Hey, I didn't propose any alternate solution to the neutrino problem. I only passed comment on the quality and nature of the paper that Jerry (indirectly, probably without reading) brought up in the first place.

As for "QED", it is probably even more unassailable in it's ability to describe the nature of How Things Work than Relativity. Read it, I have. By Richard Feynman. You don't even need real math skills.

__________________
When I am done here I think I will go create something from metal.

It seems reasonable to assume the effective speed of light is the same in a solar environment as it is on the earth, it also seems reasonable to assume masses radiate in the same way when they are accelerated near the sun as they do near the edges of galaxies.

But if gravity and inertia are very different animals from the way Newton and Einstein have described them, a completely new rule book is needed.

My prediction is based upon the hypothesis the ‘inertial capacity’ of a system is limited by the total mass of the system, which in turn was driven by the observed supernova gamma ray energy curve.

A logical (although completely unproven) extension of this concept is that in the inner core of the sun, the greater mass fraction reduces the radiation rate of an accelerated particle, increasing its total energy capacity.

Another way to look at this is from the prospective of the mass fraction of an atom that is not involved in a nuclear detonation on earth: Each atom has to contribute in some way to the gravitational function of the system: When we burn nuclear energy on the earth, it involves such small mass fractions the gravitational changes are trivial.

But the sun is converting a huge mass, and this means the gravitational shell is getting smaller: So what happens to the energy suspended in the gravitational shell? I think what we have conceptualized as neutrinos is actually these gravitational waveforms, this is the energy function of a nuclear explosion we do not see on a small scale, and it could explain why the solar neutrino count is less than expected.

I can’t see anything in quantum electrodynamics that on the surface, would impinge upon an electrodynamic solution for gravity – it could work better, it could simplify the renormalization procedures and remove some of the Voodoo from the Feyman diagrams.

As I posted, this seems to be in direct conflict with basic theory because it assigns mass to a neutrino. (Since I am applying a completely different interpretation to mass and GR, this argument is purely academic.)

__________________
jwj

It's ok not to know.

[my emphasis]

WHAT is that supposed to mean???? "Effective speed of light"??? "Solar environment"???? "Masses radiate"? Radiate what? By what means?

Time to put up or shut up. If you are going to throw out the current theories that describe very accurately how things work then you better be able to propose a complete internally and externally consistent hypothesis that can both predict and explain consistently, forwards and backward, all that has been observed, before now and in the future.

Explain the preccesion irregularity of Mercury without invoking Relativity. Do you actually presume to invalidate Einstein's work? Let us see the math. I don't mean simple sums, I mean mathematical explanations that resolve the infinities inherent in relativistic astrophysics. Go for it.

( Hint, use Wolfram Mathematica and post the conjectures as a gif image)

__________________
When I am done here I think I will go create something from metal.

This is a tad concerning actually. I'm of the notion that our sun is diligently producing heavier elements and will eventually pump out some chromium, manganese and at the dreaded atomic 26, give up some Fe. Collapsing under its own gravity we get a super nova via which heavier elements are produced (though I'm not positive as to contemporary solar life span theory).I've also been subscribing to the belief that as our sun runs low on lighter elements it will increase in volume and engulf planets out to Mars. As this happens over several thousand million years the subsequent thermal changes in our solar system may allow for conditions suitable for life to evolve on Titan, Europa, or one of the satellites of Uranus.
How does the failure of the model in your instance impact on contemporary theories?
PS- I don't really expect you to write a detailed answer but a link would be cool.
Thanks for reading.

__________________
Paul.
The Exercist
http://sc.groups.msn.com/tn/2F/40/ou...ezone/c/9a.jpg

Welcome to the BABB!

Our sun isn't massive enough to form a supernova. It will create elements up through Carbon and Oxygen. During the later stages of its life , the Sun will become a Red Giant that will consume Mercury and Venus and perhaps the Earth itself. In the final stages the Sun will throw off its outer layers in a planetary nebula with the core forming a White Dwarf.

Here is a good link that describes the major stages of evolution of the Sun.

Have fun!

__________________
"A mystic is a person who is puzzled before the obvious but who understands the nonexistent." -- Elbert Hubbard

I never wrote anything about neutrinos. My comments only have to do with the Huygens mission, which you try to prove that is going to fail... Don't forget that this is the topic and your purpose and not nuclear and solar physics...

The Einstein Field Equations



Your turn.

__________________
When I am done here I think I will go create something from metal.

Coooool !!! ... and the answer is?... :-?

__________________
Caveat Lector. Experimentum summus judex...

I'm not that that good with math. For that matter neither are most mathematicians and those are the simplified 2D version of the Field Equations.

__________________
When I am done here I think I will go create something from metal.

That appears to be an equation.

Absolutely – the size of the universe alone invalidates the Einstein-deSitter theory. Correct interpretations of the supernova data don’t support the Walker/Robertson expanding universe, either.

Do you realize what Goldhaber & Company had to do to get the light curves of supernova to appear to support an expanding universe? First, they limited the critical observations to the blue light bands, then they assumed there is no (galactic) dust correction requirement for distant supernova Ia, and all reddening is due to general relativistic effects. When they correct for general relativity without first correcting for dust, they artificially broaden the light curves, and make it appear that more distant supernova are burning longer.

I don’t think time dilation and variable space are the correct interpretation of the Michelson Morley experiment, and this has ramifications for all of Einstein’s physics. There is a reason a grand unified theory has never surfaced: The basic premise is wrong.

Morris Andersonhas already demonstrated that wave mechanics can be used to predict the orbit of Mercury by varying the permeability and permittivity of space near very dense objects. This implies the speed of light is only a constant in a true vacuum as per Maxwell’s equations, a vacuum that does not contain any electromagnetic field strength of any kind. (Morris and I presented at the same Four Corners Session, and ended up dumbfounded to find we were almost on the same page.)

The wave mechanical solutions and the ‘bowling ball on a sheet of rubber’ works equally well, but instead of bending space and time like Einstein does, using Maxwell's equations the speed and direction of light is varied. This is Tesla’s solution, and I think it works.

But let’s get there one step at a time: First demonstrating that General Relativity is not giving us the right answers, then identifying which of the Maxwell equations best fit the data, and then remaining highly skeptical of the result, because the last thing physics needs is another deified model that does not work quite right.

Einstein taught us to think in terms of a time dilated universe, but mathematically, it is just as sound to assume that the speed of light is slowed when it enters a dense or encroaching electromagnetic environment. This implies gravity is electromagnetic, and my working hypothesis interprets this as a standing electromagnetic wave. When this “inertial field” weakens, the motion of mass (relative to the center of mass) cannot be sustain motion and the kinetic energy is radiated.

By what means? Quite literally an impedance miss-match: as the ability of a gravitational field to sustain motion decreases, the star, or probe, or planet literally becomes an antenna, broadcasting at a frequency that is proportional to velocity of the mass relative to the mass of the system. This is why galaxies are radio loud, and jets are collimated. In the case of an exploding supernovae, the particles moving at relativistic speeds are stopped almost dead in their tracks and radiate cosmic rays.

How could this be? What defines absolute motion if the speed of light is not fixed? The speed of light is fixed, in a theoretical perfect vacuum, void of all electromagnetic field strength. (A rocket in a perfect vacuum would only be able to move in the slightest displacements), because there would be no tensor field to move within. This is why galaxies usually remain separated, and why we usually find gaseous trails stringing clusters of galaxies together.

You were also correct, a few pages ago, when you assailed my cosmology as a potential house-of-cards, but so is the Einstein-deSitter solution. I think it fails to describe the mechanics of the universe, starting with our own solar system. I think the data is already in on this, look what happened with the Jupiter Probe:

In spite of decelerating more quickly in a denser environment, it took longer than planned to decelerate to a speed within the atmosphere at which the parachutes were triggered to deploy! Aerodynamically, how could that possibly happen? We see no evidence of 150m/s down drafts in the outer fringes of Jupiter’s atmosphere, and there are no realistic models that could create them. The gravimetric force of the planet was much greater than expected

Sorry for the slow post...funeral of a good friend.

__________________
jwj

It's ok not to know.

Sorry, It was Kaptain K and Travis who wrote that the solar neutrino problem had been solved. I referenced a paper, and highlighted the fact that the only solution I am aware creates as big of a problem for particle physics as it solves - the papers go back and forth on this almost daily.

__________________
jwj

It's ok not to know.

Depends on what you put into the variables. That eqaution is one of the reasons I keep asking for someone to show where Einstein's math is wrong. With all of those people on the internet claiming Einstein is wrong, very, very, very, very few of those detractors (I can think of only 2) would even recognize that equation as the component form of the (as Evan points out) simplified version of the field equation. Now be honest Lunatik, if they can't recognize, much less understand it, how can they legitimately claim there is something wrong with Relativity? Because the explanation doesn't make sense? A word description of the equations may fall short of actually explaining what is going on. The math is specific, the word description may not be.

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

The math is not right or wrong. It is a set of tensor mechanics that might correctly predict what we observe. Even if Einstein's reasoning is wrong, the equations might still work.

But when the equations fail us, we should certainly look seriously at the root assumptions. Without the introduction of inflation, or one of the competing concepts, the Einstein deSitter universe failed decades ago, and without reintroducing dark energ, they do not work. If there is no evidence of expansion in supernova every big bang model has failed, and if this chain of evidence percolates back to our own galaxy, and explains the oddities experienced in our interplanetary probes, we need to recognize that.

__________________
jwj

It's ok not to know.

That is an absurd statement. The math is either right or wrong. If it is right then so was Einstein. No one has yet been able to show it wrong, including you.

__________________
When I am done here I think I will go create something from metal.

They've already seen the Tau neutrino Jerry. So, I don't know what the big problem is. 3 Families of particles, each family has a higher mass. This is a symmetry of the universe, one that gives evidence and hints at supersymmetry. Yay string theory!
So, the neutrino problem is as good as solved.

__________________

Feynman
>~~~~<
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.

Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.

Thanks Tensor, glad to see how Evan's post on Einstein Field Equation works, though I am not mathematically equipped to prove it wrong, nor confirm it right, so will accept judgement by others who are. Aesthetically, I like it though.

The complaint from Einstein critics is that this Field Equation may not be the whole story, and only another representation of what the universe does with its gravity. My complaint, uninformed opinion perhaps, is that Einstein's "first postulate", that "there are no preferred reference frames", is only a postulate. The fact that it had proven usable by four generations of mathematicians and physicists is tough to stand up to, but questioning this postulate's validity is not beyond the pale of what reasonable minds may do. The reason this came up on this Huygens thread is that if we had erred on gravity's universal constant, per both Newton and Einstein, then we might be surprised by how the probe enters Titan's atmosphere, in the way Galileo's entry surprised us on Jupiter. So we should not ignore these surprises, since they may relate back to Einstein's first postulate, which after all is only a postulate. If we postulate instead that "not all reference frames are equal", everything changes, including our understanding of gravity. A postulate is only a postulate, so what evolves as an equation from such a postulate will then color how we perceive the results calculated from such equation, where the variables will perhaps yield a usable outcome, though this may be for the wrong reasons.

How can we get good results from faulty equations? Theoretically, that can be achieved if the equation fails to capture an inherent error in its postulate. For example, using Kepler's orbital equations combined with Newton's GM=Rv^2, we can calculate what M is given a constant G value. However, think about it, if "postulate" universal Newton's G is wrong for some reason, the GM function is still right, except the M is then wrong, though together they work fine (right side =Rv^2 does not change) and we cannot spot it. The end result is that the equation is usuable, as assumed, so though everything looks normal according to predictions, the values may not be true. To check for whether or not they are true would then require an "on location" check, something difficult to do. The fact that ESA is planning a probe to test exactly that, the value of G in the outer solar system, is at least a clue that somebody out there thinks Einstein's Field Equation may not be giving us the full story, and ditto for Newton's orbital equation.

This had been my point, and Jerrys (and perhaps a "silent minority" as well), that we need to watch what happens to Huygens because it may offer us a clue as to whether or not we have the whole story right. I find this prospect rather exciting, that perhaps we were wrong, though it is not my purpose to knock Einstein's, nor Newton's, but only the prospect that they may be improved upon. I'm not one to deify any scientific achievements, since in my view science is always subject to change; actually good science should always challenge its sacred cows, if it is to remain good science. But think of what it would mean if the Huygens betrays an anomaly, in the way of Pioneers, for not only our understanding of gravity, but also for Einstein's first postulate. Of course, these are only words, only theoretical hypotheticals, but if there should show up anomalies, we can work out the math later. I expect the math would be worked out by better minds than mine, but would not stop asking questions because I am not well enough equipped to give the final answer. Can Einstein's first postulate be wrong? Philosophically, why not? It's only a postulate, one which has stood up well to the tests given over the past century, but not a conclusive proof that it is right for all regions in space, nor for all conditions of electromagnetic energy vis a vis gravity. That is what we need to find out. What's wrong with that? Is it not good science? Let's see what happens January 14th!

Here's an update page for Huygens. Go Titan's!

__________________
Caveat Lector. Experimentum summus judex...