...Nobel Prize Statement Press Release

The Society for the Advancement of Autodynamics is outraged by the award of a Nobel Prize for Physics to highly speculative work on the Neutrino Hypothesis.

The Reines-Cowan experiment of the 1950's has long been famous and dubious. To quote the Nobel announcement:

 There were struggles with the low counting speed and high background. During the experiments a few events were recorded per hour. Nevertheless Reines and Cowan succeeded in a feat considered to border on the impossible: They had raised the neutrino from its status as a figure of the imagination to an existence as a free particle.

"Struggles" indeed. The experiment was little more than smoke and mirrors. Any number of particles could (and did) react with the target medium to produce the observed results. This experiment is part of a long history of weak experiments with "low counting speed and high background" that physicists have come to rely on for confirmation of neutrino existence.

The collosal and continuing failure of solar neutrino detectors is a powerful proof of the simple and startling fact that neutrinos do not, cannot, and will not exist, regardless of the hand-waving of 20th century physicists in a continuing effort to shore up the failure of Einstein's Special Relativity theory.

If 400 liters of target sufficed for detecting neutrinos in the 1950's, why are we building million gallon tanks for detection of neutrinos in the 1990's? Was the technique 40 years ago so much better than today's? Was the flux of neutrinos from the Savannah nuclear reactor substantially greater than that of the Sun? No, they are comparable, within an order of magnitude. The mathematics just don't work, as they never have.

Just as the mathematics don't work for the 1987 supernova data, which Reines also had a hand in. In order to have detected neutrinos from the supernova, we'd have to see thousands of neutrino events per day from the Sun in our solar neutrino detectors. But we "observe" three, six, and so on. Where are the neutrinos? We are not holding our breath waiting, nor should anyone.

Politically, why has it taken so long to recognize such momentous work of 40 years ago? Because today's physicists are nervous about the obsolescence of Special Relativity theory and the delinquent Neutrino, and this prize is one of the last hurrahs of a dying paradigm.

It's time to move on. It's time to seriously look at alternatives to relativity like Autodynamics that effectively remove the neutrino and other undetectable particles, cleanly resolving the current mess called modern physics. Please look at the articles in the SAA Home Page, at the URL http://www.webcom.com/~saa for a rational alternative to the insanity.

If nothing else, please read the 1946 article by Buechner and Van de Graaff, simply and elegantly proving that the electron neutrino does not exist (http://www.webcom.com/~saa/PR1946.html) Now, here is an experiment worthy of the Nobel prize. Yet it has been swept under the rug by the physics world, because "it doesn't fit".

 Sincerely,

Members of the Society for the Advancement of Autodynamics