franki13

Ok, there are many serious questions here, but really now, even with the proton crisis and all that stuff, how is the vagenas model useful ? There is no known mechanism for gravity in such scales, and he abuses relativity, assymetrical rotating gravitational objects emit gravitational radiation so they are not stable, the neutrino mass he uses is his own choice since we don't know it yet and there is so much experimental stuff from the detection of quarks and the standard model that i dont really think it can really match up to them. In the end with the way he uses relativity and neutrino masses you can deduct any number you want with slight changes of one or the other, how is that helpful ? We already know all the stuff he tries to deduce. Also there is the experimental verification of Higgs and all that..

Ok sofos, tell us how rlm model solves the spin problem of the proton easily and how the spin is conserved with 4 spin1/2 particles

I guess he needs a particle with the charge of the electron and the mass of the neutrino (which he chose one out of many to get his results) and other neutrinos without charge and the same mass with the previous particle. It doesn't make any real sense on scrutiny apart from some coincidences.

The rule of spin is broken with the four particles, so that model is garbage from the start.

In another paper, to justify the relativistic newtonian formula they used an analogy with general relativity, using a schwartchild effective potential with static masses (low velocities). But in general relativity you get different contributions in the stress energy tensor from relativistic particles, than static with the same enhanced relativistic mass. It's all so wrong... They don't even try to solve the problem of gravitational attrachion of particles with general relativity, i guess it's too difficult and in such scales maybe requires quantum gravity? (i don't know if i'm correct on this one)

From this link https://sci-hub.se/10.1007/978-1-4614-3936-3

Neutrinos are fermions with spin 1/2 [10] and thus one may anticipate spin of 1/2 or 3/2 for composite states formed by three neutrinos. Indeed most baryons have spin 1/2 and some, as shown in Table 4.4, have spin 3/2 [10]. Several baryons are charged, e.g. the proton or the Ξ+. The differences in mass, m, from their neutral brethren (i.e. the n or the Ξo) is small and of the order of αm, where α(= e2/εch¯ = 1/137.0359) is the fine structure constant. Thus the rotating neutrino model discussed here can describe with reasonable accuracy (e.g. Fig. 4.8 and Table 6.2) the masses of both neutral and charged baryons. However, since neutrinos are electrically neutral, the question arises about how charged baryons can be formed within the rotating neutrino model. One possibility is that in the distant past charged neutrinos existed. Their stronger interaction among themselves and with other particles led to their extinction via formation of hadrons, mesons, and neutral neutrinos. A more likely explanation is that neutral hadrons were first formed (e.g. neutrons) and then protons and electrons were formed via the β-decay [10], i.e. n → p+ + e− + ν¯e, which has a half-life of 885.7 s.

I guess he assumes here that with three neutrinos you can have the right spin and make neutrons, but for the charge aspect, in order to keep the half integer spin, you either need charged neutrinos or charged particles from neutron decay.. while tossing all strong and weak force away... if that's possible !! I believe the real problem with this theory is the relativistic newton gravitation law which he derived with handwaving arguments, while all the theorists have expressed explicitly that these two cannot be combined..he tossed the gamma factors in there, picked the neutrino mass of his choise and everything coincided with some accuracy, which isnt even helpful or hints at anything if it doesnt predict anything falsifiable, or better accuracy than the current model