 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Astronomy / November 2007Speed of Neutrinos (What if)
What if there are three speeds for neutrinos? What do I base this far out of the box thinking on" The fact that we now know neutrinos have different energies,or masses. We now read about "electron neutrinos" Hmmm When I'm asked why did mother nature bother building universes having these hardly interacting neutrinos that possibly give humans cancer I do have the answer for that question. Nature uses neutrinos to balance,and balancing forces is why nature can have long lasting universes. I relate that to the clock Big Ben needing the weight of a penny(added) to give it the proper flow of time. The neutrino relates to a penny. Bert > What if there are three speeds for neutrinos? What do I base this > far out of the box thinking on" The fact that we now know neutrinos [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > weight of a penny(added) to give it the proper flow of time. The > neutrino relates to a penny. Bert The most astounding thing is that neutrinos change their mass as they transform from one type of neutrino to another on the way from the Sun. At least they do according to the new theory. Seems theorists were willing to sacrifice the conservation of mass in order to explain the missing neutrinos argument that the "young Earth" advocates kept bringing up. Double-A >> What if there are three speeds for neutrinos? What do I base this >> far out of the box thinking on" The fact that we now know neutrinos [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >Double-A No, you are wrong, neutrinos are actually the elusive miniature black holes. It all fits.  SignatureSupreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco Official "Usenet psychopath and born-again LLPOF minion", as designated by Brad Guth COOSN-266-06-39716 > >> What if there are three speeds for neutrinos? What do I base this > >> far out of the box thinking on" The fact that we now know neutrinos [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > No, you are wrong, neutrinos are actually the elusive miniature black > holes. It all fits. Art deco's Black Hole = Good Brains come near Art Deco's rotten Brain and disappear into Art Deco`!: http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c345/mattrider/zombie_brain.jpg http://tn3-1.deviantart.com/fs8/300W/i/2005/273/3/0/HEY_got_brain__by_Brain_Dama ged.jpg http://www.remixlife.com/images/halloweenparty6.jpg > > >> What if there are three speeds for neutrinos? What do I base this > > >> far out of the box thinking on" The fact that we now know neutrinos [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c345/mattrider/zombie_brain.jpg http://tn3-1.deviantart.com/fs8/300W/i/2005/273/3/0/HEY_got_brain__by_Brain_Dama ged.jpg > http://www.remixlife.com/images/halloweenparty6.jpg Don't forget this one: http://www.jibjab.com/starring_you/receipt/1863611 Thanks and enjoy the show! Number One What if neutrinos could travel at different speeds and only the electron neutrino stays within SR Lets theorize regular neutrinos can have a set speed of 6 trillion mps. That helps give the reason traveling through lead at very great distances. The reasons it can't react with matter very often is its great speed,and no charge. Bert More of Bert's bullshit, BEERTbrain! Saul Levy >What if neutrinos could travel at different speeds and only the electron >neutrino stays within SR Lets theorize regular neutrinos can have a >set speed of 6 trillion mps. That helps give the reason traveling >through lead at very great distances. The reasons it can't react with >matter very often is its great speed,and no charge. Bert C S its just my think,ing Photon has spin 1 Graviton has spin 2 What if the source of gravity that gives out gravitons is spinning twice as fast QM spin is very tricky,and spinning say like a top cannot be ruled out. Best to keep in mind my "Spin is in theory" has the source of photons being the structure of an electron(cloud) and it spins at "c' Going at twice the speed of light would explain why gravity can't be detected. Just a going to bed thinking. Just some Beert stuff Bert > Photon has spin 1 Graviton has spin 2 What if the source of gravity > that gives out gravitons is spinning twice as fast QM spin is very [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the speed of light would explain why gravity can't be detected. Just a > going to bed thinking. Just some Beert stuff Bert Okay, oc needs to look at this because, at first glance, it's more energy even than would be suggested by E=mc^3. If we begin by accepting that spatial energy is such a high-grade energy that it requires its own unit of measure, i'll call it the "spergon", or just the "sperg", then your idea of spin 2 on a virtual particle, the "graviton", would result in the formula you use in your name, Bert... First, we have Einstein's erg formula of E=mc^2. This is for normal ergs, normal energy. Given a spin 2 for the graviton, or the graviton spinning at 2c, this in itself makes it "disappear". At such a high speed, it is not able to manifest itself as the photon does in the form of an electron. This gives rise to the need for a new unit that is generally larger than the normal erg: the sperg. Now, how *much* larger? If G is the spatial energy in spergs, E is normal energy in ergs, m is a delta mass, possibly the change of added or subtracted matter, resulting in higher or lower amounts of spatial energy into the mass, c is the speed of electromagnetic radiation. Then G=E^2 (or G=Emc^2), and a sperg then is the square of a normal erg. This postulates that an increase of one gram of mass would result in an increase of gravitational/spatial energy of c^4 spergs. This is more than the mythical E=mc^3 (or the more precise, G=mc^3) would give, because... G=Emc^2 =m^2 x c^4 So a one gram increase of mass would yield... G=1^2 x c^4 =c^4 spergs (one sperg = 10^-3.5 joule) happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine P.S. Here are some secret sites... shhh http://www.painellsworth.net http://www.savethechildren.org/ http://www.secretsgolden.com > > Photon has spin 1 Graviton has spin 2 What if the source of gravity > > that gives out gravitons is spinning twice as fast QM spin is very [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > http://www.savethechildren.org/ > http://www.secretsgolden.com A falling object slows in time to the outside observer the deeper it goes into a gravity well. Every motion of every particel slows as it falls. It is like its own internal energy is being converted into kinetic energy in the direction it is falling. GR predicticts that a clock at the center of the Earth would go slower than a clock at the surface, even though there is no net gravity there. How would this jibe with the accelerating space model? But wait a minute, the rate of time at the center of the Earth has never been measured! It is only a prediction. Would an accelerating space model lead to a different prediction? Sitting in my car all night watching rain drops hitting the windshield makes me only think of untra-mundane corpuscles! Double-A Double-A The Earth's poles are 13 miles closer to its center than its equator,and the clock does tick slower there. The poles have a half of one percent more gravity force. So Einstein is still smiling. However going with quantum gravity being a particle attraction things get tricky,for that tells us in the Earth's exact gravitational center gravity 's pull would be equal in all directions,and stuff should float there. Then we have this to ponder. Drill a hole right through the Earth,and drop a lead ball in and it will go almost to the other side,but then stop,and fall back. Back and forth like a pendulum,until it comes to rest in the exact center of the Earth Go figure Tricky stuff Bert Apologies if this duplicates. The first attempt wouldn't send. !@#$ %^&* GG > A falling object slows in time to the outside observer the deeper it > goes into a gravity well. Every motion of every particle slows as it [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > only a prediction. Would an accelerating space model lead to a > different prediction? Several years ago, the issue of subsurface gravitation under the FS model was cussed and dis-cussed with Painius. Hashed and re-hashed too. :-) But the clock-rate issue was not. A 'thought experiment' was proposed in which a 1 foot diameter column of space is examined as it accelerates toward Earth's surface. The column's velocity reaches 11.2 km/s (or 7 mps), equivalent to escape velocity, as it hits the planet's surface (or surface datum line as it were). As the column continues subsurface, it begins decelerating since it now has gravitating mass behind ('above') and abeam of it, so it begins dispersing. Said another way, the "force of gravity" begins diminishing the deeper you go below the surface. The deeper you go, the more gravitating mass you have 'above' and to your sides, until at exact center, it nulls out and the "force of gravity" is zero (and *pressure* is maximum from the 'weight' pressing in equally from all directions). So in regards to clock rate, we know it slows concomitantly with the "force of gravity" as seen by an external observer. So at Earth's surface, the "force of gravity" (aka acceleration-rate of space flow) is maximum, while at Earth's center it is zero. Therefore the clock rate at the center would be the same as the clock rate in deep space, far from any gravitating mass. This would be at odds with the prediction that the clock rate would be slow at center. In fact it would be a test of the FS model which predicts that the clock rate will begin *increasing* the deeper you go, until at exact center, it becomes equivalent to the clock rate in deep space. As a sub-note, Henry Lindner's FS model sees the constituent atoms at exact center as not gravitating (not intaking space flow). This is at odds with Wolter's FS model which would see their inflow-rate undiminished since it is the product of the strong nuclear force (whether the atom resides at earth's center or is floating in free space). In any case, the *collective* "force of gravity" is zero at earth's center, and you'd indeed be 'weight'-less there. > Sitting in my car all night watching rain drops > hitting the windshield makes me only think of untra-mundane > corpuscles! Hells bells, isn't there a chance of moving to drier, warmer climes? But on the upside, periods of such privation afford opportunity for deep contemplation of the cosmos. oc > Apologies if this duplicates. The first attempt wouldn't send. !@#$ > %^&* GG [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > at exact center, it becomes equivalent to the clock rate in deep > space. Yes, in my solitary contemplations I also came to the conclusion that given flowing space, the clocks at the Earth's center would move faster again. This could truly be a defining test. Too bad the observation is so hard to make. Although we are getting better at detecting things happening at the Earth's center. Clock rate should affect how fast earthquake temors pass through the center of the Earth, but not as much as density. If true, this reversal of the clock rate assumption might also have implications for black hole theory. > As a sub-note, Henry Lindner's FS model sees the constituent atoms at > exact center as not gravitating (not intaking space flow). This is at [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > But on the upside, periods of such privation afford opportunity for > deep contemplation of the cosmos. oc Yes, one never sees more clearly than during privations, or near death (Schwarzschilde). Double-A > Yes, in my solitary contemplations I also came to the conclusion that > given flowing space, the clocks at the Earth's center would move > faster again. This could truly be a defining test. Heh. A deep subterranean 'Pound-Rebka' experiment would show a reversal of the same experiment performed above the surface. > > Hells bells, isn't there a chance of moving to drier, warmer climes? > > But on the upside, periods of such privation afford opportunity for > > deep contemplation of the cosmos. oc > > Yes, one never sees more clearly than during privations, or near death > (Schwarzschilde). This was certainly true in Gordon Wolter's case during his last several months. oc > > Yes, in my solitary contemplations I also came to the conclusion that > > given flowing space, the clocks at the Earth's center would move [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > This was certainly true in Gordon Wolter's case during his last > several months. oc It is my opinion now that event horizons never form in black holes. As the core of a giant star is collapsing, when density approches the point where an event horizon should form, time dilates so greatly around the area where it would form, that it in fact never forms. In the long run the object will evaporate from Hawking radiation, but an event horizon never actually forms. Double-A > It is my opinion now that event horizons never form in black holes. > As the core of a giant star is collapsing, when density approches the > point where an event horizon should form, time dilates so greatly > around the area where it would form, that it in fact never forms. You're still restricting yourself to your 'local' referance frame. You gotta be able to mentally transpose to the alternate frame, and experientially "see from" that frame. That's the difference between an experiential Relativist and the garden variety math jockey relativist. From the local frame, you see the clock rate dilating to infinity at the BH's (supposed) event horizon. But you also gotta "be" there, and "see from" that frame too. And what do you see? > In the long run the object will evaporate from Hawking radiation, but an > event horizon never actually forms. So from which frame is this statement made? Incidently, it seems like it'd take an awful long time for the collapsed mass of a giant star to evaporate (from *anybody's* referance frame :-)). oc > > It is my opinion now that event horizons never form in black holes. > > As the core of a giant star is collapsing, when density approches the [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > collapsed mass of a giant star to evaporate (from *anybody's* > referance frame :-)). oc In the frame of an object falling in, evaporation would occur before reaching the center. Perhaps this implies the perception on ultra high temperature. Double-A > In the frame of an object falling in, evaporation would occur before > reaching the center. But suppose `you` are the object falling in. Remember, you're still *in space*, and your clock is still running at the normal rate (to you, in your local frame). Under the FS model, *space itself* is what's 'falling' into the BH. Then there's the dreaded "spagettification" effect of the extreme *accelerational gradient* between your feet and head, the accelerating flow of space itself stretching your every constituent atom. Such extreme accelertional gradients would occur in BHs of several solar masses. But on much larger scales, with galactic-scale supermassive BHs, the gradient would be much less severe, and you wouldn't get spagettified. > Perhaps this implies the perception on ultra > high temperature. Again, frame of referance is everything. While a BH's interior would be superhot relative to us 'out here', what will it be like in there in that frame, locally? (Incidently, we're not talkin' about a quiescent BH's *black body radiation temperature* which is measured 'out here' as near absolute zero.) oc > > In the frame of an object falling in, evaporation would occur before > > reaching the center. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > quiescent BH's *black body radiation temperature* which is measured > 'out here' as near absolute zero.) oc While falling into a black hole, you might be hit with the next hunred billion years of radiation from the universe, which would fry you to a crisp. Some say it could not catch up with you, but relativity says that light and radiation will always come at you at c ! Double-A > While falling into a black hole, you might be hit with the next hundred > billion years of radiation from the universe, which would fry you to a > crisp. Some say it could not catch up with you, but relativity says > that light and radiation will always come at you at c ! True, c is invariant in all frames. But (under the FS model) your local frame is *moving with* the flow of space as the flow crosses the event horizon. Think boat adrift on a river as the river narrows to a rapids and then goes over a waterfall. The "boat" is your local frame. It's a rough analogy to be sure, but illustrates the point. It'd be a whole different ball game than if you were moving at nearly c in deep space, far from any BH. In that case you *would* observe extreme relativistic effects, looking out your ship's view ports at the surrounding star field. See these graphics f'rinstance - http://hexadecimal.uoregon.edu/relativity/index.html A lot more such graphics can be found Googling under 'Relativistic Flight Simulators' and 'Relativistic Ray Tracing'. oc oc Inside a BH its colder than the 2.7 space around it Read that Bert Painius I can live with your post. Very nicely done Bert > Painius I can live with your post. Very nicely done Bert Thank you, Bert! I wonder if the "spergon" will catch on after i'm gone? happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine P.S. Here are some secret sites... shhh http://www.painellsworth.net http://www.savethechildren.org/ http://www.secretsgolden.com Painius Memories of us have much longer spacetime when we are gone.with computers It was people that loved us that remembered (only) Now with computers we are immersed in silicone chips holding lots of information(even pictures) about us Reality is "Search button" takes you in to the right spot in Google in seconds. Bert > I wonder if the "spergon" will > catch on after i'm gone? Why not? If "quark" and "googolism" caught on, looks like anything goes. :-) oc Double-A Not having different mass,but going at different speeds. That fits much better. This is my this week theory. " Neutrinos don't obey SR like photons" Bert > Double-A Not having different mass,but going at different speeds. That > fits much better. This is my this week theory. " Neutrinos don't obey SR > like photons" Bert They have observed neutrino bursts in conjunction with supernova explosions. If neutrinos travelled much faster tnan photons, they should have been able to tell. Double-A Double-A Detecting neutrinos and measuring their speed is tricky stuff. If some have mass that the electron neutrino implies than it goes slower than light. No mass or the same mass of a photon it goes at 186,242 mps. Now my theory kicks in that lots could have 100 billion times less mass than a photon and can go 100,billion times faster So a neutrino having this feature does not have to fit with SR light being the fastest. Just like space can inflate faster than 'c' I now can relate this type neutrino to virtual space particles, Its so nice to think so far out of the box that the Google parrot poster's can't use present theories to knock me with. I like that Bert |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.