Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tensor
There are no 2d definitions of gravity in a full treatment of GR. GR uses 4 dimensional spacetime for it's calculations, three spatial and one time and velocity is part of it. The above is nothing less than handwaving as you provided no quantitative support for your claim and it's wrong.
|
Show me a calculation that factors in the suns 22 year rotation cycle.
Quote:
|
Van Rijn and Fortis provided you with an explanation for why neutrinos cannot be focused at 1 AU (thanks guys, I didn't get back to this unitl tonight). Nothing says neutrinos (or other massive particles) can't be focused, but as neutrino mass have 30eV as an upper bound, their energies require them to be traveling almost at the speed of light (with 99.99% of c as a lower bound), which means the focal point for neutrinos will be approx 99.99% of the photons focal point. The photon's focal point is ~540 AU, a neutrino's will be at 539.9 AU, well away from the 1 AU you need for the focal point to be at 1 AU. If you disagree (but, then again, you claim you don't disagree with GR ) with this you've been provide the equations, [b]you[/] asked for. So either show us where the equations are wrong, or quit making this claim.
|
Actually you did NOT provide me the equations I asked for since I specifically asked you to start with the lensing of the galaxy and work your way in. I'm still underwhelmed by an arguement that continues to try to sell the idea that a particle WITH mass is somehow LESS bent than one WITHOUT mass. That is counter intuitive and illogical. The more mass, the more deflection. The less mass, the less deflection. If the particle is traveling less that C, then it has LESS momentum than the photon, and MORE mass as well and will be lensed SOONER, not later.
Quote:
|
You are not using any theory of relativity that is recognizable by anyonw who has studied it.
|
I've studied these ideas for nearly three decades. That is why I came up with an answer I now feel adequately explains these seemingly "light" sun. It's all based on RELATIVE movements and observation.
Quote:
|
Your claim that you don't understand the difference in how mass and massless particles can be focused or how it is calculated;
|
I'm still skeptical by the way. I've not had time to look at the equations yet today. I suspect they are FUDGED in some way to avoid dividing by zero.
Quote:
|
your 2d gravity claim above;
|
Show me the suns rotational cycle figured into these density measurments if you think I'm wrong.
Quote:
|
your misunderstanding of how gravity can affect massless particles;
|
You said that twice now. I'll be honest, I think photons have mass which is why they are bent in gravitational fields, but that's a whole different topic. Your notions that you can figure out the density of the sun based on a massless particle ignores the divide by zero problem you will inevitably have to deal with sooner or later. Like I said, I'm sure there is a parlor trick in your math somewhere that simply skips that step altogether.
[qoute]and your inability to understand how massless particles can be used to show the density of the sun does nothing but demonstrate your understanding of General Relativity is seriously deficient.[/quote]
You used the same argument three times. I don't think you can measure the mass of something without knowing the mass of the thing you are measuring it with.
Quote:
|
If you are going to continue try and use GR to support of your idea, I suggest you do some serious study on GR.
|
If you are going to deny the validity of my answer I suggest you study the density issue and show me where any of these measurements include the sun's rotation or the accereration of the universe itself. THEN and ONLY THEN can you lecture me about the theory of relativity as it relates to this issue.