|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 07/18/2006 : 15:13:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
And the reason it went there is that you stopped talking about your theory, and instead started to spout nonsense as if it were fact about mainstream sciences which you clearly do not understand. Just as you continued to do in your latest pronouncements about neutrinos, since your characterization of how the measurements of muon, tau and electron neutrinos were made is just plain wrong. It is this carelessness with the facts that I believe is the source for your misconceptions about the standard solar models, Big Bang theory, helioseismology and coronal imaging, and as such it would simply be wrong of me not to point them out to you. You consider that to be "adversarial," but I'm certainly not going to ignore your misrepresentations of science on this forum in favor of having a "nice" but wholly unscientific discussion.
That is simply false Dave. I demonstrated for you that "infaton fields" have never been evidenced in nature, particle physics, QM or GR. In fact, the way you personally described this field, it no longer exists to be observed, and therefore it's a completely unfalsifyable hypothesis to begin with. That is myth making Dave, not physics.
Gas model theory is predicated on the notion that plasmas remain "mixed" and don't separate out into layers despite the fact the they do separate right down to the isotope in gravitational and magnetic fields here on earth. In fact we use this principle to manufacture machines that can measure the types of isotopes present *by separating* them using strong magnetic fields. Manuel's work also suggests the layers are separated and elements undergo several stages of mass fractionation due the upwelling hydrogen gas.
Despite your beliefs in the matter, not one shred of evidence exists to demonstrate that neutrinos change flavor. The missing neutrinos could just as easily have scattered between the transmitter and the reciever.
IMO, all the yacking in the world isn't going to change anything at this point. I might as well wait for the STEREO data at this point. STEREO will finally be able to test the most important predictions of gas model theory. Most importantly it will be able to test the belief that plasmas stay mixed and do not form into indivualized layers. If it turns out that plasmas do form into elemental layers and these layers are mass separated by weight, pretty much everything we think we know about astronomy today is going to have to be tossed out the window. If I'm right, that's exactly what's going to happen in a few months time. |
 |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2006 : 16:52:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
From that article:
quote:
The total flux of all neutrino flavours measured by SNO agrees well with the theoretical prediction.
No, it didn't jive with the *original* theoretical predictions of gas model theory furshur. In fact original theoretical models *grossly* overestimated the number of electron neutrinos that were actually present in the solar output. What they did find however are 2 other types of neutrinos that were *never* predicted to be present in gas model theory. What they then did is add them all together, claimed they changed flavor, and they continue to "intepret" a "missing" neutrino in any test as a "flavor changer neutrino". This is what's called twisting the evidence like a pretzel to make it fit your messed up theoretical prediction.
quote:
Further measurements carried out by the Observatory have since confirmed and improved the precision of the original result.
They simply conducted further tests, based on exactly the same presumption that something that is "missing" equals something that has changed.
quote:
Notice how the science works - the observed flux of all neutrino flavors agrees with the theoretical predictions.
Ya, except the devil is in the details of the theoretical predictions. The theoretical predictions suggested there is but one source of solar energy, and therefore only one kind of neutrino present. Instead they found three kinds. Could the model be wrong? Of course not! The neutrinos magically flavor change all on their own, no particle interactions are even required! This is called "magic physics", where you just make up properties to assign to a particle to suit yourself.
quote:
This is much more compelling than your guesses and conjectures based on faulty interpretations of videos......
Compelling in what exact way? How exactly is a "missing" neutrino "compelling" evidence of a flavor change? The fact you might predict only 100 photons of green light in your theory, but instead we get red, yellow and blue photons that equal 100 photons, is not "evidence" that all the green photons started switching their colors back and forth. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 07/18/2006 16:56:30 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2006 : 18:47:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
That is simply inacurrate. There was simply no evidence until recently that demonstrated that neutrinos had mass. The fact they have mass was never a violation of any laws of particle physics.
Only massless neutrinos would not change flavor under the Standard Model of particle physics. Neutrinos with mass will oscillate under that model. Since such would violate the lepton conservation laws, neutrinos couldn't have mass.quote:
Intrinsic flavor changing on the other hand, does violate the laws of conservation of leptons. The mass aspect was never a serious problem, it's the claim of intrinsic flavor changing that's a problem. That *does* violate lepton conservation laws related to particle physics.
Yup, and it is why the Standard Model of particle physics is changing as we speak, in order to accomodate the observation that neutrinos can change flavor. I've got no idea what you mean by "intrinsic," since the oscillations that are seen in high-energy neutrinos (the only ones visible coming from the Sun right now) are hypothesized to be due to interactions with electrons, and not just neutrinos changing flavor on a whim.quote:
I think you're confusing two different issues here Dave. It was never a problem for particle physics that neutrinos had mass.
Yes, it was (and is).quote:
In fact their very existence was predicted on the fact that there is a missing amount of energy in some kinds of particle interactions. Neutrinos were thought to contain that missing energy.
So what? Photons are massless yet carry energy.quote:
It's therefore hardly surprising from a particle physics perspective that they have mass.
Absolutely it was, since neutrinos with mass can change flavor, thus violating the conservation of lepton number laws, as you said.quote:
There was simply no direct observational evidence to support the belief they had measurable mass until recently.
Now you're just oversimplifying a complex situation in order to satisfy your own biases, Michael.quote:
There is however *no* evidence that they actually change flavor, and that idea *does* violate laws of particle physics. The gas model theory predicted nothing *but* electron neutrinos...
The gas model theory only predicted one type of neutrino because the Standard Model of Particle Physics predicted that neutrinos have no mass, and so therefore do not change flavor. If the particle physicists hadn't declared that as fact, the solar physicists never would have said "they've all gotta be electron neutrinos," and so there never would have been a "missing neutrino problem" since the total count of all neutrino types would have been the only necessary answer.quote:
...whereas they found 3 different kinds of neutrinos, and only about a 1/3 as many electron neutrinos as a fusion model required. It's like "predicting" that we will recieve 100 baseballs, and ending up with 34 baseballs, 33 footballs, and 33 basketballs. We then claim our model was accurate based on the total number of balls. Since the total number is correct, we then "assume" that 100 baseballs were packed into the container at the factory, and we assueme that most of the baseballs turned into another ball somewhere during the shipping process after then left the factory. Some folks then created an experiment where they pitched 10 balls, and the catcher caught only 9 of them. They then claimed that this missing baseball is "strong evidence" to demonstrate that baseballs can turn into basketballs in mid-flight, even though no baseball or football was ever observed. None of the logic or evidence that folks claim is "strong" evidence to support neutrino flavor changing is actually exclusive evidence of anything of the sort. The only thing we know for sure is we do in fact have a 100 balls, and most of them are not the kind we expected to recieve.
Well, the search is on for explanations, Michael, and not your brand of defeatism. There are already theories which explain flavor change in neutrinos with mass (there have been since 1969), and the current measurements of solar neutrinos actually match those theoretical predictions. Considering that there is no solar model which includes constant, repeated supernovas going off inside the Sun, then the theories of neutrino flavor change compete rather well in the marketplace of scientific ideas.quote:
Could that mean that the solar model may be wrong? Of course not!
What are you talking about? The idea that the solar model was wrong was one of the first things that came to people's minds when the neutrinos first came up "missing" nearly 40 years ago. Are you so monumentally naive as to think that nobody has seriously considered that? The fact is, nobody has been able to find a fault in the solar model which could explain the discrepancy, and nobody has been able to find a fault with the neutrino measurements which could explain the discrepancy. The only thing left to find fault with was the Standard Model of particle physics, which everyone knows has problems, anyway (since it doesn't explain gravity, nor a bunch of the particle masses).quote:
The balls must change around at will, all on their own!
No, that is a misrepresentation of the concept of neutrinos changing flavor. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2006 : 19:15:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
That is simply false Dave.
Which part?quote:
I demonstrated for you that "infaton fields" have never been evidenced in nature, particle physics, QM or GR.
Nobody ever claimed otherwise, so you were tilting at windwills.quote:
In fact, the way you personally described this field, it no longer exists to be observed, and therefore it's a completely unfalsifyable hypothesis to begin with.
So in your universe, once a murderer leaves the crime scene, the murder is unsolvable? Holy cow, Michael, even your own "Big Slam" idea is "a completely unfalsifyable hypothesis" by that logic, since the superdoopermassive black holes no longer exist to be observed. By proposing that standard, you've invalidated a great deal of science, including common descent.quote:
That is myth making Dave, not physics.
And if that's a bad thing, why are you so intent on doing just that?quote:
Gas model theory is predicated on the notion that plasmas remain "mixed" and don't separate out into layers despite the fact the they do separate right down to the isotope in gravitational and magnetic fields here on earth.
No, Michael, you've got premise and conclusion all mixed up. The Standard Solar Models conclude that the plasmas don't "mass separate" as you describe. It's not a premise.quote:
In fact we use this principle to manufacture machines that can measure the types of isotopes present *by separating* them using strong magnetic fields.
So what? Do they have 200,000 kilometers of convection cells in them, keeping things agitated, like the helioseismology data show?quote:
Manuel's work also suggests the layers are separated and elements undergo several stages of mass fractionation due the upwelling hydrogen gas.
Dr. Manuel's work is based upon the idea that "photon counts" are reliable measures of elemental abundances in the solar photosphere and in rocks. You dispute that assumption, so why would you ever think that Dr. Manuel's work has merit?quote:
Despite your beliefs in the matter, not one shred of evidence exists to demonstrate that neutrinos change flavor.
You can keep repeating that, but it doesn't make it true. In this case, I'm much more inclinded to trust the thousands of particle physicists who are in agreement that the evidence shows that their model of neutrinos is incorrect than I am inclined to trust the lone software developer on an Internet who says that all those particle physicists are wrong without providing a shred of evidence that they are wrong. You are turning this into a "Mozina vs. the experts" contest by utterly failing to provide a consistent, testable model with which to test your claims about neutrinos not changing flavor, while all the physicists in the world are awaiting the results of further experiments which will measure the speed at which neutrinos change flavor. An argument from authority? Indeed, you, Michael, are not an authority on particle physics, so your evidence-free pronouncements on the subject can be dismissed.quote:
The missing neutrinos could just as easily have scattered between the transmitter and the reciever.
Well that contradicts the Standard Model of particle physics, Michael.quote:
IMO, all the yacking in the world isn't going to change anything at this point.
No, you seem to be immune to it.quote:
I might as well wait for the STEREO data at this point. STEREO will finally be able to test the most important predictions of gas model theory. Most importantly it will be able to test the belief that plasmas stay mixed and do not form into indivualized layers.
You need to work on your consistency, Michael. First you claim that the idea that the plasmas stay mixed is a predicate of the theory, and now you imply that it's a prediction. Which will it be?quote:
If it turns out that plasmas do form into elemental layers and these layers are mass separated by weight, pretty much everything we think we know about astronomy today is going to have to be tossed out the window.
Yeah, and I'm still wondering what instruments aboard STEREO will be able to verify or falsify these ideas. Considering that STEREO's formal mission description doesn't seem to include anything about testing "the most important predictions of gas model theory," I predict that the measurements you expect to see are going to have to be "interpreted" out of other data.quote:
If I'm right, that's exactly what's going to happen in a few months time.
I'll be waiting. What will you do if you're wrong, Michael? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2006 : 19:25:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
The missing neutrinos could just as easily have scattered between the transmitter and the reciever.
Just to make this crystal clear, Michael, you are proposing that everyone drop the idea that neutrinos can violate the law of conservation of lepton number in favor of your idea, that neutrinos are so easily scattered that 66% of them can be "lost" between the Sun and Earth, despite their only interactions taking place via the weak nuclear force. So, you want to enfore one part of the Standard Model (lepton number conservation) at the expense of another part (the idea that out of every 100 billion neutrinos passing through the Earth, only one has an interaction with anything).
Not only that, but you're now proposing that instead of one model being wrong, it's actually two models that are wrong, both the standard solar model and the standard particle model.
And you want us to think that both of these models are incorrect, without actually supplying any replacement theory about any possible natural origin of the tau and muon neutrinos which - just coincidentally in your mind - total the right amount to make the neutrino oscillation theory plausible.
Have I correctly summarized your position, Michael? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2006 : 21:12:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Just to make this crystal clear, Michael, you are proposing that everyone drop the idea that neutrinos can violate the law of conservation of lepton number in favor of your idea, that neutrinos are so easily scattered that 66% of them can be "lost" between the Sun and Earth, despite their only interactions taking place via the weak nuclear force.
Just to be crystal clear Dave, I propose nothing of the sort.
I propose that only the number of electron neutrinos that we currently observe are actually created or carried from the sun. That is true of all the flavors of neutrinos by the way, not just the one. I'm not treating these particles/waves any differently than a wave of light, or a wave from a very light particle. The wave may have it's own "oscillation", but that doesn't suggest that red light becomes yellow light, becomes blue light and around again. Each wavelength is unique.
quote:
So, you want to enfore one part of the Standard Model (lepton number conservation) at the expense of another part (the idea that out of every 100 billion neutrinos passing through the Earth, only one has an interaction with anything).
Nothing like a false dichotomy. Lepton conservation is one of those particle "laws" that you seem to wish to violate rather flagrantly. I'd like to see some substancial evidence to support such an idea, because if "anything goes" as it relates to lepton conservation, why don't the neutrinos just emit at the source in different flavors? Why is there some sort of "metric" distance type of oscillation involved in a subatomic particle?
quote:
Not only that, but you're now proposing that instead of one model being wrong, it's actually two models that are wrong, both the standard solar model and the standard particle model.
Not at all Dave. I'm simply proposing that particle physics laws regarding conservation of leptons is still applicable to this question. You keep insisting that it doesn't matter. I'll need to see some valid reason to believe then that there is any reason to believe that the transmitter itself wouldn't emit all three kinds of leptons to begin with. Why would there be a large scale oscillation involved in a subatomic particle wave?
The only "theory" that is technically "incorrect" IMO is solar theory Dave. I trust particle physics just fine, including it's original suggestion that the missing energy of these particle reactions might be emitted in the form of something they called "neutrinos". Particle physics seems to work quite well Dave, and I trust the "predictions" it's made thus far. Again, if lepton conservation *never* applies, then why aren't we seeing all three kinds of lepton flavors of neutrinos coming right out of the atomic reaction in the first place?
You then seem to wish to find some cosmological distance to define the flavor transformations of what is by necessity a subatomic particle wave. If lepton conservation doesn't matter, why would predict one kind of neutrino at the source?
quote:
And you want us to think that both of these models are incorrect, without actually supplying any replacement theory about any possible natural origin of the tau and muon neutrinos which - just coincidentally in your mind - total the right amount to make the neutrino oscillation theory plausible.
Have I correctly summarized your position, Michael?
Not even close. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 07/18/2006 21:15:35 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2006 : 21:54:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
You need to work on your consistency, Michael. First you claim that the idea that the plasmas stay mixed is a predicate of the theory, and now you imply that it's a prediction. Which will it be?
Another false dichotomy. It's currently both Dave. In order for gas model theory to work right, all the various plasmas, from hydrogen to heavy metals have to pretty much stay "mixed" in a "pea soup" fashion. Current gas model theory is predictated on the belief that no mass separation of plasma by the element into individualized layers is occuring. Gas model theory both "predicts" that plasmas don't separate by type, and it's a current predicate of gas model theory. The difference here is that gas model theory can still survive if a layering affect is occuring, as long as it stops "predicting" that plasmas do not separate by the layer. Current gas model theory is predicated on that idea, but that idea can be modified and a new frankenversion of gas model theory could still (and probably will) survive.
FYI, there is no mythical 200,000Km convection zone Dave. You saw for yourself that the mass flows under a sunspot flatten out as the downdrafting plasma hits another mass separated layer. That stratification subsurface is sitting smack dab in the middle of your supposedly "open" convection zone, and it's presense is showing up in the mass flow data you keep overlooking.
I could do this line by line with you for another few threads Dave, but what would that really accomplish?
At this point I've said about all I can say on this subject here at the moment. The next logical step is to make a few testable predictions for STEREO that can help us test the various models.
The real "test" here, and the primary focus of attention is likely to be the plasma layering question. If the plasmas are arranged by weight, then slowly but surely gas model theory will have to adapt or die. Likewise, if this layering system does not show up in STEREO data, then the model I've proposed cannot be considered seriously. If I'm correct however, the model warrants further consideration.
Until we know whether the plasmas are layered by weight, we'll simply go around in circles here. All the elemental abundance numbers and the heliosiesmology density models are predicated on the assumption that little if any mass separation of plasma occurs, certainly not separation to the point of individualized layers containing different elements. Unfornately for gas model theory, plasmas love to form double layers and separate by the element in magnetic, gravitational and electric fields.
Likewise the model I've proposed is base on nuclear isotope analysis that suggests the sun's atmosphere is mass separated. It is based on observational satellite evidence of this plasma separation. The primary testable difference between these two solar models is the notion of mass separated plasma layers. Either they exist, or they do not. Both ideas cannot be simultaneously true. STEREO will test this core issue and will tell us how things in the solar atmosphere are layed out in just a few months time.
STEREO should also be able to discern whether the solar moss activity originates underneath the photosphere or above it. Between these two testable predictions, one of these two models will survive to be skeptically critiqued in the future, while the other theory will bite the dust.
I've done my part here. I think I've done about all I can do for the time being. The first two predictions I made for STEREO data will allow us to test the viability of the Birkeland solar model as well as test the viability of current gas model theory. I think for now I'm simply going to leave things as they are and wait to see the data.
I'll continue to update my website over the next few months. I'd also like to create an updated layman's version of the model that includes plasma depths and additional information that I've learned over the past year. That seems like a better use of my time at the moment than butting heads with you for another 10 threads or so. I don't think anything other than STEREO data is going to change the tide here Dave. We're pretty much locked in opposing camps, and nothing but corroborating evidence is going to change either of our minds.
I think for now it's time to let this go and "wait and see". STEREO should launch in a few weeks, and with a bit of luck they'll be transmitting 3D images of the solar atmosphere back to us here on earth in a few months. That information will open up new topics of conversation, but at the moment is seems like we're just going back and forth over the same topics. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 07/18/2006 21:59:53 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2006 : 22:04:30 [Permalink]
|
Let me ask you a few simple questions one more time for the record, and clerify one point. The fact that a neutrino contains mass is not an automatic guarantee that it is guaranteed to change flavors and/or lepton configurations. Your assertion that the presense of mass automatically equates to lepton configuration changes has not been demonstrated.
Here are the key questions related to neutrinos:
Why did gas model theory predict the presense of electron neutrinos in the first place? Why don't we see all three kinds of flavors of lepton neutrinos in fusion reactions, right at the point of reaction? What action or reaction causes them to change lepton configurations in mid flight? |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 07/18/2006 22:07:02 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2006 : 22:12:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
So in your universe, once a murderer leaves the crime scene, the murder is unsolvable? Holy cow, Michael, even your own "Big Slam" idea is "a completely unfalsifyable hypothesis" by that logic, since the superdoopermassive black holes no longer exist to be observed. By proposing that standard, you've invalidated a great deal of science, including common descent.
This terrible analogy is worth commenting on. In a murder investigation, if a person leaves the room, I can follow them and I can still observe them. There may be other suspects I can observe as well, and maybe observe evidence that the suspect may have left at the crime.
A more appropriate analogy would be you claiming that an invisible faery killed the person while nobody was looking and then "zapped" himself back into faery world where we can never see him again. That is a example of an untestable hypothesis, and so is your mythical inflaton field. You can't even define the size of the particle/wave compared to an electron, so there's not even a rational way to test anything.
The bottom line is that BB theory is predicated on a scalar field it can't define or explain or hope to examine. Nothing is mentioned of it in particle physics, QM or GR.
Forunately for us however, gas model theory is predicated on something a lot more 'testable' and a lot more falsifyable. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 07/18/2006 22:14:39 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2006 : 10:11:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Just to make this crystal clear, Michael, you are proposing that everyone drop the idea that neutrinos can violate the law of conservation of lepton number in favor of your idea, that neutrinos are so easily scattered that 66% of them can be "lost" between the Sun and Earth, despite their only interactions taking place via the weak nuclear force.
Just to be crystal clear Dave, I propose nothing of the sort.
Then why did you say that the missing neutrinos could have scattered?quote:
I propose that only the number of electron neutrinos that we currently observe are actually created or carried from the sun. That is true of all the flavors of neutrinos by the way, not just the one.
And yet, you have proposed no solar source of tau or muon neutrinos. None is known. P-P chain fusion generates electron neutrinos, as does CNO cycle fusion. Radioactive decay of heavy elements produces electron antineutrinos. Tau and muon neutrinos can come from cosmic-ray hits, or from supernovae, but neither of those phenonema would match the observed day/night differences in neutrino detection. So by saying that tau and muon neutrinos "are actually created or carried from the sun," you are still proposing brand-new physics which has never been observed. You said that was "myth making," and you said that myth making isn't science.
And it's quite obvious that all the experts agree that neutrino flavor-changing does, indeed, violate the law of conservation of lepton number, but they also say that since the mass of all neutrinos is very small compared to the mass of all other leptons, the violation is extremely small (as opposed to "flagrant"). Quantum field theory's virtual particles violate the law of conservation of mass and energy (just a little bit), and even an electron moving at a significant fraction of the speed of light violates Newton's F=ma. Most of the attempts being made at a Grand Unified Theory depend upon certain violations of the "laws" of the current standard particle model.
When such violations show up in our observations, the dogmatic response is to say, as you have, that the law trumps the observations. The scientific response is to examine the possibilities and, if necessary, "demote" what was thought to be inviolate to being just a general truism under certain conditions. After all, the law of conservation of lepton numbers still applies to interactions between non-neutrino leptons, and to the creation of neutrinos, even if it doesn't apply to neutrinos' interactions with vacuum (just like F=ma is sufficient for items at low velocities, but not at any velocity).
But, once again, we're down to Michael versus the experts. The observations are apparently good enough for them to go about changing textbooks and encyclopedias and everything to reflect the new physics, and to say, "the standard particle model was incorrect about neutrinos." What's "good enough" for you, Michael, is apparently flat-out wrong for them, and I'm still wondering why I should give your declarations about neutrino stability any weight in light of the total exodus of the experts over to the new ideas. Do you have anything more compelling than your say-so? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2006 : 13:28:45 [Permalink]
|
Ya Dave, I have lots of evidence. I have laws of particle physics on my side. I have ground based telescope observations of mass separated plasma layers on the sun, starting with the photosphere. I have evidence of mass separated plasma layers from the field of nuclear chemistry. I've got heliosiesmology data that shows significant horizonatal flow patterns in the heliosiesmology data to support the notion of more mass separated layers existing under the photosphere. I've also got satellite images galore of the solar surface that is positioned under the photosphere. Hopefully in a few months time I'll have some additional information to support my position in the form of 3 dimensional images of the solar atmosphere that will remove any doubt whatsoever as it relates to "interpretation" of 2 dimensional satellite images.
As to the neutrino issue Dave, I evidently don't have the same level of "faith" in gas model theory that these folks seem to have. I see no direct evidence to support the notion that neutrinos violate lepton conservation laws even a little bit, or to demonstrate that neutrinos change lepton flavors or anything of the sort. Scattering and absortion effects *should* create daytime and nighttime variations in the various numbers so I see nothing about that phenomenon that favors neutrino flavor changes either. In my opinion you are simply grasping at straws to try to explain the huge number of missing electron neutrinos that were anticipated in gas model theory. You are now tyring to create a mythical particle that doesn't just oscillate like any particle/wave, but rather it changes lepton configurations, and oscillates in three different mass eigenstates all mixed into "one" particle. Talk about a complex solution to fix a simple problem! Now we have to create meta-particle waves that behave like no other particle/wave we know of and certainly behave nothing like EM waves.
Since you refused to answer my direct questions related to neutrinos to avoid the inherent conflict of your position, let me point it out clearly for you:
The same "rules" that you are using to "predict" the presense of electron neutrinos in the first place are exactly the same "rules" that you now wish to violate with a meta-particle/wave. Evidently because it's a "small particle", we can violate the laws "just a little" as you perceive it. Then again, if we're going to toss lepton conservation principles out the window even a little because it's a little particle, then there is no logical reason to believe that neutrinos wouldn't come out in all flavors from the source and wouldn't change lepton configurations at atomic lengths rather than cosmological distances. There is no physical model identified to date that would allow this lepton transition to occur.
You never even bothered to explain why a subatomic particle would have a lepton oscillation rate that is predictated at cosmological distances, rather than be measured in atomic lengths. Worst of all you created a franken-particle-wave that requires the presense of three different mass eigenstates and three different lepton configurations. You did not explain how a neutrino interacts with matter to change it's lepton conguration. There is ultimately no evidence to suggest that any neutrino has ever changed lepton configurations after being emitted Dave. There is no evidence that this "three mass eigenstate franken-particle wave" even exists. What we see can easily be explained by three different particles and wavelenths being affected differently by the affects of traversing through the earth. So what then is the value of having one giant 3 mass eigenstate frankenparticle? It's only value is to prop up a failed solar model.
Like I said, I don't have the same faith in gas model theory that these people seem to have Dave. I have faith however in particle physics and the laws of particle physics. If lepton conservation laws don't matter to these particles, then you cannot turn right around and use these laws to predict the emission of any particular type of neutrino from any particular reaction. You've now got no basis for even making your prediction that only electron neutrinos are created in fusion reactions Dave. You shot your whole basis for that part of your theory in the foot! If conservations of leptons doesn't apply, then anything goes, and we should see all three flavors emerge right at the source. Since it's the tiniest of particles, any "oscillations" we might expect to see would be likely occur at subatomic lengths, not cosmological distances. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 07/19/2006 13:59:16 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2006 : 17:18:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I have faith however in particle physics and the laws of particle physics.
Yes, you have faith in a model which is such a patchwork that it has no less than 29 free variables. You have a religious devotion to a particle model which cannot explain the fact of gravity. It is precisely your unabashed statement of faith in a such a flawed model that makes communication with you impossible. You feel, after all, that it's quite alright to publicly mock leading-edge physicists and their theories, but if someone pokes a bit of fun at you or your pathetic model, you're quick to ire. Such fanaticism and hypocrisy cannot be countered with mere facts, since you didn't arrive at it through logic (as is shown by your ignorance of the subjects upon which you preach).quote:
If lepton conservation laws don't matter to these particles, then you cannot turn right around and use these laws to predict the emission of any particular type of neutrino from any particular reaction. You've now got no basis for even making your prediction that only electron neutrinos are created in fusion reactions Dave. You shot your whole basis for that part of your theory in the foot! If conservations of leptons doesn't apply, then anything goes, and we should see all three flavors emerge right at the source.
False dichotomy. It is not the case that either the conservation laws apply all the time, or they apply to nothing. Otherwise you'd be throwing out quantum theory because it posits the violation (a little bit) of the law of conservation of mass and energy with its "virtual" particles. Your faith in a theory, Michael, has caused you to behave hypocritically. You are obviously unable to think about these subjects logically. Answering your direct questions would simply feed your delusions.quote:
Since it's the tiniest of particles, any "oscillations" we might expect to see would be likely occur at subatomic lengths, not cosmological distances.
You've got that completely wrong, since the oscillations only occur due to interactions with electrons or the vacuum, through the weak nuclear force, which happen extremely rarely. Since the particles don't have much mass, they travel very close to the speed of light, and so get long distances before interacting with something.
Also, your attempts to analogize neutrino flavor to the wavelength of photons is just ridiculous, since wavelength is a continuum, while flavor is one of three discrete values. Neutrino flavor "oscillation" is not analogous to the oscillation of a light wave. If you had the least bit of knowledge of the subject, instead of blind faith in a model which no longer matches observations (a falsified model), you wouldn't attempt such a ludicrous analogy.
Speaking of which, the murder analogy was spot-on, and you even offered the correct solution, even though you didn't realize it. Yes, we can solve murders because of evidence left behind at the scene. And we can study inflation, because the large-scale features of the universe are evidence of it. But, you ruled out studying evidence left behind when you mocked the idea by claiming that since the phenomenon itself was long gone, it was impossible to study. You can't have it both ways, Michael, even though your misplaced faith demands that both contradictory things must be true. It's called "cognitive dissonance," and you've got it by the boatload. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2006 : 11:05:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Yes, you have faith in a model which is such a patchwork that it has no less than 29 free variables. You have a religious devotion to a particle model which cannot explain the fact of gravity. It is precisely your unabashed statement of faith in a such a flawed model that makes communication with you impossible. You feel, after all, that it's quite alright to publicly mock leading-edge physicists and their theories, but if someone pokes a bit of fun at you or your pathetic model, you're quick to ire. Such fanaticism and hypocrisy cannot be countered with mere facts, since you didn't arrive at it through logic (as is shown by your ignorance of the subjects upon which you preach).
That was ultimately an irrational and emotional response to my statement Dave. Do you have to take everything so personally?
The are in fact "laws" or rules within the theory of particle physics that you too are using and relying upon to predict which *kind* of neutrinos are going to be emitted under specific reactions. In fact these exact conservation of lepton laws have been demonstrated to affect which kind of reactions take place inside the atom quite accurately which is exactly why you are using them.
Evidently you put faith in these same lepton conservation ideas too Dave. Since these theories have worked very well to this point in time, yes, I do put *some* faith in the theory of particle physics. It was afterall the very same theory that predicted the existence of neutrinos in the first place! Ya Dave, I guess I do have "faith" in the theory of particle phyiscs.
Since no direct evidence exclusively supports gas model solar theory, and because gas model solar model theory has never been any good at predicting anything in advance, I don't put much faith in gas model solar theory. It's a logical choice on my part Dave, not an emotional one. You are the one that went all "personal" the moment I pointed out that flavor changing neutrinos would violate the same laws that you are also using and relying upon to predict neutrinos and the actual FLAVOR of the neutrinos. Talk about hypocrisy Dave!
quote:
False dichotomy. It is not the case that either the conservation laws apply all the time, or they apply to nothing.
In other words, you wish to use these laws to explain why we observe electron neutrinos in fusion reactions here on earth. On the other hand, you'll abandon these same laws altogether somewhere between the earth and the sun. Those conservation laws apply everywhere else we know of Dave. You are the one trying to insist there is *one single* loophole in the system. If you wish me to believe this is true, you will need to provide me with a *lot* stronger evidence than I've seen to date to support the idea that these neutrinos change lepton configurations. You should be able to explain the particle interaction that causes this change and document the interaction, just as other interactions were documented and revealed the presense of the neutrino in the first place. Can you do this?
Just to be clear Dave, I'm not even claiming it's *impossible", just unevidenced. I do therefore think it's "improbable".
quote:
Otherwise you'd be throwing out quantum theory because it posits the violation (a little bit) of the law of conservation of mass and energy with its "virtual" particles.
VP's were "theorized" to exist *before* we even knew that neutrinos existed and knew they had mass Dave. I think you're barking up a very old tree at this point. If VP's exist at all, they exist as something "real" as an existing particle/wave. The energy of VP's has always existed in the system Dave, and there has never been any violation of the laws of conservation of energy.
quote:
Your faith in a theory, Michael, has caused you to behave hypocritically.
This is a very ironic statement considering the fact that it is coming from a guy who insists we create a single loophole in lepton conservation laws just so you can save a failed solar theory that inaccurately predicted which kind's of neutrinos should be present in the solar output.
quote:
You are obviously unable to think about these subjects logically.
Logically I can see that this lepton changing, three mass eigenstate, meta-particle would be the single *most* complicated exception in an otherwise very rigid, coherent and simple system Dave.
Logically I can understand how electrified coronal loops can heat up light plasma even though the mainstream seems to have trouble explaining high temperatures in the corona using their current solar model. Logically I can explain RD images. Logically I can see the sun has a mass separated photosphere, chromosphere and corona layers. Every single belief I have about the sun and about particle physics is logical and is based on direct observational evidence. The only one here who isn't being logical is you. If particle theory works in every other instance Dave, why wouldn't it work here too? Why wouldn't lepton conservation laws apply to neutrinos, and don't tell me it's because they are "little".
quote:
Answering your direct questions would simply feed your delusions.
No Dave, answering these questions openly would have revealed the nature of your own inconsistancies and biases. That's why you avoided answering those questions. You have a very bad habit of skipping all the relevant and tough questions I ask you, including the questions related to RD images by the way.
quote:
You've got that completely wrong, since the oscillations only occur due to interactions with electrons or the vacuum,
First of all, describe the physical interaction with electrons that causes these neutrinos to change leptons configurations in some way. While your at it, define a "vacuum" for me too. Evidently neutrinos only weakly interact with matter, but somehow you're convinced they interact with a "vacuum"? How?
quote:
through the weak nuclear force, which happen extremely rarely.
How rarely? How come 2/3rds of the neutrinos coming from the sun are not electron neutrinos then?
quote:
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2006 : 11:45:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
This nasty and totally pointless behavior of yours is why I'm not going to continue this conversation with you any further Dave. You go "personal" and become personally offensive at the drop of a hat.
Not at all, Michael. I remained on-topic and impersonal until the point in the discussion at which you demanded that science bend its observations to match your faith. That's when you made things personal: all about you. Before then, we were having a "nice" discussion. Once you started claiming ridiculous things about neutrinos and suggesting that all of today's particle physicists are somehow kowtowing to the whims of solar physicists was when you quit talking science and began pontificating. And that's the point at which my tolerance for you vanishes.quote:
John doesn't act like that. He shows a lot more maturity than this. Dr. Mabuse doesn't do things like that either. Ricky didn't act like that in our conversations. Cuniformist was a complete gentleman in our discussions. All of these individuals have the maturity to carry on adult conversations as adults.
Yes, they seem to just stop posting at all when you stop talking about the science.quote:
You however feel the need to insult me personally and *constantly* even though it is pointless and counterproductive.
More counterproductive hyperbole. Why is it, Michael, that you do so many things which you consider to be disrespectful and/or insulting when they're done to you?quote:
There is no rational way to have a serious discussion with you about science because you refuse to see the other side of the arguement or focus on the science itself.
Faith is not another "side" of a scientific argument, Michael. Once you declared your faith in a failed particle model, you terminated all possible scientific discussion of it. I wasn't the one who stopped focusing on the science, you are.quote:
You refuse to consider other ideas seriously. Instead you write it all off with a handwave.
Yeah, that's precisely why I'd be willing to work the math for you if you had any numbers to work with.  quote:
You obviosly get personally offended when I attack ideas.
Not at all. I get personally offended when you demand that I stick to the science, but you give yourself the freedom to spout utter nonsense about the motivations of scientists.quote:
Instead of attacking my ideas right back, you attack the individual rather than the ideas that are being presented.
No, I gave you reasoned arguments against your ideas, and presented supporting information. You rejected those objections with a declaration of faith. You are now trying to rewrite history so that you look less like a fanatic, but it isn't working. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2006 : 12:44:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Not at all, Michael. I remained on-topic and impersonal until the point in the discussion at which you demanded that science bend its observations to match your faith.
What? My "faith" Dave is based on *observation*. If you wish to show me some "observations" to support your faith, I'm willing to consider them.
quote:
That's when you made things personal: all about you. Before then, we were having a "nice" discussion.
Dave, my "faith" in lepton conservation laws are based on experimental evidence of fusion reactions right here on earth. The reasons (plural) that gas model theory predicted the existence of *only* electron neutrinos is because A) particle physics insists that leptons are conserved in hydrogen fusion reactions, and B) because indeed we can measure the existence of electron neutrinos in fusion reactions. Unlike your faith Dave, my faith is not *just* based on particle "theory", but it is based upon direct observation to substanciate that theory. When I say "faith", I mean I have faith in something that has been "evidenced" in some way through direct observation.
You on the other hand have faith in an idea you can't even explain, let alone provide evidence for. First, start by explaining the exact particle interaction with electrons that results in the creation of muon and/or tau neutrinos Dave. What specific reaction with a "vacuum" created other lepton configurations of neutrinos? What *exact* (be specific) distances and densities are involved? You can't answer any of these questions because there is no direct observational evidence to support your position in the first place. Somewhere quite mysteriously between the sun and the earth what *must* begin as electron neutrinos mysterious turns itself into 3 different and distinct lepton configurations.
Since we're both using the same conservation laws to predict how these neutrinos began, please now use these same laws of lepton conservation principles to explain the exact reaction between an electron and an electron neutrino that results in the release of muon and/or tau neutrinos. Please use these same laws of physics to mathmatically quantify the distances and densities in some tangible and testable way.
When you've done these things Dave, then *you* can lecture *me* about cognitive dissonance. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
