and some theories of periodics stars and stellar formation, is the distance, that they've moved with what appears "apparent superluminal" motion.

    It's called an "optical illusion" to not conflict with the usual theory, but, instead
    one can read the usual theory as extra-Galilean and reserve relativistic mass
    for the rotational, while both the rotational and linear then have real space-contracton,
    which is a thing. Then, those milieu are, ..., "local", so as soon as light escapes
    then it just proceeds to travel at c in overall the "flat" space, vis-a-vis the "highly
    non-linear".

    Reading some Earman and Wald, still it's like "infinity is incomprehensible to
    lots of people including some mathematicians, but it's looking inexorable as really part of the theory", about continuous manifolds of space-times vis-a-vis
    the "torsional", "event horizons", and "singularities". So they enumerate a lot
    of features but a lot of it is talking around what would really be "infinities" in
    the theory.




    So, if Dunning-Kruger is that cranks overestimate their competence, ...., aren't those who understimate thusly also, in their competence as estimators?
    I.e., aren't most people who invoke Dunning-Kruger unqualified? I guess it sounds more dignified than "incompetent crank", including of the kool-aid sort.

    I’m not familiar with your ideas on emission theory etc. But don’t listen to
    prokaryotic. If there was a Big Bang then maybe there might be incredible differences in speeds at detectors. But this argument relies on an assumption that the entire observable universe was compressed into a size smaller
    than an atom which then expanded. So take this religious fanatics assumptions with a large grain of salt.
    And don’t forget that these fanatics (LeMaitre) only rewrote the creation myth to
    cover up the fact that Hubble proved that Alberts imaginary photon
    could not explain how light changed frequency over distance. ( Hubble
    is on the record for saying that rather than expansion the photon model
    was flawed)
    Incidentally...
    LeMaitre, the guilty theorist was a Catholic priest nutter. He had to conform advances in physics in early 20th C with his fanatical devotion to the
    creation myth. So instead of 7 days....he changed it to <7 attoseconds.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ross Finlayson@21:1/5 to Lou on Sun Aug 20 10:11:58 2023
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 4:48:03 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
    On Sunday, 20 August 2023 at 01:50:13 UTC+1, Ross Finlayson wrote:
    On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 12:41:01 PM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 2:03:55 PM UTC-5, RichD wrote:

    This is of course Doppler reasoning. And you derive the Doppler formula...
    how? Via the ASSUMPTION of constant light velocity! Now you wish to use that supposition to argue that deep field astronomy, based on Doppler
    reasoning, constitutes a test of constant light speed, hmmm....

    The question is subtler than you realize.
    The fact is that, regardless of *any* assumptions you make
    about the relationship between Doppler and recession speed,
    light from all sources in Hubble Deep Field images must travel
    within 1% of c or there would be noticeable blurring of the
    images.

    The Gaia satellite gives more stringent limits on the possible
    variation of the speed of light from c. My quick estimate
    (without sitting down with a calculator) is that the speed of
    light cannot vary by more than, say, 0.0001% from c or variable
    speed of light effects would have been noticed during
    analysis of the billion or objects that have been cataloged.

    So do all objects in the universe obey a maximum speed
    limit of 0.3 km/s?
    The sky survey includes some objects that, if their distance according to standard candles is accurate, have "apparent superluminal" velocity.



    (Many composite routines these days in programming include both usual procedural and usual functional elements, vis-a-vis stacks and monads, though usually in a stack machine, vis-a-vis closures, in the recursive, in instruction pointer models and event loops.

    Some people still learn lower-level and internals and protocols the physical,
    but there are so many tradespeople that often it's a mixture of framework convention and loose strings.

    The book Russell and Norvig's "Artificial Intelligence" is pretty good, I enjoy
    it some 30 years after reading Haugeland's "Artificial Intelligence", but, I study
    foundations including logic so there are various notions that do and don't reflect logic overall, and various of their reasoning or inference routines,
    aren't monotonic not necessarily resilient to bad data or arbitrary rules.)


    So, the sky survey includes objects that if their distance according to standard
    candles, which, after the hydrogen line and some theories of periodics stars
    and stellar formation, is the distance, that they've moved with what appears
    "apparent superluminal" motion.

    It's called an "optical illusion" to not conflict with the usual theory, but, instead
    one can read the usual theory as extra-Galilean and reserve relativistic mass
    for the rotational, while both the rotational and linear then have real space-contracton,
    which is a thing. Then, those milieu are, ..., "local", so as soon as light escapes
    then it just proceeds to travel at c in overall the "flat" space, vis-a-vis the "highly
    non-linear".

    Reading some Earman and Wald, still it's like "infinity is incomprehensible to
    lots of people including some mathematicians, but it's looking inexorable as
    really part of the theory", about continuous manifolds of space-times vis-a-vis
    the "torsional", "event horizons", and "singularities". So they enumerate a lot
    of features but a lot of it is talking around what would really be "infinities" in
    the theory.




    So, if Dunning-Kruger is that cranks overestimate their competence, ...., aren't those who understimate thusly also, in their competence as estimators?
    I.e., aren't most people who invoke Dunning-Kruger unqualified? I guess it sounds more dignified than "incompetent crank", including of the kool-aid sort.
    I’m not familiar with your ideas on emission theory etc. But don’t listen to
    prokaryotic. If there was a Big Bang then maybe there might be incredible differences in speeds at detectors. But this argument relies on an assumption
    that the entire observable universe was compressed into a size smaller
    than an atom which then expanded. So take this religious fanatics assumptions
    with a large grain of salt.
    And don’t forget that these fanatics (LeMaitre) only rewrote the creation myth to
    cover up the fact that Hubble proved that Alberts imaginary photon
    could not explain how light changed frequency over distance. ( Hubble
    is on the record for saying that rather than expansion the photon model
    was flawed)
    Incidentally...
    LeMaitre, the guilty theorist was a Catholic priest nutter. He had to conform
    advances in physics in early 20th C with his fanatical devotion to the creation myth. So instead of 7 days....he changed it to <7 attoseconds.


    The Universe though sort of does have both models Big Bang and Steady State.

    Here though the sky survey indicates that what was the "expanding" world-view was just as that the Lania Kea our local supercluster was at some point the result
    of a large jet, so that "Big Boom" extrapolations are fitted to that, while "Steady Space"
    is more evident according to the sky survey.

    Still, both "Big Bang" and cyclic cosmologies and such and "Steady State" are models,
    they still are both logical models for causality and the ray of time, it is though that
    the "inflationary epoch" is built from measurements that are only these days, ..., local.


    When objects in motion stay in motion and objects at rest stay at rest, or the kinetic,
    with the rotational being the kinematic, then what acceleration "really is" in a theory
    where it's a true theory-of-potentials, has something going on with a sort of "stop-derivative".

    Einstein's work in "total field theory" really included that he wanted to reconcile his
    model of a differential inertial system of inertial systems, deconstructively under
    Newton's First and Second laws, with regards to "Newton's Zero'eth laws".
    (... and theory of a true theory-of-potentials.)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill@21:1/5 to Lou on Sun Aug 20 10:37:38 2023
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 4:48:03 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
    Let's establish at least some point of agreement. Do you agree
    that material particles behave the way that grown-ups tell you they
    behave, e.g., do you agree that after you throw a basketball toward a
    hoop, you cannot affect the trajectory of the ball in flight simply by accelerating yourself? And do you accept that the same is true for
    a bullet after you fire it from a gun? In other words, material objects follow trajectories that may be affected by air resistance or gravity
    or bumping into things, but they're not affected by accelerations of whatever object ejected them after they are in flight? Agree?

    [Pulses of light do not propagate like material particles.]

    The purpose of the questions was to establish some points of agreement
    about basic physics that could serve as common ground on which a
    rational discussion of electromagnetic radiation could take place. From
    your non-response I infer that you agree that, in a Galilean/Newtonian
    context, all material entities not subject to any external force move at constant
    speed in a straight line in terms of inertial coordinate systems, but NOT in terms of accelerating coordinate systems (Newton's first law of motion).

    Furthermore, you agree that the rate of change of momentum of a material
    entity is proportional to any applied force (Newton's second law of motion), and you agree that if one material entity exerts a force on another, the
    latter entity exerts an equal and opposite force on the former (Newton's third law of motion). Together, these laws of motion ensure that momentum is conserved.

    Now we can turn to the propagation of a pulse of light: Do you agree that a pulse of light has momentum? For example, if an object emits a pulse of light,
    does the emitting object experience a recoil at that moment? And when the pulse is later absorbed by a receiver, does it impart momentum to the receiver? Does the pulse carry momentum from emitter to receiver? Between the
    emission and reception events, does the momentum of the pulse change??

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to Lou on Sun Aug 20 10:27:31 2023
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 6:35:07 AM UTC-5, Lou wrote:

    You certainly like to assume that “arriving at the same time” is what actually is observed. The way you take an experiment that subjects
    H atoms to a beam in Fermi and then pretend, without evidence or citations that Filipas Fox were able to count individually exactly time a gammaray
    was detected ....is ridiculous.
    Usually in these sort of situations 100s of millions of protons are in
    each bunch in the beam. And usually at g ray detectors or optical detectors the energies are “BINNED”. Like in SWIFT. In case you don’t know what binned means,..it means anything detected within certain time frames.
    So for you to fantasise that Filipas measured each detection of imaginary gammarays “photons” is completely fact free and ridiculous.

    You don't understand the Filippas and Fox experiment.

    This was not at all like the Avaeger et al (1964) experiment, which used
    GeV proton beams slamming into a beryllium target creating massive
    sprays of particles including high speed pions.

    In this experiment, the number of negative pions being stopped by
    the hydrogen target was limited to 1500/second. Hence it was trivial
    to use coincidence detection to distinguish between gamma rays
    created simultaneously versus any randomly generated background. https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf

    Filippas and Fox started with relatively low energy (80 MeV) negative pions generated by the Carnegie Mellon Synchrotron. These were absorbed
    by the protons of the liquid hydrogen target. The transitional pion-proton intermediates then immediately decayed into neutron and neutral pion pairs.

    The overall reaction is given by
    π- + p ==> π0 + n

    The masses of the starting and ending products are

    Initial:
    π- 139.5704 MeV
    p 938.2721 MeV
    Total initial rest mass: 1,077.8425 MeV

    Final:
    π0 134.9768 MeV
    n 939.5654 MeV
    Total final rest mass: 1,074.5422 MeV

    There is a 3.3117 MeV mass defect between the starting particle
    and the ending particle rest masses. The neutral pion and the neutron
    emerge from the reaction with total kinetic energy equal to this mass
    defect, and with equal and opposite momenta (as seen in the center
    of momentum frame).

    Filippas and Fox state that the neutral pions emerge from this
    reaction with a uniform speed of 0.2 c.

    I don't like typing out tedious algebra on a text-only forum such as this,
    (you can find the math listed under "Two body decay" in any elementary
    book on special relativity, for instance problem 3.4 in Morin), but you
    can easily do a ballpark confirmation of their figure by plugging
    in the numbers into an online relativistic energy calculator such as this: https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/relativistic-ke

    Take a look at the gamma ray detectors 5 and 6 in figure 1:

    The two detectors are set off at right angles to the negative pion
    beam line. They set the detectors at 7 inches and 47 inches from
    the target center. Neutral pions emerge from the reaction in all
    directions, but because of the geometry of their detector configuration
    and because of relativistic beaming, the great majority of the gamma
    rays will be received from neutral pions traveling at 0.2 c more or less orthogonally to the incident beam.

    This enabled them to detect c+kv versus c-kv effects, if such existed.
    They did not exist.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lou@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Mon Aug 21 05:02:21 2023
    On Sunday, 20 August 2023 at 18:27:34 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 6:35:07 AM UTC-5, Lou wrote:

    You certainly like to assume that “arriving at the same time” is what actually is observed. The way you take an experiment that subjects
    H atoms to a beam in Fermi and then pretend, without evidence or citations that Filipas Fox were able to count individually exactly time a gammaray was detected ....is ridiculous.
    Usually in these sort of situations 100s of millions of protons are in each bunch in the beam. And usually at g ray detectors or optical detectors
    the energies are “BINNED”. Like in SWIFT. In case you don’t know what
    binned means,..it means anything detected within certain time frames.
    So for you to fantasise that Filipas measured each detection of imaginary gammarays “photons” is completely fact free and ridiculous.
    You don't understand the Filippas and Fox experiment.

    I understand it well enough to know that no where in the setup
    is there any method to pair individual counts from each detector with
    the other. At best bunches of counts are detected at each detector.
    Binned into channels. And comparisons between overall graph
    profiles in fig 2 (Ie count rates per channel) can only be made
    between detectors 5 & 6.
    This is perfectly consistent with wave light (gammarays) beimg emitted at
    c by H after being bombarded by the fermi beam.

    This was not at all like the Avaeger et al (1964) experiment, which used
    GeV proton beams slamming into a beryllium target creating massive
    sprays of particles including high speed pions.

    In this experiment, the number of negative pions being stopped by
    the hydrogen target was limited to 1500/second. Hence it was trivial
    to use coincidence detection to distinguish between gamma rays
    created simultaneously versus any randomly generated background. https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf

    Filippas and Fox started with relatively low energy (80 MeV) negative pions generated by the Carnegie Mellon Synchrotron. These were absorbed
    by the protons of the liquid hydrogen target. The transitional pion-proton intermediates then immediately decayed into neutron and neutral pion pairs.

    The overall reaction is given by
    π- + p ==> π0 + n

    The masses of the starting and ending products are

    Initial:
    π- 139.5704 MeV
    p 938.2721 MeV
    Total initial rest mass: 1,077.8425 MeV

    Final:
    π0 134.9768 MeV
    n 939.5654 MeV
    Total final rest mass: 1,074.5422 MeV

    There is a 3.3117 MeV mass defect between the starting particle
    and the ending particle rest masses. The neutral pion and the neutron
    emerge from the reaction with total kinetic energy equal to this mass defect, and with equal and opposite momenta (as seen in the center
    of momentum frame).

    Filippas and Fox state that the neutral pions emerge from this
    reaction with a uniform speed of 0.2 c.

    I don't like typing out tedious algebra on a text-only forum such as this, (you can find the math listed under "Two body decay" in any elementary
    book on special relativity, for instance problem 3.4 in Morin), but you
    can easily do a ballpark confirmation of their figure by plugging
    in the numbers into an online relativistic energy calculator such as this: https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/relativistic-ke

    I’m sorry but you don’t need photon particles to explain scintillation counters any more than you need photons to explain PMTs.
    Wave radiation incident on any target will induce sympathetic
    vibrations in the target atoms. Quantised at detector as eV and converted to nm.

    And one can even pump a target with 2 seperate wavelength lasers
    and induce two seperate wavelength emissions from the target atoms
    that are multiples (harmonics) of the two incident wavelengths lasers.

    No particles needed. Ritz, Rydberg Planck etc all believed
    this was how em radiation worked. (Magnetic Oscillating atoms
    producing waves in Harmonics relationships. Ie hydrogen spectral lines) .
    But not enough of the H spectral series was available in
    1900. So when Bohr came along with his fantasy shell model.
    He won by default. Now we know better.
    Fact is *all* H spectral lines can be modelled by harmonics
    getting rid of the need for Bohr and boring QT.

    If you don’t believe me Look at Lyman series a,b,c,d,e
    They are, expressed in fractions, the following respective harmonics (harmonics
    claimed impossible by QT fanatics):
    1/1, 5/8, 4/5, 7/8, 33/35
    And Lyman limit is... 3/4 harmonic of Lyman alpha Etc etc

    Take a look at the gamma ray detectors 5 and 6 in figure 1:

    The two detectors are set off at right angles to the negative pion
    beam line. They set the detectors at 7 inches and 47 inches from
    the target center. Neutral pions emerge from the reaction in all
    directions, but because of the geometry of their detector configuration
    and because of relativistic beaming, the great majority of the gamma
    rays will be received from neutral pions traveling at 0.2 c more or less orthogonally to the incident beam.

    This enabled them to detect c+kv versus c-kv effects, if such existed.
    They did not exist.

    Only if you pretend that Hydrogen , when subject to hi energy input
    radiation, cannot produce g rays at c and be detected by detectors
    5 and 6.
    Which you can’t do seeing as solar H has just been shown to produce
    At least 8 times as much gammaray radiation as predicted by the
    standard model. https://www.quantamagazine.org/strange-solar-gamma-rays-discovered-at-even-higher-energies-20230227/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lou@21:1/5 to Ross Finlayson on Mon Aug 21 04:22:20 2023
    On Sunday, 20 August 2023 at 18:12:01 UTC+1, Ross Finlayson wrote:
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 4:48:03 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
    On Sunday, 20 August 2023 at 01:50:13 UTC+1, Ross Finlayson wrote:
    On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 12:41:01 PM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 2:03:55 PM UTC-5, RichD wrote:

    This is of course Doppler reasoning. And you derive the Doppler formula...
    how? Via the ASSUMPTION of constant light velocity! Now you wish to use that supposition to argue that deep field astronomy, based on Doppler
    reasoning, constitutes a test of constant light speed, hmmm....

    The question is subtler than you realize.
    The fact is that, regardless of *any* assumptions you make
    about the relationship between Doppler and recession speed,
    light from all sources in Hubble Deep Field images must travel
    within 1% of c or there would be noticeable blurring of the
    images.

    The Gaia satellite gives more stringent limits on the possible variation of the speed of light from c. My quick estimate
    (without sitting down with a calculator) is that the speed of
    light cannot vary by more than, say, 0.0001% from c or variable
    speed of light effects would have been noticed during
    analysis of the billion or objects that have been cataloged.

    So do all objects in the universe obey a maximum speed
    limit of 0.3 km/s?
    The sky survey includes some objects that, if their distance according to
    standard candles is accurate, have "apparent superluminal" velocity.



    (Many composite routines these days in programming include both usual procedural and usual functional elements, vis-a-vis stacks and monads, though usually in a stack machine, vis-a-vis closures, in the recursive, in instruction pointer models and event loops.

    Some people still learn lower-level and internals and protocols the physical,
    but there are so many tradespeople that often it's a mixture of framework
    convention and loose strings.

    The book Russell and Norvig's "Artificial Intelligence" is pretty good, I enjoy
    it some 30 years after reading Haugeland's "Artificial Intelligence", but, I study
    foundations including logic so there are various notions that do and don't
    reflect logic overall, and various of their reasoning or inference routines,
    aren't monotonic not necessarily resilient to bad data or arbitrary rules.)


    So, the sky survey includes objects that if their distance according to standard
    candles, which, after the hydrogen line and some theories of periodics stars
    and stellar formation, is the distance, that they've moved with what appears
    "apparent superluminal" motion.

    It's called an "optical illusion" to not conflict with the usual theory, but, instead
    one can read the usual theory as extra-Galilean and reserve relativistic mass
    for the rotational, while both the rotational and linear then have real space-contracton,
    which is a thing. Then, those milieu are, ..., "local", so as soon as light escapes
    then it just proceeds to travel at c in overall the "flat" space, vis-a-vis the "highly
    non-linear".

    Reading some Earman and Wald, still it's like "infinity is incomprehensible to
    lots of people including some mathematicians, but it's looking inexorable as
    really part of the theory", about continuous manifolds of space-times vis-a-vis
    the "torsional", "event horizons", and "singularities". So they enumerate a lot
    of features but a lot of it is talking around what would really be "infinities" in
    the theory.




    So, if Dunning-Kruger is that cranks overestimate their competence, ....,
    aren't those who understimate thusly also, in their competence as estimators?
    I.e., aren't most people who invoke Dunning-Kruger unqualified? I guess it
    sounds more dignified than "incompetent crank", including of the kool-aid sort.
    I’m not familiar with your ideas on emission theory etc. But don’t listen to
    prokaryotic. If there was a Big Bang then maybe there might be incredible differences in speeds at detectors. But this argument relies on an assumption
    that the entire observable universe was compressed into a size smaller than an atom which then expanded. So take this religious fanatics assumptions
    with a large grain of salt.
    And don’t forget that these fanatics (LeMaitre) only rewrote the creation myth to
    cover up the fact that Hubble proved that Alberts imaginary photon
    could not explain how light changed frequency over distance. ( Hubble
    is on the record for saying that rather than expansion the photon model was flawed)
    Incidentally...
    LeMaitre, the guilty theorist was a Catholic priest nutter. He had to conform
    advances in physics in early 20th C with his fanatical devotion to the creation myth. So instead of 7 days....he changed it to <7 attoseconds.
    The Universe though sort of does have both models Big Bang and Steady State.

    Here though the sky survey indicates that what was the "expanding" world-view
    was just as that the Lania Kea our local supercluster was at some point the result
    of a large jet, so that "Big Boom" extrapolations are fitted to that, while "Steady Space"
    is more evident according to the sky survey.

    Still, both "Big Bang" and cyclic cosmologies and such and "Steady State" are models,
    they still are both logical models for causality and the ray of time, it is though that
    the "inflationary epoch" is built from measurements that are only these days, ..., local.


    You have lost me a bit here. I’m assuming you are open to a non expanding model. In which case the inflationary epoch didn’t really exist.
    An interesting point to consider is so called “acceleration”. A myth to try to explain
    SN data That doesn’t fit the BBT. In actual fact what was observed was
    NO time dilation of distant SN. Ruling out the BBT.
    So desperate theorists, as usual, faked the data and said the reason why there was
    no time dilation was that the distant SN were too faint due to increased rate of
    expansion. And that’s why we couldn’t see the expected longer time stretching of SN afterglows. Total nonsense. Pretending an observed
    non dilated lightcurve was actually a dilated lightcurve, but they couldn’t see the stretched later part of afterglow because it was too faint!
    As if anyone actually believes this blarney. ( unfortunately some do)

    On a seperate note. I read this paper recently. An interesting take on the subject.
    The author seems to want to combine both expanding and non
    expanding models.! Not quite sure how one fits a square peg into
    a round hole though.

    https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/524/3/3385/7221343?guestAccessKey=40a7d782-dbe6-45d8-8e6c-8c0f6c07f95c&utm_source=authortollfreelink&utm_campaign=mnras&utm_medium=email


    When objects in motion stay in motion and objects at rest stay at rest, or the kinetic,
    with the rotational being the kinematic, then what acceleration "really is" in a theory
    where it's a true theory-of-potentials, has something going on with a sort of "stop-derivative".

    Einstein's work in "total field theory" really included that he wanted to reconcile his
    model of a differential inertial system of inertial systems, deconstructively under
    Newton's First and Second laws, with regards to "Newton's Zero'eth laws". (... and theory of a true theory-of-potentials.)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill@21:1/5 to Lou on Mon Aug 21 06:17:13 2023
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 5:02:25 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
    Let's establish at least some point of agreement. Do you agree
    that material particles behave the way that grown-ups tell you they
    behave, e.g., do you agree that after you throw a basketball toward a
    hoop, you cannot affect the trajectory of the ball in flight simply by accelerating yourself? And do you accept that the same is true for
    a bullet after you fire it from a gun? In other words, material objects follow trajectories that may be affected by air resistance or gravity
    or bumping into things, but they're not affected by accelerations of whatever object ejected them after they are in flight? Agree?

    [Pulses of light do not propagate like material particles.]

    The purpose of the questions was to establish some points of agreement
    about basic physics that could serve as common ground on which a
    rational discussion of electromagnetic radiation could take place. We've
    agreed that in a Galilean/Newtonian context all material entities not subject to any external force move at constant speed in a straight line in terms of inertial coordinate systems, but NOT in terms of accelerating coordinate systems (Newton's first law of motion). We've also agreed that the rate of change of momentum of a material entity is proportional to any applied force (Newton's second law of motion), and you agree that if one material entity exerts a force on another, the latter entity exerts an equal and opposite force
    on the former (Newton's third law of motion). Together, these laws of motion ensure that momentum is conserved.

    Now we can turn to the propagation of a pulse of light: Do you agree that a pulse of light has momentum? For example, if an object emits a pulse of light, does the emitting object experience a recoil at that moment? And when the
    pulse is later absorbed by a receiver, does it impart momentum to the receiver? Does the pulse carry momentum from emitter to receiver? Between the
    emission and reception events, does the momentum of the pulse change?

    Your inability to even attempt to respond to these simple questions is very conspicuous. You've obviously realized that you can't defend your nutty belief, and now you are just running away. Case closed.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lou@21:1/5 to Bill on Mon Aug 21 09:12:43 2023
    MOn Monday, 21 August 2023 at 14:17:16 UTC+1, Bill wrote:
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 5:02:25 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
    Let's establish at least some point of agreement. Do you agree
    that material particles behave the way that grown-ups tell you they behave, e.g., do you agree that after you throw a basketball toward a hoop, you cannot affect the trajectory of the ball in flight simply by accelerating yourself? And do you accept that the same is true for
    a bullet after you fire it from a gun? In other words, material objects follow trajectories that may be affected by air resistance or gravity
    or bumping into things, but they're not affected by accelerations of whatever object ejected them after they are in flight? Agree?

    [Pulses of light do not propagate like material particles.]

    The purpose of the questions was to establish some points of agreement
    about basic physics that could serve as common ground on which a
    rational discussion of electromagnetic radiation could take place. We've agreed that in a Galilean/Newtonian context all material entities not subject to any external force move at constant speed in a straight line in terms of inertial coordinate systems, but NOT in terms of accelerating coordinate systems (Newton's first law of motion). We've also agreed that the rate of change of momentum of a material entity is proportional to any applied force (Newton's second law of motion), and you agree that if one material entity exerts a force on another, the latter entity exerts an equal and opposite force
    on the former (Newton's third law of motion). Together, these laws of motion ensure that momentum is conserved.

    Now we can turn to the propagation of a pulse of light: Do you agree that a pulse of light has momentum? For example, if an object emits a pulse of light,
    does the emitting object experience a recoil at that moment? And when the pulse is later absorbed by a receiver, does it impart momentum to the receiver?
    Does the pulse carry momentum from emitter to receiver? Between the
    emission and reception events, does the momentum of the pulse change?
    Your inability to even attempt to respond to these simple questions is very conspicuous. You've obviously realized that you can't defend your nutty belief, and now you are just running away. Case closed.

    Case is only closed when you tell me what magical force you invoke to
    make light speed up, slow down or wobble in the source frame for an ether
    free emission theory. Don’t forget you can’t use ether. And not being relativity
    the light cannot be effected by gravity. So theres nothing else but magic
    for you to invoke. And..all the observations confirm light does not
    speed up,slow down or wobble in the source frame. As predicted by
    an ether free Ritzian emission theory.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill@21:1/5 to Lou on Mon Aug 21 11:53:10 2023
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 9:12:46 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
    We've agreed that in a Galilean/Newtonian context all material entities not
    subject to any external force move at constant speed in a straight line in terms
    of inertial coordinate systems, but NOT in terms of accelerating coordinate
    systems (Newton's first law of motion). We've also agreed that the rate of change of momentum of a material entity is proportional to any applied force
    (Newton's second law of motion), and you agree that if one material entity exerts a force on another, the latter entity exerts an equal and opposite force
    on the former (Newton's third law of motion). Together, these laws of motion
    ensure that momentum is conserved.

    Now we can turn to the propagation of a pulse of light: Do you agree that a
    pulse of light has momentum? For example, if an object emits a pulse of light,
    does the emitting object experience a recoil at that moment? And when the pulse is later absorbed by a receiver, does it impart momentum to the receiver?
    Does the pulse carry momentum from emitter to receiver? Between the emission and reception events, does the momentum of the pulse change?
    Your inability to even attempt to respond to these simple questions is very
    conspicuous. You've obviously realized that you can't defend your nutty belief, and now you are just running away. Case closed.

    Don’t forget you can’t use ether.

    We dont use ether, we use inertia and momentum. See above.

    As predicted by an ether free Ritzian emission theory.

    Again, Ritz was not an ignorant fool. He explicitly denied your nutty belief. It is disgraceful for you to keep attributing your deranged notion to him.

    Case is only closed when...

    No, the case closed when you tacitly admitted that you couldn't respond
    to the criticism of your nutty belief. Again, you were asked if, according
    to your insane belief, a pulse of light has momentum. Recognizing that
    the answer to this question explodes your nutty belief, you simply cover
    your ears and make loud whooping sounds as you run away. So, as I
    said: Case closed.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to Lou on Mon Aug 21 16:01:08 2023
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 7:02:25 AM UTC-5, Lou wrote:
    On Sunday, 20 August 2023 at 18:27:34 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 6:35:07 AM UTC-5, Lou wrote:

    You certainly like to assume that “arriving at the same time” is what
    actually is observed. The way you take an experiment that subjects
    H atoms to a beam in Fermi and then pretend, without evidence or citations
    that Filipas Fox were able to count individually exactly time a gammaray was detected ....is ridiculous.
    Usually in these sort of situations 100s of millions of protons are in each bunch in the beam. And usually at g ray detectors or optical detectors
    the energies are “BINNED”. Like in SWIFT. In case you don’t know what
    binned means,..it means anything detected within certain time frames.
    So for you to fantasise that Filipas measured each detection of imaginary
    gammarays “photons” is completely fact free and ridiculous.
    You don't understand the Filippas and Fox experiment.
    I understand it well enough to know that no where in the setup
    is there any method to pair individual counts from each detector with
    the other.

    The negative pions impinged on the target at a rate of about
    1500 per second. This means that most bins were empty
    most of time, and gamma rays would be recorded singly.
    You very seldom had more than one gamma ray arriving at
    the same time. Several thousand counts took 4.5 hours to
    accumulate in the close-in configuration, 99 hours to accumulate
    in the distant configuration. READ THE PAPER.

    At best bunches of counts are detected at each detector.

    Practically always single counts. READ THE PAPER>

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Mon Aug 21 18:14:52 2023
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 12:27:34 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

    The overall reaction is given by
    π- + p ==> π0 + n

    The masses of the starting and ending products are

    Initial:
    π- 139.5704 MeV
    p 938.2721 MeV
    Total initial rest mass: 1,077.8425 MeV

    Final:
    π0 134.9768 MeV
    n 939.5654 MeV
    Total final rest mass: 1,074.5422 MeV

    There is a 3.3117 MeV mass defect between the starting particle
    and the ending particle rest masses. The neutral pion and the neutron
    emerge from the reaction with total kinetic energy equal to this mass defect, and with equal and opposite momenta (as seen in the center
    of momentum frame).

    Filippas and Fox state that the neutral pions emerge from this
    reaction with a uniform speed of 0.2 c.

    I don't like typing out tedious algebra on a text-only forum such as this,

    I figured that I might as well bite the bullet and do the calculation
    for you. But I will "cheat" (horrors!) and not do all of the algebra.
    I am dreadful at keeping my terms straight. Instead, I will use my
    trusty TI-89 graphing calculator.

    You can refer to the following page for the math. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Particles/piondec.html
    3.3117 store in d (mass defect)
    134.9768 store in p (mass of π0)
    939.5654 store in n (mass of neutron)
    x = kinetic energy of π0
    (d - x) = kinetic energy of neutron

    Set up the two graphs
    y1 = (d-x)^2 + 2*(d-x)*n (momentum of neutron)
    y2 = x^2 + 2*x*p (momentum of π0)

    xmin = -1, xmax = 10, xscl = 1
    ymin = -100, ymax = 1000, yscl = 100

    Graph

    Use the F5 functions to determine the intersection
    of the two curves, since the momenta of the
    neutron and π0 products are equal in magnitude.

    Intersection: 2.892 MeV = kinetic energy of π0
    Velocity of π0 = 0.2037 c

    This is essentially perfect agreement with what Filippas
    and Fox asserted that the speed of the emitted π0 would be.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lou@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Tue Aug 22 05:48:10 2023
    On Tuesday, 22 August 2023 at 00:01:11 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 7:02:25 AM UTC-5, Lou wrote:
    On Sunday, 20 August 2023 at 18:27:34 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 6:35:07 AM UTC-5, Lou wrote:

    You certainly like to assume that “arriving at the same time” is what
    actually is observed. The way you take an experiment that subjects
    H atoms to a beam in Fermi and then pretend, without evidence or citations
    that Filipas Fox were able to count individually exactly time a gammaray
    was detected ....is ridiculous.
    Usually in these sort of situations 100s of millions of protons are in each bunch in the beam. And usually at g ray detectors or optical detectors
    the energies are “BINNED”. Like in SWIFT. In case you don’t know what
    binned means,..it means anything detected within certain time frames. So for you to fantasise that Filipas measured each detection of imaginary
    gammarays “photons” is completely fact free and ridiculous.
    You don't understand the Filippas and Fox experiment.
    I understand it well enough to know that no where in the setup
    is there any method to pair individual counts from each detector with
    the other.
    The negative pions impinged on the target at a rate of about
    1500 per second. This means that most bins were empty
    most of time, and gamma rays would be recorded singly.
    You very seldom had more than one gamma ray arriving at
    the same time. Several thousand counts took 4.5 hours to
    accumulate in the close-in configuration, 99 hours to accumulate
    in the distant configuration. READ THE PAPER.
    At best bunches of counts are detected at each detector.
    Practically always single counts. READ THE PAPER>

    Yes. And you cite the quote , paragraph and page if you want to pretend
    that “pairs” of gammarays were identified by the experiment.
    For instance : You mentioned several hours. Where exactly in the
    paper is this mentioned? (Notice fig 3 has 1 *ns* marked on the horizontal axis.)
    And the more important point is if one assumes g rays at c for an
    emission model then any coincidence between g rays emitted
    in this wave model would give the same rate of coincidence if
    one WERE able to detect coincidence rates.
    Aspect et al tried to pretend QT could only predict observed coincident
    rates. Yet in fact a wave model of light gives the same coincidence rates
    And can explain why coincidence rates don’t go to zero below a certain energy threshold.Something a particle QT model cannot do.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lou@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Tue Aug 22 05:56:22 2023
    On Tuesday, 22 August 2023 at 02:14:55 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 12:27:34 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

    The overall reaction is given by
    π- + p ==> π0 + n

    The masses of the starting and ending products are

    Initial:
    π- 139.5704 MeV
    p 938.2721 MeV
    Total initial rest mass: 1,077.8425 MeV

    Final:
    π0 134.9768 MeV
    n 939.5654 MeV
    Total final rest mass: 1,074.5422 MeV

    There is a 3.3117 MeV mass defect between the starting particle
    and the ending particle rest masses. The neutral pion and the neutron emerge from the reaction with total kinetic energy equal to this mass defect, and with equal and opposite momenta (as seen in the center
    of momentum frame).

    Filippas and Fox state that the neutral pions emerge from this
    reaction with a uniform speed of 0.2 c.

    I don't like typing out tedious algebra on a text-only forum such as this,
    I figured that I might as well bite the bullet and do the calculation
    for you. But I will "cheat" (horrors!) and not do all of the algebra.
    I am dreadful at keeping my terms straight. Instead, I will use my
    trusty TI-89 graphing calculator.

    You can refer to the following page for the math. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Particles/piondec.html
    3.3117 store in d (mass defect)
    134.9768 store in p (mass of π0)
    939.5654 store in n (mass of neutron)
    x = kinetic energy of π0
    (d - x) = kinetic energy of neutron

    Set up the two graphs
    y1 = (d-x)^2 + 2*(d-x)*n (momentum of neutron)
    y2 = x^2 + 2*x*p (momentum of π0)

    xmin = -1, xmax = 10, xscl = 1
    ymin = -100, ymax = 1000, yscl = 100

    Graph

    Use the F5 functions to determine the intersection
    of the two curves, since the momenta of the
    neutron and π0 products are equal in magnitude.

    Intersection: 2.892 MeV = kinetic energy of π0
    Velocity of π0 = 0.2037 c

    This is essentially perfect agreement with what Filippas
    and Fox asserted that the speed of the emitted π0 would be.

    I’m not sure if this comment was posted to me?
    If so then I’m sure your calculations are well made and absolutely
    brilliant maths. Problem is the maths are based on two false assumptions.
    The existence of neutral pions is a fantasy. And more importantly your
    maths is based on the assumption that H atoms cannot emit G rays
    when subjected to hi energy collisions. A false assumption: https://www.quantamagazine.org/strange-solar-gamma-rays-discovered-at-even-higher-energies-20230227/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lou@21:1/5 to Bill on Tue Aug 22 06:10:56 2023
    On Monday, 21 August 2023 at 19:53:12 UTC+1, Bill wrote:
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 9:12:46 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
    We've agreed that in a Galilean/Newtonian context all material entities not
    subject to any external force move at constant speed in a straight line in terms
    of inertial coordinate systems, but NOT in terms of accelerating coordinate
    systems (Newton's first law of motion). We've also agreed that the rate of
    change of momentum of a material entity is proportional to any applied force
    (Newton's second law of motion), and you agree that if one material entity
    exerts a force on another, the latter entity exerts an equal and opposite force
    on the former (Newton's third law of motion). Together, these laws of motion
    ensure that momentum is conserved.

    Now we can turn to the propagation of a pulse of light: Do you agree that a
    pulse of light has momentum? For example, if an object emits a pulse of light,
    does the emitting object experience a recoil at that moment? And when the
    pulse is later absorbed by a receiver, does it impart momentum to the receiver?
    Does the pulse carry momentum from emitter to receiver? Between the emission and reception events, does the momentum of the pulse change? Your inability to even attempt to respond to these simple questions is very
    conspicuous. You've obviously realized that you can't defend your nutty belief, and now you are just running away. Case closed.

    Don’t forget you can’t use ether.
    We dont use ether, we use inertia and momentum. See above.

    How do you use inertia and momentum in the source frame?
    The source doesn’t move!! 🤣
    And light propagates at c relative to the source. As observed.
    So not inertia and momentum cannot effect constant c
    in this frame.

    Something you also ignore is how it is accepted in a Classical Newtonian
    model that the gravitational field is instantaneous. And the field will follow the source
    even if the source rotates in a circle. Why is this acceptable but not a similar
    effect for light in the source frame?
    Why?
    Because you are a pre copernican ether worshipping idiot.
    As all relativists are.


    As predicted by an ether free Ritzian emission theory.
    Again, Ritz was not an ignorant fool. He explicitly denied your nutty belief.
    It is disgraceful for you to keep attributing your deranged notion to him.

    Case is only closed when...

    No, the case closed when you tacitly admitted that you couldn't respond
    to the criticism of your nutty belief. Again, you were asked if, according to your insane belief, a pulse of light has momentum. Recognizing that
    the answer to this question explodes your nutty belief, you simply cover your ears and make loud whooping sounds as you run away. So, as I
    said: Case closed.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill@21:1/5 to Lou on Tue Aug 22 16:38:54 2023
    On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 6:10:58 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
    We've agreed that in a Galilean/Newtonian context all material entities not
    subject to any external force move at constant speed in a straight line in terms
    of inertial coordinate systems, but NOT in terms of accelerating coordinate
    systems (Newton's first law of motion). We've also agreed that the rate of
    change of momentum of a material entity is proportional to any applied force
    (Newton's second law of motion), and you agree that if one material entity
    exerts a force on another, the latter entity exerts an equal and opposite force
    on the former (Newton's third law of motion). Together, these laws of motion
    ensure that momentum is conserved.

    Now we can turn to the propagation of a pulse of light: Do you agree that a
    pulse of light has momentum? For example, if an object emits a pulse of light,
    does the emitting object experience a recoil at that moment? And when the
    pulse is later absorbed by a receiver, does it impart momentum to the receiver?
    Does the pulse carry momentum from emitter to receiver? Between the emission and reception events, does the momentum of the pulse change? Your inability to even attempt to respond to these simple questions is very
    conspicuous. You've obviously realized that you can't defend your nutty
    belief, and now you are just running away. Case closed.

    Don’t forget you can’t use ether.

    We dont use ether, we use inertia and momentum. See above.

    How do you use inertia and momentum in the source frame?

    A pulse of light maintains constant momentum by moving (in vacuum) on an inertial trajectory, meaning it moves at constant speed in a straight line
    in terms of any system of inertial coordinates, just as does a material particle. If the object that emitted the pulse, perhaps millions of years
    ago, is accelerating (i.e., deviating from inertial motion), or no longer exists,
    then it doesn't have a frame (singular). The nutty idea that the trajectories of free objects would be unaccelerated in terms of accelerating coordinates
    is sheer idiocy, for all the reasons explained before. Agreed?

    In a Classical Newtonian model the gravitational field is instantaneous,
    so the field will follow [sic] the source even if the source rotates [sic]
    in a circle. Why is this acceptable but not a similar effect for light?

    Well, instantaneous action at a distance ISN'T considered acceptable, for
    many of the reasons that Newton himself recognized, but even that counter- factual premise is a model of conceptual sanity compared with your nutjob belief. Changing the magnitude of a force applied to an object doesn't cause the object to move in lock-step with the source, and it could not maintain undiminished strength out to infinity, and it would have no magical effect that ignores every laser pointer except the one that emitted it, and of course that particular laser pointer could have been destroyed years ago, etc. And of course you assured me that you were NOT suggesting the pulse of light
    is dragged, so your mendacity is astounding. Your nutty idea isn't just wrong, it's childishness and stupidity is nearly beyond belief.

    Again, you've have already conceded that all material objects behave in
    exactly the way (inertial motion) that you pretend is inconceivable.
    And now you have tacitly agreed that a pulse of light has momentum and therefore follows an inertial trajectory in vacuum, and therefore your
    nutty idea has been thoroughly exploded. Case closed.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to All on Tue Aug 22 22:08:21 2023
    Regarding the original topic:

    I had a good laugh today. I read something how one of the subjects of
    the original Dunning-Kruger research was a would-be bank robber in the
    1990s. He went into a bank demanding money, with no mask or any other
    visible attempt to hide his face. He even deliberately smiled for the
    security cameras. He was totally confounded when later that day, the FBI
    showed up at his house and arrested him. He said "But I used the juice!"

    It turns out "the juice" was lemon juice. He smeared his face with lemon
    juice. Lemon juice can be used as a form of invisible ink. He thought
    that covering his face with lemon juice made him invisible!

    I'm trying to decide if any of our own Dunning-Kruger examples here, who
    all think they're smarter than all the physicists over the last 100+
    years by claiming relativity is wrong, is actually dumber than the bank
    robber. Sure they're all dumb, but are any that dumb?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Volney on Tue Aug 22 21:48:06 2023
    On Wednesday, 23 August 2023 at 04:08:29 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
    Regarding the original topic:

    I had a good laugh today. I read something how one of the subjects of

    And do you still believe that 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy
    is some "Newton mode"? You're such an agnorant idiot,
    stupid Mike, even considering the standards of your
    moronic religion.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Lou on Wed Aug 23 01:47:04 2023
    On 8/19/2023 3:39 AM, Lou wrote:
    On Saturday, 19 August 2023 at 05:22:13 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
    On 8/18/2023 7:49 AM, Lou wrote:
    On Friday, 18 August 2023 at 03:33:42 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
    On 8/17/2023 8:28 AM, Lou wrote:

    The excuse in the article is that far from being stopped by hydrogen, new >>>>> imaginary intermediate particles are created by these collisions.
    Called “neutral pions” .

    Again you obviously didn't read the paper's references. Neutral pions
    were well known before that time and weren't invented for this paper.
    They were discovered in 1950.

    This is a false claim. They can’t be observed directly as particle paths. >>> Only G rays are observed from collisions of cosmic rays in atmosphere.
    So as wiki says...these imaginary neutral pions were “inferred”.
    Ie...made up to try to explain why the standard model could not explain
    the fact that atoms, like H, could emit gammarays when hit by hi
    energy protons. And proof of the standard models complete lack of
    ability to model anything except for hi paid CERN staff salaries comes in the
    observation that H atoms in the sun emit far more g rays then predicted
    under the Standard Model.
    No, they were well known, discovered in 1950. You are imagining


    Wrong. They were not discovered.

    They most certainly were discovered, in 1950.
    They are also known from rare decays (e+e-γ I think) and things which
    can decay into π⁰.

    Burying your head in the sand and chanting "there are no neutral pions"
    isn't going to make them go away.

    Gammaray rays were observed emitted
    from atoms in the atmosphere being hit by cosmic rays and emitting g rays.

    And once again you ignore the fact that π⁰ decays into two gammas of a specific energy. Not any old gammas, but a pair of back to back 62.5 MeV gammas.

    You keep ignoring that (on purpose, of course).

    The standard model couldn’t explain how atoms including H atoms could
    emit hi energy radiation .

    The standard model explains π⁰ just fine.

    So imaginary neutral pions were invented to save another failure
    yet again, of the standard model.

    Nope. They were discovered before the standard model existed. Pions (all
    three types) were predicted by the Yukawa theory of nuclear force. The
    charged mesons were discovered in 1947, the neutral one was more
    difficult to detect.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Athel Cornish-Bowden@21:1/5 to Volney on Wed Aug 23 08:42:37 2023
    On 2023-08-23 02:08:21 +0000, Volney said:

    Regarding the original topic:

    I had a good laugh today. I read something how one of the subjects of
    the original Dunning-Kruger research was a would-be bank robber in the
    1990s. He went into a bank demanding money, with no mask or any other
    visible attempt to hide his face. He even deliberately smiled for the security cameras. He was totally confounded when later that day, the
    FBI showed up at his house and arrested him. He said "But I used the
    juice!"

    I remember that story.

    It turns out "the juice" was lemon juice. He smeared his face with
    lemon juice. Lemon juice can be used as a form of invisible ink. He
    thought that covering his face with lemon juice made him invisible!

    You'd think he would have checked by looking in a mirror. However, if
    he was as stupid as some of our contributors here he might not have
    thought of that.

    I'm trying to decide if any of our own Dunning-Kruger examples here,
    who all think they're smarter than all the physicists over the last
    100+ years by claiming relativity is wrong, is actually dumber than the
    bank robber. Sure they're all dumb, but are any that dumb?


    --
    athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to Lou on Tue Aug 22 23:54:05 2023
    On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 7:48:13 AM UTC-5, Lou wrote:
    On Tuesday, 22 August 2023 at 00:01:11 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

    Practically always single counts. READ THE PAPER>
    Yes. And you cite the quote , paragraph and page if you want to pretend
    that “pairs” of gammarays were identified by the experiment.

    Look at figure 1. Note the use of 128 nsec and 136 nsec delay lines.
    What this configuration does is that counter 5 provides the start
    pulse, and the fixed delay line allows both positive and negative
    times from counter 6 relative to the start count will be detected,
    Read also the left column, antepentultimate paragraph on page B1073.
    So we have a coincidence counter that only detects pulses when
    they arrive at both 5 and 6 within a 8 nsec gate.

    Look at B1073, second paragraph after "EXPERIMENTAL TECHNIQUE".
    We read that the pions were stopped in the target at a rate of ~1500/sec Therefore, the probability that one pion might coincidentally be
    followed by another arriving within the same gating period is only
    about 1 in 80,000, and the gamma rays resulting from the two
    disintegrations would coincidentally need to be pointing in opposite
    directions to be detected as coincidentally paired pulses.

    Look at Figure 3. Add up the total counts. During the course of the
    experiment, they accumulated only about ~1000 total counts for
    the 47 inch experimental run and ~40,000 total counts for the 7
    inch experimental run (they normalized the 7 inch data so that the
    two curves would fit on the same graph). Look at the first paragraph
    after "RESULTS AND DISCUSSION". Counting times were 4.5 hours
    for the 7 inch spacing, and 99 hours for the 47 inch spacing of
    counters from the target center.

    So counts recorded by detectors 5 and 6 were accumulated one
    at a time, and although it is possible that one, or even two of the
    the counts might represent a false coincidence, it would certainly
    not be any more.

    For instance : You mentioned several hours. Where exactly in the
    paper is this mentioned? (Notice fig 3 has 1 *ns* marked on the horizontal axis.)
    And the more important point is if one assumes g rays at c for an
    emission model then any coincidence between g rays emitted
    in this wave model would give the same rate of coincidence if
    one WERE able to detect coincidence rates.
    Aspect et al tried to pretend QT could only predict observed coincident rates. Yet in fact a wave model of light gives the same coincidence rates And can explain why coincidence rates don’t go to zero below a certain energy threshold.Something a particle QT model cannot do.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to Lou on Wed Aug 23 00:27:15 2023
    On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 7:56:25 AM UTC-5, Lou wrote:
    On Tuesday, 22 August 2023 at 02:14:55 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

    Velocity of π0 = 0.2037 c

    This is essentially perfect agreement with what Filippas
    and Fox asserted that the speed of the emitted π0 would be.
    I’m not sure if this comment was posted to me?
    If so then I’m sure your calculations are well made and absolutely brilliant maths.

    Not brilliant at all. Merely a routine sanity check of my understanding
    of the paper. The neutral pions are being created with a precise
    kinetic energy which can easily be calculated.

    The fact that this routine calculation seems to impress you
    says something about your lack of knowledge.

    Problem is the maths are based on two false assumptions.
    The existence of neutral pions is a fantasy.

    They were predicted about 90 years ago and detected in the
    late 40's/early 50's.

    And more importantly your
    maths is based on the assumption that H atoms cannot emit G rays
    when subjected to hi energy collisions.

    Your general lack of knowledge of particle physics is showing.

    The hydrogen atoms were being irradiated with a beam consisting
    almost purely of relatively low energy 80 MeV negative pions that
    react with protons following a well characterized reaction path.
    π- + p ==> π0 + n

    At high energies, you can create other particles. 80 MeV does
    *NOT* count as high energy. The "charge exchange" reaction that
    I gave above is pretty much the only reaction that takes place.

    About 99% of the time, the π0 decays into a pair of gamma rays.
    About 1% of the time, the π0 decays into an electron, positron and a single gamma.

    All of this is known physical knowledge accumulated over eight decades
    of research on pion properties.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to All on Wed Aug 23 11:08:07 2023
    Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com>:
    [nonsense by Lou]
    At high energies, you can create other particles. 80 MeV does
    *NOT* count as high energy. The "charge exchange" reaction that
    I gave above is pretty much the only reaction that takes place.

    About 99% of the time, the π0 decays into a pair of gamma rays. 1% of the About time, the π0 decays into an electron, positron and a single gamma.

    Right. Extra: the internal conversion is called the 'Dalitz process',
    after the discoverer. The 'Double Dalitz' is also seen,
    with both photons converting into a pair.

    And the cherry on the cake: the pair can also come out
    as the positronium bound state.
    (as seen by the characteristic gammas from positronium decay)

    All this of course completely in agreement, in all detail,
    with the theoretical predictions for all of those processes.

    Our 'Lou' is living in a fantasy world
    that can only be supported by complete ignorance
    of the theoretical basis and of the experimental facts,

    Jan

    BTW, since pions are almost massless, any high energy collision,
    such as at LHC, produces lots of them.
    Those huge detectors at Cern routinely detect sprays of hadrons,
    most of which are pions.
    (anything that can decay strongly will do so before being detected)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lou@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Wed Aug 23 06:53:50 2023
    On Wednesday, 23 August 2023 at 08:27:18 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 7:56:25 AM UTC-5, Lou wrote:
    On Tuesday, 22 August 2023 at 02:14:55 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

    Velocity of π0 = 0.2037 c

    This is essentially perfect agreement with what Filippas
    and Fox asserted that the speed of the emitted π0 would be.
    I’m not sure if this comment was posted to me?
    If so then I’m sure your calculations are well made and absolutely brilliant maths.
    Not brilliant at all. Merely a routine sanity check of my understanding
    of the paper. The neutral pions are being created with a precise
    kinetic energy which can easily be calculated.

    Handy to have calculations to support the existence of your
    imaginary neutral pion. They did the same with the Ptolemaic
    system. Very fancy maths, for the time, supported complete nonsense
    theory.

    The fact that this routine calculation seems to impress you
    says something about your lack of knowledge.
    Problem is the maths are based on two false assumptions.
    The existence of neutral pions is a fantasy.
    They were predicted about 90 years ago and detected in the
    late 40's/early 50's.
    And more importantly your
    maths is based on the assumption that H atoms cannot emit G rays
    when subjected to hi energy collisions.
    Your general lack of knowledge of particle physics is showing.

    My general lack of religious fantasies like yours is definitely showing.
    I readily admit my lack of knowledge about the ins an outs of any religion. I’m not interested in fantasies that are not consistent with empirical observations.

    The hydrogen atoms were being irradiated with a beam consisting
    almost purely of relatively low energy 80 MeV negative pions that
    react with protons following a well characterized reaction path.
    π- + p ==> π0 + n
    At high energies, you can create other particles. 80 MeV does
    *NOT* count as high energy. The "charge exchange" reaction that
    I gave above is pretty much the only reaction that takes place.


    You still ignore the fact that H atoms when subjected to hi energy
    collisions creates abundant G rays. Falsifying Filipas fantasies of
    imaginary pions to try to illegitimately refute emission theory.
    I have facts on my side . You don’t.

    https://www.quantamagazine.org/strange-solar-gamma-rays-discovered-at-even-higher-energies-20230227/

    About 99% of the time, the π0 decays into a pair of gamma rays.
    About 1% of the time, the π0 decays into an electron, positron and a single gamma.

    All of this is known physical knowledge accumulated over eight decades
    of research on pion properties.

    Eight decades of making up imaginary particles to account for
    the fact that each subsequent observation refuted the existence of the
    previous made up particles. One only has to look at the latest failure
    of the standard model. Muons just turned out to be fantasy particles.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lou@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Wed Aug 23 07:17:17 2023
    On Wednesday, 23 August 2023 at 07:54:07 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 7:48:13 AM UTC-5, Lou wrote:
    On Tuesday, 22 August 2023 at 00:01:11 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

    Practically always single counts. READ THE PAPER>
    Yes. And you cite the quote , paragraph and page if you want to pretend that “pairs” of gammarays were identified by the experiment.
    Look at figure 1. Note the use of 128 nsec and 136 nsec delay lines.
    What this configuration does is that counter 5 provides the start
    pulse, and the fixed delay line allows both positive and negative
    times from counter 6 relative to the start count will be detected,
    Read also the left column, antepentultimate paragraph on page B1073.
    So we have a coincidence counter that only detects pulses when
    they arrive at both 5 and 6 within a 8 nsec gate.

    So far no evidence of individual “photons” being paired. Nor of collected counts being made over days as you suggested.

    Look at B1073, second paragraph after "EXPERIMENTAL TECHNIQUE".
    We read that the pions were stopped in the target at a rate of ~1500/sec Therefore, the probability that one pion might coincidentally be
    followed by another arriving within the same gating period is only
    about 1 in 80,000, and the gamma rays resulting from the two
    disintegrations would coincidentally need to be pointing in opposite directions to be detected as coincidentally paired pulses.

    Still no evidence of pairing. Especially considering that g rays emitted
    by H atoms would also be isotropic . And therefore be detected simultaneously at 180 degree angles.

    Look at Figure 3. Add up the total counts. During the course of the experiment, they accumulated only about ~1000 total counts for
    the 47 inch experimental run and ~40,000 total counts for the 7
    inch experimental run (they normalized the 7 inch data so that the
    two curves would fit on the same graph). Look at the first paragraph
    after "RESULTS AND DISCUSSION". Counting times were 4.5 hours
    for the 7 inch spacing, and 99 hours for the 47 inch spacing of
    counters from the target center.

    4.5 hours total time to collate maybe a thousand count rates
    Where and how exactly does it specify that “pairs” were observed.?
    At best you have multiple count rates at each detector within
    a *binned time* limit. So your not counting or identifying pairs.
    You have to learn what * binned* means.

    And as I’ve said out already. An emission wave model
    will give and explain any imagined coincident rates.
    How? Because any time an H atom is excited to produce
    G rays ..it emits the waves isotropically. Meaning these gamma
    ray waves hit both detectors simultaneously. Triggering what
    appears to be a coincident detection of imaginary paired
    photons


    So counts recorded by detectors 5 and 6 were accumulated one
    at a time, and although it is possible that one, or even two of the
    the counts might represent a false coincidence, it would certainly
    not be any more.
    For instance : You mentioned several hours. Where exactly in the
    paper is this mentioned? (Notice fig 3 has 1 *ns* marked on the horizontal axis.)
    And the more important point is if one assumes g rays at c for an
    emission model then any coincidence between g rays emitted
    in this wave model would give the same rate of coincidence if
    one WERE able to detect coincidence rates.
    Aspect et al tried to pretend QT could only predict observed coincident rates. Yet in fact a wave model of light gives the same coincidence rates And can explain why coincidence rates don’t go to zero below a certain energy threshold.Something a particle QT model cannot do.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Lou on Wed Aug 23 16:19:32 2023
    Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> wrote:

    On Wednesday, 23 August 2023 at 08:27:18 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog:
    On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 7:56:25?AM UTC-5, Lou wrote:
    On Tuesday, 22 August 2023 at 02:14:55 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog:

    Velocity of π0 = 0.2037 c

    This is essentially perfect agreement with what Filippas
    and Fox asserted that the speed of the emitted π0 would be.
    I'm not sure if this comment was posted to me?
    If so then I'm sure your calculations are well made and absolutely brilliant maths.
    Not brilliant at all. Merely a routine sanity check of my understanding
    of the paper. The neutral pions are being created with a precise
    kinetic energy which can easily be calculated.

    Handy to have calculations to support the existence of your
    imaginary neutral pion. They did the same with the Ptolemaic
    system. Very fancy maths, for the time, supported complete nonsense
    theory.

    The fact that this routine calculation seems to impress you
    says something about your lack of knowledge.
    Problem is the maths are based on two false assumptions.
    The existence of neutral pions is a fantasy.
    They were predicted about 90 years ago and detected in the
    late 40's/early 50's.
    And more importantly your
    maths is based on the assumption that H atoms cannot emit G rays
    when subjected to hi energy collisions.
    Your general lack of knowledge of particle physics is showing.

    My general lack of religious fantasies like yours is definitely showing. I readily admit my lack of knowledge about the ins an outs of any religion.
    I'm not interested in fantasies that are not consistent with empirical observations.

    The hydrogen atoms were being irradiated with a beam consisting
    almost purely of relatively low energy 80 MeV negative pions that
    react with protons following a well characterized reaction path.
    π- + p ==> π0 + n
    At high energies, you can create other particles. 80 MeV does
    *NOT* count as high energy. The "charge exchange" reaction that
    I gave above is pretty much the only reaction that takes place.


    You still ignore the fact that H atoms when subjected to hi energy
    collisions creates abundant G rays. Falsifying Filipas fantasies of
    imaginary pions to try to illegitimately refute emission theory.
    I have facts on my side . You don't.

    https://www.quantamagazine.org/strange-solar-gamma-rays-discovered-at-even-hig
    her-energies-20230227/

    About 99% of the time, the π0 decays into a pair of gamma rays. 1% of About the time, the π0 decays into an electron, positron and a single About gamma.

    All of this is known physical knowledge accumulated over eight decades
    of research on pion properties.

    Eight decades of making up imaginary particles to account for
    the fact that each subsequent observation refuted the existence of the previous made up particles. One only has to look at the latest failure
    of the standard model. Muons just turned out to be fantasy particles.

    Now that's a thoroughgoing analysis!
    But I'll let you in on the best kept secret of all:
    electrons and your so-called protons are fantasy particles too!

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lou@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Wed Aug 23 08:06:49 2023
    On Wednesday, 23 August 2023 at 15:19:36 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Lou <noeltu...@live.co.uk> wrote:

    On Wednesday, 23 August 2023 at 08:27:18 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog:
    On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 7:56:25?AM UTC-5, Lou wrote:
    On Tuesday, 22 August 2023 at 02:14:55 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog:

    Velocity of π0 = 0.2037 c

    This is essentially perfect agreement with what Filippas
    and Fox asserted that the speed of the emitted π0 would be.
    I'm not sure if this comment was posted to me?
    If so then I'm sure your calculations are well made and absolutely brilliant maths.
    Not brilliant at all. Merely a routine sanity check of my understanding of the paper. The neutral pions are being created with a precise
    kinetic energy which can easily be calculated.

    Handy to have calculations to support the existence of your
    imaginary neutral pion. They did the same with the Ptolemaic
    system. Very fancy maths, for the time, supported complete nonsense theory.

    The fact that this routine calculation seems to impress you
    says something about your lack of knowledge.
    Problem is the maths are based on two false assumptions.
    The existence of neutral pions is a fantasy.
    They were predicted about 90 years ago and detected in the
    late 40's/early 50's.
    And more importantly your
    maths is based on the assumption that H atoms cannot emit G rays
    when subjected to hi energy collisions.
    Your general lack of knowledge of particle physics is showing.

    My general lack of religious fantasies like yours is definitely showing. I readily admit my lack of knowledge about the ins an outs of any religion. I'm not interested in fantasies that are not consistent with empirical observations.

    The hydrogen atoms were being irradiated with a beam consisting
    almost purely of relatively low energy 80 MeV negative pions that
    react with protons following a well characterized reaction path.
    π- + p ==> π0 + n
    At high energies, you can create other particles. 80 MeV does
    *NOT* count as high energy. The "charge exchange" reaction that
    I gave above is pretty much the only reaction that takes place.


    You still ignore the fact that H atoms when subjected to hi energy collisions creates abundant G rays. Falsifying Filipas fantasies of imaginary pions to try to illegitimately refute emission theory.
    I have facts on my side . You don't.

    https://www.quantamagazine.org/strange-solar-gamma-rays-discovered-at-even-hig
    her-energies-20230227/

    About 99% of the time, the π0 decays into a pair of gamma rays. 1% of About the time, the π0 decays into an electron, positron and a single About gamma.

    All of this is known physical knowledge accumulated over eight decades of research on pion properties.

    Eight decades of making up imaginary particles to account for
    the fact that each subsequent observation refuted the existence of the previous made up particles. One only has to look at the latest failure
    of the standard model. Muons just turned out to be fantasy particles.
    Now that's a thoroughgoing analysis!

    Not my analysis. Fermilabs analysis.

    https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2023/aug/new-measurement-particle-wobble-hints-new-physics#:~:text=Importantly%2C%20muons%20are%20also%20magnetic,wobble%2C%20or%20


    But I'll let you in on the best kept secret of all:
    electrons and your so-called protons are fantasy particles too!

    Electrons. Yes definitely a fantasy Has anyone actually observed one?
    No. They are an assumption.
    Protons. Depends. When they refer to a stripped down atom as a proton
    in a collider beam then yes they are essentially atoms. And particulate.
    (If one can call a standing wave collection of resonating frequencies a particle. Notice all our measurements of atoms are essentially
    as a resonating system.)
    But to say an atom is particulate. Is a fantasy. It is a resonating system
    of oscillating magnetic waves. And when you smash these wavelike
    structures together in a collider or in the sun. They emit their energy
    as wave like emr. Which can be observed.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Wed Aug 23 10:18:52 2023
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 12:27:34 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

    The overall reaction is given by
    π- + p ==> π0 + n

    There is a competing reaction that I was not aware of which
    was not mentioned in the Filippas and Fox paper.

    π- + p ==> n + γ

    The single gamma ray would be of entirely different energy
    than the paired gamma rays resulting from the decay of
    the π0 and so gammas resulting from this competing
    reaction would be easily distinguishable.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RichD@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Wed Aug 23 14:13:42 2023
    On August 19, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    And you derive the Doppler formula...
    how? Via the ASSUMPTION of constant light velocity! Now you wish to
    use that supposition to argue that deep field astronomy, based on Doppler >> reasoning, constitutes a test of constant light speed, hmmm....

    The fact is that, regardless of *any* assumptions you make
    about the relationship between Doppler and recession speed,
    light from all sources in Hubble Deep Field images must travel
    within 1% of c or there would be noticeable blurring of the
    images.

    Since you're an astronomer, try this:

    Disneyland has a new ride. A heavy anchor - the Sun - sits in the middle
    of a large room. A few children's carts - the Planets - surround it, each tethered to the Sun via a rubber cord. The cords have spring constant 1/r², they travel elliptical orbits. Nifty, hey? Disney ride designers are evidently physics majors.

    One day, a cord snaps, the cart rolls free. Does it continue to obey
    Kepler's second law?

    --
    Rich

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Wed Aug 23 16:40:01 2023
    On 8/23/23 12:18 PM, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 12:27:34 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase
    Homolog wrote:

    The overall reaction is given by π- + p ==> π0 + n

    There is a competing reaction that I was not aware of which was not
    mentioned in the Filippas and Fox paper.

    π- + p ==> n + γ

    The single gamma ray would be of entirely different energy than the
    paired gamma rays resulting from the decay of the π0 and so gammas
    resulting from this competing reaction would be easily
    distinguishable.

    There are other competing reactions, including:

    a) π- + p ==> π- + p + γ
    (bremstrahlung - rare at this low energy)
    b) π- + H ==> π- + p + e- ==> π- + p + H' + one or more γ
    (atomic ionization followed by e- capture; the
    first is the mechanism for beam energy loss)
    c) π- capture into a Pionic Atom => several results
    (all of which have one or more γ)

    Indeed (b) happens many times as each beam π- slows down, nearly always
    ending with (c), which can be the precursor to the two reactions you
    mention (they require very low-energy π-, which invariably get captured
    into a Pionic Atom first).

    For all of these the γ are very low energy, also easily distinguished
    from π0 decays.

    The interactions of a particle beam with matter are quite complex, and I
    have only scratched the surface.

    Tom Roberts

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Wed Aug 23 16:55:11 2023
    On 8/23/23 4:40 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
    [...] For all of these the γ are very low energy, also easily distinguished from π0 decays.

    Indeed most are so low energy their detectors probably cannot detect them.

    Tom Roberts

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Wed Aug 23 15:25:27 2023
    On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 4:40:13 PM UTC-5, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 8/23/23 12:18 PM, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 12:27:34 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

    The overall reaction is given by π- + p ==> π0 + n

    There is a competing reaction that I was not aware of which was not mentioned in the Filippas and Fox paper.

    π- + p ==> n + γ

    The single gamma ray would be of entirely different energy than the
    paired gamma rays resulting from the decay of the π0 and so gammas resulting from this competing reaction would be easily
    distinguishable.
    There are other competing reactions, including:

    a) π- + p ==> π- + p + γ
    (bremstrahlung - rare at this low energy)
    b) π- + H ==> π- + p + e- ==> π- + p + H' + one or more γ
    (atomic ionization followed by e- capture; the
    first is the mechanism for beam energy loss)
    c) π- capture into a Pionic Atom => several results
    (all of which have one or more γ)

    Indeed (b) happens many times as each beam π- slows down, nearly always ending with (c), which can be the precursor to the two reactions you
    mention (they require very low-energy π-, which invariably get captured into a Pionic Atom first).

    For all of these the γ are very low energy, also easily distinguished
    from π0 decays.

    The interactions of a particle beam with matter are quite complex, and I have only scratched the surface.

    Thanks! So from (b) there should be a whole spectrum of individual
    γ emissions of different energy, all easily distinguishable from the
    π0 decay. :-)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Wed Aug 23 20:08:12 2023
    On 8/23/23 5:25 PM, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 4:40:13 PM UTC-5, Tom Roberts
    wrote:
    On 8/23/23 12:18 PM, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 12:27:34 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic
    Capase Homolog wrote:

    The overall reaction is given by π- + p ==> π0 + n

    There is a competing reaction that I was not aware of which was
    not mentioned in the Filippas and Fox paper.

    π- + p ==> n + γ

    The single gamma ray would be of entirely different energy than
    the paired gamma rays resulting from the decay of the π0 and so
    gammas resulting from this competing reaction would be easily
    distinguishable.
    There are other competing reactions, including:

    a) π- + p ==> π- + p + γ (bremstrahlung - rare at this low energy)
    b) π- + H ==> π- + p + e- ==> π- + p + H' + one or more γ (atomic
    ionization followed by e- capture; the first is the mechanism for
    beam energy loss) c) π- capture into a Pionic Atom => several
    results (all of which have one or more γ)

    Indeed (b) happens many times as each beam π- slows down, nearly
    always ending with (c), which can be the precursor to the two
    reactions you mention (they require very low-energy π-, which
    invariably get captured into a Pionic Atom first).

    For all of these the γ are very low energy, also easily
    distinguished from π0 decays.

    The interactions of a particle beam with matter are quite complex,
    and I have only scratched the surface.

    Thanks! So from (b) there should be a whole spectrum of individual γ
    emissions of different energy, all easily distinguishable from the
    π0 decay. :-)

    Yes. But the detectors they use probably cannot see them.

    An 80MeV π- will ionize millions of hydrogen atoms before stopping, but
    the photons generated by subsequent electron capture will all be below ~
    20eV. I don't know what their detection threshold is, but I'd be
    surprised if it is less than a thousand times that, so they won't see
    them at all; if they did see them, their detectors would probably be overwhelmed.

    Tom Roberts

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Wed Aug 23 20:59:25 2023
    On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 4:40:13 PM UTC-5, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 8/23/23 12:18 PM, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 12:27:34 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

    The overall reaction is given by π- + p ==> π0 + n

    There is a competing reaction that I was not aware of which was not mentioned in the Filippas and Fox paper.

    π- + p ==> n + γ

    The single gamma ray would be of entirely different energy than the
    paired gamma rays resulting from the decay of the π0 and so gammas resulting from this competing reaction would be easily
    distinguishable.
    There are other competing reactions, including:

    a) π- + p ==> π- + p + γ
    (bremstrahlung - rare at this low energy)
    b) π- + H ==> π- + p + e- ==> π- + p + H' + one or more γ
    (atomic ionization followed by e- capture; the
    first is the mechanism for beam energy loss)
    c) π- capture into a Pionic Atom => several results
    (all of which have one or more γ)

    "Pionic Atom". I knew this had to exist (referring to it as a
    "transitional pion-proton intermediate" in an earlier post) but
    I didn't know the vocabulary term. Learned something. I nearly
    always do from your posts. :-)

    Indeed (b) happens many times as each beam π- slows down, nearly always ending with (c), which can be the precursor to the two reactions you
    mention (they require very low-energy π-, which invariably get captured into a Pionic Atom first).

    So the energies measured in the lab frame of the gamma pair from
    decay of the π0 should not very by more than a relatively few eV from
    the values calculated in the rest frame. Nice to know. I haven't had a
    chance to follow up on the two papers that Filippas & Fox refer to
    which measured the Doppler energy shift and the aberration angle
    of the emitted pair. (Cassels et al 1959 and Panofsky et al 1951)

    Unfortunately, there is too much recent stuff going on in CRISPR
    for me to devote much time to physics. https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.add8643
    Even though I haven't worked in the field for nearly 30 years, there
    is a -terrible- anomaly in the textbook description of how a certain
    genetic element is synthesized which is worth addressing in a
    short note, which maybe I can get published as a letter to the editor.
    People are so interested in CRISPR as a tool, that they forget all
    about its fundamental biology. So I've been spending -far- more time
    catching up on the last three decades of genetic engineering than I
    do on physics, which is really just a hobby. Plus I work full time as
    a software engineer, so I don't get much sleep. :-(

    For all of these the γ are very low energy, also easily distinguished
    from π0 decays.

    The interactions of a particle beam with matter are quite complex, and I have only scratched the surface.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lou@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Thu Aug 24 01:03:22 2023
    On Thursday, 24 August 2023 at 02:08:25 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 8/23/23 5:25 PM, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 4:40:13 PM UTC-5, Tom Roberts
    wrote:
    On 8/23/23 12:18 PM, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 12:27:34 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic
    Capase Homolog wrote:

    The overall reaction is given by π- + p ==> π0 + n

    There is a competing reaction that I was not aware of which was
    not mentioned in the Filippas and Fox paper.

    π- + p ==> n + γ

    The single gamma ray would be of entirely different energy than
    the paired gamma rays resulting from the decay of the π0 and so
    gammas resulting from this competing reaction would be easily
    distinguishable.
    There are other competing reactions, including:

    a) π- + p ==> π- + p + γ (bremstrahlung - rare at this low energy)
    b) π- + H ==> π- + p + e- ==> π- + p + H' + one or more γ (atomic
    ionization followed by e- capture; the first is the mechanism for
    beam energy loss) c) π- capture into a Pionic Atom => several
    results (all of which have one or more γ)

    Indeed (b) happens many times as each beam π- slows down, nearly
    always ending with (c), which can be the precursor to the two
    reactions you mention (they require very low-energy π-, which
    invariably get captured into a Pionic Atom first).

    For all of these the γ are very low energy, also easily
    distinguished from π0 decays.

    The interactions of a particle beam with matter are quite complex,
    and I have only scratched the surface.

    Thanks! So from (b) there should be a whole spectrum of individual γ emissions of different energy, all easily distinguishable from the
    π0 decay. :-)
    Yes. But the detectors they use probably cannot see them.

    An 80MeV π- will ionize millions of hydrogen atoms before stopping, but
    the photons generated by subsequent electron capture will all be below ~ 20eV. I don't know what their detection threshold is, but I'd be
    surprised if it is less than a thousand times that, so they won't see
    them at all; if they did see them, their detectors would probably be overwhelmed.

    “All H photons emitted only below 20 eV from 80MeV”
    Seems an odd claim to make considering solar H atoms
    are observed to emit a range of gammarays from 0.1-200GeV

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Thu Aug 24 11:26:37 2023
    Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

    On 8/23/23 12:18 PM, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 12:27:34?PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase
    Homolog wrote:

    The overall reaction is given by π- + p ==> π0 + n

    There is a competing reaction that I was not aware of which was not mentioned in the Filippas and Fox paper.

    π- + p ==> n + ?

    The single gamma ray would be of entirely different energy than the
    paired gamma rays resulting from the decay of the π0 and so gammas resulting from this competing reaction would be easily
    distinguishable.

    There are other competing reactions, including:

    a) π- + p ==> π- + p + ?
    (bremstrahlung - rare at this low energy)
    b) π- + H ==> π- + p + e- ==> π- + p + H' + one or more ?
    (atomic ionization followed by e- capture; the
    first is the mechanism for beam energy loss)
    c) π- capture into a Pionic Atom => several results
    (all of which have one or more ?)

    Indeed (b) happens many times as each beam π- slows down, nearly always ending with (c), which can be the precursor to the two reactions you
    mention (they require very low-energy π-, which invariably get captured
    into a Pionic Atom first).

    For all of these the ? are very low energy, also easily distinguished
    from π0 decays.

    The interactions of a particle beam with matter are quite complex, and I
    have only scratched the surface.

    But you missed the dominant effect here,
    despite prokary already mentioning it.
    It is pi- + proton going into neutron + photon.

    This is easy to understand in terms of quarks.
    The pi- is (anti-up,down) so with charge -2/3+(-1/3) = -1
    and the proton, which is (up,up,down) so with charge 2/3+2/3-1/3 = +1

    Now the anti-up from the pion can annihilate with an up from the proton
    (by the electromagnitic interaction)
    into a single photon of about 140 MeV.
    It leaves (up,down,down) which is of course a neutron.
    The photon line must be sharp, because the neutron is too heavy
    to take up much kinetic energy.
    (it does take up the missing momentum though)

    This set the stage for the discovery of the neutral pion.
    It was the solution to the puzzle: why both single photons
    at about the pion rest mass, and also pairs of photons
    at about half that?

    It also needed the theoretical understanding
    that the neutral pion must decay into an even number of photons.
    (by c-parity)

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to RichD on Thu Aug 24 04:18:14 2023
    On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 4:13:45 PM UTC-5, RichD wrote:
    On August 19, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    And you derive the Doppler formula...
    how? Via the ASSUMPTION of constant light velocity! Now you wish to
    use that supposition to argue that deep field astronomy, based on Doppler >> reasoning, constitutes a test of constant light speed, hmmm....

    The fact is that, regardless of *any* assumptions you make
    about the relationship between Doppler and recession speed,
    light from all sources in Hubble Deep Field images must travel
    within 1% of c or there would be noticeable blurring of the
    images.

    Since you're an astronomer, try this:

    Disneyland has a new ride. A heavy anchor - the Sun - sits in the middle
    of a large room. A few children's carts - the Planets - surround it, each tethered to the Sun via a rubber cord. The cords have spring constant 1/r², they travel elliptical orbits. Nifty, hey? Disney ride designers are evidently physics majors.

    One day, a cord snaps, the cart rolls free. Does it continue to obey Kepler's second law?

    Conservation of angular momentum does not disappear
    just because the force law changed.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Lou on Thu Aug 24 13:38:40 2023
    On 8/24/2023 4:03 AM, Lou wrote:
    On Thursday, 24 August 2023 at 02:08:25 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 8/23/23 5:25 PM, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

    Thanks! So from (b) there should be a whole spectrum of individual γ
    emissions of different energy, all easily distinguishable from the
    π0 decay. :-)

    Yes. But the detectors they use probably cannot see them.

    An 80MeV π- will ionize millions of hydrogen atoms before stopping, but
    the photons generated by subsequent electron capture will all be below ~
    20eV. I don't know what their detection threshold is, but I'd be
    surprised if it is less than a thousand times that, so they won't see
    them at all; if they did see them, their detectors would probably be
    overwhelmed.

    “All H photons emitted only below 20 eV from 80MeV”

    Nope. If 80 MeV pions ionize millions of hydrogen atoms, the energy per ionization is limited to a maximum of 80 eV, because 80 MeV/millions
    will be less than 80 eV. Conservation of energy.

    Seems an odd claim to make considering solar H atoms
    are observed to emit a range of gammarays from 0.1-200GeV

    Irrelevant.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Thu Aug 24 13:46:24 2023
    On 8/23/2023 11:59 PM, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

    "Pionic Atom". I knew this had to exist (referring to it as a
    "transitional pion-proton intermediate" in an earlier post) but
    I didn't know the vocabulary term. Learned something. I nearly
    always do from your posts. :-)

    There are lots of exotic atoms which have been created. Electrons have
    been replaced by muons and they behave more like normal atoms except for
    the mass difference and the muons decay in microseconds. (meaning Archie Plutonium is 99.99% wrong instead of 100% wrong). A nucleus can be
    replaced by a positive muon, pion or other positive particle. An
    electron replaced by a negative pion which behaves differently because
    of its strong interaction with the nucleus.

    Also protons and neutrons can be replaced by strange lambda particles
    creating oddball "hypernuclei". I find these particularly interesting.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Volney on Thu Aug 24 20:20:46 2023
    Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 8/23/2023 11:59 PM, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

    "Pionic Atom". I knew this had to exist (referring to it as a
    "transitional pion-proton intermediate" in an earlier post) but
    I didn't know the vocabulary term. Learned something. I nearly
    always do from your posts. :-)

    There are lots of exotic atoms which have been created. Electrons have
    been replaced by muons and they behave more like normal atoms except for
    the mass difference and the muons decay in microseconds. (meaning Archie Plutonium is 99.99% wrong instead of 100% wrong). A nucleus can be
    replaced by a positive muon, pion or other positive particle. An
    electron replaced by a negative pion which behaves differently because
    of its strong interaction with the nucleus.

    Also protons and neutrons can be replaced by strange lambda particles creating oddball "hypernuclei". I find these particularly interesting.

    Then you should also like muonic molecules,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Thu Aug 24 14:32:22 2023
    On 8/24/2023 2:20 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 8/23/2023 11:59 PM, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

    "Pionic Atom". I knew this had to exist (referring to it as a
    "transitional pion-proton intermediate" in an earlier post) but
    I didn't know the vocabulary term. Learned something. I nearly
    always do from your posts. :-)

    There are lots of exotic atoms which have been created. Electrons have
    been replaced by muons and they behave more like normal atoms except for
    the mass difference and the muons decay in microseconds. (meaning Archie
    Plutonium is 99.99% wrong instead of 100% wrong). A nucleus can be
    replaced by a positive muon, pion or other positive particle. An
    electron replaced by a negative pion which behaves differently because
    of its strong interaction with the nucleus.

    Also protons and neutrons can be replaced by strange lambda particles
    creating oddball "hypernuclei". I find these particularly interesting.

    Then you should also like muonic molecules,

    I would! I haven't heard of them, or of exotic atoms that last long
    enough to form molecules.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lou@21:1/5 to Volney on Thu Aug 24 11:29:24 2023
    On Thursday, 24 August 2023 at 18:38:44 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
    On 8/24/2023 4:03 AM, Lou wrote:
    On Thursday, 24 August 2023 at 02:08:25 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 8/23/23 5:25 PM, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

    Thanks! So from (b) there should be a whole spectrum of individual γ >>> emissions of different energy, all easily distinguishable from the
    π0 decay. :-)

    Yes. But the detectors they use probably cannot see them.

    An 80MeV π- will ionize millions of hydrogen atoms before stopping, but >> the photons generated by subsequent electron capture will all be below ~ >> 20eV. I don't know what their detection threshold is, but I'd be
    surprised if it is less than a thousand times that, so they won't see
    them at all; if they did see them, their detectors would probably be
    overwhelmed.

    “All H photons emitted only below 20 eV from 80MeV”
    Nope. If 80 MeV pions ionize millions of hydrogen atoms, the energy per ionization is limited to a maximum of 80 eV, because 80 MeV/millions
    will be less than 80 eV. Conservation of energy.

    That’s a lousy excuse.
    No reason why one 80 eV proton can’t hit one H atom
    and produce a single 80MeV/1 energy g ray emission.
    That should stay within your conservation of energy rule.
    Seeing as it’s only 68 MeV g ray emission energies which are measured
    in Filipas Fox. And... seeing as H atoms when subjected to this
    sort of hi energy input are known to be able to produce up to
    200GeV energy hard gamma emissions.

    Seems an odd claim to make considering solar H atoms
    are observed to emit a range of gammarays from 0.1-200GeV
    Irrelevant.

    You mean it’s embarrassing for you to admit that. A) the standard
    model flunked this test. And B) H atoms can emit g rays up to 200GeV.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RichD@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Thu Aug 24 12:44:47 2023
    On August 2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    we do not measure frequency, as we can't resolve time
    down to a femtosecond.

    Femtosecond pulses, and the corresponding frequency combs
    are a standard tool for precision frequency measurement nowadays.

    The frequency comb filters can measure time down to a
    femtosecond? Is that resolution, or accuracy? If supposedly
    accuracy, what's the reference? Or perhaps they generate
    femtosecond width pulses?

    Yes, they can generate mode-locked femtosecond laser pulses.
    the Fourier transform of that is a frequency comb.
    by comparing light of unknown frequency with such a comb it is
    possible to measure absolute frequencies to accuracies of order 10^-11
    ('absolute' in terms of the definition of the second)

    red line frequency: .5 x 10^15 Hz
    red line period: 2 x 10^-15 second
    Your spec of 10^-11 misses by more than 3 orders of magnitude.

    Yes, and so what?

    "They can measure time to a femtosecond?"
    "They get accuracy of 10^11."
    "That misses by more than 3 orders of magnitude."
    " yeah, so what?"

    You're fun, JJ.

    All that means is that it is not yet possible
    to count red light to better than a thousand periods or so.

    So, picosecond measurement equals femtosecond measurement?

    Does the femtosecond comb spec refer to resolution, or accuracy?
    Do you know the difference, do you comprehend the question?

    You want a place in the bozo bin too, with Wozniac and Dolan?

    Funner and funner!
    Fyi, one might achieve resolution to a femtosecond with accuracy of
    a picosecond, but not the converse. Hope this helps.

    --
    Rich

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to Lou on Thu Aug 24 15:02:46 2023
    On 8/24/23 1:29 PM, Lou wrote:
    No reason why one 80 eV proton can’t hit one H atom and produce a
    single 80MeV/1 energy g ray emission.

    (I ignore that "/1", which is surely a typo. Also this
    experiment uses 80 MeV protons (not 80 eV).)

    An 80 MeV proton interacting with a hydrogen atom at rest cannot
    possibly produce a single 80 MeV gamma ray, because 4-momentum must be conserved in such an interaction.

    As I said, for this experiment the most probable interaction BY FAR is
    to ionize the hydrogen atom, releasing a free e- [#] and reducing the
    energy of the incoming proton by a few tens of eV. When that e- is
    captured by some other hydrogen atom or ion it releases one or more
    gammas each of which is < 20 eV. Those gammas are not visible to their detectors.

    [#] In the old days these were called "delta rays", and
    the term is still used.

    H atoms when subjected to this sort of hi energy input are known to
    be able to produce up to 200GeV energy hard gamma emissions.

    Their experiment is not "this sort" of physical situation -- you are
    thinking of the sun in which the hydrogen IONS are at a temperature >2E7
    K and a pressure >2E11 bar. That is sufficient for the hydrogen IONS to interact via fusion. The gammas are emitted up to ~200 MeV (not GeV as
    you claim).

    In the experiment being discussed the hydrogen is at a temperature ~ 10
    K and a pressure ~ 1 bar.

    As I keep saying, you REALLY need to learn basic physics before you can understand this stuff. You also need to learn how to copy correctly.
    Your writings are just made-up GUESSES and FANTASIES -- USELESS!

    Tom Roberts

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Thu Aug 24 15:37:41 2023
    On 8/24/23 4:26 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

    On 8/23/23 12:18 PM, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 12:27:34?PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic
    Capase Homolog wrote:

    The overall reaction is given by π- + p ==> π0 + n

    There is a competing reaction that I was not aware of which was
    not mentioned in the Filippas and Fox paper.

    π- + p ==> n + ?

    The single gamma ray would be of entirely different energy than
    the paired gamma rays resulting from the decay of the π0 and so
    gammas resulting from this competing reaction would be easily
    distinguishable.

    There are other competing reactions, including:

    a) π- + p ==> π- + p + ? (bremstrahlung - rare at this low
    energy) b) π- + H ==> π- + p + e- ==> π- + p + H' + one or more
    ? (atomic ionization followed by e- capture; the first is the
    mechanism for beam energy loss) c) π- capture into a Pionic
    Atom => several results (all of which have one or more ?)

    Indeed (b) happens many times as each beam π- slows down, nearly
    always ending with (c), which can be the precursor to the two
    reactions you mention (they require very low-energy π-, which
    invariably get captured into a Pionic Atom first).

    For all of these the ? are very low energy, also easily
    distinguished from π0 decays.

    The interactions of a particle beam with matter are quite complex,
    and I have only scratched the surface.

    But you missed the dominant effect here, despite prokary already
    mentioning it. It is pi- + proton going into neutron + photon.

    I was describing "other competing reactions". Ionization energy loss (b)
    is BY FAR the dominant interaction between a pi- and a hydrogen atom.
    Indeed I believe that once produced, the pi- must lose enough energy [#]
    to form a pionic atom before either of the charge-exchange interactions
    have appreciable cross-sections.

    [#] Via thousands to millions ionization energy loss
    interactions.

    Tom Roberts

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Thu Aug 24 13:44:10 2023
    On Thursday, 24 August 2023 at 22:37:54 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 8/24/23 4:26 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Tom Roberts <tjobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

    On 8/23/23 12:18 PM, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 12:27:34?PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic
    Capase Homolog wrote:

    The overall reaction is given by π- + p ==> π0 + n

    There is a competing reaction that I was not aware of which was
    not mentioned in the Filippas and Fox paper.

    π- + p ==> n + ?

    The single gamma ray would be of entirely different energy than
    the paired gamma rays resulting from the decay of the π0 and so
    gammas resulting from this competing reaction would be easily
    distinguishable.

    There are other competing reactions, including:

    a) π- + p ==> π- + p + ? (bremstrahlung - rare at this low
    energy) b) π- + H ==> π- + p + e- ==> π- + p + H' + one or more
    ? (atomic ionization followed by e- capture; the first is the
    mechanism for beam energy loss) c) π- capture into a Pionic
    Atom => several results (all of which have one or more ?)

    Indeed (b) happens many times as each beam π- slows down, nearly
    always ending with (c), which can be the precursor to the two
    reactions you mention (they require very low-energy π-, which
    invariably get captured into a Pionic Atom first).

    For all of these the ? are very low energy, also easily
    distinguished from π0 decays.

    The interactions of a particle beam with matter are quite complex,
    and I have only scratched the surface.

    But you missed the dominant effect here, despite prokary already mentioning it. It is pi- + proton going into neutron + photon.
    I was describing "other competing reactions". Ionization energy loss (b)
    is BY FAR the dominant interaction between a pi- and a hydrogen atom.
    Indeed I believe that once produced, the pi- must lose enough energy [#]
    to form a pionic atom before either of the charge-exchange interactions
    have appreciable cross-sections.


    Kookfight!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to RichD on Thu Aug 24 23:41:59 2023
    RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:

    On August 2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    we do not measure frequency, as we can't resolve time
    down to a femtosecond.

    Femtosecond pulses, and the corresponding frequency combs
    are a standard tool for precision frequency measurement nowadays.

    The frequency comb filters can measure time down to a
    femtosecond? Is that resolution, or accuracy? If supposedly
    accuracy, what's the reference? Or perhaps they generate
    femtosecond width pulses?

    Yes, they can generate mode-locked femtosecond laser pulses.
    the Fourier transform of that is a frequency comb.
    by comparing light of unknown frequency with such a comb it is
    possible to measure absolute frequencies to accuracies of order 10^-11
    ('absolute' in terms of the definition of the second)

    red line frequency: .5 x 10^15 Hz
    red line period: 2 x 10^-15 second
    Your spec of 10^-11 misses by more than 3 orders of magnitude.

    Yes, and so what?

    "They can measure time to a femtosecond?"
    "They get accuracy of 10^11."
    "That misses by more than 3 orders of magnitude."
    " yeah, so what?"

    You're fun, JJ.

    It is not my fault that you don't understand those things.
    Do have another look.

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Volney on Thu Aug 24 23:42:00 2023
    Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 8/24/2023 2:20 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 8/23/2023 11:59 PM, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

    "Pionic Atom". I knew this had to exist (referring to it as a
    "transitional pion-proton intermediate" in an earlier post) but
    I didn't know the vocabulary term. Learned something. I nearly
    always do from your posts. :-)

    There are lots of exotic atoms which have been created. Electrons have
    been replaced by muons and they behave more like normal atoms except for >> the mass difference and the muons decay in microseconds. (meaning Archie >> Plutonium is 99.99% wrong instead of 100% wrong). A nucleus can be
    replaced by a positive muon, pion or other positive particle. An
    electron replaced by a negative pion which behaves differently because
    of its strong interaction with the nucleus.

    Also protons and neutrons can be replaced by strange lambda particles
    creating oddball "hypernuclei". I find these particularly interesting.

    Then you should also like muonic molecules,

    I would! I haven't heard of them, or of exotic atoms that last long
    enough to form molecules.

    See under 'muon catalysed fusion'. Hardly news,
    it was already discovered in first bubble chamber experiments,

    Jan

    PS Would have to look again,
    but I iirc it was discovered for the HD -> He3 reaction
    in natural hydrogen, with naturally occurring Deuterium.
    (by one of those ancient great names)
    Second thought, it will probably have been the muonic HD+ ion.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Thu Aug 24 23:42:01 2023
    Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

    On 8/24/23 4:26 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

    On 8/23/23 12:18 PM, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 12:27:34?PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic
    Capase Homolog wrote:

    The overall reaction is given by π- + p ==> π0 + n

    There is a competing reaction that I was not aware of which was
    not mentioned in the Filippas and Fox paper.

    π- + p ==> n + ?

    The single gamma ray would be of entirely different energy than
    the paired gamma rays resulting from the decay of the π0 and so
    gammas resulting from this competing reaction would be easily
    distinguishable.

    There are other competing reactions, including:

    a) π- + p ==> π- + p + ? (bremstrahlung - rare at this low
    energy) b) π- + H ==> π- + p + e- ==> π- + p + H' + one or more
    ? (atomic ionization followed by e- capture; the first is the
    mechanism for beam energy loss) c) π- capture into a Pionic
    Atom => several results (all of which have one or more ?)

    Indeed (b) happens many times as each beam π- slows down, nearly
    always ending with (c), which can be the precursor to the two
    reactions you mention (they require very low-energy π-, which
    invariably get captured into a Pionic Atom first).

    For all of these the ? are very low energy, also easily
    distinguished from π0 decays.

    The interactions of a particle beam with matter are quite complex,
    and I have only scratched the surface.

    But you missed the dominant effect here, despite prokary already
    mentioning it. It is pi- + proton going into neutron + photon.

    I was describing "other competing reactions". Ionization energy loss (b)
    is BY FAR the dominant interaction between a pi- and a hydrogen atom.

    No doubt you are right about that,
    but that was not seen (and of no interest)
    in those early experiments in which the pi mesons
    were discovered and characterised.

    Indeed I believe that once produced, the pi- must lose enough energy [#]
    to form a pionic atom before either of the charge-exchange interactions
    have appreciable cross-sections.

    I don't think that your 'must' is correct.
    The reaction can no doubt proceed from scattering states,
    so starting with a free pion wave function.
    (emitting that 140 MeV gamma 'at once'
    rather than going through several time-consuming
    de-exication steps to the pionic ground state.

    Detais, details,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ross Finlayson@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Thu Aug 24 17:26:14 2023
    On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 4:18:17 AM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 4:13:45 PM UTC-5, RichD wrote:
    On August 19, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    And you derive the Doppler formula...
    how? Via the ASSUMPTION of constant light velocity! Now you wish to
    use that supposition to argue that deep field astronomy, based on Doppler
    reasoning, constitutes a test of constant light speed, hmmm....

    The fact is that, regardless of *any* assumptions you make
    about the relationship between Doppler and recession speed,
    light from all sources in Hubble Deep Field images must travel
    within 1% of c or there would be noticeable blurring of the
    images.

    Since you're an astronomer, try this:

    Disneyland has a new ride. A heavy anchor - the Sun - sits in the middle of a large room. A few children's carts - the Planets - surround it, each tethered to the Sun via a rubber cord. The cords have spring constant 1/r²,
    they travel elliptical orbits. Nifty, hey? Disney ride designers are evidently physics majors.

    One day, a cord snaps, the cart rolls free. Does it continue to obey Kepler's second law?
    Conservation of angular momentum does not disappear
    just because the force law changed.

    Here the theory includes a rest-exchange-momentum
    and "pump" which includes resonance including what
    are extra-local though inertial-systems, what gets conserved.

    The idea is that boost and pump go together, helping explain
    the oscillative after impulse, helping write "Newton's Zero'eth laws".

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Lou on Thu Aug 24 22:30:08 2023
    On 8/24/2023 2:29 PM, Lou wrote:
    On Thursday, 24 August 2023 at 18:38:44 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
    On 8/24/2023 4:03 AM, Lou wrote:
    On Thursday, 24 August 2023 at 02:08:25 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 8/23/23 5:25 PM, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

    Thanks! So from (b) there should be a whole spectrum of individual γ >>>>> emissions of different energy, all easily distinguishable from the
    π0 decay. :-)

    Yes. But the detectors they use probably cannot see them.

    An 80MeV π- will ionize millions of hydrogen atoms before stopping, but >>>> the photons generated by subsequent electron capture will all be below ~ >>>> 20eV. I don't know what their detection threshold is, but I'd be
    surprised if it is less than a thousand times that, so they won't see
    them at all; if they did see them, their detectors would probably be
    overwhelmed.

    “All H photons emitted only below 20 eV from 80MeV”
    Nope. If 80 MeV pions ionize millions of hydrogen atoms, the energy per
    ionization is limited to a maximum of 80 eV, because 80 MeV/millions
    will be less than 80 eV. Conservation of energy.

    That’s a lousy excuse.

    You are the one with lousy excuses. (π⁰ doesn't exist? Really? May as
    well claim the neutron doesn't exist!)

    No reason why one 80 eV proton

    80 eV proton? Maybe a bit too much to drink?

    can’t hit one H atom
    and produce a single 80MeV/1 energy g ray emission.

    That will cause an interaction, producing such things as...π⁰.

    That should stay within your conservation of energy rule.
    Seeing as it’s only 68 MeV g ray emission energies which are measured
    in Filipas Fox.

    TWO such gammas.

    Indirectly, of course. For example, an energetic enough whack will
    produce things like kaons or perhaps π⁰, so then you'll see energetic gammas.

    And... seeing as H atoms when subjected to this
    sort of hi energy input are known to be able to produce up to
    200GeV energy hard gamma emissions.

    Via kaon, pion intermediates.

    Seems an odd claim to make considering solar H atoms
    are observed to emit a range of gammarays from 0.1-200GeV

    Irrelevant.

    You mean it’s embarrassing for you to admit that. A) the standard
    model flunked this test.

    What a bizarre conclusion!

    And B) H atoms can emit g rays up to 200GeV.

    Through intermediates like pions.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Thu Aug 24 23:06:41 2023
    On 8/24/2023 4:44 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    Kookfight!

    Which kꙮꙮk are you going to fight, Maciej?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Volney on Thu Aug 24 22:58:49 2023
    On 8/24/2023 10:30 PM, Volney wrote:
    On 8/24/2023 2:29 PM, Lou wrote:

    And B) H atoms can emit g rays up to 200GeV.

    Through intermediates like pions.

    Tom Roberts writes:

    Their experiment is not "this sort" of physical situation -- you are
    thinking of the sun in which the hydrogen IONS are at a temperature >2E7
    K and a pressure >2E11 bar. That is sufficient for the hydrogen IONS to interact via fusion. The gammas are emitted up to ~200 MeV (not GeV as
    you claim).

    Oh crap. I didn't realize Lou must have been writing about solar fusion.

    It may be true that fusion at zillions of K at the center of the sun
    produce such gammas, but is entirely irrelevant for the F-F π⁰ experiment.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Thu Aug 24 23:04:07 2023
    On 8/24/2023 5:42 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 8/24/2023 2:20 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 8/23/2023 11:59 PM, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

    "Pionic Atom". I knew this had to exist (referring to it as a
    "transitional pion-proton intermediate" in an earlier post) but
    I didn't know the vocabulary term. Learned something. I nearly
    always do from your posts. :-)

    There are lots of exotic atoms which have been created. Electrons have >>>> been replaced by muons and they behave more like normal atoms except for >>>> the mass difference and the muons decay in microseconds. (meaning Archie >>>> Plutonium is 99.99% wrong instead of 100% wrong). A nucleus can be
    replaced by a positive muon, pion or other positive particle. An
    electron replaced by a negative pion which behaves differently because >>>> of its strong interaction with the nucleus.

    Also protons and neutrons can be replaced by strange lambda particles
    creating oddball "hypernuclei". I find these particularly interesting.

    Then you should also like muonic molecules,

    I would! I haven't heard of them, or of exotic atoms that last long
    enough to form molecules.

    See under 'muon catalysed fusion'. Hardly news,
    it was already discovered in first bubble chamber experiments,

    Jan

    PS Would have to look again,
    but I iirc it was discovered for the HD -> He3 reaction
    in natural hydrogen, with naturally occurring Deuterium.
    (by one of those ancient great names)
    Second thought, it will probably have been the muonic HD+ ion.

    Oh I thought the concept was there was a muonic D atom which encountered
    a free D+ or H+ ion which could get close enough without being repelled
    because of the small atomic size. But a muonic HD+ ion would make more
    sense.



    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lou@21:1/5 to Volney on Thu Aug 24 20:24:18 2023
    On Friday, 25 August 2023 at 03:58:52 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
    On 8/24/2023 10:30 PM, Volney wrote:
    On 8/24/2023 2:29 PM, Lou wrote:

    And B) H atoms can emit g rays up to 200GeV.

    Through intermediates like pions.
    Tom Roberts writes:

    Their experiment is not "this sort" of physical situation -- you are thinking of the sun in which the hydrogen IONS are at a temperature >2E7
    K and a pressure >2E11 bar. That is sufficient for the hydrogen IONS to interact via fusion. The gammas are emitted up to ~200 MeV (not GeV as
    you claim).
    Oh crap. I didn't realize Lou must have been writing about solar fusion.

    It may be true that fusion at zillions of K at the center of the sun
    produce such gammas, but is entirely irrelevant for the F-F π⁰ experiment.

    Yes Volney. Ignore the data when it’s not convenient.
    Ignore the facts when the facts dont fit the fantasies.
    Facts are:
    Atoms will respond to input energies by
    emitting emr of similar energies.
    H atoms are now known to be able to emit up
    to 200GeV energy hard g rays.
    H atoms in Filipas are subjected to input beam energies
    of 80MeV
    Looking at the facts ( not the fantasy never observed neutral pions)
    it is more reasonable to assume H atoms emitted 68MeV g rays.
    That is unless you don’t like the facts and prefer the fantasies
    of the standard model.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lou@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Thu Aug 24 20:16:25 2023
    On Thursday, 24 August 2023 at 21:02:58 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 8/24/23 1:29 PM, Lou wrote:
    No reason why one 80 eV proton can’t hit one H atom and produce a
    single 80MeV/1 energy g ray emission.
    (I ignore that "/1", which is surely a typo. Also this
    experiment uses 80 MeV protons (not 80 eV).)

    An 80 MeV proton interacting with a hydrogen atom at rest cannot
    possibly produce a single 80 MeV gamma ray, because 4-momentum must be conserved in such an interaction.

    Your same model cannot explain solar g rays now measured at 7 times theoretical predictions and far higher too into hard gamma at 200GeV
    Fermi just found out Muons...arent doing what muons should do.
    In other words the standard model isn’t working.


    As I said, for this experiment the most probable interaction BY FAR is
    to ionize the hydrogen atom, releasing a free e- [#] and reducing the
    energy of the incoming proton by a few tens of eV. When that e- is
    captured by some other hydrogen atom or ion it releases one or more
    gammas each of which is < 20 eV. Those gammas are not visible to their detectors.

    Most probable! Not likely. Most probable is H atoms emitting the
    measured 68MeV gamma at detectors. After all HAWC and Fermi
    just proved this is possible.

    https://arxiv.org/pdf/2212.00815.pdf

    [#] In the old days these were called "delta rays", and
    the term is still used.
    H atoms when subjected to this sort of hi energy input are known to
    be able to produce up to 200GeV energy hard gamma emissions.
    Their experiment is not "this sort" of physical situation -- you are thinking of the sun in which the hydrogen IONS are at a temperature >2E7
    K and a pressure >2E11 bar. That is sufficient for the hydrogen IONS to interact via fusion. The gammas are emitted up to ~200 MeV (not GeV as
    you claim).

    The sun is definitely more extreme...yes. But then again it’s producing 200GeV gamma. Not unreasonable to then expect less extreme collisions
    in Filipas to be able to produce a minute fraction of that energy at 68MeV.
    The standard model has failed non stop since its inception. Unexplained Muons and solar g rays being only it’s latest failures.

    In the experiment being discussed the hydrogen is at a temperature ~ 10
    K and a pressure ~ 1 bar.

    As I keep saying, you REALLY need to learn basic physics before you can understand this stuff. You also need to learn how to copy correctly.
    Your writings are just made-up GUESSES and FANTASIES -- USELESs!

    Really? And the standard models failure to predict muons wobbling and extreme Hard and over abundant g rays from the sun weren’t spectacular failed fantasies and guesses?🧐
    Think again. You failed. Your guesses were fantasies.
    My contention that H atoms when hit by 80MeV beam in Filipas produce 68MeV
    g rays is the only assumption still backed by observations.
    Notice it is also accepted that atoms...when exposed to input energies like lasers
    particle beams etc will respond by emitting emr at similar energies.
    I didn’t make that up. That’s common knowledge.
    It’s now known H atoms can produce g rays *way* in excess of 68MeV
    And the energies of These emissions are roughly in line with the energies
    in Filipas beam.
    No fantasy assumptions like neutral pions needed.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Volney on Fri Aug 25 21:45:47 2023
    Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 8/24/2023 5:42 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 8/24/2023 2:20 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 8/23/2023 11:59 PM, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

    "Pionic Atom". I knew this had to exist (referring to it as a
    "transitional pion-proton intermediate" in an earlier post) but
    I didn't know the vocabulary term. Learned something. I nearly
    always do from your posts. :-)

    There are lots of exotic atoms which have been created. Electrons have >>>> been replaced by muons and they behave more like normal atoms except for >>>> the mass difference and the muons decay in microseconds. (meaning Archie >>>> Plutonium is 99.99% wrong instead of 100% wrong). A nucleus can be
    replaced by a positive muon, pion or other positive particle. An
    electron replaced by a negative pion which behaves differently because >>>> of its strong interaction with the nucleus.

    Also protons and neutrons can be replaced by strange lambda particles >>>> creating oddball "hypernuclei". I find these particularly interesting. >>>
    Then you should also like muonic molecules,

    I would! I haven't heard of them, or of exotic atoms that last long
    enough to form molecules.

    See under 'muon catalysed fusion'. Hardly news,
    it was already discovered in first bubble chamber experiments,

    Jan

    PS Would have to look again,
    but I iirc it was discovered for the HD -> He3 reaction
    in natural hydrogen, with naturally occurring Deuterium.
    (by one of those ancient great names)
    Second thought, it will probably have been the muonic HD+ ion.

    Oh I thought the concept was there was a muonic D atom which encountered
    a free D+ or H+ ion which could get close enough without being repelled because of the small atomic size. But a muonic HD+ ion would make more
    sense.

    These isolated muonic H-atoms will probably exist too.
    After all, you start out with muons
    and H2 or HD, or D2 molecules in a bubble chamber.
    There is more than enough energy in muon capture to disrupt the H2 bond.

    Nevertheless, formation of the H-muon-H (or D) bound state
    seems to be the most likely pathway.
    This (H-mu-D)^+ bound state ion is so small
    that it can function as a quasi-nucleus to bind an electron
    to form a neutral muonic HD molecule.
    AFAIK there are never enough nuons around
    to make a double-muonic H2 molecule.

    Whatever, it doesn't really matter for what will happen next,
    (a muonic H-atom will just disappear once the muon decays
    with nothing of special interest happening)

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Lou on Fri Aug 25 15:58:17 2023
    On 8/24/2023 11:24 PM, Lou wrote:
    On Friday, 25 August 2023 at 03:58:52 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
    On 8/24/2023 10:30 PM, Volney wrote:
    On 8/24/2023 2:29 PM, Lou wrote:

    And B) H atoms can emit g rays up to 200GeV.

    Through intermediates like pions.
    Tom Roberts writes:

    Their experiment is not "this sort" of physical situation -- you are
    thinking of the sun in which the hydrogen IONS are at a temperature >2E7 >>> K and a pressure >2E11 bar. That is sufficient for the hydrogen IONS to
    interact via fusion. The gammas are emitted up to ~200 MeV (not GeV as
    you claim).
    Oh crap. I didn't realize Lou must have been writing about solar fusion.

    It may be true that fusion at zillions of K at the center of the sun
    produce such gammas, but is entirely irrelevant for the F-F π⁰ experiment.

    Yes Volney. Ignore the data when it’s not convenient.

    It is you who ignores the data when it’s not convenient.

    Fusion reactions are completely irrelevant since the energies involved
    are nowhere close to that required for fusion. Plus the energy is
    released by the intermediate products and resulting helium in solar fusion.

    Ignore the facts when the facts dont fit the fantasies.

    Which is what you do.

    You ignore the existence of neutral pions. They are well known by anyone involved with particle accelerators.

    Facts are:

    Neutral pions exist.
    Neutral pions are regularly created by the reaction used in F-F, namely
    π⁻ + p --> π⁰ + n.
    Neutral pions usually decay into 2 62.5 MeV gammas back to back.

    Looking at the facts ( not the fantasy never observed neutral pions)

    Again, a fine example how you are the one who ignores facts by
    complaining that the π⁰ is "fantasy". You accuse others of your own
    actions. Psychological projection.

    it is more reasonable to assume H atoms emitted 68MeV g rays.

    Nope. Not when there's a large quantity of gammas at a specific energy
    (62.5 MeV) back to back. Too unusual to be part of random gammas.

    Also incoming π⁻ usually releases its energy as thousands/millions of
    low energy gammas. This is experimental data, not fantasy.

    That is unless you don’t like the facts and prefer the fantasies
    of the standard model.

    The standard model is supported by actual scientific observations and
    evidence. There is no fantasy. The speculative parts have support and
    don't factor into this type of experiment.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to Volney on Fri Aug 25 15:18:43 2023
    On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 2:58:22 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
    On 8/24/2023 11:24 PM, Lou wrote:

    it is more reasonable to assume H atoms emitted 68MeV g rays.
    Nope. Not when there's a large quantity of gammas at a specific energy
    (62.5 MeV) back to back. Too unusual to be part of random gammas.

    That's 62.5 MeV in the pion frame. In the lab frame, experiments
    cited by Filippas and Fox measured (1) the aberration between
    the gamma pairs, and (2) the Doppler energy difference between
    the forwards and the rear gamma rays of each pair. The
    measured aberrations and Doppler energy differences were entirely
    consistent with what one would expect from π⁰ traveling at 0.2 c,
    which is the theoretical value easily computed from the mass
    difference between the reactants and products, as I demonstrated
    a few posts back.

    This is not handwaving. The measurements all fit together in a
    consistent narrative supporting the reality of the particles
    participating in the cited reactions.

    Lou's skepticism is based on sheer ignorance.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lou@21:1/5 to Volney on Fri Aug 25 15:52:08 2023
    On Friday, 25 August 2023 at 20:58:22 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
    On 8/24/2023 11:24 PM, Lou wrote:
    On Friday, 25 August 2023 at 03:58:52 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
    On 8/24/2023 10:30 PM, Volney wrote:
    On 8/24/2023 2:29 PM, Lou wrote:

    And B) H atoms can emit g rays up to 200GeV.

    Through intermediates like pions.
    Tom Roberts writes:

    Their experiment is not "this sort" of physical situation -- you are
    thinking of the sun in which the hydrogen IONS are at a temperature >2E7 >>> K and a pressure >2E11 bar. That is sufficient for the hydrogen IONS to >>> interact via fusion. The gammas are emitted up to ~200 MeV (not GeV as >>> you claim).
    Oh crap. I didn't realize Lou must have been writing about solar fusion. >>
    It may be true that fusion at zillions of K at the center of the sun
    produce such gammas, but is entirely irrelevant for the F-F π⁰ experiment.

    Yes Volney. Ignore the data when it’s not convenient.
    It is you who ignores the data when it’s not convenient.

    Fusion reactions are completely irrelevant since the energies involved
    are nowhere close to that required for fusion. Plus the energy is
    released by the intermediate products and resulting helium in solar fusion.

    Usual fact free nonsense. The standard model knows SFA about how
    the sun or how the Filipas proton beam produces energies observed.
    Otherwise it’s predictions that 200GeV hard g rays from the sun
    were impossible under theory ....wouldn’t have been so
    spectacularly refuted by recent HAWC and Fermi data.
    Not to mention your fantasy model said the 7 times abundance of G rays
    recently detected coming from the sun was
    also impossible. 😂

    Ignore the facts when the facts dont fit the fantasies.
    Which is what you do.

    You ignore the existence of neutral pions. They are well known by anyone involved with particle accelerators.

    Facts are:

    Neutral pions exist.
    Neutral pions are regularly created by the reaction used in F-F, namely π⁻ + p --> π⁰ + n.
    Neutral pions usually decay into 2 62.5 MeV gammas back to back.

    A fact free assumption. You never detect any imaginary neutral pions.
    You assume the g ray emissions from the H atoms detected at 5&6
    are actually from imaginary neutral pions. And you can’t prove otherwise. Because your lousy standard model, which failed all of its predictions non stop
    since it was invented, also cannot explain how H atoms can emit g rays
    at 68MeV energies in Filipas. Since recent data on H emissions from sun
    show these much smaller 68MeV detections are easily accounted for.
    Not least because that is the sort of energies the proton beam
    particles are delivering to the H atoms in the experiment.
    It’s a well documented fact that if an atom is stimulated by
    a input energy of x ....it will respond by producing emr emissions
    of roughly the same energies. As observed in Filipas.
    A fact you are desperate to ignore.



    Looking at the facts ( not the fantasy never observed neutral pions)
    Again, a fine example how you are the one who ignores facts by
    complaining that the π⁰ is "fantasy". You accuse others of your own actions. Psychological projection.
    it is more reasonable to assume H atoms emitted 68MeV g rays.
    Nope. Not when there's a large quantity of gammas at a specific energy
    (62.5 MeV) back to back. Too unusual to be part of random gammas.

    You imagine 2 paired photons. But light is a wave only. And there are
    no such things as paired photons except in fevered fantasies at CERN. Coincident 68MeV detections at 5&6 are actually just g ray
    waves produced by H atoms hitting both detectors within the same
    narrow ns “ binned” time frames. Easily explained by an ether free
    emission model.

    Also incoming π⁻ usually releases its energy as thousands/millions of
    low energy gammas. This is experimental data, not fantasy.
    That is unless you don’t like the facts and prefer the fantasies
    of the standard model.
    The standard model is supported by actual scientific observations and evidence. There is no fantasy. The speculative parts have support and
    don't factor into this type of experiment.

    The standard model is supported by zero science. It’s all assumptions. Starting off with the fact free Bohr shell model which failed
    almost the day it was proposed. Through to the standard models recently
    failed assumptions about muons and solar g rays.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lou@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Fri Aug 25 16:07:55 2023
    On Friday, 25 August 2023 at 23:18:44 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 2:58:22 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
    On 8/24/2023 11:24 PM, Lou wrote:

    it is more reasonable to assume H atoms emitted 68MeV g rays.
    Nope. Not when there's a large quantity of gammas at a specific energy (62.5 MeV) back to back. Too unusual to be part of random gammas.
    That's 62.5 MeV in the pion frame. In the lab frame, experiments
    cited by Filippas and Fox measured (1) the aberration between
    the gamma pairs, and (2) the Doppler energy difference between
    the forwards and the rear gamma rays of each pair. The
    measured aberrations and Doppler energy differences were entirely
    consistent with what one would expect from π⁰ traveling at 0.2 c,
    which is the theoretical value easily computed from the mass
    difference between the reactants and products, as I demonstrated
    a few posts back.

    This is not handwaving. The measurements all fit together in a
    consistent narrative supporting the reality of the particles
    participating in the cited reactions.

    Lou's skepticism is based on sheer ignorance.

    Obviously you think it is ignorant to take observed data into account.
    And smart to ignore data and pretend fantasies and assumptions
    are the same as observations.
    What do you detect in Filipas?
    The only thing detected is....gammarays at 68MeV.
    They don’t come with name tags saying ‘if lost please
    return to neutral pions owners at Fermilab’.
    Sorry to break the news to you.
    And seeing as you have NO actual observations of neutral pions anywhere
    and no proof coincident detections at 5&6 cannot be from
    emission waves produced by H atoms...
    Then it is you who’s skepticism is based on fact free ignorance.
    Because I can prove:
    1)That emr is a wave.
    2)That emr waves emitted isotropically can create coincident ‘detections’ at seperate detectors
    3)That H atoms can emit 1eV ,68MeV, or 200GeV gammarays if neccesary.
    4) That all atoms, including H atoms will emit comparable
    Energies when stimulated by similar input energies.
    5) And that the input energies from the proton beam at Filipas is roughly
    the same energies as that energy emr produced in response by the H target. Those are called facts.
    Yours are called fantasy assumptions.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Volney on Fri Aug 25 22:24:00 2023
    On Friday, 25 August 2023 at 21:58:22 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
    On 8/24/2023 11:24 PM, Lou wrote:
    On Friday, 25 August 2023 at 03:58:52 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
    On 8/24/2023 10:30 PM, Volney wrote:
    On 8/24/2023 2:29 PM, Lou wrote:

    And B) H atoms can emit g rays up to 200GeV.

    Through intermediates like pions.
    Tom Roberts writes:

    Their experiment is not "this sort" of physical situation -- you are
    thinking of the sun in which the hydrogen IONS are at a temperature >2E7 >>> K and a pressure >2E11 bar. That is sufficient for the hydrogen IONS to >>> interact via fusion. The gammas are emitted up to ~200 MeV (not GeV as >>> you claim).
    Oh crap. I didn't realize Lou must have been writing about solar fusion. >>
    It may be true that fusion at zillions of K at the center of the sun
    produce such gammas, but is entirely irrelevant for the F-F π⁰ experiment.

    Yes Volney. Ignore the data when it’s not convenient.
    It is you who ignores the data when it’s not convenient.

    And do you still believe that 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy
    is some "Newton mode"? You're such an agnorant idiot,
    stupid Mike, even considering the standards of your
    moronic religion.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to Lou on Sat Aug 26 02:20:35 2023
    On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 6:07:57 PM UTC-5, Lou wrote:

    And seeing as you have NO actual observations of neutral pions anywhere
    and no proof coincident detections at 5&6 cannot be from
    emission waves produced by H atoms...

    For fun, I took a few minutes to chat with ChatGPT about this. I had
    to correct several stupid errors that it made (The worst was that the
    pion decayed via a "strong electromagnetic force". The second worst
    was that each product gamma ray's energy could be measured by a
    calorimeter. There were more...). By telling it to "repeat that last
    response with the correction that I gave you", I gradually got rid of
    the worst mistakes.

    ChatGPT is an idiot that knows only how to repeat what it reads on
    the web and other sources, but given its limitations, it's a useful tool.
    I'm beginning to use it in my work. Just yesterday I used it to create
    a set of "regular expressions", but I had to keep correcting its output.

    There is the result of my chat. There are still some inaccuracies, but
    it's not two awful a response for you.

    "The neutral pion (π^0) is a particle with an exceedingly short lifetime, decaying almost instantaneously after its creation. It primarily decays into two photons (gamma rays) due to the strong force interaction between its quark constituents. This
    short lifetime makes it challenging to directly observe the neutral pion's tracks. However, its existence and properties have been inferred and studied through various experimental techniques and theoretical considerations. Here's how we know about the
    neutral pion:

    "Decay Products: Although the neutral pion itself doesn't leave detectable tracks, its decay products do. When a neutral pion decays into two photons, these photons can be detected using particle detectors, that measure the energy and direction of
    particles. By observing the two gamma rays resulting from the neutral pion's decay, scientists can deduce the properties of the parent particle.

    "Conservation Laws: The existence of the neutral pion can be inferred from the need to explain certain phenomena involving the strong nuclear force. The neutral pion, along with other mesons, is an important mediator of the strong force between quarks
    within protons and neutrons. Its inclusion in particle physics theories helps explain the conservation of isospin (a quantum number related to the strong force) and other interactions.

    "Particle Colliders: Particle accelerators, such as colliders, allow physicists to indirectly create and study particles like the neutral pion. By colliding high-energy particles (often protons) into a target, a multitude of particles are produced,
    including neutral pions. Although the pions themselves may not leave long-lasting tracks, their presence and properties can be inferred from the behavior of the particles they decay into.

    "Monte Carlo Simulations: Scientists use sophisticated computer simulations called Monte Carlo simulations to model particle interactions and decay processes. These simulations take into account the known properties of particles like the neutral pion and
    predict how they would behave in particle detectors. By comparing the simulation results with actual experimental data, researchers can extract information about the neutral pion's properties.

    "Theoretical Frameworks: The neutral pion's existence is also established within the framework of the Standard Model of particle physics. The Standard Model describes the fundamental particles and their interactions. The neutral pion's role in mediating
    the strong force, as well as its decay properties, are consistent with the predictions of this model.

    "While the neutral pion's extremely short lifetime makes it challenging to directly observe its tracks, the combination of experimental techniques, theoretical frameworks, and advanced simulations has allowed physicists to confidently understand its
    properties and contributions to our understanding of the fundamental forces and particles in the universe."

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Sat Aug 26 02:22:51 2023
    On Saturday, 26 August 2023 at 11:20:37 UTC+2, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 6:07:57 PM UTC-5, Lou wrote:

    And seeing as you have NO actual observations of neutral pions anywhere and no proof coincident detections at 5&6 cannot be from
    emission waves produced by H atoms...
    For fun, I took a few minutes to chat with ChatGPT about this. I had
    to correct several stupid errors that it made (The worst was that the
    pion decayed via a "strong electromagnetic force". The second worst
    was that each product gamma ray's energy could be measured by a
    calorimeter. There were more...). By telling it to "repeat that last response with the correction that I gave you", I gradually got rid of
    the worst mistakes.

    ChatGPT is an idiot that knows only how to repeat what it reads on
    the web and other sources, but

    But so are you, unfortunately.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Sat Aug 26 02:25:15 2023
    On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 4:20:37 AM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

    it's not two awful a response for you.

    Crap. I was putting together a joke about two gammas exiting
    a bar, only no one saw them entering. After deciding that I was
    just no good at telling jokes, I deleted everything but forgot to
    change "two" to "too". :-(

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lou@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Sat Aug 26 04:04:39 2023
    On Saturday, 26 August 2023 at 10:20:37 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 6:07:57 PM UTC-5, Lou wrote:

    And seeing as you have NO actual observations of neutral pions anywhere and no proof coincident detections at 5&6 cannot be from
    emission waves produced by H atoms...
    For fun, I took a few minutes to chat with ChatGPT about this. I had
    to correct several stupid errors that it made (The worst was that the
    pion decayed via a "strong electromagnetic force". The second worst
    was that each product gamma ray's energy could be measured by a
    calorimeter. There were more...). By telling it to "repeat that last response with the correction that I gave you", I gradually got rid of
    the worst mistakes.

    ChatGPT is an idiot that knows only how to repeat what it reads on
    the web and other sources, but given its limitations, it's a useful tool. I'm beginning to use it in my work. Just yesterday I used it to create
    a set of "regular expressions", but I had to keep correcting its output.

    There is the result of my chat. There are still some inaccuracies, but
    it's not two awful a response for you.

    I’m not sure if you are joking or not when you say you referred to chatGPT for an answer? I’ve never used it myself but I was under the impression
    one should avoid Chatgpt.
    Having said that I can’t help but notice it seems to confirm what Ive already said about the neutral pion.(**...**) Which is it’s never actually been observed.
    And the standard model itself is, as your chat admits, is only a theoretical framework.
    And the only thing it didn’t mention was...It’s only one of various competing
    theoretical frameworks.



    "The neutral pion (π^0) is a particle with an exceedingly short lifetime, decaying almost instantaneously after its creation. It primarily decays into two photons (gamma rays) due to the strong force interaction between its quark constituents. This
    short lifetime makes it challenging to directly observe the neutral pion's tracks. However, its existence and properties have been **inferred and studied through various experimental techniques and theoretical considerations**. Here's how we know about
    the neutral pion:

    "Decay Products: Although the neutral pion itself doesn't leave detectable tracks, its decay products do. When a neutral pion decays into two photons, these photons can be detected using particle detectors, that measure the energy and direction of
    particles. By observing the two gamma rays resulting from the neutral pion's decay, scientists can deduce the properties of the parent particle.

    "Conservation Laws: The existence of the neutral pion can be inferred from the need to explain certain phenomena involving the strong nuclear force. The neutral pion, along with other mesons, is an important mediator of the strong force between quarks
    within protons and neutrons. Its inclusion in particle physics theories helps explain the conservation of isospin (a quantum number related to the strong force) and other interactions.

    "Particle Colliders: Particle accelerators, such as colliders, allow physicists to indirectly create and study particles like the neutral pion. By colliding high-energy particles (often protons) into a target, a multitude of particles are produced,
    including neutral pions. Although the pions themselves may not leave long-lasting tracks, their presence and properties can be inferred from the behavior of the particles they decay into.

    "Monte Carlo Simulations: Scientists use sophisticated computer simulations called Monte Carlo simulations to model particle interactions and decay processes. These simulations take into account the known properties of particles like the neutral pion
    and predict how they would behave in particle detectors. By comparing the simulation results with actual experimental data, researchers can extract information about the neutral pion's properties.

    ** "Theoretical Frameworks:** The neutral pion's existence is also established within the framework of the Standard Model of particle physics. The Standard Model describes the fundamental particles and their interactions. The neutral pion's role in
    mediating the strong force, as well as its decay properties, are consistent with the **predictions** of this model.

    "While the neutral pion's extremely short lifetime makes it challenging to directly observe its tracks, the combination of experimental techniques, theoretical frameworks, and advanced simulations has allowed physicists to confidently understand its
    properties and contributions to our understanding of the fundamental forces and particles in the universe."

    I like the phrase “ advanced *simulations* has allowed physicists to *confidently* understand...”
    Looks like they don’t need empirical observations any more.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lou@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Sat Aug 26 04:18:35 2023
    On Saturday, 26 August 2023 at 10:25:17 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 4:20:37 AM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

    it's not two awful a response for you.
    Crap. I was putting together a joke about two gammas exiting
    a bar, only no one saw them entering. After deciding that I was
    just no good at telling jokes, I deleted everything but forgot to
    change "two" to "too". :-(

    How about this version of your joke:
    A single gammaray wave left the bar, but all the drunk quantum theorists in the bar
    thought they saw a pair of (2) gammas exiting the bar.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to Lou on Sat Aug 26 04:50:16 2023
    On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 6:04:41 AM UTC-5, Lou wrote:

    I’m not sure if you are joking or not when you say you referred to chatGPT for an answer? I’ve never used it myself but I was under the impression one should avoid Chatgpt.

    Given all of the STUPID mistakes in its initial answer, one should
    NEVER take ChatGPT at its word. I had to provide it multiple
    corrections before it achieved a decent enough answer to
    give to you.

    Having said that I can’t help but notice it seems to confirm what Ive already
    said about the neutral pion.(**...**) Which is it’s never actually been observed.

    What do you mean by "observation". Do you mean it doesn't
    leave particle tracks? Neither do neutrinos, but we know
    neutrinos exist because of their observable effects.

    Many other combinations of an equal number of quarks and
    antiquarks exist (called "mesons"). Combinations of an up
    quark with its own antiquark or a down quark with its own
    antiquark would be *expected* to decay almost instantaneously.
    (The neutral pion is actually a superposition of up/antiup and
    down/antidown). Other combinations of quarks and antiquarks
    would be *expected* to take longer.

    The whole story fits together like "a bee in a foxglove". It is a
    simple example of the predictive power of the standard model.

    And the standard model itself is, as your chat admits, is only a theoretical framework.
    And the only thing it didn’t mention was...It’s only one of various competing
    theoretical frameworks.

    What "competing theoretical frameworks"?
    Name them.

    The standard model provides by far the most dominant and
    successful summary of all available knowledge about the
    subatomic world.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Lou on Sat Aug 26 14:41:52 2023
    Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> wrote:

    On Saturday, 26 August 2023 at 10:25:17 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog:
    On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 4:20:37?AM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog

    it's not two awful a response for you.
    Crap. I was putting together a joke about two gammas exiting
    a bar, only no one saw them entering. After deciding that I was
    just no good at telling jokes, I deleted everything but forgot to
    change "two" to "too". :-(

    How about this version of your joke:
    A single gammaray wave left the bar, but all the drunk quantum theorists
    in the bar thought they saw a pair of (2) gammas exiting the bar.

    He is either a ray or a wave, both not both,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lou@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Sat Aug 26 05:28:41 2023
    On Saturday, 26 August 2023 at 12:50:18 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 6:04:41 AM UTC-5, Lou wrote:

    I’m not sure if you are joking or not when you say you referred to chatGPT
    for an answer? I’ve never used it myself but I was under the impression one should avoid Chatgpt.
    Given all of the STUPID mistakes in its initial answer, one should
    NEVER take ChatGPT at its word. I had to provide it multiple
    corrections before it achieved a decent enough answer to
    give to you.
    Having said that I can’t help but notice it seems to confirm what Ive already
    said about the neutral pion.(**...**) Which is it’s never actually been observed.
    What do you mean by "observation". Do you mean it doesn't
    leave particle tracks? Neither do neutrinos, but we know
    neutrinos exist because of their observable effects.


    Which is why neutrinoes are alsoma fantasy. Not backed up with
    Any empirical observations.

    Many other combinations of an equal number of quarks and
    antiquarks exist (called "mesons"). Combinations of an up
    quark with its own antiquark or a down quark with its own
    antiquark would be *expected* to decay almost instantaneously.
    (The neutral pion is actually a superposition of up/antiup and down/antidown). Other combinations of quarks and antiquarks
    would be *expected* to take longer.

    The sooner you give up imaginary quarks which were only
    invented to explain why all the previous imaginary particles
    turned out to be fantasies...the better.
    Look at imaginary Muons. Central to the Standard M. And now they
    just aren’t backed up by the latest data.

    https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2023/aug/new-measurement-particle-wobble-hints-new-physics#:~:text=Importantly%2C%20muons%20are%20also%20magnetic,wobble%2C%20or%20


    The whole story fits together like "a bee in a foxglove". It is a
    simple example of the predictive power of the standard model.
    And the standard model itself is, as your chat admits, is only a theoretical
    framework.
    And the only thing it didn’t mention was...It’s only one of various competing
    theoretical frameworks.
    What "competing theoretical frameworks"?
    Name them.

    Ritz ether free emission model. Not only does it not rely on
    an ether like the SM, it can model all observed so-called particle paths
    using only overlapping EM waves emitted by 3 colliding protons.
    Unfortunately Fermi, CERN and others are too cowardly
    to even attempt to try this test to refute this emission based model.
    Because they know if they did a simulation to test this aspect of
    emission theory...they would have to admit it is the particle zoo
    Which is nonsense.

    The standard model provides by far the most dominant and
    successful summary of all available knowledge about the
    subatomic world.

    Only because,...as chatgpt admits...it’s all asumptions never confirmed
    by empirical observations.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to Lou on Sat Aug 26 06:36:02 2023
    On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 7:28:43 AM UTC-5, Lou wrote:
    On Saturday, 26 August 2023 at 12:50:18 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

    What "competing theoretical frameworks"?
    Name them.
    Ritz ether free emission model.

    Disproven many times over.

    For example, Gaia demonstrates that light from billions
    of objects in the universe arrive at the satellite at the
    same speed to within parts per million, otherwise there
    should be measurable differences in the aberration of
    light doming from these different objects.

    Not only does it not rely on
    an ether like the SM, it can model all observed so-called particle paths using only overlapping EM waves emitted by 3 colliding protons.

    Show your analysis.
    Let's try a simple one. A neutron decays with a half life
    of 15 minutes. What does it decay into, and what are the
    energies of its products predicted by your alternate model?

    Unfortunately Fermi, CERN and others are too cowardly
    to even attempt to try this test to refute this emission based model. Because they know if they did a simulation to test this aspect of
    emission theory...they would have to admit it is the particle zoo

    The "particle zoo" has long been tamed.
    All known particles and their relationships with each
    other have long been categorized.

    Which is nonsense.
    The standard model provides by far the most dominant and
    successful summary of all available knowledge about the
    subatomic world.
    Only because,...as chatgpt admits...it’s all asumptions never confirmed
    by empirical observations.

    Your reading comprehension is faulty, and you must
    remember, ChatGPT is an idiot savant that can only produce
    likely combinations of words based on what it has observed.
    These combinations include arrant nonsense that must be
    filtered out.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Sat Aug 26 06:44:35 2023
    On Saturday, 26 August 2023 at 15:36:04 UTC+2, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 7:28:43 AM UTC-5, Lou wrote:
    On Saturday, 26 August 2023 at 12:50:18 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

    What "competing theoretical frameworks"?
    Name them.
    Ritz ether free emission model.
    Disproven many times over.

    For example, Gaia demonstrates that light from billions
    of objects in the universe arrive at the satellite at the
    same speed to within parts per million, otherwise there
    should be measurable differences in the aberration of
    light doming from these different objects.

    It' snothing but an assertion that "otherwise there
    should be measurable differences in the aberration of
    light doming from these different objects", sorry,
    fanatic trash.


    it’s all asumptions never confirmed
    by empirical observations.
    Your reading comprehension is faulty, and you must
    remember, ChatGPT is an idiot savant that can only produce
    likely combinations of words based on what it has observed.

    And on the other hand - what can you produce?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Lou on Sat Aug 26 11:10:41 2023
    On 8/25/2023 7:07 PM, Lou wrote:
    On Friday, 25 August 2023 at 23:18:44 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 2:58:22 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
    On 8/24/2023 11:24 PM, Lou wrote:

    it is more reasonable to assume H atoms emitted 68MeV g rays.
    Nope. Not when there's a large quantity of gammas at a specific energy
    (62.5 MeV) back to back. Too unusual to be part of random gammas.
    That's 62.5 MeV in the pion frame. In the lab frame, experiments
    cited by Filippas and Fox measured (1) the aberration between
    the gamma pairs, and (2) the Doppler energy difference between
    the forwards and the rear gamma rays of each pair. The
    measured aberrations and Doppler energy differences were entirely
    consistent with what one would expect from π⁰ traveling at 0.2 c,
    which is the theoretical value easily computed from the mass
    difference between the reactants and products, as I demonstrated
    a few posts back.

    This is not handwaving. The measurements all fit together in a
    consistent narrative supporting the reality of the particles
    participating in the cited reactions.

    Lou's skepticism is based on sheer ignorance.

    Obviously you think it is ignorant to take observed data into account.

    It is you who is doing that. Psychological projection again.

    And smart to ignore data and pretend fantasies and assumptions
    are the same as observations.

    Again, it is you who is doing that.

    What do you detect in Filipas?

    The only thing detected is....gammarays at 68MeV.

    Which have the same speed, c, both forwards and backwards. The gammas
    are the ones matching the already known decay of neutral pions.

    They don’t come with name tags saying ‘if lost please
    return to neutral pions owners at Fermilab’.

    Why are you *still* whining about the existence of neutral pions? Well understood science.

    Sorry to break the news to you.
    And seeing as you have NO actual observations of neutral pions anywhere

    Except from all the particle accelerators everywhere.

    and no proof coincident detections at 5&6 cannot be from
    emission waves produced by H atoms...

    Except there are so many of them compared to gammas of other energies.
    Sure, of thousands of events you could probably be able to say there may
    be 1 or 2 false detections but the other 99.99% of them? It is
    statistically absurd. These days they derive the probability a result
    could be happenstance, it's always part of the paper on the experiment.
    It's always very low.

    Then it is you who’s skepticism is based on fact free ignorance.
    Because I can prove:
    1)That emr is a wave.

    Overly simplified. Photons have particle-like behavior as well.

    2)That emr waves emitted isotropically can create coincident ‘detections’ at seperate detectors

    At very low probabilities.

    3)That H atoms can emit 1eV ,68MeV, or 200GeV gammarays if neccesary.

    Any interaction more than about 20eV requires an interaction in
    hydrogen. Such as π⁻ + p --> π⁰ + n --> gammas. Or fusion (which really isn't from the hydrogen any longer but the daughter nucleus)

    4) That all atoms, including H atoms will emit comparable
    Energies when stimulated by similar input energies.

    Energies more than the recombination of electrons with nuclei will be in
    the few eV energy range for hydrogen. (X-ray energy for heavy elements)

    5) And that the input energies from the proton beam at Filipas is roughly
    the same energies as that energy emr produced in response by the H target.

    Producing the .2c energy of the generated π⁰.

    Those are called facts.
    Yours are called fantasy assumptions.

    Fantasy is whining that π⁰ cannot exist because you can't understand them.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Sat Aug 26 11:18:55 2023
    On 8/26/2023 5:20 AM, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 6:07:57 PM UTC-5, Lou wrote:

    And seeing as you have NO actual observations of neutral pions anywhere
    and no proof coincident detections at 5&6 cannot be from
    emission waves produced by H atoms...

    For fun, I took a few minutes to chat with ChatGPT about this. I had
    to correct several stupid errors that it made (The worst was that the
    pion decayed via a "strong electromagnetic force".
    ...
    "The neutral pion (π^0) is a particle with an exceedingly short lifetime, decaying almost instantaneously after its creation. It primarily decays into two photons (gamma rays) due to the strong force interaction between its quark constituents.

    All the descriptions from reliable sources state the π⁰ decays via the electromagnetic force (one of the few that does so) not the strong
    force. If it decayed via the strong force it would have an even shorter lifetime.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Sat Aug 26 11:41:33 2023
    On 8/25/2023 3:45 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote:
    []

    These isolated muonic H-atoms will probably exist too.
    After all, you start out with muons
    and H2 or HD, or D2 molecules in a bubble chamber.
    There is more than enough energy in muon capture to disrupt the H2 bond.

    Nevertheless, formation of the H-muon-H (or D) bound state
    seems to be the most likely pathway.
    This (H-mu-D)^+ bound state ion is so small
    that it can function as a quasi-nucleus to bind an electron
    to form a neutral muonic HD molecule.
    AFAIK there are never enough nuons around
    to make a double-muonic H2 molecule.

    Whatever, it doesn't really matter for what will happen next,
    (a muonic H-atom will just disappear once the muon decays
    with nothing of special interest happening)

    Thanks. Interesting.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Lou on Sat Aug 26 11:40:15 2023
    On 8/25/2023 6:52 PM, Lou wrote:
    On Friday, 25 August 2023 at 20:58:22 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
    On 8/24/2023 11:24 PM, Lou wrote:
    On Friday, 25 August 2023 at 03:58:52 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
    On 8/24/2023 10:30 PM, Volney wrote:
    On 8/24/2023 2:29 PM, Lou wrote:

    And B) H atoms can emit g rays up to 200GeV.

    Through intermediates like pions.
    Tom Roberts writes:

    Their experiment is not "this sort" of physical situation -- you are >>>>> thinking of the sun in which the hydrogen IONS are at a temperature >2E7 >>>>> K and a pressure >2E11 bar. That is sufficient for the hydrogen IONS to >>>>> interact via fusion. The gammas are emitted up to ~200 MeV (not GeV as >>>>> you claim).
    Oh crap. I didn't realize Lou must have been writing about solar fusion. >>>>
    It may be true that fusion at zillions of K at the center of the sun
    produce such gammas, but is entirely irrelevant for the F-F π⁰ experiment.

    Yes Volney. Ignore the data when it’s not convenient.
    It is you who ignores the data when it’s not convenient.

    Fusion reactions are completely irrelevant since the energies involved
    are nowhere close to that required for fusion. Plus the energy is
    released by the intermediate products and resulting helium in solar fusion.

    Usual fact free nonsense. The standard model knows SFA about how
    the sun or how the Filipas proton beam produces energies observed.
    Otherwise it’s predictions that 200GeV hard g rays from the sun
    were impossible under theory ....wouldn’t have been so
    spectacularly refuted by recent HAWC and Fermi data.
    Not to mention your fantasy model said the 7 times abundance of G rays recently detected coming from the sun was
    also impossible. 😂

    Ignore the facts when the facts dont fit the fantasies.
    Which is what you do.

    You ignore the existence of neutral pions. They are well known by anyone
    involved with particle accelerators.

    Facts are:

    Neutral pions exist.
    Neutral pions are regularly created by the reaction used in F-F, namely
    π⁻ + p --> π⁰ + n.
    Neutral pions usually decay into 2 62.5 MeV gammas back to back.

    A fact free assumption. You never detect any imaginary neutral pions.

    I haven't, but real scientists with real equipment have.

    You assume the g ray emissions from the H atoms detected at 5&6
    are actually from imaginary neutral pions.

    Statistics that they weren't is absurdly unlikely.

    And you can’t prove otherwise.

    Nothing is EVER proven in physics. Just disproven.

    Because your lousy standard model, which failed all of its predictions non stop
    since it was invented,

    If it failed so badly it would have abandoned long ago. Why do you claim
    it was such a failure?

    also cannot explain how H atoms can emit g rays

    I can explain it in one word. Fusion. So can the standard model.

    Why do you keep bringing up fusion gammas since they are well understood
    and are irrelevant to F-F?

    at 68MeV energies in Filipas. Since recent data on H emissions from sun
    show these much smaller 68MeV detections are easily accounted for.

    You have been corrected before. Why do you keep saying they're 68 MeV
    gammas? Are you just typing something in from some kook literature which
    has that mistake?

    Not least because that is the sort of energies the proton beam
    particles are delivering to the H atoms in the experiment.
    It’s a well documented fact that if an atom is stimulated by
    a input energy of x ....it will respond by producing emr emissions
    of roughly the same energies.

    By interactions...such as the ones creating the π⁰.

    As observed in Filipas.

    Filippas takes advantage of that, using the generated π⁰s to create
    gammas from a moving source.

    A fact you are desperate to ignore.

    Wrong. You are the one trying to ignore such thing as π⁰.

    Looking at the facts ( not the fantasy never observed neutral pions)
    Again, a fine example how you are the one who ignores facts by
    complaining that the π⁰ is "fantasy". You accuse others of your own
    actions. Psychological projection.

    it is more reasonable to assume H atoms emitted 68MeV g rays.

    Nope. Not when there's a large quantity of gammas at a specific energy
    (62.5 MeV) back to back. Too unusual to be part of random gammas.

    You imagine 2 paired photons. But light is a wave only.

    Nope. Photons have been demonstrated and they have particle-like characteristics, particularly at high energy. Wave behavior is from a
    mass behavior of photons, here there are only two and they're not even traveling together.

    And there are
    no such things as paired photons except in fevered fantasies at CERN.

    Nope. Observed from the pairs of pair production of the gammas even in
    the bubble chamber days.

    Coincident 68MeV detections at 5&6 are actually just g ray
    waves produced by H atoms hitting both detectors within the same
    narrow ns “ binned” time frames. Easily explained by an ether free emission model.

    That is your uneducated opinion. Real scientists have evidence.

    Also incoming π⁻ usually releases its energy as thousands/millions of
    low energy gammas. This is experimental data, not fantasy.
    That is unless you don’t like the facts and prefer the fantasies
    of the standard model.
    The standard model is supported by actual scientific observations and
    evidence. There is no fantasy. The speculative parts have support and
    don't factor into this type of experiment.

    The standard model is supported by zero science.

    Say what? What about even just CERN? There are LOADS of science on the
    standard model!

    Starting off with the fact free Bohr shell model which failed
    almost the day it was proposed.

    It is no longer used. It was known to have problems but was the best
    model until something better, Schrödinger, came along, exactly as expected.

    Through to the standard models recently
    failed assumptions about muons and solar g rays.

    Muons are still known to exist. Fusion gammas aren't relevant here.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to Volney on Sat Aug 26 09:09:30 2023
    On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 10:18:58 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
    On 8/26/2023 5:20 AM, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

    "The neutral pion (π^0) is a particle with an exceedingly short lifetime, decaying almost instantaneously after its creation. It primarily decays into two photons (gamma rays) due to the strong force interaction between its quark constituents.
    All the descriptions from reliable sources state the π⁰ decays via the electromagnetic force (one of the few that does so) not the strong
    force. If it decayed via the strong force it would have an even shorter lifetime.

    Oops. Obviously Stack Exchange can be a source of garbage as well.
    The author of my source had enough upvotes that I thought that he
    was probably reliable. :-(

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RichD@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Sat Aug 26 12:55:23 2023
    On August 26, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    The standard model provides by far the most dominant and
    successful summary of all available knowledge about the
    subatomic world.

    Only because,...as chatgpt admits...it’s all asumptions never confirmed >> by empirical observations.

    Your reading comprehension is faulty, and you must
    remember, ChatGPT is an idiot savant that can only produce
    likely combinations of words based on what it has observed.
    These combinations include arrant nonsense that must be
    filtered out.

    One should use it like any other tool. Which means use with caution.

    It's an astonishing leap in AI, but not godlike. The problem today is,
    the public is being brainwashed, and terrorized, into treating it as
    such. Yes folks, the Terminator is around the corner, Arnold
    Schwarzenegger save us!

    To my limited knowledge, it builds gigantic tables of phrases;
    statistical correlations. But does it have reasoning capability?
    And it clearly has superb command of grammar - did it learn
    that by itself, or was that put in by hand?

    "statistical correlations" - sounds dreary and mechanical, but who
    knows, that may actually model the human brain - how do infants learn?

    --
    Rich

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Volney on Sat Aug 26 22:19:07 2023
    Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 8/26/2023 5:20 AM, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 6:07:57?PM UTC-5, Lou wrote:

    And seeing as you have NO actual observations of neutral pions anywhere
    and no proof coincident detections at 5&6 cannot be from
    emission waves produced by H atoms...

    For fun, I took a few minutes to chat with ChatGPT about this. I had
    to correct several stupid errors that it made (The worst was that the
    pion decayed via a "strong electromagnetic force".
    ...
    "The neutral pion (π^0) is a particle with an exceedingly short
    lifetime, decaying almost instantaneously after its creation. It
    primarily decays into two photons (gamma rays) due to the strong force interaction between its quark constituents.

    All the descriptions from reliable sources state the π? decays via the electromagnetic force (one of the few that does so) not the strong
    force. If it decayed via the strong force it would have an even shorter lifetime.

    Indeed, all pions are stable particles,
    as far as the strong interaction is concerned,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lou@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Sun Aug 27 01:43:53 2023
    On Saturday, 26 August 2023 at 14:36:04 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 7:28:43 AM UTC-5, Lou wrote:
    On Saturday, 26 August 2023 at 12:50:18 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

    What "competing theoretical frameworks"?
    Name them.
    Ritz ether free emission model.
    Disproven many times over.

    I notice you are unable to cite a single example where it has been
    disproven. Notice in this thread alone I have explained how an
    Ritzian ether free emission model can make predictions consistent
    with binary star light, Sagnac, lunar ranging, MMX, Ives Stillwell
    and Filipas. Without a single refutation from any critics of emission
    other than insults and fact free false assumptions.

    For example, Gaia demonstrates that light from billions
    of objects in the universe arrive at the satellite at the
    same speed to within parts per million, otherwise there
    should be measurable differences in the aberration of
    light doming from these different objects.

    I notice you cite no examples or explanation as to how this fantasy
    of yours can be proven. In fact on this thread I have already pointed
    out that this argument is false if one considers that the greatest speed differences in rotational galaxy speeds that Gaia would ever have to
    deal with would still only result in a 0.00001 % difference in incident
    angle of abberation. Too small for any measureable effects due
    to velocity differences in an emission model.

    Not only does it not rely on
    an ether like the SM, it can model all observed so-called particle paths using only overlapping EM waves emitted by 3 colliding protons.
    Show your analysis.

    I’ve also on this thread given as good an analysis as typing on sci.physics.relativity
    allows. Take just 3 colliding protons.It is already accepted fact that
    Atoms emit emr when subject to external input via incident emr or collisions. If one accepts that each of the 3 will emit an expanding pulse/sphere of wave emr
    from this collision, then just 2 of those overlapping expanding wave ‘bubbles’
    will produce a single expanding interference pattern in the form
    of an expanding annulus ring. Overlap the 3rd expanding bubble
    of wave emr from the 3 way collision and where that intersects with
    the expanding annulus ring....you will get a classic Pos/neg
    Curved, straight or spiral path seen in all CERN images. Depending
    on the relative orientation of the 3.
    Showing that ALL “particle” paths seen in colliders can be
    modelled as interference patterns created by expanding spheres
    Of emr from protons in collider collisions. Including the latest
    observed unexplainable wobble of fantasy muons recently seen at
    Fermilab.
    This is a mathematically geometrically provable fact.
    And if Fermilab or CERN tried a simulation using their powerful
    Computers this could be proven beyond a doubt. And shame the entire
    theoretical physics community.
    If you disagree then your grasp of physics and basic 3 D objects
    in motion is so poor that you should be ashamed to call
    yourself a scientist.



    Let's try a simple one. A neutron decays with a half life
    of 15 minutes. What does it decay into, and what are the
    energies of its products predicted by your alternate model?

    As I point out above....neutrons are a ridiculous fantasy.
    Atoms are only ever observed to be resonating systems with wave
    like electromagnetic properties. Not imaginary particle zoos.

    Unfortunately Fermi, CERN and others are too cowardly
    to even attempt to try this test to refute this emission based model. Because they know if they did a simulation to test this aspect of
    emission theory...they would have to admit it is the particle zoo
    The "particle zoo" has long been tamed.
    All known particles and their relationships with each
    other have long been categorized.
    Which is nonsense.
    The standard model provides by far the most dominant and
    successful summary of all available knowledge about the
    subatomic world.
    Only because,...as chatgpt admits...it’s all asumptions never confirmed by empirical observations.
    Your reading comprehension is faulty, and you must
    remember, ChatGPT is an idiot savant that can only produce
    likely combinations of words based on what it has observed.
    These combinations include arrant nonsense that must be
    filtered out.

    You posted it, and claimed you edited it to make it acceptable.
    And it unequivocally states neutral pions are not ever actually
    observed.. Just assumed.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lou@21:1/5 to Volney on Sun Aug 27 01:58:55 2023
    On Saturday, 26 August 2023 at 16:10:47 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
    On 8/25/2023 7:07 PM, Lou wrote:
    On Friday, 25 August 2023 at 23:18:44 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 2:58:22 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
    On 8/24/2023 11:24 PM, Lou wrote:

    it is more reasonable to assume H atoms emitted 68MeV g rays.
    Nope. Not when there's a large quantity of gammas at a specific energy >>> (62.5 MeV) back to back. Too unusual to be part of random gammas.
    That's 62.5 MeV in the pion frame. In the lab frame, experiments
    cited by Filippas and Fox measured (1) the aberration between
    the gamma pairs, and (2) the Doppler energy difference between
    the forwards and the rear gamma rays of each pair. The
    measured aberrations and Doppler energy differences were entirely
    consistent with what one would expect from π⁰ traveling at 0.2 c,
    which is the theoretical value easily computed from the mass
    difference between the reactants and products, as I demonstrated
    a few posts back.

    This is not handwaving. The measurements all fit together in a
    consistent narrative supporting the reality of the particles
    participating in the cited reactions.

    Lou's skepticism is based on sheer ignorance.

    Obviously you think it is ignorant to take observed data into account.
    It is you who is doing that. Psychological projection again.

    Yes Volney..I imagined that Fermilab just discovered that muons arent
    doing what theory predicts they should do. https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2023/aug/new-measurement-particle-wobble-hints-new-physics#:~:text=Importantly%2C%20muons%20are%20also%20magnetic,wobble%2C%20or%20

    And I imagined that HAWC data just supplied data completely inconsistent
    with the standard models fantasy predictions.

    https://arxiv.org/pdf/2212.00815.pdf


    And smart to ignore data and pretend fantasies and assumptions
    are the same as observations.
    Again, it is you who is doing that.
    What do you detect in Filipas?

    The only thing detected is....gammarays at 68MeV.
    Which have the same speed, c, both forwards and backwards. The gammas
    are the ones matching the already known decay of neutral pions.

    And an emission model also predicts gammarays produced by the target
    H atoms at c in the lab frame. Isotropically to both detectors.

    They don’t come with name tags saying ‘if lost please
    return to neutral pions owners at Fermilab’.
    Why are you *still* whining about the existence of neutral pions? Well understood science.
    Sorry to break the news to you.
    And seeing as you have NO actual observations of neutral pions anywhere
    Except from all the particle accelerators everywhere.
    and no proof coincident detections at 5&6 cannot be from
    emission waves produced by H atoms...
    Except there are so many of them compared to gammas of other energies.
    Sure, of thousands of events you could probably be able to say there may
    be 1 or 2 false detections but the other 99.99% of them? It is
    statistically absurd. These days they derive the probability a result
    could be happenstance, it's always part of the paper on the experiment.
    It's always very low.

    H atoms can easily account for all the observed g rays at detectors 5&6. Because we know H atoms can produce copious amounts of G rays
    at the energies observed.

    Then it is you who’s skepticism is based on fact free ignorance.
    Because I can prove:
    1)That emr is a wave.
    Overly simplified. Photons have particle-like behavior as well.

    All particle like behaviour of emr can be explained by waves only.
    Wheras particles cannot explain all wave like properties of light.

    2)That emr waves emitted isotropically can create coincident ‘detections’
    at seperate detectors
    At very low probabilities.

    Only if you ignore data like the recent HAWC data.

    3)That H atoms can emit 1eV ,68MeV, or 200GeV gammarays if neccesary.
    Any interaction more than about 20eV requires an interaction in
    hydrogen. Such as π⁻ + p --> π⁰ + n --> gammas. Or fusion (which really
    isn't from the hydrogen any longer but the daughter nucleus)

    Only if you believe in the fantasy model. AND , ignore empirical evidence showing atoms can emit huge amounts of radiation at energies from radio
    to 200GeV.

    4) That all atoms, including H atoms will emit comparable
    Energies when stimulated by similar input energies.
    Energies more than the recombination of electrons with nuclei will be in
    the few eV energy range for hydrogen. (X-ray energy for heavy elements)

    Only if you ignore all the data. As all supporters of the standard model do.

    5) And that the input energies from the proton beam at Filipas is roughly the same energies as that energy emr produced in response by the H target.
    Producing the .2c energy of the generated π⁰.
    Those are called facts.
    Yours are called fantasy assumptions.
    Fantasy is whining that π⁰ cannot exist because you can't understand them.

    Your fantasy is that you can’t tell the difference between assumed and observed.
    And your neutral pions are...imaginary. Never observed.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lou@21:1/5 to Volney on Sun Aug 27 02:18:50 2023
    On Saturday, 26 August 2023 at 16:40:20 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
    On 8/25/2023 6:52 PM, Lou wrote:
    On Friday, 25 August 2023 at 20:58:22 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
    On 8/24/2023 11:24 PM, Lou wrote:
    On Friday, 25 August 2023 at 03:58:52 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
    On 8/24/2023 10:30 PM, Volney wrote:
    On 8/24/2023 2:29 PM, Lou wrote:

    And B) H atoms can emit g rays up to 200GeV.

    Through intermediates like pions.
    Tom Roberts writes:

    Their experiment is not "this sort" of physical situation -- you are >>>>> thinking of the sun in which the hydrogen IONS are at a temperature >2E7
    K and a pressure >2E11 bar. That is sufficient for the hydrogen IONS to
    interact via fusion. The gammas are emitted up to ~200 MeV (not GeV as >>>>> you claim).
    Oh crap. I didn't realize Lou must have been writing about solar fusion.

    It may be true that fusion at zillions of K at the center of the sun >>>> produce such gammas, but is entirely irrelevant for the F-F π⁰ experiment.

    Yes Volney. Ignore the data when it’s not convenient.
    It is you who ignores the data when it’s not convenient.

    Fusion reactions are completely irrelevant since the energies involved
    are nowhere close to that required for fusion. Plus the energy is
    released by the intermediate products and resulting helium in solar fusion.

    Usual fact free nonsense. The standard model knows SFA about how
    the sun or how the Filipas proton beam produces energies observed. Otherwise it’s predictions that 200GeV hard g rays from the sun
    were impossible under theory ....wouldn’t have been so
    spectacularly refuted by recent HAWC and Fermi data.
    Not to mention your fantasy model said the 7 times abundance of G rays recently detected coming from the sun was
    also impossible. 😂

    Ignore the facts when the facts dont fit the fantasies.
    Which is what you do.

    You ignore the existence of neutral pions. They are well known by anyone >> involved with particle accelerators.

    Facts are:

    Neutral pions exist.
    Neutral pions are regularly created by the reaction used in F-F, namely >> π⁻ + p --> π⁰ + n.
    Neutral pions usually decay into 2 62.5 MeV gammas back to back.

    A fact free assumption. You never detect any imaginary neutral pions.
    I haven't, but real scientists with real equipment have.
    You assume the g ray emissions from the H atoms detected at 5&6
    are actually from imaginary neutral pions.
    Statistics that they weren't is absurdly unlikely.
    And you can’t prove otherwise.
    Nothing is EVER proven in physics. Just disproven.
    Because your lousy standard model, which failed all of its predictions non stop
    since it was invented,
    If it failed so badly it would have abandoned long ago. Why do you claim
    it was such a failure?

    JWST data, fermilab data HAWC data. And that’s just the last few months
    of data from almost 100 years of failure of the standard model.
    Starting with Bohrs complete electron shell model failure.

    also cannot explain how H atoms can emit g rays
    I can explain it in one word. Fusion. So can the standard model.

    Just goes to show how little you know about physics.
    Atoms will emit radiation when subjected to ANY external energy
    input. Be it collisions , heat, emr etc.

    Why do you keep bringing up fusion gammas since they are well understood
    and are irrelevant to F-F?

    Only if you aren’t smart enough to realise that the process inside
    the sun is just a more extreme version of what happens in the lab

    at 68MeV energies in Filipas. Since recent data on H emissions from sun show these much smaller 68MeV detections are easily accounted for.
    You have been corrected before. Why do you keep saying they're 68 MeV gammas? Are you just typing something in from some kook literature which
    has that mistake?

    I read the FF paper. Where did you get your energies?

    Not least because that is the sort of energies the proton beam
    particles are delivering to the H atoms in the experiment.
    It’s a well documented fact that if an atom is stimulated by
    a input energy of x ....it will respond by producing emr emissions
    of roughly the same energies.
    By interactions...such as the ones creating the π⁰.
    As observed in Filipas.

    Filippas takes advantage of that, using the generated π⁰s to create gammas from a moving source.
    A fact you are desperate to ignore.
    Wrong. You are the one trying to ignore such thing as π⁰.
    Looking at the facts ( not the fantasy never observed neutral pions)
    Again, a fine example how you are the one who ignores facts by
    complaining that the π⁰ is "fantasy". You accuse others of your own
    actions. Psychological projection.

    it is more reasonable to assume H atoms emitted 68MeV g rays.

    Nope. Not when there's a large quantity of gammas at a specific energy
    (62.5 MeV) back to back. Too unusual to be part of random gammas.

    You imagine 2 paired photons. But light is a wave only.
    Nope. Photons have been demonstrated and they have particle-like characteristics, particularly at high energy. Wave behavior is from a
    mass behavior of photons, here there are only two and they're not even traveling together.

    QT is a fact free nonsense theory. Light is a wave only.
    And you have zero evidence to prove otherwise.

    And there are
    no such things as paired photons except in fevered fantasies at CERN.
    Nope. Observed from the pairs of pair production of the gammas even in
    the bubble chamber days.
    Coincident 68MeV detections at 5&6 are actually just g ray
    waves produced by H atoms hitting both detectors within the same
    narrow ns “ binned” time frames. Easily explained by an ether free emission model.
    That is your uneducated opinion. Real scientists have evidence.


    “Real scientists”. You mean the ones who are responsible for the complete Utter and continuing failures of theory in light of recent data provided by JWST,fermilab, HAWC data and many
    others ?
    Scientists?!

    Also incoming π⁻ usually releases its energy as thousands/millions of >> low energy gammas. This is experimental data, not fantasy.
    That is unless you don’t like the facts and prefer the fantasies
    of the standard model.
    The standard model is supported by actual scientific observations and
    evidence. There is no fantasy. The speculative parts have support and
    don't factor into this type of experiment.

    The standard model is supported by zero science.
    Say what? What about even just CERN? There are LOADS of science on the standard model!
    Starting off with the fact free Bohr shell model which failed
    almost the day it was proposed.
    It is no longer used. It was known to have problems but was the best
    model until something better, Schrödinger, came along, exactly as expected.
    Through to the standard models recently
    failed assumptions about muons and solar g rays.
    Muons are still known to exist. Fusion gammas aren't relevant here.

    If the theory of physics of the sun we’re only possible under your preferred theory....JWST HAWC and Fermilab just showed us that the theorists
    know SFA about fusion, about how the sun produces radiation or what
    atoms are even made of.

    “Muons are known to exist” !!!
    With wobbles or without?😂🤣

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lou@21:1/5 to RichD on Sun Aug 27 05:01:42 2023
    On Saturday, 26 August 2023 at 20:55:25 UTC+1, RichD wrote:
    On August 26, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    The standard model provides by far the most dominant and
    successful summary of all available knowledge about the
    subatomic world.

    Only because,...as chatgpt admits...it’s all asumptions never confirmed >> by empirical observations.

    Your reading comprehension is faulty, and you must
    remember, ChatGPT is an idiot savant that can only produce
    likely combinations of words based on what it has observed.
    These combinations include arrant nonsense that must be
    filtered out.
    One should use it like any other tool. Which means use with caution.

    It's an astonishing leap in AI, but not godlike. The problem today is,
    the public is being brainwashed, and terrorized, into treating it as
    such. Yes folks, the Terminator is around the corner, Arnold
    Schwarzenegger save us!

    To my limited knowledge, it builds gigantic tables of phrases;
    statistical correlations. But does it have reasoning capability?
    And it clearly has superb command of grammar - did it learn
    that by itself, or was that put in by hand?

    "statistical correlations" - sounds dreary and mechanical, but who
    knows, that may actually model the human brain - how do infants learn?

    My take is that infants learn , like all animals, by screwing up.

    I wouldnt even bother with any Artificial Intelligence, like Barbie and Ken’s baby Chatgpt,
    until you can ask it to model simple physical mechanisms in 3D over time. ( like waves
    interfering in space)
    Most Humans can visualise these to a certain limited degree. (although all theoretical
    physicists seem incapable of doing it) But we are not able to output any accurate
    simulations from our head to view on a computer screen.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)