Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Van Rijn
Actually, we would expect neutrino lensing. But they are just a bit harder to detect and it misses the point.
|
No, it does NOT miss the point. It would be completely appropriate to use something with a known mass and the lensing of such a particle to compute the density of the sun. It makes a lot LESS sense to attempt to use a particle that is presumably massless to do this. Whether it works or not, it blows huge holes in the previous argument in this thread that neutrino lensing isn't observable on earth. That doesn't add up. You can't have one but not the other.
Quote:
|
The amount of gravitational lensing is determined by the mass of the sun.
|
No. It's determined by the mass of BOTH particles. You guys insist I adhere to your definition of density based on mass calculations using the mass of earth and it's orbit but you turn right around and claim that a massless particle can be used to measure a mass. That isn't even logical. Worse however is you folks insisting that neutrinos are NOT lensed, but a massless particle *IS* lensed. The rationalizations around here are simply amazig.
Quote:
|
Then, as mentioned before, once you have the mass and the volume, you have the average density. And, of course, your model is far too dense to match the observation.
|
It's too dense based on 2D defintions of gravity and 2D definitions of density, I agree. That does not however account for the suns 22 year rotation cycle, or eliminate the notion of vertical movement of the solar system itself. I'm starting to think that's where the real problem lies.