Sea of Neutrinos Linear Thread

[junglelord]

Well after some questions and answers and some musing on my own part I have to imagine that this is the next logical thread. It would seem imperative that the Neutrino be investigated and does the Sea of Neutrinos qualify as the Aether?

I was struck by the fractal branching network of it all. I was down by the water and the thing that caught my eye today was not the waves but the trees. The fractal branching network. Then I thought about the layered branching networks of the human subsystems, such as cardiovascual, nervous, respirtory, etc. I was struck that the symbiotic relationship between our fractal branching network systems and that of Nature (trees) and the simple O2 molecule and CO2 dual opposite symmetry of our symbiotic world...WOW...Holy Human Liquid Crystal Quantum Fractal Branching Network Non Linear Coherent System Biophysics Synethesia Batman. I think I can now finish my theoretical work on Biophysics.

Classical Mechanics are dead. We are alive. Classical Mechanics does not represent our System. Biophyics is now clear from reading Carver Mead Collective Electrodynamics and this thread. The ability to bring some sensibility to physics is to understand that Classical Mechanics will not cut it. Second is that Vector and Quantum Wave analysis is able to wipe QM stastics clean and actually dispense with Maxwells work because it is based on Classical Mechanics. WOW!

I wondered with Dave Smith yesterday about the words Field, Force, and how the atom which is 99% space can be so solid. Also from what constructs do we bridge the gap from Wave to Matter...and how do we get from Non Solid to Solid?
I also mused about not really understanding Electronics and maybe Dave Smith could enlighten me on these subjects as he was a Senior Operator of a Large Electric Generating Station. I also am seeking StevenO's help in understanding these concepts in a visual way. I have to wonder about the Sea of Neutrinos and how that replaces the Aether and gives us a Fabric, Field, Force that is the source of all transitions from Wave to Matter.


Seems Solar is thinking the same question. And coming to the same conclusions.

Solar wrote
And why does this 'pinned vortex' concept remind me of the Atherometry concepts of "mass-bound" v/s "mass-free" energy? Are we looking at "mass bound" charge here?

I then could concieve the mental picture of Einstein Constructs as shown on Science Shows as a Cartesian Co Ordinate System. That would be the Neutrinos. This liquid crystal field force is the underlying construct from which springs Non Mass into Mass. That is the Structure of the Aether. To give medium for the Waves of EM, medium for Fields and Forces to be not just action at a distance but action through a structure. I would suspect at some fundamental level the springwell from Non Mass to Mass (Mass Free to Mass Bound) is maybe in this relationship. I know Meyl works on Neutrino theory, I know Wal Thornhill is interested in The Sea of Neutrinos. Some time to research the Neutrino issue in a thread seperate from here.

Thanks so much Stefan R and Solar, I am now very much indebt to both of you. StevenO thanks so much for Carver Mead.
StevenO makes a good point in the Relativity thread that dimensional constructs are not necessary in the old framework to the same limitations when one considers Fractal Dimensions.

[junglelord]

On the subject of Neutrinos...and the universe. From Dave Thomson

laying out the various paradigms with respect to
> neutrinos.

When you do this, keep in mind that when an electron and proton
bind to produce a neutron, nobody has to go looking for a
neutrino to pack in with it. If people are going to describe
neutrinos, then they need to explain why they are always around
when a neutron needs to be formed, and why we can't see them
directly, but can only see the effect they have by adding their
angular momentum to the bound neutron.

[junglelord]

great post lizzy...I have to read the links. But I wanted to say this after my thoughts today on the universe and the structure of the aether and the sea of neutrinos. Especially after my talk with Dave Smith about the words Force, Field, Aether, EM, Neutrinos

CONCLUSION

The ether is a universal medium, which fills all space. It appears to be "dynamic" relative to an earth moving thousands of miles per hour through space. The ether is normally electrically neutral, ultra-fine, and penetrates all solid matter. There is also an ultra high frequency, ubiquitous radiation, normally in equilibrium, called Zero Point Radiation ("ZPR"), which interpenetrates the ether, and represents electromagnetic radiation in its finest, densest form, which, in conjunction with the ether, conserves universal perpetual motion.

correct me if I am wrong but is that not a description of Neutrinos?

[junglelord]

On observation on Neutrinos by Dave Thomson of APM on a recent plasmacosmology article.

But what is the æther? In the vacuum of space, each cubic centimetre is teeming with neutrinos. And since neutrinos are resonant orbiting systems of charge, like all matter, they will respond to the electric force by distorting to form a weak electric dipole aligned with the electric field. The speed of light in a vacuum is therefore a measure of the delay in response of the neutrino to the electric force. - Plasmacosmology.net"

I lifted the above quote from a discussion at:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... 1&start=15

Whoever described the neutrino as a "resonant orbiting system of charge" is giving a new definition to the neutrino than mainstream science. The neutrino, by definition, has no electrical charge and cannot interact with electricity. Hence, it is called a neutrino (neutral.)

The neutrino adds angular momentum to the neutron, but it does not add electrostatic charge (which carries electric force). In a bound neutron, the positive electrostatic charge of the proton exactly neutralizes the negative electrostatic charge of the electron. If the neutrino contributed electrostatic charge, then the neutron would not be neutral.

Angular momentum possesses the dimension of mass, which allows it to interact with gravity. The neutrino's angular momentum can contribute to the mass of the neutron, but not its electrostatic charge (which mediates the electric force).

Only within the Aether physics model can it be quantified that the electrically neutral neutrino can add electromagnetic charge to the neutron. This is possible because the angular momentum of the neutrino is trapped between two Aether units. The angular momentum of the neutrino thus comes in contact with the conductance of the encapsulating Aether units and produces electromagnetic charge without the accompanying electrostatic charge. The total electromagnetic charge is equal to the angular momentum of the neutrino times the conductance of the Aether.

As soon as the neutron decays (unbinds), the trapped angular momentum of the neutrino is freed and no longer produces strong charge. In its free state, the neutrino has absolutely no electrical or electromagnetic characteristics. When the neutrino is in the bound state, its electromagnetic characteristic is inseparable from the neutron structure. So it is scientifically inaccurate to talk about the neutrino having a system of charge in any sense.

Whoever made the above comment merely assumed that because the substance of Aether behaves as an electrostatic dipole (as the APM also quantifies), and both the Aether and neutrino are not directly observable, then the Aether and neutrino must be the same and the neutrino must possess the properties of the Aether electrostatic dipoles. If this logic is carefully examined, it will easily be found to be in error. The conclusion is based upon the faulty assumption that Aether and neutrinos are the same thing.

The source of the above quote does not explain how a neutral neutrino can be an electrical dipole structure. Neither do they quantify how the neutrino with the named properties could produce the structure and observable characteristics of the neutron. The APM properly quantifies the structures of the neutron, primary angular momentum (neutrino), Aether unit, and the subatomic particles.

Dave

[StefanR]

Below some quotes from Wal Thornhill's Holoscience:

24 June 2003
Squashed Star Flattens Solar Theory
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=x50hfzxa

Two fundamental observations about the Sun do not support the standard solar model but they have been minimised or ignored.

The first is the celebrated “neutrino problem” where the neutrinos arriving from the Sun are far too few to account for the Sun’s presumed thermonuclear energy output. No scientist could contemplate trashing the standard solar model so the problem had to be with the neutrinos. After decades of expensive research it was shown by the "KamLAND" experiment [see below] that neutrinos can oscillate between different forms, known whimsically as ‘flavors.’ Following the habit of confirmatory bias, this notion was seized upon as “proof” that the standard solar model was correct. A report in Physics Today, March 2003, put it this way: “After 36 years of solar neutrino experiments, the inescapable conclusion is that a large fraction of the electron neutrinos produced by nuclear processes in the Sun's core are metamorphosing into other neutrino varieties somewhere en route to the detectors on Earth.” The report came to the conclusion that neutrinos were not undergoing any significant change of flavor in the vacuum of space between the Sun and Earth. Instead they were performing “an irreversible flavor change that takes place in high-density regions of the Sun.” So not only does the Sun need a hypothetical hot, high-density core to have any hope of generating thermonuclear energy, it now needs a hypothetical “critical-electron-density region” as well, to fudge the neutrino results. No doubt this will give rise to a flurry of theoretical activity using neutrinos to probe the imagined interior of the Sun

>>"A large sphere beneath Japan has helped verify humanity's understanding of the inner workings of the Sun. ..leading astrophysicists now consider the long standing solar neutrino deficit problem as finally solved."

But neutrino metamorphosis is not an “inescapable conclusion.” It is confirmatory bias with bells on! Conflicting evidence about the source region of the neutrinos is being ignored. There have been several reports of a correlation between the neutrino count, the sunspot number and solar wind strength. These are solar surface effects that should have no connection with what is going on in the Sun’s core, where the hidden energy of the nuclear furnace is supposed to take hundreds of thousands of years to "leak out" to the surface.

The electric star model suggests a simpler explanation of solar neutrino observations. The Sun produces all of the neutrino flavors on the surface in more complex nuclear reactions than mere heat and pressure allows. The nuclear reactions are ignited by the plasma pinch effect in the gigantic electrical discharges that cover the star and produce starlight. Ironically, it is the same phenomenon as that employed in some laboratories attempting to mimic the Sun's energy production! In this model, the connection between neutrino count, sunspot number and solar wind is expected, because the driver for them all is the same - galactic electrical power.

The second serious challenge to the standard solar model comes from solar oscillations. In the 1970’s, the Sun was unexpectedly found to ring like a bell. In 1976 Severny, Kotov & Tsap discovered a dominant 160-minute ringing mode of the Sun. They wrote, "The simplest interpretation is that we observed purely radial pulsations. The most striking fact is that the observed period is almost precisely... the value if the Sun were to be an homogeneous sphere. ... We have investigated two possible solutions to this dilemma. The first alternative is that nuclear... reactions are not responsible for energy generation in the Sun. Such a conclusion, although rather extravagant, is quite consistent with the observed absence of appreciable neutrino flux from the Sun, and with the observed abundance of Li and Be in the solar atmosphere."

09 November 2003
THE SUN — Our Variable Star (Update 25 Nov)
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=by2r22xg

Eddington did momentarily consider an external source for a star's energy: "In seeking a source of energy other than [gravitational] contraction the first question is whether the energy to be radiated in future is now hidden in the star or whether it is being picked up continuously from outside. Suggestions have been made that the impact of meteoric matter provides the heat, or that there is some subtle radiation traversing space that the star picks up."
'Subtle radiation' sounds like the kind of explanation that might be favored by modern theorists but it was dismissed immediately by Eddington. Today we know there are streams of charged particles moving in space. But Eddington had already decided what must be inside the Sun: "Strong objections may be urged against these hypotheses individually; but it is unnecessary to consider them in detail because they have arisen through a misunderstanding of the nature of the problem. No source of energy is of any avail unless it liberates energy in the deep interior of the star. It is not enough to provide for the external radiation of the star. We must provide for the maintenance of the high internal temperature, without which the star would collapse."
There we have it. The thermonuclear engine inside stars is required to save Eddington's mechanical stellar model! Yet for decades the solar neutrino counts have been telling us that that model is incorrect.

24 August 2005
Supernova 1987A Decoded
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=re6qxnz1

Stars are an electrical plasma discharge phenomenon. Electrical energy produces heavy elements near the surface of all stars. The energy is transferred over cosmic distances via Birkeland current transmission lines. The energy may be released gradually or stored in a stellar circuit and unleashed catastrophically. It is these cosmic circuits that are the energy source for the supernova explosion – not the star. That is why the energy output of some nebulae exceeds that available from the central star. See Shocks from Eta Carina.

The electrical energy released in supernova fissioning is prodigious, so it is no surprise that there is an abundance of heavy elements and neutrinos dispersed into space by the stellar "lightning flash."

01 January 2006
A Real 'Theory of Everything'
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=gdaqg8df

“What we call mass would seem to be nothing but an appearance, and all inertia to be of electromagnetic origin.” – Henri Poincaré, Science and Method.

A neutron combines the charges from a proton and an electron in a barely stable resonance, which decays in minutes. Its decay must have a cause and may involve an interaction with a neutrino. However, when combined with protons it seems neutrons form a new stable resonant structure that serves to bind the protons electrically despite the overall positive charge on the nucleus.

The notion that matter can be annihilated when normal matter meets antimatter is a confusion of language. Matter can neither be destroyed nor created nor can matter be exchanged for energy. Einstein's E = mc2 refers to mass, a property of matter, not matter itself. The mathematical relationship represents the restructuring of resonant systems of charge. What seems to happen in "annihilation" is that the complementary resonant charge structures of a particle and its antiparticle combine so that almost all of the internal energy is radiated away and the combined charges form a new collapsed particle of low internal energy.

The most collapsed form of matter is the neutrino, which has a vanishingly small mass. However, the neutrino must contain all of the charges required to form two particles – a particle and its antiparticle. This symmetry explains why a neutrino is considered to be its own anti-particle. A neutrino may accept energy from a gamma ray to reconstitute a particle and its anti-particle. "Empty space" is full of neutrinos. They are the repositories of matter in the universe, awaiting the burst of gamma-radiation to expand them to form the stuff of atoms. The weird "zoo" of short-lived particles created in particle accelerators and seen in cosmic rays are simply unstable resonant systems of charge.

The equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass implies that gravity is also an electrical force. Before Einstein, some noted scientists were suggesting that the gravitational force between neutral particles might ultimately be due to electrical polarization within the particles. In 1882, Friedrich Zöllner wrote in the introduction to his book, Explanation of Universal Gravitation through the Static Action of Electricity and The General Importance of Weber's Laws, "…we are to conclude that a pair of electrical particles of opposite signs, i.e. two Weberian molecular pairs attract each other. This attraction is Gravity, it is proportional to the number of molecular pairs." Indeed, gravity can be represented as the sum of the radially aligned electric dipoles formed by all subatomic particles within a charged planet or star.

This new electrical concept suggests that Newton's "universal constant of gravitation," or "G," is a dependent variable. G depends upon the charge distribution within a celestial body. Highly charged objects like comets look like solid rock, yet they have a gravitational field that suggests they are fluff-balls. And as they discharge they suffer what is euphemistically called "non-gravitational" accelerations. The extreme weakness of the force of gravity, compared to the electric force, is a measure of the minuscule electric dipolar distortion of nucleons. Gravity cannot be shielded by normal electrostatic shielding because all subatomic particles within the gravitational field respond to the dipolar distortion, whether they are metals or non-metals.

What about magnetism? Ampere's law for the magnetic force between two current carrying wires is found to be equivalent to the transverse electric force caused by the distortion of electrons in an electric field. This distortion causes them to form tiny collinear electric dipoles. That is, the magnetic force is simply another manifestation of the electric force.

This simple electrical model of matter has the great virtue of reducing all known forces to a single one – the electric force. However, it has a price. We must abandon our peculiar phobia against a force acting at a distance. And we must give up the notion that the speed of light is a real speed barrier. It may seem fast to us, but on a cosmic scale it is glacial. Imposing such a speed limit and requiring force to be transmitted by particles would render the universe completely incoherent. If an electron is composed of smaller subunits of charge orbiting within the classical radius of an electron, then the electric force must operate at a speed far in excess of the speed of light for the electron to remain a coherent object. In fact, it has been calculated that if released, the subunits of charge in the electron could travel from here to the far side of the Andromeda galaxy in one second!

We have direct evidence of the superluminal action of the electric force, given that gravity is a longitudinal electric force. Indeed, Newton's celebrated equation requires that gravity act instantly on the scale of the solar system. It has been calculated that gravity must operate at a speed of at least 2x1010 times the speed of light, otherwise closely orbiting stars would experience a torque that would sling them apart in mere hundreds of years. Similarly, the Earth responds to the gravitational pull of the Sun where it is at the moment, not where the Sun was 8 minutes ago. If this were not so, the Earth and all other planets in the solar system would be slung into deep space within a few thousand years. Gravity is therefore an electrical property of matter, not a geometrical property of space.

What is the nature of light? Einstein's special theory of relativity was disconfirmed right at the start by the Michelson-Morley experiment, which showed a residual due to the æther. This was later confirmed by far more rigorous repeats of the experiment by Dayton Miller. But by then popular delusion and the madness of crowds had taken hold and contrary evidence would not be tolerated. The Dayton Miller story makes interesting reading. If it weren't for the extraordinary power of self-delusion, commonsense would tell us that a wave cannot exist in nothing. So Maxwell was right, light is a transverse electromagnetic wave moving through a medium, the æther.

But what is the æther? In the vacuum of space, each cubic centimetre is teeming with neutrinos. And since neutrinos are resonant orbiting systems of charge, like all matter, they will respond to the electric force by distorting to form a weak electric dipole aligned with the electric field. The speed of light in a vacuum is therefore a measure of the delay in response of the neutrino to the electric force.

What about the bending of starlight by the Sun, which discovery raised Einstein to megastar status? The residual found in the Michelson-Morley experiments shows that the Earth and all ponderable bodies "drag" the æther along with them. The bending of starlight near the Sun is simply the effect expected of an extensive neutrino atmosphere held to the Sun by gravity. Light will be slowed in the denser medium – causing normal refraction or bending of light.

What about time? With all bodies in the Milky Way galaxy communicating their positions effectively in real time through the electric force of gravity, it means there is a universal time. There can be no time distortion or time travel – something that common sense always told us.

What about black holes? They are a mathematical fiction, a near-infinite concentration of mass, required to explain concentrated sources of energy seen at galactic centers, by employing the weakest force in Nature – gravity. It is the high-school howler of dividing by zero. Plasma cosmology shows that where electrical energy is concentrated at the center of a galaxy, gravity can be ignored in favor of far more powerful electromagnetic forces. The collimated jets of matter coming from that focus are also replicated to scale in plasma labs. The jets are inexplicable if a black hole is supposed to be a cosmic sink for matter.

Also, the work of the outstanding French biologist, Louis Kervran, may gain a working physical model to explain how biological enzymes are capable of transmuting chemical elements at body temperatures. It seems that by exquisite tuning, one resonant system of nuclear charges may be transformed into another. And like the decay of the neutron, ubiquitous neutrinos are implicated as a catalyst. It may be that the answer to our future power needs will be answered when we understand how to extract nuclear energy resonantly instead of by using brute force as we do now. The New Jersey based company, Black Light Power, seems to have stumbled upon a similar process using a resonance between hydrogen and the iron atom. It is interesting that biological systems also use heavy elements like iron and magnesium to perform their minor miracles of transmutation of elements.

The electrical relationship between matter and mass allows us to understand how quasars can be newborn objects that have low mass and brightness and high intrinsic redshifts. With time, their mass increases and their intrinsic redshift decreases in quantum jumps. This shows that quantum effects also occur on a galactic scale. It is another powerful argument for the near infinite speed of the electric force. The electrical nature of the universe reveals the currently accepted life story of stars as an elaborate fiction. Stars do not self-immolate. Plasma cosmologists identify cosmic electrical power lines of unknown origin that shape galaxies and light the stars in our small corner of the universe. These findings about intrinsic redshift and electric stars explodes the big bang myth: The universe we can see is not expanding; it is only a small part of the universe that is of unknown extent and unknown age.

30 June 2006
The IEEE, Plasma Cosmology and Extreme Ball Lightning
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=d7fec25w

My view is that explaining EBL doesn't require new physics. The answer may be obscured by mistaken concepts in particle physics. The clue comes from the observed ability of EBL to penetrate solid material. VanDevender noted that EBL "may be subatomic and electrically neutral to not violate impenetrability of matter." There is one stable subatomic particle that has the ability to pass through solids without any appreciable effect – the neutrino. But how can energy be stored in neutrinos?

A neutrino has a vanishingly small mass which allows it to change "flavours." If we do away with the misleading and inappropriate language of particle physics, we may view the neutrino "flavours" as different resonant states of an orbiting system of massless charges within the neutrino. This simple concept that all subatomic particles, including the electron and neutrino, are composed of various resonant configurations of smaller units of charge was discussed in "Toward a Real Theory of Everything." There I wrote, "The most collapsed form of matter is the neutrino, which has a vanishingly small mass. However, the neutrino must contain all of the charges required to form two particles – a particle and its antiparticle – in a process known as "pair production." This symmetry explains why a neutrino is considered to be its own anti-particle. A neutrino, in the presence of an atomic nucleus, may accept energy from a gamma ray to reconstitute a particle and its anti-particle. "Empty space" is full of neutrinos. They are the repositories of matter in the universe, awaiting the burst of gamma-radiation to expand them to form the stuff of atoms."

In this model of neutrino structure, neutrinos may have intermediate, unstable resonant states between their ground state and the state at which they split to form a particle and anti-particle (pair production). Therefore, EBL may be a rare phenomenon because it would require an exquisitely tuned resonant environment to "pump up" the internal energy of a population of neutrinos that happen to be "passing through."

It is known that pair production requires the presence of an atomic nucleus to catalyze the reaction. It seems likely that in the presence of an excited nucleus a neutrino may accept a lower level of energy than required for pair production and form a stable "heavy neutrino."

I envisage, for example, a lightning bolt striking a mineral that contains a concentration of some heavy element, which acts as a nuclear catalyst. In other words, the heavy element has a resonance within its nucleus that matches a high-energy one in adjacent neutrinos. There may be other ways to excite this resonance.

The model I envisage for EBL goes like this:

1. A heavy element within the environment has a resonance within the nucleus excited by lightning, cosmic-rays or some other means.

2. Ubiquitous neutrinos drifting through the excited atoms accept energy resonantly from a number of such excited nuclei.

3. Following the usual relationship between mass and stored electrical energy,
E = mc2, the mass of the neutrino increases.

4. Such "heavy" or excited neutrinos are distorted to form tiny electric dipoles, which will tend to clump together since they have zero net repulsive charge.

5. The energy required to split a neutrino into a positron-electron pair is considerable – about a million electron volts. That provides us with an upper limit of the energy that may be stored within a single neutrino without splitting it in two. It satisfies the requirement that the stored energy in EBL exceeds that available by chemical or electrostatic means.

6. The heavy neutrinos in the EBL would need to have a total mass of a mere hundredth of a milligram to provide a gigajoule of energy.

7. The radial electric field within the tiny sphere of heavy neutrinos may be sufficiently intense to disrupt (ionize) atoms they encounter. This may explain the glow and movement of EBL.

8. Heavy neutrinos respond only weakly to gravity and have no buoyancy since they do not displace matter but pass right through it. This explains how EBL may pass through "walls, glass and metal, generally without leaving a hole."

9. The heavy neutrinos will tend to release their stored energy upon encounters with any atomic nuclei capable of resonant interactions with them.

10. Considerable energy is available from transitions of the heavy neutrinos back to the ground state. Low-energy intermediate transitions may power the glow and movement of the EBL. A sudden, explosive release of energy may be triggered by chemical elements in the environment that can accept energy resonantly from the EBL. High-energy transitions leading to sudden heating and explosion are observed.

11. This model explains why electrostatic effects are not found. Victims are burnt or blackened and not electrocuted.

There are electromagnetic phenomena associated with EBL that need to be investigated and the mode of energy transfer to the environment needs more study. The question also arises whether it is likely that heavy neutrinos might have been observed in the laboratory. Neutrinos are the most common and the most elusive particles in the universe – even more elusive than extreme ball lightning.

24 December 2006
The Electric Sky—Interview with the author
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=hrpk2p16

Q: Your name is linked with the Electric Sun idea. Is the Sun powered from the outside electrically?
A: We aren’t sure. It may well be. This is the most speculative part of Plasma Cosmology. Much more data needs to be collected before we can make a definite decision on this. Clearly the present nuclear fusion model has a bunch of problems associated with it. The Electric Sun model has none of these difficulties and offers simpler explanations for many of the things we observe about the Sun. The following points are addressed in the book:
• Neutrinos (too few?). The SNO announcement is logically flawed.
• No continuous fusion reaction has ever been achieved. It may be impossible – plasma instabilities.
• Why does the Sun have a corona at all?
• Why does the Sun rotate faster at its equator than at its poles?
• Why are the umbrae of sunspots the coolest points on the surface?
• Why is the bottom of the corona 2 million K hotter than the surface?
• Why does the strength of the solar wind vary? (It completely shut off for two days a few years ago.)

15 February 2007
Global Warming in a Climate of Ignorance
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=aapprbh6

"It is my firm belief that the last seven decades of the twentieth century will be characterized in history as the dark ages of theoretical physics."
-Carver Mead, Collective Electrodynamics

What do we need to know before an informed judgement can be made in the global warming debate? What are the science myths holding us back?

It is crucial that we know what is really going on in space-and in particular how the Sun really works. By historical accident the theory of what makes the Sun shine was developed at the time nuclear energy was discovered and when plasma physics was in its infancy. The Sun, instead of being an aboriginal campfire in the sky with limited fuel, became a "thermonuclear campfire" with practically limitless fuel. Not such a big advance over Stone Age thinking!

It seems very satisfying-and safe. We don't need to put coins in the meter to keep it burning. However, the reactions which are thought to generate heat in the Sun's core are hypersensitive to temperature variations, and mechanisms to control the reactions are difficult to devise. In view of this, the steadiness of the Sun's output is a puzzle. Furthermore, if thermonuclear reactions generated all the Sun's energy, a certain number of subatomic particles called electron neutrinos would be produced. And critically — the number of electron neutrinos coming from the Sun is woefully inadequate.

Astronomers appealed to particle physicists to help patch things up. Particle physicists responded with a clever subterfuge, saying that all is well if you add up the different neutrino "flavors" and propose that some were electron neutrinos that swapped flavours en-route to the detectors on Earth. Astrophysicists grasped this lifesaver like drowning men and women. It became "proof" of their "thermonuclear campfire" model overnight. Unfortunately, it cannot be proven without a neutrino detector close to the Sun. Occam's razor recommends that we take the neutrino data at face value and re-examine our assumptions about the Sun.

14 January 2008
Astronomical Myths of Mercury & the Sun
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=e511t4z2

Comment: Since gravity is a property of matter, which in turn is an electrical phenomenon, Einstein’s hyper-dimensional geometry is not going to reveal the true nature of gravity whether general relativity gives the right answers or not. The two tests mentioned ignore the possibility that both phenomena may be explained or influenced by factors considered in another more simple and all-encompassing theory. Subtle deviations in the position of Mercury will occur as a result of charge transfer with the Sun due to the planet’s eccentric orbit. Charge transfer alters the internal electrical stress of Mercury. That subtly alters the planet’s mass, which by the law of conservation of orbital energy shifts its orbit. The second test amounts to simple diffraction of the radio signal through an atmosphere. The “atmosphere” is the æther, so cavalierly discarded by Einstein. He never explained how an electromagnetic signal could be transmitted through empty space. Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetism requires an æther — “something to carry the wave.”
That “something” is a universal plenum of ghostly neutrinos. Though they have vanishingly small mass, they respond to the gravitational field of a star or planet to form a tenuous but extensive “atmosphere.” It is that atmosphere which refracts light or radio signals.

There is definitely real physics beyond Einstein’s speculations. The unquestioning acceptance of his idiosyncratic theories of relativity has diverted untold resources down blind alleys for almost a century. It is time to divert attention to the Electric Universe in this 21st century!

For the context of the quotes ....follow the links

[junglelord]

The vast majority of physicists shamelessly gloss over the fact the neutral particles like neutrons and neutrinos have magnetic dipoles. They attribute the magnetic dipole on a neutral particle to just more strange magic of a non-causal quantum world. It is an affront to science that so many physicists think that cause and effect does not apply in the quantum world. Instead of realizing that their explanations are what are lacking, they toss away the bedrock of science, cause and effect, and regulate to God the responsibility of guiding the quantum world, much as humanity once did for the motion of the stars and planets.

Magnetic dipoles on neutral particles is a glaring signal that there must be a deeper structure involved in the neutral particle which accounts for the neutral particle having the magnetic field. Simple cause and effect must apply. A doublet substructure of two unit particles of matter, each having an inherent magnetic dipole due to its electrical charge, accounts for a magnetic dipole on a neutral neutrino.

The fact alone that a doublet substructure explains how a neutral particle could have a magnetic dipole is cause to pursue the investigation of the neutrino doublet substructure further.

TRIPLET UNIT MATTER SUBSTRUCTURES
Question: If triplet substructures and singlet substructures exist, what about doublets?
Answer: There is evidence that neutrinos have a doublet unit particle substructure.
Evidence Of The Doublet Unit Charge Substructure

If a triplet substructure of quarks can explain quark fractional charge mathematics, and if a singlet unit particle substructure can be proposed for the substructure of an electron, could the other first family member of the standard model, the neutrino, be explained with a doublet substructure?

The answer to that question is elucidated in the affirmative in the following sections.

COULD NEUTRINOS BE DOUBLET COMPOUNDS?

The supposition then is that both quarks and anti-quarks, and electrons and positrons, are as particle types, constructed of unit particles of matter combined with quantum allotments of mass-energy. With quarks and electrons conjectured to have a unit particle substructure, only neutrinos are left as particles in the Standard Model that are not theorized to have a substructure composed of unit charge unit particles of matter.

Could neutrinos have a deeper more fundamental unit charge particle substructure also? A doublet substructure would be neutral as are neutrinos. What other properties of neutrinos might a doublet substructure explain?

If the neutrino were also composed of unit charge unit particles of matter, then all of the particles in the Standard Model, except for the moment photons, would have as their internal substructure more fundamental unit charge, unit particles of matter.

There are only two possible configurations where the magnetic dipoles of the composing unit particles of matter forming the doublet are aligned north to south. The neutral doublet could form with either the positive unit particle at the northern most position on a common magnetic dipole, or with the negative unit particle at the northern most position on a common magnetic dipole.

Let us not worry yet about the neutrino being a doublet and having a quantum angular momentum of 1/2, because we are using the electron-positron annihilation as a guide, and we know that after the annihilation all of the mass-energy of the electron and of the positron has been carried away in the resultant photons. Therefore, any remaining unit particles of matter in a resultant doublet would have zero mass-energy with which to exhibit angular momentum. A neutrino doublet substructure need not be supposed to have mass-energy on either of the composing unit particles of matter forming the substructure.

The reason physicists do not think a neutrino could be composed of a two particle substructure is because they assume that both particle components must have quantum angular momentum. However, the triplet substructure of quarks explaining quark math allows for a clear distinction to be made between energy and matter as components of particles. The distinction between energy and matter as components of particles allows us to postulate that the unit particles of matter from the substructures of the annihilating electron and positron particles may still exist after the annihilation, only with all of the energy squeezed from the electron and positron.

The supernova 1987A proved neutrinos have zero rest mass as the neutrinos arrived at the same time as the photons. A rest mass of zero for neutrinos means there is no energy involved in the structure of the particle, and that 100% of the mass-energy of the neutrino is momentum energy.

Momentum energy applies to the particle as a whole, rather than at the level of the unit particles of matter composing the particle structure.

Using the positron-electron annihilation has a guide, in which all of the mass-energy of the annihilating lepton pair is converted to the two resulting photons, we might speculate that after the annihilation the two unit particles of matter which formed the structure of the two leptons may be bound together and still in existence, but with all of the energy squeezed from the lepton pair. Quantum angular momentum requires mass-energy, and since we may suppose that after the annihilation the doublet substructure has no mass bound to it, we can expect that the resultant doublet particle of matter will have no quantum angular momentum.

Once one has posited the quark substructure and investigated electron substructure, one becomes aware of the difference between matter and mass-energy as components of particles, which then allows for a deeper understanding of what rest mass is. Rest mass is the mass-energy bound in the particle structure.



http://www.starlight-publishing.com/Mat ... eticDipole

[StevenO]

The vast majority of physicists shamelessly gloss over the fact the neutral particles like neutrons and neutrinos have magnetic dipoles. They attribute the magnetic dipole on a neutral particle to just more strange magic of a non-causal quantum world. It is an affront to science that so many physicists think that cause and effect does not apply in the quantum world. Instead of realizing that their explanations are what are lacking, they toss away the bedrock of science, cause and effect, and regulate to God the responsibility of guiding the quantum world, much as humanity once did for the motion of the stars and planets.

Magnetic dipoles on neutral particles is a glaring signal that there must be a deeper structure involved in the neutral particle which accounts for the neutral particle having the magnetic field. Simple cause and effect must apply. A doublet substructure of two unit particles of matter, each having an inherent magnetic dipole due to its electrical charge, accounts for a magnetic dipole on a neutral neutrino.

The fact alone that a doublet substructure explains how a neutral particle could have a magnetic dipole is cause to pursue the investigation of the neutrino doublet substructure further.

Mass is a three dimensional property, a magnetic moment is a two dimensional property and electrostatic charge is a one dimensional property. They do not necessarily have to appear together.

[junglelord]

Interesting that APM has mass as a single dimension...and is fundamental and straight, then spacetime gives curved mass as two dimensions. Also reciprocal mass is explained. I believe in a dual opposites model at all levels.

[StevenO]

Interesting that APM has mass as a single dimension...and is fundamental and straight, then spacetime gives curved mass as two dimensions. Also reciprocal mass is explained. I believe in a dual opposites model at all levels.

That would be fine if mass is used as an equivalent for energy. Then energy is one dimensional mass, momentum is two dimensional mass and material mass is three dimensional mass. Reciprocal mass would be velocity or motion, which can also have multiple dimensions. I would not understand what "curved mass" is though...

[junglelord]

APM has a rotating magnetic field of two spins. Subatomic units have quantum interger half spin numbers. Therefore at the fundamental level there are no straight lines of subatomic units. They are curved units. Hence the half spin. Primary angular momentum changes the geometry of linear one dimensional mass as it is encapsulated to become a electron or proton, neutron.

The recipricol of time, frequency, is also oscillating, and this therefore influences curved geometry both as linear space-time and distributed space-resonace.

[StevenO]

APM has a rotating magnetic field of two spins. Subatomic units have quantum interger half spin numbers. Therefore at the fundamental level there are no straight lines of subatomic units. They are curved units. Hence the half spin. Primary angular momentum changes the geometry of linear one dimensional mass as it is encapsulated to become a electron or proton, neutron.

The recipricol of time, frequency, is also oscillating, and this therefore influences curved geometry both as linear space-time and distributed space-resonace.

Thanks. I think i'm finally starting to understand APM a little better. This explanation is similar to the one in Dewey Larson's reciprocal system. Small quote from his work:

<...>If the addition to the rotational base is a magnetic unit rather than an electric unit, the result could be expressed as M 1-0-0. It now appears, however, that the notation M ½-½-0 is preferable. Of course, half units do not exist, but a unit of two-dimensional rotation obviously occupies both dimensions. To recognize this fact we will have to credit one half to each. The ½-½ notation also ties in better with the way in which this system of motions enters into further combinations. We will call this M ½-½-0 particle the massless neutron, for reasons, which will appear shortly.

At the unit level in a single rotating system, the magnetic and electric units are numerically equal; that is, 1² = 1, Addition of a unit of negative electric displacement to the M ½-½-0 combination of motions, the massless neutron, therefore produces a combination with a net total displacement of zero. This combination, M ½-½-(1), Can be identified as the neutrino.

In the preceding chapter, the property of the atoms of matter known as atomic weight, or mass, was identified with the net positive three-dimensional rotational displacement (speed) of the atoms. This property will be discussed in more detail in the next chapter, but at this time we will note that the same relationship also applies to the sub-atomic particles; that is, these particles have mass to the extent that they have net positive rotational displacement in three dimensions. None of the particles thus far considered meets this requirement. The electron and the positron have effective rotation in one dimension; the massless neutron in two. The neutrino has no net displacement at all. The sub-atomic rotational combinations thus far identified are therefore massless particles.

By combination with other motions, however, the displacement in one or two dimensions can attain the status of a component of a three-dimensional displacement. For instance, a particle may acquire a charge, which is a motion of a kind that will be examined later in the development, and when this happens, the entire displacement, both of the charge and of the original particle, will then manifest itself as mass. Or a particle may combine with other motions in such a way that the displacement of the massless particle becomes a component of the three-dimensional displacement of the combination structure.

Addition of a unit of positive, instead of negative, electric displacement to the massless neutron would produce M ½-½-1, but the net total displacement of this combination is 2, which is sufficient to form a complete double rotating system, an atom, and the greater probability of the double structure precludes the existence of the M ½-½-1 combination, other than momentarily.

The same probability considerations likewise exclude the two-unit magnetic structure M 1-1-0, and its positive derivative M 1-1-1, which have net displacements of 2 and 3 respectively. However, the negative derivative, M 1-1-(1), formed in practice by the addition of a neutrino, M ½-½-(1), to a massless neutron, M ½-½-0. can exist as a particle, as its net total displacement is only one unit; not enough to make the double structure mandatory. This particle can be identified as the proton.

Here we have an illustration of the way in which particles that are individually massless, because they have no three-dimensional rotation, combine to produce a particle with an effective mass. The massless neutron rotates only two-dimensionally, while the neutrino has no net rotation. But by adding the two, a combination with effective rotation in all three dimensions is produced. The resulting particle, the proton, M 1-1-(1), has one unit of mass.
<...>

Still, the reciprocal system theory does it with way less postulates and constants as APM, so I think it could be insightful if APM would study the notion of scalar motion as a replacement for Gforce and quantum constants.

[junglelord]

I am convinced due to the inherit balance in the APM math that quantum constants is the only way to go. Calculus is not my cup of tea. Algebra however is something any grade 6 or grade 8 can fully comprehend. A quantum constant model based on algebra is too good to be a fakeout.

The identification of only three forces and also of five dimensions is something so close to what I was searching for with my leads, also the inherit inclusion of sacred geometry and quantum structure is also something I require as a structural therapist....one cannot seperate structure from function.


Finally the ToE I was looking for would have Tensegrity as a structural engineering principle from the nonmaterial structure throughout the entire material structure....APM had this unbeknown to the author....something I pointed out to him.


The APM Whitepaper is a good start
http://www.16pi2.com/files/NewFoundationPhysics.pdf

[junglelord]

It is well established that neutrinos have mass, yet it is very difficult to measure those masses directly. Within the standard model of particle physics, neutrinos will have an intrinsic magnetic moment proportional to their mass. We examine the possibility of detecting the magnetic moment using a conducting loop. According to Faraday's Law of Induction, a magnetic dipole passing through a conducting loop induces an electromotive force, or EMF, in the loop. We compute this EMF for neutrinos in several cases, based on a fully covariant formulation of the problem. We discuss prospects for a real experiment, as well as the possibility to test the relativistic formulation of intrinsic magnetic moments.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0709.3636

Well that would be cool free energy....


if only they would inter-act more.

StevenO seems to be hot on the trail, I look forward to some of that discussion.

[StevenO]

Well that would be cool free energy....


if only they would inter-act more.

StevenO seems to be hot on the trail, I look forward to some of that discussion.

Well, that is a little problematic, since the neutrino can only interact with itself. But multiple neutrinos will interact as

1/(universe - product of neutrinos).

So, you can develop a neutrino gearing system that taps energy from the rotation of the earth/sun/galaxy, etc...That is what Nikola Tesla called:

"Energy is available at any point of the universe in unlimited quantities. It will only be a matter of time before we connect to the wheelworks of nature"

What a fools we have been for the last 100 years...

[StefanR]

interesting connection:

The discoverer of the neutrino radiation himself will best be able to explain the connexion.
In the New York Times Tesla writes, that he has discovered and investigated the
phenomenon of the cosmic radiation, long before others started their researches<i>:
"According to my theory a radioactive body is only a target, which constantly is being
bombarded by infinitely small balls (neutrinos), which are projected from all parts of the
universe. If this, at present unknown, cosmic radiation could be interrupted completely,
then no radioactivity would exist any longer.
I made some progress regarding the solution of the mystery, until I in the year 1898
attained mathematical and experimental evidence, that the sun and similar celestial
bodies emit energy-rich radiation, which consist of inconceivable small particles and have
velocities, which are considerable faster than the speed of light. The ability of penetration
of this radiation is so large, that it penetrates thousands of kilometres of solid matter,
without their velocity being reduced noticeably. "
It must be admired how Tesla guided by experimental observations and a reliable instinct
comes to the correct result. He merely with the conclusion, because of the missing
interaction the neutrinos have to be inconceivably small, isn't quite right. Their size rather
depends on the velocity, because the overfast neutrinos are being length contracted
stronger. Tesla however hits the nail exactly on the head, if he on the occasion of the press
conference for his 81st birthday declares, the radioactivity is a clear proof of the existing of
an outer radiation of cosmic origin<ii>. „ If Radium could be shielded against this radiation
in an effective way", Tesla writes in an essay of 1934, ,,then it wouldn't be radioactive
anymore". At this occasion he contradicts Albert Einstein, without thereby pronouncing
the name and is indignant at the wrong working method of the scientists<iii>.
Me personally fascinates, how here until now ignored results have been presented, which I
first had to work out theoretically myself with difficulty. Tesla, to the best of my
knowledge, hasn't taken theoretical derivations, at least none have been handed down. As
a brilliant experimental physicist he must have reached his conception world by means of
the measuring technique. The perfect correspondence of his experimentally determined
and the by me theoretically won insights should be judged as evidence for the correctness
of this view.

<i>: Dr. Tesla Writes of Various Phases of his Discovery,
New York Times, Feb. 6, 1932, P. 16, col. 8
<ii>: Tesla Said (J.T. Ratzlaff), Tesla Book Company, ISBN 0-914119-00-1, P. 272
<iii>: "The scientists of today think profound instead of clear. One has to be mentally
sane, to be able to think clear, but one can think profound and nevertheless be
completely insane. The scientists of today have substituted experiments by
mathematics, and they travel from one equation to another and eventually build
up a construct, which has absolutely no relation to reality"...
taken from N. Tesla: Radio Power will Revolutionize the World, Modern
Mechanics and Inventions, 7/1934, (Tesla Said, P. 264)

27.1 Energy out of the field
Neutrinos for instance are such field configurations, which move through space as a scalar
wave. They were introduced by Pauli as massless but energy carrying particles to be able
to fulfil the balance sheet of energy for the beta decay. Nothing would be more obvious
than to technically use the neutrino radiation as an energy source.
But for a technical exploitation a useful model description of the particles and their
interaction is imperative. For the sake of simplicity we imagine the neutrino to be an
oscillating particle, which permanently oscillates back and forth between the state of an
electron and that of a positron. With that the polarity changes from positive to negative
and back again and the charge averaged over time is zero. Because of the change from a
state of matter to the state of an anti-particle also next to no mass can be measured
anymore.
A technical oscillator operated in resonance, which oscillates with the same frequency but
opposite charge, will interact with the particle and build up an oscillating electromagnetic
interaction, with which we already are familiar as the weak interaction in the proximity of
a neutrino.

Meyl, Scalar Waves & Electromagnetic Environmental Compatibility

missing some info of course, but still.