Nov 04 2009


Published by at 8:46 am under Astrophysics

Now that you and your consortium have proved my physics theory, please send my bonus check so that I can leave my engineering job and do physics research full time.

7 responses so far

7 Responses to “Dear GSFC”

  1. Carlon 04 Nov 2009 at 12:12 pm

    What is the new evidence? I have seen some news about pulsars and ‘star factories’ in fermi news but I don’t know how it relates or if that’s the important information.

  2. Kevinon 04 Nov 2009 at 5:50 pm

    The evidence goes way back.
    The entry “GLAST Calibration” on this blog from two years ago links a SLAC Today article from Oct. 17, 2007 that should be considered proof.
    FGST finding now, contrary to the older technology of EGRET, that all celestial bodies composed of conventional mass glow in gamma rays > 100 MeV is additional proof.

  3. Carlon 04 Nov 2009 at 10:20 pm

    Is it known whether the energy is centered around the calculated 312.76 MeV?

  4. Kevinon 05 Nov 2009 at 8:31 am

    The FGST people would know, though maybe not to such resolution. If I emailed them they might tell me.
    It is amazing that their range of > 100 MeV fits so well with gravity, and may be a consequence of where scientists found the highest flux density in the early years. In other words, the range may be designed to fit gravity, even if the designers did not know it was gravity.

  5. Carlon 17 Nov 2009 at 6:41 pm

    This experiment seems to suggest that neutrons are affected by gravity, but they also say that—at least in their experimental setup—photons do not appear to be effected. Does this have any implications on your theory?

  6. Kevinon 17 Nov 2009 at 9:41 pm

    Papers and articles can be found that promote keeping an open mind about the Nesvizhevsky experiment. One suggests “Rotating the experimental setup by 90º keeping everything else, and especially the transverse neutron energies, constant. This gives a vertical instead of horizontal cavity. If the same result still occurs this would indicate that it is due only to the geometry…” *


    If I get some time this weekend I can look at the other link.

  7. Carlon 17 Nov 2009 at 10:50 pm

    The second link was just a sort of shorter explanation of the experiment with some commentary, not anything important.

    Thanks for the link to that article—looks like the experiment wasn’t very conclusive.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply