Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Eta C
Oh Mike, don't be disingenuous.
|
The only one being disingenuous here is you Eta. You keep sticking words in my mouth and keep building rediculace strawmen out of my statements. That is very disingenuous behavior on your part, and a terrible debate tactic. I expected something a bit more mature from this crowd. |
Sorry if I get a bit upset when your arguments carry the implicit statement that the scientists doing the solar neutrino experiments don't understand what they're doing.
Quote:
Quote:
|
Read the papers. They describe their procedure in some detail. Basically the non-solar neutrino flux is constant, isotropic, and fairly small in comparison to the solar flux. The background is observed and measured at the same time that the solar neutrinos are. The background can then be subtracted out when doing the analysis. In any case, when the main source of events is always coming from the direction of the sun, it's fairly obvious that the sun is that source.
|
No, it's not completely obvious that the sun isn't focusing background neutrinos in some way, and the presense of neutrinos coming from the sun would not, under any circumstance, falsify my model to begin with. What I resent is you claiming that I questioned their findings. I did not question their work. I question YOUR interpretation of their work and YOUR suggestion this work somehow falsifies my model, or validates ONLY the gas model. See that distiction now?
|
More evasions. (Poor debate tactics Mike. You're setting up your own strawman here by postulating a hypothetical neutrino focusing mechanism.) What possible force focuses the neutrinos? In the absence of any obvious focusing mechanism the only scientific conclusion is that the sun is the source. Also, the fusion mechanisms that produce neutrinos in the sun are well understood. We can predict their energy spectra as well as their source. SNO and others observe neutrinos with that energy spectrum. Since the only nearby fusion source capable of generating the observed flux is the sun, and the flux is coming from the direction of the sun, the sun muct be the source. As I mentioned before, the nu flux from other stars in the galaxy is isotropic and can be subtracted as a background.
The failure of your model to predict the observed solar neutrino flux (which does exist despite your efforts to claim otherwise) is a weakness. This failure may not totally "falsify" your model, but it does cast doubt on it. The solar neutrino flux is an observable any solar model must deal with, yours included.
Quote:
Quote:
|
OK, I'll drop the rhetoric and stick to the science. You state that your model predicts the existence of free electrons from fusion at the core. This fusion should also produce neutrinos. What flux does your model predict?
|
I don't know. I would assume it would be much the same as a gas model since I'm counting on fusion to release positrons and electrons in my model, just like the gas model is depending on fusion for it's energy source. The only thing I've added to the mix is the magneto idea. In that sense, I might expect the neutrino count to be "slightly"less, but the power generation will likely release neutrinos in either model.
|
I guess I'll accept this as an understanding that solar neutrinos represent a gap in your model. However, this places it in a weaker position relative to the standard solar model, which gives quantitative predictions. Again without numbers your model is weaker than the standard solar model you are trying to supplant.
By the way, for those interested in the history of solar neutrino observations, the ever popular Particle Data Group has a nice
summary of the measurements as well as a summary of ongoing work in
neutrino mass, mixing, and flavor oscillations.
Quote:
|
How does the gas model explain solar moss? How does the gas model explain my sunquake page? How does the gas model explain the shock wave page? How does the gas model explain Hubble finding iron and silicon and neon as far back in time as we can see? Care to address any of THESE isssues?
|
Evasions. Others are dealing with these. I'm focusing on the solar neutrino issue. And frankly, I'd be more concerned with your model's failure to predict the observed black body spectrum from the sun and its failure to predict the observed element abundances. These are significant shortfalls.
Quote:
Quote:
|
Your model, if it is to be considered a viable alternative, must do the same.
|
For your beloved gas model to be considered viable, you must also explain solar moss, and 11 year cycles and explain the observed phenomenon on my website. Get busy.
|
Well, to paraphrase Richard Blaine, "It's not my particularly beloved model." I'd be willing to entertain alternatives as long as they adequately explain the same phenomena the SSM does. One reason I don't care for your alternative is that it requires redoing most of what we know about physical processes including gravity and EM interactions. Most alternative models that require this amount of change are wrong.
To turn your own argument back on you, The possible failure of the SSM to explain solar cycles, moss, etc, does not falsify it. The reason I, and others here, prefer it over your model is that it explains
more than yours does and matches observation
better than yours does. Here's my list of things to get busy on.
1) quantitative predictions of the solar neutrino flux (and no more dissing of the SNO and other solar neutrino experiments. They are valid.)
2) explaination of how neon can be the dominant source of light when it's only observed as a trace element in the solar spectrum.
3) Explanation of how iron and other elements can exist as solids at the sun's surface when the measured temperature of the surface far exceeds their vaporization temperature.