Re: Neutrino shield idea
Tom Caylor wrote: I am entertained by the discussion with John Ross, and can think of more entertaining questions for him (such as how about travelling by firing a neutrino gun at objects that you want to travel to? sorry I couldn't help it), but I believe it is off topic. For those who agree it's off-topic but might like to continue the discussion elsewhere (and I might want to do this myself), any suggestions about a good place to do that? I'm thinking the usenet group sci.physics might be a good option, since you don't have to register, there aren't any moderators, and that group already has plenty of threads about "alternative physics" ideas. Or maybe John Ross could set up his own discussion list on yahoo or MSN or something, exclusively for talking about his ideas. Jesse
Re: Neutrino shield idea
I am entertained by the discussion with John Ross, and can think of more entertaining questions for him (such as how about travelling by firing a neutrino gun at objects that you want to travel to? sorry I couldn't help it), but I believe it is off topic. Tom Caylor -Original Message- From: Jesse Mazer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 13:55:43 -0400 Subject: RE: Neutrino shield idea John Ross wrote: Another solution is for you to ignore my comments, or maybe me yours. This isn't just about me personally not being interested in your posts, it's about the discussion of your "alternative physics" ideas being *off-topic* on this list, just as much so if you came here and started a discussion about politics or your favorite TV shows. But if the rest of the list members disagree with me I'll go with whatever the consensus is...how about a poll, who here thinks that the discussion of John Ross' theory is off-topic here, and who thinks it's on-topic? (regardless of whether or not you personally find John Ross' ideas to be of interest) Jesse
RE: Neutrino shield idea
The discussion of John Ross's theory is off-topic. However, I would be happy about it anyway, IF I thought it was a good theory, which I do not. But I don't feel like taking the time to argue about why i don't think it's a good theory, so I will continue to ignore the thread. -- Ben Goertzel > -Original Message- > From: Jesse Mazer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 1:56 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; everything-list@eskimo.com > Subject: RE: Neutrino shield idea > > > John Ross wrote: > > > > >Another solution is for you to ignore my comments, or maybe me yours. > > This isn't just about me personally not being interested in your > posts, it's > about the discussion of your "alternative physics" ideas being > *off-topic* > on this list, just as much so if you came here and started a discussion > about politics or your favorite TV shows. > > But if the rest of the list members disagree with me I'll go with > whatever > the consensus is...how about a poll, who here thinks that the > discussion of > John Ross' theory is off-topic here, and who thinks it's on-topic? > (regardless of whether or not you personally find John Ross' > ideas to be of > interest) > > Jesse > > >
RE: Neutrino shield idea
John Ross wrote: Another solution is for you to ignore my comments, or maybe me yours. This isn't just about me personally not being interested in your posts, it's about the discussion of your "alternative physics" ideas being *off-topic* on this list, just as much so if you came here and started a discussion about politics or your favorite TV shows. But if the rest of the list members disagree with me I'll go with whatever the consensus is...how about a poll, who here thinks that the discussion of John Ross' theory is off-topic here, and who thinks it's on-topic? (regardless of whether or not you personally find John Ross' ideas to be of interest) Jesse
RE: Neutrino shield idea
My understanding is that the experimental evidence of Mercury's orbit preceded Einstein's general theory. There nothing wrong with qualitative explanations, especially if they turn out to be correct. Copernicus' predictions were qualitative. Who knows my theory might match the experimental data to 10 places. -Original Message- From: Jesse Mazer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 5:45 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; everything-list@eskimo.com Subject: RE: Neutrino shield idea John Ross wrote: > >I have not dealt with Mercury's orbit. This is one of the most important experimental confirmations of general relativity. Were you even aware of it? >My theory can explain the double >slit results just as well as any other theory, better than most. Quantitatively? Can you predict the exact probability distribution for the particle to hit different locations on the screen, in both the case where its path is measured and the one where it isn't? > I have >not tried to calculate the muon magnetic moment. The magnetic moment anomaly, not the magnetic moment. This is widely considered one of the most successful predictions in physics, experimentally verified to something like eight decimal places. My theory does however >predict that a muon is nothing more than a high energy electron that >has obtain its energy by capturing the entron of a high energy photon. That's a non-quantitative "prediction", and I have no idea what experiment you're proposing to test it. Are there *any* quantitative predictions from either general relativity or quantum field theory (not ordinary nonrelativistic QM) that your theory can reproduce? I'm sure the answer is no, since few people who haven't done a graduate degree in physics have much detailed familiarity with these subjects (I don't), and your comment about GR earlier revealed a lack of familiarity with some pretty basic concepts, not to mention your attempt to overturn theories about neutrinos based only on eyeballing some pictures of particle tracks. Again, please take this discussion elsewhere, it's off-topic on this list. Jesse > > >-Original Message- >From: Jesse Mazer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 4:59 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; everything-list@eskimo.com >Subject: RE: Neutrino shield idea > > >John Ross wrote: > > > > >To the best of my knowledge and belief, my theory successfully > >predicts > > >all known experimental knowledge of physics, chemistry and optics and > >does so better and simpler than any other theory. I am working on a > >list of predictions of new things that can be proved experimentally. > >Does your theory in its current form reproduce all these predictions >quantitatively, or just in terms of word-pictures? Have you made a >detailed study of general relativity and the standard model of quantum >physics to see >if you understand all the main predictions made by these theories? Can >you >quantitatively reproduce GR's prediction of the precession of the >perihelion >of Mercury's orbit, for example (see >http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node98.html ) or the >extremely accurate prediction of the electron and muon magnetic moment >anomaly by quantum electrodynamics (see >http://latticeqcd.blogspot.com/2005/06/most-accurate-theory-we-have.htm l >)? >Can you predict more basic things like the interference pattern seen on >the >screen in the double-slit experiment, and how this pattern changes when >you >measure which slit the particle travels through? > >Jesse >
RE: Neutrino shield idea
John Ross wrote: I have not dealt with Mercury's orbit. This is one of the most important experimental confirmations of general relativity. Were you even aware of it? My theory can explain the double slit results just as well as any other theory, better than most. Quantitatively? Can you predict the exact probability distribution for the particle to hit different locations on the screen, in both the case where its path is measured and the one where it isn't? I have not tried to calculate the muon magnetic moment. The magnetic moment anomaly, not the magnetic moment. This is widely considered one of the most successful predictions in physics, experimentally verified to something like eight decimal places. My theory does however predict that a muon is nothing more than a high energy electron that has obtain its energy by capturing the entron of a high energy photon. That's a non-quantitative "prediction", and I have no idea what experiment you're proposing to test it. Are there *any* quantitative predictions from either general relativity or quantum field theory (not ordinary nonrelativistic QM) that your theory can reproduce? I'm sure the answer is no, since few people who haven't done a graduate degree in physics have much detailed familiarity with these subjects (I don't), and your comment about GR earlier revealed a lack of familiarity with some pretty basic concepts, not to mention your attempt to overturn theories about neutrinos based only on eyeballing some pictures of particle tracks. Again, please take this discussion elsewhere, it's off-topic on this list. Jesse -Original Message- From: Jesse Mazer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 4:59 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; everything-list@eskimo.com Subject: RE: Neutrino shield idea John Ross wrote: > >To the best of my knowledge and belief, my theory successfully predicts >all known experimental knowledge of physics, chemistry and optics and >does so better and simpler than any other theory. I am working on a >list of predictions of new things that can be proved experimentally. Does your theory in its current form reproduce all these predictions quantitatively, or just in terms of word-pictures? Have you made a detailed study of general relativity and the standard model of quantum physics to see if you understand all the main predictions made by these theories? Can you quantitatively reproduce GR's prediction of the precession of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit, for example (see http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node98.html ) or the extremely accurate prediction of the electron and muon magnetic moment anomaly by quantum electrodynamics (see http://latticeqcd.blogspot.com/2005/06/most-accurate-theory-we-have.html )? Can you predict more basic things like the interference pattern seen on the screen in the double-slit experiment, and how this pattern changes when you measure which slit the particle travels through? Jesse
RE: Neutrino shield idea
John Ross: Are you kicking me off the site? What if it turns out that I am right? Or are you all just interested in alternatives to the truth? I don't have the power to kick you off, I'm just telling you this sort of thing is off-topic here, so the polite thing to do would take the discussion of your ideas elsewhere. Jesse
RE: Neutrino shield idea
Are you kicking me off the site? What if it turns out that I am right?
Or are you all just interested in alternatives to the truth?
-Original Message-
From: Jesse Mazer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 5:32 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; everything-list@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: Neutrino shield idea
This comment shows that you have very little understanding of the basics
of
relativity, and thus would not be in a position to say that your theory
can
reproduce its successful predictions since you obviously haven't studied
them in any detail. In GR nothing can exceed the speed of light
*locally*
(ie no particle in the same location as a photon can pass it), although
the
distance between objects in different locations can increase faster than
light due to the expansion of space. FTL spatial expansion does not lead
to
causality violations (nor is it solely something that happened shortly
after
the big bang, even today sufficiently distant galaxies are moving away
faster than light--do you know what the Hubble constant is?), but the
ability to exceed light locally certainly would, if you assume local
Lorentz-symmetry.
Like I said before, this isn't an appropriate place to discuss theories
of
"alternative physics", it's off-topic here. Please take this discussion
somewhere else, like the physicsforums.com "Independent Research" forum
I
mentioned earlier.
Jesse
>Have you ever heard of the "Big Bang" and the period just after where
>the universe expanded much faster than the speed of light.
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Saibal Mitra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 4:49 PM
>To: John Ross; 'Russell Standish'
>Cc: 'Stephen Paul King'; everything-list@eskimo.com
>Subject: Re: Neutrino shield idea
>
>
>Faster than light effects lead to violations of causality. There are
>very stringent experimental constraints against such effects.
>
>- Original Message -
>From: "John Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "'Russell Standish'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Cc: "'Stephen Paul King'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
>
>Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 01:43 AM
>Subject: RE: Neutrino shield idea
>
>
> > I say any massless particle that has a charge supporting a Coulomb
> > force must travel at the speed of light or faster because the
> > Coulomb force travels at the speed of light and a charged massless
> > particle will be repelled by its own Coulomb force.
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Russell Standish [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 3:04 PM
> > To: John Ross
> > Cc: 'Stephen Paul King'; everything-list@eskimo.com
> > Subject: Re: Neutrino shield idea
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 09:11:04AM -0700, John Ross wrote:
> > > * Only photons travel at the speed of light. (Except my tronnies
> > > that
> >
> > > usually go faster than the speed of light.)
> >
> > Who says? Any massless particle will travel at the speed of light.
> >
> > --
> > *PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email,
> > which is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not
> > a
>virus.
> > It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this email
> > came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you may
>safely
> > ignore this attachment.
> >
> >
> > --
> > --
> >
> > A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 8308 3119 (mobile)
> > Mathematics0425 253119 (")
> > UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > Australia
> > http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
> > International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02
> >
> > --
> > --
> >
> >
>
RE: Neutrino shield idea
This comment shows that you have very little understanding of the basics of
relativity, and thus would not be in a position to say that your theory can
reproduce its successful predictions since you obviously haven't studied
them in any detail. In GR nothing can exceed the speed of light *locally*
(ie no particle in the same location as a photon can pass it), although the
distance between objects in different locations can increase faster than
light due to the expansion of space. FTL spatial expansion does not lead to
causality violations (nor is it solely something that happened shortly after
the big bang, even today sufficiently distant galaxies are moving away
faster than light--do you know what the Hubble constant is?), but the
ability to exceed light locally certainly would, if you assume local
Lorentz-symmetry.
Like I said before, this isn't an appropriate place to discuss theories of
"alternative physics", it's off-topic here. Please take this discussion
somewhere else, like the physicsforums.com "Independent Research" forum I
mentioned earlier.
Jesse
Have you ever heard of the "Big Bang" and the period just after where
the universe expanded much faster than the speed of light.
-Original Message-
From: Saibal Mitra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 4:49 PM
To: John Ross; 'Russell Standish'
Cc: 'Stephen Paul King'; everything-list@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Neutrino shield idea
Faster than light effects lead to violations of causality. There are
very stringent experimental constraints against such effects.
- Original Message -
From: "John Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Russell Standish'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "'Stephen Paul King'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 01:43 AM
Subject: RE: Neutrino shield idea
> I say any massless particle that has a charge supporting a Coulomb
> force must travel at the speed of light or faster because the Coulomb
> force travels at the speed of light and a charged massless particle
> will be repelled by its own Coulomb force.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Russell Standish [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 3:04 PM
> To: John Ross
> Cc: 'Stephen Paul King'; everything-list@eskimo.com
> Subject: Re: Neutrino shield idea
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 09:11:04AM -0700, John Ross wrote:
> > * Only photons travel at the speed of light. (Except my tronnies
> > that
>
> > usually go faster than the speed of light.)
>
> Who says? Any massless particle will travel at the speed of light.
>
> --
> *PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which
> is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a
virus.
> It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this email
> came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you may
safely
> ignore this attachment.
>
> --
> --
>
> A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 8308 3119 (mobile)
> Mathematics0425 253119 (")
> UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Australia
> http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
> International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02
> --
> --
>
>
RE: Neutrino shield idea
I have not dealt with Mercury's orbit. My theory can explain the double slit results just as well as any other theory, better than most. I have not tried to calculate the muon magnetic moment. My theory does however predict that a muon is nothing more than a high energy electron that has obtain its energy by capturing the entron of a high energy photon. -Original Message- From: Jesse Mazer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 4:59 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; everything-list@eskimo.com Subject: RE: Neutrino shield idea John Ross wrote: > >To the best of my knowledge and belief, my theory successfully predicts >all known experimental knowledge of physics, chemistry and optics and >does so better and simpler than any other theory. I am working on a >list of predictions of new things that can be proved experimentally. Does your theory in its current form reproduce all these predictions quantitatively, or just in terms of word-pictures? Have you made a detailed study of general relativity and the standard model of quantum physics to see if you understand all the main predictions made by these theories? Can you quantitatively reproduce GR's prediction of the precession of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit, for example (see http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node98.html ) or the extremely accurate prediction of the electron and muon magnetic moment anomaly by quantum electrodynamics (see http://latticeqcd.blogspot.com/2005/06/most-accurate-theory-we-have.html )? Can you predict more basic things like the interference pattern seen on the screen in the double-slit experiment, and how this pattern changes when you measure which slit the particle travels through? Jesse
Re: Neutrino shield idea
Take a look at arXiv:hep-ex/0412060. It is an experimental resolution
of the Solar Neutrino problem, which I think would be required reading
for your interests.
On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 04:34:26PM -0700, John Ross wrote:
> Name one.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Saibal Mitra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 3:27 PM
> To: John Ross; everything-list@eskimo.com
> Subject: Re: Neutrino shield idea
>
>
> There are a lot of experiments that have detected neutrinos and verified
> their properties (which are completely different from photons).
>
>
--
*PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which
is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a
virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this
email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you
may safely ignore this attachment.
A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 8308 3119 (mobile)
Mathematics0425 253119 (")
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Australiahttp://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02
pgpAUqdxoLntJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
RE: Neutrino shield idea
Have you ever heard of the "Big Bang" and the period just after where
the universe expanded much faster than the speed of light.
-Original Message-
From: Saibal Mitra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 4:49 PM
To: John Ross; 'Russell Standish'
Cc: 'Stephen Paul King'; everything-list@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Neutrino shield idea
Faster than light effects lead to violations of causality. There are
very stringent experimental constraints against such effects.
- Original Message -
From: "John Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Russell Standish'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "'Stephen Paul King'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 01:43 AM
Subject: RE: Neutrino shield idea
> I say any massless particle that has a charge supporting a Coulomb
> force must travel at the speed of light or faster because the Coulomb
> force travels at the speed of light and a charged massless particle
> will be repelled by its own Coulomb force.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Russell Standish [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 3:04 PM
> To: John Ross
> Cc: 'Stephen Paul King'; everything-list@eskimo.com
> Subject: Re: Neutrino shield idea
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 09:11:04AM -0700, John Ross wrote:
> > * Only photons travel at the speed of light. (Except my tronnies
> > that
>
> > usually go faster than the speed of light.)
>
> Who says? Any massless particle will travel at the speed of light.
>
> --
> *PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which
> is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a
virus.
> It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this email
> came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you may
safely
> ignore this attachment.
>
> --
> --
>
> A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 8308 3119 (mobile)
> Mathematics0425 253119 (")
> UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Australia
> http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
> International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02
> --
> --
>
>
RE: Neutrino shield idea
I don't believe it. -Original Message- From: Stephen Paul King [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 4:45 PM To: everything-list@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Neutrino shield idea Dear John, There is replicated evidence that neutrinos have a non-zero mass. It is very small, but it is not zero. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino Onward! Stephen - Original Message - From: "John Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Saibal Mitra'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 4:49 PM Subject: RE: Neutrino shield idea >I think the beta decay model is wrong where it predicts neutrinos are >basically different from photons. I understand neutrinos travel at the >speed of light. Only photons travel at the speed of light. > > -Original Message- > From: Saibal Mitra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 4:30 PM > To: John Ross; everything-list@eskimo.com > Subject: Re: Neutrino shield idea > > > This means that beta decay proves your model wrong. > > - Original Message - > From: "John Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "'Stephen Paul King'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > > Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2005 12:35 AM > Subject: RE: Neutrino shield idea > > >> Thanks for the paper relating to detection of "low energy" neutrinos. >> However, according to my model, neutrinos are very, very high energy >> photons (off everybody's chart, except mine). >> >> Therefore, if my model is correct, then low energy neutrinos would >> merely be the photons we are familiar with and would be very easy to >> detect. >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Stephen Paul King [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 12:54 PM >> To: everything-list@eskimo.com >> Subject: Neutrino shield idea >> >> >> Howdy! >> >> I friend of mine has worked on a related idea that might help >> this > >> inverstigation. Please see: >> >> http://davidwoolsey.com/physics/ideas/neutrinoscope/index.html >> >> Kindest regards, >> >> Stephen >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "John Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Cc: >> Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 11:57 AM >> Subject: RE: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of >> Everything >> >> >> > Yes. But building a neutrino shield would be difficult. >>
RE: Neutrino shield idea
Give me your FAX number and I will fax you the photo. -Original Message- From: Saibal Mitra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 4:45 PM To: John Ross; 'Russell Standish' Cc: 'Hal Ruhl'; everything-list@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Neutrino shield idea I'm sure you saw something else :-) - Original Message - From: "John Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Russell Standish'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "'Hal Ruhl'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 01:40 AM Subject: RE: Neutrino shield idea > I say a neutrino does not have a rest mass. It is a photon, like a > very high energy gamma ray photon. I have seen photos of a neutrino > collision in a neutrino trap. From the look of all the resulting > ionization tracks, it must have had a lot more energy than 40 ev. I > say the energy of neutrinos is in the range of 300 mev! > > -Original Message- > From: Russell Standish [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 3:00 PM > To: John Ross > Cc: 'Hal Ruhl'; everything-list@eskimo.com > Subject: Re: Neutrino shield idea > > > According to special relativity, anything with a positive rest mass > travels slower than the speed of light. Neutrinos have been measured > with a positive rest mass, of around 40ev for the electron neutrino > IIRC, and higher values for the muon and tauon neutrinos. > > I have never heard of either tardyon or luxon before either, but have > heard of tachyon, or faster than light particle. Clearly tardyon is > therefore slower than light, and luxon is at light speed. > > Luxons therefore have zero rest mass, and tachyons have imaginary (ie > proportional to sqrt(-1)) rest mass. > > Cheers > > On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 03:06:55PM -0700, John Ross wrote: > > Where is the proof that a neutrino is not a photon. I believe > > people > > are only guessing that a neutrino is a tardyon, whatever in the hell a > > > tardyon is. Tardyons are not in my dictionary. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Hal Ruhl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 2:50 PM > > To: everything-list@eskimo.com > > Subject: RE: Neutrino shield idea > > > > > > As I understand it a photon is a luxon as is a gluon and a neutrino > > is a tardyon. > > > > Hal Ruhl > > > > > > At 04:49 PM 10/10/2005, you wrote: > > >I think the beta decay model is wrong where it predicts neutrinos > > >are basically different from photons. I understand neutrinos > > >travel at > the > > > > >speed of light. Only photons travel at the speed of light. > > > > > >-Original Message- > > >From: Saibal Mitra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 4:30 PM > > >To: John Ross; everything-list@eskimo.com > > >Subject: Re: Neutrino shield idea > > > > > > > > >This means that beta decay proves your model wrong. > > > > > >- Original Message - > > >From: "John Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >To: "'Stephen Paul King'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > > > > > >Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2005 12:35 AM > > >Subject: RE: Neutrino shield idea > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the paper relating to detection of "low energy" > > > > neutrinos. However, according to my model, neutrinos are very, > very > > > > high energy photons (off everybody's chart, except mine). > > > > > > > > Therefore, if my model is correct, then low energy neutrinos > > > > would merely be the photons we are familiar with and would be > > > > very easy > to > > > > > > detect. > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > > From: Stephen Paul King [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 12:54 PM > > > > To: everything-list@eskimo.com > > > > Subject: Neutrino shield idea > > > > > > > > > > > > Howdy! > > > > > > > > I friend of mine has worked on a related idea that might > > > > help this > > > > > > > inverstigation. Please see: > > > > > > > > http://davidwoolsey.com/physics/ideas/neutrinoscope/index.html > > > > > > > > Kindest regards, > > > > > > > > Stephen > > > > > &g
RE: Neutrino shield idea
Here is what the relevant part of your reference said:
"The KamLAND (Kamioka Liquid-scintillator Anti-Neutrino Detector)
apparatus was purpose-built to catch a glimpse of these elusive
particles (see Fig. 5 on page 502). The detector is situated in the
centre of the largest Japanese island, Honshu, in a mine one kilometre
below the summit of Mt Ikenoyama, to reduce the effects of cos-mic rays
formed from particles other than antineutrinos. Antineutrinos are
occasionally captured by protons in KamLAND's 1-kilotonne,
13-metre-diameter scintillation detector (pictured above) in a process
known as inverse -decay. This produces a neutron, which combines with a
proton to form a deuteron and produces a characteristic -ray
('scintillation light') with an energy of 2.2 MeV. The light that this
reaction produces is detected as an electrical signal by an array of
photomultiplier devices surrounding the detector."
What happened (according to the Ross Model) was the neutrino (probably a
relatively low energy neutrino)was captured by an electron which turned
the electron into a very high energy electron that combined with a
hydrogen nuclei (a proton) to become a neutron which in turn combined
with another proton to become a deuteron which produced the
characteristic -ray with energy of 2.2 Mev. The author is right this
is reverse beta decay in which an electron (a beta particle) and a
neutrino are emitted from an atomic nuclei. The best way an electron
can get inside a nuclei is by riding on a proton as part of a neutron.
See FIG. 9 and text at page 29 of my patent application for my proposed
model of a deuteron.
In any case this report certainly does not convince me that neutrinos
are not photons.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 4:41 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
everything-list@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Neutrino shield idea
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v436/n7050/full/436467a.html
-Original Message-
From: John Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 'Saibal Mitra' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 16:34:26 -0700
Subject: RE: Neutrino shield idea
Name one.
-Original Message-
From: Saibal Mitra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 3:27 PM
To: John Ross; everything-list@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Neutrino shield idea
There are a lot of experiments that have detected neutrinos and verified
their properties (which are completely different from photons).
RE: Neutrino shield idea
John Ross wrote: To the best of my knowledge and belief, my theory successfully predicts all known experimental knowledge of physics, chemistry and optics and does so better and simpler than any other theory. I am working on a list of predictions of new things that can be proved experimentally. Does your theory in its current form reproduce all these predictions quantitatively, or just in terms of word-pictures? Have you made a detailed study of general relativity and the standard model of quantum physics to see if you understand all the main predictions made by these theories? Can you quantitatively reproduce GR's prediction of the precession of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit, for example (see http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node98.html ) or the extremely accurate prediction of the electron and muon magnetic moment anomaly by quantum electrodynamics (see http://latticeqcd.blogspot.com/2005/06/most-accurate-theory-we-have.html )? Can you predict more basic things like the interference pattern seen on the screen in the double-slit experiment, and how this pattern changes when you measure which slit the particle travels through? Jesse
Re: Neutrino shield idea
Dear John, This theory, as far as I have researched it, has problem with Eotvos experiements that consider particles that are sensitive to the weak force, such as radioactive elements. Not all particles interact with neutrinos, e.g. are sensituve to the weak force, and thus there should be a detectable difference in gravity between particles depending on this. This theory simply goes nowhere. Onward, Stephen - Original Message - From: "John Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Jesse Mazer'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 7:19 PM Subject: RE: Neutrino shield idea Thanks for the response. Your reference quotes Professor Feynman in part as follows: "So that is the end of that theory. 'Well,' you say, 'it was a good one, and I got rid of the mathematics for a while. Maybe I could invent a better one.' Maybe you can, because nobody knows the ultimate. But up to today, from the time of Newton, no one has invented another theoretical description of the mathematical machinery behind this law which does not either say the same thing over again, or make the mathematics harder, or predict some wrong phenomena. So there is no model of the theory of gravity today, other than the mathematical form." I say I have done what Professor Feynman said at that time had not been done, namely "invent a theoretical description of the mathematical of Newton's law of gravity". The example that Feynman rebuts is just the opposite of mine. There the sun blocks particles flying through the universe. In my theory the sun is the source of the particles. We know that there are truly 150,000,000 neutrinos from the sun passing through every square centimeter of the earth's surface every second. We also know that neutrino flux decrease by the inverse square of distance. I have shown how Coulomb forces from these neutrinos apply a force on the charges in the earth pushing earth toward the source of the neutrinos!
Re: Neutrino shield idea
Faster than light effects lead to violations of causality. There are very
stringent experimental constraints against such effects.
- Original Message -
From: "John Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Russell Standish'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "'Stephen Paul King'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 01:43 AM
Subject: RE: Neutrino shield idea
> I say any massless particle that has a charge supporting a Coulomb force
> must travel at the speed of light or faster because the Coulomb force
> travels at the speed of light and a charged massless particle will be
> repelled by its own Coulomb force.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Russell Standish [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 3:04 PM
> To: John Ross
> Cc: 'Stephen Paul King'; everything-list@eskimo.com
> Subject: Re: Neutrino shield idea
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 09:11:04AM -0700, John Ross wrote:
> > * Only photons travel at the speed of light. (Except my tronnies that
>
> > usually go faster than the speed of light.)
>
> Who says? Any massless particle will travel at the speed of light.
>
> --
> *PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which
> is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a virus.
> It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this email
> came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you may safely
> ignore this attachment.
>
>
>
> A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 8308 3119 (mobile)
> Mathematics0425 253119 (")
> UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Australia
> http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
> International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02
>
>
>
Re: Neutrino shield idea
I'm sure you saw something else :-)
- Original Message -
From: "John Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Russell Standish'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "'Hal Ruhl'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 01:40 AM
Subject: RE: Neutrino shield idea
> I say a neutrino does not have a rest mass. It is a photon, like a very
> high energy gamma ray photon. I have seen photos of a neutrino
> collision in a neutrino trap. From the look of all the resulting
> ionization tracks, it must have had a lot more energy than 40 ev. I say
> the energy of neutrinos is in the range of 300 mev!
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Russell Standish [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 3:00 PM
> To: John Ross
> Cc: 'Hal Ruhl'; everything-list@eskimo.com
> Subject: Re: Neutrino shield idea
>
>
> According to special relativity, anything with a positive rest mass
> travels slower than the speed of light. Neutrinos have been measured
> with a positive rest mass, of around 40ev for the electron neutrino
> IIRC, and higher values for the muon and tauon neutrinos.
>
> I have never heard of either tardyon or luxon before either, but have
> heard of tachyon, or faster than light particle. Clearly tardyon is
> therefore slower than light, and luxon is at light speed.
>
> Luxons therefore have zero rest mass, and tachyons have imaginary (ie
> proportional to sqrt(-1)) rest mass.
>
> Cheers
>
> On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 03:06:55PM -0700, John Ross wrote:
> > Where is the proof that a neutrino is not a photon. I believe people
> > are only guessing that a neutrino is a tardyon, whatever in the hell a
>
> > tardyon is. Tardyons are not in my dictionary.
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Hal Ruhl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 2:50 PM
> > To: everything-list@eskimo.com
> > Subject: RE: Neutrino shield idea
> >
> >
> > As I understand it a photon is a luxon as is a gluon and a neutrino
> > is a tardyon.
> >
> > Hal Ruhl
> >
> >
> > At 04:49 PM 10/10/2005, you wrote:
> > >I think the beta decay model is wrong where it predicts neutrinos are
> > >basically different from photons. I understand neutrinos travel at
> the
> >
> > >speed of light. Only photons travel at the speed of light.
> > >
> > >-Original Message-
> > >From: Saibal Mitra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 4:30 PM
> > >To: John Ross; everything-list@eskimo.com
> > >Subject: Re: Neutrino shield idea
> > >
> > >
> > >This means that beta decay proves your model wrong.
> > >
> > >- Original Message -
> > >From: "John Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >To: "'Stephen Paul King'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> > >
> > >Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2005 12:35 AM
> > >Subject: RE: Neutrino shield idea
> > >
> > >
> > > > Thanks for the paper relating to detection of "low energy"
> > > > neutrinos. However, according to my model, neutrinos are very,
> very
> > > > high energy photons (off everybody's chart, except mine).
> > > >
> > > > Therefore, if my model is correct, then low energy neutrinos would
> > > > merely be the photons we are familiar with and would be very easy
> to
> >
> > > > detect.
> > > >
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: Stephen Paul King [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 12:54 PM
> > > > To: everything-list@eskimo.com
> > > > Subject: Neutrino shield idea
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Howdy!
> > > >
> > > > I friend of mine has worked on a related idea that might help
> > > > this
> > >
> > > > inverstigation. Please see:
> > > >
> > > > http://davidwoolsey.com/physics/ideas/neutrinoscope/index.html
> > > >
> > > > Kindest regards,
> > > >
> > > > Stephen
> > > >
> > > > - Original Message -
> > > > From: "John Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > Cc:
> > > > Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 11:57 AM
> > > > Subject: RE: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory
> > > > of
> >
> > > > Everything
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Yes. But building a neutrino shield would be difficult.
> > > >
>
> --
> *PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which
> is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a virus.
> It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this email
> came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you may safely
> ignore this attachment.
>
>
>
> A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 8308 3119 (mobile)
> Mathematics0425 253119 (")
> UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Australia
> http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
> International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02
>
>
>
Re: Neutrino shield idea
Dear John, There is replicated evidence that neutrinos have a non-zero mass. It is very small, but it is not zero. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino Onward! Stephen - Original Message - From: "John Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Saibal Mitra'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 4:49 PM Subject: RE: Neutrino shield idea I think the beta decay model is wrong where it predicts neutrinos are basically different from photons. I understand neutrinos travel at the speed of light. Only photons travel at the speed of light. -Original Message- From: Saibal Mitra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 4:30 PM To: John Ross; everything-list@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Neutrino shield idea This means that beta decay proves your model wrong. - Original Message - From: "John Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Stephen Paul King'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2005 12:35 AM Subject: RE: Neutrino shield idea Thanks for the paper relating to detection of "low energy" neutrinos. However, according to my model, neutrinos are very, very high energy photons (off everybody's chart, except mine). Therefore, if my model is correct, then low energy neutrinos would merely be the photons we are familiar with and would be very easy to detect. -Original Message- From: Stephen Paul King [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 12:54 PM To: everything-list@eskimo.com Subject: Neutrino shield idea Howdy! I friend of mine has worked on a related idea that might help this inverstigation. Please see: http://davidwoolsey.com/physics/ideas/neutrinoscope/index.html Kindest regards, Stephen - Original Message - From: "John Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 11:57 AM Subject: RE: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of Everything > Yes. But building a neutrino shield would be difficult.
RE: Neutrino shield idea
I say any massless particle that has a charge supporting a Coulomb force
must travel at the speed of light or faster because the Coulomb force
travels at the speed of light and a charged massless particle will be
repelled by its own Coulomb force.
-Original Message-
From: Russell Standish [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 3:04 PM
To: John Ross
Cc: 'Stephen Paul King'; everything-list@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Neutrino shield idea
On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 09:11:04AM -0700, John Ross wrote:
> * Only photons travel at the speed of light. (Except my tronnies that
> usually go faster than the speed of light.)
Who says? Any massless particle will travel at the speed of light.
--
*PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which
is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a virus.
It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this email
came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you may safely
ignore this attachment.
A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 8308 3119 (mobile)
Mathematics0425 253119 (")
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Australia
http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02
Re: Neutrino shield idea
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v436/n7050/full/436467a.html -Original Message- From: John Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: 'Saibal Mitra' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 16:34:26 -0700 Subject: RE: Neutrino shield idea Name one. -Original Message- From: Saibal Mitra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 3:27 PM To: John Ross; everything-list@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Neutrino shield idea There are a lot of experiments that have detected neutrinos and verified their properties (which are completely different from photons).
RE: Neutrino shield idea
I say a neutrino does not have a rest mass. It is a photon, like a very
high energy gamma ray photon. I have seen photos of a neutrino
collision in a neutrino trap. From the look of all the resulting
ionization tracks, it must have had a lot more energy than 40 ev. I say
the energy of neutrinos is in the range of 300 mev!
-Original Message-
From: Russell Standish [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 3:00 PM
To: John Ross
Cc: 'Hal Ruhl'; everything-list@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Neutrino shield idea
According to special relativity, anything with a positive rest mass
travels slower than the speed of light. Neutrinos have been measured
with a positive rest mass, of around 40ev for the electron neutrino
IIRC, and higher values for the muon and tauon neutrinos.
I have never heard of either tardyon or luxon before either, but have
heard of tachyon, or faster than light particle. Clearly tardyon is
therefore slower than light, and luxon is at light speed.
Luxons therefore have zero rest mass, and tachyons have imaginary (ie
proportional to sqrt(-1)) rest mass.
Cheers
On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 03:06:55PM -0700, John Ross wrote:
> Where is the proof that a neutrino is not a photon. I believe people
> are only guessing that a neutrino is a tardyon, whatever in the hell a
> tardyon is. Tardyons are not in my dictionary.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Hal Ruhl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 2:50 PM
> To: everything-list@eskimo.com
> Subject: RE: Neutrino shield idea
>
>
> As I understand it a photon is a luxon as is a gluon and a neutrino
> is a tardyon.
>
> Hal Ruhl
>
>
> At 04:49 PM 10/10/2005, you wrote:
> >I think the beta decay model is wrong where it predicts neutrinos are
> >basically different from photons. I understand neutrinos travel at
the
>
> >speed of light. Only photons travel at the speed of light.
> >
> >-Original Message-
> >From: Saibal Mitra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 4:30 PM
> >To: John Ross; everything-list@eskimo.com
> >Subject: Re: Neutrino shield idea
> >
> >
> >This means that beta decay proves your model wrong.
> >
> >- Original Message -
> >From: "John Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: "'Stephen Paul King'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> >
> >Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2005 12:35 AM
> >Subject: RE: Neutrino shield idea
> >
> >
> > > Thanks for the paper relating to detection of "low energy"
> > > neutrinos. However, according to my model, neutrinos are very,
very
> > > high energy photons (off everybody's chart, except mine).
> > >
> > > Therefore, if my model is correct, then low energy neutrinos would
> > > merely be the photons we are familiar with and would be very easy
to
>
> > > detect.
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Stephen Paul King [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 12:54 PM
> > > To: everything-list@eskimo.com
> > > Subject: Neutrino shield idea
> > >
> > >
> > > Howdy!
> > >
> > > I friend of mine has worked on a related idea that might help
> > > this
> >
> > > inverstigation. Please see:
> > >
> > > http://davidwoolsey.com/physics/ideas/neutrinoscope/index.html
> > >
> > > Kindest regards,
> > >
> > > Stephen
> > >
> > > - Original Message -
> > > From: "John Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Cc:
> > > Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 11:57 AM
> > > Subject: RE: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory
> > > of
>
> > > Everything
> > >
> > >
> > > > Yes. But building a neutrino shield would be difficult.
> > >
--
*PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which
is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a virus.
It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this email
came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you may safely
ignore this attachment.
A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 8308 3119 (mobile)
Mathematics0425 253119 (")
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Australia
http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02
RE: Neutrino shield idea
Name one. -Original Message- From: Saibal Mitra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 3:27 PM To: John Ross; everything-list@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Neutrino shield idea There are a lot of experiments that have detected neutrinos and verified their properties (which are completely different from photons). - Original Message - From: "John Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Saibal Mitra'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 10:49 PM Subject: RE: Neutrino shield idea > I think the beta decay model is wrong where it predicts neutrinos are > basically different from photons. I understand neutrinos travel at > the speed of light. Only photons travel at the speed of light. > > -Original Message- > From: Saibal Mitra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 4:30 PM > To: John Ross; everything-list@eskimo.com > Subject: Re: Neutrino shield idea > > > This means that beta decay proves your model wrong. > > - Original Message - > From: "John Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "'Stephen Paul King'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > > Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2005 12:35 AM > Subject: RE: Neutrino shield idea > > > > Thanks for the paper relating to detection of "low energy" > > neutrinos. However, according to my model, neutrinos are very, very > > high energy photons (off everybody's chart, except mine). > > > > Therefore, if my model is correct, then low energy neutrinos would > > merely be the photons we are familiar with and would be very easy to > > detect. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Stephen Paul King [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 12:54 PM > > To: everything-list@eskimo.com > > Subject: Neutrino shield idea > > > > > > Howdy! > > > > I friend of mine has worked on a related idea that might help > > this > > > inverstigation. Please see: > > > > http://davidwoolsey.com/physics/ideas/neutrinoscope/index.html > > > > Kindest regards, > > > > Stephen > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "John Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Cc: > > Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 11:57 AM > > Subject: RE: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of > > Everything > > > > > > > Yes. But building a neutrino shield would be difficult. > > >
RE: Neutrino shield idea
To the best of my knowledge and belief, my theory successfully predicts all known experimental knowledge of physics, chemistry and optics and does so better and simpler than any other theory. I am working on a list of predictions of new things that can be proved experimentally. -Original Message- From: Jesse Mazer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 3:21 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; everything-list@eskimo.com Subject: RE: Neutrino shield idea John Ross: > >Thanks for the response. > >Yes my theory involves a lot of math. Have you read my patent >application? For example, I have a quantitative description of Coulomb >forces acting inside photons. These integrated forces represent the >photon's energy. Do these equations allow you to predict quantitative results of experiments that have already been done, or are you just using math to describe new phenomena (like 'Coulomb forces acting inside photons') that have no current experimental correlate? For your theory to be taken seriously, you have to be able to reproduce successful predictions made by earlier theories (ideally, all the successful predictions made by the standard model of quantum physics, and by general relativity in the domain of gravity), and also make predictions about new phenomena which can be tested experimentally. > >Somehow I lost your pushing gravity thought and your reference to >Feynman. Could you re-send me the e-mail that included those thoughts. There's an archived copy at http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list%40eskimo.com/msg08025.html --the message includes a link to a wikipedia article which has a list of critisisms of "push gravity", as well as that long quote by Feynman I provided. Anyway, as Russell Standish said to you earlier in the message at http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list%40eskimo.com/msg08016.html , this list is not really for discussing alternative physics theories, the "theory of everything" title refers not to a unified theory of physics but to the idea that all possible universes (or all possible conscious experiences, maybe) exist, and some hope to derive an explanation for why we see the laws of physics that we do from this sort of assumption. See Max Tegmark's multiverse page at http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/multiverse.html for more background. You might want to try submitting your ideas to the "independent research" subforum of physicsforums.com, located at http://www.physicsforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=146 , there are a lot of knowledgeable people there. Jesse
Re: Neutrino shield idea
On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 09:11:04AM -0700, John Ross wrote:
> * Only photons travel at the speed of light. (Except my tronnies that
> usually go faster than the speed of light.)
Who says? Any massless particle will travel at the speed of light.
--
*PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which
is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a
virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this
email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you
may safely ignore this attachment.
A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 8308 3119 (mobile)
Mathematics0425 253119 (")
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Australiahttp://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02
pgpoI2FMUm9xR.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: Neutrino shield idea
According to special relativity, anything with a positive rest mass
travels slower than the speed of light. Neutrinos have been measured
with a positive rest mass, of around 40ev for the electron neutrino
IIRC, and higher values for the muon and tauon neutrinos.
I have never heard of either tardyon or luxon before either, but have
heard of tachyon, or faster than light particle. Clearly tardyon is
therefore slower than light, and luxon is at light speed.
Luxons therefore have zero rest mass, and tachyons have imaginary (ie
proportional to sqrt(-1)) rest mass.
Cheers
On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 03:06:55PM -0700, John Ross wrote:
> Where is the proof that a neutrino is not a photon. I believe people
> are only guessing that a neutrino is a tardyon, whatever in the hell a
> tardyon is. Tardyons are not in my dictionary.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Hal Ruhl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 2:50 PM
> To: everything-list@eskimo.com
> Subject: RE: Neutrino shield idea
>
>
> As I understand it a photon is a luxon as is a gluon and a neutrino
> is a tardyon.
>
> Hal Ruhl
>
>
> At 04:49 PM 10/10/2005, you wrote:
> >I think the beta decay model is wrong where it predicts neutrinos are
> >basically different from photons. I understand neutrinos travel at the
>
> >speed of light. Only photons travel at the speed of light.
> >
> >-Original Message-
> >From: Saibal Mitra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 4:30 PM
> >To: John Ross; everything-list@eskimo.com
> >Subject: Re: Neutrino shield idea
> >
> >
> >This means that beta decay proves your model wrong.
> >
> >- Original Message -
> >From: "John Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: "'Stephen Paul King'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> >
> >Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2005 12:35 AM
> >Subject: RE: Neutrino shield idea
> >
> >
> > > Thanks for the paper relating to detection of "low energy"
> > > neutrinos. However, according to my model, neutrinos are very, very
> > > high energy photons (off everybody's chart, except mine).
> > >
> > > Therefore, if my model is correct, then low energy neutrinos would
> > > merely be the photons we are familiar with and would be very easy to
>
> > > detect.
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Stephen Paul King [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 12:54 PM
> > > To: everything-list@eskimo.com
> > > Subject: Neutrino shield idea
> > >
> > >
> > > Howdy!
> > >
> > > I friend of mine has worked on a related idea that might help
> > > this
> >
> > > inverstigation. Please see:
> > >
> > > http://davidwoolsey.com/physics/ideas/neutrinoscope/index.html
> > >
> > > Kindest regards,
> > >
> > > Stephen
> > >
> > > - Original Message -
> > > From: "John Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Cc:
> > > Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 11:57 AM
> > > Subject: RE: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of
>
> > > Everything
> > >
> > >
> > > > Yes. But building a neutrino shield would be difficult.
> > >
--
*PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which
is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a
virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this
email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you
may safely ignore this attachment.
A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 8308 3119 (mobile)
Mathematics0425 253119 (")
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Australiahttp://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02
pgpkvLrjHm21s.pgp
Description: PGP signature
RE: Neutrino shield idea
Thanks for the response. Your reference quotes Professor Feynman in part as follows: "So that is the end of that theory. 'Well,' you say, 'it was a good one, and I got rid of the mathematics for a while. Maybe I could invent a better one.' Maybe you can, because nobody knows the ultimate. But up to today, from the time of Newton, no one has invented another theoretical description of the mathematical machinery behind this law which does not either say the same thing over again, or make the mathematics harder, or predict some wrong phenomena. So there is no model of the theory of gravity today, other than the mathematical form." I say I have done what Professor Feynman said at that time had not been done, namely "invent a theoretical description of the mathematical of Newton's law of gravity". The example that Feynman rebuts is just the opposite of mine. There the sun blocks particles flying through the universe. In my theory the sun is the source of the particles. We know that there are truly 150,000,000 neutrinos from the sun passing through every square centimeter of the earth's surface every second. We also know that neutrino flux decrease by the inverse square of distance. I have shown how Coulomb forces from these neutrinos apply a force on the charges in the earth pushing earth toward the source of the neutrinos! -Original Message- From: Jesse Mazer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 3:21 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; everything-list@eskimo.com Subject: RE: Neutrino shield idea John Ross: > >Thanks for the response. > >Yes my theory involves a lot of math. Have you read my patent >application? For example, I have a quantitative description of Coulomb >forces acting inside photons. These integrated forces represent the >photon's energy. Do these equations allow you to predict quantitative results of experiments that have already been done, or are you just using math to describe new phenomena (like 'Coulomb forces acting inside photons') that have no current experimental correlate? For your theory to be taken seriously, you have to be able to reproduce successful predictions made by earlier theories (ideally, all the successful predictions made by the standard model of quantum physics, and by general relativity in the domain of gravity), and also make predictions about new phenomena which can be tested experimentally. > >Somehow I lost your pushing gravity thought and your reference to >Feynman. Could you re-send me the e-mail that included those thoughts. There's an archived copy at http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list%40eskimo.com/msg08025.html --the message includes a link to a wikipedia article which has a list of critisisms of "push gravity", as well as that long quote by Feynman I provided. Anyway, as Russell Standish said to you earlier in the message at http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list%40eskimo.com/msg08016.html , this list is not really for discussing alternative physics theories, the "theory of everything" title refers not to a unified theory of physics but to the idea that all possible universes (or all possible conscious experiences, maybe) exist, and some hope to derive an explanation for why we see the laws of physics that we do from this sort of assumption. See Max Tegmark's multiverse page at http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/multiverse.html for more background. You might want to try submitting your ideas to the "independent research" subforum of physicsforums.com, located at http://www.physicsforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=146 , there are a lot of knowledgeable people there. Jesse
Re: Neutrino shield idea
There are a lot of experiments that have detected neutrinos and verified their properties (which are completely different from photons). - Original Message - From: "John Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Saibal Mitra'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 10:49 PM Subject: RE: Neutrino shield idea > I think the beta decay model is wrong where it predicts neutrinos are > basically different from photons. I understand neutrinos travel at the > speed of light. Only photons travel at the speed of light. > > -Original Message- > From: Saibal Mitra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 4:30 PM > To: John Ross; everything-list@eskimo.com > Subject: Re: Neutrino shield idea > > > This means that beta decay proves your model wrong. > > - Original Message - > From: "John Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "'Stephen Paul King'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > > Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2005 12:35 AM > Subject: RE: Neutrino shield idea > > > > Thanks for the paper relating to detection of "low energy" neutrinos. > > However, according to my model, neutrinos are very, very high energy > > photons (off everybody's chart, except mine). > > > > Therefore, if my model is correct, then low energy neutrinos would > > merely be the photons we are familiar with and would be very easy to > > detect. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Stephen Paul King [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 12:54 PM > > To: everything-list@eskimo.com > > Subject: Neutrino shield idea > > > > > > Howdy! > > > > I friend of mine has worked on a related idea that might help this > > > inverstigation. Please see: > > > > http://davidwoolsey.com/physics/ideas/neutrinoscope/index.html > > > > Kindest regards, > > > > Stephen > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "John Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Cc: > > Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 11:57 AM > > Subject: RE: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of > > Everything > > > > > > > Yes. But building a neutrino shield would be difficult. > > >
RE: Neutrino shield idea
Try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxon At 06:06 PM 10/10/2005, you wrote: Where is the proof that a neutrino is not a photon. I believe people are only guessing that a neutrino is a tardyon, whatever in the hell a tardyon is. Tardyons are not in my dictionary. -Original Message- From: Hal Ruhl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 2:50 PM To: everything-list@eskimo.com Subject: RE: Neutrino shield idea As I understand it a photon is a luxon as is a gluon and a neutrino is a tardyon. Hal Ruhl At 04:49 PM 10/10/2005, you wrote: >I think the beta decay model is wrong where it predicts neutrinos are >basically different from photons. I understand neutrinos travel at the >speed of light. Only photons travel at the speed of light. > >-Original Message- >From: Saibal Mitra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 4:30 PM >To: John Ross; everything-list@eskimo.com >Subject: Re: Neutrino shield idea > > >This means that beta decay proves your model wrong. > >- Original Message - >From: "John Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "'Stephen Paul King'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > >Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2005 12:35 AM >Subject: RE: Neutrino shield idea > > > > Thanks for the paper relating to detection of "low energy" > > neutrinos. However, according to my model, neutrinos are very, very > > high energy photons (off everybody's chart, except mine). > > > > Therefore, if my model is correct, then low energy neutrinos would > > merely be the photons we are familiar with and would be very easy to > > detect. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Stephen Paul King [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 12:54 PM > > To: everything-list@eskimo.com > > Subject: Neutrino shield idea > > > > > > Howdy! > > > > I friend of mine has worked on a related idea that might help > > this > > > inverstigation. Please see: > > > > http://davidwoolsey.com/physics/ideas/neutrinoscope/index.html > > > > Kindest regards, > > > > Stephen > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "John Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Cc: > > Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 11:57 AM > > Subject: RE: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of > > Everything > > > > > > > Yes. But building a neutrino shield would be difficult. > >
RE: Neutrino shield idea
John Ross: Thanks for the response. Yes my theory involves a lot of math. Have you read my patent application? For example, I have a quantitative description of Coulomb forces acting inside photons. These integrated forces represent the photon's energy. Do these equations allow you to predict quantitative results of experiments that have already been done, or are you just using math to describe new phenomena (like 'Coulomb forces acting inside photons') that have no current experimental correlate? For your theory to be taken seriously, you have to be able to reproduce successful predictions made by earlier theories (ideally, all the successful predictions made by the standard model of quantum physics, and by general relativity in the domain of gravity), and also make predictions about new phenomena which can be tested experimentally. Somehow I lost your pushing gravity thought and your reference to Feynman. Could you re-send me the e-mail that included those thoughts. There's an archived copy at http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list%40eskimo.com/msg08025.html --the message includes a link to a wikipedia article which has a list of critisisms of "push gravity", as well as that long quote by Feynman I provided. Anyway, as Russell Standish said to you earlier in the message at http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list%40eskimo.com/msg08016.html , this list is not really for discussing alternative physics theories, the "theory of everything" title refers not to a unified theory of physics but to the idea that all possible universes (or all possible conscious experiences, maybe) exist, and some hope to derive an explanation for why we see the laws of physics that we do from this sort of assumption. See Max Tegmark's multiverse page at http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/multiverse.html for more background. You might want to try submitting your ideas to the "independent research" subforum of physicsforums.com, located at http://www.physicsforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=146 , there are a lot of knowledgeable people there. Jesse
RE: Neutrino shield idea
Where is the proof that a neutrino is not a photon. I believe people are only guessing that a neutrino is a tardyon, whatever in the hell a tardyon is. Tardyons are not in my dictionary. -Original Message- From: Hal Ruhl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 2:50 PM To: everything-list@eskimo.com Subject: RE: Neutrino shield idea As I understand it a photon is a luxon as is a gluon and a neutrino is a tardyon. Hal Ruhl At 04:49 PM 10/10/2005, you wrote: >I think the beta decay model is wrong where it predicts neutrinos are >basically different from photons. I understand neutrinos travel at the >speed of light. Only photons travel at the speed of light. > >-Original Message- >From: Saibal Mitra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 4:30 PM >To: John Ross; everything-list@eskimo.com >Subject: Re: Neutrino shield idea > > >This means that beta decay proves your model wrong. > >- Original Message - >From: "John Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "'Stephen Paul King'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > >Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2005 12:35 AM >Subject: RE: Neutrino shield idea > > > > Thanks for the paper relating to detection of "low energy" > > neutrinos. However, according to my model, neutrinos are very, very > > high energy photons (off everybody's chart, except mine). > > > > Therefore, if my model is correct, then low energy neutrinos would > > merely be the photons we are familiar with and would be very easy to > > detect. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Stephen Paul King [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 12:54 PM > > To: everything-list@eskimo.com > > Subject: Neutrino shield idea > > > > > > Howdy! > > > > I friend of mine has worked on a related idea that might help > > this > > > inverstigation. Please see: > > > > http://davidwoolsey.com/physics/ideas/neutrinoscope/index.html > > > > Kindest regards, > > > > Stephen > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "John Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Cc: > > Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 11:57 AM > > Subject: RE: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of > > Everything > > > > > > > Yes. But building a neutrino shield would be difficult. > >
RE: Neutrino shield idea
As I understand it a photon is a luxon as is a gluon and a neutrino is a tardyon. Hal Ruhl At 04:49 PM 10/10/2005, you wrote: I think the beta decay model is wrong where it predicts neutrinos are basically different from photons. I understand neutrinos travel at the speed of light. Only photons travel at the speed of light. -Original Message- From: Saibal Mitra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 4:30 PM To: John Ross; everything-list@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Neutrino shield idea This means that beta decay proves your model wrong. - Original Message - From: "John Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Stephen Paul King'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2005 12:35 AM Subject: RE: Neutrino shield idea > Thanks for the paper relating to detection of "low energy" neutrinos. > However, according to my model, neutrinos are very, very high energy > photons (off everybody's chart, except mine). > > Therefore, if my model is correct, then low energy neutrinos would > merely be the photons we are familiar with and would be very easy to > detect. > > -Original Message- > From: Stephen Paul King [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 12:54 PM > To: everything-list@eskimo.com > Subject: Neutrino shield idea > > > Howdy! > > I friend of mine has worked on a related idea that might help this > inverstigation. Please see: > > http://davidwoolsey.com/physics/ideas/neutrinoscope/index.html > > Kindest regards, > > Stephen > > - Original Message - > From: "John Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: > Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 11:57 AM > Subject: RE: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of > Everything > > > > Yes. But building a neutrino shield would be difficult. >
RE: Neutrino shield idea
I think the beta decay model is wrong where it predicts neutrinos are basically different from photons. I understand neutrinos travel at the speed of light. Only photons travel at the speed of light. -Original Message- From: Saibal Mitra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 4:30 PM To: John Ross; everything-list@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Neutrino shield idea This means that beta decay proves your model wrong. - Original Message - From: "John Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Stephen Paul King'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2005 12:35 AM Subject: RE: Neutrino shield idea > Thanks for the paper relating to detection of "low energy" neutrinos. > However, according to my model, neutrinos are very, very high energy > photons (off everybody's chart, except mine). > > Therefore, if my model is correct, then low energy neutrinos would > merely be the photons we are familiar with and would be very easy to > detect. > > -Original Message- > From: Stephen Paul King [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 12:54 PM > To: everything-list@eskimo.com > Subject: Neutrino shield idea > > > Howdy! > > I friend of mine has worked on a related idea that might help this > inverstigation. Please see: > > http://davidwoolsey.com/physics/ideas/neutrinoscope/index.html > > Kindest regards, > > Stephen > > - Original Message - > From: "John Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: > Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 11:57 AM > Subject: RE: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of > Everything > > > > Yes. But building a neutrino shield would be difficult. >
RE: Neutrino shield idea
Right on Russell! Has anyone ever measured the spin of a neutrino?
Let's get back to basics? Let's consider the following which I assume
you fellows believe are true:
* Neutrino travel at the speed of light.
* Only photons travel at the speed of light. (Except my tronnies that
usually go faster than the speed of light.)
* Neutrinos easily pass through matter although occasionally some are
stopped, gamma rays (the closest things to neutrinos according to the
Ross Model) pass through matter although some are stopped. Gamma ray
energies are in the range of 1 mev, neutrino energies are in the range
of 300 mev.
* Our sun produces a lot of neutrinos. Neutrino flux decreases as
inverse square of distance as does gravity.
* No other theory provides a good explanation of the force of gravity.
(I don't call mass curving space as a "good" explanation.)
* Does anyone have a good explanation why the electromagnetic chart
should stop at about 4 or 5 mev?
-Original Message-
From: Russell Standish [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 5:39 PM
To: Stephen Paul King
Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Neutrino shield idea
On Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 09:02:17PM -0400, Stephen Paul King wrote:
> Dear Russell,
>
>I hope you meant to write that photons are bosons with spin1.
> Otherwise
Yes, you are right. Mea culpa! Put it down to the couple of decades
since I studied this stuff...
> we would have a hard time explaining Maxwell's Field equations. ;-)
> About
> the differences between neutrinos and photons, we could also point out
that
> photons have a null extension in the time direction and neutrinos,
having a
> small but non-zero mass have an extension in the time direction - I am
> thinking here in terms of how we would embed our particles in a
Minkowski
> or equivalent space-time diagrams.
>
Indeed - I thought about raising this difference also. Neutrinos are now
accepted as having nonzero mass, although that wasn't the case when I
was studying physics. Also, this guy would probably come back with
photons having nonzero rest mass! After all, he reckons Einstein goofed,
and that relativity is a load of old cobblers, so having nonzero
restmass particles traveling at the speed of light wouldn't be a problem
for him!
> Kindest regards,
>
> Stephen
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Russell Standish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "John Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: "'Stephen Paul King'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
>
> Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 6:12 PM
> Subject: Re: Neutrino shield idea
>
>
> Neutrinos are fermions with spin 1/2. Photons are bosons with spin 0.
> This is about as chalk and cheese as you can get. The difference is
> not energy.
--
*PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which
is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a virus.
It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this email
came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you may safely
ignore this attachment.
A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 8308 3119 (mobile)
Mathematics0425 253119 (")
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Australia
http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02
Re: Neutrino shield idea
On Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 09:02:17PM -0400, Stephen Paul King wrote:
> Dear Russell,
>
>I hope you meant to write that photons are bosons with spin1. Otherwise
Yes, you are right. Mea culpa! Put it down to the couple of decades
since I studied this stuff...
> we would have a hard time explaining Maxwell's Field equations. ;-) About
> the differences between neutrinos and photons, we could also point out that
> photons have a null extension in the time direction and neutrinos, having a
> small but non-zero mass have an extension in the time direction - I am
> thinking here in terms of how we would embed our particles in a Minkowski
> or equivalent space-time diagrams.
>
Indeed - I thought about raising this difference also. Neutrinos are
now accepted as having nonzero mass, although that wasn't the case
when I was studying physics. Also, this guy would probably come back
with photons having nonzero rest mass! After all, he reckons Einstein
goofed, and that relativity is a load of old cobblers, so having
nonzero restmass particles traveling at the speed of light wouldn't be
a problem for him!
> Kindest regards,
>
> Stephen
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Russell Standish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "John Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: "'Stephen Paul King'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
>
> Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 6:12 PM
> Subject: Re: Neutrino shield idea
>
>
> Neutrinos are fermions with spin 1/2. Photons are bosons with spin
> 0. This is about as chalk and cheese as you can get. The difference is
> not energy.
--
*PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which
is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a
virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this
email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you
may safely ignore this attachment.
A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 8308 3119 (mobile)
Mathematics0425 253119 (")
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Australiahttp://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02
pgpKEahVLEFpw.pgp
Description: PGP signature
RE: Neutrino shield idea
John Ross wrote: Thanks for the paper relating to detection of "low energy" neutrinos. However, according to my model, neutrinos are very, very high energy photons (off everybody's chart, except mine). Therefore, if my model is correct, then low energy neutrinos would merely be the photons we are familiar with and would be very easy to detect. John, does your theory involve a set of mathematical equations which can be used to make detailed quantitative predictions about all the same situations that mainstream physics makes predictions about, or do your ideas not go beyond intuitive word-pictures? Also, do you have any response to the criticisms of "pushing gravity" theories made in the wikipedia article I linked to and in the excerpt from Feynman's book I quoted? Jesse
Re: Neutrino shield idea
Dear Russell, I hope you meant to write that photons are bosons with spin1. Otherwise we would have a hard time explaining Maxwell's Field equations. ;-) About the differences between neutrinos and photons, we could also point out that photons have a null extension in the time direction and neutrinos, having a small but non-zero mass have an extension in the time direction - I am thinking here in terms of how we would embed our particles in a Minkowski or equivalent space-time diagrams. Kindest regards, Stephen - Original Message - From: "Russell Standish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "John Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "'Stephen Paul King'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 6:12 PM Subject: Re: Neutrino shield idea Neutrinos are fermions with spin 1/2. Photons are bosons with spin 0. This is about as chalk and cheese as you can get. The difference is not energy.
Re: Neutrino shield idea
Neutrinos are fermions with spin 1/2. Photons are bosons with spin
0. This is about as chalk and cheese as you can get. The difference is
not energy.
Cheers
On Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 03:35:03PM -0700, John Ross wrote:
> Thanks for the paper relating to detection of "low energy" neutrinos.
> However, according to my model, neutrinos are very, very high energy
> photons (off everybody's chart, except mine).
>
> Therefore, if my model is correct, then low energy neutrinos would
> merely be the photons we are familiar with and would be very easy to
> detect.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Stephen Paul King [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 12:54 PM
> To: everything-list@eskimo.com
> Subject: Neutrino shield idea
>
>
> Howdy!
>
> I friend of mine has worked on a related idea that might help this
> inverstigation. Please see:
>
> http://davidwoolsey.com/physics/ideas/neutrinoscope/index.html
>
> Kindest regards,
>
> Stephen
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "John Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc:
> Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 11:57 AM
> Subject: RE: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of
> Everything
>
>
> > Yes. But building a neutrino shield would be difficult.
--
*PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which
is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a
virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this
email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you
may safely ignore this attachment.
A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 8308 3119 (mobile)
Mathematics0425 253119 (")
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Australiahttp://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02
pgpW64PN1V0vO.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: Neutrino shield idea
This means that beta decay proves your model wrong. - Original Message - From: "John Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Stephen Paul King'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2005 12:35 AM Subject: RE: Neutrino shield idea > Thanks for the paper relating to detection of "low energy" neutrinos. > However, according to my model, neutrinos are very, very high energy > photons (off everybody's chart, except mine). > > Therefore, if my model is correct, then low energy neutrinos would > merely be the photons we are familiar with and would be very easy to > detect. > > -Original Message- > From: Stephen Paul King [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 12:54 PM > To: everything-list@eskimo.com > Subject: Neutrino shield idea > > > Howdy! > > I friend of mine has worked on a related idea that might help this > inverstigation. Please see: > > http://davidwoolsey.com/physics/ideas/neutrinoscope/index.html > > Kindest regards, > > Stephen > > - Original Message - > From: "John Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: > Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 11:57 AM > Subject: RE: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of > Everything > > > > Yes. But building a neutrino shield would be difficult. >
RE: Neutrino shield idea
Thanks for the paper relating to detection of "low energy" neutrinos. However, according to my model, neutrinos are very, very high energy photons (off everybody's chart, except mine). Therefore, if my model is correct, then low energy neutrinos would merely be the photons we are familiar with and would be very easy to detect. -Original Message- From: Stephen Paul King [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 12:54 PM To: everything-list@eskimo.com Subject: Neutrino shield idea Howdy! I friend of mine has worked on a related idea that might help this inverstigation. Please see: http://davidwoolsey.com/physics/ideas/neutrinoscope/index.html Kindest regards, Stephen - Original Message - From: "John Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 11:57 AM Subject: RE: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of Everything > Yes. But building a neutrino shield would be difficult.
