Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina
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. |
I think that you are confusing the basic concept that the mass of the Sun deflects photons (and presumably neutrinos), with the more sophisticated concept of gravitational lens (c.f. refraction and optical lenses.)
Quote:
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.
|
Massless particles are embedded in spacetime. If spacetime curves (due to the presence of mass), then the straight line paths that they would otherwise have carved out turn into curved geodesics that we see as deflections.
Quote:
|
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.
|
First of all, the neutrinos that we observe are relativistic particles, i.e. their energies are considerably greater than m_0.c^2. (Where m_0 is the neutrino rest mass.) This means that from the point of view of SR and GR they behave near enough as if they
were massless.
Secondly, can I refer you to the post that you quoted earlier.
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.
|
Maybe you missed this point.
Have you worked out the focal length for the Sun as a gravitational lens. It is 550 A.U. So will we observe gravitational lensing of photons or neutrinos by the Sun from our vantage point on the Earth? No.
Quote:
|
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.
|
You're going to have to provide more explanation of your reasoning here because I think that you are missing one of the essential points of central forces and the conservation of angular momentum.