Solar physicist finds new way to study solar neutrinos

[Michael Mozina]

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 163009.htm

In examining the radioactive decay fluctuations, the team found evidence that those fluctuations matched patterns they had found in Super-Kamiokande neutrino data, each indicating a one-month oscillation attributable to solar rotation. The likely conclusion is that neutrinos from the sun are directly affecting beta-decays. This connection has been theorized by other researchers dating back 25 years, but the Sturrock-Fischbach-Scargle analysis adds the strongest evidence yet. If this relationship holds, a revolution in neutrino research could be underway.

There are two important points that are worth noting from this study and this article. It has been known for a while now that radiometric decay seems to be affected by solar flares and solar variation, and indeed that does seem to track with the results from Super-K, meaning that the variations are likely related to neutrino variations. It does suggest that this is a viable method of neutrino detection.

The other point that's noteworthy is the fact that neutrino output from the sun is variable to start with, and variable based on the *rotation* pattern of the surface of the sun. That variation with rotation would suggest that at least *some* of the neutrino output is associated with solar flares, and coronal loop activity, and some fusion likely takes place in the upper solar atmosphere, just as EU/PC theory predicts, not just inside of the core of the sun. If that were not true, the rotation cycle of the sun would be irrelevant and neutrino output would not be in any way related to the solar surface rotation cycle.

[willendure]

That variation with rotation would suggest that at least *some* of the neutrino output is associated with solar flares, and coronal loop activity, and some fusion likely takes place in the upper solar atmosphere, just as EU/PC theory predicts, not just inside of the core of the sun. If that were not true, the rotation cycle of the sun would be irrelevant and neutrino output would not be in any way related to the solar surface rotation cycle.

I get you. Personally, I think almost all the fusion is taking place there and not deeper inside the sun at all.

[Zyxzevn]

This affects a lot of what we know of nuclear physics.

If you look at the actual nuclear decay in a movie like this,
you can see that the decay does NOT follow a real random pattern.
This is not like 10000 events going off at random times.
In REAL random events, there would be times when there are no events and times
where there are many events. Just when you throw dice each time, and each six is an event.
All these events are spread almost evenly over time. They only appear to be random.
The spread is similar to water-drops falling from a tap.
Or water-drops falling from leaves of a tree in a fog.

This means that the "half-life" of radioactive material is not related to time,
but to a certain event related to a certain input.
This certainly could be the event of a neutrino hitting the atoms in the material in a certain way.
The half-life rate will be similar, but the spreading is different.

This finding also affects some experiments on General Relativity and Special Relativity.
In these experiments they assume the decay-rate to be constant and use it as a measure of time.
Like Time dilation of moving particles.
These experiments are invalid if we consider that the half-life rate is not constant.

[oz93666]

According to establishment science the neutrino deficit has been completely resolved , measurements match accurately what we would expect if all the suns power comes from fusion.

Does the EU community accept these findings, if so this implies the sun is not electric.

[willendure]

According to establishment science the neutrino deficit has been completely resolved , measurements match accurately what we would expect if all the suns power comes from fusion.

Does the EU community accept these findings, if so this implies the sun is not electric.

I don't think EU does accept these findings.

Is there something new since the SNO results? They claimed to have solved it, but their reasoning appeared to be self-referential - more like saying if flavour switching occurs our results are consistent with it, rather than the result is that we proved it happens.

[nick c]

Here is a piece that gives the EU position on solar neutrinos:

http://electric-cosmos.org/sudbury.htm

[oz93666]

Here is a piece that gives the EU position on solar neutrinos:

http://electric-cosmos.org/sudbury.htm

Thanks for that link .... looks like the establishment are fiddling the books, and the discrepancy is unresolved ...

This page from Wal is also very good .. http://www.holoscience.com/wp/solar-neu ... is-solved/

Solar output varies only very slightly .... less than one tenth of one % over the cycle , maximum output at peak sunspot activity ...it's said neutrino output is highest at peak sunspot activity , but search as I may , I can't find data on how much the neutrino flux varies over the cycle .

Despite the promising title to this document ... http://scipp.ucsc.edu/seminars/experime ... urrock.pdf ...I can't make head nor tail of it!

[willendure]

Despite the promising title to this document ... http://scipp.ucsc.edu/seminars/experime ... urrock.pdf ...I can't make head nor tail of it!

Took a look through, but it looks like slides to accompany a talk so presumably the explanation was delivered verbally. I think it is showing though that there is variability in the neutrino flux, and that it correlates with other measures of solar output.

This is interesting, because if the neutrino output immediately varies with solar output, it kind of suggests that the neutrinos are not being made deep inside the sun.

The conventional theory is that fusion takes place deep inside the sun, and that we very quickly see the neutrinos produced, because they can travel through matter very easily. However, we do not immediately see the photons released, because they take a long time to work their way up to the surface being unable to just travel straight through most matter like neutrinos.

So a strong correlation between solar output and neutrino output would be very suggestive that the fusion is taking place at the surface.

[Webbman]

personally I the the whole neutrino thing is a con.

it doesn't make any sense that these thing can go through planets but somehow get caught up with a bleach or water solution.

how does it get accelerated without charge? The only thing they are finding is easy government money.

[Solar]

personally I the the whole neutrino thing is a con.

it doesn't make any sense that these thing can go through planets but somehow get caught up with a bleach or water solution.

how does it get accelerated without charge? The only thing they are finding is easy government money.

Statements are being made in contradictory and confusing ways such as the following:

"We haven't known the solar neutrino to interact significantly with anything, but it fits with the evidence we've gathered as the likely source of these fluctuations," he said. "So, what we're suggesting is that something that can't interact with anything is changing something that can't be changed." – Purdue-Stanford team finds radioactive decay rates vary with the sun's rotation

How fantastic is that? The above obviously contradicts the idea of neutrinos supposedly not interacting with anything as well as the supposed constancy of decay rates. Is that how physics makes changes - by offering contradictions instead of just saying something has been falsified? The previous overly generalized non-interacting neutrino concept has induced an ongoing psychological inertia that needs to be done away with. The illusion of neutrino non interaction stems from:

“Neutrinos, they are very small/ They have no charge and have no mass/ And do not interact at all,” John Updike wrote in his 1960 poem, “Cosmic Gall. – Looking at Physics History

And then; from the same historical source:

“I have done something very bad today by proposing a particle that cannot be detected; it is something no theorist should ever do.” (Pauli, 1930)

But what REALLY happens? Physics regularly creates particles that cannot be detected. Decay rates regularly fluctuate. Neutrinos regularly interact.

Neutrino physics and its detectors are in full swing. Bleach, heavy water etc. simply provides a small region of greater density, for a better chance of detecting an interaction. The early psychology that neutrinos don’t interact is lagging progress by decades (over sixty years if one counts the 1956 Clyde Cowan and Frederick Reines detection). According to that historical account, the non-interacting neutrino concept should have perished then.

There are tons of docs on the internet about neutrinos and how they (supposedly) interact via the “weak force” and possibly gravity. The point being that they actually do interact or, ‘something’ is triggering the detectors in the experiments designed to statistically eliminate all other influential parameters accept those sought after – as usual.

Detection of Neutrinos in IceCube

[kodybatill]

Hay! Can someone let me know if this sounds right!

In this article, the state of electrons breaking apart is discovered.

http://gizmodo.com/researchers-just-dis ... 1768888270

I think this may account for part of the reason why researchers think neutrinos effect very little. There are energies produced which they could not measure right away, and so their prediction measurements were thrown off, and discarded as incomplete data.

Here is part of my supposition on how electron neutrinos effect a molecule or even individual element. Let me know how this sounds!

For every proton that is in contact with an energy moving too fast to use, along with a neutron of trying to slow it down, all in infra-red, one electron is given made up of a neutron of positrons or colors around opposites, and a proton of rising above those positrons.

For every electron, neutron and proton together of using an electron neutrino no matter what happens and so falling apart - one electron is given that will use an electron neutrino no matter what and so fall apart, the electron both forever using the electron neutrino, and falling apart - and two more electrons are given that use something they cant use, and so break apart, without following the electron neutrino. Breaking apart an electron would give
a neutron of positrons or colors around opposites, replaced by a proton of rising above those positrons.

This continues for-ever as an electron is made up of two more measurements, an electron neutrino is made up of 3 more measurements (replacing the electron of using something that cant be used and so falling apart, replaced by an electron, neutron, and proton of using it anyways and falling apart, replaced by the electron of using something that cant be used and so falling apart), a neutron is made up of two more measurements (replacing the proton of something moving to slow to use, with the neutron of trying to slow it down.) - and protons are made up of two more measurements, and more within those. A Proton is replacing the neutron of moving closer to the neutron, with the proton of taking electron neutrinos.

Will update this more once I finish my plasma analysis of this information. I think you guys are going to like this. May take up to a month, but I have the means. Joy and health to your thoughts!

My theory is that the electrons that use something they cant use and so break apart, is where the researchers were not able to account for all of the energy, because of not knowing how an electron can use something it cant use and so fall apart.

[kodybatill]

The relationship between protons and positrons or colors around opposites, is magnetic. Within a month I will give a complete plasma analysis using information of all possible electric poles, magnetic poles, and electro-magnetic poles.

[Zyxzevn]

Found a report to "debunk" the relationship, and restore our faith in the gods of physics.

From this news-flash report
"The rates at which radioactive nuclei decay are constants and do not vary with time"

This is the alpha-decay rate report.
Link to paper

The person does quite some fiddling with statistics, which may not all be correct.
His conclusions are now that the laboratory setup influences the decay,
but not the sun-earth distance.

My conclusion is that the matter is much more complex than is presented in our statistical formulas.
Solar activity is assumed constant and only varying in distance, while
sunspots are very important to the solar neutrinos (at least in the EU case).
The variation due to sunspots will certainly mess up the statistics.

There are reports of variation with temperature (or [url=http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowals ... berts.html]this one) and even variation with place. So it seems that things are much more
complex than presented.

[willendure]

How fantastic is that? The above obviously contradicts the idea of neutrinos supposedly not interacting with anything as well as the supposed constancy of decay rates.

Not sure what you are getting at... neutrinos do not interact very much, but they do interact. Pauli may feel bad at proposing something that cannot be detected at all, but then we figured out ways that we can detect them.

When they hit a nucelus they can cause a decay - it doesn't happen very often, but it does happen.

[willendure]

Found a report to "debunk" the relationship, and restore our faith in the gods of physics.

From this news-flash report
"The rates at which radioactive nuclei decay are constants and do not vary with time"

"The team looked at decay-rate measurements made on a number of different isotopes at 14 laboratories worldwide and spanning 60 years."

I'm not so convinced, in that if you go back over 60 years and find some old lab results, can you really be sure that the time you ascribe to each result is really accurate? I suspect there may be enough errors or at least enough uncertainty about the errors or degree of control of the experiment to discount this claim.

Better to start a fresh experiment and constrain all other parameters other than rotation of the sun, that is, measure at the same time of day, at the same palce, at the same temperature and pressure etc, and then see what variation with the suns rotation you might observe.