0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
We know black holes periodically spew Birkeland currents into space at near the speed of light.
I would further speculate that star eruptions can be predicted by an increase in neutrino output
Could neutrinos form black holes?
We know a black hole oscillates
We know neutrinos oscillate... We know that neutrinos can travel at the speed of light.
So is it beyond plausibility that black holes are comprised of neutrinos?
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Pesqueira on 05/11/2018 18:48:18I 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).
Quote from: mad aetherist on 05/11/2018 21:15:54I 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.Quote from: mad aetherist on 05/11/2018 21:15:54Me 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.
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.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 05/11/2018 23:54:22Comment: 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).