Re: Mechanical Light

JoeT wrote:
PD wrote:
Actually, I was referring to more than that.
a) There are at least as many photons as there are neutrinos in all
space, and there is a wealth of dark matter as well.

Neutrinos are objects having masses and relative motions. What are
photons and dark matter?

I'm not sure I understand what your criterion for distinguishing
objects from non-objects is. You seem to be saying that in order for
something to be an object, there has to be an frame of reference in
which the object is at rest. I don't see the reasoning behind that.

b) Neutrinos do not travel at light speed.

At what speed? Why scientists found "high energy neutrinos"
simultaneously when they dicover supernovae?

Neutrinos travel at very near light speed. How near depends on the
energy at which they are emitted, and on the mass of that type of
neutrino. The masses of the three neutrino types are not yet known,
although there are now some lower bounds on the differences between the
masses.

c) Light travels at light speed.

Agreed

d) Neutrinos interact too STRONGLY to account for gravity.

That's what you have learnt. Besides, neutrinos produce charged
particles, electric force, etc. The are the common scientific origin of
all universal phenomena.

e) You haven't demonstrated that neutrinos account for anything you
claim in a quantitatively predictive way. Doing that is essential to
the success of any theory.

You want a mathematical theory to back physics of mechanics up? I do
not have one. I did not claim anything. What I have done is, instead of
use postulations and mathematical models, based on a lot of
experimental findings to scientifically explain universal phenomena.

Even qualitatively, your theory does not match experiment:

- No drag on the planets
- No discrepancy in the direction of gravity from propagation delays
- Polarization of light

If you look into what Bell and Aspect did, you'll see another reason
why this "physics of mechanics" philosophy of yours will run into
problems.

This is a _good_ sign for you. Many people come here with ideas about
physics, but can't express them coherently enough for anyone to find a
contradiction between their ideas and reality. I just hope I can
explain to _you_ why it is that your neutrino idea doesn't work.

Yes, quantitative aspects are also included in my scientific
explanations. For example, Newton's gravitational formulae still can be
used for calculations of planetary motions. Also, Einstein's spacetime
and distorted spacetime mimic some of the energy variations of the
atmospheric neutrinos well and therefore some of his calculations are
usable.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that you aren't actually
familiar with general relativity. That's not a big limb, really; most
people aren't familiar with it, and the popular descriptions of it are
often very misleading. And if you knew enough mathematics to take a
course on it, you wouldn't be here asking people to develop your ideas
quantitatively; you'd be doing it yourself.

You really shouldn't go around saying things like that until you can
actually evaluate whether or not they're true.

I did emphasized that the new aether science is in its infancy
and need the entire scientific community to discuss it and to develope
it.

When one idea doesn't work, you have to move on to the next, if you
want to accomplish anything. People will be a lot more interested in
discussing your ideas if you come up with new ideas when the old ones
don't work out.

Even then, it seems a little arrogant to me to demand that the entire
scientific community stop what it's doing and pay attention to your
ideas. If a few people who know about experimental evidence of which
you are unaware look at an idea of yours and also think it might be
useful, then perhaps they'll develop it mathematically. And if after
that, the idea still looks good, then it's time to think about
publication. And I encourage you to learn more math and science so
that you'll be better able to evaluate and develop your ideas on your
own.

Good luck!

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Mechanical Light
    ... Please open your eyes and have a good look at the science of all other ... Neutrinos are objects having masses and relative motions. ... Why scientists found "high energy neutrinos" ... And if you knew enough mathematics to take a ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Mechanical Light
    ... community has instead accepted light theories contradicting the science ... is the "particle wave" of neutrinos just like that sound is the ... anywhere in the universe. ... For example, scientists have found ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Mechanical Light
    ... up all the space of the universe, ... There are at least as many photons as there are neutrinos in all ... Neutrinos are objects having masses and relative motions. ... Why scientists found "high energy neutrinos" ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Dark matter/energy - is it real?
    ... You mean like how the Standard Model predicts that neutrinos are massless ... apparently dispute the existence of neutrinos, ... Scientists had nailed down the properties of the luminiferous ether ... in any process in this solar system for the existence of dark matter. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.science)
  • Re: Dark matter/energy - is it real?
    ... Scientists have precisely the same amount of evidence that Fermi had when he postulated the existence of neutrinos -- an apparent hole in a trusted and extremely successful theory that is easily patched with the supposition of a new type of particle we know little about, has undetermined properties, and which has not been directly measured or detected in any way, shape, or form. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.science)
Quantcast