Sylwester, this is not a debate.

May I remind you, yet again, of the Rules For Posting To This Board, specifically that concerning ATM ideas (my bold):

If you have some idea which goes against commonly-held astronomical theory, then you are welcome to argue it here. Before you do, though READ THIS THREAD FIRST. This is very important. Then, if you still want to post your idea, you will do so politely, you will not call people names, and you will defend your arguments. Direct questions must be answered in a timely manner.

People will attack your arguments with glee and fervor here; that's what science and scientists do. If you cannot handle that sort of attack, then maybe you need to rethink your theory, too. Remember: you came here. It's our job to attack new theories. Those that are strong will survive, and may become part of mainstream science.

Additionally, keep promotion of your theories and ideas to only those Against the Mainstream threads which discuss them. Hijacking other discussions to draw attention to your ideas will not be allowed.

If it appears that you are using circular reasoning, depending on long-debunked arguments, or breaking any of these other rules, you will receive one warning, and if that warning goes unheeded, you will be banned.

Now, please answer the question: what good observational results, concerning the Sun and neutrinos, are inconsistent with mainstream theories of neutrino oscillation?

I can't really answer your questions, Sylwester, because I don't have those answers.
Again, look at the BA's site that I directed you to.

And as Nereid says, what part of the mainstream theories are wrong concerning this subject? What is incomplete and incorrect about them?

__________________
I calculated the odds of this succeeding versus the odds I was doing something incredibly stupid...and I went ahead anyway. - Crow T. Robot

Godspeed, John Glenn. - Scott Carpenter

And these atomic bombs that science burst upon the world that night were strange even to the men that used them.
- H.G Wells, The World Set Free

To the conspiracy crowd, radiation is a big Boogey Man that inspires terror and death in all who encounter it. - JayUtah

Dear NEREID,
Dear GRAND LUNAR,

My ultimate theory gives correct answers to all fundamental questions connected with cosmology and particle physics. There is no such theory but mine. From my theory it results that the oscillations of neutrinos are impossible. I predicted many effects and I now foresee that the effects connected with the observed 'oscillations of neutrinos' must have some other explanation (today I do not know what but I know that I am right because of the probability).
The solar neutrino problem is as follows:
We observe about three times less of the electron anti-neutrinos than it follows from the model which assumes that the neutrinos are created only in the transformations of hydrogen into helium.
What is my explanation of this solar neutrino problem. Astrophysicists claim that the temperature in central part in the Sun is too low to transform helium through oxygen, carbon and nitrogen into iron with impurity of nickel. I say that these transformations are possible because the created from hydrogen helium is a catalyst. If we assume that the released binding energy in these two basic transformations has the same value (i.e. hydrogen into helium and helium into iron) then the observed number of the electron anti-neutrinos will be consistent with the result obtained within my theory.
What does it mean?
It means that if at the beginning of the Sun there was 74% of hydrogen and 26% of helium then today the percentage must be as follows:
73% H
23% He
4% Fe + (O+C+N)
If we assume that in the centre of the Sun there is 3% of iron then for the external layer of the Sun we have:
about 75% H
about 24% He
about 1% O+C+N
As you can see it is consistent with the observational data but my explanation of the solar neutrino problem is quite different.
In the old stars in the external layers there is less helium than in the sun because some part of it was transformed into iron.

Sylwester, any iron that is in the sun was there from the intial formation, not because it is being forming inside. Now you are going against the ideas held about the nuclear fusion that occurs in stars. If the sun was making iron, then, if I'm correct about this (Nereid, can you confirm), it would eventually result in a neutron star at the core, because the iron would just keep piling up inside.

__________________
I calculated the odds of this succeeding versus the odds I was doing something incredibly stupid...and I went ahead anyway. - Crow T. Robot

Godspeed, John Glenn. - Scott Carpenter

And these atomic bombs that science burst upon the world that night were strange even to the men that used them.
- H.G Wells, The World Set Free

To the conspiracy crowd, radiation is a big Boogey Man that inspires terror and death in all who encounter it. - JayUtah

I agree with you that inside the core of the Sun there may be also any iron from the initial formation. It concern also the other stars because my the dark matter it is Fe+Ni.
You also are right that I am going against the ideas held about the nuclear fusion that occurs in stars. Why? The energy frozen inside the neutrino is tremendous (see #4, #26, thread 'Before the Big Bang') so to transform one type of neutrino into another type of neutrino we need tremendous amount of energy. Such oscillations are impossible in laboratory. As I said in #1, thread 'Professor Ketterle....' in my theory all objects larger than neutrino are built of neutrinos, also there exist the neutrino background. I think that experimenters detected some neutrinos from background but not emitted from the Sun. If not then there must be another explanation of the solar neutrino problem. I gave such explanation. This explanation it is result of my considerations connected also with age of stars. Conception that the younger stars contain more helium because were created from clouds containing more helium is false. Why? From my theory it results that the first generation of big stars discovered by the Kashlinsky group created clouds containing 74% of hydrogen and 26% of helium. Today there exist old stars containing about 20% of helium. It means that there is less helium (not more).
BUT IT IS TRUE THAT THE YOUNGER STARS CONTAIN MORE HELIUM.

In cosmology and particle physics there is great disorder and we must change it.

The process of the fusion inside stars has been understood for decades now, not to mention observations support it, so why challenge it?
Since you seem reluctent to read what I suggested to you, I shall post it for you here:
The above theory is fairly simple, and has been supported by observations, again as explained above. I do not seen anything wrong with it.
Also, as also explained, the neutrino problem was solved. Why do you continue to believe it hasn't?

__________________
I calculated the odds of this succeeding versus the odds I was doing something incredibly stupid...and I went ahead anyway. - Crow T. Robot

Godspeed, John Glenn. - Scott Carpenter

And these atomic bombs that science burst upon the world that night were strange even to the men that used them.
- H.G Wells, The World Set Free

To the conspiracy crowd, radiation is a big Boogey Man that inspires terror and death in all who encounter it. - JayUtah

The QCD predicted that in some conditions there must exist the quark-gluon plasma i.e. in these conditions should exist the free quarks and free gluons. Experiment carried out in 2004 (see #30-#34, thread 'Before the Big Bang') failed. It means that with the QCD is something wrong. It also means that probably there is something wrong with the three families of quarks and leptons.
On the other side in 2005 there was discovered the Ketterle surface. Existence of the analogs to this surface I predicted in 1996 and such analogs my theory predicts inside the neutrinos, nucleons (see thread 'Professor W.Ketterle....') and the Superworld (see thread 'Before the Big Bang'). As I said before, the results obtained within my theory have great accuracy-authors of other theories may only dream it (see my threads).

History teaches that sometimes great scientists make big mistakes.

I'm still perplexed to the basis of your discussion.
From the the first part of your reply, it seems that because an experiment failed, that you assume then that the solution to the neutrino problem is wrong. Do you have details into that experiment, such as if they repeated it and got repeated failures?
Even so, remember that the sun is more of a BIG fusion reactor, not a particle accelerator.
Another issue confuses me. A conjecture was made as to the solution to the neutrino problem, and later was confirmed by observations. Are you saying then that the observations were wrong?

__________________
I calculated the odds of this succeeding versus the odds I was doing something incredibly stupid...and I went ahead anyway. - Crow T. Robot

Godspeed, John Glenn. - Scott Carpenter

And these atomic bombs that science burst upon the world that night were strange even to the men that used them.
- H.G Wells, The World Set Free

To the conspiracy crowd, radiation is a big Boogey Man that inspires terror and death in all who encounter it. - JayUtah

There does not exist the quark-gluon plasma. It is experimental fact (2004-2005).
There exists my theory which predicted such experimental result in 1985.
This theory explains the results of the J.I.Friedman, H.W.Kendall and R.E.Taylor experiment (1973) in different more physical way (see #8, thread ‘Professor Ketterle…’). It is simpler to assume that inside nucleon there exist exchanges of elementary charge between the components of the nucleon than to believe in existence of quarks having the fractional charges – for sample containing 50% of protons and 50% of neutrons the results obtained within my theory and within QCD are consistent with the result obtained in 1973. Only for such sample there was realized the experiment in 1973. Since 1985 I suggest to carry into effect this experiment for other samples because the results are different.
In 1996 I foresaw existence of the analogs to the Ketterle surface (discovered in 2005). These analogs concern the internal structures of the neutrinos, nucleons and the Superworld.
And this: my results are best!!!!! and my theory contains only 7 parameters (not twenty as in the QCD).
It suggests that there is almost 100% of certainty that my theory is correct.

FROM MY THEORY IT RESULTS THAT THE NEUTRINOS CANNOT OSCILLATE.
FROM MY THEORY IT RESULTS THAT SCIENTISTS DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE NUCLEAR REACTIONS.

Someone said that a new theory wins not because this theory is correct but because authors of incorrect theories are dying. It is very inhuman for authors of new correct theories. Authors of incorrect theories block the new correct theory. Today such politics in science costs billions. The ITER will cost about 10 billion euros but in this TOKAMAK the output energy will be lower than the input energy (estimations for JET are untrustworthy). It results from my theory describing the internal structure of nucleons.
We may build much cheaper thermonuclear heating device which could produce a surplus energy. It will be my patent so I only may say that we know that there is needed very high temperature or very high pressure or both but we may apply some subterfuge.

No. First there were observations, next there were speculations. I say that the speculations are wrong – the neutrinos cannot oscillate because of the great internal energy frozen inside the neutrinos (see #26, thread ‘Before the Big Bang’).
Women cannot be a little pregnant, they are pregnant or not.
You may eject all wrong interpretations in physics and cosmology or not one because these wrong interpretations are connected with the ground-work.

At least some recent ones (with new numbering):

1) How much of this 'DM' (in the SK idea) is there in our solar system?

2) Have you (Sylwester Kornowski) attempted to make even OOM estimates of the mass (size) distribution function of the Fe/Ni which you claim comprises (all?) the DM in the universe?

3) [SK:"Most of the Fe/Ni CDM must be in the halos of largest cosmic structures. I assume that it will be detected in future observations."] Is this equivalent to saying that you cannot account for the constraints on baryonic mass (specifically, Fe/Ni) as a component of MW halo or rich cluster DM? Specifically, that you cannot show a plausible mass distribution function that is consistent with the observed MACHO (and other lensing surveys) results? with the observed IGM and MW halo (lack of) absorption (and emission) lines? with the observed lack of IGM and MW halo dust reddening?

4) How did the Fe/Ni get into the MW (and other galaxy) halo(s)? into the IGM of rich clusters? If it got there via some 'explosion' or other, by what physical mechanism(s) did it clump/come together to form macroscopic bodies?

5) [SK: "In my idea the all Fe/Ni CDM was created inside the big stars of first generation. The mass of it is 4 times greater than the mass of visible matter."] In rich clusters, the inferred amount of baryonic mass is ~15% (the vast majority of it as H and He); i.e. (non-baryonic) DM is ~7 times greater (by mass). This would seem to be inconsistent with the prediction from your idea. How do you account for this inconsistency?

6) [SK: "our Sun has iron-nickel core (about 3% of the mass of the Sun). In old stars there are larger the iron-nickel cores (about 12%). In the big stars of first generation, just before the explosion of such star, the iron-nickel core had the mass equal to 80% of the mass of the big star."] Have you run standard stellar (or even solar) models with these high Fe/Ni abundances?

Here is what I asked, in post #41 and again in post #44:

What good observational results, concerning the Sun and neutrinos, are inconsistent with mainstream theories of neutrino oscillation?

Here is your answer:I will ask this question again, a third time; continued failure to answer this direct question is a violation of the rules of this forum*: what good observational results, concerning the Sun and neutrinos, are inconsistent with mainstream theories of neutrino oscillation?

*note that "I don't know (of any such)" and "I've not worked this out" and similar are perfectly acceptable answers,

More or less, I've asked the same thing. So, do this count as a fourth time?

I also find it hard to believe from SK that scientists do not understand nuclear reactions, especially since from 1945 to 1962 (if I remember right) we've been testing them (at least, in the atmosphere), to say nothing of the dozens of reactors we have.

__________________
I calculated the odds of this succeeding versus the odds I was doing something incredibly stupid...and I went ahead anyway. - Crow T. Robot

Godspeed, John Glenn. - Scott Carpenter

And these atomic bombs that science burst upon the world that night were strange even to the men that used them.
- H.G Wells, The World Set Free

To the conspiracy crowd, radiation is a big Boogey Man that inspires terror and death in all who encounter it. - JayUtah

Nereid, why I must once again answer to the same questions?

I calculated how much of the DM is in our World (80% of all baryonic mass i.e. 4 times more than the visible matter) and I said that this DM was created by the big stars discovered by the Kashlinsky group. These big stars at first were created on the surface of largest structures (i.e. the megachains) of our young World built of protogalaxies which were grouped in larger structures (see #1, thread ‘Very massive black hole in Sagittarius’), next, when the density of our young World was lower, on the surface of the smaller structure (i.e. the superclusters) and so on to the more and more structures. Last of all there were the single typical black holes (the Oort’s belt it is some part of the DM created by a typical black holes. From this it results that the DM we must seek in the halos of these structures. Mass of DM in these halos must be proportional to the surface of these structures and proportional to the number of created big stars. Rest it is the astrophysics.

Such calculations are simple but it is astrophysics. See point 1. I have no time for such recreation.

I am able calculate all what is connected with cosmology, particle physics, QED and also with astrophysics but finite time causes that I must concentrate on the most important problems. These most important problems are only partially connected with astrophysics
but in my opinion answers to your astrophysical questions number 2 and 3 we may in COSMOLOGY reduce to my answer given in point 1.

The protogalaxies were built of the typical black holes. After the Big Bang these typical black holes intensively evaporated. I described this mechanism in thread ‘Professor Ketterle….’
When the mass of a black hole exceeds the mass of typical black holes then creates disc because the dropping on the typical black hole particles could attain velocities higher than the light velocity. The neutrons placed on the surface of the black hole, in respect of the weak decays, emit the electrons and electron antineutrinos in directions parallel to the magnetic axis of black hole. Owing to the electric repulsion between electrons and to the strong spin polarization of the antineutrinos and electrons in directions parallel to the magnetic axis of the typical black hole, these electrons are accelerated to the velocities almost equal to the light velocity. Due to these emissions the surface of the typical black hole is charged positively. The electric repulsion of protons causes that the protons gather first of all in surroundings of the equator of the typical black hole. At last the electric repulsion exceeds the gravitational attraction and there take place the proton explosions in the plane of the equator of typical black hole. The rapid slow-down of protons creates the electromagnetic radiation. The proton streams carry away some neutrons what causes the additional emissions of electrons and electron antineutrinos in directions perpendicular to the plane of disc. The electron-antineutrino stream have the form of very strong collimated jet. Similar phenomena but on a larger scale took place in surroundings of the quasars. The emitted protons capture the electrons and create the protonuclei, from which after their transformation into the nuclei and electron gas, arise the big stars. Just before the explosion of a big star the composition of the big star is as follows: 80% Fe+Ni, 20% H+He in proportion 74% H and 26% He.
Protogalaxies collected in the supertorus had not evaporated because the number of emitted by defined protogalaxy electrons and electron antineutrinos was equal to the number of absorbed electrons and electron antineutrinos. Before the Big Bang the axes of protogalaxies were tangential to the circle inside the Supertorus.

See point 1. Inside the structures there is less the DM than in the halos. Examples are not far to seek. In the solar system most of the DM is in the Oort’s belt.

6) [SK: "our Sun has iron-nickel core (about 3% of the mass of the Sun). In old stars there are larger the iron-nickel cores (about 12%). In the big stars of first generation, just before the explosion of such star, the iron-nickel core had the mass equal to 80% of the mass of the big star."] Have you run standard stellar (or even solar) models with these high Fe/Ni abundances?

Yes. The second and third generation of stars were created from gas clouds containing about 74% H and 26% He. Why in stars there is less helium than at the beginning? Only my theory gives answer to this question. Also you can see that for the external layer of the stars we have (APPROXIMATELY!!!!! because stars differ in mass):
Time-life 5 billion years – about 24% He
Time-life 10 billion years – about 22% He
Time-life 15 billion years – about 20% He
BUT AT THE BEGINNING THERE WAS 26% He.
Can you see that with the evolutionary model of star is something wrong? We must assume that in the stars type the sun there are transformation of hydrogen into helium but also helium into iron. My theory of internal structure of nucleons and electrons explains why in the temperature about 15 million K (pressure about 3 . 10^16 Pa) there take place transformation of helium into iron.

I answered but I see that I must say literally. The mainstream theories of neutrino oscillation are consistent with good observational results but these theories are incorrect. In my opinion theory was matched to observational results. The same was made in other great theories (there does not exist the quark-gluon plasma; the QED gives good results even if we do not take into account the weak interactions of electrons - the coupling constant of the weak interactions is only about 652 times smaller than the coupling constant of the electromagnetic interactions)!!!!!!!

Grand Lunar, you are joking. Of course you are right but we are talking about different objects. My theory of fundamental structures foresees new effects connected with fusion!!! I claim that scientists do not understand the structure of nucleons and electrons (for example there does not exist the quark-gluon plasma!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!; what is the physical meaning of electric charge?; why exists the magneto-mechanical anomaly?).

You make it sound as if psuedoscientists came up with the theory.
What if, then, the theory was brought up before observations were made. Remember, technology had to be altered before the new observations were made. I doubt that would have happened before the theory was made.

Not yet anyway, but they are learning. And as more knowledge become available, theories can be revised.
Just because some aspects of a theory do not match the observations, it doesn't nessesarily mean it is wrong; it could merely mean then that more knowledge is needed.

__________________
I calculated the odds of this succeeding versus the odds I was doing something incredibly stupid...and I went ahead anyway. - Crow T. Robot

Godspeed, John Glenn. - Scott Carpenter

And these atomic bombs that science burst upon the world that night were strange even to the men that used them.
- H.G Wells, The World Set Free

To the conspiracy crowd, radiation is a big Boogey Man that inspires terror and death in all who encounter it. - JayUtah

Sylwester

perhaps you have answered this question; how does your theory supply the electromotive force in an atom??

as well blackholes are also thought to be in the center of all galaxies and not just the result of a neutron star. so is there blackholes in the center of galaxies( at this point i say no)?

by the way i also would like to read your book!!

Dear GRAND LUNAR,

These problems are more complicated.
We can call the thinker a scientist which starts from wordy description of physical situation and next on the base of that description constructs mathematical part and at the end interprets received data and that, as a general rule, gives an extension of the first wordy description. A magician starts from mathematical equations.
If theory arises before an experimental or observational fact and this fact is consistent with the theory then we have clear situation, but if it is inversely then there sometimes is a temptation to try to match th