Naturalists have proposed the Big Bang as the beginning of the universe. Theoretically, the Big Bang occurred approximately 15 billion years ago. But, that raises a very important question. How have the various stars burn for that length of time? There are four theories for the sources of energy to power the stars. These are as follows: Chemical: Energy reserves can only power the Sun for a few thousand years. Gravitational: Energy reserves can only power the Sun for 15 million years. Fission: Insufficient density in the Sun to power the required 2 erg/gm/s needed. Fusion: If the stars are powered by fusion, there may be sufficient energy to power them for the 15 billion years or so. However, there are some unavoidable by-products of nuclear fusion. One of these is the creation of very small particles called electron neutrinos. Based upon experiments, scientists have calculated the number of neutrinos needed from our sun to indicate that solar fusion was occurring in the sun. The neutrinos needed for solar fusion have not been found. Scientists have been trying to find the reason for the missing neutrinos for 25 years. Yet, only about 33% of the neutrinos have been identified to date. Super-Kamiokande 1968 - The first experiment to detect (electron) neutrinos produced by the Sun's burning (using a liquid Chlorine target deep underground) reports that less than half the expected neutrinos are observed. This is the origin of the long-standing "solar neutrino problem." 1989 - Kamiokande becomes the second experiment to detect neutrinos from the Sun, and confirms the long-standing anomaly by finding only about 1/3 the expected rate. 1997 - Super-Kamiokande reports a deficit of cosmic-ray muon neutrinos and solar electron neutrinos, at rates agreeing with measurements by earlier experiments. Naturalists, frustrated by the embarrassment of lack of fuel for the stars to last the needed 15 billion years, have been trying to explain away the facts. One of these experiments was conducted by the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory in Canada. It conducted experiments on the neutrinos received here on earth. The study concluded that the neutrinos were changing "flavors" as they spread out from the sun. Real science conducts experiments, taking measurements before and after the experiment begins. In this experiment, only the neutrinos AFTER they were received here on earth were measured. Then, they fit their data to the expected results and concluded that the neutrinos changed flavors, which is allowed them to claim the neutrinos changed flavors and were thus immeasurable. But, the experiment, while having the trappings of a scientific experiment, was not a true scientific experiment. Real scientists don't falsify their results. Thus, solar nuclear fusion is not a viable source of fuel to power the stars. But, if fusion is eliminated, what's left? Nothing. There isn't a scientifically validated source of energy to power the stars for more than 15 million years. Without one, naturalism (i.e. the belief that life came about through natural causes like the Big Bang and Evolution) is no longer viable.
Where's the Integrity? What a wretched and pathetic little person you are. Perhaps you should libel these scientists directly in the appropriate peer-reviewed journals. For anyone else interested, see Sun's Missing Neutrinos: Hidden in Plain Sight
They don't have any ConsequentAtheist, Where's the Integrity? They don't have any. Let's read their detailed report. This is a critical admission. In short, they have acknowledged that they fit their theory to the data AFTER they obtained the data. Is this science? This strongly indicates that they were more concerned about preserving the solar fusion model than they were in discovering science (i.e. exploring regardless of the consequences). What a wretched and pathetic little person you are. Insults don't buy you anything. It just shows the weakness of your position.
Live4Him: Sorry, dude, you're a nitwit. There's no scientific misconduct happening here. In what way are you in a position to judge the work of physicists? Are you a physicist? Do you know any physicists? I personally wouldn't go around telling an olympic figure skater how to skate -- would you go around telling a trained physicist how to do his work? Get off your antiestablishment horse and do some reading. Earlier experiments (Kamiokande and USNO, etc.) were only sensitive to the electron neutrino. This was well known, even when these experiments were designed and built. The quantum-mechanical models describing the production of neutrinos in fusion reactions do not predicate which variety of neutrino must be produced; further, the dominant model of weak decay demands that all of the neutrinos be able to interact with all weakly-decaying species. This has also been very well known. The Sudbury observatory was the first experiment to use a compound specifically known to be sensitive to interactions of the mu and tau neutrinos. Guess what? It found just as many as were expected. Surprise, surprise. http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0208096 - Warren
chroot, Earlier experiments (Kamiokande and USNO, etc.) were only sensitive to the electron neutrino. This was well known, even when these experiments were designed and built. Right and wrong. The earlier experiments (60's - 80's) were only sensitive to the electron neutrino. That is why they built the Super-Kamiokande in 1997. I'll repost the quoted text, with emphasis. 1997 - Super-Kamiokande reports a deficit of cosmic-ray muon neutrinos and solar electron neutrinos, at rates agreeing with measurements by earlier experiments. Second, electron neutrinos are the ONLY form of neutrinos formed during nuclear fusion . So, it is a moot point. It found just as many as were expected. Surprise, surprise. No surprise there. They fit their theory to the data AFTER the data was obtained. They stated that fact in their report. And, yes, I've read their reports. The models drove the theory, and the data drove the models. Perhaps you care to read their report?
It's painfully obvious that you are simply parroting arguments that you don't understand. You clearly have no knowledge of data analysis. I'm really not interested in trying to explain it to you, because it's complicated and you're obviously not interested in learning anything that would conflict with your oddball creationist ideas, but rest assured that anyone with a descent background in scientific data analysis who reads the paper will understand what the authors did and realize that you don't know what you're talking about. Also, even ignoring all that, use a little common sense. If we weren't able to detect the expected neutrinos (which we are) this would present us with two possible scenarios: 1. The sun isn't really powered by fusion, despite a vastly overwhelming amount of evidence that it is. 2. There is some minor flaw in the esoteric branch of quantum physics that we use to predict neutrino production. Hmm, I wonder which of these is more likely…
i remember a case put forward, suggesting that WIMPS ( weakly interactive massive particles) could reside inside the sun. Being attracted by gravity but not really interacting with normal matter, the sun throughout it`s lifetime could have collected massive amounts of this exotic matter... the net result would have been a cooling of the interior, and lower neutrino production... strangly ,i think they even proposed the precession of mercury could be due to these massive particles... But that was old news... we know better now...neutrinos have mass and oscillating flavours...obvious!
Reply to live4Him Re neutrinos and other things. I admire your critical and analytical thinking, even though I cannot agree with your conclusions. I will not go into details of why, others have done that. But let me say for the benefit of other persons who replied to this post; There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with professional scientists, never mind how famous they are. There are many examples of scientists who have fudged their results to fit a preconceived idea or theory, in astronomy and other sciences. But let me point out a couple of inconsistensies in your piece. you say; They only measured the neutrinos after they arived on earth. Well they could'nt very well measure them before they arived. You say in the beginning of your post; The universe is 15 billion years old according to the Big Bang theory (not that I agree with the BB.theory) so how could the stars keep burning for 15 B years ? The stars we see today have'nt been burning for 15 B years. Our own sun was created about 5 B years ago and is expected to end its life in annother 5 B years as a small white dwarf. Some massive stars have a much shorter life span and end up as super novas. Some young blue stars we observe are only 1 B years old or less. In other words, stars come and go all the time. So keep your thinking cap on L4H some day you might come up with a rvolutionary idea no one has thought obout. Rgards M.J.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
This is certainly true. In this case, however, the argument had nothing to do with honest intellectual disagreement; Live4Him was deliberately trying to use slander and misdirection to discredit an experiment for no other reason than because the results conflicted with his fundamentalist religious beliefs. He then went on to attempt to mislead people about the purpose of the experiment and what its implications were.
