[neutralino]

Originally Posted by rybot I believe if you do a web search you will find this to be true

... or take a look at this thread!

[RascalPuff]

Can the 'three body problem' be factored in, here?

Regards,
- RP

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by Tina All I know is that for Protheory to be correct there needs to be a dynamic explained in terms of (+) (-) and (0) with (O) meaning neutral as in neither (+) or (-) but "something else". (O) does not mean NOTHING.

The essential question from the above is according to me: can the truth be known as an absolute truth. This was discussed before, and my reply is: there is no such thing as an absolute truth (and I consider that an absolute truth, though of an abstract kind which does not require substantiation). I believe that truths can only exist within their own contexts.

So, to say that "(0) does not mean NOTHING" requires explaining the context, otherwise the words are not fully correct/the contents not fully delivered. I can say that (0) means NOTHING but it requires me to explain the context.

As Aristotle mentioned, there is the absence of a third way. Anytime we use such a specific context, looking for the third part means not finding it. Yet we also know that these dualities are limited in scope. The third part therefore is that what has NOTHING in common with the duality. With Tina, I can then say this aspect is neutral. Yet is this set up sufficient enough to guide us towards the toe?

[rybot]

Originally Posted by neutralino ... or take a look at this thread!

Neutralino, thank you for the confirming link.

However, I did fine this minor error in the info there:

..."When a neutrino collides into a particle in the ice, it is converted into a lepton (which is a certain class of particle) and radiation.""...


A neutrino is a "lepton" ergo it can be converted into that which it already is.

Rybo

[neutralino]

Originally Posted by rybot Neutralino, thank you for the confirming link. However, I did fine this minor error in the info there: ..."When a neutrino collides into a particle in the ice, it is converted into a lepton (which is a certain class of particle) and radiation.""... A neutrino is a "lepton" ergo it can be converted into that which it already is. Rybo

Good spot! I'll change that.

[dipayankar]

So does this mean the earth's atmosphere destroys neutrinos?? Can they be destroyed??

Originally Posted by rybot Hey Dpayanker, long time no hear from. I think you are mistaken. You are probaly confusing "neutrinos" with quarks i.e. quarks have not been observed, too best of my knowledge. Neutrinos, have been osberved, tho not as many as wer predicted to be arriving from our sun/Sol. There are various large instruments( tanks of water Plus? ) etc....deep underground( or whereever ) used to observe them. I believe if you do a web search you will find this to be true RYbo

[rybot]

Originally Posted by dipayankar So does this mean the earth's atmosphere destroys neutrinos?? Can they be destroyed??

Hey Dypay, I dunno.

Three types/kinds/flavors of neutrinos and three of there anti-paticles makes 6

Three types/kinds/flavors of electron and three of their anti particles makes 6

I error when I posted "24" i.e. there are only 12 sum-total kinds of leptons in universe.

Sumtotatal there are 36 kkinds of quarks.

12 / 3 = 4

36 / 3 = 12

That covers all fermionic elementary particles Tina( and ohters ), if your still out there.

I can do the bosonic three's if there is interest.

Then there there is the bilateral associated threes, but I think Ive already posted those.

RYbo

[dipayankar]

I would certainly like to have a detailed look into the bosons

Originally Posted by rybot Hey Dypay, I dunno. Three types/kinds/flavors of neutrinos and three of there anti-paticles makes 6 Three types/kinds/flavors of electron and three of their anti particles makes 6 I error when I posted "24" i.e. there are only 12 sum-total kinds of leptons in universe. Sumtotatal there are 36 kkinds of quarks. 12 / 3 = 4 36 / 3 = 12 That covers all fermionic elementary particles Tina( and ohters ), if your still out there. I can do the bosonic three's if there is interest. Then there there is the bilateral associated threes, but I think Ive already posted those. RYbo

[rybot]

Originally Posted by dipayankar I would certainly like to have a detailed look into the bosons

Ok then,

Weak force = W+, W- and Zo I presume there are anti-weak forces but like the photon they may be their own anti-particle.

Gluons = 9 flavors but only 8 are active in our Standard Model of physics, Sme with gluons I presume there are anti-gluons but I haven't done the research.

That leave photons but I don't know of any threeness there and;

it leaves mesons which are two quarks that act as mediating force between baryons( proton-proton or proton-neutron etc...

RYbo

[dipayankar]

It is starting to hit me... coupled with the fact that there are three dimensions.. is the three theory true???

Originally Posted by rybot Ok then, Weak force = W+, W- and Zo I presume there are anti-weak forces but like the photon they may be their own anti-particle. Gluons = 9 flavors but only 8 are active in our Standard Model of physics, Sme with gluons I presume there are anti-gluons but I haven't done the research. That leave photons but I don't know of any threeness there and; it leaves mesons which are two quarks that act as mediating force between baryons( proton-proton or proton-neutron etc... RYbo