Content deleted Content added
→Comment: : |
|||
Line 72:
:* Agreed, for something hypothetical, it sure is presented as "fact." WIMPs are little better than other pseudoscience. I might also add, how does one expect to detect WIMPs via neutrinos? Neutrino detectors would generally detect ALL neutrinos, yes? So, if detecting "neutrinos from inside the earth," how do we know the neutrinos weren't A) produced outside the Earth, say by the sun... B) Produced in the Earth by a process OTHER than interacting WIMPs, etc. Likewise, when detecting solar neutrinos, how can we differentiate between neutrinos produced through solar fusion and through interactions with WIMPs? Are scientists biases beginning to show through in their act of telling us what they imagine they see in the data, rather than looking at the data itself and realizing it tells them noting even remotely close to what they think it will? Heck, we have enough problems detecting neutrinos in the first place. Certainly not enough based on initial theories of solar fusion, so scientists invented that problem away by speculating neutrinos "change flavors." Bollocks! Why must we keep putting falsification of bad models further and further away from our ability to TEST hypotheses? Gotta' wonder. Might want to clean up the article quite a bit, including clarifying exactly how measuring neutrinos tells us ANYTHING about where they came from or what produced them, let alone tell us anything about interactions prior tot he neutrino arriving at the detector or anything prior to the neutrino's emission from its source. From the description in the article, WIMPs seem like horrifically bad science used to defend horrifically bad science ([[Dark Matter]]), used to defend horrifically bad science ([[Big Bang]]), coming mostly from a horrifically bad oversight (redshift =/= distance for every instance of redshift; IE, Halton Arp has demonstrated relations, though GOOD but mostly ignored science, between objects of significantly different redshift, meaning that the redshift is intrinsic NOT cosmological, in those instances!) and thus a wrong assumption, which is unfortunately the basis of just about every modern construct in cosmology (leading to bad estimates of distance, absolute luminosity, mass, then onward to dark matter, WIMPs, MACHOs, etc.). Anywho. [[User:Mgmirkin|Mgmirkin]] 00:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
:::Well, you can assume that nobody ever thought of any of these questions before, and go on about what a bunch of deluded clods astrophysicists are - or you could get reading. Whichever one you prefer. Here are some papers to get you started: [http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0609257 indirect detection], [http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0312045 solar neutrino experiments]. A hint- compare the energy scales for solar neutrinos and neutrinos from WIMP annihilations. There are two big things you can do to help improve these articles: add references to relevant papers you come across in your reading, and add the <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tag to articles in places where a citation is needed. If you would like help finding papers for some of these topics, just come by my [[User talk:Reuben|talk page]]. --[[User:Reuben|Reuben]] 01:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
== peopel and history ==
| |||