0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I'm really starting to consider locking this thread if you keep making claim after claim without actually backing them up with a reputable source. If you want to avoid that, then get to citing your sources.
You still haven't explained the neutrino problem.
Neutrinos....https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrinohttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7298169/Neutrinos, on the contrary, taking only 3% of the total energy released, reach the surface of the Sun in 2 seconds and arrive at Earth 8 minutes after emanation. Therefore, neutrinos can monitor the current status of the solar core.Hence:1. It is stated: "the electron neutrinos created in the core as ν2m = νe, finally exit the Sun as νμ. The solar neutrinos convert to another type of neutrinos. This process is called an adiabatic resonance conversion (MSW effect87)). The survival probability is sin2 θ.84)" If the electron neutrinos from the core of the Sun is converted to another type of neutrinos, how do we know for sure that this detected type is clearly from the fusion activity in the sun core and not due to some other activity?2. Ionized hydrogen is a hydrogen atom that has lost its electron and is now positively charged. So, could it be that we actually measure the electron neutrinos which had been ejected from the hot plasma at the surface of the Sun and not from its core?3. It is stated: " As described above, the Super-K results from 1,258 days of data showed no energy spectrum distortion, no seasonal variations and a small day/night flux difference"So, as there is no seasonal variations and a small day/night flux difference, why can't we assume that we just get Cosmic neutrinos?4. The Sun is not the only star in the Universe. There are billions of Sun like stars just in our galaxy. So, if it ejects Notorious, why the other stars in the universe can't do the same? So, why can't we claim that the Notorious that we detect are due to other Stars, cosmic neutrino background or diffuse supernova neutrino background? Actually the accretion disc around the SMBH could be an excellent source. The temp there is about 10^9c it has plenty of particles/atoms including Hydrogens. So why the Notorious that are ejected from the Billions accretion discs can't fill the Universe with a constant Notorious stream that is equal from all directions. Therefore, we get the same Notorious flux from all directions in daytime and nighttime?5. It is stated: " Neutrinos, on the contrary, taking only 3% of the total energy released, reach the surface of the Sun".Do we really get all of those 3% Neutrinos from the total energy? Can you please show the article to support that indication?Even if we detect this quantity, how do we know that all of them are due to our sun fusion activity?6. It is stated: "The three known neutrino flavors are the only candidates for dark matter that are experimentally established elementary particles"If the neutrino had been changed its flavors when it had been ejected from the Sun core, why other neutrino that had been ejected from the dark matter can't change its flavors?In other words, could it be that the detected neutrinos are also due to dark matter?
So Dave is a fusion denialist as well? We know that fusion goes on inside of the Sun partly because of neutrinos: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2934-0
Here is a paper describing the math involved in calculating the upper mass limit on brown dwarf stars (equivalent to the minimum mass needed to start the fusion processes needed for main sequence stars). Temperature is discussed as well. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1909.08575.pdf
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 12/07/2023 14:16:46However, in order for that solid core / dynamo to work, it must spin much faster than the self' object spin.Give a citation for this claim as well.
Quote from: Dave Lev on 12/07/2023 14:16:46However, in order for that solid core / dynamo to work, it must spin much faster than the self' object spin.
There are two things you are missing. One, Io has an eccentric orbit. That means that it is closer to Jupiter at some times and further away at other times. This therefore changes the size of the tidal bulge over time. This up-and-down flexing of the Moon generates heat. Two, as Halc stated, Io also receives tidal heating by interacting with Jupiter's other moons.
Based on your following message and the clear requirements from BC and Orion to band the thread it seems to me that this might be my last reply in this thread.
clear requirements from BC and Orion to band the thread
So, why we insist to reject the idea that the same quantity of Neutrinos comes could also come from the open space?
The quantity of Neutrinos that we detect in day time is identical to that in night time.
There isn't any debate about it.
Quote from: Dave Lev on 15/07/2023 16:09:47The quantity of Neutrinos that we detect in day time is identical to that in night time. No; that's just something you made up- or you read one of the "lies we tell to children" and thought it told the whole story.https://physics.aps.org/articles/v7/24
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/FAQ/Qshrink.html"we find that the Sun loses mass 4.289x10^12 g every second to energy. Or, in other units, the Sun loses mass 1.353x10^20 g every year to energy."So how just many Hydrogen atoms there are in one g of mass?How many Neutrinos should be ejected due to this massive Hydrogen fusion activity in just one second?Can we agree on Billions or even trillions per second?
Posted by: Kryptid? on: Today at 00:04:59 ?Quote (selected)I know I wasn't focusing on neutrinos right now, but I remembered something I saw a long time ago that was relevant: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Image-of-the-sun-as-observed-with-neutrinos-ushering-in-the-multi-messenger-era-in_fig19_301842001That is an image taken of the Sun using neutrinos instead of photons. So yes, we know for a fact that the Sun emits neutrinos. There isn't any debate about it.
There is a lot I could say about you post, Dave, but I feel it would be wise to focus on one issue at a time. Here is what I want to focus on right now: your claim that a dynamo requires a solid core. So give us a reputable source which states that a solid core is required or admit that you are mistaken. There is nothing wrong with admitting that you made a mistake. I would not make fun of you for it. Rather, I would applaud you.
So, why the science community are so sure that the detected single neutrino in the night and less than that in the day is due to the solar radiation?
Why can't we claim that the ultra-strong solar magnetic fields could band away some neutrinos
Won't you agree that those neutrinos flow must come from the open space while the Sun cause some interruption in this flow and therefore, we detect less notorious per day?
Would you kindly explain how a detection of a single neutrino is called "flux"
Don't you agree that Iron at 5000 c temp can't be solid.
So why the science insist that it is solid?
So, in order to set the magnetic field with clear North and south poles, we need to use a Bar magnet.
However, if you think that a fluid bar without clear poles...
Please remember, the deeper we go inwards into the earth, the gravity is increasing
The idea of a solid dynamo isn't mine.
Our scientists have stated that the Earth Dynamo is solid although the expected internal temp is more than 5000 c.
These observations argue for a mechanism within the Earth's interior that continually generates the geomagnetic field. It has long been speculated that this mechanism is a convective dynamo operating in the Earth's fluid outer core, which surrounds its solid inner core, both being mainly composed of iron.
"magnetic field of a bar magnetThe magnetic field of a bar magnet has a simple configuration known as a dipole field. Close to Earth's surface this field is a reasonable approximation of the actual field."So, in order to set the magnetic field with clear North and south poles, we need to use a Bar magnet.Please be aware that the earth pole would be north next to the south Bar pole and vice versa on the other side.Therefore, a solid bar is needed.
Hence, solid dynamo isn't base on a personal imagination. it is based on real science explanation.
However, if you think that a fluid bar without clear poles can be good enough than please show the article that could support this claim.
Never the less, the next question should be - why the Dynamo/magnet bar is solid?
The molten sodium experiments show that you can get a magnetic field without a solid core.So no reputable source can show that you do need a solid core.So you might as well close the thread now.
And then Dave will have to think up some new trolling to do... unless he's banned.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:21:34Why can't we claim that the ultra-strong solar magnetic fields could band away some neutrinosThing about neutrinos is that they are neutral.So they are not affected by magnets.Did you not realise that?
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:21:34Why can't we claim that the ultra-strong solar magnetic fields could band away some neutrinos
Quote from: Dave Lev on 15/07/2023 16:09:47So, why we insist to reject the idea that the same quantity of Neutrinos comes could also come from the open space?Some do, and we know about them.https://theconversation.com/an-antarctic-neutrino-telescope-has-detected-a-signal-from-the-heart-of-a-nearby-active-galaxy-193845But we see lots coming from the sun. Your question is as stupid as asking why we think light comes from the sun.Why did you not know that?
The molten sodium experiments show that you can get a magnetic field without a solid core.So no reputable source can show that you do need a solid core.
QuoteThe claim that a dynamo has to have a solid core in order to function is your idea.Feel free to prove me wrong by finding a reputable scientific source that says the same thing.
The claim that a dynamo has to have a solid core in order to function is your idea.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:21:34Our scientists have stated that the Earth Dynamo is solid although the expected internal temp is more than 5000 c.Provide a citation for this.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:21:34Our scientists have stated that the Earth Dynamo is solid although the expected internal temp is more than 5000 c.
Last I checked, the fluid outer core is where the geodynamo is located, not the solid inner core: https://websites.pmc.ucsc.edu/~glatz/geodynamo.html
I'm trying to give him a fair chance to admit that he's mistaken.
Since he is such a repeat offender of making false claims of "science says x", then I'm going to make him start citing his references. If he can't do it, the thread will be locked for trolling or spam.
They appear to come fairly uniformly from all directions,