The Solar neutrino problem has previously been suggested as solved and seems to have been confirmed by science with the award of a Nobel Prize for work in this field.
If those missing solar neutrinos have been found what are the implications for the Standard Model and also the Electric Universe Theory (EU theory) and the Electric Sun model?
But has it been solved in practice?
Solving the missing solar neutrinos may have also debunked the Standard Model theory of particle physics as that was built using the fact that neutrinos had no mass.
In the 1960s, theoreticians calculated the number of neutrinos that should be created in the nuclear reactions powering the Sun.
But subsequent measurements of these solar neutrinos suggested that up to two-thirds of the calculated quantity was missing.
The calculations might be wrong, scientists reasoned. But there might be another answer: what if neutrinos were able to change their identities?
Much as Bruce Wayne dons a kevlar-plated suit to become Batman, neutrinos can flip between different personas.
But unlike the Dark Knight, neutrinos have three identities rather than two: the electron-neutrino, the muon-neutrino and the tau-neutrino.
… The Sun only produces electron-neutrinos. But if they were transformed to muon-neutrinos or tau-neutrinos on their way to Earth, it could reconcile the experimental observations with theory.
Two science facilities were used to make the discovery honoured by the Nobel Committee … Using different approaches to tackle the problem, both experiments observed discrepancies that led to the eventual confirmation of chameleon-like behaviour by neutrinos.
Neutrinos: ‘Superheroes’ of the particle world
Missing solar neutrinos: Nuclear Sun or Electric Sun?
One proposed idea arising from the Electric Universe Theory (EU theory) is that it is an Electric Sun and not a Nuclear Sun.
One of the suggested evidence that the sun is not nuclear powered is the solar missing neutrino puzzle.
Do neutrino flavours prove that it is a Nuclear Sun and not an Electric Sun?
The headline underscores a cultural problem in reporting science that leads to bald statements of “fact” when a conclusion is in fact conjectural. The detection of neutrino oscillations cannot confirm the Standard Solar model. It merely offers a possible solution to one of a number of serious observational problems with the Standard Solar model. There can be no confirmation of oscillation of neutrino flavours between the Sun and the Earth without simultaneous neutrino measurements being made near the Sun.
Solar neutrino puzzle is solved?
The problem has since been “resolved” by simply modifying quantum mechanics to enable electron neutrinos to change flavor into tau or muon neutrinos. As did Thompson in 2001, today’s scientists are confidently asserting that if they could ever figure out how to detect tau or muon neutrinos, they’d find them. In rigorous science, this would be called an open issue. Making an ad hoc alteration to the theoretical substrate to absorb an anomaly, without considering the possibility that the neutrino count is actually low, and then concluding that the problem is solved and needs no further scrutiny, is not what I call rigorous reasoning.
So I take the neutrino count at face value, which indicates that 1/3 of the Sun’s power comes from nuclear fusion. This leaves 2/3 coming from arc discharges. Oh and by the way, the fusion isn’t occurring in the core. Rather, as Mozina’s work has shown, it’s occurring in… arc discharges.
Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun (Charles Chandler on Thunderbolts forum)