We know black holes periodically spew Birkeland currents into space at near the speed of light.Birkeland currents are induced in the Earth and Earth's ionosphere by the solar wind.
I would further speculate that star eruptions can be predicted by an increase in neutrino outputNeutrinos are released when protons turn into neutrons during nucleosynthesis (these reactions also involve an electron or positron).
Could neutrinos form black holes?No, because neutrinos don't "clump", and you need a very dense clump of matter to produce a black hole.
We know a black hole oscillatesPlease tell us how you know this.
We know neutrinos oscillate... We know that neutrinos can travel at the speed of light.These two statements are mutually exclusive.
So is it beyond plausibility that black holes are comprised of neutrinos?Yes.
The only impediment is whether the gravitational force of a black hole is powerful enough to capture and contain neutrinos that are within its proximity and traveling at the speed of light.By definition, the escape velocity of a black hole exceeds the speed of light.
Ask yourself what form of "oscillation" is amenable to the super compression of a black hole?The free-photon is the primary quantum particle (Williamson)(Ranzan). If a photon bites its own tail & forms a loop it becomes a confined-photon (Williamson), which is an elementary particle (eg electron quark etc). All matter (confined-photons) has mass, & all light (free-photons) has mass.
We know a black hole oscillates.
We know neutrinos oscillate.
We know black holes periodically spew Birkeland currents into space at near the speed of light.
We know that neutrinos can travel at the speed of light. Traveling at the speed of light is a form of super compression.
We know that neutrinos can alter their oscillations to conform to their environment that their passing through. Does this characteristic allow it to occupy the same space/field as other neutrinos in a black hole environment or in a speed of light environment?
So is it beyond plausibility that black holes are comprised of neutrinos?
Neutrinos fit the needed attributes associated with the parameters a black hole existence.
The only impediment is whether the gravitational force of a black hole is powerful enough to capture and contain neutrinos that are within its proximity and traveling at the speed of light.
The counter is that normal gravity found in a typical solar system has no effect on neutrinos.
So, if black holes are comprised of neutrinos, and they are capable of emitting plasma energy and they oscillate, they have some characteristics of a star. The fact that Stars are a producer of neutrinos merely completes a cycle. Stars emits neutrinos, neutrinos are captured and contained in black holes. Neutrinos are spewed out of black holes via Birkeland currents. The spewed neutrinos are recycled into Universe and eventually new galaxy. The approximate lifetime of a neutrino is 10 to the 40th power, almost qualifies as an eternity. lol
The free-photon is the primary quantum particle (Williamson)(Ranzan). If a photon bites its own tail & forms a loop it becomes a confined-photon (Williamson), which is an elementary particle (eg electron quark etc). All matter (confined-photons) has mass, & all light (free-photons) has mass.
There are no virtual particles, there are no gravitons, no gluons, no pions, no Higgs etc.
Ranzan says that a neutrino is made of two (possibly helical i think) photons sharing the same axis (the EMC fields negate). Hencely a neutrino has twice the mass of a single photon, & the destruction of a neutrino produces a pair of photons.
If free-neutrinos can form a loop & become confined-neutrinos then these might give us dark elementary particles (ie dark electrons & dark quarks etc). Dark elementary particles however would not be able to form a dark atom (ie a dark nucleus with orbiting dark electrons), they would immediately form something similar to the matter found in super-dense neutron stars, & thusly give us dark matter. Such dark matter might form dark dust, dark asteroids, dark planets, dark stars. If massive enough a dark star might also be a blackhole, ie where free-photons cannot escape -- &, if supermassive, where neutrinos cannot escape.
Please post a reference to the experiments where these claims were tested in a falsifiable manner.
I would remind everyone that hypothesis are just that.
Please post a reference to the experiments where these claims were tested in a falsifiable manner.A few articles & links are below -- which themselves mention articles & links. Some of the stuff is in books but might be found on www with luck.
I agree that my lazy wordage hints at a well established model, whereaz it aint. But i reckon that much of modern science is a bit that way -- almost everything we now know will be shown to be wrong or partly wrong. Me myself i dont believe in a nuclear atom (with electrons orbiting a nucleus).I would remind everyone that hypothesis are just that.That's perfectly fine and all, but the way he worded his statements like "The free-photon is the primary quantum particle" and "Hencely a neutrino has twice the mass of a single photon, & the destruction of a neutrino produces a pair of photons" makes it sound like he is declaring these to be facts and not merely hypotheses.
I agree that my lazy wordage hints at a well established model, whereaz it aint.
Me myself i dont believe in a nuclear atom (with electrons orbiting a nucleus).
I dont believe in conservation. For example a free-photon has a mass of say 1 -- but that same photon when it becomes a confined-photon might have a mass of 1,000,000. Williamson says that mass depends on the nature of the confinement -- eg on the tightness of the loop.I agree that my lazy wordage hints at a well established model, whereaz it aint.Alright, glad that got cleared up. The model you speak of violates conservation laws.Me myself i dont believe in a nuclear atom (with electrons orbiting a nucleus).Then what do you believe atoms are like?
I dont believe in conservation. For example a free-photon has a mass of say 1 -- but that same photon when it becomes a confined-photon might have a mass of 1,000,000. Williamson says that mass depends on the nature of the confinement -- eg on the tightness of the loop.
I like the ideas of Miles Mathis. He in effect says that atoms are molecular -- they are made up of alpha particles -- & electrons buzz around in certain locations.
I remember that someone (it might have been at Oxford) a few years back showed that atoms have shape -- which supports Mathis.
I dont believe in conservation. For example a free-photon has a mass of say 1 -- but that same photon when it becomes a confined-photon might have a mass of 1,000,000. Williamson says that mass depends on the nature of the confinement -- eg on the tightness of the loop.Your science denialism never ceases to amaze me. Please point me to a peer-reviewed study where conservation of electric charge and/or mass were clearly violated. Comment: Lets start with the invention of the neutrino to fill an energy hole. And then all of the other fake particles & fake virtual particles to fill charge energy mass holes -- every particle is a hole. No worries -- just invent another particle -- but hell dont touch my conservation.
I like the ideas of Miles Mathis. He in effect says that atoms are molecular -- they are made up of alpha particles -- & electrons buzz around in certain locations.If that was true, we would know it. We have the ability to experimentally determine the shape of nuclei: https://www.nature.com/news/pear-shaped-nucleus-boosts-search-for-new-physics-1.12952
I remember that someone (it might have been at Oxford) a few years back showed that atoms have shape -- which supports Mathis.Of course they have shape. They aren't one-dimensional points.
Comment: Lets start with the invention of the neutrino to fill an energy hole. And then all of the other fake particles & fake virtual particles to fill charge energy mass holes -- every particle is a hole. No worries -- just invent another particle -- but hell dont touch my conservation.
Comment: And they aint spherical. But time will tell.
I would like to believe in neutrinos, but at present i am not 100%. However my interested & ideas changed when i read Ranzan's or Williamson's idea that a neutrino is made up of 2 photons joined such that their charge electro magneto fields cancel. I karnt remember whether taking this one step further & considering the possibility of a neutrino biting its own tail & forming a dark particle (& hencely dark matter)(& dark stars)(& blackholes) was my idea (see my initial posting on this thread). I will add to that posting in a few minutes.Comment: Lets start with the invention of the neutrino to fill an energy hole. And then all of the other fake particles & fake virtual particles to fill charge energy mass holes -- every particle is a hole. No worries -- just invent another particle -- but hell dont touch my conservation.So you already forgot about that link I showed you about how we can generate neutrinos on demand and send messages with them, huh? Not to mention that we can detect antineutrinos being given off by nuclear reactors: https://permalink.lanl.gov/object/tr?what=info:lanl-repo/lareport/LA-UR-97-2534-02QuoteComment: And they aint spherical. But time will tell.So where is the photograph you mention showing them to not to have spherical symmetry? Not that all atoms are spherical anyway. Orbital theory predicts a variety of shapes (only s orbitals are spherical). Where is your response to my statement about our ability to investigate the shape of an atomic nucleus?
Re the shape of nuclei i havent looked into it -- i would be ok with a model having no nucleus (with no silly orbiting electrons) the atom being made up of alpha particles -- & i would be happy with a nucleus but with the nucleus made up of alpha particles making a peculiar shape. But all of that is well outside my limited comprehension & memory -- & it doesnt concern much my core interests, aether & gravity & the photon & photinos & centrifuging aether -- photinos & centrifuging of aether being my 2 pet areas (at present).
The standard model of the atom is rubbish. Most of thems particles & virtual particles are rubbish. Even electrons & protons & neutrons are suspect. There are lots of articles out there by scientists over a long period of time -- i merely repeat their claims. U must know better than i re the modern shortfalls & holes in quantum stuff -- the models work ok up to a point -- needing virtual particles to fill the holes.Re the shape of nuclei i havent looked into it -- i would be ok with a model having no nucleus (with no silly orbiting electrons) the atom being made up of alpha particles -- & i would be happy with a nucleus but with the nucleus made up of alpha particles making a peculiar shape. But all of that is well outside my limited comprehension & memory -- & it doesnt concern much my core interests, aether & gravity & the photon & photaenos & centrifuging aether -- photaenos & centrifuging of aether being my 2 pet areas (at present).Then please try to do the required prerequisite research before making the empty claim that thousands physicists and chemists with access to multi-million dollar experimental equipment have gotten the structure of the atom wrong for many decades.
There are lots of articles out there by scientists over a long period of time -- i merely repeat their claims.
I spent many minutes typing a nice response to this including a listing of some of the articles on my computer re censorship etc but then accidentally erased it. So all i will say for readers here is that on www there are lots of articles & websites re science censorship -- once u find a good one just follow the links etc etc -- u will have months of reading.There are lots of articles out there by scientists over a long period of time -- i merely repeat their claims.
I've seen a lot of people do that exact same thing when it comes to articles written by young Earth creationists. They repeat the claims without investigating whether the person who wrote the article understood what they were talking about. They are almost always rife with quote mining, straw-man attacks, arguments from consequences, ignorance of methodologies and a general misunderstanding of the issues. You have even admitted to not having a good understanding of the atomic nucleus and the experiments relevant to it, so your ability to recognize a bogus article that goes against experiment has already been compromised.
You think that the vast majority of physicists out there are morons that don't know how to properly run their equipment or interpret their data. You think they are too stupid to consider solutions that you think are logical. Yet you consistently trust fringe explanations that have significantly less solidly verified data over what is done by actual professionals who have much more sophisticated and sensitive equipment. You seem to think that the only good reason why most physicists believe what they believe is "conspiracy", which is practically not an explanation at all.
That being said, I give up. I cannot argue against someone with this kind of immobile mindset. I tried it against Thebox and consistently failed. I'm not wasting my time doing it again.
Dark matter
I doubt that there is a new exotic substance that is the DM (but it aint impossible). However i agree that an old exotic substance might give DM, namely that dark photons (neutrinos) might make dark particles etc etc. Here when i agree i am agreeing with myself because i thort of it myself less than a year ago. And i was pleased & surprised to see this thread "Could Neutrinos form Black Holes?" started by guest46746 on 23Sep2018 (so ok i am agreeing with him/her too).Dark matterI thought you said dark matter was something invented by mainstream scientists to "prop up" relativity? Now you're speaking of it as if you too believe it's out there.
I reckon that dark confined photons (confined neutrinos) emit dark radiation. Dark radiation is a doublet of ordinary em radiation (photaenos), 180 deg out of phase, hencely negating or cancelling. DM emits dark photons & dark em radiation.
Dark matter if it exists can be detected say six ways.......................................................I reckon that dark confined photons (confined neutrinos) emit dark radiation. Dark radiation is a doublet of ordinary em radiation (photaenos), 180 deg out of phase, hencely negating or cancelling. DM emits dark photons & dark em radiation.Reality reckons differently. Almost all the confabulations you stung together there have already been refuted.