View Single Post
  #992 (permalink)  
Old 09-September-2008, 08:00 PM
jj_0001's Avatar
jj_0001 jj_0001 is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Under the Cedars
Posts: 270
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pippin View Post
But they do:
"As seen in Fig. 1, the highest-energy cosmic rays observed attain energies of
around 10^20 eV, and the total flux of cosmic rays with energies of 10^17 eV or
more that hit each square centimeter of the Earth’s surface is measured to be
about 5x10^–14 per second [5]."

And 5x10^-14 per second relates to 1x10^ 8 per second in what way? I had totally missed this logic in my previous argument, thanks for pointing me in the right direction. Obviously I will now need to determine the area of the beams used in square centimeters to accurately relate the 2, but as I have a 2X10^21 magnitude comfort zone to work with I feel comfortable in my assertion that nature and the experiment are not the same.
cheers cjameshuff, next prove yourself and CERN's safety statement wrong to prove me wrong, I look forward to that post.
Pippin, for starters, you might try relating flux PER SQUARE CENTIMETER to the surface area of the earth.

That is, unless you're saying the total surface area of the earth is 1 square centimeter...

The beams used in CERN are irrelevant. Cosmic rays are hitting the earth while I type this, and experiments of the same sort are happening all the time.
Reply With Quote