UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2011 > May > May 26

Re: Is The Sun Emitting A Mystery Particle?

From: Ray Dickenson <r.dickenson.nul>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 22:34:11 +0100
Archived: Thu, 26 May 2011 09:44:05 -0400
Subject: Re: Is The Sun Emitting A Mystery Particle?


>From: Michael Tarbell <mtarbell.nul>
>To:  post.nul
>Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 10:50:13 -0600
>Subject: Re: Is The Sun Emitting A Mystery Particle?

>>From: Ray Dickenson <r.dickenson.nul>
>>To: <post.nul>
>>Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 21:17:25 +0100
>>Subject: Re: Is The Sun Emitting A Mystery Particle?

<snip>

>>i) The observed effects correlate with the (seasonal) distance
>>to the Sun. As they don't know what force causes 'half-life'
>>anyway, the most likely reason for that observed effect is that
>>the Sun's mass affects (modulates) that basic cause/force. So,
>>by Occam's Razor, there's no need for another mystery force or
>>'particle'..

<snip>

>I agree that proposing a new particle is unjustified at this
>point, since we have already identified a class of weakly
>interacting particle emitted by the sun, i.e., neutrinos.
>However, I can't agree that Occam's Razor favors the Sun's mass
>rather than its neutrino flux as the underlying mechanism of the
>decay rate effect. Both essentially hypothesize --without a
>shred of theoretical foundation-- a new 'auxiliary' effect of an
>existing phenomenon.

>Indeed, if you review the linked article again, you'll note that
>the effect is cyclic with a period of 33 days, very similar to
>the rotation period of the sun's surface (28 days). While it
>implies a significant differential rotation in the sun's
>interior, this is plausibly consistent with a rotating
>'searchlight' effect, in which some asymmetry or occlusion of
>the neutrino-producing core is periodically sweeping across the
>line of sight to the Earth. On the other hand, I see no
>mechanism whatever by which the mass of the sun would be
>modulated at this rate, nor how we could possibly have failed to
>detect the effect of such on planetary orbits.

Hi Mike

First let's look at the total mass of the Sun and its probable
real rotation rate:

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/surface.shtml

"The photosphere ... the visible surface of the Sun ... rotates
on its axis once in about 27 days" [24 at the equator, 30 at the
poles]


http://www.ualberta.ca/~dumberry/planets.htm

"The Sun [has] 99.85% of the mass of the solar system but only 1%
of the angular momentum."


which means that the outermost surface of the Sun is being
dragged around by the angular momentum of the planets. The inner
mass of the Sun will be rotating more slowly, with the active
core probably being 'static'. Which could mean the Sun's average
mass is rotating (and deforming) at a 33 day rate.

To confirm that the planets are affecting the surface of the Sun,
here's a quote from a largely overlooked piece of recent NASA
research:


http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2007/TM-2007-214817.pdf

"despite the widely accepted thought that believes otherwise.
Evidence of apparent relations between planet positions and solar
activity was observed and presented"


Now let's see why 'mass' should be so important, and what
science knows about the possible relationship between masses and
half-lives. Here's a quote from Prof Ian Stewart (who, with Prof
Jack Cohen, is known for helping-out sci-fi writers with their
plots) - "There is no physical difference whatsoever between a
uranium atom that is about to decay and one that is not about to
decay. None. Absolutely none." I.e. science doesn't know how the
atoms of a mass of plutonium conspire, in a synchronized way, to
bring about its 'half-life'.

Which adds to our list of notable 'mysteries of science': half-
life, inertia/momentum, mass/matter, gravity, gyroscopic effect,
entanglement, two-slit phenomena, quantized redshift, non-decay
of the proton (allied to mass/matter); - all unexplained by the
'standard model' of modern physics  - although brave claims are
sometimes made that the "imminent discovery" of the Higgs Boson
might explain mass/matter (although that seems to me like
exchanging one 'magic' for another, since magic particle
exchanges do not satisfy my definition of a scientific
explanation).

[BTW - News: it seems the creaky 'standard model' is to be
abandoned. and not before time. Although plans to replace it
with 'super-symmetry' have just (today) been squashed by the
discovery that the electron is spherical - apparently super-
symmetry demanded an ovoid electron. So the science
establishment has now virtually admitted what many folk have
been saying for years: "physics is stuck in a dead-end"

http://www.ufoupdateslist.com/2007/mar/m08-008.shtml

And that all those 'political' pressures to force scientists to
conform (to the now defunct 'standard model') have just made
things worse - and made the science establishments look
ridiculous and totalitarian.]

So you can see I'm not trying to add "a new 'auxiliary' effect" -
far from it. What is suggested is merely a most economic
explanation - not least because it might be the one demanded by a
whole bunch of shamefully ignored 'mysteries' unexplained by the
standard model.


Cheers

Ray D



Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast

At:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/

These contents above are copyright of the author and
UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced
without the express permission of both parties and
are intended for educational use only.

[ Next Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com