Let's get one thing straight. A numerical prediction is the logical consequence of a model. In science, a prediction made from a model is independently verifiable by anyone, (following the conception of the model). A prediction does not require having to go back to the model authors (akin to having to reference the Bible as some form of authority). Your above dilemma about your authors not being alive today, (so as to allow you to use them as some sort of reference source), is a consequence of your own misunderstanding of the concept of 'prediction' and how it works in science. (Sjastro demonstrated how a prediction is derived in post#86 here).
Ok. So what? Alfven used the *standard solar model* to start with so it necessarily *must* predict the same neutrino output that the standard model predicts. sjastro quantified Alfven's EU/PC solar model for you when he copied the information from WIKI. That's also true for Birkeland's model as well because it's internally powered according to Birkeland just like the standard solar model and it's based on the same basic principle of a "transmutation of elements" as it was referred to during his lifetime, AKA fusion today.
You might reasonably suggest that there is no quantified neutrino prediction which has specifically been published by an EU/PC proponent, but it's absolutely false to claim that *any* EU/PC solar model "predicts/produces no neutrinos!" Such rationalizations are just convoluted nonsense.
And that's not the point of asking for the demonstration how the numerical prediction would be derived.
No, the point of all of your questions seems to be intended to give you an excuse to launch yourself into a personal attack against me or someone else in the EU/PC community, or to post a link to another EU/PC hater engaging in that behavior. You personally accused Dr. Scott of plagiarism for crying out loud, and you don't even have the common decency to use your real name.
The point is that an accurate prediction would involve having to cite a physical mechanism.
Scott did that for you. I also handed you my own paper that is based on the plasma pinch process that occurs in magnetic ropes. The mechanism is identified.
How it is being used, thence becomes plainly visible during said demonstration. This is vital, because it may then be seen (by a reader) as being capable/not capable of functioning at the layer the star where it is being invoked. Saying that fusion can occur in sufficient amounts at/near the 'surface' does not make logical sense because we know from observations that the environmental conditions in the upper regions does not appear to be conducive to producing the net solar neutrino flux observed and does not explain the absence of gamma radiation.
That dead horse again? There won't be any visible gamma rays unless the fusion in the pinch process happens to occur *above* the surface of the photosphere as occurred in the instance that is described in my paper. The plasma pinch is the identified mechanism. [Staff edit]. Nobody claimed that all plasma pinches and all fusion occurs *above* the surface of the photosphere! That's another great example of a strawman argument.
On top of this, there appears to be no tangible support for the needed continuous magnitude(s) of the source(s) of the supposed fusion causing electrical activity, as hypothesised.
Says who? That's your unsubstanciated opinion, and it's right up there with all the rest of your ignorant claims. I can see for myself that there are magnetic ropes flowing all around the sun in solar satellite images. You're welcome to argue that the model won't work as described for some reason of your choosing but you can't claim that any EU/PC solar model predicts/produces no neutrinos! You're simply flat out misrepresenting the models (plural in your case).
[Staff edit].
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote
0