Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Eta C
It doesn't need to disprove your model. Your model needs to match the observations.
|
My model DOES because it it based ENTIRELY on observation. You must disprove my model if you expect me to take you seriously. I can poke holes in the gas model, beginning the mystical concept that somehow suns are immune from being composed of the same materials as everything else in the solar system. That alone sounds rather like a WEAK and very questionable assumption. I can prove via Hubble that iron and silicon and neon were present WAY before gas model predictions would have predicted. There's another hole. I can note that Galileo didn't have the technology to see beneath the visible photosphere. There's another hole. Now unless you can show me that the gas model is superior to the idea I presented, I have no reason to believe you, expecially if you can't explain solar moss, or 11 year cycles or flares sunspot activity. |
Boy, you want it all don't you. Actually we can "see" inside the sun by observing acoustical propagation through it. Check out SOHO's images of the opposite side of the sun as an example of this capability. All of these measurements point to a high density hydrogen composition for the sun.
In any case, if you want
me to take you seriously you'll have to show how a solid sun that has no fusion reactions emits neutrinos. However I suspect you won't so we'll continue to not impress each other and further discussion is pointless. On the other hand, your not taking me seriously is not something that concerns me much.
Quote:
Quote:
|
Does the solid surface model even predict a neutrino flux?
|
I would assume so, though I would expect it to be LESS than the gas model predictions, and I'm unconfortable with the "assumption" that all neutrinos that we measure on earth must come from our own sun. I think that's a significant leap of faith I'm not yet prepared to make.
|
You misunderstand. There's no "assumption" involved. These experiments can determine the direction that the observed neutrinos are coming from and therefore confirm that they do, in fact, come from the sun. No leap of faith involved. Just good solid scientific procedure. The best events actually occur at night. Then the earth acts as a shield and we actually observe the neutrinos that penetrate the entire earth on their way from the sun.
Quote:
Quote:
|
How well does it match? This should include both statistical and systematic errors. If the solid sun model only predicts 1/3 of the observed nu flux then it is clearly in conflict with observation and you need either to modify it to take the increased nu flux into account or possibly scrap it and start over.
|
Did the gas model get "scrapped" the first time neutrino measurements didn't jive with predictions? You seem to have two different standards here, one for the gas model, and one for my model. Why?
|
No double standard involved here. I, and other scientists, would reject you model as an option because it is wrong in so many ways that the mainstream solar model is not. You admit that it may not account for any neutrino production. You also predict that neon is the predominant producer of light. This is clearly in conflict with observation. Although some neon is present, the bulk of the solar spectrum is due to hydrogen and helium as other posters have pointed out. Also you can't account for the temperature of sunspots.
The mainstream solar model, although it originally did not predict the observed nu-e flux, did correctly match most of the observations. In light of the neutrino "problem" there were two possible paths, both of which were considered by scientists back in the 60's
1) The solar model is wrong. This option was rejected since there was so much that it did explain well (luminence, etc).
2) There's something about neutrinos we don't understand. It turned out that this was the case. At the time of the original measurements, the nu-tau was undiscovered. Also the concept of mixing was not as well established. Since then we've learned more about neutrinos, and have resolved the problem.
Quote:
Quote:
|
A new theory can it be considered as a competitor to current theories only when it explains observed phenomena as well as the current models. Until then, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." And trust me (I'm a doctor 8) ) It ain't broke despite your protests to the contrary.
|
Then explain solar moss for me, and the sun's 11 year suspot cycle. Explain the arcs we see and tell me how you know they aren't electrical in nature?
|
I'm not an astronomer or plasma physicist (I'm a particle physicist hence my focus on the neutrino side) so I'll defer some of these to others. In the meantime there are some astronomy and plasma physics texts I could recommend. As to prominences (what you call arcs), they are electrical. They are plasma discharges funneled through the sun's magnetic field. No need to invoke exotic models. As to the ultimate cause of the sunspot cycle, this remains an outstanding problem. However it's no reason to toss out the baby and start from scratch.
Quote:
Quote:
|
By the way, the SNO observation does require some major changes be made to theory. In the standard model of particle physics neutrinos are massless and do not oscillate. By confirming oscillations, SNO showed that neutrinos do indeed have mass. This is going to cause some changes to the theory.
|
You don't know the half of it yet. 
|
You're right, we have not idea what new theories may produce. However I seriously doubt that we'll find a solid sun. Pauli's quote applies here.
Quote:
Quote:
|
In any case, what the SNO measurement does do is confirm the current solar models which involve fusion reactions. And by the way, a 5.3 s.d. measurement is about as rock solid as they get. What that means is that the probability that the measurement is a mistake is less than a fraction of a percent. And by the way, it's not just a SINGLE experiment. Others have confirmed it (Super K in Japan being one).
|
And again, the fact that something is FORCED to match predictions for one model is not evidence that this model is accurate. Again, the original predictions did NOT match what we saw, and your ROCK SOLID evidence is not ROCK solid at all, it is THEORY to this point with SOME observational support. Care to explain how you KNOW that neutrino activity is only caused by our sun, and these measurements are not influenced by other sources?
|
No theory involved here. These are MEASUREMENTS (as you would put it.) SNO measured the total neutrino flux from the sun and found that it matched what the standard solar model predicted. They didn't force anything. I strongly suggest you do some reading on how
REAL science is done before you continue to cast aspersions on scientists whose work you fail to understand.
Quote:
|
Again however, it is critically important to realize that two competing ideas can BOTH be supported by the SAME set of evidence. The fact that things the gas model predicts are accurate does not mean that ALL of them are. The fact we find iron and silicon and neon as far back in time as Hubble can see poses HUGE problems for gas model theorists. I'm sure they will go back and "play with the numbers" like they do with neutrino counts, but that sounds pretty suspicious to me since none of you have offered a single explaination for ANY of the observed phenomenon on my website, and I have offered explanations for every single one.
|
Many explanations have been provided. You choose to ignore them. When faced with a measurment your theory cannot match (SNO neutrino measurements), you try to claim it's flawed, despite the evidence to the contrary. Typical ATM behavior here. Quick to find the dust motes in the eye of mainstream models while ignoring the telephone pole stuck in one's own eye.