Controlled Fusion And Supernovas

[Webbman]

so nobody then.

I guess you had no problem with the ideas that neutrinos can turn chlorine to argon or gallium to germanium. does anyone even read that shit?

[A-wal]

Do you actually have a reason for doubting the claim or do you just not like it?

Simply being dismissive is not a valid objection.

[Solar]

so nobody then.

I guess you had no problem with the ideas that neutrinos can turn chlorine to argon or gallium to germanium. does anyone even read that ...?

Permit an objective question:

Q-1: Linked are event images produced by “TScan”, the software developed for graphical display of Cherenkov Light induced photomultiplier events associated with neutrino detection apparatus. Despite Photomultiplier “Dark Counts” do you have thoughts as to the nature of what might trigger photo multiplier events in experiments such as Super-Kamiokande?

[Webbman]

Random electric arc discharge.

assuming you believe in electricity of course.

[Solar]

Random electric arc discharge.

assuming you believe in electricity of course.

Q-2: At a basic level it seems that at least one of the EU’s primary proponents considers “neutrinos” to be actual particles emitted via plasma electrodynamic processes at one, or more, of the Sun’s several ‘surfaces’; not necessarily within its interior.

The electric Sun model expects far more complex heavy element synthesis to take place in the natural particle accelerators in the photospheric lightning discharges. In that case the various neutrino “flavours” are all generated on the Sun and do not need to “oscillate” on their way to the Earth to make up an imagined deficit. What is more, fluctuations in neutrino counts are expected in this model to be correlated with electrical input to the Sun, that is, with sunspot numbers and solar wind activity.
(...)
There is an experiment suggested by the SNO results that could confirm the Electric Sun’s photospheric origin of neutrinos. It would require continuous measurement of neutrinos of all flavours as a very large sunspot group rotated with the Sun. In this model, sunspot umbrae are not a source of neutrinos so there should be modulation effects associated with the Sun’s rotation that might be measurable with present equipment. Such an experiment, if sensitive enough, offers the possibility of detecting neutrino oscillations in the Sun as they traverse varying proportions of the body of the Sun. A positive result would falsify the standard nuclear model of the Sun. – Solar neutrino puzzle is solved?

The neutrino entity, if it exist, is also characterized by same as follows:

The most collapsed form of matter is the neutrino, which has a vanishingly small mass. However, the neutrino must contain all of the charges required to form two particles – a particle and its antiparticle. This symmetry explains why a neutrino is considered to be its own anti-particle. A neutrino may accept energy from a gamma ray to reconstitute a particle and its anti-particle. “Empty space” is full of neutrinos. They are the repositories of matter in the universe, awaiting the burst of gamma-radiation to expand them to form the stuff of atoms. The weird “zoo” of short-lived particles created in particle accelerators and seen in cosmic rays are simply unstable resonant systems of charge. – A Real ‘Theory of Everything’

Since you’ve stated that “I don't accept neutrinos and I never will.” – How would a preponderance of “random arcs” whose Cherenkov Light cone points to an arrival direction from the Sun be accounted for? Are these photomuliplier "neutrino" detections quantum electric arcs, or quantum electric currents of some kind? Care to explain?

[Webbman]

I think they are lying man, sorry. Same as dark matter, dark energy, black holes, gravity waves....

your in the age of junk science and fake research. No real return on investment. I don't agree with everything on this site, and I certainly don't speak for them, but at least they aren't ignorant of electricity.

"doesn't really interact with anything"
"can only be found indirectly"

it is what it is.

[Solar]

Member A-wal: I think I’ve located, what may be, a more extensive list for the third part of your questions regarding a “list of solar anomalies that aren't explained by the fusion model”. Jump to 0:50, there is a list of such things that scrolls like the ending credits to a movie in the following brief 2015 TB video:

SAFIRE—The Documentary (trailer)

I have a fetish for searching for docs on the Internet. It’s just a quirk. This was challenging that way; is all. I’m done now.

I think they are lying man, sorry. Same as dark matter, dark energy, black holes, gravity waves....

your in the age of junk science and fake research. No real return on investment. I don't agree with everything on this site, and I certainly don't speak for them, but at least they aren't ignorant of electricity.

"doesn't really interact with anything"
"can only be found indirectly"

it is what it is.

There is nothing to apologize for. Rejection is something that can help inspire progress. Its not a negative. Energy events are sometimes interesting. However interpretations of energy events can be accepted, taken with a healthy dose of salt, or rejected. As you know, it’s not uncommon on these boards for individuals to make these distinctions, even with regard to some of the things that come from the EU mainstays. That is just healthy. I don’t agree with some of the “neutrino” speculations either.

History has shown, in no uncertain terms, that cosmological theories from the best minds of past ages were but a paradigm of rabbit holes that endured for some period of time only to overlap an advancement in interpretive perspective(s) (Geocentric, Heliocentric, Galacto-centric: Edwin Hubble determined that the Milky was not the only galaxy and was met with resistance a mere 90yrs ago). Likewise, it seems as if the current crop of cosmological theories don’t recognize modern ideas (big bang, inflation, dark matter etc.) as being potential rabbit holes that can lead into deeper rabbit holes still. It's just a pretense though. BICET2 and its platinum 7 sigma confidence was one of the best things that has occurred in Astrophysics.

"For the past 35 years, theoretical physics has been an extravaganza of model-building," says Turok, adding that theories have "sort of run amok." – Galactic dust sounds death knell for BICEP2 gravitational wave claim

Oddly enough if someone who's collectively accused of being an "EU proponent" went around saying something like that they'd no longer be considered a "Citizen Scientist".

I like hearing independent thinking because there are so very many theories and models (standardized or otherwise). It’s just interesting sometimes to hear individuals utilize different aspects, or portions, in their own attempt to try and rationalize some sort of cohesive and consistent whole out of the theoretical rubble pile for themselves. I honestly thought you may have had a different outlook on so called “neutrinos” and was interested to hear it.

Onward and Upward.
Peace.

[Webbman]

oh I believe in a substrate material that forms the basis of all matter, but I don't believe its neutrinos.

Neutrinoes is not the aether, which if you think about it, they are trying to get at (around) using an underlying billiard ball particle and relativity crap to explain everything. Its just meant to confuse you because it doesn't really make sense at all.

they will tell you themselves that neutrino collisions is basically the cause of matter if you do enough reading since it seems to have the power to make itself into electrons, protons, turn one element into another. Transforming one element into another should be your clue since you know it requires massive electrical phenemonen to make this happen. Its not going to happen passively in a pool underground. Neutrinoes is not adding electrons to chlorine and getting argon. Where does the extra proton and neutron come from?

But it's pointless because it really doesn't explain anything does it. It only satisfies their objective for more particle physics. No real results. Just enough to keep it rolling.

an elemental particle such as this, must by its very definition, interact with everything. This rare and random collision game is only to build a very expensive apparatus. When the model fails, introduce flavors or some other bullshit to compensate. There seems to be no shortage of things designed to lead you astray.

Buzzwords are used like "missing mass" but how could someone know there was mass missing? Another theory on a theory on a theory...Its insane. If anything is missing here, its the truth.

You have to reject.

[Solar]

oh I believe in a substrate material that forms the basis of all matter, but I don't believe its neutrinos.

Neutrinoes is not the aether, which if you think about it, they are trying to get at (around) using an underlying billiard ball particle and relativity crap to explain everything. Its just meant to confuse you because it doesn't really make sense at all.

they will tell you themselves that neutrino collisions is basically the cause of matter if you do enough reading since it seems to have the power to make itself into electrons, protons, turn one element into another. Transforming one element into another should be your clue since you know it requires massive electrical phenemonen to make this happen. Its not going to happen passively in a pool underground. Neutrinoes is not adding electrons to chlorine and getting argon. Where does the extra proton and neutron come from?

But it's pointless because it really doesn't explain anything does it. It only satisfies their objective for more particle physics. No real results. Just enough to keep it rolling.

an elemental particle such as this, must by its very definition, interact with everything. This rare and random collision game is only to build a very expensive apparatus. When the model fails, introduce flavors or some other bullshit to compensate. There seems to be no shortage of things designed to lead you astray.

Buzzwords are used like "missing mass" but how could someone know there was mass missing? Another theory on a theory on a theory...Its insane. If anything is missing here, its the truth.

You have to reject.

Well; yes. That is why other other ideas are necessary. Its not uncommon for Astrophysics to attempt an explanation for something while inducing more confusion. For example:

According to the ballistic theory of traveling photons it takes approximately eight minutes for photonic light from the Sun to reach Earth. If that is the case, where is the actual Sun? According to that logic, or lack thereof, the actual Sun would need to be perfectly invisible because it would've traversed a distance 8 minutes ahead of the sphere of light as observed from Earth.

By the time a signal traveling at the so called "speed of light" is received from any space probe the actual physical space probe itself is no longer at the exact location of where its transmission occurred.

You’ve probably heard that looking out into space is like looking back in time. As it takes light 1 second to get from the Moon to us. Whenever we view it, we’re seeing it 1 second in the past. The Sun is 8 light minutes away, and the light we see from it is from 8 minutes into the past.

A better example might be Andromeda, it’s 2.5 million light years away… and you guessed it, we’re seeing it 2.5 million years in the past. Since the Big Bang happened 13.7 billion years ago, using this idea, shouldn’t we be able look all the way back to the beginning of time, even if we’ve misplaced the key to our Tardis?- WHY CAN’T WE SEE THE BIG BANG?

In astrophysics the principle works for everything. So, where is the actual Sun??

Hahaha...

Yes, you are correct when saying "It's insane."

[A-wal]

I think they are lying man, sorry. Same as dark matter, dark energy, black holes, gravity waves....

your in the age of junk science and fake research. No real return on investment. I don't agree with everything on this site, and I certainly don't speak for them, but at least they aren't ignorant of electricity.

"doesn't really interact with anything"
"can only be found indirectly"

it is what it is.

This is what's wrong with so many EU proponents. That's a nothing argument. You're completely ignoring the evidence and just claiming the idea is wrong based on absolutely nothing.

oh I believe in a substrate material that forms the basis of all matter, but I don't believe its neutrinos.

Neutrinoes is not the aether, which if you think about it, they are trying to get at (around) using an underlying billiard ball particle and relativity crap to explain everything. Its just meant to confuse you because it doesn't really make sense at all.

they will tell you themselves that neutrino collisions is basically the cause of matter if you do enough reading since it seems to have the power to make itself into electrons, protons, turn one element into another. Transforming one element into another should be your clue since you know it requires massive electrical phenemonen to make this happen. Its not going to happen passively in a pool underground. Neutrinoes is not adding electrons to chlorine and getting argon. Where does the extra proton and neutron come from?

But it's pointless because it really doesn't explain anything does it. It only satisfies their objective for more particle physics. No real results. Just enough to keep it rolling.

an elemental particle such as this, must by its very definition, interact with everything. This rare and random collision game is only to build a very expensive apparatus. When the model fails, introduce flavors or some other bullshit to compensate. There seems to be no shortage of things designed to lead you astray.

Buzzwords are used like "missing mass" but how could someone know there was mass missing? Another theory on a theory on a theory...Its insane. If anything is missing here, its the truth.

You have to reject.

Nobody's claiming that neutrinos constitute an aether, there's no need for an aether. Neutrino oscillations were independently confirmed and when they detected the other two flavours it matched the fusion prediction. Relativity is not "crap", special relativity is undeniable to anyone who understands that the speed of light is the same in every inertial frame. General relativity is a different story.

Member A-wal: I think I’ve located, what may be, a more extensive list for the third part of your questions regarding a “list of solar anomalies that aren't explained by the fusion model”. Jump to 0:50, there is a list of such things that scrolls like the ending credits to a movie in the following brief 2015 TB video:

SAFIRE—The Documentary (trailer)

I have a fetish for searching for docs on the Internet. It’s just a quirk. This was challenging that way; is all. I’m done now.

Thanks, I'm glad you do.