[Dave Lev (OP)]

Dear Kryptid
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.

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.

Therefore, with your permeation, I would use this last opportunity to highlight the following:
Neutrinos:

You still haven't explained the neutrino problem.

Yes I did.

Neutrinos
....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino
https://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?

After all of that, I would like to highlight why the Neutrons can't be used as en evidece for the fusion activity.
1. In the following article it is stated:
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 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?
Surprisingly we detect very few Neutrinos. (If I remember correctly the total number per day was just few hundreds).
So, how can you claim that we detect enough Neutrinos to justify the fusion imagination process?
2. How do we know that we detect this neglected Neutrinos from the Sun?
The quantity of Neutrinos that we detect in day time is identical to that in night time. Therefore, the detectors get the same quantity of neutrinos when they face the sun as they face the open space.
So, why we insist to reject the idea that the same quantity of Neutrinos comes could also come from the open space?
However, it could also come from the earth itself. In the following articale it is stated the the earth generates internal heat due to radioactive decay in the core:
https://www.britannica.com/science/dynamo-theory
Heat from radioactive decay in the core is thought to induce the convective motion.
https://www.britannica.com/science/radioactivity
The emissions of the most common forms of spontaneous radioactive decay are the alpha (α) particle, the beta (β) particle, the gamma (γ) ray, and the neutrino.
So why we refuse to accept the idea that we those neutrinos could also come from the Earth core and not from the Sun?
Why don't you ask to get citing from those scientists for their claim that the Neutrinos comes ONLY from the Sun?
Why they can't design their detectors to detect only neutrons that are coming from outside the planet. Once they do so, they will know exactly from where those few neutrons are coming (I can promise you that they will find that the sun isn't the source for those neutrons). However, they would never do so as the wish to protect the imagination that the Sun heat is due to that imagination Fusion activity.
3. Experimental evidence"
With all the above, how do they claim that they have "Experimental evidence of neutrinos produced in the CNO fusion cycle in the Sun":

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

Where are all the billion Neutrinos?
How do they know for sure that the few detected neutrons are coming from the Sun and only from the sun?

Math approval for the 10^7 c internal temp core Tig -

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

Did you had a chance to read carefully this math?
Don't you agree that they have set a target of 10^7k and by using some basic math/ideas/assumptions they try to explain how a protostar could increase its internal heat from 1000K all the way to 10^7K.
It is stated:
"If the mass of the protostars is less than ∼ 0.08M , its temperature does not reach the threshold to fuse hydrogen into helium and instead of a star, a brown dwarf is formed"
Based on the calculation the Minimal mass of the star should be 0.016 sun mass in order to get the temp of Tig =10^7K:
"Mmin ∼ {h^2 * k / (G^2 * me * mp^8/3)}^3/4 * Tig ^ 3/4 ∼= 3.08 ? 1028kg ∼= 0.016M
where ~ = 1.05 ? 10^−34J ? s, k = 1.38 ? 10−^23J ? K−1, G = 6.67 ? 10^−11N ? m2? kg−2, me = 9.1 ? 10^−31kg, mp = 1.67 ? 10^−27kg, and Tig = 10^7K. We see that Mmin ∼ 0.016M is the same order of magnitude that accepted value, Mmin ≈ 0.08M, and therefore it is an excellent approximation".
So, they set almost a direct ratio between the star mass to Tig Temp.
However as at only 0.016 M we get that 10^7K, what is the expected temp at the sun (which is massive by 62 times)?
M / 0.016 M = 62
What might be the internal temp of the most massive star?
https://www.space.com/41313-most-massive-star.html
"the most massive known star in the sky is R136a1, a star more than 300 times as massive as our sun."
So, what could it be the internal temp in a star that is more massive by 18,600 (=300*62) then this 0.016M?
could it be over 10^10 or even 10^11?
Is it realistic?
Let's assume that you are not aware about that math and I will offer it to you.
Would you accept this kind of assumptions and calculations as real math?

How the Sun magnetic fields can be generated by the fusion activity.
It is stated:
http://ibex.swri.edu/students/How_does_the_Sun.shtml
They start with a perfect explanation:
"Magnetic fields are created by things that are magnetic (like iron magnets) or by moving charged particles. A magnetic field is the description of the force a magnetic object exerts in the space surrounding the magnetic object. A force is a push or pull."
This actually describe the magnetic creation on earth by its dynamo rotation.
The Erath has a dynamo which is made out of solid Iron core. The magnetic fields is created due to the rotation of that dynamo and therefore it has very clear north and south poles.
The Sun also has clear poles. Therefore, it is expected that the Sun would also have a rotational dynamo.
However, they don't say even one word about the sun dynamo although they admite that the Sun magnetic field is very strong:
" the Sun's magnetic field is also large. It influences the motion of charged particles well beyond the orbits of the known planets, to distances of around 75-100 times the distance of the Earth to the Sun."
So, "How does the Sun's magnetic field work?"
"The Sun's charged particles move in three ways due to the Sun's high temperatures and the movement of its axis, which influence each other to make the Sun's magnetic field complex:
1. The Sun's high temperatures cause the positively charged ions and negatively charged electrons that make up its plasma to move around a lot. The moving plasma creates many complicated magnetic fields that twist and turn.
2. The extremely hot plasma that blows off the Sun as the solar wind also causes a magnetic field.
3. The plasma in the Sun also rotates around the Sun's axis. The plasma near the poles rotates slower than the plasma at the equator causing twisting and stretching of magnetic fields, too."
So, let's try to understand the meaning of that explanation:
1. The moving plasma creates many complicated magnetic fields"
Those complicated magnetic fields could cancel each other and surly can't explain the poles and the supper magnetic fields of the sun.
2. "The extremely hot plasma that blows off the Sun as the solar wind also causes a magnetic field".
This message is clearly wrong. The manganic fields is the source of the Hot plasma and not vice versa.
3. The plasma near the poles rotates slower than the plasma at the equator causing twisting and stretching of magnetic fields, too - Well if the plasma near the poles rotates slower than the plasma at the equator and the magnetic fields is twisting and stretching then how could it set so strong magnetic fields with clear north and south poles?
Again, not even one word about Dynamo.
Surprisingly, I have found the following article:
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sdo/science/sun-magnetism.html
"It is widely believed that the Sun's magnetic field is generated by electrical currents acting as a magnetic dynamo inside the Sun. These electrical currents are generated by the flow of hot, ionized gases in the Sun's convection zone."
Now they discuss about real science.
They even discuss about the magnetic poles:
"During the first half of the cycle, the Sun's magnetic north pole is in the northern hemisphere while the magnetic south pole is in the southern hemisphere. Right around the peak of the sunspot cycle (solar maximum), the magnetic poles flip or exchange places so that magnetic north is now located in the southern hemisphere. This flip occurs about every 11 years at solar maximum."
I hope that by now you all agree that the Sun magnetic fields is due to its dynamo.
So, how that Sun' dynamo could create any sort of magnetic fields by fusion activity/
The answer is already given.
The fusion activity can't really force the dynamo to rotate in one direction. It is a random activity. The internal heat by itself won't help the dynamo to spin.
Our scientists have some basic idea with regards to the Earth Dynamo:
https://www.britannica.com/science/dynamo-theory
"dynamo theory, geophysical theory that explains the origin of Earth?s main magnetic field in terms of a self-exciting (or self-sustaining) dynamo. In this dynamo mechanism, fluid motion in Earth?s outer core moves conducting material (liquid iron) across an already existing weak magnetic field and generates an electric current."

So, the idea is that the fluid motion in Earth?s outer core moves conducting material liquid iron (which is the dynamo) across an already existing weak magnetic field and generates an electric current.
So far so good.
It is also stated that the fuid motion is due to the "Heat from radioactive decay in the core is thought to induce the convective motion."
But that random Heat from radioactive decay can't explain why the fluid force the dynamo to rotate in one direction.
Therefore, I hope that by now we all agree that the Sun magnetic filds is due to internal dynamo but our scientists don't understand why it rotates in one direction.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Dynamo

Quote from: Dave Lev on 12/07/2023 14:16:46
However, 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.

1. Why dynamo:
https://www.britannica.com/science/dynamo-theory
The dynamo theory was proposed by the German-born American physicist Walter M. Elsasser and the British geophysicist Edward Bullard during the mid-1900s. Although various other mechanisms for generating the geomagnetic field have been proposed, only the dynamo concept is seriously considered today.
2. dynamo theory
"dynamo theory, geophysical theory that explains the origin of Earth?s main magnetic field in terms of a self-exciting (or self-sustaining) dynamo. In this dynamo mechanism, fluid motion in Earth?s outer core moves conducting material (liquid iron) across an already existing weak magnetic field and generates an electric current. (Heat from radioactive decay in the core is thought to induce the convective motion.)"
They actually claim that the dynamo motion is due to the fluid motion in Earth?s outer core.
This is my clear citation for the dynamo rotation.
In the article it is stated that the fluid motion is due to heat from radioactive decay in the core. However, that radioactive decay is random activity. Theoretically it can set fluid motion but in different directions. so how could this radioactive decay force the dynamo to rotate in a constant motion in one direction?

3. Dynamo - How it works?
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sdo/science/sun-magnetism.html
The Dynamo in the Earth and in the Sun converts mechanical energy into electromagnetic energy.

There are three requisites for a dynamo to operate:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamo_theory
"There are three requisites for a dynamo to operate:
1. An electrically conductive fluid medium
2. Kinetic energy provided by planetary rotation
3. An internal energy source to drive convective motions within the fluid.[10]"
Let's understand those requisites:
1. An electrically conductive fluid medium -
I hope that we all agree that the fluid medium is due to the internal heat.
You might think about fusion activity at the Sun or radiactivity decay at the Earth.
I think that there is no need for high energy to keep the core at An electrically conductive fluid medium. Therefore, tidal heat by itself (due to the horizontal tidal force) is good enough.
2. Kinetic energy provided by planetary rotation - This is the real meaning of the vertical tidal force.
The key question is - What is the source for the planetary rotation?
https://theconversation.com/why-does-the-earth-spin-198402
Why does the Earth spin?
"Most scientists now think its spin has been reversed over time by tidal forces involving the Sun and Venus? thick atmosphere."
"astronomers believe Earth spins because the entire solar system was already rotating when Earth formed ? but there are still a lot of questions about how planets? spins change over time, and how spin affects the evolution of life. With more than 5,000 planets now known beyond the solar system, future scientists are going to be busy exploring."
So, you all can believe that the Sun & the "Earth spin because the entire solar system was already rotating when Earth formed". However, that can't explain why the earth and the sun still spinning after so many billion years.
Please be aware that the Sun velocity at the equators is over than 7000Km/s.
I think that there is a reason for that rotation motion. It is called the vertical tidal force.
This force isn't a constant fixed force.
It is a changing force due to the orbital motion as you have just explained:

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.

So, the eccentric orbit and the interacting force with nearby objects as Jupiter's other moons change the tidal force constantly the tidal force.
It effects the horizontal tidal force and the vertical tidal force.
Think about the earth as we press it in its poles again and again. Due to this press we provide the Kinetic energy that is needed for the dynamo to rotates. As the dynamo rotates at quite high velocity in the center of the planet, it also forces the entire planet to rotate.
Therefore, this vertical tidal force is the real source of the kinetic energy that spins the the earth and the sun.
As all the moons around Io moon have a tidal impact on Io moon, then all the stars around the Sun have also some tidal impact on the sun.
That tidal force doesn't need to be very strong.
The vertical tidal force is needed to keep the Sun core in An electrically conductive fluid medium.
However, the kinetic vertical force is directly transformed into electromagnetic energy.
Actually, the changes in that vertical kinetic tidal force is more important than its total force.
As there are millions of stars around the Sun each one contributes some minor tidal change. All together they set significant cycles/changes in this vertical force that cause the Sun internal dynamo to rotate at quite high velocity and produce ultra-high magnetic fields that "influences the motion of charged particles well beyond the orbits of the known planets, to distances of around 75-100 times the distance of the Earth to the Sun."

Conclusion:
I have offered real physical source for the kinetic energy that is needed for the proper operation of the dynamo.
That physical force is called - the vertical tidal force. This kinetic force is the ultimate source for the electromagnetic energy of the Sun as well as the source for its constant spinning momentum. The vertical tidal force is real and I have proved it.
Unfortunately, the science community totally ignore that kinetic force and don't understand its significant impact. They just hope that the initial spin of the objects could give the sun the ability to generate so strong magnetic fields for several billions of years and still spin at high velocity even today.
Why don't you ask them to Give a citation for this imagination?

It is quite expected that you all would continue to support the current wrong fusion idea.
However, just before you band the thread, I would mostly appreciate to get Halc' reply with regards to the Dynamo' requested kinetic energy

[Origin]

Deleted.

[paul cotter]

Another utterly pointless thread. When a poster has a very poor grasp of basic physics and does not want to learn, one is on futile mission. As is said, one can bring a horse to the river but one cannot make it drink( or words to that effect ).

[Kryptid]

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.

I owned up to it when you pointed out that I used radius in an equation where I should have used diameter and thus corrected myself. If I can do it, so can you.

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.

I won't need to lock the thread if you can provide an appropriate citation for your "solid core" claim. So whether or not this thread gets locked is entirely up to you. So please supply an authoritative source supporting your claim that a solid core is needed for a dynamo to work. Make sure that's what the source actually says, too. Read it carefully. Do not "quote mine" it. Please don't rely on arguing that it is simply "logical" or "it just makes sense" or some related thing. If a dynamo requiring a solid core really was so logical, then there would be a lot of other scientists and engineers who realized this same thing and thus would write it into books, papers, science websites, etc. Then you, in turn, would be able to cite it as an authoritative source to support your assertion.

So, can you do that?

[Bored chemist]

clear requirements from BC and Orion to band the thread

Just to be clear.
I'm not just saying I think we should end this thread (though we should).
I'm saying we should ban Dave from posting on this forum.

And his latest posting here illustrate my reasons for saying that.

His response to being told that his nonsense will get his thread closed is to post more nonsense in the thread.

In what way does anyone benefit from allowing him to continue?

[Bored chemist]

So, 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-193845
But 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?

[Bored chemist]

The 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

[Kryptid]

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_301842001

That 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.

[Bored chemist]

There isn't any debate about it.

There isn't any informed debate about it.

Dave will continue to be wrong about it because he refuses to learn.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

The 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

Dear BC
Did you had the chance to read the article that you had offered?
It is stated:
"the interactions are so rare that Super-K only detects one or two solar neutrinos per day."
So, the Super-K only detects one or two neutrinos per day.
There is a confirmation (in this article and others) for a higher solar neutrino flux at night than during the day:
"The Super-K experiment (shown here empty of water) has observed slightly more neutrinos at night than during the day."
https://www-sk.icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~ynakano_s/presentation/NNN2013_poster_final.pdf
"◆Asymmetry in Day/Night flux SK confirms a higher solar neutrino flux at night than during the day."
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?
Let's assume that we don't know anything about the fusion idea.
How can we explain that observation of one neutrino during the night time and less than that during the day time?
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?
Why can't we claim that the ultra-strong solar magnetic fields could band away some neutrinos that comes behind the sun in the direction of the earth, and maybe some just coliid with the sun and miss the earth.
So, the simple understanding should be that we won't get those few neutrinos from the sun but from the open space.
However, that clear observation could kill the fusion idea.
So, as usual the science community has no intention to confuse themselves with the meaning of this real observation.
Therefore, they have the following brilliant idea:
" The result agrees with theoretical predictions that a fraction of the neutrinos passing through the Earth convert into the electron flavor, the neutrino type to which Super-K is most sensitive"
In other words, all the neutrino that we detect must come from the sun even if it should cross the earth from side to side.
Is it real???
Dear Kryptid
Do you agree that based on the following article, the Sun should generate billions or trillions neutrinos per second.

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?

Would you kindly explain how a detection of a single neutrino is called "flux" and how based on that imagination flux it is feasible to draw that wonderful solar neutrinos stream?

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_301842001

That 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.

How can you call the detection of just one neutrino per night and less than that during the day as "fact that the Sun emits neutrinos"?
Don't you agree that in real science it is expected to adjust the theory to the observation and not vice versa?

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.

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.
Don't you agree that Iron at 5000 c temp can't be solid. So why the science insist that it is solid?
I had considered this question for some time and found the answer.
Please look at the following image:
https://www.britannica.com/summary/geomagnetic-field
"magnetic field of a bar magnet
The 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?
Please remember, the deeper we go inwards into the earth, the gravity is increasing but also the temp is increasing.
Based on the math which you had offered that temp is directly related to gravity force.
So, technically, if the gravity force is strong enough to convert the liquid core to a solid dynamo, why it can't also convert the whole earth to be a solid ball?
I have an answer for that.
Based on self-gravity the earth core and the sun core should be at hot liquid mode.
So, extra force is needed to transform the liquid core to a solid bar.
That force is called - the vertical tidal force.
In other words, if you take out the tidal impact, then the earth (or the sun) dynamo should be liquid.
Their self-gravity with related to the internal heat can't transform the high temp liquid core into solid object.
However, when we add the extra force of the vertical tidal force, it helps to convert this core to solid bar/dynamo.
Therefore, the vertical tidal force has two key functions.
1. It adds the force that is needed to transform a liquid hot core to solid bar.
2. The changes in this force contributes the kinetic energy that is needed for the bar/dynamo to rotate at high velocity in order to generate the electromagnetic fields at earth and at the sun.

[Bored chemist]

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?

Other than in zoos, I have only seen about 6 owls in my life.
But I saw all of them after dusk and before dawn.

Even though I only saw, on average, about 0.00288 owls in any 24 hour period, I'm pretty sure they hunt at night.

Did you think you had a point?

Why can't we claim that the ultra-strong solar magnetic fields could band away some neutrinos

Thing about neutrinos is that they are neutral.
So they are not affected by magnets.
Did you not realise that?

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?

Next time the sun is visible in the sky (like it is for me here at the moment), put your hand up at arm's length and see if you can cover up the sun with the tip of your smallest finger. You should find that you can.

Then look at how big the rest of the sky is.

And try to understand that the sun could only directly block out a tiny fraction of the sky- less than 0.01%

Then compare that to how big the observed change in neutron flux is.

Then go back in time and stop yourself posting your embarrassingly stupid idea.

Would you kindly explain how a detection of a single neutrino is called "flux"

We know that the detector doesn't see many of the neutrinos.
We can calibrate the detectors by building one near a nuclear reactor- where we know the rate of production.
https://neutrinos.fnal.gov/sources/reactor-neutrinos/

https://www.energy.gov/science/np/articles/detecting-neutrinos-nuclear-reactors-water#:~:text=Detecting%20the%20tiny%20signals%20from,tiny%20signals%20in%20the%20detector.


Now a flux is a number of crossings per area per unit time.
One neutrino event per square km per day is a flux.

Did you not know that?

Of course, the actual flux is much bigger- we miss most of them.

Don't you agree that Iron at 5000 c temp can't be solid.

Unless it's under enough pressure that all the atoms stay squashed together in a crystal.
Did you not realise that?

So why the science insist that it is solid?

Because that's what the seismic evidence says.
Why does Dave Lev insist that the evidence is wrong?

So, in order to set the magnetic field with clear North and south poles, we need to use a Bar magnet.

No.
We could obviously use an electromagnet
Or, as experiments have shown, we could use a spinning sphere of molten sodium.
Again- why are you pretending that you know more than reality and that the evidence is wrong?

[Bored chemist]

However, if you think that a fluid bar without clear poles...

The north and south poles of the earth are pretty clear to everyone except you.

[Bored chemist]

Please remember, the deeper we go inwards into the earth, the gravity is increasing

No. Gravity decreases as you go down. It's zero at the centre. (Because, obviously, there's s much above you pulling up as there is below you pulling down. So the effects cancel.

The force gets bigger as you go down.

[Kryptid]

The idea of a solid dynamo isn't mine.

The 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.

Our scientists have stated that the Earth Dynamo is solid although the expected internal temp is more than 5000 c.

Provide a citation for this. 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

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 magnet
The 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.

A bar magnet is not a dynamo. Do you know what a dynamo is, Dave?

Hence, solid dynamo isn't base on a personal imagination. it is based on real science explanation.

Then provide a reputable source that states this clearly and unambiguously. So far, you have not.

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.

There isn't a fluid "bar" inside the Earth.

Never the less, the next question should be - why the Dynamo/magnet bar is solid?

It isn't.

Dave, you have failed to provide a reputable source that clearly states that a dynamo requires a solid core in order to function. That is strike one. After three strikes, this thread will be locked for trolling/spamming. So please, provide a reputable scientific source that states plainly, unambiguously and clearly that a dynamo must absolutely have a solid core in order to work. Don't give me a source that you are merely inferring that a solid core is needed from. I want a direct quote from a website that states it with the same level of certainty that you yourself have. I want either that or an admission that you were wrong.

Again, it's entirely up to you whether or not this thread gets locked. Back up your claim and it can stay open. Continue to dodge and it gets closed. If you are correct, then it shouldn't be difficult for you to find the source I'm asking for.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Kryptid]

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.

I'm trying to give him a fair chance to admit that he's mistaken.

And then Dave will have to think up some new trolling to do... unless he's banned.

I have decided that I'm going to give all of his future threads the same level of scrutiny that I am now giving this one. 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. I feel that this is a fair way of dealing with the problem, as it offers him a reasonable way to keep his threads open. All he has to do is either properly cite his evidence or accept correction. Either one of those things would be of benefit to him.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:21:34
Why can't we claim that the ultra-strong solar magnetic fields could band away some neutrinos

Thing about neutrinos is that they are neutral.
So they are not affected by magnets.
Did you not realise that?

Sorry, you are wrong
magnetic field can indirectly affect neutrino properties
https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0212118
"Neutrinos have no electric charge, but a magnetic field can indirectly affect neutrino properties and interactions through its effect on charged particles. After a brief field-theoretic discussion of charged particles in magnetic fields, we discuss two broad kinds of magnetic field effects on neutrinos. First, effects which come through virtual charged particles and alter neutrino properties. Second, effects which alter neutrino interactions through charged particles in the initial or final state. We end with some discussion about possible physical implications of these effects."
Therefore, there is a possibility for magnetic field to effect on neutrinos.

So, 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-193845
But 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?

In this article it is stated clearly:
"Where do neutrinos come from?
They appear to come fairly uniformly from all directions, without any obvious bright spots showing up. This means there must be a lot of sources of neutrinos out there."
So, even in the article which you have offered it is fully confirmed that neutrinos come fairly uniformly from all directions.
What else is needed for you to accept this clear message?
Hence, neutrinos come fairly uniformly from all directions. Some of them could be affected by the Sun magnetic fields and shifted away from the Earth. Therefore, we get less neutrinos while we face the Sun.
It any case, how can we accept the logic that as we get less neutrinos while we face the Sun then it proves that the neutrinos had been generated by the Sun.
Sorry, this logic is clearly incorrect.

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.

Would you kindly try from time to time to read and understand the articles that you offer before getting into wrong conclusions?
liquid sodium
https://physics.aps.org/story/v19/st3
"A tank of stirred liquid sodium generates a magnetic field even though it?s highly turbulent?a condition closer to real dynamos in planets, stars, and galaxies, but harder to simulate in the lab."
"They placed disks, equipped with curved vanes, at each end of a half-meter long cylindrical tank filled with liquid sodium. Rotation of these ?propellers? in opposite directions at up to 26 revolutions per second created a turbulent flow that generated a magnetic field. The field only appeared when the propellers were made of iron, which modifies the field near its surface."
Please read again the last message:
"The field only appeared when the propellers were made of iron"
If you don't understand it yet, please read it again and again.
In other words, only when disks with iron propellers have been used, the magnetic fields appeared.
Therefore, it isn't about tank of stirred liquid sodium that generates magnetic field due to turbulent or heat.
It is due to those propellers iron discs that revolve 26 times per second.
It is stated: "They placed disks, equipped with curved vanes, at each end of a half-meter long cylindrical tank", Therefore, there must be full correlation between the location of the discs that revolve at 26 times per seconds to the size of the tank in order for them to work in harmony. Without it, they could eliminate the magnetic fields of each other.
Hence, your statement that: "The molten sodium experiments show that you can get a magnetic field without a solid core." is totally wrong.
Take out the solid iron discs from the molten sodium tank and you have no magnetic fields at all.

The 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.

I have already proved it.
The science claim for the solid inner iron core at the Earth dynamo:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earths-inner-core-may-have-an-inner-core/
"Earth's core consists of a solid iron-nickel ball rotating within a layer of liquid metal."

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:21:34
Our scientists have stated that the Earth Dynamo is solid although the expected internal temp is more than 5000 c.

Provide a citation for this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_inner_core
"Earth's inner core is the innermost geologic layer of planet Earth. It is primarily a solid ball with a radius of about 1,220 km (760 mi), which is about 20% of Earth's radius or 70% of the Moon's radius.[1][2]
The temperature at the inner core's surface is estimated to be approximately 5,700 K"
Do you need some more citations?
If so, please read the following:
https://www.universetoday.com/160317/the-earth-has-an-even-more-inner-core-and-its-a-ball-of-solid-metal/
"In a paper that appeared in Nature Communications, the team reports finding evidence for another distinct layer (a solid metal ball) in the center of Earth?s inner core"
Do you think that when this team reports finding evidence for a solid metal ball in the center of Earth?s inner core, they just lie to all of us?
It is not assumption or simulation. They claim for - Evidence.

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

Thanks for that great article.
It is stated:
https://websites.pmc.ucsc.edu/~glatz/geodynamo.html
"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. The solid inner core is roughly the size of the moon but at the temperature of the surface of the sun."
Hence, even in this article they discuss about solid inner core within spherical shell of the outer fluid core.
"Large zonal? exist on an imaginary "tangent cylinder" due to the effects of large rotation, small fluid viscosity, and the presence of the solid inner core within spherical shell of the outer fluid core.

I'm trying to give him a fair chance to admit that he's mistaken.

Are you sure that we discuss about fair chance?
Why all of those clear messages including the "evidence" which proves that the inner core must be solid aren't good enough for you?

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.

How can you consider all of those explanations and evidence as spam?
So far you and BC have totally failed to offer even a single article to support the imagination of none solid inner core in a dynamo.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Please also be aware that in the Article that you have offered they also discuss about dipole dominated structure.
" The simulated magnetic field has an intensity and a dipole dominated structure"
Hence, based on their understanding the inner core has a solid dipole tangent cylinder shape.
This is very interesting as it fully meets my understanding about the shape of the inner solid core.
Please look again on the following image of tidal force and focus on the vertical tidal force.
https://www.wolframcloud.com/objects/demonstrations/TidalForces-source.nb
How can you ignore this supper critical force?
We clearly see that due to the extra force of the vertical tidal force the liquid inner core would be transformed into solid dipole tangent cylinder shape.
There is also other key message in that article
It is stated that if the earth magnetic field is not continually being generated, it would decay away in only about 20,000 years:
"based on the size and electrical conductivity of the Earth's core, the field, if it were not continually being generated, would decay away in only about 20,000 years since the temperature of the core is too high to sustain permanent magnetism"
In other words - the idea that the earth can generate a constant magnetic fields for very long time without external force isn't realistic.
In order to overcome this key problem, they have offered the idea of about the convection in the fluid outer core that twists and shears magnetic field, generating new magnetic field to replace that which diffuses away:
"The convection in the fluid outer core is thought to be driven by both thermal and compositional buoyancy sources at the inner core boundary that are produced as the Earth slowly cools and iron in the iron-rich fluid alloy solidifies onto the inner core giving off latent heat and the light constituent of the alloy. These buoyancy forces cause fluid to rise and the Coriolis forces, due to the Earth's rotation, cause the fluid flows to be helical. Presumably this fluid motion twists and shears magnetic field, generating new magnetic field to replace that which diffuses away."
Is it a realistic idea?
By twisting and shearing the magnetic fields, the earth could lose its natural protection against the solar wind.  That could destroy the atmosphere on earth.
Surprisingly, the atmosphere is there for several billions of years.
Therefore, there is no way that the Earth magnetic fields had been twisted and sheared.
There must be some other way to prevent from the solid dipole tangent cylinder shape to diffuse away its magnetic field.
Only the vertical tidal force that works externally on the "dipole tangent cylinder" can keep it solid and fully charged without any need to warry about magnetic fields that diffuses away.
It is also stated that " the dipole polarity of the geomagnetic field has reversed many times in the past"
https://websites.pmc.ucsc.edu/~glatz/geodynamo.html
In addition, paleomagnetic records show that the dipole polarity of the geomagnetic field has reversed many times in the past, the mean time between reversals being roughly 200,000 years with individual reversal events taking only a couple thousand years.
"In addition, about 36,000 years into the simulation the magnetic field underwent a reversal of its dipole moment (Figure 3), over a period of a little more than a thousand years."
So, based on their simulation it could take the dipole several thousand years to for the dipole to reverse its polarity.
Again, if that was the case, then after several thousands of years without magnetic fields, the solar wind would completely destroy the earth atmosphere.
Therefore, that by itself proves that those scientists don't have a clue how the Earth dynamo and its solid inner core really works.
As I have stated it is all about the Vertical tidal force.
If a massive object would come close enough to the earth it would generate ultra high tidal force.
That strong tidal force could easily flip the internal dipole in just few days.
Therefore, any reversal polarity of the internal dipole is an indication for a massive object that pass near the earth.
That massive object doesn't need to coliid with the earth. All is needed to flip the dipole is that it would cross close enough.
Same activity takes place also at the Sun.
If a star would cross close enough to the Sun, it could flip its dipole polarity.
Therefore, the earth and the Sun magnetic fields is ONLY due to their vertical tidal force.
If after all of that explanations, articles, evidences... you would continue to reject the real meaning of tidal vertical force, then I would like to end this discussion.
Thank you all for your great support.
I couldn't get into this deep understanding without your excellent support.

[Bored chemist]

They appear to come fairly uniformly from all directions,

You missed a bit.