neutrinos in Dirac's new-radioactivity Chapt13 Experiment:multiplicative creation #84 Atom Totality theory 5th ed.

Subject: Dirac's new radioactivities
Subject: missing solar neutrinos ending up as Dirac's new-
radioactivities

What Wikipedia is trying to explain is that let us say there 
are 3
types of neutrinos A, B, C and that type A from the Sun 
is missing
1/3 to 1/2 according to the Standard Model. So what 
Wikipedia is
saying is that there are no missing neutrinos in 
type A because
neutrinos can switch to another form of neutrino, 
say type B or C.
But there is a blunder in that view. Because 
noone has checked type B
or C from the Sun neutrinos to see 
if they are in overabundance by
1/3 to 1/2.
So what Wikipedia is saying is that (a) we have a problem of 
missing
neutrinos of type A by 1/3 to 1/2 (b)then, we know 
neutrinos switch
or flip into other forms (c) thus problem solved.
So where does Wikipedia talk about the missing 1/3 to 1/2 as showing
up in the switched form?
So I am not contradicting what Wikipedia is saying. I am just
overlooking 
the gaps of what Wikipedia is saying in their article on
neutrinos.
There is a missing neutrino problem. It has been discovered that
neutrinos 
can switch flavors. And that is where Wikipedia falls short
of 
reasoning 
and where the physics community falls short. Just
because neutrinos 
can switch flavors, does not end the missing
neutrinos. If they are 
short 
in numbers and have switched flavors
then to prove that you must have 
a 1/3 to 1/2 overabundance in a
different flavor. No-one in the physics 
community 
has shown that,
and the Wikipedia article is misleading on that 
aspect.
So what I am saying is that -- alright, so they switched flavors --
but where 
they ended up is in the Sun itself as ordinary matter where
the 
antineutrinos added 
more protons and the neutrinos added more
electrons so that the Sun 
becomes 
more massive in ordinary matter.

Â* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_neutrino_problem
Â* Currently, the solar neutrino problem is believed to have
Â* resulted from an inadequate understanding of the properties
Â* of neutrinos. [..] in 1968 Pontecorvo [1] proposed that if
Â* neutrinos had mass, then they could change from one type
Â* to another. Thus, the "missing" solar neutrinos could be
Â* electron neutrinos which changed into other types along the
Â* way to Earth and therefore escaped detection.

There has never been a confirmed research that shows
an overabundance of 1/3 to 1/2 switched flavored neutrinos.
It is fair and accurate for Wikipedia to report that the missing
neutrinos 
can be solved by a switching of flavors, but if no-one
finds a 
1/3 to 1/2 overabundance of another neutrino flavor, means
that 
the story is not over but still begun.



Subject: possible way of checking where the missing Solar neutrinos
went

The above maybe a possible way of checking where the 1/3 to 1/2
neutrinos
went, in that the formation of protons and electrons out of the raw
energy of
antineutrinos and neutrinos would probably be a unbalanced formation.
Meaning that
probably more protons or more electrons are formed so the Sun would
be
electrically unbalanced. But the Sun is probably electrically
unbalanced most of the
time anyway and the amount of protons and electrons formed due to
neutrinos switching into ordinary matter is not going to be easy to
distinguish
from the surrounding charges of the Sun.
But as for the other planets and astro bodies, a different picture
emerges. If neutrinos 
switched flavors inside of astro bodies such as
Venus or Mercury 
(especially Mercury) 
and turned into protons and
electrons with an imbalance in numbers 
would give rise 
to a
noticeable magnetic dipole moment or field on Mercury and Venus 
and
in astro 
bodies which should be electrically neutral but have a tiny
magnetic 
field.
So that if neutrinos switch flavors and by that I mean ending up as
ordinary matter, 
then it is highly possible that in this creation of
ordinary matter 
such as protons, gives 
rise to a astro bodies
magnetic dipole or magnetic field which would 
otherwise be zero.
If I remember correctly from astronomy books over half the astro
bodies in our Solar 
System should not have a magnetic field but that
all of them do have a 
magnetic field. 
So this neutrino flavor
switching into ordinary protons and electrons 
is a possible answer
to why all astro bodies in the Solar System have a magnetic field.

Dirac computed that 
the Universe must have a "new radioactivity" and
this mechanism causes the Moon to recede from 
Earth by about 2cm/
year.
Subject: missing solar neutrinos ending up as Dirac's new-
radioactivities

Â* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_neutrino_problem]
Â* The first direct evidence of solar neutrino oscillation came in 2001
Â* from the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO) in Canada. It detected
Â* all types of neutrinos coming from the sun, and was able to
Â* distinguish between electron-neutrinos and the other two flavors.
Â* After extensive statistical analysis, it was found that about 35% of
Â* the arriving solar neutrinos are electron-neutrinos, with the others
Â* being muon- or tau-neutrinos. The total number of detected neutrinos
Â* agrees quite well with the earlier predictions from nuclear physics,
Â* based on the fusion reactions inside the sun.

As for the above, it is clear that SNO says the shortfall of 1/3 to
1/2 is found
in the muon and tau flavors. So that does answer where they went. But
I would
still say that the SNO is not convincing final evidence. It is only a
statistical
snapshot. We need more than what SNO says is "statistical evidence".
There are
Cosmic background neutrinos, and so, how has SNO separated those out
from the Sun.
I would say this neutrino problem is not over with, but only begun.
And obviously 
begun because no-one knows how these neutrinos switch
flavors and why 
they switch.
I do not need neutrinos as the Dirac new-radioactivities for I have
Cosmic Rays 
and Cosmic Gamma Ray. But I believe neutrinos are still a
large 
component of 
new-radioactivities. Since neutrinos are so
pervasive and so numerous 
that only 
a small proportion of them
converting into ordinary matter of protons 
and electrons 
is very
much still in play here even though SNO makes the above claim 
of all
accounted for.
There is a larger question at play here. The missing neutrino problem
of the Sun is 
about the neutrinos produced by the fusion inside the
Sun. But there 
are Cosmic 
Background Neutrinos which I assert come
from the nucleus of the Atom 
Totality 
and these are the ones I am
most concerned about.
So I need a flow rate of new matter into the Cosmos that would build
our Solar System 
in 5 billion years and build our galaxy in however
old the Milky Way 
is. A flow rate that 
uses Cosmic Rays, Cosmic
Gamma Rays and neutrinos.
I do not need all the neutrinos coming from the Sun, just a fraction
of them. Perhaps a small 
fraction of them.
As I said, SNO report is not a finalization of this issue, but only a
first beginnings of Solar 
neutrinos.
Several facts are clear and well established and better written. The
fact that Dirac says 
we have new-radioactivities to explain the
dimensionless constants of 
physics and that we have a Moon recession
of 2cm/year indicating 
multiplicative-creation. So neutrinos must be
part of that new- 
radioactivities. So is it a small part or a big
part?

Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Subject: Dirac's new radioactivities

Subject: missing solar neutrinos ending up as Dirac's new-
radioactivities

--- quoting Wikipedia on solar neutrino problem ---

Caveats
The crux of the solar neutrino problem, and its resolution, lies in
the fact that both the interior of the Sun and the behavior of
traveling neutrinos is unknown to begin with. One may assume
knowledge 
of one and determine the other by experiment here on earth.
If one 
assumes the Standard Solar Model is valid, one can derive the
propagation properties of neutrinos, such as neutrino oscillations,
given data from solar neutrino experiments. Likewise, if one presumes
something about the propagation of solar neutrinos, one may derive
some conclusions about the validity of solar models.
--- end quoting Wikipedia ---

That caveat can be viewed as a nonfinalized state of knowledge on
solar neutrinos.
But let me just ask any reader with a physics background. Which would
you consider 
hard strong knowledge? (a) a laser measurement of
whether the Moon is 
receding from 
Earth by Dirac's prediction of 2cm/
year. Or (b) a whole group of 
physicists underground 
in some
neutrino lab running statistics over lepton, muon and tau 
neutrinos?

I mean, which of those two categories would you tend to think is hard
core basic facts? 
A measured Moon recession by 2cm/year or a computer
statistic program 
run on 
neutrinos?
If you look in that Caveat above, there is plenty of room for making
the case that some of those Solar Neutrinos switched into becoming
ordinary matter of protons and electrons.
For I find it extremely difficult to make sense of why lepton
neutrinos would want 
to switch into a muon or tau neutrino for that
sort of disobeys a 
particle entropy 
property. So if the lepton
neutrino switches flavors into a muon or 
tau neutrino, then 
it is no
worse to think that the lepton neutrino switched into 
ordinary matter
of an 
electron.
P.S. the Wikipedia article on neutrinos still should be rewritten
because it makes a 
policy sense that the current information of a
subject is placed at 
the beginning of the 
article and not buried in
the last paragraphs.


Subject: Moon recession of 2cm/year as per Dirac
I was surprized to find that the Wikipedia article on the "moon" does
contain 
information, saying it is 3.8 cm/year. And lists this site
as 
reference: 
http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html
However, it does not break down that number of 3.8 cm/year as per
tidal friction and as per Dirac new-radioactivities.
So how do we get a better measurement that gives us a more pure Dirac
new-radioactivities? A measurement that eliminates the confusion
between tidal friction and is focused on just pure "multiplicative
creation" 
as per Dirac?
Well I think the answer would be to take all the Solar System bodies
into one account. If Dirac's multiplicative creation in new-
radioactivities 
is true then every object in our Solar System is
getting closer to the 
Sun for 
the Sun would multiply up faster than
any other object in terms of 
overall 
mass.
Do we have evidence of all the astro bodies in our Solar System as
moving closer to the Sun? Of course we do. We have the evidence that
Neptune 
and Pluto have wandered off their old orbits and spiralling
inwards 
towards the Sun.
The most compelling evidence though comes from exosolar systems,
where 
foreign stars usually have exoplanets the size of Jupiter and
larger 
revolving very nearby to the parent star.
We have evidence in the rotation of galaxies in that if Dirac's
multiplicative creation were not true, then we would see a galactic
attentuation of 
matter but instead we usually observe a galaxy as a
coalescence of 
matter 
towards the center of the galaxy.
Perhaps the best place to look for Dirac's multiplicative-creation is
in the satellites of Jupiter or Saturn. That if there was no
multiplicative 
creation then several of those satellites should be
destined to 
collide with 
their parent planet, but instead they have
increasingly receded from 
their 
parent planet.
I forgot the name of the Jupiter satellite, perhaps Io, that receives
enormous tidal friction from Jupiter, and yet it is still receding
from Jupiter.
So although modern science has measurements of the Moon recession at
about 3.8 cm/year, it has not been separated out of its Dirac new-
radioactivities of about 2 cm/year.

Subject: so why has no physicist separated out the 2 cm/year from the
3.8 
cm/year?

Alright, well, this does leave an interesting question since Dirac's
book was written in 
1978 and find it hard to believe that only one
scientist-- me -- would 
want to know 
how much of the 3.8 cm/year as
given by the laser reflector on the 
Moon, how 
much of that 3.8 cm/
year is due to Dirac's multiplicative-creation?
Would I be the only, the single and solo scientist wanting to know
whether 2 cm/year 
is due to Dirac new-radioactivities and that 1.8 cm/
year is due to 
tidal friction? Surely 
there must have been hundreds
of good physicists who read Dirac from 
1978 to 
2011 and that AP is
not the only one.

Subject: separating out the 2 cm/year from the 3.8 cm/year?
Almost everything in science comes with difficulty, not with ease. I
thought when Dirac predicted 2 cm/year would be one of the nicest,
easiest 
great new proofs of a revolution in science. To prove new-
radioactiivities 
as multiplicative-creation. But here steps in the
difficulty. The 
observed measurement 
is 3.8 cm/year having locked
inside of two factors: 
(i) tidal friction and angular momentum 
(ii)
multiplicative creation
So in that 3.8 cm/year number, can I separate out 1.8 cm/year for
tidal friction 
and then 2 cm/year for the multiplicative creation?

--- quoting Wikipedia in part, on "moon" ---

Most of the tidal effects seen on the Earth are caused by the Moon's
gravitational pull, with the Sun making a somewhat smaller
contribution. Tidal drag slows the Earth's rotation by about 0.002
seconds per day per century.[54] As a result of the conservation of
angular momentum, the slowing of Earth's rotation is accompanied by
an 
increase of the mean Earth-Moon distance of about 3.8 m per
century, 
or 3.8 cm per year.[55] The Moon is exceptionally large
relative to 
the Earth, being a quarter the diameter of the planet and
1/81 its 
mass. However, the Earth and Moon are still commonly
considered a 
planet-satellite system...

--- end quoting ---


The reference above [55] is that govt website I gave in a prior
post.
If we were to collate the tidal friction on all the astro bodies of
the Solar System, then we can see that the 3.8 cm/year 
figure is too
high for just tidal friction.

Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium

whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Subject: Dirac's new radioactivities

Subject: separating out the 2 cm/year from the 3.8 cm/year?

No physicist has ever been questioned as to whether all of the 3.8
cm/ 
year is tidal dissipation, until now. I question the assigning of
all 
3.8 
cm/year as tidal affects.
Io, the moon of Jupiter could not exist today if not for Dirac's
*multiplicative creation* due to new-radioactivities.
The fact that we see every exo-solar-system as having very large
planets revolving in tight close orbits to their star, is not a
stellar 
dynamics explained by tidal-effects alone, as we have done
with the 
Moon at 3.8 cm/year


Subject: what happened to Van Flandern's -16x10^-11/year and
Shapiro's 
Venus radar??

On pages 81 to 86 of Dirac's Directions in Physics he discusses the
tidal effects of the Moon 
and possible measurements to confirm
multiplicative-creation.
Dirac discusses Van Flandern's work which gives the correct negative
sign for it to be multiplicative-creation and not additive-creation
for the Moon, but the value is (-16) when Dirac computed the value
should be (-6). Van Flandern was with the Naval Research Observatory
as Dirac mentions. So what became of that research?
Then Dirac discusses Shapiro with radar on Venus, thus escaping tidal
effects.
But I wonder now that we have robots landing on Mars as to placing a
laser type device similar to the Moon's laser reflector and we thus
escape the tidal problem by using Mars for this Dirac measurement of
Multiplicative Creation.
I would hazard to guess that we already have the numbers data in as
to 
confirming Dirac's multiplicative-creation, for which no-one has
bothered to assemble and to announce in a science news broadcast.

Subject: using Mars as the final testing platform for Dirac's
multiplicative-creation

I was searching to see if either Van Flandern or Shapiro made any
followups to their 1970s research. It looks as though Shapiro made
some followups in the late 1970s. According to Dirac, Shapiro was
using radar techniques on Venus.
But I wonder with all our travelling to Mars with robots whether 
we
can use Mars as the very best platform to conclusively answer 
Dirac's
**multiplicative creation**
I think what happened from 1978 until 2009, is that Dirac's ideas
were dropped due to a lack of a source for multiplicative creation
and due to the fact that the Big Bang theory is diametrically opposed
to the Dirac ideas. But by 1990 we have a source for Dirac's 
new-
radioactivity with its multiplicative-creation and the source is 
the
Atom Totality. So of course, the Atom Totality will sweep away 
the
Big Bang as pseudo-science.
So, can we install some modern up to date device on Mars, free of
tidal effects and to put Dirac's multiplicative-creation to its final
testing?
Â*Results 1 - 10 of about 126,000 for I I Shapiro dirac moon. (0.34
seconds) 
Search ResultsResults include your SearchWiki notes for I I
Shapiro 
dirac moon. Share these notes
what happened to Van Flandern's -16x10^-11/year and Shapiro's ...Jul
24, 2009 ... Local: Fri, Jul 24 2009 2:51 pm ... Then Dirac discusses
Shapiro with radar on Venus, thus escaping tidal effects. ... device
similar to the Moon's laser reflector and we thus escape the tidal
problem ... 
groups.google.com/group/sci.math/.../7a73f8fefe7656a2 - 9
hours ago - 
Similar -
Dirac's large numbers hypothesis and the acceleration of
the ...Dirac's large numbers hypothesis and the acceleration of the
moon's mean .... Shapiro, I. I., Smith, W. B., Ash, M. B., Ingalls,
R. 
P. & Pettengill, G. H., ... 
adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1976MNRAS.
176..621F - Similar - 
by DJ Faulkner - 1976 - All 3 versions
Significance of a conclusive test of Dirac's Large Numbers ...of the
Dirac hypothesis extremely difficult in the Earth-Moon system because
un- .... J. P., Shapiro, I. I., and Reasenberg, R. D. : 1976,.
Science. 193, 803. 
www.springerlink.com/index/T842X07501J28226.pdf -
Similar - 
by JL Hughes - 1977 - Related articles - All 4 versions
Large number hypothesis and the matter-dominated universeaxe those
based on the lengthening of the Moon's period of revolution around
the ..... Shapiro I. I. (1981). Lecture delivered at the Dirac
Conference, ... 
www.springerlink.com/index/H487264G6382V02U.pdf -
Similar - 
by I Goldman - 1982 - Related articles - All 3 versions
More results from www.springerlink.com =BB
Limits to the expansion of Earth, Moon, Mars and Mercury and to ...
10-11 yr-1 in Dirac's multiplicative creation cosmology. ....
Shapiro, 
I. I., Smith, W. B., Ash, M. B., Ingalls, R. P. &
Pettergill, G. H. 
Phys. Rev. Lett. ... 
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../271316a0.html
- Similar - 
by MW McElhinny - 1978 - Cited by 18 - Related articles
Phys. Rev. Lett. 26, 27 (1971): Shapiro et al. - Gravitational ...P.
A. M. Dirac, Proc. Roy. Soc., Ser. A 165, 199 (1938) [ADS]; ... the
Newtonian perturbations attribut- able to the moon and other planets,
3 .... 4The methods used are described in M. E. Ash, I. I. Shapiro,
and W. B. Srnith, Astron. ... 
link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett..
26.27 - Similar - 
by II Shapiro - 1971 - Cited by 8 - Related
articles
E. Yu. Aleshkina, G. A. Krasinskii, E. V. Pit'eva, and M. L. ...moon.
The rapid development of the technology for per- ... physical
arguments (for example, Dirac's large number hy- pothesis). 2 ....
"R. 
D. Reasenbergand I. I. Shapiro, Experimental Gravitation, Accad.
Naz. 
dei Lincei, Rome, 1978,p. ... 
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0038-5...U_30_4_A05.pdf
- Similar - 
by EY Aleshkina - 1987 - Cited by 1 - Related articles
Gravitation and inertia - Google Books Resultby Ignazio Ciufolini,
John Archibald Wheeler - 1995 - Science - 498 pages 
Whereas Dirac
cosmology,94-95 for values of the Hubble constant of the 
order of
HO ... (-2 =B1 10) x ^ by Shapiro and CfA-Center for 
Astrophysics
(1990). ... 
books.google.com/books?isbn=3D0691033234... -
JSTOR: The Large Numbers Hypothesis and the Einstein Theory of ...Feb
19, 1979 ... 20 P. A. M. Dirac and Noc t2. (2) One can formulate the
relation (1) ..... The Moon is the body most suitable, as it has been
the most carefully observed. ... I. I. Shapiro and R. D. Reasenberg
have been working on this ... 
links.jstor.org/sici?sici=3D0080....0.CO
%3B2-6 - Similar - 
by PAM Dirac - 1979 - Cited by 31 - Related
articles - All 8 versions
[PDF] Progress in Lunar Laser Ranging Tests of Relativistic
GravityFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View 
Analyses of laser ranges
to the Moon provide increasingly stringent 
limits on any violation of
the ..... constant of gravitation, G, was 
first considered by Dirac
in ... [1] I.I. Shapiro et al., J. Geophys. 
Res. 82, 4329 (1977);
R.D. ... 
iau-comm4.jpl.nasa.gov/JGWSGTDHB.pdf - Similar - 
by JG
Williams - 2004 - Cited by 124 - Related articles
--- end of the search list ---

Subject: Dirac's new-radioactivities

Since Dirac is the past direct legacy of the Atom 
Totality theory, I
should make his new-radioactivities as a central 
supporting
evidence. 
As far as I can see, only Dirac with new-radioactivities
and John Bell 
with his "superdeterminism solution" are the only two
direct 
legacies of the Atom Totality theory. In other words, 
if one
were to think about Dirac's new-radioactivities 
and think about
Bell's superdeterminism solution, 
then they are only one step removed
from thinking 
of a Atom Totality.
So I am going to make the Dirac new-radioactivities 
with
multiplicative-creation at the heart of the 
supporting evidence. The
start of the proof of the Atom Totality 
theory began not with me
discovering and announcing the theory in 1990 
but began around 
1978
when Dirac published his book "Directions 
in Physics" where on the
pages of 72 to 86, Dirac 
discusses in detail what is the precursor of
the 
Atom Totality theory in the form of "new-radioactivities"
Likewise, the same can be said for John Bell's 
superdeterminism as a
solution to some sticky 
problems of quantum mechanics-- superluminal
speeds. To get rid 
of those sticky problems we simply say the
Universe is 
superdeterministic. But the only catch 
to that is that
the Universe must then be an Atom 
Totality.
So here we had two giants of physics of the past 
century, the 20th
century and the most preeminent 
physicist of the 20th century--
Dirac. And both were 
a step removed from the Atom Totality theory.


Subject: latest update on Dirac's multiplicative-creation with the
Moon's 
laser reflector

No luck in finding whether Shapiro's Venus radar 
work was resumed
after 1970s. I saw some reports 
dated 1999 but suspect them to be
just history.
I would be surprized if no-one picked up on Van Flandern and I.I.
Shapiro regards Dirac's multiplicative-creation. Even Shapiro notes
that if Dirac's multiplicative creation is true means 
a vast change
for all of physics.
I did find some more on Van Flandern's work from 
this website:
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/c..._query?bibcode...
Where in the last sentences is says words to the effect:
"(iii) presently observed acceleration of the Earth's 
rotation may be
completely explained by the tidal 
friction in the Earth-Moon
system, . . but must 
contain an additional component for
multiplicative 
creation model."
So that way back in the 1970s we see already of 
a discussion of two
terms in the Earth-Moon recession. And in the 
1970s when the above
was 
written they did not have a accurate measurement 
of the Moon
recession which the laser reflector 
on the Moon has given 3.8 cm/year
and Dirac in 
the 1970s needed a 2 cm/year recession.
So we can already see that the 3.8 cm/year 
can be broken into two
components of 
1.8 cm/year as tidal friction and 2 cm/year 
as
multiplicative creation of Dirac.
So not only am I calling for a reassessement 
of the 3.8 cm/year, but
way back in the 1970s 
the article above was calling for two
components.
And if true, then the relationship of tidal friction 
seems to be
never as large as the multiplicative 
creation component. As witnessed
by Io the satellite of Jupiter where 
I read that even the 
volcanic
plumes send the plumes in the direction 
of the Sun, not Jupiter. So
that the multiplicative 
component of Io must be larger than the
tidal 
friction of Jupiter on Io.
And also, from evidence of exoplanets as huge 
planets orbiting their
stars in a close orbit. This is 
the dynamics of solar-systems in
multiplicative 
creation in that the solar systems eventually end 
up
with large planets orbiting the parent star.
So which is the easiest planet to prove Dirac's 
multiplicative
creation? Is it Mars? Or do we 
already have the data, and not know
it, that 
can already prove Dirac's multiplicative creation?

Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium

whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies