Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Eta C
Boy, you want it all don't you.
|
Of course.
Why settle for less?
Quote:
|
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.
|
Actually we HEAR the sounds that pass through the sun BECAUSE of the solid calcium ferrite layer. Otherwise it wouldn't RING at all. When they talk about a large "increase in density", how is that functionally different from a calcium ferrite surface again?
Quote:
|
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.
|
I see evidence of fusion happening at the calcium ferrite layer and evidence of the production of hydrogen in BBSO images. I'll take you seriously when you start taking me seriously and start taking Dr. Oliver Manuel seriously. This is good science. The kind of stuff I'm seeing around here isn't. You folk seem down right MYOPIC in your view and REFUSE to even consider a viable alternative. How fair is that? That's about the most psuedo-scientific an attitude as I can think of. If you have a valid criticism of my model, or a BETTER explantion of the observations I have made, then put them on the table. Otherwise this "tude" is just getting old.
Quote:
|
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.
|
That's great. There is just one problem. You don't know that ALL the neutrino's of the universe come from the sun, rather than simply pass THROUGH the sun. You don't KNOW their cause. You know where they are FOCUSED and where they emit FROM, relative to earth. That's what you KNOW. The rest involves a great deal of speculation at this point.
Quote:
|
Michael>>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?
|
Quote:
|
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.
|
Name ONE! You can't. You've never offered a viable alternative to ANY of the observations I have made. PERIOD! You THINK it's wrong. That's all. You have no scientific evidence to support your FAITH that it is wrong.
Quote:
|
You admit that it may not account for any neutrino production.
|
I ADMIT that I haven't TRIED to account for it. GEEZ! Must I do the work of a billion or so scientists just so you'll even CONSIDER the model? What kind of a rediculace double standard is that? I can explain solar moss. Can you? I can explain an 11 year activity cycle. Can you? You keep ALEDGING that something is wrong with this model but you have NOT demonstrated this *SCIENTIFICALLY*.
Quote:
|
You also predict that neon is the predominant producer of light.
|
I can SEE that is true with my naked eyes, yes.
Quote:
|
This is clearly in conflict with observation.
|
That is FALSE. It is in direct AGREEMENT with VISIBLE OBSERVATION!
Quote:
|
Although some neon is present, the bulk of the solar spectrum is due to hydrogen and helium as other posters have pointed out.
|
And I have explained that as well, since heat is radiating to the outer layers and the outer layers EMIT the most photons. That is NOT in direct conflict with my model, in fact my model PREDICTS this behavior.
Quote:
|
Also you can't account for the temperature of sunspots.
|
Yes, I can. The low temps come from the LOWER regions of the silicon layer that rises up in the heated column If you look at the the activity that goes on in the silicon layer, it often resembles a tornado, where cooler silicon is caught in the middle. All of this is in DIRECT alignment with observation.
Quote:
|
The mainstream solar model, although it originally did not predict the observed nu-e flux, did correctly match most of the observations.
|
No, it did not. The gas model predicted that heavier atoms didnt' form for BILLIONS of years. We know via Hubble that silicon and iron and neon go back in time as we can see.
Quote:
|
In light of the neutrino "problem" there were two possible paths, both of which were considered by scientists back in the 60's
|
We don't even KNOW for sure whether such a thing would falsify my model to begin with, nor do we KNOW that these observations ONLY support the gas model.
Quote:
|
1) The solar model is wrong. This option was rejected since there was so much that it did explain well (luminence, etc).
|
I've explained it pretty well, right down to the NEON responsible for the luminence.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Great. How do we know that these measurements FALSIFY my model again?
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.
|
Great. Explain solar moss for me. Explain the sun's 11 year cycle. Explain the arcs. Explain the flare in the penumbral filaments. Explain ANYTHING better with the gas model than with my model for that matter!
Quote:
|
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.
|
So, from your study of plasma physics, what would you say the odds are that a calcium ferrite layer is going to float on top of a relatively thick layer of helium plasma in the gravity confiines of the sun?
Quote:
|
They are plasma discharges funneled through the sun's magnetic field. No need to invoke exotic models.
|
What CAUSES and CARRIES the magnetic field you talk about? What is causing the EMISSIONS of photons from within the arcs themselves?
Quote:
|
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.
|
I think there was never a baby in that bathwater to begin with.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Now you simply need to explain how these meausrements disprove my model and how you know it's not the ferrite layer that doesn't cause these neutrinos to change "flavors" in the first place?
Quote:
|
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.
|
When you can show me how these measurements FALSIFY MY MODEL, then and only then can you lecture me about REAL SCIENTISTS. Until then, I claim your emperor has no clothes.
Quote:
|
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.
|
I'm perfectly willing to HEAR from you how these specific measurements conflict with my model, and how you are certain it's not the ferrite that causes these nutrinos to change flavors. Then you can climb on that soap box of yours. Until then, climb down before you hurt yourself.