|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 07/20/2006 : 14:07:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
What? My "faith" Dave is based on *observation*.
Yes, and you are refusing to look at certain observations in order to maintain your faith. The neutrino issue is just like your reaction when shown helioseismology mass-flow plots in which flows are shown to be going straight through your allegedly solid surface (and continuing on for many km), and you fabricated out of thin air the idea that electrons in a conductor can look like mass flows to helioseismology methods (which you later admitted you have no evidence for). Now you're faced with neutrino oscillations, and instead of meeting the evidence head-on, you fabricate this idea that the Sun is capable of generating muon and tau neutrinos directly. Those reactions are nothing more than faith-preserving ad hoc explanations, totally devoid of evidenciary basis, but you dogmatically asserted the electrons-in-a-conductor rationalization for a while, and I imagine you'll dogmatically adhere to this new "the Sun makes other neutrinos" faith for a few months, as well.quote:
If you wish to show me some "observations" to support your faith, I'm willing to consider them.
I have no faith in particle physics, Michael, so how can I possibly support something that doesn't exist? The models either work or they don't. In the case of neutrinos, the old model (which was shown to not work) is being replaced with a new one. This doesn't bother me at all, but it sure does threaten your faith, because you're simply denying the current observations - which all the experts agree on (you stand alone in your disagreement) - and refusing to present a workable solution of your own (again: how does the Sun make muon or tau neutrinos according to you?).quote:
Dave, my "faith" in lepton conservation laws are based on experimental evidence of fusion reactions right here on earth.
And until 1968, there was no equipment on Earth which could show that the model was wrong. Now there is, and it took almost 40 years, but it has shown that the standard model of particle physics is wrong. This happens over and over again with scientific theories (Relativity, Continental Drift, H. pylorii, cold-blooded dinosaurs, etc.), you are just in denial that is has happened again. Your faith requires such denial.quote:
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.
And none of that has changed at all, Michael.quote:
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.
No, you don't, as is clearly demonstrated by your faith that there will someday be a functional quantum theory of gravity, despite such a thing never having been evidenced through direct observation.quote:
You on the other hand have faith in an idea you can't even explain, let alone provide evidence for.
No, I don't have any faith in it at all.quote:
First, start by explaining the exact particle interaction with electrons that results in the creation of muon and/or tau neutrinos Dave.
There is no such reaction. Try to be more precise.quote:
What specific reaction with a "vacuum" created other lepton configurations of neutrinos?
Try again.quote:
What *exact* (be specific) distances and densities are involved?
If you mean, "how far will the average electron neutrino travel before it changes to another flavor?" those numbers will be determined by experiments in the near future.quote:
You can't answer any of these questions because there is no direct observational evidence to support your position in the first place.
You've been presented with the evidence, Michael, you just refuse to acknowledge it because it'll mean that the standard solar model has some excellent supporting evidence. This, despite the fact that you granted the neutrino evidence about six or seven months ago.quote:
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.
No, just two other neutrino flavors. Why is it that you have that need to change the terminology on a whim?quote:
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.
There is no such reaction - you're being imprecise with your terms again.quote:
Please use these same laws of physics to mathmatically quantify the distances and densities in some tangible and testable way.
That's going to be tested in the next few years.quote:
When you've done these things Dave, then *you* can lecture *me* ab |
- 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 : 17:12:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Yes, and you are refusing to look at certain observations in order to maintain your faith.
That is utterly and completely false. It's also ironic frankly, expecially coming from you.
The only important or relevant "observation" that you have noted thus far is the observation that the total number of neutrinos detected coming from the sun is pretty much in the ballpark of the total that was expected in gas model theory. Fine. I observe that fact.
The problem however is that there are actually three different kinds of neutrinos that were detected, not just electron neutrinos as was first predicted. All I know for sure based on this "observation" is that current solar theory failed miserably to accurately predict the right type or the right quantity of neutrinos present. How did I refuse to look at that observation Dave?
Since you intentionally avoided and dodged every one of the direct questions that I posed to you about how you would explain this presumed lepton change, and apparent conservation violation, we're eviently done now. I have no desire to spit back and forth at you, exhanging pointless insults in more threads. You can put your faith in mythological inflaton fields, gas model solar theories, and meta-particles that defy lepton conservation laws of physics if you like. I certainly can't stop you. I just don't share your faith in these ideas Dave. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2006 : 17:20:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
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.
There is no such reaction - you're being imprecise with your terms again.
quote:
quote:
Please use these same laws of physics to mathmatically quantify the distances and densities in some tangible and testable way.
That's going to be tested in the next few years.
Holy Cow Dave. Talk about being intentionally vague! Could you even be any more evasive? You're about as forthcoming on this subject as you've been on the running difference images. In other words - not!
quote:
That's not the problem, Michael. You haven't identified any cognitive dissonace on my part.
Ya right. You have a solar model prediction that is based on lepton conservation laws, that was falsified by recievers that are based on these lepton conservation principles. You are now trying to band-aid back together this failed solar model prediction using lepton violating metaparticles, that go through lepton changes for unspecified reasons at cosmological distances that you can't even quantify. Then you actually try to tell me that I haven't identified the source of your cognitive dissonance?  |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 07/20/2006 17:35:01 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2006 : 17:53:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
The only important or relevant "observation" that you have noted thus far is the observation that the total number of neutrinos detected coming from the sun is pretty much in the ballpark of the total that was expected in gas model theory. Fine. I observe that fact.
The problem however is that there are actually three different kinds of neutrinos that were detected, not just electron neutrinos as was first predicted. All I know for sure based on this "observation" is that current solar theory failed miserably to accurately predict the right type or the right quantity of neutrinos present. How did I refuse to look at that observation Dave?
You didn't. You have refused to look at the other observations that you haven't even mentioned, because you are steadfastly ignoring them.
Such as the fact that nobody - not one single person - has ever put forth a model of the Sun in which muon and/or tau neutrinos come shooting out. Especially not you. Where the hell are they coming from? You've got no explanation for them. Particle physics, with its current theory of neutrinos with mass, changing flavors, does indeed explain the observed phenomenon.quote:
Since you intentionally avoided and dodged every one of the direct questions that I posed to you about how you would explain this presumed lepton change...
No, I pointed out how you regularly fail to ask pertinent questions, because you insist on using your own private language and understanding instead of the language used by the field of science in question. As such, I can't possibly answer your questions, because they make no sense. And the one question I did answer, by reminding you of what you should already know (that there are several experiments in the works on measuring the rate of neutrino oscillation), you reject as "vague." If you wanted links to announcements of those experiments, I'd be happy to provide them, but you've been acting as such an authority on neutrino science that I figured you already knew.quote:
...and apparent conservation violation, we're eviently done now.
We've been finished for many posts, Michael. Once you stopped talking about science, and instead started talking about your faith, we were done.quote:
I have no desire to spit back and forth at you, exhanging pointless insults in more threads.
Well, you've been spewing insults for quite some time now. Something must have motivated you.quote:
You can put your faith in mythological inflaton fields, gas model solar theories, and meta-particles that defy lepton conservation laws of physics if you like.
I have no faith in those things, especially not the way you think of them. Your "knowledge" of the things you mention is sub-par. I don't share it. I have no faith in them. They are strawmen that you've been trying to convince us are the real thing since day one.quote:
I certainly can't stop you. I just don't share your faith in these ideas Dave.
And I obviously cannot deter you from your absolute faith in a model which has already been shown to be wrong. I can't even show you how your standards of what's "mythological" include the very ideas that you champion, like the "Big Slam." You are blinded by your faith, Michael, and you demonstrate that with nearly every post. That's what is going to allow you, no matter what STEREO shows, to claim vindication for your personal model of the Sun: you're simply going to twist the observations to suit your needs, just like you have with the satellite imagery (you say that there is no differential rotation visible in your SOHO movie, when all one needs to do to see it is measure it), cosmic redshift (you say that constant acceleration can account for redshift, but the math says otherwise), the CMBR (you're sure the Big Slam can have a CMBR, but you don't know how), helioseismology (you said those vertical flows are actually electrons, but you've got no evidence for it), spectrometry (you say it doesn't work for measuring the photosphere of the Sun, but it does work when Dr. Manuel does it), black body physics (you claim that scientists claim a "thin layer" of the Sun acts as a blackbody, when that's simply false), and every other piece of "evidence" you've come across for any idea you've put forth. That's your MO, Michael: use what matches, ignore what doesn't, and if you can't ignore it, make something up. Even the old standard model of particle physics, no longer matching reality, is something you'll cling to because it does match your faith that the standard solar model is wrong about the neutrinos (except you said it was right many months ago). |
- 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 : 22:45:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Such as the fact that nobody - not one single person - has ever put forth a model of the Sun in which muon and/or tau neutrinos come shooting out. Especially not you. Where the hell are they coming from? You've got no explanation for them. Particle physics, with its current theory of neutrinos with mass, changing flavors, does indeed explain the observed phenomenon.
Dave, your "current" theory is still *very* much in debate at the moment. More importantly, you've utterly abandoned lepton conservation principles on the journey from the sun to the earth, and you've yet to offer us a glimmer of an explanation as to how you think that occurs.
quote:
No, I pointed out how you regularly fail to ask pertinent questions,
What a juicy rationalization that was Dave. I've asked you to explain the *cause* of lepton changing neutrinos now several different times and you've never bothered to offer even a hint how it might happen or why it might occur. You've failed to provide *any* details at all. In fact you have blatently and obviously avoided this whole issue since the start.
quote:
because you insist on using your own private language and understanding instead of the language used by the field of science in question.
You were the one denying that inflaton fields were defined as scalar fields with associated particles, and I'm the one not understanding the language used in the field in question? Care to explain how that works Dave? That was somehow my fault?
quote:
As such, I can't possibly answer your questions, because they make no sense.
What a complete rationalization for avoiding the direct questions, not once, not twice, but several times now. You'll not lift a finger to explain the cause of the lepton violation process, but you simply *assume* it's happening, but only outside of the transmitter and before it gets to the reciever. It's special pleading of the worst kind.
quote:
And the one question I did answer, by reminding you of what you should already know (that there are several experiments in the works on measuring the rate of neutrino oscillation), you reject as "vague."
First you'll have to explain what *causes* the oscillation in the first place Dave. Then you have to explain why a neutrino is a "special" kind of lepton that can change flavor at will violating the conservation of leptons laws in the process.
quote:
If you wanted links to announcements of those experiments, I'd be happy to provide them, but you've been acting as such an authority on neutrino science that I figured you already knew.
I've read a number of them Dave, and I've discussed this on a number of different forums now. I have no idea what *you personally* think drives this "oscillation" process, and there is not necessarily any sort on "consensus" that I've been privy to or seen. In fact there is still debate as to whether they oscillate at all!
quote:
We've been finished for many posts, Michael. Once you stopped talking about science, and instead started talking about your faith, we were done.
You've twisted my statements like a pretzel to suit yourself for quite a few threads now, and you've butchered all sense of my use of that word in the process. You've been putting your faith in oscillating neutrinos and inflaton fields when you didn't even know they were scalar fields and particles. What can I say Dave, you seem about as inconsistent and self conflicted as they come.
quote:
Well, you've been spewing insults for quite some time now. Something must have motivated you.
You did that with all the personal attacks you levied against me that were based on misunderstandings of your own design. When you realized that inflaton fields were scalar fields with presumed particles, just like I suggested all along, you should have immediately copped to the fact they'd never been evidence, and admitted it was all your own mistake. You should have also agreed that the inflation aspect of BB theory was more metaphysical than scientific. Instead you continued to spew at me, even though you were the one who was wrong all along, asking me questions like "what is the space between the atom made of", and then ignoring the QM answer altogether! It's typical of your MO.
quote:
quote:
You can put your faith in mythological inflaton fields, gas model solar theories, and meta-particles that defy lepton conservation laws of physics if you like.
I have no faith in those things, especially not the way you think of them.
Listen to yourself Dave. Do you think anybody but you actually believes this stuff? You've spent 10 threads hurling insults at me for not agreeing to every word you said while you defended gas model theory and inflaton fields. Worse yet, you didn't even know that inflation theory was based on scalar fields and particles! It's like arguing with ignorance and attitude on a stick!
quote:
Your "knowledge" of the things you mention is sub-par.
Oh the arrogance Dave. You had no idea that inflaton fields were scalar fields that had never been evidenced. I had to go the Wiki "Bible" to prove it to you. Only after shaming you for several posts afterwards with it, would you even grudgingly agree. What you don't seem to understand about QM and BB theory could evidently fill volumes. Then again, I don't profess to be all that great at QM theory either, but I can see that I know a hella-va-lot more about it than you do, particularly as it relates to BB theory and astronomy in general. The whole concept of scattering never even seemed to cross your mind when we talked about the temperature o |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 07/20/2006 22:54:17 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2006 : 23:02:43 [Permalink]
|
http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=5917&whichpage=13
quote:
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.
Let's see you actually scientifically explain this statement of yours Dave. What *specific* weak nuclear force interactions with electrons or with a "vacuum" would cause any oscillation in the neutrino lepton? |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 07/20/2006 23:10:44 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2006 : 14:06:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Such as the fact that nobody - not one single person - has ever put forth a model of the Sun in which muon and/or tau neutrinos come shooting out. Especially not you. Where the hell are they coming from? You've got no explanation for them. Particle physics, with its current theory of neutrinos with mass, changing flavors, does indeed explain the observed phenomenon.
Dave, your "current" theory is still *very* much in debate at the moment.
Oh? Name a particle physicist who has, in the past year, expressed doubt about whether or not neutrinos oscillate between flavors. The mechanisms are being debated, yes, but the fact that it happens is not.
Anyway, you still haven't supported your positive claim that the Sun can emit tau and/or muon neutrinos directly. You must have reached this conclusion through your research, somehow, so why not just provide the appropriate references to the labratory experiments, since you already know of them?quote:
More importantly, you've utterly abandoned lepton conservation principles on the journey from the sun to the earth...
Since the lepton conservation "principles" were developed with the limited technologies available here on Earth, and hadn't been properly tested anywhere else until people began measuring neutrinos coming from the Sun, so what if they're wrong in such astronomical conditions? All it would mean is that our previous "laws" were incorrect generalizations because we didn't have enough information. That happens all the time, it will happen again, so what if it's happened now? Do you insist that your version of particle physics contains no violations of the "law" of CP Symmetry, too? Good grief, Michael, neutrinoless double beta decay has been observed, which is a clear violation of lepton-number conservation.quote:
What a juicy rationalization that was Dave. I've asked you to explain the *cause* of lepton changing neutrinos now several different times and you've never bothered to offer even a hint how it might happen or why it might occur. You've failed to provide *any* details at all. In fact you have blatently and obviously avoided this whole issue since the start.
For one thing, whether or not I - personally - can answer your questions makes no difference to whether the theory is correct, simply because I didn't invent the theory. Other people can answer just about any properly asked question about neutrino oscillation much better than I can.
You, on the other hand, are championing a brand-new theory - that something in the Sun can directly create muon and tau neutrinos, and that neutrinos with non-zero mass won't oscillate flavors over time - but you refuse to support your personal theory in any way.quote:
quote:
because you insist on using your own private language and understanding instead of the language used by the field of science in question.
You were the one denying that inflaton fields were defined as scalar fields with associated particles, and I'm the one not understanding the language used in the field in question? Care to explain how that works Dave? That was somehow my fault?
Who's talking about that (for which I've already admitted my mistake)? I'm talking about you asking me questions about neutrino oscillation while inventing new terms not used by particle physicists to describe it.quote:
quote:
As such, I can't possibly answer your questions, because they make no sense.
What a complete rationalization for avoiding the direct questions, not once, not twice, but several times now.
It's not a rationalization, but a justification, since answering questions which are nonsense simply opens to door to more nonsense.quote:
You'll not lift a finger to explain the cause of the lepton violation process, but you simply *assume* it's happening...
I've read the reports which demonstrate lepton conservation is at best an approximation. Why is it that you argue against a demonstrable fact by screaming for an explanation? Lightning is no less real because we don't have a good explanation for the processes separating the charges in a thunderhead.quote:
...but only outside of the transmitter and before it gets to the reciever.
When did I ever say any such thing, Michael? You're making stuff up again.quote:
It's special pleading of the worst kind.
How are "neutrino oscillation has been observed" and "violations of lepton conservation have been observed" special pleading of any sort?quote:
First you'll have to explain what *causes* the oscillation in the first place Dave.
Why is an explanation required before you will accept that a phenomenon exists which needs to be explained?quote:
Then you have to explain why a neutrino is a "special" kind of lepton that can change flavor at will violating the conservation of leptons laws in the process.
You're doing it again, Michael: twisting and distorting the facts to suit your needs. Nobody has ever claimed that neutrinos change flavor "at will."quote:
|
- 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 - 07/22/2006 : 11:42:19 [Permalink]
|
Here is why this conversation has become pointless:
quote:
This "whim" has been over 40 years in the making, Michael. Observations of the violation of L conservation are less than two years old.
Talk about spin doctoring! You should work for the Bush adminstration Dave. You have a real knack for twisting the truth.
The scientific evidence of lepton conservation is 40 years old Dave. It's been demonstrated to work so well that these principles are still used to compute the type of neutrinos that are emitted in particle interactions. They are so well understood that they are used to determine types of neutrinos that are being recieved by the various kind of recievers. "Allegations" of lepton violations in "oscillating neutrinos" (evidently the single exception to the particle physics rule) are only a few years old.
The transmission numbers of all solar models are *completely* predicated on faith in the lepton conservation *requirements* of particle physics Dave. If there were no such lepton conservation requirements in particle physics, then there would be no way to predict what kind of neutrinos were likely to be emitted, and there would be no need to explain "oscillating neutrinos" in the first place. If these lepton conservation laws didn't work, we would have simply noted that the predictions from particle physics were wrong. Furthermore, the neutrinos receivers still *assume* that lepton conservation principles apply to the particle interactions that are being measured. That is how they predict which netrino leption is transmitted, and how they tell which kind of neutrinos that a detector is capable of detecting. Both the transmission prediction, and the measured data, are based on conservation of lepton *requirements*. Only during the transmission process, somewhere between the transmitter and the reciever, are the leptons configurations presumably being "oscillated" and "violated" according to particle theory.
You'll note that as of September 2005 (the date of your reference) there were *no* distance predictions were defined or density numbers prov ided by any of the experts in the field. Furthermore the only "evidence" of neutrino oscillation is completely based on "faith" in gas model theory. It's one giant circular feedback loop. Your neutrino experts could not begin to define distances or densities any better than you can, nor can they define the particle physical interactions that would result in lepton changes any better than you can.
The fact of the matter is that it has never been demonstrated that nuetrinos actually oscillate as predicted, so it's very tough to measure something that's never been demonstrated. When you and these folks talk about "space", they ignore the QM implications that the only thing that these nuetrino "particles" might interact with are more particles and fields within the quantum matrix. Talk about oversimplying a particle physics process. It looks like they aren't even going to attempt to define the particle or field responsible for the interaction.
quote:
No, Michael, those things are taken into account. The corona and the chromosphere, being mostly transparent, are not blackbodies. The photosphere, despite its small density, is opaque.
Here's another great example of all the special pleading, oversimplifications, and pseudoscientific word play that holds gas model solar theory together. The photosphere according to you is less than aerogel in consistency, but somehow, quite magically, this increadibly thin plasma layer is "opaque" enough to be considered a "black body". The word "opaque" is another of those perfectly rediculace "buzzwords" of solar physics. How could less than aerogel thin plasma be completely and utterly "opaque" enough to act like a "black body" Dave? The plasma of the chromosphere and corona are also "thin plasma", but they don't count at all eh? This energy output number is one big oversimplification, wrapped up in pseudoscientific phrases and buzzwords. Folks do this stuff because it just happens to be easier to define a number mathematically that way. To do it "right" would require density figures in the calculations, but evidently that's "complicated" so we teach students gross oversimplifications and treat them as "gospel" using cute buzzwords like "opaque". |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2006 : 12:48:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=5917&whichpage=13
quote:
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.
Let's see you actually scientifically explain this statement of yours Dave. What *specific* weak nuclear force interactions with electrons or with a "vacuum" would cause any oscillation in the neutrino lepton?
I did not see a specifically indentified weak nuclear force associated with electrons in your links that would explain lepton violations, nor could I find any particular QM particle identified in what is euphamistically called "space" in your link. Could you please specify the exact nuclear force and particle you are refering to?
Could you give us a resonable distance calculation based on desity of electrons, or the distance required in empty "space" before we might see some "oscillation"? |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 07/22/2006 12:54:14 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2006 : 17:14:23 [Permalink]
|
I see, Michael. I get it. You can say whatever absurdly insulting things you want to say about me, but if I even dare to criticize you too harshly, you'll remind me about it for post after post after post, even if I apologize for it. From your history here, I won't bother expecting any sort of acknowledgement of your easy-to-debunk factual mistakes until you've been pestered about them for a dozen posts or so.
But let's begin with something impersonal. What physical process(es), Michael, known to create muon or tau neutrinos, can operate in the Sun and match the level of muon and tau neutrinos we measure? Can you name a particle physicist who, in the last calendar year, has expressed public professional doubt about the fact that neutrino flavors oscillate?quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Here is why this conversation has become pointless:
quote:
This "whim" has been over 40 years in the making, Michael. Observations of the violation of L conservation are less than two years old.
Talk about spin doctoring! You should work for the Bush adminstration Dave. You have a real knack for twisting the truth.
The scientific evidence of lepton conservation is 40 years old Dave.
The scientific evidence for F=ma was even older than that before it was found to be wrong, Michael.quote:
It's been demonstrated to work so well that these principles are still used to compute the type of neutrinos that are emitted in particle interactions.
Yes, those principles were even used to formulate the neutrinoless double beta decay experiments which showed that lepton conservation is not exact, but only approximate.quote:
They are so well understood that they are used to determine types of neutrinos that are being recieved by the various kind of recievers.
Yes, they work very well, but not with absolute precision.quote:
"Allegations" of lepton violations in "oscillating neutrinos" (evidently the single exception to the particle physics rule) are only a few years old.
And that tells me that you didn't even bother to look at the neutrinoless double beta decay experiments.quote:
The transmission numbers of all solar models are *completely* predicated on faith in the lepton conservation *requirements* of particle physics Dave.
Which kind of faith are you talking about, Michael, the kind you mean when you apply the word to my positions, or the kind of "faith" you mean when you apply the word to yourself?quote:
If there were no such lepton conservation requirements in particle physics, then there would be no way to predict what kind of neutrinos were likely to be emitted, and there would be no need to explain "oscillating neutrinos" in the first place. If these lepton conservation laws didn't work, we would have simply noted that the predictions from particle physics were wrong.
And all of that is based upon the idea that if there are exceptions to a law, then the law is completely worthless. I don't share that sort of defeatist view, Michael. Nobody has ever provided evidence that the P-P Chain ever emits anything but electron neutrinos.quote:
Furthermore, the neutrinos receivers still *assume* that lepton conservation principles apply to the particle interactions that are being measured. That is how they predict which netrino leption is transmitted, and how they tell which kind of neutrinos that a detector is capable of detecting. Both the transmission prediction, and the measured data, are based on conservation of lepton *requirements*.
Yes, because nobody has ever demonstrated that leptons aren't conserved in those reactions.quote:
Only during the transmission process, somewhere between the transmitter and the reciever, are the leptons configurations presumably being "oscillated" and "violated" according to particle theory.
No, you're completely wrong about that. Lepton conservation is also violated by the neutrinoless double beta decay, which has been observed in the lab. Get over it, Michael, leptons are not always conserved.quote:
You'll note that as of September 2005 (the date of your reference) there were *no* distance predictions were defined or density numbers prov ided by any of the experts in the field.
Apparently, you missed the fact that the probability equations were based upon kilometers travelled.quote:
Furthermore the only "evidence" of neutrino oscillation is completely based on "faith" in gas model theory.
That's just false, since the paper you're talking about references several reactor experiments, as well as atmospheric experiments.quote:
It's one giant circular feedback loop.
Only to someone as blinded to the facts by your faith as you are, Michael.quote:
Your neutrino experts could not begin to define distances or densities any better than you can, nor can they define the particle physical interactions that would result in lepton changes any better than you can.
They did all of that right in the paper. Do you need someone to hold your hand and walk through it with you?quote:
The fact of the matter is that it has never been demonstrated that nuetrinos actually oscillate as predicted, so it's very tough to measure someth |
- 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 - 07/23/2006 : 21:33:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
I see, Michael. I get it. You can say whatever absurdly insulting things you want to say about me, but if I even dare to criticize you too harshly, you'll remind me about it for post after post after post, even if I apologize for it. From your history here, I won't bother expecting any sort of acknowledgement of your easy-to-debunk factual mistakes until you've been pestered about them for a dozen posts or so.
Nobody is perfect. I've tried to be forthcomming with whatever mistakes I've made along the way Dave. It has even take me a few posts to understand the nature of my mistake, but once I've understood it, I've acknowledged it.
quote:
But let's begin with something impersonal.
Isn't it a bit late for that? :) I think we both need to take a deep breath, relax, and try this in a much more low key, science oriented approach, or simply let it go for the time being. I think we'll both end up happier that way. For my role in the hostilities between us Dave, I appologize. I'll try to be a bit more patient with you if you're willing to extend me the same courtesy.
quote:
What physical process(es), Michael, known to create muon or tau neutrinos, can operate in the Sun and match the level of muon and tau neutrinos we measure?
I would say it would probably be due to the same processes that cause these neutrinos to occur in our own atmosphere, namely interactions with cosmic rays in the solar atmosphere. The sun does not need to generate these kinds of neutrinos *internally* even in gas model solar theory. It's not a requirement that other types of neutrinos *must* be created by the sun directly.
quote:
Can you name a particle physicist who, in the last calendar year, has expressed public professional doubt about the fact that neutrino flavors oscillate?
I don't see why that really matters Dave. The world doesn't change in one year. I think you're confusing what's popular at the moment, with what's "right". Determining what's "right" will take a little longer to figure out than one year, and most folks are in wait and see mode at this point.
quote:
quote:
The scientific evidence of lepton conservation is 40 years old Dave.
The scientific evidence for F=ma was even older than that before it was found to be wrong, Michael.
You're missing my point entirely. The predictions we make about which types of neutrinos are emitted are directly related to the lepton conservation laws that we *know* apply. Furthermore, the various recievers are also based on this conservation of lepton principle. That is how we determine which detectors can detect which types of neutrinos. If we did not rely upon these laws, and they did not apply, there would be no mystery here to explain in the first place. We would just measure all types of neutrinos at the source to be varied, and that would be that. The mystery would be solved. Unfortunately it's not that simple since the observational "tests" that have been done with neutrinos suggest that particle physics *does* accurarely predict the kinds of neutrinos released in various particle interactions.
The only place that this lepton law presumably does not apply is when an electron neutrinos interact with something. According to the "theory" put forth in that paper, *if* they mix, they mix due to interactions between W+ Bosons, neutrinos, and electrons. Its more or less a three way particle process. Whether that *if* becomes *fact* remains to be see. Such oscillations have not actually been demonstrated. It's at best a "theory" at this stage. The vacuum or what you call "space" is not "empty", but rather filled with particles that *may* interact, and *may* not. That paper states *if*, but you keep *assuming* that oscillation has been proven already.
quote:
Yes, they work very well, but not with absolute precision.
This "seems" like a very conflicted statement from my perspective. We "trust" the "laws" of particle physics because we can test them and we can see that they apply even to the very reaction that emits neutrinos. Somehow however you are convinced that there is a particle interaction loophole, that violates these same laws. You'll need to provide much *stronger* evidence however, and evidence that isn't based on the *belief* that all the neutrinos we observe are actually created on the sun, by the sun rather than just being a reaction that takes place in the solar atmosphere.
quote:
quote:
The transmission numbers of all solar models are *completely* predicated on faith in the lepton conservation *requirements* of particle physics Dave.
Which kind of faith are you talking about, Michael, the kind you mean when you apply the word to my positions, or the kind of "faith" you mean when you apply the word to yourself?
I'm talking about the kind of faith that we gain by observing that our predictions as to which kinds of neutrinos to expect does in fact match up with what we observe when we play with a known source. The evidence becomes overwhelming after awhile and we "trust" that these laws work, both in predicting the type of neutrino created, and in predicting the type of reactions we find in various neutrinos detectors. The various recievers are determined to be capable of observing various neutrino types based on lepton conservation laws. Again, if these laws didn't apply to the neutrino predictions or recievers, there would be no mystery to explain in the first place.
quote:
quote:
If there were no such lepton conservation requirements in particle physics, then there would be no way to predict what kind of neutrinos were likely to be emitted, and there would be no need to explain "oscillating neutrinos" in the first place. If these lepton conservation laws didn't |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 07/23/2006 21:46:48 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2006 : 12:00:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Nobody is perfect. I've tried to be forthcomming with whatever mistakes I've made along the way Dave. It has even take me a few posts to understand the nature of my mistake, but once I've understood it, I've acknowledged it.
Then where is your retraction of your claim that Kosovichev offered "relative" density measurements? Where is your retraction of your claim that you "shamed" me for several posts before I "grudgingly" acknowledged my mistake about the inflaton field? Surely you understand that you have no supporting evidence whatsoever for either claim.quote:
For my role in the hostilities between us Dave, I appologize. I'll try to be a bit more patient with you if you're willing to extend me the same courtesy.
I have extended you that courtesy, since day one, and you abused it. It is, of course, extremely difficult to be patient when I post a link to a detailed explanation of neutrino oscillation, including the interactions causing it and the probability equations, and you reply by bizarrely asserting that it doesn't include anything about the interactions or the probabilities.quote:
quote:
What physical process(es), Michael, known to create muon or tau neutrinos, can operate in the Sun and match the level of muon and tau neutrinos we measure?
I would say it would probably be due to the same processes that cause these neutrinos to occur in our own atmosphere, namely interactions with cosmic rays in the solar atmosphere. The sun does not need to generate these kinds of neutrinos *internally* even in gas model solar theory. It's not a requirement that other types of neutrinos *must* be created by the sun directly.
Cosmic ray hits within the Sun are a process that occurs inside the Sun, Michael. The question is, is such an explanation plausible? What is the measured flux of muon neutrinos from cosmic ray hits on Earth, what is the flux of muon neutrinos from the Sun, and is the ratio between them equal to (or nearly so) the ratio of Earth's mass to the Sun's mass? These measurments are widely available, so testing this idea for basic plausibility should be easy.quote:
quote:
Can you name a particle physicist who, in the last calendar year, has expressed public professional doubt about the fact that neutrino flavors oscillate?
I don't see why that really matters Dave.
You made the claim - several times - that the hypothesis that neutrinos change flavors is currently being debated. The easiest way for you to support this claim would be to show that some particle physicist, somewhere, currently doubts that the hypothesis is true. Why not go ahead and do so, since you claim it to be a fact, and so you should already know where to find the requested information?quote:
The world doesn't change in one year. I think you're confusing what's popular at the moment, with what's "right". Determining what's "right" will take a little longer to figure out than one year, and most folks are in wait and see mode at this point.
There you go again, claiming "most folks are in wait and see mode at this point," but without bothering to back it up with any evidence, while as far as I can tell, the issue of whether or not neutrinos oscillate is settled physics (meaning that I can't find any particle physicists who deny that it occurs).quote:
quote:
quote:
The scientific evidence of lepton conservation is 40 years old Dave.
The scientific evidence for F=ma was even older than that before it was found to be wrong, Michael.
You're missing my point entirely. The predictions we make about which types of neutrinos are emitted are directly related to the lepton conservation laws that we *know* apply. Furthermore, the various recievers are also based on this conservation of lepton principle. That is how we determine which detectors can detect which types of neutrinos. If we did not rely upon these laws, and they did not apply, there would be no mystery here to explain in the first place. We would just measure all types of neutrinos at the source to be varied, and that would be that. The mystery would be solved. Unfortunately it's not that simple since the observational "tests" that have been done with neutrinos suggest that particle physics *does* accurarely predict the kinds of neutrinos released in various particle interactions.
No, Michael, it is you who are missing the point. Nobody is claiming that the violations of lepton conservation laws as evidenced by oscillating solar neutrinos and the neutrinoless double beta decay evidence is cause for throwing out those laws altogether, exactly like nobody claims that Einstein's Special Relativity is cause for throwing out F=ma entirely. F=ma is good enough for most Earth-bound physics, and the L conservation law is good enough for most kinds of neutrino interactions. Again: even though there is evidence that L conservation is violated in certain interactions, nobody has ever produced any evidence of any sort that L conservation is ever violated in P-P chain reactions (or the CNO cycle, for that matter).quote:
The only place that this lepton law presumably does not apply is when an electron neutrinos interact with something. According to the "theory" put forth in that paper, *if* they mix, they mix due to interactions between W+ Bosons, neutrinos, and electrons. Its more or less a three way particle process. Whether that *if* becomes *fact* remains to be see. Such oscillations have not actually been demonstrated.
This is just where you are denying the experimental results.
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
|
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2006 : 13:43:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
Never mind the fact these blackbody principles do *not* eplain the temperature of the corona.
For the umpteenth time: why would blackbody principles explain the temperature of something which is not a black body?
I know Michael thinks you are a meanie, Dave, but I think you are a Saint. After about 20 times of repeating the same fallacy, I want to strangle him; but you calmly point out his error over and over and over.....
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2006 : 14:54:05 [Permalink]
|
Since Mondays are typically hectic and today is no exception, I'm going to focus on one point per post starting with the most relevant points.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Apparently, you don't understand the author's use of the word "if."
No Dave, apparently you have trouble comprehending and embracing the english language. The author used that word quite intentionally. If it had no purpose in the sentence from the authors perspective, it wouldn't be in the sentence. The author never states any of this as "fact". You're reading that in there Dave.
quote:
It doesn't imply uncertainty, especially not when over the course of the next 20 pages, he lays out the evidence for the phenomenon using numerous references which, the author reports, conclude that it occurs.
Of course it implies uncertainty Dave. Give me a break! Listen to how irrational that statement even sounds. Are you claiming it's a law now or what?
Let's take a closer look at the so called "evidence" that he presents here Dave:
quote:
The underground Super-Kamiokande (SK) detector nds that for multi-GeV atmospheric muon neutrinos, the Z event distribution looks nothing like the expected Z , #8722; Z symmetric distribution. For cos Z > 0:3, the observed flux coming up from zenith angle #8722; Z is only about half that coming down from angle Z [15]. Thus,some mechanism does change the flux as the neutrinos travel to the detector. The most attractive candidate for this mechanism is the oscillation ! X of the muon neutrinos into neutrinos X of another flavor. Since the upward-going muon neutrinos come from the atmosphere on the opposite side of the Earth from the detector, they travel much farther than the downward-going ones to reach the detector.
The SK experiments showed us absolutely nothing that was particularly unusual according to QM Dave. All that data demonstrates is that the earth interacts with neutrinos in some way. Great. Scattering is certainly a viable option to explain this phenomenon, especially now that we know that nueutrinos have mass. Evidently however, the author doesn't find that particular solution as "attractive" as an oscillation explanations. Why would that be? Faith in solar theory perhaps? |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 07/24/2006 14:54:50 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2006 : 16:54:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Since Mondays are typically hectic and today is no exception, I'm going to focus on one point per post starting with the most relevant points.
It is unbelievable that you picked the issue you picked as being "relevant," instead of the much more relevant issues of you providing evidence for your claims.quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Apparently, you don't understand the author's use of the ord "if."
No Dave, apparently you have trouble comprehending and embracing the english language. The author used that word quite intentionally. If it had no purpose in the sentence from the authors perspective, it wouldn't be in the sentence.
The 400-lb gorilla of irony in the room now is the fact that you just used the word "if" in precisely the same way the author used it: with no trace of uncertainty on your part. The other matter which makes your position wholly fallacious, Michael, is that the choice isn't between "if" being used to express uncertainty or "if" having no purpose, because there's a third possibility which you simply ignore: that science presents theories with an "if [hypothesis] then [predictions]" format, just like you've done with your own predictions.quote:
The author never states any of this as "fact". You're reading that in there Dave.
You're reading into my posts that I've stated any of this as "fact," Michael. I've said that among the experts, the evidence obviously has overwhelming acceptance, but that doesn't make it a "fact." To quote from the article:The strong evidence for neutrino flavor metamorphosis... That's as good as it gets in science while there are still unanswered questions, really. The author of the piece doesn't seem at all concerned that the flavor-changing hypothesis is going to be overturned. In fact, not one of the "Questions to be Answered" at the end of the chapter even bothers to ask if neutrinos don't really change flavors.quote:
Of course it implies uncertainty Dave. Give me a break! Listen to how irrational that statement even sounds. Are you claiming it's a law now or what?
No, I'm simply making the observation that the word "if" as used in the English language does not imply uncertainty.quote:
Let's take a closer look at the so called "evidence" that he presents here Dave:quote:
The underground Super-Kamiokande (SK) detector nds that for multi-GeV atmospheric muon neutrinos, the Z event distribution looks nothing like the expected Z , #8722; Z symmetric distribution. For cos Z > 0:3, the observed flux coming up from zenith angle #8722; Z is only about half that coming down from angle Z [15]. Thus,some mechanism does change the flux as the neutrinos travel to the detector. The most attractive candidate for this mechanism is the oscillation ! X of the muon neutrinos into neutrinos X of another flavor. Since the upward-going muon neutrinos come from the atmosphere on the opposite side of the Earth from the detector, they travel much farther than the downward-going ones to reach the detector.
See, that's why I didn't cut and paste any of it. It looks like garbage on my monitor.quote:
The SK experiments showed us absolutely nothing that was particularly unusual according to QM Dave.
So? It's very unusual according to the standard model of particle physics. The experiments failed to match the predictions, Michael.quote:
All that data demonstrates is that the earth interacts with neutrinos in some way. Great.
Later in the same paragraph:All of the voluminous, detailed SK atmospheric neutrino data are very well described by the hypothesis that the oscillation is purely [muon neutrino -> tau neutrino], and that it is a quasi-two-neutrino oscillation with... and he goes onto describe the physical constraints.quote:
Scattering is certainly a viable option to explain this phenomenon, especially now that we know that nueutrinos have mass.
Only if you can explain just where the standard model of particle physics went wrong, since it predicts much lower scattering rates than are "observed," and scattering still fails to explain why the three counts of solar neutrinos adds up to the total flux predicted by the solar models. Sheer coincidence?quote:
Evidently however, the author doesn't find that particular solution as "attractive" as an oscillation explanations. Why would that be? Faith in solar theory perhaps?
Perhaps because nobody has come up with a way for neutrinos to be scattered as much as you'd have us believe they're being scattered? Why is it you think the weak nuclear force and gravity (the only forces through which neutrinos interact with anything) can explain such large amounts of scattering?
Again, the truly relevant part of my prior post was in asking you about what process you went through to "rule in" the possibility of scattering at all.
But I hope that later in the week you don't forget about my requests for your retractions of various claims, and I'm still waiting for your explanation of why blackbody principles should apply to a non-blackbody like the Sun's corona. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
