The SUN (lets take a look see)

[jerryR34]

 

I make lots of bar graphs everyday.  where is your source for this?

 

====================================================================================

 

Hopefully not any 2LOT Bargraphs.

 

 

If you would have read The OP, you would have come across "Sources".

 

This Particular One:  Donald E Scott PhD.

 

 

Well I'm off to Enoch 2021 Family Fun Day  .....keep the Lights on for me  

 

Hope you have a great day

 

 

It would be helpful if your citatons were a little more detailded - thanks.  Haha...from Donald Scott - love the freight train analogy

 

 

Missing Solar Neutrinos

(1) Thompson says, "…scientists have found that they can observe the fully expected flux of neutrinos from proton-proton (p-p) fusion.‖ This is incorrect. The fusion reaction hypothesized by the standard solar model to be occurring inside the Sun‘s core must emit a flood of electron neutrinos. Although the total observed neutrino flux (of all types of neutrino) may approximate the required level for electron neutrinos, a sufficient flux of these crucial electron neutrinos can only be inferred if it is shown that they (e-neutrinos) can ‗oscillate‘ into different types of neutrinos (types which were not measured). The announcement made by the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO) that ―the SNO detector has the capability to determine whether solar neutrinos are changing their type en route to Earth‖ is false on its face. There is no way that measurements made at only one end (here on Earth) of a transmission channel (that stretches from the Sun’s center to Earth) can reveal changes that occur farther up the channel (say, within the Sun itself, or near Mercury or Venus).

Consider a freight train that runs from New York to Chicago. We live in Chicago and are only able to observe the train as it arrives in

Chicago. It pulls in with 4 freight cars, 2 tank cars, and 1 flat car. How is it possible, no matter how sophisticated our method of observation, for us to make any conclusions whatever about whether freight cars, tank cars, or flat cars have been added to or subtracted from the train at, say, Cleveland? Moreover, how is it possible to say that freight cars have turned into tank cars or flat cars along the route somewhere?

The results of another more recent neutrino experiment, Fermilab‘s MiniBooNE experiment, can best be summarized by the lab‘s own statement, ―When the MiniBooNE collaboration opened the box and „unblinded‟ its data less than three weeks ago, the telltale oscillation signature was absent3.‖ Admittedly, the oscillation in question in this experiment involved so-called ‗sterile neutrinos‘ and was not directly applicable to the question of electron-neutrino into muon-neutrino transformation. None the less, it does not state that any kinds of neutrinos were seen to ‗oscillate‘ into any different type. At this writing (April 2007), therefore, the ‗missing neutrino‘ question still remains a very open question despite Thompson‘s statement that the neutrino deficit problem has been completely resolved.

 

 

So, are we going with a "God of the gaps" defense here?  To use Don's analogy, I think even since the rebuttal, we have looked up the tracks closer New York (see the article Searching and I posted earlier).  Also, there are many stops on the rails from New York to Chicago...what is there between the earth and the sun that would make us uh...change cars...?

Edited March 14, 2014 by jerryR34

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

==========================================================================================

 

 

Thanks for proving my point concerning the Neutrinos 

 

 

So, are we going with a "God of the gaps" defense here?

 

This is Non-Sequitur..... You're missing the point.

 

 

I think the slide (Ion Speeds) I posted was from His (Donald E Scott PhD) briefing/presentation to NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center....I could be mistaken though, it may be another briefing.

[jerryR34]

 

 

 

 

==========================================================================================

 

 

Thanks for proving my point concerning the Neutrinos 

 

Enoch, Enoch, Enoch...you should know that nothing in science is proven.  Theories can only be disproven. 

 

 

 

So, are we going with a "God of the gaps" defense here?

 

This is Non-Sequitur..... You're missing the point.

 

 No, it's not a non sequitur.  Don is saying that since we are at the end of the rail line, we can't know what happened further up the tracks.  We can, and we do.  Science is about looking up the rail line all the way to New York while God of the gaps waits for the train to pull in and won't believe what anyone on the train tells them about the trip because the folks in Chicago have an outdated travel guide...

[Enoch2021]

 

so, your claim now is that all the ideas you have posted are original to you, or  are you merely repeating the work of others.

 

 

 

=======================================================================

 

You also said This before.... "Neither of us is putting forth our own unique ideas, so in the end we are both just repeating the words of what others have told us."

 

On Other threads you also mention this "Genre" and my question is.....What's your Point?  And for Clarification.

 

The difference is you post "Headlines" and sometimes the whole article.  But you don't "dig in" and scrutinize to confirm or verify that the "Headline" is actually supported/validated.  It appears the "Headline" is good enough, Right?

 

Here's the problem with that....

 

I'm hoping you don't just take these research articles that are "Peer Reviewed" and adopt them into your World View as Gospel without the slightest scrutiny or Due Diligence.....looking @ the study design, methods, and conclusions.   Do you think that just because it's published in a "Prestigious" Journal that it's Pristine??  I had to take a Full Semester Course in evaluating research....let me tell you something, most of the experiments and studies had more design flaws than a 1975 VEB Trabant.  And can distinctly remember the class LOL-ing on multiple occasions.

 

See where I'm headed with this?  See the difference?

 

 

You seem to also to be implying that since these are not my own "Unique" ideas this casts some sort of "bad light" on my presentations, somehow.....?

 

This isn't an exact analogy because I didn't produce anything new and innovative but I think it speaks "conceptually" to your Implied point.....

 

In 1954, Yang and Mills generalized James Clerk Maxwell's field equations and rendered them in the 5th dimension.... because of this:

By the 1970's ALL NUCLEAR MATTER COULD BE UNLOCKED BY THE YANG-MILLS FIELD it's known as the "Standard Model" in physics.

 

So just for clarification, are you saying that we need to discard or look lowly on the Yang-Mills "Standard Model" because they didn't "create" the original equations?

 

 

Thanks

[OldSchool2]

 

so, your claim now is that all the ideas you have posted are original to you, or  are you merely repeating the work of others.

 

 

=======================================================================

 

You also said This before.... "Neither of us is putting forth our own unique ideas, so in the end we are both just repeating the words of what others have told us." ...

 

 

So there literally is nothing new under the Sun!

What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun -- Ecclesiastes 1:9.

[Enoch2021]

 

 

=============================================================================

 

Enoch, Enoch, Enoch...you should know that nothing in science is proven.  Theories can only be disproven.

 

I said you proved my point....that is, (one) point I was making to LFA about Causality of the Neutrinos.

 

Yes, I know the definition of a Theory, Thanks.

 

However, WE Christians can "Prove" things...... where "science" is handicapped, and we are admonished to:

 

(1 Thessalonians 5:21) "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."

 

 

No, it's not a non sequitur.  Don is saying that since we are at the end of the rail line, we can't know what happened further up the tracks.  We can, and we do.

 

Yes it is Non-Sequitur. 

 

"We can, and we do".

 

OK, Go Ahead.......?

 

 

God of the gaps

 

Is this a little Cliche you picked up on some "evolution-r-us" site? 

 

Can you explain the basis for this statement?

 

Thanks

[Enoch2021]

So there literally is nothing new under the Sun!

What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun -- Ecclesiastes 1:9.

 

 

=========================================================================

 

Ironically, we're discovering the mysteries of what's;  IN, ON, Around, and 2nd/3rd/4th order effects downstream of said SUN 

[jerryR34]

 

 

 

God of the gaps

 

Is this a little Cliche you picked up on some "evolution-r-us" site? 

 

Can you explain the basis for this statement?

 

Thanks

 

Look throughout history.  Many things we understand now were attributed to gods...lightning, famine, floods etc.  As we become more educated about our environs and natural phenomena, gods only fill the smaller gaps of things we don't yet understand in science. 

Edited March 14, 2014 by jerryR34

[LookingForAnswers]

 

so, your claim now is that all the ideas you have posted are original to you, or  are you merely repeating the work of others.

 

 

Actually you hit the Fallacy Jackpot here, Why? It's an:

 

Ad Hominem- An attack upon an opponent in order to discredit their argument or opinion. Ad hominems are used by immature and/or unintelligent people because they are unable to counter their opponent using logic and intelligence. 

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ad%20hominem

 

Strawman:  https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

 

Non-Sequiter (conceptually):  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/non+sequitur

 

Quibbling:  We quibble when we complain about a minor point and falsely believe that this complaint somehow undermines the main point.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#Quibbling

 

 

Congrats

 

 

fascinating, I ask a question for clarification purpose and get a personal attack. 

 

Let me see if can phrase this in a way that does not elicit such a response.

 

It seems we have a different view of what is happening in this and other threads on scientific topics.  When you post I see you as one that has found a theory they believe to be true and thus have decided to post it here to get other to also think it is true.  I see nothing you post as original or unique to you, it is the ideas and theories of others.  I do not say this in a negative way, just as an observation.    It appears to me that you view yourself as doing something more than just passing along the theories another.

Do I misunderstand you or is this accurate?

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

========================================================================

 

 

fascinating, I ask a question for clarification purpose and get a personal attack.

 

It's not a personal attack......it's just Fact, as I supported with the Terms and Definitions

 

 

When you post I see you as one that has found a theory they believe to be true and thus have decided to post it here to get other to also think it is true.

 

I search the current "Lies" and expose them with Actual Supporting Evidence; whether it be through..... logic/common sense/CITED REFERENCES with explanations, visuals et al

 

I see nothing you post as original or unique to you, it is the ideas and theories of others.

 

So?  Why would I need to "recreate the wheel"?  Wouldn't that be kinda moronic and a complete waste of my time and resources?

 

 

I do not say this in a negative way, just as an observation.

 

It should be intuitive to most......especially when I list the sources.

 

Why point it out every single time? 

 

It's tantamount to pointing out 100mph winds to somebody standing in the middle of a hurricane.  OK, Thanks

 

 

It appears to me that you view yourself as doing something more than just passing along the theories another.

 

I'm simply exposing it...and more importantly can speak IN DETAIL to the points.  Most people don't follow "science" topics they just incorporate the current "HEADLINE" into their World View and Roll Tide....cause it must be True....."Scientists wouldn't Lie"

 

 

So I'm giving it more of a Platform and then Shine a LIGHT on it, so to speak.