The BIBLE and SCIENCE

[whowhere]

I have a degree in Engineering Physics from the University of British Columbia, and a Master's degree in Aeronautics and Astronautics with specialization in Plasma Science from the University of Washington. I am not slamming NASA, I have the highest respect for NASA and have worked on a number of projects funded by NASA. I was explaining the context of the statement you read - it was a simplified explanation, meant to convey a basic idea to people like yourself.

Here's a more accurate NASA link for you:

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/universe/features/wmap_five.html

Again, notice the key word:

The universe is awash in a sea of cosmic neutrinos. These almost weightless sub-atomic particles zip around at NEARLY the speed of light. Millions of cosmic neutrinos pass through you every second.

Nearly the speed of light is really close enough, wouldn't most agree? They do exist as sub atomic particles, so?

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Neutrions-Could-Be-Used-for-Communications-123423.shtml

Neutrinos Could Be Used for Communications

They improve transmission rates by three orders of magnitude

Neutrinos are currently being investigated as a possible alternative to ELF waves, because they can transmit up to 100 bits of data per second, three orders of magnitude more than radio waves can

Virginia Tech physicist Patrick Huber believes that neutrino communication systems will soon become available, as the next generation of muon accelerators develops. He argues that, when a neutrino beam hits regular matter, it produces muons, which are easily detectable.

http://www.phys.vt.edu/

http://www.phys.vt.edu/events/20100126-huber.pdf

I wonder who is more credible you or Huber.

I edited this to include this for Toadbrother, wake up! I am suppose to beleive a high school drop out over a physics professor, come on!

Edited February 19, 2010 by whowhere

[ToadBrother]

Nearly the speed of light is really close enough, wouldn't most agree? They do exist as sub atomic particles, so?

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Neutrions-Could-Be-Used-for-Communications-123423.shtml

http://www.phys.vt.edu/

http://www.phys.vt.edu/events/20100126-huber.pdf

I wonder who is more credible you or Huber.

I edited this to include this for Toadbrother, wake up! I am suppose to beleive a high school drop out over a physics professor, come on!

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17916-neutrinos-could-encode-messages-to-submarines.html

Their talking about 10 bits per second here. That's slightly over the speeds you'd get with a 19th century telegraph. What a communications revolution!

I think the photon and the electron are safe for the forseeable future as the particles of choice for large scale high speed communications.

It gets better than that: One disadvantage is that subs would have to go to a prearranged area to receive the signal. So not only are the speeds of this so slow that they'd make encoded transmissions from the 1940s seem like high-speed broadband, but now you lose one of the key principles of unidirectional transmission, that the receiver and sender don't have to necessarily know save in the most general terms where each other are.

You see, this is what happens when you make moronic claims, and then run around Google trying to prove the stupidities that you uttered aren't fantasy. Neutrinos simply are not as good as photons for communication purposes. They're talking about a beam of 10^14 neutrinos and producing a 10-bit per second (that's literally one character in just under a second) message stream. I even stated some distance up this thread that it would be conceivable to use neutrinos for communication, but that it would be ridiculously difficult to produce a message with decent integrity. I'm not even going to bother doing the math on how a steady 10^14 neutrino per second beam gives us at best 10 bits per second.

Edited February 19, 2010 by ToadBrother

[whowhere]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17916-neutrinos-could-encode-messages-to-submarines.html

Their talking about 10 bits per second here. That's slightly over the speeds you'd get with a 19th century telegraph. What a communications revolution!

I think the photon and the electron are safe for the forseeable future as the particles of choice for large scale high speed communications.

It gets better than that: One disadvantage is that subs would have to go to a prearranged area to receive the signal. So not only are the speeds of this so slow that they'd make encoded transmissions from the 1940s seem like high-speed broadband, but now you lose one of the key principles of unidirectional transmission, that the receiver and sender don't have to necessarily know save in the most general terms where each other is.

You see, this is what happens when you make moronic claims, and then run around Google trying to prove the stupidities that you uttered aren't fantasy.

Calling huber stupid? A physics professor wow! Your positions was neutrinos could not be used to transmit information. WRONG! As we type scientists are working on achieving what you think is moronic. What is wrong with Unidirectional Transmission? If I open my mouth and speak, do I know who within hearing range has understood what I have said? NO! Neutrinos sounds like they are similar in that regard, information can be pumped out and is left for the receiver to interpret them. Perhaps one day neutrinos could be used to send commands to satellites and the satellites could then generate the request via the frequency spectrum.

[ToadBrother]

Calling huber stupid?

I didn't call him stupid. That epithet is reserved for someone a bit closer to home, methinks.

A physics professor wow!

You wouldn't be about to commit a fallacious appeal to authority would you?

Your positions was neutrinos could not be used to transmit information. WRONG!

Actually, that wasn't my position. My position is that you couldn't use them as an efficient means of transmitting information, which appears to be quite true.

As we type scientists are working on achieving what you think is moronic.

Yes, a whopping 10 bits per second providing the location is known before hand, making it both orders of a magnitude slower than advanced radio transmissions and with far less utility.

What is wrong with Unidirectional Transmission?

Nothing, other than that one of the listed applications, namely subs (because it requires a large body of water for the onboard detector to see the interactions with high-energy muons).

If I open my mouth and speak, do I know who within hearing range has understood what I have said?

That analogy is so bad, it's not even wrong. In fact, vocal communications are not unidirectional, which is why if you want to keep something secret you basically have to put your mouth within inches of someone else's ear so that you can't be overheard.

NO! Neutrinos sounds like they are similar in that regard, information can be pumped out and is left for the receiver to interpret them.

Neutrinos don't function like that at all. From what I gather, the application would largely require a dense fluid or gas (in this case the ocean) to detect the neutrino interactions with matter (which, remember, is very rare). The extremely low speed is because the fidelity of such a transmission would be insanely bad, likely requiring constant retransmission over and over again so that the receiver would have any hope of reassembling the message. I suspect the power requirements of doing that would be fairly substantial, so if I was Russian spy, I wouldn't even need to find the friggin' sub (even though my mole inside evil capitalist navy had a copy of all the neutrino beam reception points), I'd probably be able to hang out outside the facility and using some pretty simple detectors to pick up the normal EM pulses that come from encoding a message into a neutrino beam thousands of times in a row.

Perhaps one day neutrinos could be used to send commands to satellites and the satellites could then generate the request via the frequency spectrum.

Or you could just use a laser or other tight-beam communication, and transmit in thousands of bps (bits per second). And guess what, that technology exists today!!!!!!

Some day you should actually read what you use as sources for your posts. I'm sure Huber is a really bright guy, but come on, 10 bits per second? It would take nearly five minutes to broadcast this post. The chief advantage of this would be, so far as I can tell, that you could conceivably send a message clear through the planet without having to bounce. The downside is that the sender is going to have to know where the receiver is otherwise the neutrino beam is just going to happily travel on with no detection whatsoever. In fact, considering how tight the beam is going to have to be, I can't even see that as a practical application, since obviously the sub's detector is going to have be very close to detect the photons produced when the neutrino interacts with an atom in the water.

In five minutes, using current communication technologies, I could send this post around the world several dozen times (including bouncing off of landlines, microwave transmitters, satellites and so forth), and yet it would take that long just to broadcast it once using a neutrino beam.

Huber sounds like a guy fishing for a research grant.

[whowhere]

I didn't call him stupid. That epithet is reserved for someone a bit closer to home, methinks.

You wouldn't be about to commit a fallacious appeal to authority would you?

Actually, that wasn't my position. My position is that you couldn't use them as an efficient means of transmitting information, which appears to be quite true.

Yes, a whopping 10 bits per second providing the location is known before hand, making it both orders of a magnitude slower than advanced radio transmissions and with far less utility.

Nothing, other than that one of the listed applications, namely subs (because it requires a large body of water for the onboard detector to see the interactions with high-energy muons).

That analogy is so bad, it's not even wrong. In fact, vocal communications are not unidirectional, which is why if you want to keep something secret you basically have to put your mouth within inches of someone else's ear so that you can't be overheard.

Neutrinos don't function like that at all. From what I gather, the application would largely require a dense fluid or gas (in this case the ocean) to detect the neutrino interactions with matter (which, remember, is very rare). The extremely low speed is because the fidelity of such a transmission would be insanely bad, likely requiring constant retransmission over and over again so that the receiver would have any hope of reassembling the message. I suspect the power requirements of doing that would be fairly substantial, so if I was Russian spy, I wouldn't even need to find the friggin' sub (even though my mole inside evil capitalist navy had a copy of all the neutrino beam reception points), I'd probably be able to hang out outside the facility and using some pretty simple detectors to pick up the normal EM pulses that come from encoding a message into a neutrino beam thousands of times in a row.

Or you could just use a laser or other tight-beam communication, and transmit in thousands of bps (bits per second). And guess what, that technology exists today!!!!!!

Some day you should actually read what you use as sources for your posts. I'm sure Huber is a really bright guy, but come on, 10 bits per second? It would take nearly five minutes to broadcast this post. The chief advantage of this would be, so far as I can tell, that you could conceivably send a message clear through the planet without having to bounce. The downside is that the sender is going to have to know where the receiver is otherwise the neutrino beam is just going to happily travel on with no detection whatsoever. In fact, considering how tight the beam is going to have to be, I can't even see that as a practical application, since obviously the sub's detector is going to have be very close to detect the photons produced when the neutrino interacts with an atom in the water.

In five minutes, using current communication technologies, I could send this post around the world several dozen times (including bouncing off of landlines, microwave transmitters, satellites and so forth), and yet it would take that long just to broadcast it once using a neutrino beam.

Huber sounds like a guy fishing for a research grant.

Are you new??

How old are you fifteen trying to sound intelligent? It appears you think the internet and fast computing appeared along the lines of flipping a light switch. Because you are clued out, the first home computer in the early eighties didn't accomplish much and was painfully slow. Of course in your feeble world computers were always fast. I suggest you learn the evolution of the telephone and the computer before you further embarass yourself.

[ToadBrother]

Are you new??

How old are you fifteen trying to sound intelligent? It appears you think the internet and fast computing appeared along the lines of flipping a light switch. Because you are clued out, the first home computer in the early eighties didn't accomplish much and was painfully slow. Of course in your feeble world computers were always fast. I suggest you learn the evolution of the telephone and the computer before you further embarass yourself.

What? No more mad rushes around Google to find articles to prove your point that end up proving the other guy's? You're batting zero, which probably explains this bit of petulant verbal vomit.

Sad. So sad. You seem capable of at least functional literacy, but seem so unwilling to use it. Don't blame me because your cites ending up destroying your own credibility. Some time actually investigate what you intend to show me to prove how stupid I am, because when it backfires (as it just did in spades), I'm not the one that comes out looking stupid.

Oh, and that sound. That's not me laughing with you. It's me laughing at you.

Edited February 19, 2010 by ToadBrother

[whowhere]

What? No more mad rushes around Google to find articles to prove your point that end up proving the other guy's? You're batting zero, which probably explains this bit of petulant verbal vomit.

Sad. So sad. You seem capable of at least functional literacy, but seem so unwilling to use it. Don't blame me because your cites ending up destroying your own credibility. Some time actually investigate what you intend to show me to prove how stupid I am, because when it backfires (as it just did in spades), I'm not the one that comes out looking stupid.

Oh, and that sound. That's not me laughing with you. It's me laughing at you.

Nice try in this weak attempt to deflect your crushing ignorance and defeat. You figure if you kick up enough of your word salad you are going to convince everyone that you know more than NASA and a Professor of Physics. When you do bend and conced you mock it as inadequate and impractical. The laugh is on you really.

[ToadBrother]

Nice try in this weak attempt to deflect your crushing ignorance and defeat. You figure if you kick up enough of your word salad you are going to convince everyone that you know more than NASA and a Professor of Physics. When you do bend and conced you mock it as inadequate and impractical. The laugh is on you really.

Weak attempt? I even gave you a link to an article where the idea is discussed and the limitations of its application laid out.

Look, just how stupid do you want to look? Because you're looking dumber by the second; partially illiterate, certainly knowing nothing about subatomic physics, and trying some patently foolish appeal to authority. Huber's ideas might have some small application for vessels submerged in vast dense liquids like the ocean, though I'm dubious that even portable detectors could be that could, but even a best case scenario gives us a unidirectional message system (the sub cannot respond, because it doesn't have a frickin' magnetron or other accelerator on board, and those, particularly to produce the number of neutrinos required, would be pretty large) that delivers us about 10 bits per second, which means the message I'm typing would take over two minutes to be broadcast.

I mean, do you think if you keep being petulant that I'll bow down and say "Yeah, your really smart!" Maybe there are people out there who would find your style sufficient to frighten them, but I happen to know you're pretty much ignorant of physics, or of science in general, and rely on running around like a headless chicken on Google trying to find anything that remotely proves your point.

You lost. Give it up. Nothing wrong with being wrong. There's something wrong with refusing to concede defeat, and trying to win by petulance and fallacious arguments.

Edited February 19, 2010 by ToadBrother

[whowhere]

Weak attempt? I even gave you a link to an article where the idea is discussed and the limitations of its application laid out.

Look, just how stupid do you want to look? Because you're looking dumber by the second; partially illiterate, certainly knowing nothing about subatomic physics, and trying some patently foolish appeal to authority. Huber's ideas might have some small application for vessels submerged in vast dense liquids like the ocean, though I'm dubious that even portable detectors could be that could, but even a best case scenario gives us a unidirectional message system (the sub cannot respond, because it doesn't have a frickin' magnetron or other accelerator on board, and those, particularly to produce the number of neutrinos required, would be pretty large) that delivers us about 10 bits per second, which means the message I'm typing would take over two minutes to be broadcast.

I mean, do you think if you keep being petulant that I'll bow down and say "Yeah, your really smart!" Maybe there are people out there who would find your style sufficient to frighten them, but I happen to know you're pretty much ignorant of physics, or of science in general, and rely on running around like a headless chicken on Google trying to find anything that remotely proves your point.

You lost. Give it up. Nothing wrong with being wrong. There's something wrong with refusing to concede defeat, and trying to win by petulance and fallacious arguments.

How big was the first computer? Why was morse code used back in the day, according to you voice telephone appeared with a snap of a finger. The only one who is trying to appear intelligent is you with your word fluff. You try to dazzle with all your words which contain very little substance to posture yourself as an authority on a topic. As it goes in Forum land you point out something and you then present sources to back you up. You can't debunk NASA and a Virginia Tech Physics professor so you move your attacks to me with your word Salad to befuddle everyone with your inneptness.

[Oleg Bach]

IS THERE A GOD? ONLY GOD KNOWS.

[whowhere]

IS THERE A GOD? ONLY GOD KNOWS.

when the cat's away the mouse will play.

[Oleg Bach]

when the cat's away the mouse will play.

I Think that the god cat has fallen into a black hole and the human rat race is running rampant.

[whowhere]

I Think that the god cat has fallen into a black hole and the human rat race is running rampant.

true dat

[GostHacked]

How big was the first computer? Why was morse code used back in the day, according to you voice telephone appeared with a snap of a finger. The only one who is trying to appear intelligent is you with your word fluff. You try to dazzle with all your words which contain very little substance to posture yourself as an authority on a topic. As it goes in Forum land you point out something and you then present sources to back you up. You can't debunk NASA and a Virginia Tech Physics professor so you move your attacks to me with your word Salad to befuddle everyone with your inneptness.

The thing is we can easily control photons and electrons. Refraction with photons, and well, electricity with electrons, polarity and such. There is barely a way to detect neutrinos, let alone control them in any meaningful way. I'll say I was wrong in that they could not be used. They can, but effectively? Well, if and when I see it, i'll beleive it.

[Oleg Bach]

WORD SALAD - FLUFF? My youngest son has a girl friend like that that wears words like the fashion of the day and changes them weekly..never being serious about what they mean. Never being aware that there is a purpose to words..That they are to communicate something in order to making something positive manifest in the world _ If words do not have an effect as for positive change then they are fluffy.

[whowhere]

The thing is we can easily control photons and electrons. Refraction with photons, and well, electricity with electrons, polarity and such. There is barely a way to detect neutrinos, let alone control them in any meaningful way. I'll say I was wrong in that they could not be used. They can, but effectively? Well, if and when I see it, i'll beleive it.

Perhaps Frequency communication will go the way of AM Radio one day. Neutrinos whatever they look like appears to be of interest to modern science.

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6891310/description.html

describe how neutrinos pick up information regarding material, including living organisms, as they travel throughout the universe. This can explain where the information came from that produces living organisms in hot lava coming from a volcano. It also explains the emergence of life forms around hot vents coming from deep in the Pacific Ocean surrounded by sea water that is totally devoid of life

Neutrinos don't explain the origin of life on Earth but it appears neutrinos could have been the medium which life was possibly deposited on Earth.

[Oleg Bach]

Perhaps Frequency communication will go the way of AM Radio one day. Neutrinos whatever they look like appears to be of interest to modern science.

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6891310/description.html

Neutrinos don't explain the origin of life on Earth but it appears neutrinos could have been the medium which life was possibly deposited on Earth.

Earth may be a depository. It states in old writings that "we" refering to numerous gods made us in their OWN image..and he cloning of a second female creature was done by taking material from the first created.

[Bonam]

Perhaps Frequency communication will go the way of AM Radio one day. Neutrinos whatever they look like appears to be of interest to modern science.

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6891310/description.html

Neutrinos don't explain the origin of life on Earth but it appears neutrinos could have been the medium which life was possibly deposited on Earth.

Haha, yes, that's it. Life is deposited on Earth by neutrino beams. Brilliant, got it.

Perhaps you'd like to publish this amazing theory in Physical Review Letters?

[Oleg Bach]

Anything is possible..It makes sense that light might contain other characteristics that are capable of transportation of things we do not fully understand - let there be light.

[ToadBrother]

How big was the first computer? Why was morse code used back in the day, according to you voice telephone appeared with a snap of a finger. The only one who is trying to appear intelligent is you with your word fluff. You try to dazzle with all your words which contain very little substance to posture yourself as an authority on a topic. As it goes in Forum land you point out something and you then present sources to back you up. You can't debunk NASA and a Virginia Tech Physics professor so you move your attacks to me with your word Salad to befuddle everyone with your inneptness.

Endlessly repeating yourself won't do any good. Neutrinos make crappy particles for communication, because they're too damned hard to detect. The system you pointed me to might work in some very limited situations, but is utterly impractical in most. I mean, they're talking about detecting muon interactions in the ocean here, essentially using the water itself as a detector.

Look, you don't know what you're talking about. I doubt you even bothered to look up neutrinos until the last couple of weeks. You've latched on to a NASA sight and a physicist who proposes what even some of those commenting on the sites linked with suggest ain't exactly a spectacular communication system. For the most part, I think he's probably fishing for a research grant.

And I'll tell you this, the first electronic computers could communicate a helluva lot faster than 10 bits a second.

I'm just amazed at how you just keep thinking you can fool me with bluster and petulance. YOu must really think I'm a stooge. But neutrinos are what they are. Why anyone would build a communication system using something that requires a nuclear reactor or a particle accelerator to produce is quite beyond me. And I'd wager we'll be harnessing something like gravity waves long before neutrinos become practical.

[Oleg Bach]

KEEP GOING GUYS...Looks like you might be the first to prove there is no god or science. Or maybe you might have the great break though of all time and discover that God is a scientist.

[whowhere]

Haha, yes, that's it. Life is deposited on Earth by neutrino beams. Brilliant, got it.

Perhaps you'd like to publish this amazing theory in Physical Review Letters?

Kind of late, its part of a US Patent. I would be subject to a lawsuit by a lawyer. Of course with all your education you knew that right? Well, no one said education makes you smart. You are an example of that.

[whowhere]

Endlessly repeating yourself won't do any good. Neutrinos make crappy particles for communication, because they're too damned hard to detect. The system you pointed me to might work in some very limited situations, but is utterly impractical in most. I mean, they're talking about detecting muon interactions in the ocean here, essentially using the water itself as a detector.

Look, you don't know what you're talking about. I doubt you even bothered to look up neutrinos until the last couple of weeks. You've latched on to a NASA sight and a physicist who proposes what even some of those commenting on the sites linked with suggest ain't exactly a spectacular communication system. For the most part, I think he's probably fishing for a research grant.

And I'll tell you this, the first electronic computers could communicate a helluva lot faster than 10 bits a second.

I'm just amazed at how you just keep thinking you can fool me with bluster and petulance. YOu must really think I'm a stooge. But neutrinos are what they are. Why anyone would build a communication system using something that requires a nuclear reactor or a particle accelerator to produce is quite beyond me. And I'd wager we'll be harnessing something like gravity waves long before neutrinos become practical.

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6891310/description.html

US Patent 6891310 - Neutrino light to photon light converting matrix

Neutrinos are technically equivalent to FM broadcast signals except that neutrinos come in discontinuous wave packets. When a neutrino bounces off of an atom, the near force lines phase modulate the wave. Since neutrinos are so small, they bounce off all of the atoms of molecules thereby picking up information as to the complexity of molecules. The pattern of information is in the form of phase modulated spread spectrum coding with a bandwidth an estimated ten to the tenth times that of the radio spectrum.

[/Quote]

Here's an assertion that neutrino transmission will have a spectrum 10^10 times the radio spectrum. That's hardly ten bits. The only one who is repeating himself is you. Look in the mirror? You could be turning blue. It's ok, breath.....

[Oleg Bach]

Facinating that you are so facinated with the structure of reality...It must be a lot of fun - especially if you can make the other person blue.

[whowhere]

Facinating that you are so facinated with the structure of reality...It must be a lot of fun - especially if you can make the other person blue.

crap, I just realized I forget to buy a lottomax - 43 million I think.