So, to get back to why we know that Scott and Thornhill's description of neutrino production is wrong;
Firstly where, in the written material by either of those two, or Juergens, do they claim that the neutrino production is anywhere other than the top of the photosphere?
AFAIK, they don't claim that it occurs anywhere else, but that blows the 'no neutrino' claim away. Maybe you could explain that to your buddies RC, Selfsim and sjastro?
No links to woo videos, thanks. We are discussing Scott and Thornhill's claims, as made in writing.
I've posted their quotes in terms of the location of the neutrino production, and you're correct (unlike the rest of your friends).
As already mentioned, gamma ray production, or the lack of it, kills that nonsense stone dead.
You failed to produce any quote from Thornhill, Scott or Juergen's to support your claim that they "predict" excess gamma rays. You're putting words in their mouth that they didn't utter, much like that "no neutrino" nonsense.
This is what I could find:
Thornhill:
To sum up, the electrical model of the Sun requires that neutrinos of all “flavours” are produced by heavy element nucleosynthesis in the photosphere of the Sun.......It is simpler to assume that the energy we receive from the Sun is coming from where we see it – at the surface, or photosphere,..
Scott I have already quoted, saying that fusion occurs in a DL above the photosphere.
Emphasis in Thornhill's quote mine.
Woah! You just quoted Thornhill claiming that this process was happening *in* (not above) the photosphere, and now you're claiming it's happeneing *above* the photosphere. Where did you get that idea? Scott used the phrase "at the top of the photosphere" but the double layer *is* the photosphere (as in *in* the photosophere), not the chromosphere or the corona.
I await confirmation that this is not the case, and he has buried it deep within the Sun, to prevent detection of gamma rays.
Your own quote from Thornhill describes the process as occurring *in* the photosphere, not above it. I've already shown you solar satellite images that demonstrate that higher energy wavelengths are *absorbed* in the upper part of the photosphere too.
We don't see any yellow from the solar moss region! We only see the higher energy wavelengths from the tops of the largest loops *after* they rise into the corona.
Which we can detect from solar flares, by the way.
Solar flares typically take place above the surface of the photosphere. Magnetic ropes however begin *under* the surface of the photosphere as that image above demonstrates.
So, why do we know their description (such as it is) is wrong? Observation. They are claiming that this photospheric fusion (impossible at that temperature and density) produces heavy elements. I'm not sure what heavy elements they are talking about.
The blue parts of that image I just posted come from highly ionized iron atoms. "Those" heavy elements.
Thornhill doesn't believe in supernovae, and therefore thinks the elements heavier than Fe do not come from them. He proposes that they are made by all stars. In the photosphere. Which is a bit lame, as we would detect them. And don't.
We certainly detect Iron and Nickel in the solar atmosphere inside those discharge channels (Birkeland currents).
They would also produce neutrinos with different energies than that from p-p fusion.
True, but we only observe neutrinos, and most of them are *not* even electron neutrinos in the first place.
So, if he was right, we should see counts of high energy neutrinos that are way out of line with what is predicted.
Source? Where did they "predict" anything other than what we observe?
Oscillation from electron to muon and tau neutrinos are not seen in a lab experiment either but we can and have created muon and tau neutrinos from ordinary particle collisions, and the sun is one huge particle collider.
Until fairly recently, it was very difficult to detect the low energy neutrinos from p-p fusion, which is the first link in the chain. This is the process that is predicted to produce the highest number of neutrinos, and therefore the vast majority of the energy to power the Sun.
I'm trying to figure out where you think the *high energy* neutrinos come from.
I have already linked to the paper where this detection is made. However, it is paywalled. So, some of ther highlights:
And here (hopefully is Fig. 1 from the paper:
As can be seen (if I've posted it correctly) this shows that the vast majority of the neutrino flux is from p-p fusion.
But these are simply *models*, which then have to be matched back to observation by *assuming* oscillation of electron neutrinos to muon and tau forms which has *never* been demonstrated in the lab.
Thornill/Scott don't require oscillation to begin with.
It also shows that fusion of different elements have different energies. This is how we know that heavy element fusion in the photosphere, as proposed by Scott and Thornhill, is not the reason for neutrino production.
You're essentially trying to get me to *assume* that electron neutrinos oscillate into muon and tau, *and* get me to assume that there's no other way to produce the same spread. I don't see any evidence of either assumption, although the neutrino oscillation idea isn't repugnant to me personally. It *may* happen, but I'm not convinced it *must* happen.
It is not the only reason, as mentioned previously. The lack of gamma rays is a killer,
No, it's not as that image I cited demonstrates. Absorption of higher energy wavelengths in the solar atmosphere is *observed*. You erroneously suggested the process happens *above* the photosphere, whereas the quote you provided by Thornhill clearly says *in* the photosphere. There's a big difference between the word above and in. If something is *in* the box, it's not "above" the box.
as is the temperature and density of the photosphere,
No. The temperature is the same in their model because like your model the gamma rays are *absorbed* before they get "above" the photosphere so they end up heating up the photosphere.
which is not conducive to fusion.
Fusion is occurring in the plasma pinch "Birkeland currents"/magnetic ropes you see in that image I posted. It's occurring in the lit up 'solar moss" areas, not the whole photosphere. The temperature of the loops is sometimes greater than 10 million degrees, even if the photosphere as a whole is much cooler.
As also mentioned previously, their models suck, as can be seen by anybody even minimally educated in the relevant areas.
Well, I ultimately agree with you that they do actually "suck", which is why I personally prefer Birkeland's cathode model, but not for any of the reasons that you've cited so far. Pretty much everything you've said to this point in our conversation is simply *false* in terms of what they actually 'predict'. They both predict that the fusion occurs *in* the photosphere, not "above" the photosphere which would *heat up* the photosphere as the photosphere absorbs the gamma rays and high energy wavelengths from the million degree discharge loops.
Let's be clear. I'm not emotionally or personally attached to their solar model. I don't even prefer their solar model to begin with, I prefer a different model altogether, but you don't even begin to understand their solar model properly. Where are you getting these erroneous ideas from anyway? They simply are not true. As your quote from Thornhill states, both Scott and Thornhill expect that the fusion process takes place *in* the photosphere, not above it, so most of your other assumptions are simply false.
There are in fact some valid scientific reasons to reject their model but none of the reasons you've suggested are valid, save perhaps the variation with sunspot activity that you mentioned before. All the rest of your criticisms are simply invalid to begin with because you're trying to take the fusion process *out* of the photosphere, when it fact it occurs *in* the photosphere in their model.