0
   

Don Scott: Plasma Cosmology

 
 
Reply Fri 23 Aug, 2013 08:38 am
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,198 • Replies: 8
No top replies

 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Aug, 2013 11:05 am
@gungasnake,
How are all those neutrinos explained away?
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Aug, 2013 11:40 am
@farmerman,
If you're talking about solar neutrinos, my understanding is that there aren't nearly enough of them to warrant thinking that the sun is a thermonuclear furnace.

The interesting thing about the sun is that when you look at sun spots, you're looking into the interior of the sun, which has to be much cooler than the surface.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Aug, 2013 12:33 pm
@gungasnake,
Quote:
my understanding is that there aren't nearly enough of them to warrant thinking that the sun is a thermonuclear furnace.


Is everything you read from the 1940's? Dr Pontecorvo hd solved the neutrino deficit problem with his application of quantum thinking back in 1960 or thereabouts.
We are bombarded (in the perpendicular) by 0ver 67,000,000,000 solar generated neutrinos resulting from solar fusion PER CENTIMETER squared-PER SECOND.
Since the neutrinos change "flavor" instantaneously and are also instantaneously changing status. Weve been able to measure their various flavors in deep mine shaft measurement targets .
Pontecorvo was probably the only nuclear scientist to defect back TO Russia in hi career. (We was one of Fermi's assistants, and he never won a Nobel Prize-for which he was rightfully pissed)
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Aug, 2013 02:41 pm
@farmerman,


http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2011/arch11/110727neutrino.htm

Quote:
Neutrino Quest II
Jul 27, 2011

Dealing with less than scrupulous salesmen requires the consumer to employ diligence, a healthy skepticism, and have some knowledge of the items being offered for sale. As the traveling salesman in the Broadway musical The Music Man says, “Ya’ gotta know the territory!”

For about a decade, astrophysicists have been selling the idea (to what they hope is an accepting public) that: “neutrinos have mass and therefore can change flavor.” This, they claim, explains the so-called “neutrino deficit.” It doesn’t. Things are not quite that simple.

A steady-state thermonuclear reaction of the type they claim powers the Sun must emit a flood of electron-neutrinos and so far, nowhere near the requisite number of these neutrinos have been observed.

Solar fusion advocates are in a near-panic because a series of grandly expensive experiments have failed to find the necessary electron-neutrino flux. Briefly, the problem is as follows:

According to accepted particle physics, there are three different kinds of neutrinos:

· electron neutrinos (which are the ones supposedly produced in the Sun)
· muon neutrinos, and
· tau neutrinos.

The fusion reaction in question is:

4 1H + 2 e --> 4He + 2 electron-neutrinos + 6 photons

“Some solar neutrinos have indeed been observed - but only one-third the number required if this fusion reaction really is the main source of the Sun's energy production. These negative results from the neutrino experiments have resulted not in any re-examination of solar models. Rather, an intense theoretical effort to discover new properties that solar neutrinos 'must have' has occurred. As a result of this effort, it was announced (June 2001) by the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO) in Canada that neutrinos have mass and can change ‘flavor’. This supposedly accounts for why they have not been fully observed previously.”

I wrote those lines several years ago on my web site: http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sudbury.htm and went on to analyze inaccuracies in the SNO report. Since that time, I have been roundly taken to task by pseudo-skeptics claiming that I am ignorant of the latest experimental results that have now put this question to rest.

Really? Let’s see. We must remember that it is the observed flow of electron-neutrinos that is too low. For example we read1 in Wikipedia:

"For many years the number of solar electron-neutrinos detected on Earth was 1/3 to 1/2 of the number predicted by the standard solar model. This anomalous result was termed the solar neutrino problem. Theories proposed to resolve the problem…posited that electron neutrinos could oscillate—that is, change into undetectable tau and muon neutrinos as they traveled between the Sun and the Earth."

This statement makes sense logically. If the type that seems to be missing (when the neutrino stream reaches Earth) can change into either of the other two types somewhere along the journey, that might explain the deficit. So the crucial question is: Do electron-type neutrinos change into either of the other two types? Reading further in the Wiki article we see:

"Several neutrino observatories were built in the 1980s to measure the solar neutrino flux as accurately as possible, including the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory and Kamiokande. Results from these observatories eventually led to the discovery that neutrinos have a very small rest mass and do indeed oscillate [change type]. Moreover, in 2001 the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory was able to detect all three types of neutrinos directly, and found that the Sun's total neutrino emission rate agreed with the Standard Solar Model, although depending on the neutrino energy as few as one-third of the neutrinos seen at Earth are of the electron type. This proportion agrees with that predicted by the Mikheyev-Smirnov-Wolfenstein effect (also known as the matter effect), which describes neutrino oscillation in matter, and it is now considered a solved problem."

Fine. But they still did not observe electron-neutrinos changing into either of the other two types. They said they observed a sufficient total number of neutrinos, such that if they all had been electron-type, the accepted solar fusion model would have been verified. But they weren’t all that type. The last phrase in the above paragraph, “it is now considered a solved problem,” is analogous to Napoleon declaring victory at Waterloo and going home to Paris. What would have to happen on the journey to Earth is for electron-neutrinos to change into one or both of the other types. This was not observed in any of these experiments and may indeed be impossible.

The search went on, but the reverse of what they want to see keeps being observed. Just last month we read that muon-neutrinos have now been observed changing into electron-neutrinos:

ScienceDaily2 (June 15, 2011)

"The international T2K collaboration has announced that it has observed an indication of a new type of neutrino transformation or oscillation from a muon-neutrino to an electron-neutrino. In the T2K experiment in Japan, a muon-neutrino beam was produced in the Japan Proton Accelerator Research Complex, called J-PARC, located in Tokai village, Ibaraki prefecture, on the east coast of Japan, and was aimed at the gigantic Super-Kamiokande underground detector in Kamioka, near the west coast of Japan, 295 km (185 miles) away from Tokai. An analysis of the detected neutrino-induced events in the Super-Kamiokande detector indicates that a very small number of muon-neutrinos traveling from Tokai to Kamioka (T2K) transformed themselves into electron-neutrinos."

But, again, this is the reverse of what they want to see. If this kind of type-change occurs on the neutrinos’ journey from the Sun to Earth, we should measure too many electron-neutrinos, not too few.

The magazine The Economist3, June 25th – July 1st also announced this latest experimental result:

…T2K had seen six electron-neutrinos. If no spot-changing oscillations were happening it should have seen only one or two.

So again – too many electron-neutrinos were measured in this experiment. But that does not seem to bother them. They certainly hope it doesn’t bother you. They hope you will accept their package-deal – that because muon-neutrinos may morph into electron-neutrinos, we must assume the reverse transformation occurs too, even when that has never been observed.

Be careful when you read what these traveling neutrino-salesmen are selling. Don’t get bilked by their road-show sleight of hand. The fusion Sun model is in big trouble.

Donald Scott author of The Electric Sky


http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2011/image11/110727snakeoil.gif
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Aug, 2013 02:42 pm
The much simpler way to look at the thing, of course, is to realize that if our sun were a nuclear furnace of any sort, then sunspots would be blue or white, and not black.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Aug, 2013 05:44 pm
@gungasnake,
That's bullshit also. BUT, we all know where your "electric universe" I going. It tries to (without any evidence) falsly critique the Standard Model.The results of which have to ,EVEN BY CREATIONISTSTANDARDS, have to admit that at least most of the suns thermonuclear reaction is evidenced . Dr Srfati (one of yours) has , for once been honest in his responses. I am (ohmigod!!!) going to "Quote mine him when he said that:
Quote:
Sarfati (2000/2002),in the original 2000 version of his paper invoked the solar neutrino problem as evidence against fusion in the sun. However, in the online version of his paper at http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4180.asp there is a note added in May 2002, after the SNO results came out: "This is consistent with other lines of evidence that fusion is the primary source of energy, e.g. the core temperature. This means that neutrinos must have a very tiny rest mass after all—experimental data must take precedence over the theories of particle physicists that neutrinos have zero rest mass. Therefore creationists should no longer invoke the missing neutrino problem to deny that fusion is the primary source of energy for the sun." This is commendable honesty --{/quote] but then he ruins the good impression by inserting a totally obsolete second-hand quote (from Eddy 1978) in the same note as if it still had any relevance .
If an "electric universe were actual, qed have actual data for a "young SOlar System and a Young Earth"(WE DONT ).

The SNO (gallium detector esxperiments have shut down the "Missing neutrino problem" (MAYBE, your professor "Emeritus" needs to read some other experiments rather than just fkying around giving speeches to polite after school faculty symposia.

Scott is apparently waaaay behind in this subject (Im not very up in this myself, admittedly, but my journals of geophysics have kindly kept me up to speed as far as I need to understand the way neitrinos act as they "Change flavor" on their way to earth and how detectors (SNO) can help rectify the evidence.

farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Aug, 2013 06:06 pm
The YECs have to try to snip around any discrepencies or past data insufficiencies to assert that the EARTH IS TOO YOUNG for life to have risen by volution. The Standard and :electric universe" crp is just the latest attempt to try to question any aspect of science .
The lack of neutrinos in a fusion reaction equation from H/He and Be seems to have yielded an insufficient amount of neutrinos to make Fusion feasible. However, even if that were correct, There was a non mss lod of neutrinos that would say that at least half or 2/3 of the suns energy WAS due to fusion.
The electric universe crowd has tried to insert itself as a "scientifically valid theory" that casts doubt on an old Glaxy nd an old solar system . Earth would therefore be a YECs dream an all the evidence for an old planet (by Uniformitrin means) would need to be cast into doubt. That hasn't happened and while the neutrino discrepancy lasted for about 30 years , it was mostly due to the lack of robust gizmos and detectors able to record the 6X 10^10 neutrinos per second pr square centimeter hitting the earths surface.

Too much data underpinning the evolution of the galaxy and life on the planet gets discovered almost daily. The Creationists have NO research programs going on to support anything they profess to believe in and its kinda sad to have to listen to gungas constant spiehl that is pruerly derived from one or two educated Creationists who , while they can, try to tear apart one or another piece of evidence about the galactic ystem and earths biology nd geology.
They make up good arguments at first but when they get hammered and debunked by real science, their "high priests f gobbledeegook" keep asserting on and on.
I wonder what the QandA of that speech that SCott MAde at MIT resulted in. That wasn't reported on was it?
Ive been to a few at Princeton here these guys are invited in and they make their speeches and get torn new assholes based solely on objective dispassionate data and evidence.
Of course Ive only been to a number of them during my teaching days and havemt attended any in the last 7 or 8 years but I always get a kick out of some dude who parades his irrelevant PhD to a room stacked with more degrees than a kelvin thermometer. They should make their speeches to the church groups where the flocks aren't as informed. Ive got give em credit though. They are convinced and they've got "religion" . Too bad they are stoneheaded in their reading of the available evidence out there.

0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Aug, 2013 06:09 pm
@farmerman,
MADE A MOSH_UP of my quoting skills. What that quoted segement should look like (one can see my inserts based upon my clear attention to spelling detail) Heres what it should say
Quote:
Quote:

Sarfati (2000/2002),in the original 2000 version of his paper invoked the solar neutrino problem as evidence against fusion in the sun. However, in the online version of his paper at http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4180.asp there is a note added in May 2002, after the SNO results came out: "This is consistent with other lines of evidence that fusion is the primary source of energy, e.g. the core temperature. This means that neutrinos must have a very tiny rest mass after all—experimental data must take precedence over the theories of particle physicists that neutrinos have zero rest mass. Therefore creationists should no longer invoke the missing neutrino problem to deny that fusion is the primary source of energy for the sun." This is commendable honesty -


but then he ruins the good impression by inserting a totally obsolete second-hand quote (from Eddy 1978) in the same note as if it still had any relevance .
If an "electric universe were actual, wed have actual data for a "young SOlar System and a Young Earth"(WE DONT ).

The SNO (gallium detector esxperiments have shut down the "Missing neutrino problem" (MAYBE, your professor "Emeritus" needs to read some other experiments rather than just fkying around giving speeches to polite after school faculty symposia.

Scott is apparently waaaay behind in this subject (Im not very up in this myself, admittedly, but my journals of geophysics have kindly kept me up to speed as far as I need to understand the way neitrinos act as they "Change flavor" on their way to earth and how detectors (SNO) can help rectify the evidence.
[/quote]
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Don Scott: Plasma Cosmology
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/26/2020 at 02:57:56