I know more than you realize, and perhaps enough to realize what you confidently don't know as well. I don't know if its the internet always seeming like people are looking to pick fights but that attempt to undermine what I know with outdated information in an aggressive wrapper only undermines your entire failed attempt at what smells like a disinformation attempt completely.
It's OK. I don't need to convince you, and you can't possibly convince me to ignore what I know.
Your last line there is repeating what I taught you already. You absorbed that much, it's Ok to learn a little more. But you don't have to if you don't want to. Just remember, the only thing you can't do is make others forget.
Some new words I can teach you are "coherent neutrino scattering." If I was wrong in my initial assessment of your aggressive intention, those words should help you learn something new and bring you back with an apology.
If I was correct however, you might just find yourself even more aggressively tasked with denying the modern neutrino detection technologies that directly prove you are out of your element discussing this topic... something that makes your aggressive lies make one wonder "cui bono?"
Aggressively lying like this isn't just some random thing. You've been caught. Cui Bono? Ego? or Evil?
I've read up on neutrino detectors as they have been built, including the one in Antarctica. They are all huge. They are all huge because the neutrino has such a low probability of interaction with normal matter. (The Super-Kamiokande Detector uses 50,000 tons of pure water.) If you want to show me otherwise, you are at liberty to refer me to such information. You don't seem to want to do so. Funny, that.
Did you teach me about alpha radiation? I'm afraid not.
Or, if you are referring to the last line of the first paragraph, that is the operating principle of the detectors. They arrange an array of sensors in a large enclosure of a medium that will interact with neutrinos, and the sensors watch for scintillations that occur in the medium. They triangulate on the scintillation and mark the time. Computer processing extracts whether the scintillations are correlated into tracks. I sure as hell did not learn this from you. https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/physics/staff/academic/boyd/stuff/neutrinolectures/lec_neutrinodetectors_writeup.pdf
Well that answers cui bono AND the ego/evil question with the most obvious answer. And then of course there's that post history, I should have started there, I never would have needed to ask.
Keep on lying exactly like you're doing, it hides nothing while coasting on bare minimum. Transparent account tells like that are the best way you can burn them from the inside. Keep on doing it.
You are an empty shirt. I provide information and you provide nothing but snark. I have not lied and you cannot specify where or in what way. You cannot bear to say out loud "the obvious answer," because it is far from obvious, if it is even an answer. With all your blithe talk about setting up a distributed array of sensors, you have no clue how to cope with the solar neutrino flux of ~ 71 billion per second per square centimeter. That's why all these detectors are buried deep.
I have no idea what your comments about my post history or "account tells" mean. But your handle is well-chosen.
I know more than you realize, and perhaps enough to realize what you confidently don't know as well. I don't know if its the internet always seeming like people are looking to pick fights but that attempt to undermine what I know with outdated information in an aggressive wrapper only undermines your entire failed attempt at what smells like a disinformation attempt completely.
It's OK. I don't need to convince you, and you can't possibly convince me to ignore what I know.
Your last line there is repeating what I taught you already. You absorbed that much, it's Ok to learn a little more. But you don't have to if you don't want to. Just remember, the only thing you can't do is make others forget.
Some new words I can teach you are "coherent neutrino scattering." If I was wrong in my initial assessment of your aggressive intention, those words should help you learn something new and bring you back with an apology.
If I was correct however, you might just find yourself even more aggressively tasked with denying the modern neutrino detection technologies that directly prove you are out of your element discussing this topic... something that makes your aggressive lies make one wonder "cui bono?"
Aggressively lying like this isn't just some random thing. You've been caught. Cui Bono? Ego? or Evil?
I've read up on neutrino detectors as they have been built, including the one in Antarctica. They are all huge. They are all huge because the neutrino has such a low probability of interaction with normal matter. (The Super-Kamiokande Detector uses 50,000 tons of pure water.) If you want to show me otherwise, you are at liberty to refer me to such information. You don't seem to want to do so. Funny, that.
Did you teach me about alpha radiation? I'm afraid not.
Or, if you are referring to the last line of the first paragraph, that is the operating principle of the detectors. They arrange an array of sensors in a large enclosure of a medium that will interact with neutrinos, and the sensors watch for scintillations that occur in the medium. They triangulate on the scintillation and mark the time. Computer processing extracts whether the scintillations are correlated into tracks. I sure as hell did not learn this from you. https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/physics/staff/academic/boyd/stuff/neutrinolectures/lec_neutrinodetectors_writeup.pdf
Well that answers cui bono AND the ego/evil question with the most obvious answer. And then of course there's that post history, I should have started there, I never would have needed to ask.
Keep on lying exactly like you're doing, it hides nothing while coasting on bare minimum. Transparent account tells like that are the best way you can burn them from the inside. Keep on doing it.
You are an empty shirt. I provide information and you provide nothing but snark. I have not lied and you cannot specify where or in what way. You cannot bear to say out loud "the obvious answer," because it is far from obvious, if it is even an answer. With all your blithe talk about setting up a distributed array of sensors, you have no clue how to cope with the solar neutrino flux of ~ 71 billion per second per square centimeter. That's why all these detectors are buried deep.
I have no idea what your comments about my post history or "account tells" mean. But your handle is well-chosen.
Perfect!