Re: re re grbs: Astronomy Campfire
If ye would like to moderate the Astronomy Campfire, please drop becket@jollyroger.com a
line. Astronomy & Re: re re grbs
Posted by Astroman on September 24, 192002 at 13:38:37:
In Reply to: re re grbs posted by petes on September 23, 192002 at 15:38:59:
Did you not read my previous response? Neutrinos do in fact interact with ordinary matter, but only rarely and extremely weakly. I never said they didn't. Of the calculated 10^57 neutrinos liberated in the SN1987a explosion, only 19 were detected by two separate detectors. (I mentioned Sudbury off the top of my head, mostly because of a familiarity with the area. It was, in fact, IMB of CERN in France that detected the other neutrinos.) Anything falling onto a neutron star or black hole will most likey give up it's energy in the form of x-rays, and since the m of a neutrino is negligable, the amount and intensity of x-rays it might emit would also be negligable. I don't see how you can claim differently. This isn't even Einsteinian physics, it's Newtonian. As for the IPN using a variety of satellites over the years, what's your point? It was never designed to study individual events, only to detect events and relay positions to other more capable satellites, like CGRO, Chandra, EUVE, RXTE and so on. Your idea pretty much flies in the face of established, confirmed and accepted science. Merit must be decided by others. Feel free to submit a paper to any of the recognized journals. If it's accepted, let me know and I'll read it. So far, I've only seen more or less random thoughts and contradictions to my explanations, no publishable theories or proofs. As for astronomers "fears" of being trampled in the rush, astronomers are more after an explanation of these enigmatic events. Particle physics can not, (so far) explain the electromagnetic characteristics of the energies detected in GRB's. Furthermore, the explanation first has to be possible, then plausable, neither condition being met by your theory. Sorry.