The point is, as I've said before, not about 'no neutrinos'; that is pretty much an irrelevance.
No, it matters a great deal, and it's definitely not irrelevant. I've seen at *least* three folks on this forum make that erroneous claim, and several other "professionals" too. What it demonstrates to me, and to the rest of the EU/PC community, is that the mainstream does not even understand *anything* about EU/PC solar models in general. Since such *major* public bonehead errors are never fixed or even pointed out by so called "professionals", it also tends to make one wonder if the mainstream has any ethics whatsoever. It certainly does matter.
Now keep in mind, that I too *reject* Juergen's anode model, but I've also been 'put through the public wringer' by the mainstream. I've watched them *repeatedly* and *intentionally* distort my statements. I've watched them irrationally pretend to be mind readers. I've watched them repeatedly and intentionally misrepresent the model that I'm presenting to them, and I have watched them consistently argue against the *individual* rather than the ideas themselves. This consistent type of unethical behavior makes one tend to question the honesty and the integrity of the mainstream and it certainly points out their complete ignorance of these topics in general.
That kind of misinformation *does* matter, much as you'd like to deny it.
The fact remains that, long before we ever detected a neutrino, predictions were made, based on the amount of nuclear fusion needed to power the Sun, of how many, and of what energy neutrinos we should detect. After many decades, and the discovery of oscillation, that prediction is as close to precisely seen as makes no difference.
I tend to agree actually. That's also why I tend to prefer Birkeland's internally powered model too.
There is no need for any other model.
It's not a question as to whether or not there is a *need* for any other model. The Juergen's anode model just works differently. I'd also point out that the mainstream model has no valid explanation for the heat of the corona, and it's convection predictions are *horribly wrong*, so there is certainly a need of a new solar model that predicts the right speed of mass movement, and which *can* explain, and can replicate a full sphere hot corona.
To the best of my knowledge, within the scientific literature, there is no other model.
Apparently you haven't been following the SAFIRE experiments because there is another solar model and it's currently being tested in the lab. It *does* produce a full sphere hot corona (albeit not a particularly stable one as far as I can tell from the videos), and it's not dependent upon fast solar convection for it's atmospheric energy source.
You obviously haven't read Birkeland's work for yourself either, because it does describe yet *another* solar model and it includes predictions galore, math, and *working simulations of it's core ideas*.
Thornhill, Scott et al, are clueless about astrophysics in general, and the Sun in particular.
Considering the fact that the mainstream needs *four* metaphysical constructs to describe events in space, and 95 percent of their model is based on nothing more than placeholder terms from human ignorance, the mainstream is the last one to claim that anyone else is 'clueless' about astrophysics. Even the 5 percent of the LCDM model that isn't placeholder terms for human ignorance is mostly based on "pseudoscience" according to Alfven!
This kind of 'argue against the person' instead of arguing against the model is *unethical* in the extreme.
Scott (who knows about Thornhill?)
You yourself quoted Thornhill from his website so there's no doubt whatsoever as to where he personally claims that fusion takes place, namely *in* the photosphere. Again, there's a *scientific need* to correctly represent the claims and beliefs of the individuals involved and their models.
wants fusion in a DL between the photosphere and corona (the chromosphere).
As I've shown you from *laboratory experimentation*, there isn't just "one" DL, there are *multiple* DL in any anode (and cathode) solar model.
This fusion is supposedly of heavy elements. How heavy? Who knows? It isn't stated. More wiggle room.
Yep, it's missing some key mathematical explanations. That's a a valid criticism.
The fusion of such elements will produce gamma rays.
Indeed, but as that *solar image* also demonstrates, the higher energy wavelengths tend to be quickly absorbed unless and until they are emitted within the *corona*, but the magnetic ropes extend much deeper into the solar atmosphere.
At specific energies. That is not seen, and therefore rules it out.
Those wavelengths *are* seen (I even showed you that), and they wouldn't necessarily *be seen* in the first place if most of it occurs under the surface of the photosphere.
To quote the aforementioned Tim Thompson:
I like Tim, but here's what Tim also said in that very same post that you cited:
The CNO fusion reactions which Mozina falsely claims to see evidence for near the solar surface do not generate random gamma rays (Mozina thinks a gamma ray is a gamma ray and who cares what its energy is). Rather, the CNO reactions will generate narrow band gamma emission with extremely specific gamma ray energies that are immediately identifiable as CNO gamma rays and nothing else.
This is a great example of someone irrationally pretending to 'read my mind' while blatantly misrepresenting my beliefs and my statements, attacking the *individual* rather than just attacking the idea, and misrepresenting the scientific facts, all in the very same paragraph!
I certainly do *not* believe that a "gamma ray is a gamma ray" as Tim falsely and unethically asserted. While CNO fusion does emit very specific wavelengths, coronal loops generate a *very wide range* of gamma ray wavelengths due to their temperature and composition, not *just* CNO wavelengths. That is a completely false assertion on Tim's part. Period. This kind of statement tends to undermine his credibility on this topic in general.
So let's now look and the paragraph that you picked out:
The same analysis is valid for all of the reactions in each of the CNO reaction chains. So all of the narrow-line gamma ray emission features from each chain should be emitted by the sun, simultaneously, if that CNO chain is in effect at or above the photosphere of the sun.
True, but it will be among *lots of other gamma rays* from virtually every part of the spectrum. If?
This spectrum of narrow line gamma ray emission is not seen
Absolutely false! I showed him and I showed you that those wavelengths *are* seen. It might be fair to claim that not *just* those wavelengths are seen, but it's irrational and flat out wrong to claim they're not observed!
and that fact by itself is sufficient to rule out any CNO reaction chain at or above the photosphere of the sun.
Again, utterly false. Those wavelengths *are* seen, but certainly not in sufficient quantity to justify the belief that all fusion occurs in the corona.
The complete absence of all narrow line features from the CNO chains is sufficient by itself to rule out all CNO reactions.
False. There is no 'absence' of those wavelengths in the first place!
It would also produce a neutrino energy spectrum that is vastly different from that observed.
Perhaps, but nobody is claiming that all fusion is CNO fusion either, certainly not me!
So, that also rules it out. Unless Scott has produced an expected neutrino energy spectrum that magically matches that of the standard model!
I don't know what Scott's neutrino energy spectrum looks like because I've never seen him try to produce one *on paper*. I'd have to *assume* however that he'd do the same thing your paper did which is to *postidict* a fit to the actual observation by tweaking the model as required.
For the enormous temperatures needed for this fusion, and the fact that the Sun is equally luminous over its entire body (other than the odd sunspot), then this fusion must be happening over the entire surface (or chromosphere, as Scott would have it). That is also not seen.
Coronal loops cover the whole surface of the sun and they *are* seen. Whether fusion is 'seen' or not depends on where you decide to place the fusion process and Thornhill clearly placed it *in* the photosphere. Even *if* Scott's model puts fusion somewhere else, the entire anode model itself could never be falsified that way, just *Scott's personal opinions* could be falsified that way.
If the temperature throughout the chromosphere were > 10 m K, we would notice.
Thornhill's model would predict a *heated* convecting photosphere as gamma rays are absorbed by the photosphere, and it would predict other double layers above that DL too and we *do* notice excess heat in layers above the photosphere.
Ditto, if that temperature were attained on the photosphere, or close below it.
That depends on "how close". As best as I can tell from satellites and heliosciesmology, the electrode surface is located about 4800Km under the surface of the photosphere and only a *tiny fraction* of the coronal loops (plasma pinches) ever rise above the surface of the photosphere.
None of these things are seen.
I wouldn't expect any of that to be "seen" from Thornhill's model in the first place.
There is no evidence for any incoming current.
I don't know how much current to expect in Thornhills'/Scott's model because I've never seen them try to estimate it, but I would tend to agree that cosmic rays have the opposite charge of what they tend to predict and electrons are flowing *from* the sun, not really toward it very much. That is probably your one and only really valid (and strong) criticism of all possible anode solar model configurations.
Therefore there is nothing happening at the Sun that requires us to ditch a model that matches very well with theory,
Except the standard solar model does *not* explain the heat source of the corona, and it's two orders of magnitude *broken* when comes to convection. The precious mainstream solar model needs an upgrade.
for one that totally fails, and has zero evidence for it.
The standard solar model fails too, and there is evidence of electrical features in the hot solar atmosphere.
So, there are numerous reasons not to bother with silly models that have never seen the light of day, other than on woo sites.
I'll finish by acknowledging your point about particle flow problems with all anode models. I do personally think that is a *very serious* problem with all anode solar models as well. That's why I prefer Birkeland's cathode model. I'll also acknowledge that it's unlikely IMO that the bulk of the fusion of the sun occurs *strictly* in the upper parts of the photosphere, but someone could come along and propose an anode model that produces fusion in the core too, and that would pretty much eliminate your neutrino objections and therefore it's impossible to eliminate all anode configurations based on that particular argument.
The solar wind thing however is critical. It's composition, it's and flow direction tells us something important about the nature of the sun that cannot be ignored. I think that part of your criticisms have merit.
What ultimately bothers me however is that you're not trying to "make it work", you're trying to "debunk" the concept based on ideas that aren't even valid in the first place. Worse yet, the mainstream is not acknowledging or fixing it's convection problems, nor does it offer a working (in the lab) "fix" it's *non explanation* of a hot full sphere corona. Its not like *any* current solar model correctly predicts *everything* we observe, but nobody seems to acknowledge that issue!
IMO Birkeland's internally powered model offers the best path forward. It's inclusive of internal fusion. It doesn't need a lot of external power. It's *got* external power flow from cosmic rays. It successfully produces a hot corona, and it doesn't require massive amount of mass flows from beneath the surface, though it needs *some* mass flow from below the surface of the photosphere if only in the form of *current*.
