From: Michael Tarbell <mtarbell.nul> Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 09:09:47 -0600 Archived: Thu, 26 May 2011 12:11:10 -0400 Subject: Re: Is The Sun Emitting A Mystery Particle? >From: Ray Dickenson <r.dickenson.nul> >To: <post.nul> >Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 22:34:11 +0100 >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. <snip> >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. Ray, I have snipped the bulk of your reply, as I frankly am unable to grasp its connection to the phenomenon under discussion. You have suggested some kind of connection between the sun's mass and the rate of radioactive decay, which is only economical in the sense that it is entirely free of theoretical or empirical foundation. I was willing to concede that the neutrino hypothesis is, at least for now, equally unfounded (i.e., they are 'Occam equivalent'), although there are at least hints of a plausible correlation with the rotation of the sun's neutrino-producing core. Speaking of plausibility, I would still be interested in a response to the previous straightforward question: if this (33- day periodic) effect is due to some variation in the sun's mass, why is this perturbation not apparent in the orbital motion of the planets? Mike 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 | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp