## Particle detection analysis

• Imagine you are sipping tea or coffee while discussing various issues with a broad and diverse network of students, colleagues, and friends brought together by the common bond of physics, graduate school, and the physics GRE.

nuimshaan
Posts: 200
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 11:23 pm

### Particle detection analysis

Do particles pass straight through the Earth?

After further investigation, there seems to be no conclusive evidence to prove if it is true.

For one, we are not using a two station system. I mean we don't have one stationary detection system on the North pole and one on the South pole. What you are trying to do is see if a particle passes from the detection station on the North pole, then travels through the thickness of the Earth, and finally passes through the detection station on the South pole. Remember, you have to be able to "tag" that particle in order to know it was the one that passed through the North pole detection station, or it could just be a random particle.

You must be able to show the entrance wound and the exit wound to prove the bullet went straight through.

And you must be able to prove it was the bullet that made the entrance wound which made the exit wound.

Or, it could have been a stray bullet that made it's own hole there.

Since we do not have this system of proving said particle passed through the Earth...it is still just a theory, and no conclusive evidence can be provided to prove if it is true.

Nuimshaan

midwestphysics
Posts: 444
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 12:37 am

### Re: Particle detection analysis

Start with Rutherford, and move on from there. Should help you come to grips with why some particle are easily scattered and others are not, i.e. alpha to neutrino.

nuimshaan
Posts: 200
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 11:23 pm

### Re: Particle detection analysis

Perhaps you missed the point where those books are full of theories without the two station detection system...you cannot prove it. Therefore it is a theory, not science. You can either show the entrance and exit wound or you cannot. An entrance wound deep in the Earth with no exit wound out the other side may mean the particle scattered...but at least it didn't pass straight through. Because there was no exit wound...remember?

You need two detection stations to prove this theory...perhaps that's how you misunderstood there exists no proof, because we do not use a two detection station system...therefore we do NOT know...thank you.

Nuimshaan.

midwestphysics
Posts: 444
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 12:37 am

### Re: Particle detection analysis

Can this exact situation be experimentally verified? not easily, not only would you need two stations you'd also need a non-invasive detection scheme. But given experimental results in different circumstances, and the math behind it all you can provide a probability that a particle is scattered or it isn't. The math works, other results support it, that's sufficient. And since when is theory not science?

nuimshaan
Posts: 200
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 11:23 pm

### Re: Particle detection analysis

Science is that which has already been proven...not probability. If you do not know whether the particle will scatter or not...then just say it.

If you do not know if it made both an entrance and exit wound through the Earth...then just say it...or just THEORIZE! Maybe the particle demanifested itself 12 miles into the thickness of the Earth and rematerialized itself hundreds of miles away from the Earth...I mean maybe...but this is rubbish conjecture, intellectual spatter and imaginative thoughts with no precedence or proof...therefore it is not a SCIENTIFIC FACT. Thank you

midwestphysics
Posts: 444
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 12:37 am

### Re: Particle detection analysis

nuimshaan wrote:Science is that which has already been proven.

Wrong! Tell that to every theoretical physicist on the planet, and even experimentalists, and they'll laugh at you, rightfully so.

nuimshaan
Posts: 200
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 11:23 pm

### Re: Particle detection analysis

Then I will laugh at you when you say for me to come to grips with it...I'm a scientist...you must show me the proof...and if you cannot prove it..just say it. I want to hear you say you don't know if it really happens or not.

I would like for you to admit it is just a theory, and has NOT been proven scientifically...do yourself the favor actually...I'm not going there with you...that rabbit hole is too deep.

When you prove it scientifically, then I will come to grips with it. And only when you prove said particle made both an entrance and exit wound through the Earth...I will accept no other proof...it either did or it did not...don't leave me guessing with probability equations..your just quoting a theory held by people who have NO PROOF!

midwestphysics
Posts: 444
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 12:37 am

### Re: Particle detection analysis

Okay, one last reply, I can't help it since it has been so interesting......
nuimshaan wrote:Then I will laugh at you when you say for me to come to grips with it...I'm a scientist...you must show me the proof...and if you cannot prove it..just say it. I want to hear you say you don't know if it really happens or not.

I would like for you to admit it is just a theory, and has NOT been proven scientifically...do yourself the favor actually...I'm not going there with you...that rabbit hole is too deep.

When you prove it scientifically, then I will come to grips with it. And only when you prove said particle made both an entrance and exit wound through the Earth...I will accept no other proof...it either did or it did not...don't leave me guessing with probability equations..your just quoting a theory held by people who have NO PROOF!

HOOOLLY @#\$%!!! Awesome, just awesome.

nuimshaan
Posts: 200
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 11:23 pm

### Re: Particle detection analysis

I posted my theory that at the center of the Earth there was zero gravity...but the cool part is I have proof.

So it is no longer a theory, but a scientific fact that people on the north pole stand upright and people on the south pole stand upright. Once you understand how this happens...you know there exists zero gravity at the center most location between them...because you know the forces equal themselves out...because they both walk upright on both poles...this is a theory that has been proven...I was simply making an old adage "dig a hole to China" into an interesting bit of scientific phenomena which is true even though it starts out being a theory until we understand the physics behind how it happens...then we call it science.

CarlBrannen
Posts: 381
Joined: Mon May 24, 2010 11:34 pm

### Re: Particle detection analysis

The reason we know that neutrinos go straight through the earth is that some neutrino detection equipment can detect the direction the neutrino is traveling. So when you detect neutrinos from the sun, you can track the sun moving through the sky and then keep tracking it as it sets and goes around the planet.

For example, see:
Low Energy Neutrino Astronomy in Super-Kamiokande, Michael Smy
http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0012

midwestphysics
Posts: 444
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 12:37 am

### Re: Particle detection analysis

CarlBrannen wrote:The reason we know that neutrinos go straight through the earth is that some neutrino detection equipment can detect the direction the neutrino is traveling. So when you detect neutrinos from the sun, you can track the sun moving through the sky and then keep tracking it as it sets and goes around the planet.

For example, see:
Low Energy Neutrino Astronomy in Super-Kamiokande, Michael Smy
http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0012

Unfortunately Carl you've shown logical scientific methods. In order for Nuimshaan to be satisfied he would need detection of the exact same particle, as if you could actually differentiate them, on one side of the planet and then on the other.

negru
Posts: 307
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 3:49 pm

### Re: Particle detection analysis

And this is all further complicated by the fact that neutrinos travel faster than light trolololo

grae313
Posts: 2297
Joined: Tue May 29, 2007 8:46 pm

### Re: Particle detection analysis

CarlBrannen wrote:The reason we know that neutrinos go straight through the earth is that some neutrino detection equipment can detect the direction the neutrino is traveling. So when you detect neutrinos from the sun, you can track the sun moving through the sky and then keep tracking it as it sets and goes around the planet.

For example, see:
Low Energy Neutrino Astronomy in Super-Kamiokande, Michael Smy
http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0012

But can you call up a neutrino on the south pole and verify that it's not upside down doing finger pushups with its feet in the air? HMMMMMMM?

CarlBrannen
Posts: 381
Joined: Mon May 24, 2010 11:34 pm

### Re: Particle detection analysis

midwestphysics wrote:Unfortunately Carl you've shown logical scientific methods. In order for Nuimshaan to be satisfied he would need detection of the exact same particle, as if you could actually differentiate them, on one side of the planet and then on the other.

Note sure what the real problem is. To check if a piece of glass is clear you put a source of light on one side of it and see if you can image it through the glass. The neutrino problem is the same, it's just that the telescope is more difficult.

As far as doing it with the "same particle" that's not possible even with light. If you detect the photon on one side of the window it's gone -- you can't detect it on the other.

midwestphysics
Posts: 444
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 12:37 am

### Re: Particle detection analysis

CarlBrannen wrote:Note sure what the real problem is. To check if a piece of glass is clear you put a source of light on one side of it and see if you can image it through the glass. The neutrino problem is the same, it's just that the telescope is more difficult.

As far as doing it with the "same particle" that's not possible even with light. If you detect the photon on one side of the window it's gone -- you can't detect it on the other.

That's exactly my point, he's asking for something that isn't possible, and at the same time rejecting the logical. Under his circumstances you'd need a non-invasive detection scheme, and a way to differentiate between particles, neither of which I know can actually be done. Meanwhile, we already have a way of detecting them but he doesn't accept it, and I'm not sure why.

nuimshaan
Posts: 200
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 11:23 pm

### Re: Particle detection analysis

Then allow me to clarify why i do not trust our current methods on this subject.

Number one reason: We have no way of knowing whether a nutrino will actually go straight through the Earth and come out the other side...we only have some evidence of a nutrino's behavior (scatter, don't scatter), very close to the surface of the Earth...we have no idea how the same nutrino behaves as it may or may not pass through denser or deeper Earth...no information.

Therefore; Not one of you can say with scientific proof, these nutrinos go straight through the Earth...you are only speculating.

I put forth the two detection station system to get you guys to get real about it...and the part about particle tagging...to know if it was the same particle going through both detection stations....arguing and making points about the impossibility of it doesn't change the fact...in order to make a bold statement like "particles go straight through the Earth", you actually need proof on this one.

Otherwise you're just guessing...that's why your methods don't provide proof...because you do NOT use two detection stations, and because you can't tag a particle and track it through the Earth...therefore; I can be bold and say you will never prove whether particles go through the Earth or not..and mean it.

Therefore; I can't come to grips with it, because it's just a guess...and that's that...thank you. Don't make statements you cannot prove when it comes to science..remember it has to be reproduced experimentally before it becomes science...until then...it is your theory. Thank you once and for all.

Nuimshaan.

midwestphysics
Posts: 444
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 12:37 am

### Re: Particle detection analysis

nuimshaan wrote:Then allow me to clarify why i do not trust our current methods on this subject.

Number one reason: We have no way of knowing whether a nutrino will actually go straight through the Earth and come out the other side...we only have some evidence of a nutrino's behavior (scatter, don't scatter), very close to the surface of the Earth...we have no idea how the same nutrino behaves as it may or may not pass through denser or deeper Earth...no information.

That's what Carl was talking about, you can track the sun from the earth's surface at any time. The light of the sun won't penetrate through the earth, but a good amount of neutrinos can and do and here's why. So, say the sun is behind the earth, essentially right below, you would be detecting a significant increase in the number of neutrinos coming up from straight underground in the direction of the sun from where you are. The direction of this neutrino source represents a line between you and the sun, and you can see it at all times not matter where you are on the earth with respect to the sun. Hence you can say that you are detecting the neutrino output of the sun whether it was directly above you or behind the earth. Furthermore because of this you can say that the earth isn't scattering most of these neutrinos and they penetrate all the way through. And that is experimental evidence, so I don't see what the problem is.

negru
Posts: 307
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 3:49 pm

### Re: Particle detection analysis

yeah that's all very clever guys, but if you can't see the sun when it's on the other side, how do you know it's really there?

midwestphysics
Posts: 444
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 12:37 am

### Re: Particle detection analysis

negru wrote:yeah that's all very clever guys, but if you can't see the sun when it's on the other side, how do you know it's really there?

lmao noooo!!! Don't make him even more confused

mrrsnhtl
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 4:27 pm

### Re: Particle detection analysis

Teasing again..Guys please, one thing nuimshaan is pretty right about is that no one actually bothers to stand up and discuss on the thing.

nuimshaan,

Please release me from my curiosity, why do you need to detect individual particles going in and out? We know one thing for sure, most of the neutrinos come from our Sun, quoting wikipedia "About 65 billion (6.5×10^10) solar neutrinos per second pass through every square centimeter perpendicular to the direction of the Sun in the region of the Earth".

In order to detect the same neutrino two times going in and out, you need to have a clear lucky strike, odds are very low because it interacts very very weakly. But the point is, what would that prove? Neutrinos going through the Earth? But they do, that's why we observe them at the further edge of the Earth?!

nuimshaan
Posts: 200
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 11:23 pm

### Re: Particle detection analysis

Again, let me clarify what you have just said: You said that when the sun is on the other side of the globe..night time for us...we should be able to detect nutrinos cruising straight down toward the sun...right? Then how deep do they penetrate? Perhaps the sun is "sucking in" all the nutrinos it can from our solar system...but some of them get stuck in planet cores because they cannot penetrate through anything very thick, because they are not very heavy, only moving fast...so the effect is just like the Earth acting as a nutrino shield, and the sun sees a shadow when it looks at the Earth looking for nutrinos to draw in..

Or did you say that the ground beneath you began giving off nutrinos which then sped towards the sun in the daytime?

Or did you say that during the daytime the sun would be pushing nutrinos straight through the Earth?

Or did you say that nutrinos were being pushed through the Earth just because you know the direction they are headed and about how fast they are moving?

Or did you say nutrinos were being accelerated toward the Earth at night to get to the sun...like the sun were a nutrino vaccum in space..sucking all those nutrinos in, but some of those nutrinos getting "stuck", or "clogged up" by running into planets and such...

All you can say is this: I assume that being present in a uniform field of charged nutrinos heading toward the sun will produce an effect on the Earth whereas some of these nutrinos may be able to pass through the Earth, like a magnetic field passes through an object that is non-magnetic. Like a magnets field passing through my finger or something.

We do not have any conclusive evidence it passes through the Earth, it may just move around it, like waves go around a buey in the water. We see the direction of the wave coming at us, or away from us, but it certainly didn't pass through me...it went around me on all sides.

That is all I'm saying...since you can't prove those particles actually pass through, you can't provide me whether it goes straight through or around like a wave around a socker ball floating on the water.

Nuimshaan

midwestphysics
Posts: 444
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 12:37 am

### Re: Particle detection analysis

nuimshaan wrote:Again, let me clarify what you have just said: You said that when the sun is on the other side of the globe..night time for us...we should be able to detect nutrinos cruising straight down toward the sun...right? Then how deep do they penetrate? Perhaps the sun is "sucking in" all the nutrinos it can from our solar system...but some of them get stuck in planet cores because they cannot penetrate through anything very thick, because they are not very heavy, only moving fast...so the effect is just like the Earth acting as a nutrino shield, and the sun sees a shadow when it looks at the Earth looking for nutrinos to draw in..

Or did you say that the ground beneath you began giving off nutrinos which then sped towards the sun in the daytime?

Or did you say that during the daytime the sun would be pushing nutrinos straight through the Earth?

Or did you say that nutrinos were being pushed through the Earth just because you know the direction they are headed and about how fast they are moving?

Or did you say nutrinos were being accelerated toward the Earth at night to get to the sun...like the sun were a nutrino vaccum in space..sucking all those nutrinos in, but some of those nutrinos getting "stuck", or "clogged up" by running into planets and such...

All you can say is this: I assume that being present in a uniform field of charged nutrinos heading toward the sun will produce an effect on the Earth whereas some of these nutrinos may be able to pass through the Earth, like a magnetic field passes through an object that is non-magnetic. Like a magnets field passing through my finger or something.

We do not have any conclusive evidence it passes through the Earth, it may just move around it, like waves go around a buey in the water. We see the direction of the wave coming at us, or away from us, but it certainly didn't pass through me...it went around me on all sides.

That is all I'm saying...since you can't prove those particles actually pass through, you can't provide me whether it goes straight through or around like a wave around a socker ball floating on the water.

Nuimshaan

No, wow, oh my god no.

Apparently I need to draw a diagram so you can see what we're talking about. They have detectors well below ground that detect them, so it's not going around the earth it's going thru.

nuimshaan
Posts: 200
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 11:23 pm

### Re: Particle detection analysis

Again, if the sun were giving off waves of nutrino energy...and those waves propagated away from the sun...encountered the Earth like a soccer ball floating on the water, went right around the Earth...then you would see the same direction of nutrinos on the shadow side of the Earth, because on the other side of the Earth, there were waves coming toward it, that will go right around it and keep going in that direction, you can even detect those waves still going in the same direction from the "dark side" of the Earth at the same time it's happening.

Nuimshaan.

midwestphysics
Posts: 444
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 12:37 am

### Re: Particle detection analysis

nuimshaan wrote:Again, if the sun were giving off waves of nutrino energy...and those waves propagated away from the sun...encountered the Earth like a soccer ball floating on the water, went right around the Earth...then you would see the same direction of nutrinos on the shadow side of the Earth, because on the other side of the Earth, there were waves coming toward it, that will go right around it and keep going in that direction, you can even detect those waves still going in the same direction from the "dark side" of the Earth at the same time it's happening.

Nuimshaan.

I give up, I'm not sure if you're messing with us or if you're for real. I just don't care anymore.

nuimshaan
Posts: 200
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 11:23 pm

### Re: Particle detection analysis

Like, don't we experience this nutrino activity as "getting some vitamin E", like when we go outside during a clear sunny day...and don't we experience these nutrinos in the form of UV rays and heat? Still...I can just go inside. Because this activity of the sun is fairly easily shielded...our atmosphere blocks a lot of it...and it's not very dense as far as solid Earth shields are concerned.

Just waves of heat and energy moving around the Earth...because the waves are coming from the sun...and we are like floating on the water man....whoa...

We don't know for sure if these waves of energy can pass straight through the Earth...but we know that the whole Earth experiences them in varying degrees whether it's night or day...duh...we are floating in the middle of the sun's heat and energy waves...doesn't mean they go straight through, but it does mean they go around the Earth at all times..just a wave coming at the soccer ball floating on the water...

Nuimshaan

CarlBrannen
Posts: 381
Joined: Mon May 24, 2010 11:34 pm

### Re: Particle detection analysis

nuimshaan wrote:Like, don't we experience this nutrino activity as "getting some vitamin E", like when we go outside during a clear sunny day...and don't we experience these nutrinos in the form of UV rays and heat? Still...I can just go inside. Because this activity of the sun is fairly easily shielded...our atmosphere blocks a lot of it...and it's not very dense as far as solid Earth shields are concerned.

Just waves of heat and energy moving around the Earth...because the waves are coming from the sun...and we are like floating on the water man....whoa...

We don't know for sure if these waves of energy can pass straight through the Earth...but we know that the whole Earth experiences them in varying degrees whether it's night or day...duh...we are floating in the middle of the sun's heat and energy waves...doesn't mean they go straight through, but it does mean they go around the Earth at all times..just a wave coming at the soccer ball floating on the water...

Nuimshaan

It's Vitamin D you get from sunlight (UV). Neutrinos do almost nothing to your body and the small amount they do is not good.

As far as proving the neutrinos came FROM the sun and went AWAY from it, that is the current interpretation. Your idea that the sun somehow attracts neutrinos from far away and so the neutrinos travel TOWARDS the sun is a difficult experiment to verify because it's not possible for us to turn the sun on and off.

However, we can turn on and off man-made neutrino sources and these definitely travel at close to the speed of light. So if the sun is making the same particle (which fits in with a whole bunch of other astronomical theory), then the neutrinos must be moving away from the sun.

But in all these things, there is always a small amount of faith. Scientific revolutions happen when someone loses their faith and explore heretical ideas. So keep working on it. A good place to start is to figure out how many things in the standard view of physics you will have to change. My guess is that in proposing that neutrinos move towards the sun you will have to change a great deal of stuff. That makes it a difficult task, but I am not the person to say that it is impossible.

mrrsnhtl
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 4:27 pm

### Re: Particle detection analysis

nuimshaan wrote:Like, don't we experience this nutrino activity as "getting some vitamin E", like when we go outside during a clear sunny day...and don't we experience these nutrinos in the form of UV rays and heat? Still...I can just go inside. Because this activity of the sun is fairly easily shielded...our atmosphere blocks a lot of it...and it's not very dense as far as solid Earth shields are concerned.

Maybe you are a bit confused about what neutrinos are. Thermonuclear reactions within the core of the Sun produces energy, which is mostly(?) spread into outer space as electromagnetic radiation (UV is an EM radiation within some specified frequency range). Neutrinos are some type of elementary particles, and they are the end products of some radioactive decay processes that occur in the Sun. Of course, they have some kinetic energy, so if they interact with a neutrino detector, in a sense they would heat up the detector. Sun also emits lots of charged particles, but they are trapped in the magnetic field of the Earth. Neutrinos have no charge, very little mass, they barely interact with any matter, they are like ghost particles. That's why we are able to observe neutrinos coming from the Sun "at nighttime".

I think it is better for you not to imagine that we are floating in an energy ocean that is coming from the sun. Energy is something produced - carried - absorbed in a cyclic permutation.

nuimshaan
Posts: 200
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 11:23 pm

### Re: Particle detection analysis

So the movement of the planets produce the energy which is carried through space and absorbed in the cyclic permutation called the sun.

Nuimshaan

nuimshaan
Posts: 200
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 11:23 pm

### Re: Particle detection analysis

Since the movement of the planets are fairly consistent overall, they produce a fairly consistent amount of energy carried through space and permeated from the core of the sun.

Therefore; the sun is quite regulated in size and intensity, because it is powered by the movement of the planets.

Nuimshaan

mrrsnhtl
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 4:27 pm

### Re: Particle detection analysis

Nuimshaan,

There are countless numbers of stars (Suns) that we observe, and that have "no" planetary systems.

They still shine (some of them are incredibly brighter than our Sun actually). Even though they do not have rocky companions orbiting around them.

They shine, due to fusion reactions that occur within a small volume (that we call the core) where the temperature and pressure is high enough.

So, please leave your hypothesis of the planets energizing the Sun. Or, try to find observational evidence to support it (in which you'll fail, let me assure you).

nuimshaan
Posts: 200
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 11:23 pm

### Re: Particle detection analysis

Just because I believe the sun needs fuel to burn. Not reprocess.

Constant reprocessing of fuel means you are constantly burning out the burnable portions of the fuel, pretty soon you just have ashes.

We know that when we make a fire outside...you have to add more wood to keep it going...it consumes the fuel...this is crucial in understanding what i'm saying.

Fire consumes the fuel...it does NOT generate the fuel.

You can call fire a fission or fusion process if you want, but in no way does a fire burn without total destruction of the fuel you pour in. In no way does it reprocess the fuel once it has burned it.

The fire itself is a destructive force for the fuel. It is not a creative force for the fuel. And the fuel must be created first in order to burn.

What you are suggesting is that the sun is making it's fuel out of the ashes of it's own fire. You are forgetting that ashes are not flammable. The fire burned it all up.

Fire consumes the "fuel properties" of the particles it burns. These particles are broken down and have even less "fuel properties", until there are no fuel properties left for those particles, and they cannot fuse with other spent particles to make fuel again...sorry...it's over for them.

That's what fire does.

So what I'm getting at is simple: The sun itself is not the source of the fuel. The sun is where the fuel is burned. The fuel is made elsewhere, at a constant rate, and constantly poured in.

I'm saying that if you remove the planets from around our sun...will it continue to burn by making it's own fuel...if nothing is added...will it be able to burn forever?

midwestphysics
Posts: 444
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 12:37 am

### Re: Particle detection analysis

nuimshaan wrote:Just because I believe the sun needs fuel to burn. Not reprocess.

Constant reprocessing of fuel means you are constantly burning out the burnable portions of the fuel, pretty soon you just have ashes.

But how does the sun handle the reprocessing fee. I mean if I pay ridiculous shipping and handling fees just to have a shirt reprocessed imagine the bill the sun must get. I just don't see how it can finance such things, especially in this economy.

mrrsnhtl
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 4:27 pm

### Re: Particle detection analysis

Sun is not a fire Nuimshaan..

Rather it is made of mostly ionized matter. It's fuel is protons (or ionized Hydrogen atoms). There are enough protons in Sun's core to make it shine for another 5 billion years. It is a simple estimation.

nuimshaan
Posts: 200
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 11:23 pm

### Re: Particle detection analysis

Now you're getting me..The sun's core is made of mostly ionized particles...these are excited particles. These particles are excited from the movement of heavier particles around them. Those heavy particles are the planets and moons. The friction caused by all solid body movement in this system is exciting the sun's core, causing the attraction of "protons" to the center-most location of cyclic action of planets and moons. This is a macroscopic scientific explanation of the microscopic explanation of an atom. Without the moving parts, the core of the atom decays. So would the sun without it's moving parts. Aha!

Nuimshaan

nuimshaan
Posts: 200
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 11:23 pm

### Re: Particle detection analysis

Just tackled you guys. The best way to excite...or ionize particles is through electro-statics. That just so happens to be exactly what the movement of the planets and moons do...they create electro-statics.

Nuimshaan.

nuimshaan
Posts: 200
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 11:23 pm

### Re: Particle detection analysis

You could say the Earth is one of the largest Vandegraff generators in the world...because of the trees and mountains, and water surfaces on it. Spinning at 16,000 miles per day.

Ufo's are said to congregate around huge lightning clouds in our upper atmosphere. I guess they know how to collect this energy.

This energy is most likely produced from our spinning on our axis though....and much different from the energy produced from us flying in orbit around the sun. The energy produced from us flying around the sun is far greater than just lightning clouds caused by the "vandegraff" effect us spinning on our axis.
The concentric circles or ovals of orbital paths from all planetary movement is where the moving parts of the atom are, and the nucleus is in the center where the sun is.

theObeast
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2012 8:49 am

### Re: Particle detection analysis

Actually, I think the earth heats the sun through tidal interactions. The earth raises a tidal bulge in the sun. Since the sun is spinning with higher angular velocity than earth's orbital angular velocity, the bulge is swept forward relative to the earth, and is always being created anew. Viscous dissipation from this process heats the atoms in the sun, causing them to become ionized. The moon does the same thing with the earth. The reason the earth is colder now than it has been, despite the sun actually producing more energy is that the moon is further away from the earth, so we receive less tidal heating.

mrrsnhtl
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 4:27 pm

### Re: Particle detection analysis

Tidal effects on the Sun due to planets should be ignorable comparing to the natural radial oscillations of the Sun. As far as I know, making calculations with the three body assumption {Sun-Jupiter-and the test mass (say the Earth) } would give pretty accurate results for the test mass. Of course the other gas giants are considerably far away, that's why their contribution is ignorable.

@Nuimshaan,

I still did not get any explanation. How come stars without a planetary system shine then?

nuimshaan
Posts: 200
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 11:23 pm

### Re: Particle detection analysis

Stars shine because of solid body movement further away from them. These are lightbulb filament locations scattered throughout the world where solid body movement has sparked and arc-ed them into existence.

In the case of a small star like our sun...the solid body objects powering it are usually close by. Most of the stars you see are probably a lot larger than our sun. You would not detect solid body movement close around them...rather very far away, and moving very fast.

nuimshaan
Posts: 200
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 11:23 pm

### Re: Particle detection analysis

If you look at the entire world and just pay attention to it's temperature zones...you will see that only the areas of rapid solid body movement are causing enormous heat outcroppings. Whether it is the result of static discharge from solid body movement..or just plain old heat friction. In some cases gas clouds are ignited with these static discharges and form nebulas.

In some cases, where solid body movement becomes cyclic in close proximity, a hot spot is formed from both the static discharge and heat transfer from rapid movement to form a sun.

Whereas stars may flicker on and off because they are arc-ing electrical current coming from perhaps non-cyclic movement of solid bodies far apart from each other, but traveling at high speeds.

mrrsnhtl
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 4:27 pm

### Re: Particle detection analysis

Do you have an idea about the mean distances between stars?

Let us assume that it is at the order of 10 light years (Alpha Centauri is about 5 ly's away). For a star without a planetary system, what could be the nearest and heaviest object? Of course! Another star..And, nearest one is 10 light years away. But, suddenly we realize that they are orbiting within the same bulk called "galaxy". So, their relative speed with respect to each other would not let any one of them orbit around the other. Even if it did, I encourage you to think about the first 10 years of that star's newborn era.

Then, you say it should not be the other star, there must be some rocky objects that orbits the giant star without any planetary system.

Let us assume there are a few asteroid like bodies, with extremely eccentric orbits. And, you hereby claim that those few piece of rocks would shine the giant for some billions of years. Also, when they are around the further parts of the orbit they slow down, so we should see oscillations in the luminosity of the star (where is it, have you seen any?). What about the rocky dust particles around me then? Shouldn't I shine like a star, because, you know there are billions of dust particles orbiting around me right now, with some high velocities..?

nuimshaan
Posts: 200
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 11:23 pm

### Re: Particle detection analysis

You do shine brighter when particles in your environment are moving faster...that is what we know as temperature. Say for instance that room temperature 75 degrees...this just means that the average speed of particles moving around in your close proximity are moving fast enough to produce that amount of heat around you. When you are not shining bright, it's because the particles in your environment are moving slow....if you are freezing right now, it's because there is relatively slow movement of particles in your house, or outside.

Planetary bodies with trees, water, and mountains are more likely to produce a great deal of energy when they spin and move....compared to planetary bodies with no trees, and a relatively smooth surface.

The moon will keep showing the same side towards the Earth as long as the Earth's poles remain in position.

The effect is like two magnets close to each other. The center of the Earth is a solid ball magnet perhaps as big as the moon. These two magnets...the Earth and the Moon have reached a "balance point"

By balance point I mean this: The attractive force of these two magnets is equaled out by how fast the moon is moving around the Earth. The moon's orbital speed is "slinging it away from the Earth." The moon's attraction to our Earth magnet is what keeps it from being "slung too far away from the Earth."

It is likely that if the moon's orbital speed around the Earth were to slow down...it would end up sticking to the Earth's surface. Depending on the density of the Moon...it may roll around the Earth's surface for a while, seeking the poles, or a place inbetween. This may increase the spin speed of the Earth on it's axis, and then sling the moon back off of the Earth's surface.

It is likely this event has occurred in the past, and we see the "track lines" on the moon where it rolled over the Earth's surface in the past.

I have invented a small toy in times past to simulate this effect. If you take a disc of wood about an inch thick, then route a groove across the top of it, from one side of the disc to the other whereas the groove is straight on the top of the disc...you can then make two wooden slats with Nib magnets glued to them, whereas these wooden slats can move inside that groove you routed. Seperate the slats, place them in the groove, set the disc down on a flat surface, spin it, and let go of each slat. As the disc spins, the wooden slats will move toward each other in the groove because of magnetic attraction...as the slats near each other and near the center of the disc, the spin speed of the disc will increase just like an ice skater tucking his arms in whilst spinning.

As the disc spins faster because the slats are closer to each other under magnetic attraction, the centrifugal force now acting on those slats meets the magnetic force, and stops those two slats from touching each other...but if they do touch each other, the disc spins real fast, just like when the ice skater's arms and hands are fully tucked in towards the center of his body...this fast spinning of the disc may dislodge the two slats under centrifugal force and separate them again, causing the disc to spin slower, and we may see a pumping action for a while...quite a unique toy to play with. This invention is part of an entire series of inventions I have concerning kinetic energy. I have over 15 inventions so far. Including the bunker buster (hunting arrow design with collapsing blades at the tip to trigger an internal missle firing). Invisibility shields (projecting everything behind you in front of you). Air to air refuel for jets (ring shaped electro-magnets on tubes from both the jet, and the air tanker, turned on in close proximity of each other so the pilot does not have to aim as much, plus the magnetic force acts as a locking mechanism). This cut down air-refuel by half or better in time.

Roof turbine generator tunnels for electric cars. Whereas battery power gets an electric car moving down the highway, but air moving through a roof tunnel powers turbines to recharge the battery whilst it moves.

Pull start generators. Spinning a heavy weighted drum on Abec 9 precision bearings by pulling on a handle and cord like starting a lawnmower. This amount of energy is then used to power a small electric motor which then turns on and turns the drum in the same direction. Once the heavy drum is spun up fast by you ripping the cord...it's inertia and momentum makes it easy to keep it spinning, or add assistance to it for spinning faster.

Relectric bicycles. Welding Abec 9 precision bearing altenators to the front forks of a bicycle whereas the pulley rubs on the outer circumfrence of the front tire. At the same time, a troll motor powered by a 12v car battery on the bike is making the bike roll...and the altenator is recharging the battery whilst it occurrs.

The list goes on and on. I'm up to around 15 now.

I have been disclosing these technologies throughout the years. Several years ago I released the ratcheting crescent wrench. The ones on the market now are not my original design. The original design has no thumb barrel adjustment, the adjustment arm snaps shut to bolt size under spring tension for you.

Currently the tunnel turbine technology is being used in Dallas to create power for office buildings. There is a tunnel cars drive through here in Dallas where tubes with turbines in them are powered by the movement of air both from the winds, and from the wind produced by the movement of the cars traveling through the tunnel.

There are many other technologies in existance now because I have been disclosing them periodically via the internet and via these discussions.

Nuimshaan