11-July-2005, 03:38 AM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,549
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina
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. |
I keep getting the feeling that you are not really reading the posts that you are replying to. If you were, then you would surely have realised that Tensor, and everybody else, is saying that the neutrinos would be focussed closer to the Sun, i.e. they would be bent more.
Take a deep breath, and try reading these posts again. 
|