[guest46746]

Ask yourself what form of "oscillation"  is amenable to the super compression of a black hole?

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

[guest46746]

We know that neutrinos can alter their oscillations to conform to their environment that they're passing through.


I'm an idiot! lol

[guest46746]

I would further speculate that star eruptions can be predicted by an increase in neutrino output.

[Professor Mega-Mind]

             Neutrino Black Hole
 Since fusion produces Repulsive (Everyone hates 'em) Neutrinos , it should definitely be possible to predict a black-hole accretion-disk outburst .  Their flight path near black-holes should be similar to that of photons .  When ingested , the same ultimate compression would happen to them , that happens to all matter & energy that falls into a black hole : Egg !...P.M.

[evan_au]

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 have not seen them applied to black holes.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current

Perhaps you are thinking of relativistic jets ejected along the axis of an accretion disk around a black hole or neutron star?
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrophysical_jet

[evan_au]

I would further speculate that star eruptions can be predicted by an increase in neutrino output

Neutrinos are released when protons turn into neutrons during nucleosynthesis (these reactions also involve an electron or positron).
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_nucleosynthesis#Hydrogen_fusion

There are many kinds of stellar eruptions, but not all of them involve nucleosynthesis.
- Flares occur on the surface of the star, driven by twisted magnetic fields. They do not have the density or temperature for nucleosynthesis
- When stars get hot enough to start synthesis of new elements (eg switching from burning hydrogen to burning helium or carbon, I expect that these would produce neutrinos with a different energy spectrum. So I expect that these significant milestones in the life of a star could be detected via a nearby neutrino detector.
- When stars collapse in a supernova, nucleosynthesis occurs at a phenomenal rate, creating a massive burst of neutrinos. Just such a burst was detected for a supernova in 1987. It is thought that the neutrinos would pass the visible surface of the star several hours before the visible-light flash.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_1987A#Neutrino_emissions

[evan_au]

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.

In contrast, matter clumps easily to form stars, and the fact that matter can radiate energy as electromagnetic waves allows the matter to cool down and condense. When a large star exhausts all it's fuel to produce an iron core, it can no longer itself against its own gravity, and it collapses beyond a neutron star to form a black hole.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_II_supernova#Core_collapse

We know a black hole oscillates

Please tell us how you know this.

I have seen merging black holes oscillate for perhaps 1ms after merging, but then it stops.

I have seen oscillations in X-Ray emissions from the accretion disk around a black hole (like water swirling into a drainpipe), but this is swirling matter outside the event horizon, nothing to do with the black hole itself.

We know neutrinos oscillate... We know that neutrinos can travel at the speed of light.

These two statements are mutually exclusive.
- If neutrinos traveled at the speed of light, they would not oscillate
- Neutrinos do oscillate, therefore they do not travel at the speed of light
- Although they do travel very close to the speed of light
- Physicists would love to know just how much slower than c neutrinos travel - that would give some clues to their mass, a number which is poorly constrained at present.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_oscillation

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.
The speed of a neutrino is less than the speed of light, so a neutrino inside a black hole will be contained in there.

Neutrinos don't clump, so they can't form a black hole.
But if normal matter has already clumped to form a black hole, a neutrino that intersects with the event horizon will be captured by the black hole, and will add to the mass of the black hole.

[mad aetherist]

Ask yourself what form of "oscillation"  is amenable to the super compression of a black hole?
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.

[Kryptid]

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.

[guest46746]

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. The one that expresses MA's viewpoint can be found at

  https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Electromagnetic-wave-of-a-Photon-generated-along-traveling_fig2_286929821

 The author has a PHD credential with 12 published papers on this and several other related matters! lol


What's in your wallet? lol

[Kryptid]

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.

[mad aetherist]

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 dont think that Williamson or Ranzan have done any experiments -- but they refer to others.

Restoring the Physical Meaning of Energy -- Distinguishing between the apparent energy and the real energy of moving mass --Conrad Ranzan  ---Correspondence: C. Ranzan, Director, DSSU -- Author’s website: www.CellularUniverse.org      http://www.cellularuniverse.org/R10RestoringIntrinsicEnergy-Ranzan.pdf
[1] Williamson J. G. and Leary S.J., “Absolute relativity and the quantisation of light”, SPIE Optics + Photonics,
San Diego, 9570-41 (9-13 August 2015).
[2] Williamson J. G., “A new theory of light and matter”. FFP14, Marseille, France, (2014).
http://ffp14.cpt.univ-mrs.fr/DOCUMENTS/PREPRINTS/WILLIAMSON_John_preprint.pdf
On the nature of the photon and the electron – J G Williamson –
http://www.cybsoc.org/electremdense2008v3.pdf

[mad aetherist]

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. 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).

[Kryptid]

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?

[mad aetherist]

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.

[Kryptid]

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.

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.

[mad aetherist]

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:  And they aint spherical. But time will tell.

[Kryptid]

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-97-2534-02

Comment:  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?

[mad aetherist]

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-97-2534-02

Comment:  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?

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.

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).

[Kryptid]

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).

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.