I sadly know too much about funding.
On 7 Sep, 12:05, adrf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's actually the idiota who dispense funding. After one gets the funding not
> everybody does as
> promised. haha. The smart ones hire a writer who specialises in factoids.
> Basically it's a
> large loop tunnel, with magnets packed all around to prevent the particles
> from flying away.
> They make hem run round in circles to get speed up, them smash them into
> another particle and
> photograph in a smoke piled area what happens. Most often they show in a
> Feynmann trick diagram
> what they change into and out of. One only gets to see the traces left. Many
> of them got bored
> with the pile of untold different particles. So they went back to the
> original three, proton,
> neutron and electron as families of them.
>
> adrian
>
>
>
> archytas wrote:
> > The LHC cranks over this coming week - apparently they are going
> > straight to high energy on a managerial decision on costs. I've long
> > been unsure the theories actually get tested, but am far to far away
> > from the esoteric knowledge to judge other than on concerns that we
> > get really good at rationalising our research programmes just as they
> > go decadent (as in economics).
>
> > On 7 Sep, 10:56, adrf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Yeah,
>
> >> An alternative science lisT I was on, we got visited by one of those from
> >> CERN, a dyed in the
> >> wool materialist. Right now they're building a bigger one. Though another
> >> friend is into
> >> designing a microscope to peer at quarks, etc. Cannot afford to build it,
> >> of course. And then
> >> particles are now acepted by some as standing wave knots in E.M. fields.
> >> Funny to imagine I'm
> >> made up of an E.M. process, although I know it's true. Given that then a
> >> particle will be where
> >> two or more wave fronts cross, in a sine wave schema then the opposite
> >> where they at at extreme
> >> apartness would constitute what so far nobody is looking at, feasibly what
> >> they call energy?
> >> Which leaves admitting who or what conducts the orchestra.
>
> >> Adrian.
>
> >> archytas wrote:
> >>> The main use of this stuff is likely to be measuring and manipulation
> >>> at these small levels. CERN hopes not to picture the Higgs' Boson but
> >>> catch something of its decay. Perhaps I should have written 'picture'
> >>> as "picture" or {picture}?
> >>> On 6 Sep, 12:48, adrf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>> Flapsinatingly intruiging. What the poor sod info consumer does not know
> >>>> is what he gets is
> >>>> instrumental manipulation to give him a sense image of it all. I recall
> >>>> seeing the first piccie
> >>>> of an atom somewhere over 2 decades agon. The wrinkly surface is most
> >>>> likely a field'wave
> >>>> interference as interpreted Quantum fashion. So what it actually looks
> >>>> like had we nano sized
> >>>> eyes only god knows. My chip, 1.8 Ghz has I'm told 43 million chips in
> >>>> it. Nice though.
> >>>> adrian
> >>>> archytas wrote:
> >>>>>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080904115132.htmhasa
> >>>>> comparison of gold atoms pictured by an electron microscope and the
> >>>>> new helium-ion microscope. Might be of interest in getting a glimpse
> >>>>> of just how small we can 'photograph' and what an atom looks like.-
> >>>>> Hide quoted text -
> >>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Epistemology" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
