In what way are they not mutually exclusive RC? Where's your *specific* quote to support the lie that EU theory predicts no neutrinos RC? Run, run, run....
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
23 June 2016 Michael: The repeated denial of English that we are seeing farm you is the fantasy that different statements on different dates on two different mutually exclusive EU ideas are mutually exclusive.
No sign of fixing the ignorance, delusions and lies about the Electric Universe and even English from Michael:
21 June 2016 Michael: Digging himself an ever deeper pit of delusions and even lies about Brian Koberlein knowing both the EU "no neutrinos" and "surface fusion" ideas.
Pathological lying can be described as a habituation of lying. It is when an individual consistently lies for no personal gain. The lies are commonly transparent and often seem rather pointless.
Brian Koberlein said:The EU model predicts the Sun should produce no neutrinos.
Brian Koberlein said:EU claims that fusion occurs near the solar surface and fluctuates with solar activity, but observations show no clear correlation between solar activity and neutrinos.
A lie and still displaying ignorance about EU theory, Michael.Your "no neutrinos" idea has nothing to do with EU theory,...
A summary so people do not have to clamber down into Michael's pit of ignorance, delusions and insults.
The professional astrophysicist Brian Koberlein wrote a blog article Testing the Electric Universe on 25 February 2014. His first problem was that there are many versions of EU. He decided to try to critique the Thunderbolts version (Talbott, Thornhill, and Scott). The article does not explicitly state his source but he does not mention buying their books, the characteristics listed and later comments show that he used the eBook A Beginner’s View of Our Electric Universe by Tom Findlay (PDF). This was reviewed favorably by Thornhill and Scott so a reasonable person would expect it to be an accurate representation of the Thunderbolts version.
Brian Koberlein gave EU an F- because of several failures.
Has Michael written reasonable, evidence based posts showing that the science that Brian Koberlein presented is wrong? No!
- The Sun emits neutrinos from fusion (Findlay's assertion that stars are not fusion powered is wrong).
- The Sun gives off a thermal spectrum, not a plasma one (not lit by a flow of plasma).
- GR and SR have been experimentally verified (are not wrong).
- We have observsions of the births of stars and planets (stars “give birth” to other stars and planets is wrong).
- Galaxies are mature up to large redshifts (redshifts from "aging" galaxies is wrong)
The posts since about 21 June 2016 are an obsession with one EU failure (solar neutrinos), repeated insults of Brian Koberlein being a pathological liar, lying about English comprehension, and the irrational demand that Brian Koberlein edit the blog article to lie about what he wrote!
The truth is that there are several EU ideas about solar neutrinos:
- Findlay: Stars are not fusion powered + no mention of other stellar fusion thus no neutrinos.
Debunked - we observe neutrinos from the Sun as Koberlein stated.- Talbott + Thornhill: Maybe stars are not fusion powered. Neutrinos from electrical discharges.
Debunked - electrical discharges do not create neutrinos - they come from nuclei reactions.
- Talbott + Thornhill: Maybe stars are not fusion powered. Neutrinos from electron-positron annihilation.
Debunked - electron-positron annihilation creates photons, not neutrinos.- Scott: Stars are not fusion powered. Neutrinos from fusion in z-pinches at the surface of stars.
Z-pinches have only been created in laboratories. No evidence that they exist elsewhere.
Z-pinches have never created fusion even in the controlled conditions of laboratories.
Enough fusion to power the Sun will produce easily detectable gamma rations, etc.
Scott is denying the science that first year astronomy students use to work out the pressure and temperature at the center of the Sun to see that fusion has to be happening there.
Scott predicts that fusion and so neutrino flux fluctuates with solar activity which Koberlein states does not happen in a comment on 3 July 2014- Michael?: Stars are partially fusion powered. Neutrinos from fusion in z-pinches? below the surface of stars.
See above about z-pinches not seen outside of labs or producing fusion in labs.
The neutrino flux from the Sun matches what is worked out for the amount of fusion at the core of the Sun.
A lie and still displaying ignorance about EU theory, Michael.
Findlay: Stars are not fusion powered + no mention of other stellar fusion thus no neutrinos.
It is called reading English, not ignoring the science and not going on rants about a person being a pathological liar:This is called "projection" RC. ...
21 June 2016 Michael: Digging himself an ever deeper pit of delusions and even lies about Brian Koberlein knowing both the EU "no neutrinos" and "surface fusion" ideas.FYI, I think that is the first time that I've ever seen someone commit three non sequitur fallacies in a single sentence.
For everyone's information: That is lies from Michael since he knows thatFindlay: Stars are not fusion powered + no mention of other stellar fusion thus no neutrinos."
The electric Sun model expects far more complex heavy element synthesis to take place in the natural particle accelerators in the photospheric lightning discharges. In that case the various neutrino “flavours” are all generated on the Sun and do not need to “oscillate” on their way to the Earth to make up an imagined deficit.
...
In the Electric Universe model, there is no antimatter forming antiparticles. An electron and a positron are composed of the same charged sub-particles in different conformations. They come together to form a stable neutrino, emitting most of their orbital energies in the process. They do not annihilate each other. In that sense a neutrino embodies both the electron and the positron. It can have no antiparticle.
Findlay explicitly states that stars are not fusion powered.
Findlay does not have any other sources of stellar fusion.
Koberlein actually critiqued Talbott and Thornhill's model as represented by Findlay (the only freely accessible source Koberlein cited).
Michael's lie: 21 June 2016 Michael: Digging himself an ever deeper pit of delusions and even lies about Brian Koberlein knowing both the EU "no neutrinos" and "surface fusion" ideas.RC's missing references:
Michael's lie: 21 June 2016 Michael: Digging himself an ever deeper pit of delusions and even lies about Brian Koberlein knowing both the EU "no neutrinos" and "surface fusion" ideas.This is simply a false statement as *PROVEN*....
1) Findlay on page 79 explicitly states that stars are not fusion powered.
Brian Koberlein said:There are actually many variations to the Electric Universe model, but the most popular version seems to focus around the book by Thornhill and Talbot listed below.
Solar neutrino puzzle is solved?
Posted on August 13, 2001 by Wal Thornhill
On the other hand, the Electric Universe proposes an electrical model for stars, based on the pioneering work of Ralph Juergens.
……
The electric Sun model expects far more complex heavy element synthesis to take place in the natural particle accelerators in the photospheric lightning discharges. In that case the various neutrino “flavours” are all generated on the Sun and do not need to “oscillate” on their way to the Earth to make up an imagined deficit. What is more, fluctuations in neutrino counts are expected in this model to be correlated with electrical input to the Sun, that is, with sunspot numbers and solar wind activity. This has been observed. The standard solar model does not expect any correlation since there is a lag estimated in the millions of years between the nuclear reaction in the core and its final expression at the surface of the Sun.
Electric discharges in plasma take the form of twisted filaments, seen here in a closeup of sunspots. Each filament is a powerful natural particle accelerator.
There is an experiment suggested by the SNO results that could confirm the Electric Sun’s photospheric origin of neutrinos. It would require continuous measurement of neutrinos of all flavours as a very large sunspot group rotated with the Sun. In this model, sunspot umbrae are not a source of neutrinos so there should be modulation effects associated with the Sun’s rotation that might be measurable with present equipment. Such an experiment, if sensitive enough, offers the possibility of detecting neutrino oscillations in the Sun as they traverse varying proportions of the body of the Sun. A positive result would falsify the standard nuclear model of the Sun.
Brian Koberlein said:The EU model predicts the Sun should produce no neutrinos.
Brian Koberlein said:EU claims that fusion occurs near the solar surface and fluctuates with solar activity, but observations show no clear correlation between solar activity and neutrinos.
28 June 2016 Michael: A lie that I cannot comprehend the English in the Wikipedia article describing MR happening in plasma.From your gross misrepresentation of "magnetic reconnection", we all know you have a comprehension problem with basic English.
28 June 2016 Michael: A lie that I cannot comprehend the English in the Wikipedia article describing MR happening in plasma.
Nothing to do with 28 June 2016 Michael: Persists with the lie that he does not know about a Findlay quote given to him on 21 June 2016.RC persists with his bigoted lie about Findlay saying anything about "no neutrinos" on page 79.
Brian Koberlein said:The EU model predicts the Sun should produce no neutrinos.
Brian Koberlein said:EU claims that fusion occurs near the solar surface and fluctuates with solar activity, but observations show no clear correlation between solar activity and neutrinos.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?