0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 27/11/2018 23:41:06Anyhow Einsteinian teams measuring g at various places & times havent a clue why their results are so inconsistent.You would need to cite evidence of inconsistencies before we needed to take this seriously.
Anyhow Einsteinian teams measuring g at various places & times havent a clue why their results are so inconsistent.
I brort this over from the DePalma centrifuging aether thread,
Yes lots of teams in lots of countries using various instruments have had trouble getting consistent results for measuring g
aetherwind ... must be a major cause of the embarrassing global big G discrepancy
Quote from: OPaetherwind ... must be a major cause of the embarrassing global big G discrepancyAlso speculative (but possibly less so) is that time-varying changes in the density of the (theoretical) Dark Matter passing through the experiment might cause slight discrepancies in the measurement of G.Although Dark Matter is something like 5 times denser than visible matter, the average density of Dark Matter in the Solar System must be pretty close to a good vacuum.
because free neutrinos are made of 2 joined free photons, 90 deg out of phase,
Quote from: mad aetherist on 27/02/2019 11:35:00because free neutrinos are made of 2 joined free photons, 90 deg out of phase, No If you add together photons that are 90 degrees out of phase you get circularly polarised light. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_polarization Please learn some science
Yes u are correct, i knew 90 deg was wrong & i have now changed it to 180 deg.
I feel a Nobel coming on.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 27/02/2019 21:33:48Yes u are correct, i knew 90 deg was wrong & i have now changed it to 180 deg.That's still wrong. If they were then they could be split apart again by traveling through an optically active medium. Sugar crystals would glow. Why don't you learn some science.
The free photons come from the death of a free neutrino.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 27/02/2019 22:48:19The free photons come from the death of a free neutrino.Not when they result, for example, from the annihilation between an electron and positron...
Yes if an electron is a confined photon
And neutrons if made of confined neutrinos would need the strong force
If dark particles can somehow aggregate (praps gravitationally) then they can form dark planets,
Quote from: mad aetherist on 28/02/2019 01:59:47Yes if an electron is a confined photonThat would violate conservation of electric charge.Quote from: mad aetherist on 28/02/2019 01:59:47And neutrons if made of confined neutrinos would need the strong forceNeutrons are made of a triplet of quarks, not neutrinos. And no, that's not just theoretical. We know it from the results of particle scattering experiments.
Quote from: mad aetheristIf dark particles can somehow aggregate (praps gravitationally) then they can form dark planets, The most popular current theory of Dark Matter is that it consists of some subatomic particle which almost never interacts with normal matter (even less than the ghostly neutrinos).These hypothetical Dark Matter particles would feel the tug of gravity, but that is not enough to cause them to aggregate - you need one or more forces which can cause Dark Matter particles to interact with each other, and radiate away the energy of their gravitational aggregation. This theory cannot tell us if there is such a "Dark Force" which is felt by Dark Matter, but not by normal matter. But if such forces existed, then you could produce a "Dark Planet" or a "Dark Periodic Table".See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Dark_matter_aggregation_and_dense_dark_matter_objects
Yes, but if the quarks are dark quarks then they would only aggregate by virtue of gravitation.
And re conservation of electric charge, Williamson's many papers describe how a confined photon emits only a half of its "charge" hencely giving positive or negative.
Hmmmm -- man u sure make me think,
have a habit of putting your finger on some spots i didnt know existed, albeit accidentally much of the time, & here u have done it again